DISCRIMINATION IN METROPOLITAN 

HOUSING MARKETS: 

PHASE 2 - ASIANS AND PACIFIC ISLANDERS 
Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets:

Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders
 

Final Report 

March 2003 

Prepared By: 

Margery Austin Turner 

Stephen L. Ross 

with 

Beata A. Bednarz 

Carla Herbig 

Seon Joo Lee 

The Urban Institute 

Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center 

2100 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

Submitted To: 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

451 Seventh Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20410 

Contract No. C-OPC-21304 

UI No. 06977-002-00 

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics 

worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and 

should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The analysis and results presented in this report could not have been produced 

without the commitment and hard work of the field implementation team, including 

testers, testing coordinators, and local testing organizations. In particular, the authors 

extend our admiration and thanks to Fred Freiberg of FH Associates, the field 

implementation director, Carla Herbig, the deputy director, and Heidi Olguin and Mona 

Hathout of Progressive Management Resources, Inc., who coordinated the work of local 

testing organizations. We also thank Rob Santos, of NuStats, who developed and 

implemented the sample design for the study, as well as Julie Adams, Margaret Browne, 

David D’Orio, Erin Godfrey, Laura Gorman, Shawnise Thompson, and Diane Hendricks, 

all of whom made major contributions to this research effort. 

In addition, Todd Richardson, of the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development’s Office of Policy Development and Research, Dale Rhines and David 

Enzel, of the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, and Harry Carey, of the 

Office of General Council, provided guidance and oversight throughout the project’s 

design and implementation, as well as comments on earlier draft versions of this report. 

Despite the generous contributions from these individuals and organizations, any 

errors and omissions that may remain in this report are, of course, our own. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................i 

Background.................................................................................................................i 

The HDS2000 Methodology....................................................................................... ii 

Summary of Findings ................................................................................................ iii 

Measurement Issues................................................................................................. iv 

Strengths and Limitations of This Research ............................................................ vii 

1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION...........................................................................1-1 

Paired Testing Methodology ...................................................................................1-1 

HDS2000 Study Scope ...........................................................................................1-3 

Organization of the Report......................................................................................1-4 

2. PHASE II DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY......................................................................2-1 

Sampling .................................................................................................................2-1 

Field Implementation and Paired Testing Protocols..............................................2-11 

Using Paired Tests to Measure Discrimination .....................................................2-16 

3. NATIONAL ESTIMATES OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ASIANS
 

AND PACIFIC ISLANDERS .............................................................................................3-1 

Rental Testing Results............................................................................................3-1 

Sales Testing Results .............................................................................................3-5 

Discrimination Against Asians and Pacific Islanders in California...........................3-9 

4. VARIATIONS IN DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ASIANS AND PACIFIC ISLANDERS ...4-1 

Differences Based on Skin Color ............................................................................4-1 

Differences Based on Advertising Sources.............................................................4-4 

REFERENCES 
Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

ANNEXES 

ANNEX 1: AD SAMPLING SOURCES FOR ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER (API) 

SITES AND DISTRIBUTION OF TESTS BY SOURCE TYPE 

ANNEX 2: TEST ASSIGNMENT FORMS, REPORTING FORMS, AND INSTRUCTIONS 

ANNEX 3: TESTS OF STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE 

ANNEX 4: METROPOLITAN ESTIMATES OF ADVERSE TREATMENT AGAINST API’S 

FOR PHASE I 

ANNEX 5: MAINLAND U.S. ESTIMATES OF ADVERSE TREATMENT AGAINST API’S 

ANNEX 6: COMPARISON OF ADVERSE TREATMENT AGAINST API’S, BLACKS, 

AND HISPANICS FOR COMPARABLE SUB-SAMPLES OF SITES 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report presents results from the second phase of the latest national Housing 

Discrimination Study (HDS2000), sponsored by the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) and conducted by the Urban Institute. It is one of five related reports that 

will ultimately be produced from this major research effort: 

• Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: National Results from Phase I of 

HDS2000 

• Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase I - Supplement 

• Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific 

Islanders 

• Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 3 - Native Americans 

• Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 4 - Persons with Disabilities 

All of these reports present findings based upon rigorous paired tests, in which two individuals— 

one minority and the other white1

—pose as otherwise identical homeseekers, and visit real 

estate or rental agents to inquire about the availability of advertised housing units. This 

methodology provides direct evidence of differences in the treatment minorities and whites 

experience when they search for housing. 

Background 

Paired testing originated as a tool for fair housing enforcement, detecting and 

documenting individual instances of discrimination. Since the late 1970s, this methodology has 

also been used to rigorously measure the prevalence of discrimination across the housing 

market as a whole. When a large number of consistent and comparable tests are conducted for 

a representative sample of real estate and rental agents, the results control for differences 

between white and minority homeseekers, and directly measure patterns of adverse treatment 

based on a homeseeker’s race or ethnicity. 

HDS2000 is the third national paired-testing study sponsored by HUD to measure 

patterns of racial and ethnic discrimination in urban housing markets. Its predecessors, the 

1977 Housing Market Practices Study (HMPS) and the 1989 Housing Discrimination Study 

(HDS) found significant levels of racial and ethnic discrimination in both rental and sales 

markets of urban areas nationwide. Enforcement tests conducted over the intervening decade 

1

 For the study on persons with disabilities, the treatment of a person with a disability is being compared to 

that of a similarly qualified person without a disability 

i 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

have also uncovered countless instances of illegal discrimination against minority homeseekers. 

Housing discrimination raises the costs of housing search, creates barriers to homeownership 

and housing choice, and contributes to the perpetuation of racial and ethnic segregation. 

HDS2000 will ultimately involve four phases of paired testing. HUD’s goals for the study 

include rigorous measures of change in adverse treatment against blacks and Hispanics 

nationwide, site-specific estimates of adverse treatment for major metropolitan areas and 

selected states, and new measures of adverse treatment against Asians and Pacific Islanders, 

American Indians, and persons with disabilities. Phase I provided national estimates of adverse 

treatment against blacks and Hispanics and reported on changes in the incidence of differential 

treatment since 1989. Phase II (with testing conducted in 2001) focuses on two major new 

goals: it provides the first national estimates of discrimination against Asians and Pacific 

Islanders, and an initial set of state estimates of discrimination against blacks and Hispanics 

that include small and medium-sized metropolitan areas as well as larger areas. 

Phase I of HDS2000 found that significant discrimination against African American and 

Hispanic homeseekers still persists in both rental and sales markets of large metropolitan areas 

nationwide, but that its incidence has generally declined since 1989. Only Hispanic renters face 

no change in the incidence of consistent adverse treatment today than they did in 1989. The 

discriminatory practices that African Americans and Hispanics face are serious, limiting their 

information and options and making it more difficult for them to find the housing they need. 

Although the overall incidence of discrimination is generally falling, some forms of adverse 

treatment are rising. Black homebuyers are more likely to be steered away from predominantly 

white neighborhoods than they were in 1989, and Hispanic homebuyers are more likely to be 

denied equal information and assistance with mortgage financing. Finally, although patterns of 

differential treatment vary from one metropolitan area to another, only a few areas have overall 

levels that differ significantly from the national average, indicating that discrimination against 

African American and Hispanic homeseekers remains a national problems. 

The HDS2000 Methodology 

This study builds upon and refines the basic testing protocols that have been 

implemented in previous national studies and in Phase I of HDS2000. Random samples of 

advertised housing units were drawn from multiple advertising sources in each site on a weekly 

basis, and testers visited the sampled offices to inquire about the availability of these advertised 

units. Both minority and white partners were assigned income, assets, and debt levels to make 

them equally qualified to buy or rent the advertised housing unit. Test partners were also 

assigned comparable family circumstances, job characteristics, education levels, and housing 

preferences. They visited sales or rental agents, and systematically recorded the information 

and assistance they received about the advertised unit and/or other similar units, including 

location, quality and condition, rent or sales price, and other terms and conditions. Test 

ii 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

partners did not compare their experiences with one another or record any conclusions about 

differences in treatment; each simply reported the details of the treatment he or she 

experienced as an individual homeseeker.2 

The national results presented here for Asians and Pacific Islanders are based on a 

sample of 11 metropolitan areas that account for more than three quarters of all Asians and 

Pacific Islanders living in metropolitan areas nationwide. America’s Asian and Pacific Islander 

populations are tremendously diverse, and different ethnic sub-groups may face differing levels 

or forms of discrimination. However, producing rigorous estimates of discrimination for each 

sub-group would be extremely costly. HUD’s goal for its first research effort focused on 

discrimination against Asians and Pacific Islanders was to produce rigorous national estimates 

for the populations as a whole. Therefore, testers were recruited to represent the primary 

groups of Asians and Pacific Islanders living in each of the sampled metropolitan areas, 

including people who identify themselves as Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Fillipino, Vietnamese 

and other Southeast Asians, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders, and Asian Indians. 3 

Summary of Findings 

Asians and Pacific Islanders face significant levels of discrimination when they search 

for housing in large metropolitan areas nationwide. For renters, patterns of adverse treatment 

are mixed; Asians and Pacific Islanders appear to be systematically favored with respect to 

2

 HDS2000 is designed to measure the extent to which minority homeseekers experience adverse treatment 

when they look for housing in urban areas nationwide. The tests conducted for this study were not designed to 

assemble evidence of discrimination in individual cases. The question of when differential treatment warrants 

prosecution and the related question of whether sufficient evidence is available to prevail in court can only be 

resolved on a case-by-case basis, which might also consider other indicators of treatment than those reported here. 

3

 On October 30, 1997, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a notice that federal agencies 

separate Asians from Pacific Islanders and Native Hawaiians in their data collection. The information about the 

testers recruited for this study is more detailed than the OMB requirement, including information about which Asian, 

Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander subgroup they considered themselves to be a member (see Exhibit 2-2 in 

Chapter 2). In general, OMB believes that, "consistent with criteria for confidentiality and data quality, the tabulation 

procedures used by the agencies should result in production of as much detailed information on race and ethnicity as 

possible". In accordance with that guidance, the main report reflects the level of discrimination encountered by the 

combined Asian and Pacific Islander subgroups with breakouts in the annexes for individual subgroups for whom 

enough data are available to produce a reliable estimate. Specifically, the combination of all Asian subgroups without 

Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders is large enough to provide reliable estimates and those results are reported in 

Annex 7. The sample for Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders alone is not large enough to provide a reliable 

estimate alone so those results are not presented separately. There are some Asian subgroups in metropolitan areas 

that enough data were collected to report separately, and those are shown in Annex 6. Specifically, Los Angeles 

metropolitan area estimates are provided for Chinese and Koreans, and Minneapolis metropolitan area estimates are 

provided for Southeast Asians. 

iii 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

housing inspections. Overall, the level of consistent adverse treatment against Asian and 

Pacific Islander renters is 21.5 percent—about the same as the level for African American and 

Hispanic renters. However, because of the mixed pattern of adverse treatment against Asians 

and Pacific Islanders, the lower-bound estimate of systematic discrimination is not significantly 

different from zero. Asian and Pacific Islander homebuyers experience consistent adverse 

treatment 20.4 percent of the time,4

 with systematic discrimination occurring in housing 

availability, inspections, financing assistance, and agent encouragement. This level of 

discrimination is comparable to the level experienced by African American homebuyers, and 

significantly higher than the level of discrimination against Hispanics. 

Because the composition and history of Honolulu’s Asian and Pacific Islander 

populations differs quite substantially from metro areas in the mainland U.S.5

, we explored the 

possibility that levels or patterns of discrimination might be different when Honolulu was 

excluded from the analysis. In general, however, estimates are the same for the mainland 

metro areas as for the nation as a whole. In addition, estimates of discrimination against Asians 

and Pacific Islanders seeking housing in California are comparable to estimates for the nation 

as a whole. 

To explore variations in discrimination for different segments of the Asian and Pacific 

Islander populations, we compared estimates of adverse treatment for light-skinned Asians and 

Pacific Islanders to estimates for dark-skinned people.6

 In addition, because Phase II of 

HDS2000 expanded the sample of advertised sources, we tested for differences between units 

advertised in major metropolitan newspapers and those advertised in other sources. Based 

upon these comparisons, we conclude that: 

• There is little consistent evidence that dark-skinned Asians and Pacific Islanders 

experience higher levels of adverse treatment than light-skinned Asians and Pacific 

Islanders. Differences are statistically significant for only a few individual treatment 

indicators, however, and these results suggest that dark-skinned renters face a 

greater disadvantage than homebuyers with comparable skin tone. 

4 The lower-bound estimate of systematic discrimination in sales is 19.6 percent. 

5

 In Honolulu, Asian subgroups constitute the majority race, that is they make up 55 percent of the 

population. Since HDS is designed to assess differences in the treatment of Asians and Pacific Islanders relative to 

whites, it was hypothesized that the Honolulu findings might mask the level of discrimination against Asians and 

Pacific Islanders on the mainland U.S. 

6

 Local testing organizations provided photographs for all testers participating in HDS2000. Based on these 

photographs, each tester’s skin tone was rated on a scale of one to five (palest to darkest) by at least two 

independent coders. 

iv 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

• Discrimination against Asians and Pacific Islanders seeking rental housing does not 

vary significantly by type of advertising source. However, Asian and Pacific Islander 

homebuyers appear to face a significantly higher level of discrimination when they 

inquire about units advertised in sources other than major metropolitan newspapers. 

Experience from this research effort also suggests that the recruitment and retention of 

Asians and Pacific Islanders as testers may present special challenges for local fair housing 

organizations. Some local testing organizations that did not have already established pools of 

Asian and Pacific Islander testers found it difficult to recruit testers because they were unable to 

make inroads into the various service organizations, associations, and other networks that serve 

the Asian and Pacific Islander community. In addition, for some ethnic sub-groups, particularly 

those who are newer immigrants to the U.S., cultural issues proved to be a barrier to completing 

tests and retaining testers. For example, conducting sales tests was particularly daunting for 

testers from groups who have little homebuying knowledge or experience in the United States. 

Measurement Issues 

A paired test can result in any one of three basic outcomes for any measure of 

treatment: 1) the white tester is favored over the minority; 2) the minority tester is favored over 

the white; or 3) both testers receive the same treatment (which may be either favorable or 

unfavorable). The simplest measure of adverse treatment is the share of all tests in which the 

white tester is favored over the minority. Because there are also tests in which minority testers 

receive better treatment than their white partners, we report both the incidence of white-favored 

treatment and the incidence of minority-favored treatment. 

Gross and Net Measures. Although these simple gross measures of white-favored and 

minority-favored treatment are straightforward and easily understandable, they almost certainly 

overstate the frequency of systematic discrimination.7

 Specifically, differential treatment may 

occur during a test not only because of differences in race or ethnicity, but also because of 

random differences in the circumstances of their visits to the real estate agency. For example, 

in the time between two testers’ visits, an apartment might have been rented, or the agent may 

have been distracted by personal matters and forgotten about an available unit. Gross 

7

 We use the term “systematic discrimination” to mean differences in treatment that are attributable to a 

customer’s race or ethnicity, rather than to any other differences in tester characteristics or test circumstances. This 

term is not the same as “intentional” discrimination, nor is it intended to mean that these differences would 

necessarily be ruled as violations of federal fair housing law. 

v 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

measures of white-favored and minority-favored treatment include both random and systematic 

elements, and therefore provide upper-bound estimates of systematic discrimination.8 

One strategy for estimating systematic discrimination, that is, to remove the cases where 

non-discriminatory random events are responsible for differences in treatment, is to subtract the 

incidence of minority-favored treatment from the incidence of white-favored treatment to 

produce a net measure. This approach essentially assumes that all cases of minority-favored 

treatment are attributable to random factors—that systematic discrimination never favors 

minorities—and that random white-favored treatment occurs just as frequently as random 

minority-favored treatment. Based on these assumptions, the net measure subtracts 

differences due to random factors from the total incidence of white-favored treatment. However, 

it seems possible that sometimes minorities may be systematically favored on the basis of their 

race or ethnicity. If so, the net measure subtracts not only random differences but some 

systematic differences, and may therefore understate the frequency of systematic 

discrimination.9 

It is possible to adapt the basic paired testing methodology to directly observe how often 

random differences in treatment occur. Specifically, in two metropolitan areas, Phase II of 

HDS2000 conducted three-part tests. In these tests, a white tester was followed by two 

minorities or a minority tester was followed by two whites, all following the same protocols. 

Comparing the treatment of the two same-race testers provides a direct estimate of random 

(non race-based) differential treatment. This exploratory triad testing effort suggests that most, 

if not all minority-favored treatment is random; it provides no convincing evidence that minorityfavored treatment systematically exceeds differences in the treatment of same-race testers. 

However, because these results are based on a relatively small number of tests in only two 

metropolitan areas, they should be viewed as preliminary and require further confirmation. 

The body of this report presents both gross and net measures, because in combination, 

they indicate not only how often whites are favored over comparable minority homeseekers, but 

the extent to which white-favored treatment systematically exceeds minority-favored treatment. 

8

 Note that it is conceivable that random factors might reduce the observed incidence of white-favored or 

minority-favored treatment, so that the gross-incidence measure is technically not an absolute upper-bound for 

systematic discrimination. 

9

 Even when no statistical pattern of race-based differential treatment is observed, individual cases of 

discrimination may occur. Specifically, even if the gross incidence of white favored treatment is statistically 

insignificant, this does not mean that discrimination never occurred, but only that the number of cases was too small 

to draw any conclusions about systematic patterns across the sample as a whole. Similarly, for variables where the 

net measure is close to zero, there may in fact be instances of race-based discrimination, even though the overall 

pattern does not systematically favor one group. 

vi 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

These two measures provide upper- and lower-bound estimates of systematic discrimination 

against minority homeseekers. 

Summary Measures. A visit with a rental or sales agent is a complex transaction, and 

may include many forms of favorable or unfavorable treatment. This report presents results for 

a series of fourteen individual rental treatment indicators and fifteen sales treatment indicators, 

but also combines these individual indicators to create composite measures for categories of 

treatment (such as housing availability or housing costs) as well as for the transaction as a 

whole. For rental tests, treatment measures include the availability of advertised and similar 

units, opportunities to inspect units, housing costs, and the encouragement and assistance from 

rental agents. For sales tests, measures include the availability of advertised and similar 

homes, opportunities to inspect homes, the neighborhood characteristics of recommended and 

inspected homes, assistance with mortgage financing, and encouragement and assistance from 

the sales agent. 

Two types of composite measures have been constructed. Consistency measures 

reflect the extent to which the different forms of treatment that occur in a visit consistently favor 

one tester over the other. Specifically, tests are classified as white-favored if the white tester 

received favorable treatment on one or more individual items, while his or her partner received 

no favorable treatment. Tests were classified as “neutral” if one tester was favored on some 

individual treatment items and his or her partner was favored on even one item. Consistency 

measures were used in 1989 to summarize testing results across individual treatment 

indicators. In HDS2000, however, we also developed hierarchical measures by considering the 

relative importance of individual treatment measures to determine whether one tester was 

favored over the other. For each category of treatment measures and for the full set of 

measures, a hierarchy of importance was established independently of the testing results, to 

provide an objective set of decision rules for comparing treatment across indicators.10 

The body of this report presents both consistency measures and hierarchical measures. 

These alternative measures (including both lower-bound and upper-bound estimates of 

systematic discrimination) generally tell a consistent story about the existence of discrimination 

at the national, state, and metropolitan level. 

Strengths and Limitations of This Research 

Paired testing is a powerful tool for directly observing differences in the treatment that 

minority and white homeseekers experience when they inquire about the availability of 

10 Again, it is important to emphasize the difference between methods used for the statistical analysis of 

paired testing results and methods used to assemble or assess evidence of unlawful conduct in an individual case. 

No pre-determined set of decision criteria can substitute for case-by-case judgements about test results. 

vii 
Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

advertised housing units. Despite the strengths of this methodology, HDS2000, like previous 

national paired testing studies, is limited in its coverage of metropolitan housing markets and the 

experience of minority homeseekers. The sample of real estate and rental agents to be tested 

was drawn from newspaper advertisements, and the economic characteristics of tester teams 

were matched to the characteristics of the advertised units. However, not all housing units for 

sale or rent are advertised, not all real estate and rental agents use advertising to attract 

customers, and not all homeseekers rely upon published advertisements in their housing 

search. Therefore, results presented here do not necessarily reflect the experience of the 

typical minority homeseeker, but rather of homeseekers qualified to rent or buy the average 

housing unit advertised in a readily available information source. 

Moreover, the results presented here do not encompass all phases of the housing 

market transaction. HDS2000, like most paired testing studies, focuses on the initial encounter 

between a homeseeker and a rental or sales agent. Additional incidents of adverse treatment 

may occur later in the housing transaction, when a renter submits an application or negotiates 

lease terms, or when a homebuyer makes an offer on a particular unit or applies for mortgage 

financing. 

Finally, as discussed earlier, this study provides information about housing 

discrimination against the Asians and Pacific Islander populations as a whole, when there are 

good reasons to suspect that different ethnic sub-groups may face different levels or forms of 

discrimination. More targeted testing studies would be needed to develop reliable estimates of 

discrimination against individual Asian and Pacific Islander sub-groups in parts of the country 

where their numbers are significant. In spite of these important limitations, Phase II of 

HDS2000 provides the first rigorous national estimates of discrimination against Asians and 

Pacific Islanders, and presents compelling evidence that they face significant levels of 

discrimination, particularly when they search for homebuyer housing in metropolitan areas 

nationwide. 

viii 
Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... i
 

Background .................................................................................................................... i
 

The HDS2000 Methodology .......................................................................................... ii
 

Summary of Findings.................................................................................................... iii
 

Measurement Issues ..................................................................................................... v
 

Strengths and Limitations of This Research................................................................ vii
 

ix 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 

This report presents findings from the second phase of the latest national Housing 

Discrimination Study (HDS2000), sponsored by the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) and conducted by the Urban Institute. HDS2000 is the third national 

paired-testing study sponsored by HUD to measure patterns of racial and ethnic discrimination 

in U.S. housing markets. The first phase of HDS2000 rigorously measured current levels of 

adverse treatment against African Americans and Hispanics for large metropolitan areas 

nationwide and tracked significant changes in these levels since 1989. It concluded that 

discrimination still persists in both rental and sales markets of large metropolitan areas 

nationwide, but that its incidence has generally declined since 1989.1

 Phase I also produced 

metropolitan-level estimates of adverse treatment for African American and Hispanic 

homeseekers in twenty metropolitan areas. 

Phase II of HDS2000 extends the paired testing methodology to produce three new sets 

of findings. First, Phase II provides the first national estimates of discrimination against Asians 

and Pacific Islanders (APIs) living in large metropolitan areas throughout the United States as 

well as state-level results for California. Second, it provides state-level estimates of 

discrimination against African Americans and Hispanics that cover both large and smaller 

metropolitan areas.2

 Specifically, state-level results are available for black/white discrimination 

in Alabama, Georgia, California, and New York, and for Hispanic/non-Hispanic white 

discrimination in California. Finally, Phase II provides metropolitan-level estimates of 

discrimination against African Americans and Hispanics in Baltimore (black/white tests) and 

Miami (Hispanic/non-Hispanic white tests)—two major metropolitan areas that were not part of 

the Phase I sample. This report presents the level of discrimination experienced by Asians and 

Pacific Islanders. A companion report, Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase I 

- Supplement, presents the state level estimates of discrimination for blacks and Hispanics and 

the Baltimore and Miami results. 

Paired Testing Methodology 

In a paired test, two individuals—one minority and the other white—pose as otherwise 

identical homeseekers, with comparable housing needs and resources. Both testers visit a real 

estate or rental agent to inquire about the availability of housing, making the same requests and 

1

 See M.A. Turner, S. Ross, G. Galster, J. Yinger (2002) Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: 

National Results from Phase I of HDS2000. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development. 

2

 Phase II resources were also used to complete additional tests in two Phase I sites where local fair 

housing groups were not able to complete sufficient tests for metropolitan report cards. 

1-1 
 

 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

providing the same information about themselves. Each tester systematically records the 

information and assistance he or she receives from the agent. If the minority and white are 

treated differently in important ways, a test provides direct and powerful evidence of differences 

in the treatment minorities and whites experience when they search for housing. 

Paired testing originated as a tool for fair housing enforcement, detecting and 

documenting individual instances of discrimination. Since the late 1970s, this methodology has 

also been used to rigorously measure the prevalence of discrimination across the housing 

market as a whole. When a large number of consistent and comparable tests are conducted for 

a representative sample of real estate and rental agents, the results directly measure patterns of 

adverse treatment based on a homeseeker’s race or ethnicity. 

For the results presented here, basic testing protocols largely replicated those 

implemented in Phase I and earlier paired testing research. However, based on 

recommendations from a workshop convened by the National Academy of Sciences3

 and from 

fair housing practitioners, we enhanced our procedures for drawing samples of available 

housing units. Instead of relying upon the classified advertising sections of a single major 

newspaper in each metropolitan area, samples of available housing units were drawn from 

multiple advertising sources, including community newspapers, homeseeker guides, and the 

internet, as well as major metropolitan newspapers. This methodology more fully reflects 

metropolitan housing market as a whole. 

Testers visited the sampled offices to inquire about the availability of these units. Both 

minority and white partners were assigned income, assets, and debt levels to make them 

equally qualified to buy or rent the advertised housing unit. Test partners were also assigned 

comparable family circumstances, job characteristics, education levels, and housing 

preferences. They took turns visiting sales or rental agents and systematically recorded the 

information and assistance they received about the advertised unit and/or other similar units, 

including location, quality and condition, rent or sales price, and other terms and conditions. 

Test partners did not compare their experiences with one another or record any conclusions 

about differences in treatment; each simply reported the details of the treatment he or she 

experienced as an individual homeseeker.4 

3

 A.W. Foster, F. Mitchell, and S.E. Feinberg (2002) Measuring Housing Discrimination in a National Study: 

Report of a Workshop. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 

4

 HDS2000 is designed to measure the extent to which minority homeseekers experience adverse treatment 

when they look for housing in metropolitan areas nationwide. The tests conducted for this study were not designed to 

assemble evidence of discrimination in individual cases. The question of when differential treatment warrants 

prosecution and the related question of whether sufficient evidence is available to prevail in court can only be 

resolved on a case-by-case basis. 

1-2 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

HDS2000 Study Scope 

HDS2000 will ultimately involve four phases of paired testing. HUD’s goals for the study 

include rigorous measures of change in adverse treatment against blacks and Hispanics 

nationwide, site-specific estimates of adverse treatment for major metropolitan areas, statewide 

estimates of adverse treatment that encompass smaller metropolitan areas and adjoining rural 

communities, and new measures of adverse treatment against Asians and Pacific Islanders, 

American Indians, and persons with disabilities. 

Phase II (with testing conducted in 2001) was designed to provide national estimates of 

discrimination against Asians and Pacific Islanders, statewide estimates of discrimination 

against Asians and Pacific Islanders, blacks, and Hispanics, and two additional metropolitan 

estimates. Moreover, in order to empirically observe differences in treatment that may occur 

randomly in the course of paired testing and to refine estimates of systematic discrimination, we 

conducted three-part tests in Baltimore and Miami. Each three-part test involved a minority 

tester followed by two white testers, or a white tester followed by two minority testers, all 

following the same protocols. Exhibit 1-1 summarizes the key design components of Phase II of 

HDS2000. This report presents results for discrimination against Asians and Pacific Islanders.5 

Exhibit 1-1: Phase II Study Scope 

National Estimates for 

Asians and Pacific Islanders 

9 national estimate of discrimination against Asians and Pacific 

Islanders based on testing in 9 major metro areas 

Metropolitan Estimates 

9 two major metropolitan areas that were not covered during Phase I 

9 black/white testing in both sites 

9 black/white and Hispanic/non-Hispanic white testing in one site 

State-Wide Estimates 

9 metropolitan areas (large and small) in four states 

9 black/white testing in four states 

9 Hispanic/non-Hispanic white testing in one state 

9 Asian and Pacific Islander/white testing in one state 

Sample of Available 

Housing Units 

9 advertisements drawn from multiple sources to more fully reflect 

units available in the local housing market 

Estimating Systematic 

Discrimination 

9 three-part tests in the metropolitan report card sites 

Total Number of Tests 9 2,012 of which 420 are three-part 

5

 For statewide black and Hispanic estimates, two additional metropolitan estimates, and analysis of threepart tests, see Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase I - Supplement. 

1-3 
Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

HDS2000, like previous national paired testing studies, is limited in its coverage of 

metropolitan housing markets and the experience of minority homeseekers. The sample of real 

estate and rental agents to be tested was drawn from newspaper advertisements, and the 

economic characteristics of tester teams were matched to the characteristics of the advertised 

units. However, not all housing units for sale or rent are advertised, not all real estate and rental 

agents use advertising to attract customers, and not all homeseekers rely upon advertisements 

in their housing search. Therefore, results presented here do not necessarily reflect the 

experience of the typical minority homeseeker, but rather of homeseekers qualified to rent or 

buy the average housing unit advertised in a publicly available information source. 

Moreover, the results presented here do not encompass all phases of the housing 

market transaction. HDS2000, like most paired testing studies, focuses on the initial encounter 

between a homeseeker and a rental or sales agent. Additional incidents of adverse treatment 

may occur later in the housing transaction, when a renter submits an application or negotiates 

lease terms, or when a homebuyer makes an offer on a particular unit or applies for mortgage 

financing. Despite these limitations, HDS2000 provides the most complete and up-to-date 

information available about the incidence and severity of housing market discrimination against 

minority homeseekers in large metropolitan areas of the United States today. 

Organization of the Report 

The remainder of this report consists of three chapters. Chapter 2 presents the 

methodology implemented in Phase II of HDS2000, including the samples of metropolitan areas 

in which tests were conducted, the procedures used to draw samples of available housing units 

in each of these metropolitan areas, the testing protocols implemented for both rental and sales 

housing, and the statistical procedures used to estimate the incidence of adverse treatment. 

Chapter 3 presents current national estimates of adverse treatment against Asians and Pacific 

Islanders as well as state-level estimates for California. Chapter 4 discusses potential 

variations in adverse treatment against Asians and Pacific Islanders by skin color and 

advertising source. A series of technical annexes accompany this report, including national 

estimates without Honolulu and comparison of Asian and Pacific Islander results with black and 

Hispanic results for a common sample of sites. 

1-4 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

2. PHASE II DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 

Although the paired testing methodology originated as a tool for fair housing 

enforcement, it has been successfully adapted for research purposes. In order to yield reliable 

measures of differential treatment in housing market transactions, paired testing must be 

applied to a representative sample of housing providers or available housing units in selected 

markets, and must adhere to highly standardized protocols. Phase II of HDS2000 builds upon 

the experience of Phase I to enhance and extend the paired testing methodology, producing the 

first national estimates of discrimination against Asians and Pacific Islanders. In addition, 

Phase II improved the procedures for sampling available housing units to draw from multiple 

advertising sources. This chapter describes the sampling procedures, testing protocols, and 

analysis techniques implemented in Phase II of HDS2000. 

Sampling 

Sampling was based on an integrated two-stage design. In the first-stage, sites were 

drawn with certainty from the relevant population of sites in order to provide maximum coverage 

of the Asian and Pacific Islander population within U.S. Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). 

In the second stage of selection, ads for rental and sales housing were selected with probability 

sampling from multiple advertising sources covering the sample sites during the testing period. 

National Sample of Metropolitan Areas with Significant Asian and Pacific Islander 

Populations. The results presented in this report are based on a nationally representative 

sample of eleven metropolitan areas with population greater than 100,000 where Asians and 

Pacific Islanders constitute a significant portion of the population. Our strategy for site selection 

in Phase II was fundamentally different from the Phase I national sample design approach, for 

good reason. The Phase I design sought to develop national estimates from a large list of 

qualifying metro areas that was used as a sampling frame. Thus, sites were selected with 

probabilities proportional to population using a stratified design, and the sampled MSA 

represents all MSAs in its constituent stratum. For Phase II, the situation is quite different. The 

nation’s Asian and Pacific Islander population is highly clustered in a small number of metro 

areas. If we were to draw a random sample of metropolitan areas, we would introduce 

statistical variation at the site level (as a result of using a two-stage design), as well as the test 

level. Instead, we selected with certainty the sites that maximized population coverage, 

eliminating the cluster sampling, and thereby realizing gains in statistical precision.1 

1 This approach poses a minor risk of small non-coverage bias, but the benefits of our design far exceed the 

potential liabilities (which we see as minor). 

2-1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

Specifically, we selected the ten metropolitan areas with the largest Asian and Pacific 

Islander populations plus Minneapolis, MN where testing was conducted in phase I. These 

metropolitan areas account for 77 percent of all Asians and Pacific Islanders living in U.S. 

metropolitan areas. Asian and Pacific Islander testing was conducted in Los Angeles as part of 

Phase I of HDS2000. Therefore, Phase II testing was conducted in the nine remaining 

metropolitan areas, providing excellent representation of all metropolitan Asians and Pacific 

Islanders nationwide (see Exhibit 2-1).2 

Exhibit 2-1: Metropolitan Areas with Significant Asian and Pacific Islander 

Populations and Sample Sizes 

MSA / PMSA # API Tests 

(Rental/Sales) 

Anaheim--Santa Ana, CA 29/27 

Chicago, IL 22/19 

Honolulu, HI 37/35 

Los Angeles, CA* 149/142 

Minneapolis, MN* 77/16 

New York, NY 47/50 

Oakland, CA 25/25 

San Diego, CA MSA 20/21 

San Francisco, CA 30/30 

San Jose, CA 27/25 

Washington, DC--MD—VA 18/18 

* Phase I sites 

Total 481/408 

% of Metro API Population in U.S.: 77% 

2

 Pooling tests from Phases I and II raises methodological concerns. Although it seems entirely plausible to 

assume that patterns of discrimination change slowly and that data from consecutive years can reasonably be 

combined, we do not know with certainty how much the expanded ad sampling process will affect measures of 

discrimination. Unfortunately, however, this potential source of bias must be accepted, because it would not be cost 

effective to conduct a new sample of Asian and Pacific Islander tests in Los Angeles, given that such a large number 

of tests were conducted there in Phase 1. 

2-2 
 

 

 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

By selecting sites with certainty rather than with probabilities, sites are transformed from 

being “clusters used in two-stage sampling” to being “strata in a stratified sample.” This occurs 

because each site now represents only itself rather than the pool (or stratum) of metro areas 

from which it was drawn. Consequently, the issue of proportionate versus disproportionate 

allocation of tests becomes an issue. An equal allocation of tests to sites is the appropriate 

approach for two-stage sampling with probabilities proportional to size (pps). But it is not 

appropriate to allocate equal numbers of tests to sites when the sites represent only 

themselves, except in the unlikely event that all sites have the same minority population size. 

We therefore allocated tests to sites in proportion to the size of their Asian and Pacific Islander 

population. A total of 255 rental tests and 250 sales tests were conducted across the nine 

Phase II Asian and Pacific Islander sites. In Phase I, 226 Asian and Pacific Islander rental tests 

and 158 Asian and Pacific Islander sales tests were conducted in Los Angeles and Minneapolis. 

While the precision of individual estimates may vary based on the variance in response 

patterns, with totals of 481 rental tests and 408 sales tests,3

 we expect to be able to detect net 

differences in treatment that exceed 5 percentage points at a 95 percent confidence level. 

The Asian and Pacific Islander population is extremely diverse, composed of many 

different ethnic sub-groups. In Phase I, testing focused on measuring the incidence of 

discrimination against particular sub-groups (Chinese and Koreans in Los Angeles and 

Southeast Asians in Minneapolis). But for Phase II our goal was to develop estimates of 

discrimination for a national cross-section of Asians and Pacific Islanders. Therefore, for each 

metropolitan area in the national sample, we identified the predominant Asian and Pacific 

Islander sub-groups, and required local testing organizations to recruit and deploy testers from 

these groups, in rough proportion to their representation metro-wide. Exhibit 2-2 identifies the 

predominant sub-groups for each testing site, and the actual number of tests conducted for 

each sub-group. 

3

 Note that the effective sample size is closer to 300 tests for both rental and sales, because the Phase I 

sites are substantially over-represented relative to their population. 

2-3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

Exhibit 2-2: Percent of Population for API Subgroups* 

and Actual Number of Tests per Tenure 

Anaheim, CA Chicago, IL Honolulu, HI New York, NY Oakland, CA 

% # Tests % # Tests % # Tests % # Tests % # Tests 

R S R S R S R S R S 

Asian Indian * * * 23 6 10 * * * 18 7 18 7 0 0 

Chinese 17 3 2 17 8 0 12 5 4 45 30 20 34 17 22 

Filipino 12 4 4 25 4 6 23 7 8 9 0 0 29 2 2 

Hawai'ian * * * * * * 17 5 3 * * * * * * 

Japanese 12 8 3 7 1 0 38 18 15 * * * 8 0 0 

Korean 15 6 3 15 3 0 * * 3 14 4 11 * 2 1 

Vietnamese 28 8 15 * * * * 2 * * * * 6 4 0 

Other** 16 0 0 13 0 3 10 0 2 14 6 1 16 0 0 

TOTAL 100 29 27 100 22 19 100 37 35 100 47 50 100 25 25 

San Diego, CA San Francisco, 

CA 

San Jose, CA Washington, DC 

R – Rental 

S – Sales 

Source: 1990 Census 

% # Tests % # Tests % # Tests % # Tests 

R S R S R S R S 

Asian Indian * * * * * * 8 0 0 18 4 9 

Chinese 10 2 2 51 15 21 25 6 9 20 4 3 

Filipino 49 10 10 26 10 4 23 17 12 13 1 0 

Hawai'ian * * * * * * * * * * * 0 

Japanese 9 2 3 7 2 2 11 0 0 * * 0 

Korean * 4 4 * * * * * * 20 4 2 

Vietnamese 10 2 2 * 3 3 21 4 4 12 0 0 

Other** 22 0 0 16 0 0 12 0 0 17 5 4 

TOTAL 100 20 21 100 30 30 100 27 25 100 18 18 

*Sub-groups were included if they represented at least 5% of the total Asian and Pacific Islander population in the 

MSA. 

**"Other" includes all other Asian and Pacific Islander sub-groups. 

2-4 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

Sample of Advertised Housing Units. The basic objective of a paired testing study is 

to observe the relative treatment that housing agents provide to white and minority 

homeseekers in the private market. Because we are measuring agent behavior, we would 

ideally draw a representative sample of rental and sales agents, where an agent’s probability of 

selection reflects his or her share of available housing units. In addition, our sampling 

methodology needs to provide information about housing being offered by each agent. This 

information allows both members of a testing team to be assigned characteristics (such as 

household size and income) and preferences (such as housing type and location) that 

correspond to housing that an agent actually has to offer.4 

The three national paired testing studies conducted to date have all relied upon 

classified advertisements in major metropolitan newspapers to generate samples of rental and 

sales agents. The Housing Market Practices Study (HMPS, conducted in the late 1970s) drew 

a single sample of advertisements from the Sunday classified section of each metropolitan 

area’s primary newspaper (Wienk et al 1979). Tester teams were assigned characteristics and 

preferences consistent with the sampled housing units, and visited the corresponding agents 

inquiring generally about available housing. In the 1989 Housing Discrimination Study (HDS), 

this methodology was refined to involve weekly samples of available housing units, again drawn 

from the classified advertising sections of each metropolitan area’s major newspaper (Turner, 

Struyk, and Yinger 1989). This refinement allowed testers to begin each visit by inquiring about 

a particular housing unit, making the tests more credible and allowing both white and minority 

testers to send agents the same implicit signals about housing preferences. Phase I of 

HDS2000 replicated this approach, drawing weekly samples of advertisements from the Sunday 

classified section of each metropolitan area’s major newspaper.5 

The weekly ad-sampling methodology offers several important benefits. It yields a 

representative sample of housing agents who use the major metropolitan newspaper to 

advertise available units, where an agent’s probability of selection is proportionate to his or her 

share of all units advertised in this way. Because metropolitan newspapers are readily 

available, regardless of race, ethnicity, or other characteristics, this sampling frame includes 

agents who can realistically be accessed by any homeseeker. In addition, the weekly sampling 

methodology provides a consistent and credible starting point for each test, tying the 

characteristics and preferences of testers to housing actually available from the sampled agent, 

and sending consistent signals from both members of a tester team. Finally, this methodology 

addresses one of the major ethical concerns about paired testing—that it imposes an 

4

 For a more detailed discussion of sampling principles, see chapter 2 of Research Design and Analysis 

Plan for Housing Discrimination Study 2000, The Urban Institute, March 2000. 

5

 In addition, Phase I of HDS2000 experimented with alternative methods for identifying and sampling 

available units, as discussed further below. 

2-5 
 

 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

unreasonable cost burden on housing agents who have to spend time responding to testers’ 

inquiries and potentially violates their expectations of privacy regarding these inquiries (Fix and 

Struyk 1992). By advertising in a widely available outlet, a housing agent is explicitly inviting 

inquiries from the general public. 

Despite the many advantages of this sampling methodology, relying upon metropolitan 

newspapers to represent the housing market as a whole has significant weaknesses. Analysis 

of data from the 1989 HDS suggested that houses for sale in minority neighborhoods may be 

under-represented among advertisements drawn from a metropolitan area’s major newspaper 

(Turner, Edwards, and Mikelsons 1991). Other research has suggested that housing providers 

in some white neighborhoods may also avoid newspaper advertising in order to minimize their 

exposure to minority customers (Galster, Freiberg, and Houk 1987). Moreover, during Phase I 

of HDS2000, several of the local testing organizations indicated that relatively few rental 

housing providers in their areas used the major metropolitan newspaper at all, while in other 

sites, the primary day for rental advertising was different from the primary day for sales ads 

(Sunday).6

 Thus, there is growing sentiment that relying exclusively on advertisements drawn 

from the Sunday classified section of a single, metropolitan newspaper may not adequately 

represent rental and sales units available or the housing agents who are active in the market. 

This was a concern raised by several participants in a workshop convened by the National 

Academy of Sciences to review the HDS2000 methodology. 

Although our Phase I sampling methodology basically replicated the 1989 HDS 

approach, we also experimented with two possible strategies for addressing the limitations of 

metropolitan newspapers ads. First, in four major metropolitan areas, we over-sampled 

newspaper advertisements from geographic areas that were under-represented in the 

newspaper sample. And, second, in five sites, we supplemented our ad sample with available 

housing units identified through alternative sources, including community newspapers, 

apartment- and home-seeker guides, church bulletin boards, and for sale and rent signs 

displayed on properties. These “non-ad” samples were targeted to neighborhoods that 

appeared to be excluded from our metropolitan newspaper sampling.7 We found both oversampling and non-ad sampling to be technically feasible, though costly, and this experience 

helped inform our consideration of alternative sampling procedures. Analysis of Phase I data 

found no consistent differences across metro areas in levels of discrimination for different ad 

sources, but suggested that for some metro areas, relying exclusively on major metropolitan 

newspapers may understate discrimination against African Americans. 

6

 Note that concerns raised by local organizations almost all involved the rental market. Generally, local fair 

housing groups felt that the metropolitan ad sample adequately represented the sales market. 

7

 For a more detailed discussion of these exploratory sampling methods, see chapter 2 of Research Design 

and Analysis Plan for Housing Discrimination Study 2000, The Urban Institute, March 2000. 

2-6 
Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

In Phase II of HDS2000 we drew samples of available housing units from multiple 

advertising sources, using a different information source each week for each metropolitan area. 

This strategy addresses the important limitations of our Phase I approach, providing more 

complete coverage of housing units for available for sale and rent throughout the metropolitan 

market, while retaining its advantages. As discussed earlier, sampling on the basis of 

advertised housing produces a representative sample of rental and sales agents that reflects 

their share of the current market. It provides a consistent and credible entry point for the testing 

protocols, allowing both members of a testing team to send the same signals about their 

housing needs and preferences. And because it relies on widely available advertising sources, 

this approach does not raise new ethical or privacy concerns with respect to housing providers. 

By drawing from multiple sources, selected to maximize coverage of geographic areas and 

market segments, we hope to better represent the full range of available housing units. And by 

rotating across different ad sources from week to week, we will avoid the problem that a unit 

advertised in multiple sources might have a higher probability of selection in any given week’s 

sample. 

Four basic steps were required to produce samples for each Phase II site: 

• Select a set of advertising sources that provides reasonably complete coverage for 

the metropolitan housing market. 

• Develop a schedule for rotating across sources on a weekly basis. 

• Establish an efficient sampling protocol for each advertising source. 

• Draw weekly ad samples. 

Select advertising sources. For each metropolitan area selected for Phase II testing, we 

assembled an inventory of potential advertising sources. Drawing from media directories, the 

internet, and local informants, we prepared a list of newspapers, internet sites, and guides that 

area housing agents use to advertise rental and sales units. Excluded from this inventory were 

foreign language sources, sources with very small circulation or ad volumes, sources produced 

by a single real estate or rental company, sources that require the user to specify housing 

preferences in order to obtain listings, and sources that are not readily available to the general 

public. Based upon this inventory, we selected a set of sources that provided reasonably 

complete coverage of rental and sales advertisements for the metropolitan housing market as a 

whole. A different set of sources was typically selected for rental advertising than for sales 

advertising. One or more major metropolitan dailies were always included among the selected 

sources, although in some cases we found that the primary day for housing advertisements 

differed between newspapers or for rental and sales ads. City and suburban community papers 

were included if they provided a reasonable volume of advertisements for specific geographic 

sub-areas. Similarly, minority newspapers were selected if they had reasonably large ad 

2-7 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

volumes and appeared to cover geographic areas or sub-markets not otherwise represented. 

We included internet sources if local informants indicated that they were widely utilized and if 

they offered a significantly different (or larger) selection of advertisements than published 

sources.8

 Finally, we included free apartment-seekers and/or homeseekers guides and 

advertising circulars if they were available locally. Annex 1 identifies the actual sources 

selected for each metro area, and the share of tests conducted for units advertised in major 

metropolitan newspapers compared to other types of sources. 

Develop a rotational schedule. Once a reasonable set of advertising sources was 

selected for a metropolitan area, we developed a schedule for rotating across sources on a 

weekly basis. Our goals in developing this schedule were to minimize the overlap between 

sources that might be used in the same week, to sample on the most appropriate day of the 

week for each source, and to ensure an adequate number of advertisements from which to 

sample each week. Thus, a source that covered all or most of a metro area (such as a major 

metro newspaper or a metro-wide internet site) would be the only source utilized in a given 

week. In contrast, several sources that targeted different geographic sub-areas might be 

combined in the same week. Finally, sources that were published monthly rather than daily or 

weekly were generally utilized during the weeks when they are first released. Exhibit 2-3 

provides an illustrative example of a typical rotational schedule. 

Exhibit 2-3: Illustrative Ad-Sampling Plan for One Metropolitan Area 

Week Rental Ad Source For-Sale Ad Source 

1 Major metro newspaper #1 Major metro newspaper #1 

2 Classified ads from three community 

newspapers, each serving a different 

geographic sub-area 

Classified ads from three community 

newspapers, each serving a different 

geographic sub-area 

3 Major metro newspaper #2 Major metro newspaper #2 

4 Monthly apartment-seekers guide Internet version of home sales ads from 7 

suburban papers (single publisher) 

5 Major metro newspaper #1 Major metro newspaper #1 

6 Classified ads from three community 

newspapers, each serving a different 

geographic sub-area 

Classified ads from three community 

newspapers, each serving a different 

geographic sub-area 

7 Major metro newspaper #2 Major metro newspaper #2 

8 Monthly apartment-seekers guide Internet version of home sales ads from 7 

suburban papers (single publisher) 

8

 When internet sites included essentially the same ads as other sources, we were reluctant to send out 

large numbers of testers indicating that they found an ad on the internet for fear of raising suspicion and risking 

disclosure of the study. Despite the growing use of personal computers and the internet, many households— 

particularly minorities and lower-income households—do not have access to this information source. 

2-8 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

Establish sampling protocols. For each advertising source to be utilized, we developed 

a specific sampling protocol, building on our experience from Phase I. Specifically, in Phase I, 

two basic sampling protocols were applied, depending upon the physical lay-out of the classified 

advertising sections. The first protocol—spatial sampling—used a series of cardboard stencils 

with holes at random intervals to select blocks of text from each page of newspaper advertising. 

Then, any eligible ads within these blocks were included in the sample. The second basic 

protocol—systematic sampling—used randomly generated numbers to select a starting point, 

and then sampled every “nth” ad to yield the target sample size. Both of these procedures 

require advance information about the lay-out of advertising pages, the approximate volume and 

density of ads, and the target sample size to be drawn 

Not all advertised housing units are eligible for inclusion in our sample. Some types of 

ads are not suitable for our paired testing protocols. For example, subsidized rental housing 

units must be excluded, because they impose specialized income and other eligibility criteria for 

tenants, and homes for sale by owner are excluded because they do not contribute to the 

sample of housing agents active in the local housing market. Phase II sampling protocols made 

only three changes to the eligibility criteria used in Phase I: 

• Co-operative housing units were included among units for sale, because in some 

housing markets they represent an important source of entry-level homeownership 

opportunities, and because they do not differ significantly from condominiums with 

respect to the initial application and inspection process. 

• Rental units in small buildings (four units or fewer) were included, because small 

properties often constitute a substantial share of the local rental market and because 

the owner may own additional properties (making him or her subject to federal fair 

housing laws). 

• Manufactured or mobile homes were included among units for sale or rent if they 

were already installed on a site, because in smaller metropolitan areas they may 

represent an important source of affordable housing.9 

Draw weekly samples. Once a Phase II site was ready to begin testing, we drew ad 

samples on a weekly basis, applying the site-specific rotational schedule and sampling 

protocols outlined above. Based on experience from Phase I, the weekly samples were two to 

three times larger than the target number of tests to be conducted in a given week, in part 

because some advertisements that appear to be eligible for inclusion in the sample turn out to 

be ineligible when further information is gathered on site, and in part because some advertised 

housing units are no longer available by the time testers call to schedule a visit. Each week we 

9

 Mobile homes being sold by dealerships were not included. 

2-9 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

drew roughly equal numbers of ads for a given site. To the greatest extent possible, we 

combined ad sources so that the ad volume of the frame sets was roughly equal from week to 

week, making the sampling rates approximately the same. Within a given week, all ad sources 

had the same sampling rate applied to generate the ads for testing. This means that a 

proportionate stratified sample was drawn across frame sources in a given week, with each 

frame source representing a different stratum. 

Although specific sampling protocols varied by site and source of advertisements, the 

basic process consisted of the following six steps: 

• Prepare the sampling frame, removing pages that do not include any eligible ads. 

• Apply the sampling protocol developed for the site and ad source to randomly select 

the target number of advertisements. 

• Verify the eligibility of each advertisement as it is selected for inclusion in the sample. 

• Record all the information from the advertisement for transmission to the local testing 

organization. 

• Once the sample has been selected, randomize the sequence of advertisements in 

the sample, so that the order in which ads are used to initiate tests does not 

correspond to the order in which they appear in the ad source or the order in which 

they were drawn into the sample. 

• Transmit the sample to the local testing organization.10 

Each testing site received one rental sample and one sales sample each week, though not 

always on the same day each week. If a sample proved to be too small for a particular site in a 

given week, additional sample units were drawn from the same advertising source at the 

request of the testing organization. 

Analytic Weights. Analytic weights were generated to produce national estimates for 

the population of inference, which in HDS2000 comprises the collection of housing agents who 

interact with minority households seeking to purchase or rent a home and who use housing 

advertisements as their entryway into the housing market. More specifically, we developed a 

model-based weighting approach that balances the sample by stratum using Census 2000 data. 

The weights are model based in that they rely on a plausible “model” that posits the distribution 

of housing agents being distributed like population. Specifically, the model assumes that the 

10 As discussed further below, Phase II of HDS2000 developed a web-based data entry system for 

transmitting and managing data. Therefore, ad sampling information was entered into this system by Urban Institute 

staff and immediately became available to local testing coordinators on a secure web site. 

2-10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

percentage distribution of minority population across sampling strata reflects the percentage 

distribution of agents who serve minority homeseekers across those strata. 

The methodology for calculating the analytic weights is relatively straightforward. It 

involves the creation of a two-factor weight: 

AWT = SWT x POP_ADJ (1) 

Where AWT denotes the analytic weight, SWT represents the first stage sampling weight, and 

POP_ADJ represents a population adjustment using Census 2000 data (calculated separately 

for each tenure). 

The stage-one sampling weight is simply the reciprocal of a site’s selection probability: 

SWT(i) = 1 (2) 

since all sites were chosen with certainty. The population adjustments, POP_ADJ, represent 

enhancements to the sampling weights that align the sample to known Census 2000 population 

distributions across our sampling strata. Again, since all sites are chosen with certainty, each 

site forms a stratum. The adjustments simply comprise the ratio of the site’s Asian and Pacific 

Islander population relative to the total Asian and Pacific Islander population of all sites.11 

For individual metropolitan estimates, tests were weighted equally. Given the nature of 

the population of inference, we chose not to incorporate differential weighting associated with 

weekly fluctuations of tester productivity and ad volume. Similarly, we do not consider the 

source of the advertisement when developing weights because no information is available 

concerning the population of available housing stock that is directly and indirectly represented 

by these sources. 

Field Implementation and Paired Testing Protocols 

Phase II of HDS2000 largely adopted the testing procedures and protocols that were 

implemented in Phase I, making only modest changes based upon problems that arose in our 

Phase I experience. In Phase II, the Urban Institute designed and deployed a paperless, webbased system for entering, transmitting and managing all testing data. This system—known as 

11 In principle, the weights of all sites might be adjusted to account for the fact that Chinese, Koreans, and 

Southeast Asians are over-represented in the sample, due to the presence of Los Angeles and Minneapolis. 

However, the over-representation problem could only be corrected by increasing the weights on sites with 

disproportionately low numbers of Chinese, Koreans, and Southeast Asians, which would potentially bias these 

results due to over-representation of individual sites. Based on our experience in the 1989 HDS and phase I of HDS 

2000, across site differences in treatment appear to dominate across group differences. As a result, we opted to 

allow each set of tests to simply represent the population tested. 

2-11 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

CODE—did not change the testing protocols or field procedures, but it did significantly enhance 

the speed and reliability of data collection and exchange. Phase II field implementation was 

managed by Progressive Management Resources (PMR) under the supervision of the Urban 

Institute’s Director of Field Operations. PMR subcontracted with a local fair housing 

organization in each metro area to conduct the testing. Staff of these local testing 

organizations, designated as Test Coordinators, were responsible for the day-to-day testing 

activities, directing testers and ensuring that tests were completed according to established 

procedures and protocols. This section describes the field guidelines and procedures 

implemented in Phase II, including procedures involved in 1) preparing to test, 2) conducting the 

test, and 3) following the test. Exhibit 2-4 provides a graphic overview of the field 

implementation procedures for Phase II of HDS2000. 

Preparing to Test. For each advertised housing unit selected for testing, Urban 

Institute staff prepared a Test Authorization Form (TAF), which was transmitted to the local 

testing organization via the CODE system. Each test was identified by a unique control number, 

and the TAF specified the parameters of the test structure: 

• Transaction Type – the test tenure, whether rental or sales; 

• Testing Type – the racial/ethnic group identified for the particular test; 

• Required Sequence – the randomly assigned order (minority/non-minority) in which 

the testers should make their test visits; 

• Sales and Rental Information – the type of housing (single-family or condo, furnished 

or unfurnished) of the advertised unit; and 

• Ad Information – the information from the newspaper advertisement (name of paper, 

edition, location of ad), including ad copy. 

Local testing organizations were required to use the TAFs they received each week in 

order, and to begin by making advance calls both to confirm the eligibility of the advertised units 

and to obtain information needed to make credible test assignments. Advance calls were made 

for all rental tests. For sales tests, advance calls were only made when the ad did not state a 

location of the home, a price for the home, or the number of bedrooms for the home. Advance 

callers were instructed to obtain specific pieces of information about every advertised unit, such 

as the exact date of availability (for rentals); the housing price; the number of bedrooms; and the 

address of the apartment or home. In the case of a rental test, if the advertised unit was no 

longer available, the advance caller inquired about other units that might be coming available. 

In order to facilitate the test visits, the advance caller also asked about office hours and whether 

or not an appointment was needed to view the housing or speak with a housing provider.12 

12 Advance callers were required to make at least five attempts to reach a housing provider (calling at 

different times of the day on different days) before a TAF could be deemed ineligible. 

2-12 
Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

Exhibit 2-4: HDS2000 Field Implementation Overview 

PREPARING TO TEST CONDUCTING THE TEST FOLLOWING THE TEST 

OVERVIEW OF FIELD IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS FOR HDS2000 

CONDUCT 

ADVANCE CALLS 

TESTERS CALL FOR 

APPOINTMENTS 

TESTERS CONDUCT 

SITE VISITS 

PREPARE TEST 

ASSIGNMENTS 

BRIEF TESTERS 

TESTERS COMPLETE 

REPORT FORMS TO 

DOCUMENT TEST 

EXPERIENCES 

DEBRIEF TESTERS 

ASSEMBLE AND 

TRANSMIT COMPLETED 

TEST FILE 

CONDUCT 

QUALITY 

REVIEW 

SAMPLE 

HOUSING 

ADVERTISEMENTS 

PREPARE & TRANSMIT 

TEST AUTHORIZATION 

FORMS 

PARTICIPANTS IN 

FIELD IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS 

THE URBAN INSTITUTE 

PROGRESSIVE 

MANAGEMENT 

RESOURCES 

LOCAL TESTING 

ORGANIZATIONS 

DATA READY 

FOR CODING & 

ANALYSIS 

2-13 
 

 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

Personal, household and financial characteristics, along with a detailed set of 

instructions, were provided to each tester prior to conducting a test.13 Responsibility for 

developing tester characteristics was shared by the Urban Institute and the Test Coordinators. 

Test Coordinators developed the tester’s personal information, such as their current employer, 

names of household members, and names of creditors, sometimes using the tester’s real 

characteristics, if appropriate. Extensive training was provided to Test Coordinators on how to 

assign personal characteristics to testers (e.g., employers and occupations to avoid). Other test 

characteristics, such as number of bedrooms to request and type of approach, were determined 

by the Test Coordinator using information obtained during the advance phone call. Financial 

characteristics assigned to testers and housing requests to be made by testers were 

automatically assigned by the CODE system, based on the characteristics of the advertised 

housing unit to be tested: 

• minimum number of bedrooms acceptable for the household; 

• area or geographic preference; 

• reason for moving; 

• monthly and annual income for the tester and everyone in the tester’s household; 

• total household income; 

• length of time on the job; 

• household assets and debts; 

• credit standing; and 

• length of time at current residence. 

Test Coordinators were required to meet with each tester, individually and in person, 

prior to a test being conducted. During this initial briefing, the Test Coordinator was responsible 

for: reviewing the test assignment form with the tester and answering any questions about 

assigned characteristics, instructions, and/or testing procedures; providing the tester with the 

appropriate test forms and materials; helping the tester develop a “cheat sheet” for sales tests 

listing detailed financial information from the Test Assignment form; and reviewing procedures 

for conducting the test and completing the test report forms. In addition, testers were provided 

with a detailed set of instructions―or “script”―for every test assignment. These instructions 

detailed the standard set of tasks testers were expected to accomplish during their test, 

including how to approach the test site, what questions to ask, and how to end the visit. Annex 

13 Each tester was provided with only one test assignment at a time and was required to complete that test 

before receiving another test assignment. 

2-14 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

2 provides examples of Test Assignment Forms and the detailed instructions provided to both 

rental and sales testers. 

Conducting the Test. HDS2000 required testers to make appointment calls for all 

sales tests and some rental tests. On sales tests, testers were not to mention the advertised 

home during this call and were also to refrain from providing their personal and financial 

information. Testers were also instructed not to commit to bring certain documents, such as tax 

returns or pay stubs, nor to agree to meet in advance with a lender to be pre-qualified for 

mortgage financing. If an agent was reluctant to make an appointment with the tester, perhaps 

stating that there were regular office hours, the tester could specify with the agent what time he 

or she planned to arrive during those hours in lieu of an actual appointment. While the standard 

approach for most rental tests was for the tester to “drop in” rather than making an appointment, 

appointment calls were required when the sampled advertisement did not provide the location of 

the available housing, when the advertisement indicated that an appointment was required, or 

when the advance call indicated that an appointment was required. 

During their test visits, testers were trained to inquire about the availability of the 

advertised housing unit that prompted their visit, similar units (same size and price) that might 

be available, and other units that might meet their housing needs. They tried to inspect at least 

three housing units, making return visits or appointments with an agent if necessary, and in 

sales tests they recorded the address, size, and price of any other units that were 

recommended to them. In response to questions from the real estate or rental agent, testers 

provided information about their (assigned) household composition, financial characteristics, 

employment, and housing needs. They were trained to express no preferences for particular 

amenities or geographic locations, and they did not submit formal applications, agree to credit 

checks, or make offers to rent or buy available units. In conjunction with these basic testing 

protocols, testers were also trained to be convincing in the role of an ordinary homeseeker, 

obtain as much information as possible from the housing provider about available housing, and 

take notes in order to remember key information about what occurred during the test and what 

information was provided by the housing provider. 

Following the Test. Following every test visit, each tester was required to complete a 

set of standardized reporting forms on the CODE system (provided in Annex 2).14 Test partners 

did not compare their experiences with one another or record any conclusions about differences 

in treatment; each simply recorded the details of the treatment he or she experienced as an 

individual homeseeker. The site visit report forms record observations made by the tester and 

information provided by the housing provider. For sales tests, in addition to a site visit report 

14 Among the advantages of web-based data entry, the CODE system performed basic checks for data 

completeness and consistency as the data were entered, and made test reports immediately available for quality 

control reviews by local Test Coordinators and PMR’s Regional Coordinators. 

2-15 
Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

form, each tester completed a log of recommended homes. In addition, for a randomly selected 

sub-set of tests (approximately 10 percent), testers were required to compose test narratives. 

The test narrative provided a detailed, chronological accounting of the test experience. Testers 

did not know prior to their conducting a test if a narrative would be required. This served both to 

ensure that testers were conducting all tests with equal attention to established protocols and 

procedures, including taking notes, and to ensure against fabrication of tests. 

After completing each test, testers were instructed to contact their Test Coordinator in 

order to arrange for an in-person debriefing. At the debriefing, the Test Coordinator was 

responsible for collecting all of the completed test forms, as well as any notes or other materials 

obtained by the tester; reviewing the forms to make sure they were filled out completely; and 

discussing any concerns the tester may have had about the test or any deviations they may 

have made from the test assignment or instructions. Many visits to real estate or rental 

agencies result in follow-up contact, and these contacts were systematically monitored and 

recorded. All follow-up contacts (including mail as well as telephone calls) were recorded on a 

Log of Follow-Up Contact, which documented when the follow-up was received, who initiated it, 

and the nature of the follow-up. 

Using Paired Tests to Measure Discrimination 

Data from a sample of standardized and consistent paired tests can be combined and 

analyzed to measure the incidence and forms of discrimination in urban housing markets. The 

remainder of this chapter describes the statistical techniques used to analyze data from Phase II 

of HDS2000 at both the national and state level. Specifically, we discuss basic measures of 

adverse treatment, the challenge of distinguishing systematic discrimination from random 

differences in treatment, rental and sales treatment indicators, summary indicators, and tests of 

statistical significance. 

Gross and Net Measures. A paired test can result in any one of three basic outcomes 

for each measure of treatment: 1) the white tester is favored over the minority; 2) the minority 

tester is favored over the white; or 3) both testers receive the same treatment (which may be 

either favorable or unfavorable). The simplest measure of adverse treatment is the share of all 

tests in which the white tester is favored over the minority. This gross incidence approach 

provides very simple and understandable indicators of how often whites are treated more 

favorably than equally qualified minorities. However, there are instances in which minority 

testers receive better treatment than their white partners. Therefore, we report both the gross 

incidence of white-favored treatment and the gross incidence of minority-favored treatment. 

Although these simple gross measures of white-favored and minority-favored treatment 

are straightforward and easily understandable, they may overstate the frequency of systematic 

2-16 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

discrimination.15 Specifically, adverse treatment may occur during a test not only because of 

differences in race or ethnicity, but also because of random differences between the 

circumstances of their visits to the real estate agency. For example, in the time between two 

testers’ visits, an apartment might have been rented, or the agent may have been distracted by 

personal matters and forgotten about an available unit. Or one member of a tester pair might 

meet with an agent who is unaware of some available units. Gross measures of white-favored 

and minority-favored treatment include some random factors, and therefore provide upperbound estimates of systematic discrimination.16 

One strategy for estimating systematic discrimination, that is, to remove the cases where 

non-discriminatory random events are responsible for differences in treatment, is to subtract the 

incidence of minority-favored treatment from the incidence of white-favored treatment to 

produce a net measure. This approach essentially assumes that all cases of minority-favored 

treatment are attributable to random factors—that systematic discrimination never favors 

minorities—and that random white-favored treatment occurs just as frequently as random 

minority-favored treatment. Based on these assumptions, the net measure subtracts 

differences due to random factors from the total incidence white-favored treatment. 

However, it seems unlikely that all minority-favored treatment is the result of random 

factors; sometimes minorities may be systematically favored on the basis of their race or 

ethnicity. For example, a minority landlord might prefer to rent to families of his or her own race 

or a real estate agent might think that minority customers need extra assistance. Other 

instances of minority-favored treatment might reflect a form of race-based steering, in which 

white customers are discouraged from considering units in minority neighborhoods or 

developments. Therefore, the net measure subtracts not only random differences but some 

systematic differences, and therefore probably understates the frequency of systematic 

discrimination. Thus, net measures provide lower-bound estimates of systematic 

discrimination,17 and they reflect the extent to which the differential treatment that occurs (some 

systematically and some randomly) is more likely to favor whites than minorities. 

15 We use the term “systematic discrimination” to mean differences in treatment that are attributable to a 

customer’s race or ethnicity, rather than to any other differences in tester characteristics or test circumstances. This 

term is not the same as “intentional” discrimination, nor is it intended to mean that these differences would 

necessarily be ruled as violations of federal fair housing law. 

16 Note that it is conceivable that random factors might reduce the observed incidence of white-favored or 

minority-favored treatment, so that the gross-incidence measure is technically not an absolute upper-bound for 

systematic discrimination. 

17 Even when no statistically significant pattern of race-based differential treatment is observed, individual 

cases of discrimination may occur. Specifically, even if the net measure is not significantly different zero, there may 

in fact be instances of race-based discrimination, although the overall pattern does not systematically favor one group 

over the other. See Annex 3 for a discussion on tests of statistical significance. 

2-17 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

It is possible to adapt the basic paired testing methodology to directly observe how often 

random differences in treatment occur. Specifically, in two metropolitan areas, Phase II of 

HDS2000 conducted three-part tests. In these tests, a white tester was followed by two 

minorities or a minority tester was followed by two whites, all following the same protocols. 

Comparing the treatment of the two same-race testers provides a direct estimate of random 

(non race-based) differential treatment. This exploratory triad testing effort suggests that most, 

if not all minority-favored treatment is random; it provides no convincing evidence that minorityfavored treatment systematically exceeds differences in the treatment of same-race testers. 

However, because these results are based on a relatively small number of tests in only two 

metropolitan areas, they should be viewed as preliminary and require further confirmation. 

Rental and Sales Treatment Indicators. A visit with a rental or sales agent is a 

complex transaction, and may include many forms of favorable or unfavorable treatment. This 

report presents results for a series of individual treatment indicators that reflect important 

aspects of the housing transaction. Many, but not all, of these indicators are common to both 

rental and sales tests. In selecting indicators for analysis, we have focused on forms of 

treatment that can be unambiguously measured, and appear to have real potential to affect the 

outcomes of housing search. Ultimately, other analysts may choose to focus on additional or 

alternative treatment indicators. But the indicators presented here provide a comprehensive 

overview of the treatment testers received during their visits to real estate and rental agents’ 

offices.18 

Indicators of adverse treatment in rental housing transactions address four critical 

aspects of the interaction between a renter and a landlord or rental agent. The first group of 

indicators focuses on the extent to which minority and white partners received comparable 

information in response to their inquiries about the availability of the advertised housing unit and 

other similar units that would meet their needs: 

• Was the advertised housing unit available? 

• Were similar units available? 

• How many available units were available? 

Testers not only inquired about the availability of housing units, but they also attempted to 

inspect units that were available for rent. Therefore the next group of treatment indicators 

18 Note that the results presented here do not include differences in treatment that testers may have 

experienced during their appointment calls. Although discrimination may occur at this stage, we are not confident 

that agents are aware of a tester’s race or ethnicity at the time of a telephone call, and therefore have decided to limit 

our analysis to the in-person visit. 

2-18 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

focuses on whether minority and white partners were able to inspect the advertised housing unit 

and/or other available units: 

• Was the advertised unit inspected (if available)? 

• Were similar units inspected (if available)? 

• How many units were inspected? 

The third group of treatment indicators explores potential differences in the costs quoted to 

minority and white testers for comparable housing: 

• How much was the rent for the advertised unit (if available)?19 

• Were rental incentives offered? 

• How large a security deposit was required? 

• Was an application fee required?20 

Finally, the last group of treatment measures for rental tests assesses the extent to which 

agents encouraged or helped minority and white testers to complete the rental transaction: 

• Did the agent make follow-up contact? 

• Was the tester asked to complete an application? 

• Was the tester told that a credit check was required?21 

• Were arrangements made for future contact? 

Indicators of adverse treatment in sales housing transactions address five critical 

aspects of the interaction between a homebuyer and a real estate agent. The first group of 

indicators focuses on the extent to which minority and white partners received comparable 

information in response to their inquiries about the availability of the advertised home and other 

similar homes that would meet their needs: 

• Was the advertised housing unit available? 

19 For both rent and security deposit, we performed a manual match of addresses to confirm that the units 

seen by the white and minority partners were on the same street, in the same building, or were the same unit. 

Results were robust to this check. Any difference in dollar amounts between the white and minority tester was 

counted as a difference in treatment. 

20 Requiring an application fee from one tester but not the other is viewed as unfavorable treatment because 

it raises the cost of housing search. 

21 This indicator was not included in Phase I because the information needed to construct it was not 

available for HDS 1989. 

2-19 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

• Were similar units available? 

• How many units were available? 

Testers not only inquired about the availability of homes, but they also attempted to inspect 

homes that were available. Therefore the next group of treatment indicators focuses on 

whether minority and white partners were able to inspect the advertised home and/or other 

available homes: 

• Was the advertised unit inspected (if available)? 

• Were similar units inspected (if available)? 

• How many units were inspected? 

The third group of treatment indicators explores potential differences in the neighborhoods 

where homes were made available for minority and white homebuyers:22 

• Average percent white for neighborhoods where recommended homes were located. 

• Average percent white for neighborhoods where inspected homes were located. 

Real estate agents can play an important role in helping homebuyers learn about mortgage 

financing options. Therefore, the fourth group of sales treatment indicators assesses the 

assistance agents provided to minority and white homebuyers: 

• Was help with financing offered? 

• Did the agent “pre-qualify” the tester for mortgage financing? 

• Were specific lenders recommended? 

Finally, the last group of treatment measures for sales tests assesses the extent to which 

agents encouraged or helped minority and white testers to complete the sales transaction: 

• Did the agent make follow-up contact? 

• Was the tester told that he or she must be pre-qualified before seeing an agent?23 

• Was the tester told he or she was qualified to buy a home? 

• Were arrangements made for future contacts? 

22 A difference in the average racial or ethnic composition of neighborhoods for white and minority testers 

was only counted as a difference in treatment if it exceeded 5 percentage points. 

23 This indicator was not included in Phase I because the information needed to construct it was not 

available for HDS 1989. 

2-20 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

Summary Indicators. In addition to presenting results for all of the individual treatment 

indicators discussed above, this report combines these individual indicators to create composite 

measures for categories of treatment (such as housing availability or housing costs) as well as 

for the transaction as a whole.24 The first type of composite classifies tests as white-favored if 

the white tester received favorable treatment on one or more individual items, while his or her 

minority partner received no favorable treatment. Tests are classified as “neutral” if one tester 

was favored on some individual treatment items and his or her partner was favored on even one 

item. This approach has the advantage that it identifies tests where one partner was 

unambiguously favored over the other. But it may incorrectly classify tests as neutral when one 

tester received favorable treatment on several items, while his or her partner was favored on 

only one. This approach also classifies tests as neutral if one tester was favored on the most 

important item while his or her partner was favored on items of lesser significance. Therefore, it 

may understate the overall incidence of differential treatment across indicators, but nonetheless 

provides a very useful measure of the consistency of adverse treatment. 

In addition to the consistency approach, hierarchical composites were constructed by 

considering the relative importance of individual treatment measures to determine whether one 

tester was favored over the other. For each category of treatment measures (and for the overall 

test experience), a hierarchy of importance was established independent of analysis of the 

testing results. For example, in the availability category, if the white tester was told that the 

advertised home was available, while the minority was told it was no longer available, then the 

white tester was deemed to be favored overall, even if the minority was favored on less 

important items. Exhibit 2-5 presents the decision rules used to create composite measures of 

differential treatment for both rental and sales tests. The hierarchical composites offer the 

advantage of reflecting important differences in the treatment of minorities and whites. But 

because random differences on a single treatment indicator may cause a test to be classified as 

white-favored or minority-favored, the gross hierarchical composite measures may over-state 

the incidence of systematic discrimination. Therefore, we present both consistency composites 

and hierarchical composites for the overall testing experience. 

24 Again, it is important to emphasize the difference between methods used for the statistical analysis of 

paired testing results and methods used to assemble or assess evidence of unlawful conduct in an individual case. 

No pre-determined set of decision criteria can substitute for case-by-case judgments about test results. 

2-21 
Rental Availability Sales Availability 

Rental Inspection Sales Inspection 

Rental Cost Geographic Steering 

Financing Assistance 

 

Rental Encouragement Sales Encouragement 

 

Overall Rental Treatment Overall Sales Treatment 

 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

Exhibit 2-5: Construction of Hierarchical Composites 

Advertised Unit Available? 1 

Similar Units Available? 2 

Number of Units Available 3 

Advertised Unit Inspected? 1 

Similar Units Inspected? 2 

Number of Units Inspected 3 

Rent for Advertised Unit 1 

Rental Incentives Offered? 2 

Amount of Security Deposit 3 

Application Fee Required? 4 

Follow-up Contact from Agent? 1 

Asked to Complete Application? 2 

Credit Check Required? 3 

 Arrangements for Future? 4 

Advertised Unit Available? 1 

Advertised Unit Inspected? 2 

Rent for Advertised Unit 3 

Similar Units Available? 4 

Similar Units Inspected? 5 

Number of Units Recommended 6 

Number of Units Inspected 7 

Rental Incentives Offered? 8 

Amount of Security Deposit 9 

Application Fee Required? 10 

Follow-up Contact from Agent? 11 

Asked to Complete Application? 12 

Credit Check Required? 13 

Arrangements for Future? 14 

Advertised Unit Available? 1 

Similar Units Available? 2 

Number of Units Available 3 

Advertised Unit Inspected? 1 

Similar Units Inspected? 2 

Number of Units Inspected 3 

Steering – Homes Recommended -

Steering – Homes Inspected -

Help with Financing Offered? 1 

Agent Pre-Qualified Tester? 2 

Lenders Recommended? 3 

Follow-up Contact from Agent? 1 

Pre-Qualification Required? 2 

Told Qualified to Buy? 3 

Arrangements for Future? 4 

Advertised Unit Available? 1 

Advertised Unit Inspected? 2 

Similar Units Available 3 

Similar Units Inspected? 4 

Steering – Homes Recommended 5 

Number of Units Recommended 6 

Steering – Homes Inspected 7 

Number of Units Inspected 8 

Help with Financing Offered? 9 

Agent Pre-Qualified Tester? 10 

Lenders Recommended? 11 

Follow-up Contact from Agent? 12 

Pre-Qualification Required? 13 

Told Qualified to Buy? 14 

Arrangements for Future? 15 

2-22 
Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

Sampling ...........................................................................................................................1
 

Field Implementation and Paired Testing Protocols........................................................11
 

Using Paired Tests to Measure Discrimination ...............................................................16
 

2-23 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

3. NATIONAL ESTIMATES OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ASIANS AND PACIFIC 

ISLANDERS 

The primary goal of the second phase of testing conducted under HDS2000 was to 

produce the first rigorous estimates of discrimination against Asians and Pacific Islanders 

seeking housing in urban housing markets nationwide. This chapter presents these national 

estimates, focusing first on rental tests and then on sales tests. For each category of treatment 

indicators discussed in chapter 2, we present both gross and net measures of differential 

treatment, and compare patterns of discrimination against Asians and Pacific Islanders to the 

national estimates of discrimination against African Americans and Hispanics that were 

produced in Phase I of HDS2000. This chapter also presents state-wide estimates of 

discrimination against Asians and Pacific Islanders seeking housing in metropolitan California. 

Chapter 4 explores potential variations in adverse treatment for Asians and Pacific Islanders of 

different national origin and with different skin color. Annex 4 provides estimates of adverse 

treatment against Asians and Pacific Islanders for Los Angeles and Minneapolis, the two 

metropolitan areas with sample sizes large enough to support metropolitan-level results. 

Rental Testing Results 

During the summer and fall of 2001, 255 API/white rental tests were conducted in a 

sample of 9 large metropolitan areas with significant Asian and Pacific Islander populations. 

These tests are combined with 226 API/white rental tests conducted in Los Angeles and 

Minneapolis during the summer and fall of 2000 to provide representative estimates of 

discrimination against Asian and Pacific Islander renters in large metro areas nationwide. 

Housing Availability. Asians and Pacific Islanders seeking rental housing do not appear 

to face systematic discrimination with respect to housing availability (see Exhibit 3-1). Although 

some differential treatment did occur in the availability of advertised and similar units, these 

differences were just as likely to favor the Asian and Pacific Islander tester as to favor the white. 

Exhibit 3-1: Differential Treatment for Housing Availability, API/White Rental Tests 

HOUSING AVAILABILITY 

Differential Treatment in 2001 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure 

Advertised unit available? 

Similar units available? 

Number units recommended 

Overall availability 

7.2% 7.6% -0.4% 

11.2% 11.0% 0.2% 

25.6% 21.7% 3.9% 

28.8% 24.0% 4.8% 

Note: For net estimates and change estimates, * indicates statstical significance at the 90 

% level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level (using a two-tailed test). Gross 

estimates are by definition statistically significant. 

3-1 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

Housing Inspections. In contrast, Asian and Pacific Islander renters appear to receive 

significantly more favorable treatment than comparable whites with respect to housing 

inspections (see Exhibit 3-2). In 10.9 percent of tests, only the Asian or Pacific Islander was 

able to inspect the advertised unit (compared to 6.9 percent in which the white tester was 

favored). Overall, Asians and Pacific Islanders were favored on housing inspections in 20.0 

percent of tests, compared to only 14.6 percent in which whites were favored. Net measures 

reflect statistically significant treatment in favor of Asians and Pacific Islanders for opportunities 

to inspect the advertised unit (4.0 percent) and the overall inspections indicator (5.3 percent). 

 Exhibit 3-2: Differential Treatment for Housing Inspections, API/White Rental Tests 

HOUSING INSPECTION 

Differential Treatment in 2001 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure 

Advertised unit inspected? 

Similar units inspected? 

Number units inspected 

Overall inspection 

6.9% 10.9% -4.0% * 

6.7% 6.5% 0.2% 

12.9% 17.7% -4.8% 

14.6% 20.0% -5.3% * 

Note: For net estimates and change estimates, * indicates statstical significance at the 90 

% level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level (using a two-tailed test). Gross 

estimates are by definition statistically significant. 

Housing Costs. Neither Asians and Pacific Islanders nor whites are systematically 

favored with respect to any indicators of rental housing costs (see Exhibit 3-3). None of the 

indicators in this category reflects treatment that significantly favors either whites or Asians and 

Pacific Islanders, and whites are no more likely to be favored than Asians and Pacific Islanders 

on the overall composite indicator for this category of treatment. 

 Exhibit 3-3: Differential Treatment for Housing Costs, API/White Rental Tests 

HOUSING COST 

Differential Treatment in 2001 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure 

Rent for advertised unit 

Rental incentives offered? 

Amount of security deposit 

Application fee required? 

Overall cost 

10.1% 8.9% 1.2% 

9.1% 5.8% 3.3% 

7.3% 10.1% -2.8% 

8.4% 9.7% -1.3% 

18.5% 19.9% -1.4% 

Note: For net estimates and change estimates, * indicates statstical significance at the 90 

% level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level (using a two-tailed test). Gross 

estimates are by definition statistically significant. 

3-2 
 

 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

Agent Encouragement. Asians and Pacific Islanders and whites appear to experience 

a mixed pattern of treatment with respect to encouragement and assistance from rental agents 

(see Exhibit 3-4). Whites are significantly more likely than comparable Asians and Pacific 

Islanders to receive some form of follow-up contact (4.9 percent white-favored, compared to 1.7 

percent Asian and Pacific Islander-favored). But Asians and Pacific Islanders are significantly 

less likely to be told that a credit check is required (22.5 percent Asian and Pacific Islanderfavored, compared to 13.0 percent white-favored). And whites receive significantly more 

favorable treatment with respect to arrangements for future contact (20.0 percent white-favored, 

compared to 12.5 percent Asian and Pacific Islander-favored). As a result of this mixed pattern, 

the overall indicator reflects a high level of differential treatment on agent encouragement, but 

these differences are no more likely to favor whites than to favor Asians and Pacific Islanders. 

Exhibit 3-4: Differential Treatment for Agent Encouragement, API/White Rental Tests 

AGENT ENCOURAGEMENT 

Differential Treatment in 2001 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure 

Follow-up contact from agent? 

Asked to complete application? 

Credit check required? 

Arrangements for future? 

Overall encouragement 

4.9% 1.7% 3.2% ** 

18.6% 19.1% -0.4% 

13.0% 22.5% -9.5% ** 

20.0% 12.5% 7.5% ** 

38.9% 36.6% 2.3% 

Note: For net estimates and change estimates, * indicates statstical significance at the 90 

% level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level (using a two-tailed test). Gross 

estimates are by definition statistically significant. 

Summary Indicators. Overall, white renters were consistently favored over comparable 

Asians and Pacific Islanders in 21.5 percent of tests (see Exhibit 3-5). However, the 

hierarchical composite indicator shows that white renters were not significantly more likely to be 

favored overall than were Asians and Pacific Islanders, largely because of the mixed pattern of 

treatment described above, in which whites were favored on some indicators, while Asians and 

Pacific Islanders were favored on others. 

Exhibit 3-5: Summary Indicators of Differential Treatment, API/White Rental Tests 

SUMMARY MEASURES 

Differential Treatment in 2001 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure 

Hierarchical 

Consistency 

47.8% 43.4% 4.3% 

21.5% 17.4% 4.0% 

Note: For net estimates and change estimates, * indicates statstical significance at the 90 

% level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level (using a two-tailed test). Gross 

estimates are by definition statistically significant. 

3-3 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

The overall level of consistent unfavorable treatment experienced by Asian and Pacific 

Islander renters is comparable to the level for African American renters and Hispanic renters 

(see Exhibit 3-6).1

 As discussed earlier, patterns of differential treatment are much more mixed 

for Asian and Pacific Islander renters than for either blacks or Hispanics. Specifically, black 

renters experience systematic discrimination in housing availability and inspections, while 

Hispanics experience systematic discrimination in availability, inspections, and housing costs. 

In contrast, Asians and Pacific Islanders do not appear to experience systematic discrimination 

for any of the indicators but actually appear to be systematically favored for inspections. As a 

result of this mixed pattern, the overall lower-bound estimate of discrimination is not statistically 

significant for Asians and Pacific Islanders, while it is for both African Americans and Hispanics. 

Exhibit 3-6: Discrimination Against API, Black, and Hispanic Renters 

percent

Consistent Adverse Treatment Lower-Bound Discrimination 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

APIs 

Blacks 

Hispanics 

1

 Note that the 4.3 percent net estimate for Asians and Pacific Islanders does not appear on this chart 

because it is not significantly different from zero. The national estimates for African American and Hispanic renters 

that are reported in Exhibit 3-6 differ slightly from those reported in Phase I. They are updated to include rental tests 

conducted in Baltimore and Miami and to incorporate the revised treatment measures presented in chapter 2. Annex 

6 compares API test results to black and Hispanic results for comparable sub-samples of sites. These comparisons 

(which control for differences in the sites where testing was conducted for different groups) provide the most rigorous 

basis for assessing the relative magnitude of discrimination against Asians and Pacific Islanders, blacks, and 

Hispanics. 

3-4 
Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

Sales Testing Results 

During the summer and fall of 2001, 250 API/white sales tests were conducted in a 

representative sample of 9 large metropolitan areas with significant Asian and Pacific Islander 

populations. These tests are combined with 158 API/white sales tests conducted in Los 

Angeles and Minneapolis, during the summer and fall of 2000, to provide representative 

estimates of discrimination against Asian and Pacific Islander homebuyers in large metro areas 

nationwide. 

Housing Availability. Asian and Pacific Islander homebuyers frequently receive less 

information about available homes than comparable whites (see Exhibit 3-7). Whites were no 

more likely than comparable Asian and Pacific Islander homebuyers to be told that the 

advertised home was available. But whites were significantly more likely to be told about similar 

units that met their housing needs. Specifically, white were told about similar units while their 

Asian or Pacific Islander partners were not in 17.5 percent of tests, while Asians and Pacific 

Islanders were favored on this indicator in only 11.0 percent of tests. Moreover, white 

homebuyers learned about more available units than their Asian or Pacific Islander partners in 

46.3 percent of tests, while Asians and Pacific Islanders learned about more units in only 36.8 

percent. Overall, whites received favorable treatment with respect to housing availability in 49.3 

percent of tests, compared to only 38.6 percent in which Asians and Pacific Islanders were 

favored. Lower-bound (net) estimate of discrimination against Asians and Pacific Islanders 

were statistically significant for the availability of similar units (6.6 percent), the number of units 

recommended (9.5 percent), and the overall availability indicator (10.7 percent). 

 Exhibit 3-7: Differential Treatment for Housing Availability, API/White Sales Tests 

HOUSING AVAILABILITY 

Differential Treatment in 2001 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure 

Advertised unit available? 

Similar units available? 

Number units recommended 

Overall availability 

15.6% 14.6% 1.0% 

17.5% 11.0% 6.6% ** 

46.3% 36.8% 9.5% * 

49.3% 38.6% 10.7% ** 

Note: For net estimates and change estimates, * indicates statstical significance at the 90 % 

level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level (using a two-tailed test). Gross estimates 

are by definition statistically significant. 

Housing Inspections. Asian and Pacific Islander homebuyers also face high levels of 

adverse treatment with respect to housing inspections (see Exhibit 3-8). For every indicator in 

this category, the incidence of white-favored treatment significantly exceeds the incidence of 

Asian and Pacific Islander-favored treatment. White testers were able to inspect the advertised 

unit while their Asian and Pacific Islander partners were not in 16.7 percent of tests, compared 

3-5 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

to 10.9 percent in which Asians and Pacific Islanders were favored. White testers were able to 

inspect similar units while their Asian and Pacific Islander partners were not in 21.4 percent of 

tests, compared to 11.9 percent in which was Asians and Pacific Islanders were favored. And 

whites inspected more units than their Asian and Pacific Islander partners in 45.7 percent of 

tests, compared to only 31.7 percent in which Asians and Pacific Islanders inspected more 

units. Overall, white-favored treatment on housing inspections occurred in half the tests (50.7 

percent), while Asians and Pacific Islanders were favored in 31.9 percent. The lower-bound 

(net) measures of discrimination against Asians and Pacific Islanders were statistically 

significant for all indicators, and reached 18.8 percent for the composite indicator. 

Exhibit 3-8: Differential Treatment for Housing Inspections, API/White Sales Tests 

HOUSING INSPECTION 

Differential Treatment in 2001 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure 

Advertised unit inspected? 

Similar units inspected 

Number units inspected 

Overall inspection 

16.7% 10.9% 5.7% ** 

21.4% 11.9% 9.4% ** 

45.7% 31.7% 14.0% ** 

50.7% 31.9% 18.8% ** 

Note: For net estimates and change estimates, * indicates statstical significance at the 90 % 

level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level (using a two-tailed test). Gross estimates 

are by definition statistically significant. 

Geographic Steering. Asian and Pacific Islander homebuyers do not appear to face 

statistically significant levels of geographic steering (see Exhibit 3-9). Whites were not 

significantly more likely than comparable Asians and Pacific Islanders to be recommended or 

shown homes in predominantly white neighborhoods. 

 Exhibit 3-9: Differential Treatment for Geographic Steering, API/White Sales Tests 

GEOGRAPHIC STEERING 

Differential Treatment in 2001 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure 

Steering - homes recommended 

Steering - homes inspected 

18.4% 16.3% 2.1% 

15.1% 14.8% 0.3% 

Note: For net estimates and change estimates, * indicates statstical significance at the 90 % 

level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level (using a two-tailed test). Gross estimates 

are by definition statistically significant. 

Financing Assistance. Asians and Pacific Islanders do face significant adverse 

treatment in assistance with mortgage financing (see Exhibit 3-10). Agents were more likely to 

offer to help white homebuyers with financing. Specifically, financing help was offered to whites 

but not their Asian and Pacific Islander partners in 28.5 percent of tests, while Asians and 

3-6 
Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

Pacific Islanders were favored in this regard in only 13.5 percent of tests. Overall, whites 

received more favorable treatment on help with financing in 43.6 percent of tests, while Asians 

and Pacific Islanders were favored in 28.3 percent. Lower-bound (net) estimates of 

discrimination against Asians and Pacific Islanders were statistically significant for offers of help 

with financing (15.1 percent) and the overall composite (15.3 percent). 

 Exhibit 3-10: Differential Treatment for Financing Assistance, API/White Sales Tests 

FINANCING ASSISTANCE 

Differential Treatment in 2001 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure 

Help with financing offered? 

Agent prequalified tester? 

Lenders recommended? 

Overall financing 

28.5% 13.5% 15.1% ** 

22.8% 18.4% 4.4% 

19.7% 14.4% 5.3% 

43.6% 28.3% 15.3% ** 

Note: For net estimates and change estimates, * indicates statstical significance at the 90 % 

level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level (using a two-tailed test). Gross estimates 

are by definition statistically significant. 

Agent Encouragement. Whites received more encouragement and assistance than 

Asians and Pacific Islanders in some respects and were significantly more likely to be favored 

overall (see Exhibit 3-11). In 14.0 percent of tests, Asians and Pacific Islanders were told that 

they must be pre-qualified, while comparable whites were not (compared to 5.8 percent Asian 

and Pacific Islander-favored). And in 23.6 percent of tests, the agent told white testers but not 

Asians and Pacific Islanders that they were qualified to purchase a home (compared to 14.2 

percent Asian and Pacific Islander-favored). The net measures for these two indicators are 

statistically significant, at 8.1 percent and 9.4 percent, respectively. The overall composite 

indicator for this category reflects a statistically significant pattern of white-favored treatment 

with its lower-bound (net) estimate of discrimination at 7.7%.

 Exhibit 3-11: Differential Treatment for Agent Encouragement, API/White Sales Tests 

AGENT ENCOURAGEMENT 

Differential Treatment in 2001 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure 

Follow-up contact from agent? 

Prequalification required? 

Told qualified? 

Arrangements for future? 

Overall encouragement 

12.6% 13.1% -0.5% 

14.0% 5.8% 8.1% ** 

23.6% 14.2% 9.4% ** 

11.7% 8.7% 2.9% 

39.6% 31.9% 7.7% * 

Note: For net estimates and change estimates, * indicates statstical significance at the 90 % 

level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level (using a two-tailed test). Gross estimates 

are by definition statistically significant. 

3-7 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

Summary Indicators. Overall, white homebuyers were consistently favored over 

comparable Asians and Pacific Islanders in 20.4 percent of tests (see Exhibit 3-12). Moreover, 

the hierarchical composite indicates that white homebuyers were favored in 58.7 percent of 

tests, while Asians and Pacific Islanders were favored in only 39.2 percent. The resulting lowerbound (net) estimate of overall discrimination against Asians and Pacific Islanders is statistically 

significant at 19.6 percent. 

 Exhibit 3-12: Summary Measures of Differential Treatment, API/White Sales Tests 

SUMMARY MEASURES 

Differential Treatment in 2001 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure 

Hierarchical 

Consistency 

58.7% 39.2% 19.6% ** 

20.4% 8.6% 11.8% ** 

Note: For net estimates and change estimates, * indicates statstical significance at the 90 % 

level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level (using a two-tailed test). Gross estimates 

are by definition statistically significant. 

The overall level of discrimination against Asian and Pacific Islander homebuyers is 

comparable to the level of discrimination against African Americans, and significantly higher 

than the level of discrimination against Hispanic homebuyers (see Exhibit 3-13).2 As discussed 

above, Asians and Pacific Islanders appear to face systematic discrimination in housing 

availability, inspections, financing assistance, and agent encouragement but not geographic 

steering. African American homebuyers, on the other hand, face systematic discrimination in 

housing inspections, geographic steering, financing assistance, and agent encouragement, 

while Hispanics face systematic discrimination only in geographic steering and financing 

assistance. 

2 The national estimates for African American and Hispanic homebuyers that are reported in Exhibit 3-13 

differ slightly from those reported in Phase I. They are updated to include sales tests conducted in Baltimore and 

Miami and to incorporate the revised treatment measures presented in chapter 2. Annex 6 compares API test results 

to black and Hispanic results for comparable sub-samples of sites. These comparisons (which control for differences 

in the sites where testing was conducted for different groups) provide the most rigorous basis for assessing the 

relative magnitude of discrimination against Asians and Pacific Islanders, blacks, and Hispanics. 

3-8 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

Exhibit 3-13: Discrimination Against API, Black, and Hispanic Homebuyers 

percent

Consistent Adverse Treatment Lower-Bound Discrimination 

25% 

20% 

15% 

10% 

5% 

0% 

APIs 

Blacks 

Hispanics 

Because the composition and history of Honolulu’s Asian and Pacific Islander population 

differs quite substantially from metro areas in the mainland U.S., we explored the possibility that 

levels or patterns of discrimination might be different when Honolulu was excluded from the 

analysis. In general, however, estimates are the same for the mainland metro areas as for the 

nation as a whole. The only exception is that Asian and Pacific Islander renters are no longer 

systematically favored over whites on housing inspections when Honolulu is excluded from the 

analysis. Annex 5 presents results for the mainland metro areas. 

Discrimination Against Asians and Pacific Islanders in California 

During the summer and fall of 2000 and 2001, 280 Asian and Pacific Islander rental tests 

and 270 Asian and Pacific Islander sales tests were conducted in six California metropolitan 

areas. In 2000, as part of Phase I of HDS2000, 149 rental tests and 142 sales tests were 

conducted in Los Angeles. In 2001, an additional 131 rental 128 sales tests were conducted in 

Anaheim/Santa Ana, Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco, and San Jose. 

Rental Testing. In general, Asians and Pacific Islanders seeking rental housing in 

metropolitan areas of California are not treated significantly differently from comparable white 

renters (see Exhibit 3-14). For all four categories of treatment, the lower-bound (net) estimates 

of systematic discrimination are not significantly different from zero. And, although the overall 

3-9 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

incidence of consistent white-favored treatment is 22.5 percent, the overall composite indicator 

suggests that differential treatment is no more likely to favor whites than to favor Asians and 

Pacific Islanders. 

Only two individual indicators reflect systematic differences in treatment for Asians and 

Pacific Islanders in California’s metropolitan rental markets. Rental agents were more likely to 

offer favorable rental incentives to whites than to comparable Asians and Pacific Islanders (9.5 

percent white-favored versus 4.4 percent Asian and Pacific Islander-favored). However, rental 

agents were more likely to tell whites that a credit check would be required (13.2 percent whitefavored compared to 21.6 percent Asian and Pacific Islander-favored). 

Exhibit: 3-14 Differential Treatment for Asian and Pacific Islander Renters, California 

TREATMENT MEASURES 

California National 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure % white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure 

Advertised unit available? 5.9% 7.7% -1.8% 7.2% 7.6% -0.4% 

Similar units available? 9.9% 12.4% -2.5% 11.2% 11.0% 0.2% 

Number units recommended 17.5% 20.5% -3.0% 25.6% 21.7% 3.9% 

Overall availability 19.4% 23.8% -4.4% 28.8% 24.0% 4.8% 

Advertised unit inspected? 9.7% 11.3% -1.6% 6.9% 10.9% -4.0% * 

Similar units inspected 6.7% 5.3% 1.5% 6.7% 6.5% 0.2% 

Number units inspected 14.3% 14.0% 0.3% 12.9% 17.7% -4.8% 

Overall inspection 15.1% 17.8% -2.7% 14.6% 20.0% -5.3% * 

Rent for advertised unit 11.3% 13.0% -1.8% 10.1% 8.9% 1.2% 

Rental incentives offered? 9.5% 4.4% 5.1% * 9.1% 5.8% 3.3% 

Amount of security deposit 7.4% 12.1% -4.7% 7.3% 10.1% -2.8% 

Application fee required? 9.4% 9.2% 0.3% 8.4% 9.7% -1.3% 

Overall cost 22.4% 21.0% 1.4% 18.5% 19.9% -1.4% 

Follow-up contact from agent? 4.1% 2.2% 2.0% 4.9% 1.7% 3.2% ** 

Asked to complete application? 19.3% 17.6% 1.7% 18.6% 19.1% -0.4% 

Credit check required? 13.2% 21.6% -8.4% ** 13.0% 22.5% -9.5% ** 

Arrangements for future? 18.6% 14.6% 4.0% 20.0% 12.5% 7.5% ** 

Overall encouragement 39.2% 36.9% 2.3% 38.9% 36.6% 2.3% 

Overall hierarchical 

Overall consistency 

44.5% 46.1% -1.6% 

22.5% 20.1% 2.3% 

47.8% 43.4% 4.3% 

21.5% 17.4% 4.0% 

Note: For net estimates, * indicates statstical significance at the 90 % level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level (using a two-tailed 

test). Gross estimates are by definition statistically significant. 

Sales Testing. Asian and Pacific Islander homebuyers in metropolitan California 

experience systematic discrimination on housing availability, housing inspection, assistance with 

financing, and the overall composite measure (see Exhibit 3-15). Overall, white homebuyers in 

California were systematically favored over comparable Asians and Pacific Islanders in more 

than half of tests (59.4 percent) while Asians and Pacific Islanders are favored in only 39.8 

percent. Consequently, the lower-bound (net) estimate of systematic discrimination against 

Asians and Pacific Islanders for the overall composite measure is statistically significant at 19.6 

percent. 

3-10 
Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

With respect to housing availability, Asians and Pacific Islanders received significantly 

less information on the availability of similar units and were told about fewer available units than 

comparable white homebuyers. Whites were favored on housing availability in 55.9 percent of 

tests, compared to only 36.9 percent Asian and Pacific Islander-favored, for the lower-bound 

(net) estimate of 19.0 percent systematic discrimination. 

Asians and Pacific Islanders experienced systematic adverse treatment for all the 

housing inspection indicators. Specifically, they were less likely than comparable white 

homebuyers to be able to inspect either the advertised unit or similar units, and whites were 

able to inspect significantly more available units. Overall, whites received favorable treatment 

with respect to housing inspections in 56.8 percent of tests, compared to only 30.6 percent of 

tests in which Asians and Pacific Islanders were favored, resulting in a statistically significant 

net measure of 26.2 percent. 

Real estate agents were more likely to offer help with financing to white homebuyers 

than to comparable Asians and Pacific Islanders (32.5 white-favored compared to 8.6 percent 

Asian and Pacific Islander-favored). They were also more willing to prequalify whites than 

Asians and Pacific Islanders (29.5 percent white-favored compared to 16.4 percent Asian and 

Pacific Islander-favored). The lower-bound (net) estimates of discrimination on these indicators 

are 23.9 percent and 13.1 percent respectively, yielding a statistically significant 23.9 percent 

net composite indicator for financing assistance. 

Finally, sales agents were more likely to provide two forms of encouragement to whites 

than to Asians and Pacific Islanders. Specifically, Asians and Pacific Islanders were more likely 

to be told that prequalification would be required (16.8 percent white-favored compared to 7.8 

percent Asian and Pacific Islander-favored), and whites were more likely to be told that they 

were qualified to buy (29.8 percent white-favored compared to 14 percent Asian and Pacific 

Islander-favored). The lower-bound (net) estimates of discrimination for these two indicators 

are statistically significant at 9 percent and 15.8 percent respectively. However, the overall 

composite indicator for this category of treatment suggests that whites are not systematically 

more likely than Asians and Pacific Islanders to be favored. 

3-11 
Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

Exhibit 3-15: Differential Treatment for Asian and Pacific Islander Homebuyers, California 

TREATMENT MEASURES 

California National 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure % white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure 

Advertised unit available? 17.1% 13.3% 3.8% 15.6% 14.6% 1.0% 

Similar units available? 18.8% 9.0% 9.8% ** 17.5% 11.0% 6.6% ** 

Number units recommended 51.2% 35.5% 15.7% ** 46.3% 36.8% 9.5% * 

Overall availability 55.9% 36.9% 19.0% ** 49.3% 38.6% 10.7% ** 

Advertised unit inspected? 17.6% 8.9% 8.7% ** 16.7% 10.9% 5.7% ** 

Similar units inspected? 23.1% 13.3% 9.8% ** 21.4% 11.9% 9.4% ** 

Number units inspected 49.8% 31.8% 18.0% ** 45.7% 31.7% 14.0% ** 

Overall inspection 56.8% 30.6% 26.2% ** 50.7% 31.9% 18.8% ** 

Steering - homes recommended 

Steering - homes inspected 

21.9% 21.3% 0.6% 

19.9% 19.4% 0.6% 

18.4% 16.3% 2.1% 

15.1% 14.8% 0.3% 

Help with financing offered? 32.5% 8.6% 23.9% ** 28.5% 13.5% 15.1% ** 

Agent prequalified tester? 29.5% 16.4% 13.1% ** 22.8% 18.4% 4.4% 

Lenders recommended? 19.6% 17.2% 2.4% 19.7% 14.4% 5.3% 

Overall financing 49.8% 25.8% 23.9% ** 43.6% 28.3% 15.3% ** 

Follow-up contact from agent? 10.9% 12.8% -1.9% 12.6% 13.1% -0.5% 

Prequalification required? 16.8% 7.8% 9.0% ** 14.0% 5.8% 8.1% ** 

Told qualified? 29.8% 14.0% 15.8% ** 23.6% 14.2% 9.4% ** 

Arrangements for future? 12.5% 9.9% 2.5% 11.7% 8.7% 2.9% 

Overall encouragement 40.8% 33.7% 7.1% 39.6% 31.9% 7.7% * 

Overall hierarchical 

Overall consistency 

59.4% 39.8% 19.6% ** 

19.8% 6.9% 12.9% ** 

58.7% 39.2% 19.6% ** 

20.4% 8.6% 11.8% ** 

Note: For net estimates, * indicates statstical significance at the 90 % level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level (using a two-tailed 

test). Gross estimates are by definition statistically significant. 

3-12 
Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

3.	 NATIONAL ESTIMATES OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ASIANS AND PACIFIC

 1
 

ISLANDERS......................................................................................................................1
 

Rental Testing Results ..................................................................................................1
 

Sales Testing Results....................................................................................................5
 

Discrimination Against Asians and Pacific Islanders in California .................................9
 

3-13 
 

 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

4. VARIATIONS IN DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ASIANS AND PACIFIC ISLANDERS 

The Asian and Pacific Islander population in the metropolitan United States is 

tremendously diverse, and levels or patterns of discrimination may vary across sub-groups. For 

example, it seems possible that darker-skinned Asians and Pacific Islanders may experience 

higher levels of adverse treatment than lighter-skinned people, and that ethnic groups that are 

newer to the U.S. may experience higher levels of adverse treatment than those that have lived 

here longer. As discussed in chapter 2, a variety of Asian and Pacific Islander testers were 

recruited to participate in this phase of HDS2000 in order to reflect the diversity of the 

population in each sampled metropolitan area. However, because of the large number of ethnic 

groups and the modest overall sample size, our ability to test for differences in patterns of 

discrimination is limited. This chapter explores the question by comparing estimates of adverse 

treatment for light-skinned Asians and Pacific Islanders to estimates for dark-skinned people.1 

In addition, because Phase II of HDS2000 expanded the sample of advertised sources, we test 

for differences between units advertised in major metropolitan newspapers (the source used 

exclusively in Phase I) and those advertised in other sources. 

Differences Based on Skin Color 

We find little consistent support for the hypothesis that dark-skinned Asians and Pacific 

Islanders experience higher levels of adverse treatment in metropolitan housing markets than 

light-skinned Asians and Pacific Islanders. Overall composite measures of consistent adverse 

treatment and systematic discrimination do not differ significantly based on skin color for either 

rental or sales tests. Differences are statistically significant for some individual treatment 

indicators, however, and these results suggest that patterns of treatment may be quite different 

for renters than for homebuyers. 

Among renters, several individual treatment measures indicate that (as hypothesized) 

dark-skinned Asians and Pacific Islanders experience more discrimination than light-skinned 

Asians and Pacific Islanders (see Exhibit 4-1). Specifically, the lower-bound (net) estimates of 

systematic discrimination are significantly higher for dark-skinned testers for availability of the 

advertised unit, overall unit availability, and follow-up contact from the agent. 

1

 Local testing organizations provided photographs for all testers participating in HDS2000. Based on these 

photographs, each tester’s skin tone was rated on a scale of one to five (palest to darkest) by at least two 

independent coders. 

4-1 
 

 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

Exhibit 4-1: Differential Treatment for Asian and Pacific Islander Renters by

Skin Tone
 

HOUSING AVAILABILITY 

Dark-Skinned Light-Skinned Diff from Dark-Skinned 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

Advertised unit available? 

Similar units available? 

Number units recommended 

Overall availability 

8.3% 4.9% 3.4% 

13.3% 9.4% 3.9% 

25.1% 23.8% 1.4% 

31.1% 22.2% 8.9% 

3.1% 8.1% -5.0% * 

8.6% 11.1% -2.5% 

19.4% 24.4% -5.1% 

19.5% 29.0% -9.5% 

5.2% -3.2% 8.4% * 

4.7% -1.7% 6.4% 

5.8% -0.7% 6.4% 

11.6% ** -6.8% 18.4% ** 

HOUSING INSPECTION 

Dark-Skinned Light-Skinned Diff from Dark-Skinned 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

Advertised unit inspected? 

Similar units inspected? 

Number units inspected 

Overall inspection 

8.0% 6.4% 1.6% 

5.3% 8.1% -2.8% 

10.9% 19.7% -8.7% ** 

14.6% 19.8% -5.2% 

5.3% 9.5% -4.2% 

6.6% 4.1% 2.5% 

12.9% 12.6% 0.3% 

13.2% 15.7% -2.6% 

2.7% -3.1% 5.8% 

-1.3% 4.0% -5.3% 

-2.0% 7.1% * -9.1% 

1.4% 4.1% -2.7% 

HOUSING COST 

Dark-Skinned Light-Skinned Diff from Dark-Skinned 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

Rent for advertised unit 

Rental incentives offered? 

Amount of security deposit 

Application fee required? 

Overall cost 

9.0% 13.1% -4.1% 

6.3% 4.5% 1.8% 

3.2% 14.1% -10.9% ** 

5.9% 10.5% -4.6% 

15.4% 21.0% -5.6% 

9.8% 11.4% -1.6% 

8.5% 4.9% 3.6% 

9.9% 13.5% -3.6% 

9.3% 8.4% 0.9% 

17.2% 19.6% -2.4% 

-0.8% 1.7% -2.5% 

-2.2% -0.4% -1.8% 

-6.7% * 0.6% -7.3% 

-3.4% 2.1% -5.5% 

-1.8% 1.4% -3.2% 

AGENT ENCOURAGEMENT 

Dark-Skinned Light-Skinned Diff from Dark-Skinned 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

Follow-up contact from agent? 

Asked to complete application? 

Credit check required? 

Arrangements for future? 

Overall encouragement 

7.0% 0.3% 6.7% ** 

20.1% 20.9% -0.8% 

15.3% 21.1% -5.7% 

21.4% 10.7% 10.7% ** 

39.8% 36.0% 3.8% 

3.6% 2.2% 1.5% 

22.1% 16.2% 5.9% 

10.1% 24.1% -14.0% ** 

19.1% 10.3% 8.8% ** 

40.9% 30.6% 10.3% 

3.4% -1.8% 5.2% * 

-2.0% 4.7% -6.7% 

5.2% -3.1% 8.3% 

2.3% 0.4% 1.9% 

-1.1% 5.4% -6.5% 

SUMMARY MEASURES 

Dark-Skinned Light-Skinned Diff from Dark-Skinned 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

Hierarchical 

Consistency 

49.2% 43.4% 5.8% 

21.0% 21.5% -0.4% 

38.0% 46.4% -8.5% 

21.5% 15.0% 6.5% 

11.2% ** -3.1% 14.2% 

-0.4% 6.5% -6.9% 

Note: For net estimates and change estimates, * indicates statstical significance at the 90 % level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level (using a twotailed test). Gross estimates are by definition statistically significant. 

However, for sales tests, when differences are statistically significant, they suggest that 

dark-skinned Asians and Pacific Islanders experience less discrimination than light-skinned 

Asians and Pacific Islanders (see Exhibit 4-2). The lower-bound (net) estimates of systematic 

discrimination are significantly lower for dark-skinned testers for overall availability, number of 

units inspected, geographic steering, offers of help with financing, offers to pre-qualify, and 

statements that the tester is qualified to buy. Only one measure – follow-up contact from the 

agent – reflects a higher level of discrimination against dark-skinned Asians and Pacific 

Islanders. 

4-2 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

Exhibit 4-2: Differential Treatment for Asian and Pacific Islander Homebuyers by

Skin Tone
 

HOUSING AVAILABILITY 

Dark-Skinned Light-Skinned Diff from Dark-Skinned 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

Advertised unit available? 

Similar units available? 

Number units recommended 

Overall availability 

12.2% 15.7% -3.4% 

14.0% 8.0% 6.0% 

43.8% 38.9% 4.9% 

44.0% 44.2% -0.2% 

18.7% 14.6% 4.1% 

17.7% 10.6% 7.1% * 

47.5% 32.8% 14.7% ** 

53.8% 32.9% 20.9% ** 

-6.5% 1.1% -7.6% 

-3.7% -2.6% -1.1% 

-3.7% 6.1% -9.9% 

-9.8% 11.3% * -21.1% * 

HOUSING INSPECTION 

Dark-Skinned Light-Skinned Diff from Dark-Skinned 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

Advertised unit inspected? 

Similar units inspected? 

Number units inspected 

Overall inspection 

14.4% 10.3% 4.1% 

21.4% 11.6% 9.7% * 

40.3% 39.6% 0.7% 

47.8% 38.1% 9.8% 

16.9% 10.3% 6.6% * 

18.0% 13.2% 4.9% 

47.9% 28.5% 19.4% ** 

52.6% 29.9% 22.8% ** 

-2.4% 0.0% -2.5% 

3.3% -1.5% 4.9% 

-7.6% 11.1% * -18.6% * 

-4.8% 8.2% -13.0% 

GEOGRAPHIC STEERING 

Dark-Skinned Light-Skinned Diff from Dark-Skinned 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

Steering - homes recommended 

Steering - homes inspected 

18.0% 27.8% -9.8% 

17.4% 24.1% -6.7% 

19.1% 13.1% 6.0% 

16.2% 12.1% 4.1% 

-1.1% 14.7% ** -15.8% ** 

1.2% 12.1% ** -10.8% 

FINANCING ASSISTANCE 

Dark-Skinned Light-Skinned Diff from Dark-Skinned 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

Help with financing offered? 

Agent prequalified tester? 

Lenders recommended? 

Overall financing 

25.9% 17.9% 8.0% 

15.2% 20.7% -5.5% 

20.0% 17.3% 2.6% 

38.5% 31.6% 6.9% 

29.6% 8.6% 21.0% ** 

28.2% 14.5% 13.7% ** 

20.1% 12.8% 7.4% * 

45.3% 25.2% 20.1% ** 

-3.7% 9.4% -13.0% * 

-13.1% ** 6.2% -19.3% ** 

-0.2% 4.5% -4.7% 

-6.8% 6.4% -13.2% 

AGENT ENCOURAGEMENT 

Dark-Skinned Light-Skinned Diff from Dark-Skinned 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

Follow-up contact from agent? 

Prequalification required? 

Told qualified? 

Arrangements for future? 

Overall encouragement 

14.0% 9.6% 4.3% 

10.9% 2.7% 8.2% ** 

16.4% 16.6% -0.2% 

11.8% 7.7% 4.1% 

35.5% 28.0% 7.5% 

8.6% 15.2% -6.6% * 

11.9% 8.8% 3.1% 

29.8% 11.2% 18.6% ** 

10.3% 9.8% 0.5% 

37.8% 35.6% 2.2% 

5.4% -5.6% 10.9% * 

-1.0% -6.1% 5.1% 

-13.4% ** 5.4% -18.8% ** 

1.5% -2.2% 3.6% 

-2.3% -7.6% 5.3% 

SUMMARY MEASURES 

Dark-Skinned Light-Skinned Diff from Dark-Skinned 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

Hierarchical 

Consistency 

54.3% 41.9% 12.4% 

17.5% 11.0% 6.5% 

59.4% 39.1% 20.4% ** 

21.9% 10.0% 11.9% ** 

-5.2% 2.8% -8.0% 

-4.4% 1.0% -5.4% 

Note: For net estimates and change estimates, * indicates statstical significance at the 90 % level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level (using a twotailed test). Gross estimates are by definition statistically significant. 

4-3 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

Differences Based on Advertising Sources 

Phase II of HDS2000 expanded the advertising sources used to sample available 

housing units because of concerns that estimates of discrimination based only on major 

metropolitan areas might not reflect the housing market as a whole. We anticipated that 

discrimination might be higher for units advertised in sources serving predominantly white 

communities, and lower in sources serving integrated or predominantly minority communities, 

compared to units advertised metro-wide. Because major metropolitan newspapers are readily 

available to homeseekers from all racial and ethnic groups, it seems possible that agents who 

use this source for advertising may be less likely to discriminate than agents who use sources 

with more limited circulation. 

In theory, differences in patterns of treatment by source of advertising seem just as likely 

in the sales market as in the rental market. However, many of the local fair housing 

organizations that participated in Phase I of HDS2000 indicated that the sample of advertised 

housing units obtained from the major metropolitan newspapers was particularly limited on the 

rental side. Therefore, we expected differences in patterns of adverse treatment to be more 

pronounced for rental markets than for sales markets, because more areas seemed to be 

under-represented in the classified advertisements of the major metropolitan newspapers. 

Comparing patterns of adverse treatment for units advertised in major metropolitan 

newspapers to units advertised in all other sources (such as community papers, rental guides, 

and the internet) 2 indicates that discrimination against Asians and Pacific Islanders seeking 

rental housing does not vary significantly by type of advertising source. However, Asian and 

Pacific Islander homebuyers appear to face a significantly higher level of discrimination when 

they inquire about units advertised in sources other than major metropolitan newspapers. 

Differences are statistically significant for most of the housing availability indicators and for a 

geographic steering indicator, but not for overall composite measures. 

The lower-bound (net) measure of discrimination for rental incentives is the only rental 

treatment measure that reflects a significantly higher level of discrimination for Asians and 

Pacific Islanders who inquired about rental units advertised in other types of sources compared 

to those using ads in major metro papers (see Exhibit 4-5). 

2

 See chapter 2 and Annex 1 for a more detailed discussion on selection of ad sources. 

4-4 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

Exhibit 4-5: Differential Treatment for Asian and Pacific Islander Renters by

Advertising Source†
 

HOUSING AVAILABILITY 

Other Ad Sources Major Metro Classifieds Diff from Other Ad Sources 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

Advertised unit available? 

Similar units available? 

Number units recommended 

Overall availability 

7.7% 5.9% 1.9% 

12.5% 10.2% 2.3% 

29.6% 21.9% 7.7% 

34.4% 22.5% 11.9% ** 

5.7% 7.5% -1.8% 

12.1% 8.5% 3.6% 

26.2% 16.0% 10.2% 

29.4% 18.8% 10.6% 

2.1% -1.6% 3.6% 

0.4% 1.7% -1.3% 

3.3% 5.9% -2.6% 

5.0% 3.7% 1.3% 

HOUSING INSPECTION 

Other Ad Sources Major Metro Classifieds Diff from Other Ad Sources 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

Advertised unit inspected? 

Similar units inspected? 

Number units inspected 

Overall inspection 

5.2% 9.3% -4.1% 

5.0% 7.0% -2.0% 

9.5% 18.1% -8.6% ** 

12.0% 19.8% -7.8% * 

4.6% 8.7% -4.1% 

5.8% 5.2% 0.6% 

11.8% 18.6% -6.8% 

12.8% 18.5% -5.7% 

0.7% 0.6% 0.1% 

-0.9% 1.7% -2.6% 

-2.3% -0.5% -1.8% 

-0.8% 1.3% -2.1% 

HOUSING COST 

Other Ad Sources Major Metro Classifieds Diff from Other Ad Sources 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

Rent for advertised unit 

Rental incentives offered? 

Amount of security deposit 

Application fee required? 

Overall cost 

10.8% 10.5% 0.3% 

11.8% 5.0% 6.8% ** 

7.2% 15.5% -8.3% 

6.4% 9.6% -3.2% 

19.7% 20.7% -1.0% 

7.0% 1.0% 5.9% 

5.7% 7.9% -2.1% 

9.4% 12.1% -2.7% 

10.6% 7.7% 2.9% 

17.6% 17.9% -0.3% 

3.8% 9.4% ** -5.6% 

6.1% -2.8% 8.9% * 

-2.2% 3.4% -5.6% 

-4.2% 1.9% -6.1% 

2.1% 2.7% -0.6% 

AGENT ENCOURAGEMENT 

Other Ad Sources Major Metro Classifieds Diff from Other Ad Sources 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

Follow-up contact from agent? 

Asked to complete application? 

Credit check required? 

Arrangements for future? 

Overall encouragement 

5.5% 0.9% 4.6% ** 

14.2% 22.1% -7.9% * 

14.9% 21.4% -6.5% 

15.9% 14.0% 1.9% 

36.0% 40.9% -4.9% 

4.9% 4.0% 0.9% 

17.6% 23.6% -6.1% 

14.4% 19.4% -5.0% 

19.7% 17.3% 2.4% 

41.6% 39.0% 2.6% 

0.7% -3.1% 3.8% 

-3.3% -1.5% -1.9% 

0.5% 2.0% -1.5% 

-3.8% -3.3% -0.5% 

-5.6% 2.0% -7.6% 

SUMMARY MEASURES 

Other Ad Sources Major Metro Classifieds Diff from Other Ad Sources 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

Hierarchical 

Consistency 

50.3% 40.8% 9.5% 

21.7% 17.3% 4.5% 

52.1% 41.5% 10.6% 

21.8% 18.9% 2.9% 

-1.8% -0.7% -1.1% 

-0.1% -1.6% 1.5% 

Note: For net estimates and change estimates, * indicates statstical significance at the 90 % level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level (using a twotailed test). Gross estimates are by definition statistically significant. 

† These results are based on Phase 2 API sites only and do not include Phase 1 API sites (Los Angeles and Minneapolis). 87 rental 

tests used advertisements from major metro newspapers while 168 rental tests used advertisements from other types of sources. 

Among sales tests, statistically significant differences based on type of advertising 

source are most notable for the housing availability category (see Exhibit 4-6). The lower-bound 

(net) estimates of discrimination against Asian and Pacific Islander homebuyers inquiring about 

housing advertised in other types of sources are significantly higher than for major metropolitan 

newspapers for availability of similar units, number of recommended units, and the overall 

availability indicator. In addition, the net measure of steering for inspected homes is 

significantly higher for units advertised in other types of ad sources compared to those 

advertised in major metro newspapers. 

4-5 
 

 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

Exhibit 4-6: Differential Treatment for Asian and Pacific Islander Homebuyers by

Advertising Source†
 

HOUSING AVAILABILITY 

Other Ad Sources Major Metro Classifieds Diff from Other Ad Sources 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

Advertised unit available? 

Similar units available? 

Number units recommended 

Overall availability 

16.5% 13.0% 3.5% 

21.3% 9.5% 11.8% ** 

54.1% 29.7% 24.4% ** 

56.0% 33.1% 22.9% ** 

15.9% 19.6% -3.7% 

13.3% 13.4% -0.1% 

36.7% 39.5% -2.9% 

40.6% 43.9% -3.4% 

0.6% -6.6% 7.2% 

7.9% -3.9% 11.8% * 

17.5% ** -9.8% 27.3% ** 

15.4% ** -10.9% * 26.3% ** 

HOUSING INSPECTION 

Other Ad Sources Major Metro Classifieds Diff from Other Ad Sources 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

Advertised unit inspected? 

Similar units inspected? 

Number units inspected 

Overall inspection 

17.2% 9.0% 8.3% ** 

23.2% 11.2% 12.0% ** 

48.8% 30.5% 18.3% ** 

53.0% 31.3% 21.7% ** 

12.7% 13.3% -0.6% 

18.0% 8.5% 9.4% * 

45.1% 29.4% 15.7% * 

49.6% 30.4% 19.1% ** 

4.5% -4.4% 8.9% 

5.2% 2.7% 2.6% 

3.8% 1.1% 2.6% 

3.4% 0.8% 2.6% 

GEOGRAPHIC STEERING 

Other Ad Sources Major Metro Classifieds Diff from Other Ad Sources 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

Steering - homes recommended 

Steering - homes inspected 

16.8% 12.4% 4.4% 

14.3% 11.2% 3.1% 

17.2% 19.0% -1.9% 

10.0% 18.3% -8.3% 

-0.4% -6.7% 6.2% 

4.4% -7.1% 11.5% * 

FINANCING ASSISTANCE 

Other Ad Sources Major Metro Classifieds Diff from Other Ad Sources 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

net 

measure 

% API 

favored 

Help with financing offered? 

Agent prequalified tester? 

Lenders recommended? 

Overall financing 

30.4% 11.6% 18.8% ** 

20.7% 21.2% -0.5% 

18.9% 12.7% 6.3% 

40.1% 29.2% 10.9% 

25.3% 15.9% 9.4% 

19.5% 16.5% 3.0% 

18.9% 15.3% 3.6% 

42.2% 29.3% 12.8% 

5.1% -4.3% 9.4% 

1.2% 4.7% -3.5% 

0.0% -2.6% 2.6% 

-2.1% -0.1% -1.9% 

AGENT ENCOURAGEMENT 

Other Ad Sources Major Metro Classifieds Diff from Other Ad Sources 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

Follow-up contact from agent? 

Prequalification required? 

Told qualified? 

Arrangements for future? 

Overall encouragement 

11.9% 14.2% -2.3% 

10.1% 3.0% 7.1% ** 

18.4% 13.2% 5.2% 

11.7% 8.8% 2.9% 

37.1% 31.0% 6.1% 

10.7% 14.6% -3.9% 

11.4% 4.0% 7.5% * 

20.5% 21.0% -0.5% 

16.6% 15.0% 1.5% 

31.4% 35.9% -4.5% 

1.2% -0.3% 1.5% 

-1.3% -0.9% -0.4% 

-2.1% -7.8% 5.7% 

-4.8% -6.2% 1.4% 

5.7% -4.9% 10.6% 

SUMMARY MEASURES 

Other Ad Sources Major Metro Classifieds Diff from Other Ad Sources 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

net 

measure 

% API 

favored 

Hierarchical 

Consistency 

64.2% 34.2% 30.0% ** 

26.2% 9.4% 16.8% ** 

55.6% 40.5% 15.1% 

15.4% 8.4% 7.0% 

8.6% -6.3% 14.9% 

10.8% ** 1.0% 9.8% 

Note: For net estimates and change estimates, * indicates statstical significance at the 90 % level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level (using a twotailed test). Gross estimates are by definition statistically significant. 

† These results are based on Phase 2 API sites only and do not include Phase 1 API sites (Los Angeles and Minneapolis). 95 sales 

tests used advertisements from major metro newspapers while 155 sales tests used advertisements from other types of sources. 

4-6 
Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

4. Variations in Discrimination Against Asians and Pacific Islanders ..........................1
 

Differences Based on Skin Color...................................................................................1
 

Differences Based on Advertising Sources ...................................................................4
 

4-7 
Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

REFERENCES 

Farley, Reynolds. 1996. “Racial Differences in the Search for Housing: Do Whites and Blacks 

Use the Same Techniques to Find Housing.” Housing Policy Debate 7(2): 367-386. 

Fix, Michael and Raymond J. Struyk. 1992. Clear and Convincing Evidence: Testing for 

Discrimination in America. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press. 

Galster, George, Fred Freiberg, and Diane Houk. 1987. “Racial Differences in Real Estate 

Advertising Practices: An Exploratory Case Study.” Journal of Urban Affairs. 9: 199-215. 

Harris, David R. 2000. “What’s the Internet got to do with it? Housing discrimination in the 

twenty-first century.” Focus. 21(2): 63-64. 

Newburger, Harriet. 1995 “Sources of Difference in Information Used by Black and Whtie 

Housing Seekers: An Exploratory Analysis.” Urban Studies. 32 (3): 445-470. 

Newburger, Eric C. 1999. “Computer Use in the United States.” Current Population Reports. 

P20-522. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 

Roth, K. 2000. The 2000 National Association of Realtors Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers. 

Report of the National Association of Realtors. 

<http://www.nar.realtor.com/research/images/668prof.pdf> 

Turner, Margery, John Edwards, and Maris Mikelsons. 1991. Housing Discrimination Study: 

Analyzing Racial and Ethnic Steering. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development. 

Turner, Margery, Raymond Struyk, and John Yinger. 1991. Housing Discrimination Study: 

Synthesis. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

Turner, Margery and Ron Wienk. 1993. “The Persistence of Segregation in Urban Areas: 

Contributing Causes.” In T. Kingsley and M. Turner (eds) Housing Markets and 

Residential Mobility. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press. 

Wienk, Ron, Cliff Reid, John Simonson, and Fred Eggers. 1979. Measuring Racial 

Discrimination in Housing Markets: The Housing Market Practices Study. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

Wissoker, Douglas, Wendy Zimmerman, and George Galster. 1998. Testing for Discrimination 

in Home Insurance. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press. 
Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

ANNEX 1 

AD SAMPLING SOURCES FOR ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER (API) 

SITES AND DISTRIBUTION OF TESTS BY SOURCE TYPE 

A1 
 

 

 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

ANNEX 1: AD SAMPLING SOURCES FOR API SITES AND DISTRIBUTION OF TESTS BY SOURCE TYPE
 

Major Metro Newspapers Community Papers Rental/Sales Guides Internet 

Anaheim LA Times 

Orange County Register 

Daily Pilot Apartments for Rent 

Apartment Guide 

Harmon Homes 

Homes and Land 

Home Emporium 

Homes Magazine 

Open House 

--

Chicago Chicago Tribune Chicago Reader 

Daily Herald 

Daily Southtown 

Pioneer Press 

Apartment Guide 

Harmon Homes 

--

Honolulu Honolulu Advertiser 

Honolulu Star-Bulletin 

-- Homes and Land 

Open House Illustrated 

Rentals Illustrated 

--

New York Daily News 

Newsday 

NY Times 

Bay News 

Bay Ridge Courier 

Brooklyn Graphic 

Canarsie Digest 

Courier-Life 

Flatbush Life 

Journal News 

Kings Courier 

Riverdale Press 

Staten Island Advance 

Village Voice 

Yorktown PennySaver --

Oakland Oakland Tribune Express 

Contra Costa Times 

insidebayarea.com 

(combination of local 

papers) 

Apartment Guide 

Homes and Land 

Real Estate Connection 

Real Estate Book 

www.craigslist.org 

San Diego San Diego Union Tribune San Diego Weekly Reader 

North County Times 

Apartments for Rent 

Real Estate Book 

--

(Continued) 

A1-1 
# Rental 

Tests 

87 

# Sales 

Tests 

95 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

Major Metro Newspapers Community Papers Rental/Sales Guides Internet 

San 

Francisco 

San Francisco Chronicle Burlingame Daily News 

Marin Independent Journal 

Palo Alto Daily News 

Palo Alto Weekly 

Redwood City Daily News 

Saint Mateo Daily News 

Apartment Guide 

Harmon Homes 

Rental Guide 

www.craigslist.org 

San Jose San Jose Mercury News Los Altos Town Crier 

Los Gatos Weekly 

Mountain View Voice 

Palo Alto Weekly 

Apartment Guide 

The Property Pages 

--

Washington, 

DC 

Washington Post The Gazette 

Maryland Independent 

Potomac News 

Washington City Paper 

Apartment Shoppers 

Guide 

Apartment Showcase 

Real Estate Book 

--

168 

155 

A1-2 
Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

ANNEX 2 

TEST ASSIGNMENT FORMS, REPORTING FORMS,
 

AND INSTRUCTIONS 

A2 
Test Assignment Form (Rental) 

SITECODE Site UI Training Test Site 

CONTROL 0 CONTROL # ZZ-R1-0125-2 

SEQUENCE Tester sequence 1 

RACEID RACEID ***** 

TESTERID 0 TESTER ID NUMBER ZZ329-Janelle Scott 

ATSTTYPE 0 TYPE OF TEST rental 

AAPPTYPE 0 TYPE OF APPROACH Drop-In 

ADATEV DATE OF VISIT 

(mm/dd/yy) 7/15/01 

ATIMEV Time (_ _:_ _) 10:00 

ATIMEVM A.M. P.M. for time of 

visit AM 

header9 TEST SITE 

PPNAME 1 Name of Test site (if

known) ***** 

header11 Site Address 

PADDRS 2 street ***** 

PCITY 2 city ***** 

PSTATE 2 state ***** 

PZIP 2 ZIP 00000 ***** 

Head171 Telephone number(s) of test site: 

3 First Number (000)000- PPHN1 ***** 0000 

3 Second Number: PPHN2 ***** (000)000-0000 

header20 SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON TEST SITE 

4 Advertisement: Name SRCENAME Milwaukee Journal Sentinel of source 

5 Advertisement: Date of ADDATE 6/10/01 Publication (mm/dd/yy) 

6 Advertisement: text of CEDARBURG CEDAR PLAZA N142 W6212 ADTEXT 

ad Concord St. Suburban living within minutes of
Milwaukee. Near Hwy 57 and C 2 Bedroom 

Apartments Appliances, Carpeting, Ceiling 

Fan $630 includes HEAT, Security Deposit 

$400 1 year lease, no pets. 262-375-1513. 

header24 TYPE OF HOUSING TO BE REQUESTED 

PBEDS 7 Number of Bedrooms 

to be requested 2 

PMINBED 7a Minimum number of 

bedrooms for household 0 

PHMTYPS 8 Type of home (SALES 

only) -1 

PHMTYPR 9 Type of unit (RENTAL 

only) Unfurnished 

PHNEED 10 Date Housing is

Needed (mm/dd/yy) 8/1/01 

PHMPRI Home price ***** 

PHHCOMP 8 Household 

Composition Married Couple, No Children 

APRIR 

11 Price Range [Tester

may look at units for 

LESS than this range as 

well] (For RENTAL Only) 

605 to 655 

APREFER Area Preference (IMPORTANT: DO NOT CITE A NEIGHBORHOOD

PREFERENCE) 

AAREAP 

12 If you are pressed by

the agent, you may state 

that you are looking in 

Milwaukee and surrounding counties 

header33 Remember: You are always open to considering any areas 

recommended by the agent. 

AMOVERR 13 Reason for Moving 

(Rental Tests) 

Lvng with family member/friend; want own 

place 

AMOVERS 13 Reason for moving 

(Sales Tests) 

AHEAD55 Other places visited: Just started looking 

header36 ASSIGNED CHARACTERISTICS 

TFNAME 15 Tester Name: Janelle Scott 

header38 Tester Address 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TFADD1 16 Tester Address 2100 Pine Road 

TFADD2 16 Tester Address 

(city/state/zip) Milwaukee, Wisconson, 53205 

TVPHONE 

16 Voice Mail Number 

Assigned to Tester

(000)000-0000 

(414)348-6788 

header42 Information on Persons in Household 

ARACE1 18 Tester's race Black 

TSEX 18 Tester's gender Female 

AAGE1 18 Tester's age 25 

TH01 Household Income Gross Monthly Income Gross Annual Income 

AINCMON1 18 Tester 1475 17450 

AINCMON2 18 Spouse 1150 14050 

AINCMONT 18 Total for Household 2625 31500 

TABH11 Other persons in household Relationship Name Sex Age 

ARELATE2 18 Person 2 Spouse Bill 

Scott Male 26 

ARELATE3 18 Person 3 Female -1 

ARELATE4 18 Person 4 Female -1 

ARELATE5 18 Person 5 Female -1 

header73 Employment Information 

AOCC1 19 Tester current occupation Clerk 

AEMP1 19 Name of tester's current employer 

Milwaukee 

Area 

Technical 

College 

AEAD11 19 First line of tester's employer's 

addres State Street 

AEAD12 19 Second line of tester's employer's 

address 

Milwaukee, 

WI 

AELNG1 19 Length of employment at current job 3 years 

AOCC2 19 Tester previous occupation 

AEMP2 Name of tester's previous employer 

AEAD21 19 First line of tester's previous

employer's address 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AEAD22 19 Second line of tester's previous 

employer's address 

AELNG2 19 Length of employment at previous 

job 

ASOCC1 19 Spouse's occupation at current job Sales 

Associate 

ASEMP1 19 Name of spouse's current employer 

JC Penney 

Catalog 

Dept. 

ASEAD11 19 First line of spouse's employer's

address 

Highland 

Mall 

ASEAD12 19 Second line of spouse's employer's 

address Mequon 

ASELNG1 19 Spouse's length of employment at 

current job 4 years 

ASOCC2 19 Spouse's occupation at previous job 

ASEMP2 Name of spouse's previous employer 

ASEAD21 19 First line ofspouse's previous

employer's address 

ASEAD22 19 Second line of spouse's previous 

employer's address 

header94 Household Assets 

TH31 Financial Institution Balance 

ASAVINST 20 Savings Account -1 

ACHKINST 20 Checking Account -1 

AOTRINST 20 Other asset -1 

ATOTASST 20 Total Assets -1 

header10 Household Debts 

TABH21 Creditors Name Type of 

account 

Monthly 

payment 

Balance 

owed 

ACRDNAM1 21 Creditor 1 -1 -1 

ACRDNAM2 21 Creditor 2 -1 -1 

ACRDNAM3 21 Creditor 3 -1 -1 

ACRDNAM4 21 Creditor 4 -1 -1 

ACRDNAM5 21 Creditor 5 -1 -1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACRDNAM6 

ACRDNAM7 

ACRDMONT 

ACRDBALT 

AHEAD21 

header13 

AHEAD31 

ARENTNOW 

ALGNCUR 

ALEASETP 

AHEAD61 

AHEAD62 

ADSITE 

RELEASE 

21 Creditor 6 -1 -1 

21 Creditor 7 -1 -1 

21 Total monthly payments on all 

debts -1 

21 Total balance owed on all debts -1 

Credit standing: Excellent, no late payments 

CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION 

Type of current housing: Rent 

24 Amount of Current Rent 620 

25 Years at Current Residence 2 years 

26 Type of Rental Agreement at 

Current Residence Month-to-Month 

History of rent payment at current residence: Always on time 

Other characteristics: Non-smoking, No pets 

28 Directions to the Test Site 

Hwy 57 to C. Left on C 1 

block, turn right into 

office. 

Test Released Yes 
Test Assignment Form (Sales) 

SITECODE Site UI Training Test Site

CONTROL 0 CONTROL # ZZ-S1-0125-2

SEQUENCE Tester sequence 1

RACEID RACEID *****

TESTERID 0 TESTER ID NUMBER ZZ124-William Morrison

ATSTTYPE 0 TYPE OF TEST sales

AAPPTYPE 0 TYPE OF APPROACH Call for appointment

DATE OF VISIT ADATEV (mm/dd/yy) 

ATIMEV Time (_ _:_ _) 

ATIMEVM A.M. P.M. for time of visit 

header9 TEST SITE 

PPNAME 1 Name of Test site (if

known) ***** 

header11 Site Address 

PADDRS 2 street ***** 

PCITY 2 city ***** 

PSTATE 2 state ***** 

PZIP 2 ZIP 00000 ***** 

Head171 Telephone number(s) of test site: 

PPHN1 3 First Number (000)000-

0000 ***** 

PPHN2 3 Second Number: 

(000)000-0000 ***** 

header20 SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON TEST SITE 

4 Advertisement: Name of SRCENAME Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 

source 

5 Advertisement: Date of ADDATE 6/10/01 Publication (mm/dd/yy) 

GERMANTOWN Prime location 6 Advertisement: text of ADTEXT N102W14738 Providence Ct. 4BR, 2.5BA, 2 ad story on cul de sac, 3/4 ac landscaped lot. 
1996. 3000+ sq ft. FT, 1st floor utility, deck, 

office, large master suite, $339,900. 262-

253-0961. 

header24 TYPE OF HOUSING TO BE REQUESTED 

PBEDS 7 Number of Bedrooms to 

be requested 4 

PMINBED 7a Minimum number of 

bedrooms for household 2 

PHMTYPS 8 Type of home (SALES 

only) Single Family 

PHMTYPR 9 Type of unit (RENTAL 

only) -1 

PHNEED 10 Date Housing is

Needed (mm/dd/yy) 

PHMPRI Home price ***** 

PHHCOMP 8 Household Composition Married Couple, 2 Children (Same Gender) 

APRIR 

11 Price Range [Tester

may look at units for 

LESS than this range as 

well] (For RENTAL Only) 

APREFER Area Preference (IMPORTANT: DO NOT CITE A NEIGHBORHOOD

PREFERENCE) 

AAREAP 

12 If you are pressed by

the agent, you may state 

that you are looking in 

Milwaukee and surrounding suburbs 

header33 Remember: You are always open to considering any areas 

recommended by the agent. 

AMOVERR 13 Reason for Moving 

(Rental Tests) 

AMOVERS 13 Reason for moving 

(Sales Tests) Seems like a good time to buy 

AHEAD55 Other places visited: Just started looking 

header36 ASSIGNED CHARACTERISTICS 

TFNAME 15 Tester Name: Bill Morrison 

header38 Tester Address 

TFADD1 16 Tester Address 1620 Wisconsin Ave. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TFADD2 16 Tester Address 

(city/state/zip) Apt. #42 

TVPHONE 

16 Voice Mail Number 

Assigned to Tester

(000)000-0000 

(414)555-0000 

header42 Information on Persons in Household 

ARACE1 18 Tester's race Black 

TSEX 18 Tester's gender Male 

AAGE1 18 Tester's age 39 

TH01 Household Income Gross Monthly Income Gross Annual Income 

AINCMON1 18 Tester 6730 80750 

AINCMON2 18 Spouse 5045 60550 

AINCMONT 18 Total for Household 11775 141300 

TABH11 Other persons in household Relationship Name Sex Age 

ARELATE2 18 Person 2 Spouse Barbara Female 32 

ARELATE3 18 Person 3 Child William Male 6 

ARELATE4 18 Person 4 Child David Male 2 

ARELATE5 18 Person 5 Female -1 

header73 Employment Information 

AOCC1 19 Tester current occupation District 

Manager 

AEMP1 19 Name of tester's current 

employer 

Marriott 

Services 

AEAD11 19 First line of tester's employer's 

addres 64th Street 

AEAD12 19 Second line of tester's 

employer's address Wauwatosa 

AELNG1 19 Length of employment at current 

job 5 years 

AOCC2 19 Tester previous occupation Sales 

Representative 

AEMP2 Name of tester's previous employer Holiday Inn 

AEAD21 19 First line of tester's previous

employer's address 3rd Street 

AEAD22 19 Second line of tester's previous South 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

employer's address Milwaukee 

AELNG2 19 Length of employment at 

previous job 4 years 

ASOCC1 19 Spouse's occupation at current

job 

Database 

Administrator 

ASEMP1 19 Name of spouse's current

employer 

Children's 

Medical Center 

ASEAD11 19 First line of spouse's employer's

address 

Good Hope 

Rd. 

ASEAD12 19 Second line of spouse's 

employer's address Milwaukee 

ASELNG1 19 Spouse's length of employment 

at current job 4 years 

ASOCC2 19 Spouse's occupation at previous 

job 

Computer 

Programmer 

ASEMP2 Name of spouse's previous

employer 

University of 

WI 

ASEAD21 19 First line ofspouse's previous

employer's address Milwaukee 

ASEAD22 19 Second line of spouse's previous 

employer's address 

header94 Household Assets 

TH31 Financial Institution Balance 

ASAVINST 20 Savings Account First Bank 35750 

ACHKINST 20 Checking Account First Bank 4850 

AOTRINST 20 Other asset -1 

ATOTASST 20 Total Assets 40600 

header10 Household Debts 

TABH21 Creditors Name Type of 

account 

Monthly 

payment 

Balance 

owed 

ACRDNAM1 21 Creditor 1 GMAC Car loan 566 8690 

ACRDNAM2 21 Creditor 2 Citibank 

Visa 

Credit 

Card 309 7720 

ACRDNAM3 21 Creditor 3 

Citibank 

Master 

Card 

Credit 

Card 56 1740 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACRDNAM4 

ACRDNAM5 

ACRDNAM6 

ACRDNAM7 

ACRDMONT 

ACRDBALT 

AHEAD21 

header13 

AHEAD31 

ARENTNOW 

ALGNCUR 

ALEASETP 

AHEAD61 

AHEAD62 

ADSITE 

RELEASE 

21 Creditor 4 Macy's Credit 

Card 34 1160 

21 Creditor 5 0 0 

21 Creditor 6 0 0 

21 Creditor 7 0 0 

21 Total monthly payments on all 

debts 965 

21 Total balance owed on all debts 19300 

Credit standing: Excellent, no late payments 

CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION 

Type of current housing: Rent 

24 Amount of Current Rent 3000 

25 Years at Current Residence 4 years 

26 Type of Rental Agreement at 

Current Residence Month-to-Month 

History of rent payment at current residence: Always on time 

Other characteristics: Non-smoking, No pets 

28 Directions to the Test Site Get directions at time of 

appointment call 

Test Released Yes 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ADVANCE CALL FORM 

(COMPLETE ONE FORM FOR EACH CALL ATTEMPTED) 

Control # - - - 2 Person Making Call: 

Phone Number(s) ( ) ; ( ) 

Day of the Week: 

Date / / Time : G AM G PM 

1. Housing Information (enter one type of unit [i.e., bedroom size] per line): 

Address of Apartment/House # of 

Bedrooms 

Price Date Available 

/ / 

Advertised Unit? 

a. G Yes G No 

b. G Yes G No 

c. G Yes G No 

d. G Yes G No 

e. G Yes G No 

2. What are the office hours? 

3. Is it possible to drop in and speak with an agent about the available housing or do you have

 to have an appointment? G May Drop in G Must have Appointment 

4. Verify the address of the office to be visited: 

5. With whom did you speak? : 

6. COMMENTS: 

7. What was the FINAL DISPOSITION of this call? 

G Advance Call Completed 

G Advance Call Not Completed (check one of the following): 

G Left Message on Voicemail, Answering Machine, or Pager 

G Left Message with Person 

G Told to Call Back Later 

G Wrong Number 

G No Answer 

G Telephone Number No Longer in Service 

G Other (Specify: ) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPOINTMENT CALL FORM 

(ALL CONTACTS WITH AGENT MADE PRIOR TO ANY SITE VISIT SHOULD BE RECORDED ON AN APPOINTMENT CALL 

FORM. COMPLETE ONE FORM FOR EACH CALL ATTEMPTED BY TESTER OR RECEIVED FROM AGENT.) 

Control # - - - 2 Tester ID # -

Phone Number (s) ( ) ; ( ) 

Day of the Week: 

Date / / Time : G AM G PM 

Call was Initiated by: G Tester (Go to Q1) G Agent (Go to Q7 ) 

1. Was the Appointment Call Completed? 

G Yes, Appointment Call Completed G No, Appointment Call Not Completed* 

G Appointment made (Go to Q2) G Left message on voicemail, pager, etc. 

G Appointment not made G Left message with person 

G Told no appointment necessary to visit G Told to call back later 

G Agent will not make an appointment G Wrong number 

G No housing is available G No Answer 

G Telephone number no longer in service 

G Other (specify): G Other (specify): 

G Test terminated by Test Coordinator G Test terminated by Test Coordinator 

* If an Appointment Call is Not Completed, 

 a Site Visit Cannot Be Conducted. 

2. When is your appointment? 

Day of the Week 

Date / / 

Time : G AM G PM 

3. Name of person you have appointment with: 

4. Location to meet (agent’s office, address of specific home, other): 

5. Name of person you spoke with during this contact: 

6. Comments made: 

FOR AGENT INITIATED CALL: 

7. Call was Received By: G Tester G Test Coordinator 

7a. What was the Purpose of the Agent’s Call? 

G Agent called to confirm appointment time 

G Agent called to cancel appointment and reschedule 

G Agent called to cancel appointment, but did not reschedule 

G Other (specify): 
 

 

 

 

 

 

__________________________ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOUSING DISCRIMINATION STUDY 

SITE VISIT REPORT FORM - RENTAL 

CONTROL #: __ __ - __ __ - __ __ __ __ - 2 TESTER ID NUMBER: __ __ - __ __ __ 

1. Name of Test Site (if applicable): ______________________________________________________ 

2. Address: _______________________ _______________________________ ________________ 

(number) (street) (unit #) 

 (city)	 (state) (zip) 

3. Type of Visit: � Drop In � Appointment 

4. Date and Time of Site Visit: 

Date (month/day/year): __ __/__ __/__ __ Day of Week: _______________________________ 

Appointment Time: __ __:__ __ � AM � PM 

5. Time began (office arrival):__ __:__ __ � AM � PM 

Time ended (departure): __ __:__ __ � AM � PM 

6. Information on persons with whom you had contact during your visit 

[check responses where appropriate]: 

Name/ 

Position 

Race/Ethnicity (check one 

entry) 

Gender Age Group 

Primary 

Person 

Who 

Provided 

Info 

W=White I=American 

B=Black Indian 

H=Hispanic O=Other 

A=Asian/ DK=Don't 

Pacific Islander Know 

W B H A I O DK M F 18-

30 

31-

45 

46-

65 

65 

+ 

1. Name:___________________ 

Position: ___________________ � 

2. Name:___________________ 

Position: ___________________ � 

3. Name:___________________ 

Position: ___________________ � 

4. Name:___________________ 

Position: ___________________ � 

5. Name:___________________ 

Position: ___________________ � 

7. Were you able to meet with an agent to discuss housing options? 

� Yes 

� No 

7a. If No, why not? __________________________________________________________________ 

(Note: Stop here and do not complete the rest of the form) 

May 22, 2001 
 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

8. How many minutes did you wait to meet with someone (i.e. between the time you were 

greeted by someone when you entered and the time you met with the agent)? 

____________ minutes 

9. When you asked about the availability of the advertised housing, what were you told [check only 

ONE box]? 

� Housing is available when I need it 

� Housing is not available when I need it 

� The agent did not know the status of the housing 

� Something else (specify): ________________________________________________________ 

10. When you asked about “similar” housing, were you told that there was anything available? 

[“Similar” housing has the same number of bedrooms as the advertised housing, is in your price 

range, and is available when you need it.] 

� Yes 

� No 

� Agent did not know 

10a. If Yes, how many “similar” housing units were you told about? (Do not include advertised unit) 

______ units 

11. Whether you asked or the agent offered, were you told that any “other” housing was available? 

[“Other” housing has at least the minimum number of bedrooms for your household, is in your price 

range, and is available when you need it. "Other" housing also includes housing with a greater 

number of bedrooms than the advertised unit.] 

� Yes 

� No 

� Agent did not know 

� Not applicable 

11a. If Yes, how many “other” housing units were you told about? ________ Units 

12. How many TOTAL rental units did the agent indicate were available to you? 

______________ Rental Units 

Note: Add units from Questions 9, 10a, and 11a. [if you answered Question 9 as “Housing is 

available when I need it," count this as one unit] 

13. During your visit, did the agent comment on or make reference to any of the following: Fair Housing 

 Laws, Equal Housing Opportunity, Open Housing Ordinance, or Anti-discrimination Laws? 

� Yes
 

� No 

13a. If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

May 22, 2001 
14. Were you invited to complete an application during your visit? 

� Yes 

� No 

14a. Were you told an application is necessary before renting a unit? 

� Yes 

� No 

14b. Were you invited to take an application with you? 

� Yes 

� No 

14c. Were you told a credit check is necessary before renting a unit? 

� Yes 

� No 

14d. Were you told a criminal background check is necessary before renting a unit? 

� Yes 

� No 

15. Complete the grid below regarding any of your qualifications to rent that were requested by the 

agent. (check only one per line) 

Qualification I 

volunteered 

Agent 

Requested 

Exchanged 

in earlier 

phone call 

Agent did 

not obtain 

a. Your marital status 

b. Your family size 

c. Your income 

d. Your spouse's income 

e. Your occupation 

f. Your spouse's occupation 

g. Your length of employment 

h. Your spouse's length of employment 

i. Your credit standing 

j. Other: 

16. Did the agent make any of the following comments regarding your qualifications to rent? 

� You are qualified 

� You are NOT qualified 

� Qualifications not discussed 

17. Did the agent suggest that you consider a different rental complex or building than the one in the 

ad? 

� Yes 

� No 

May 22, 2001 
 

 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

17a. If Yes, was the other property also managed by the same agency? 

� Yes 

� No 

� Don’t know 

18. Were any remarks made by the agent about race or ethnicity that were not associated with the 

neighborhoods in which recommended units were located? 

� Yes 

� No 

18a. If Yes, please record what the agent said: 

19. Were any remarks made by the agent about religion, persons with disabilities, or families with 

children? 

� Yes 

� No 

19a. If Yes, please record what the agent said: 

20. What arrangements were made regarding future contact between you and the agent [check all that 

apply]? 

� The agent said that he/she would contact you 

� The agent invited you to call him/her 

� Future arrangements were not made 

� Other (specify): ________________________________________________________________ 

21. When was this report completed? 

Date (month/day/year): ____/____/____ Day of Week ____________________________ 

Time __ __:__ __ � AM � PM 

May 22, 2001 
 

 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALL HDS SITE VISITS - RENTAL 

C If you made an appointment prior to this visit, please ask to speak with the 

person with whom you made the appointment to meet. If you are dropping in 

without an appointment on this site visit, please ask to speak with a rental 

agent. Express interest in and ask to view the rental housing that was 

advertised for rent. 

C Ask about the availability of other rental housing with the same number of 

bedrooms as the advertised housing. Express interest in and ask to view any 

rental housing which has the same number of bedrooms, provided that it is 

within your price range and available when you need it. 

C If a rental agent informs you that the advertised housing is no longer available 

and no other rental housing is available with the same number of bedrooms as 

the advertised housing, ask the agent if any other rental units are available for 

the time you requested. Express interest in and ask to view any other rental 

housing that: 1) has at least the minimum number of bedrooms for your 

household; 2) is within your price range; and 3) is available when you need it. 

C If, at any time during your site visit, a rental agent recommends other rental 

units to you, you should express interest in and ask to view any rental housing 

that is recommended by the agent provided it: 1) has at least the minimum 

number of bedrooms for your household; 2) is within your price range; and 3) is 

available when you need it. 

C Please remember to obtain information about the exact address (including 

apartment #), number of bedrooms, rent, security deposit, other fees, lease 

length, which utilities are included and the dates of availability for any homes 

or apartments suggested by the agent if this information is not provided by the 

end of your visit. 

C If you are told about any homes or apartments that meet your needs, please ask 

about the application process and find out what amount of money, if any, would 

need to accompany a completed application, whether a credit check is 

conducted and, generally, how long it takes to obtain approval on a rental 

application once it is submitted. 

C Do not ask for or complete a rental application. If the agent offers you an 

application, you should agree to take it with you. 

C If you are informed that there is a waiting list for rental housing that you 

requested, please ask how many people are on the waiting list. If the agent 

invites you to add your name to the waiting list, you should politely decline to 

add your name. 

C Lastly, if by the end of your visit the agent has not volunteered his or her name, 

please ask for it. 

May 22, 2001 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOUSING DISCRIMINATION STUDY 

SITE VISIT REPORT FORM - SALES 

CONTROL #: __ __ - __ __ - __ __ __ __ - 2 TESTER ID NUMBER: __ __ - __ __ __ 

1. Location of Office: 

Firm Name (if applicable): __________________________________________________________ 

Office/Room Number: _____________________________________________________________ 

Address: _______________________ _______________________________ _______________

(number) (street) 

__________________________ 

 (city) 

__ __ 

(state) 

__ __ __ __ __ 

(zip) 

2. Date and Time of Site Visit: 

Date (month/day/year): __ __/__ __/__ __ 

Appointment Time: __ __:__ __ � AM � PM 

Day of Week: _______________________________ 

2a. Time began (office arrival):__ __:__ __ � AM � PM

 Time ended (departure): __ __:__ __ � AM � PM 

3. Is this your second site visit? 

� Yes 

� No 

4. Information on persons with whom you had contact during your visit 

[check responses where appropriate]: 

Name Race/Ethnicity (check one 

entry) 

Gender Age Group 

Primary 

Person 

Who 

Provided 

Info 

W=White I=American 

B=Black Indian 

H=Hispanic O=Other 

A=Asian/ DK=Don't 

Pacific Islander Know 

Position W B H A I O DK M F 18-

30 

31-

45 

46-

65 

65 

+ 

1. Name:___________________ 

Position: ___________________ � 

2. Name:___________________ 

Position: ___________________ � 

3. Name:___________________ 

Position: ___________________ � 

4. Name:___________________ 

Position: ___________________ � 

5. Name:___________________ 

Position: ___________________ � 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Were you able to meet with an agent to discuss housing options? 

� Yes 

� No 

5a. If Yes, where did you meet? 

� Agent’s office 

� Somewhere else (specify): 

5b. If No, why not? 

(Note: Stop here and do not complete the rest of the form) 

6. Did the agent decline to meet with you today? 

� Yes 

� No 

6a. If yes, why? ______________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________________ 

(NOTE: if you are able to make an appointment for a later time, then stop here and fill out the Site Visit Report Form after 

your appointment) 

7. How many minutes did you wait to meet with someone (i.e. between the time you were greeted by 

someone at the firm when you entered and the time you met with the agent)? 

__________ minutes
 

8. When you asked about the availability of the home in the ad, what were you told [check only ONE 

box]? 

� Home is available 

� Home is not available 

� The agent did not know the status of the house. 

� Something else (specify): _______________________________________________________ 

9. Were you recommended any homes that were “similar” to the advertised home? 

[A “similar” home has the same number of bedrooms as the advertised home.] 

� Yes 

� No 

� Agent did not know 

9a. If Yes, how many “similar” homes were recommended to you? (Do not include advertised home) 

______ homes 

10. Were you recommended any “other” homes? 

["Other” homes have at least the minimum number of bedrooms for your household. "Other" 

housing also includes homes with a greater number of bedrooms than the advertised home.] 

� Yes 

� No 

� Agent did not know 
 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

10a. If Yes, how many “other” homes were recommended to you? ________ Homes 

11. How many TOTAL homes were recommended to you, including the advertised home?: ______ 

 Add units from Questions 8 [if you answered “Home is available”], 9a, and 10a. 

12. How many homes were offered to you for your review in a listing or other format, BUT NOT 

SPECIFICALLY RECOMMENDED? ______ Homes 

13. During your visit, did the agent comment on or make reference to any of the following: Fair Housing 

Laws, Equal Housing Opportunity, Open Housing Ordinance, or Anti-discrimination Law? 

� Yes 

� No 

13a. If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

14. Based on your observations and the remarks of the agent, indicate below the sources used to select 

properties for your review: [check all that apply] 

� Multiple listings book(s) 

� Home seeker guides/magazines 

� Computer 

� Internet website - (specify): _______________________________________________________ 

� Other printed sheet 

� File cards 

� Scraps of paper 

� Other (specify): ________________________________________________________________ 

� None 

15. Did one agent refer you to another agent who provided service to you? 

� Yes 

� No 

15a. If Yes, were you referred to an agent within the same agency? 

� Yes 

� No 

15b. If you were referred, using the numbers from Question 4, enter the number of the person to whom 

you were referred: � [enter line #] 

16. Was the agent’s role described to you as being one of the following: 

� Buyer’s agent 

� Seller’s agent 

� Dual agent 

� Did not disclose 
 

17. Were you asked to sign any agreements or documents? 

� Yes 

� No 

17a. If Yes, please specify each below: 

Document Name Purpose Did you sign? 

1. � Yes � No 

2. � Yes � No 

3. � Yes � No 

4. � Yes � No 

18. Did the agent ask if you had already visited a lender or been pre-qualified for financing? 

� Yes 

� No 

19. Did the agent REFUSE to show you any homes because you were not pre-qualified for financing? 

� Yes 

� No 

20. Complete the grid below regarding any of your qualifications to purchase a house that were 

requested by the agent at any point. (check only one per line) 

Qualification I 

volunteered 

Agent 

Requested 

Obtained in 

earlier 

phone call 

Agent did 

not obtain 

a. Your marital status 

b. Your family size 

c. Your income 

d. Your spouse's income 

e. Your occupation 

f. Your spouse's occupation 

g. Your length of employment 

h. Your spouse's length of employment 

i. Your savings/assets (e.g. funds available 

for downpayment, closing costs, etc.) 

j. Your debts 

k. Credit Standing 

l. Reason for moving 

m. Geographic preference 

n. Pre-qualification letter 

o. Other: 
 

 

21. Did the agent make any of the following comments regarding your qualifications to buy a home? 

� You are qualified 

� You are NOT qualified 

� Qualifications not discussed 

22. Did the agent volunteer to help you find financing? 

� Yes 

� No 

23. Did the agent suggest one or more mortgage companies, lenders, or brokers? 

� Yes 

� No 

23a. If Yes, please list them below: 

Mortgage Company/Firm Lender/Broker Name City Telephone 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

24. Did the agent discuss the type of financing that might be available to you? 

� Yes 

� No 

24a. If Yes, please indicate which types of financing the agent discussed or mentioned by filling out the 

grid below: [check one per line] 

Agent 

Discussed 

Agent did 

not mention 

a. Conventional Fixed Rate Financing (non FHA) 

b. Conventional Adjustable Rate Financing (ARM) 

c. FHA or VA Financing 

d. Other government financing (state or local) 

(specify): _______________________________________ 

e. Other (specify): __________________________________ 

25. During the visit, did anyone pre-qualify you or calculate for you the amount of financing that you 

could afford using your specific financial information (income, debts, and assets)? 

� Yes 

� No 

25a. If Yes, using the numbers from Question 4, enter the number of the person who provided you with 

the information on the amount of financing you could afford: � [enter line #] 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25b. If Yes, was this person? 

� The agent who was providing housing information to you 

� An in-house mortgage specialist 

� A lender by telephone 

� Someone else 

26. Home Price: 

Did the agent suggest a house price or price range that you should consider? 

� Yes 

� No 

26a. If Yes, what was the total home price? 

$ ___________________ (lowest) $ ___________________ (highest) 

27. Loan/Mortgage Amount: 

Did the agent suggest a mortgage amount ($ borrowed) or range that you should consider? 

� Yes 

� No 

27a. If Yes, what was the total loan amount? 

$ ___________________ (lowest) $ ___________________ (highest) 

28. Interest Rates: 

Did the agent mention interest rates for mortgage loans? 

� Yes 

� No 

28a. If Yes, what were the interest rates mentioned? 

________% (lowest) ________% (highest) 

29. Monthly Payments: 

Did the agent mention monthly payments for a mortgage loan? 

� Yes 

� No 

29a. If Yes, what were the monthly payments? 

$ ___________________ (lowest) $ ___________________ (highest) 

30. Downpayment: 

Did the agent mention the likely downpayment on a house? 

� Yes 

� No 

30a. If Yes, what was the downpayment amount or percentage? 

Downpayment Amount: $ __________ (lowest) $ __________ (highest) 

Downpayment Percent: ________% (lowest) ________% (highest) 
___________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

31. Did the agent discuss any of the following with you? [check all that apply] 

� Paying down debts 

� Debt consolidation 

� Downpayment assistance (gift, special program) 

� Co-signer 

� Seller assistance 

� Pre-qualification letter 

� None of the above were discussed 

31a. For any items discussed, please describe what you were told: 

___________________________________________________________________________________ 

32. Did the agent discuss or make any comments about specific neighborhoods or geographic areas that 

were not associated with any recommended homes? (If yes, fill out a Neighborhood Information 

Form.) 

� Yes 

� No 

33. Were any remarks made by the agent about race or ethnicity that were not associated with particular 

homes or neighborhoods? 

� Yes 

� No 

33a. If Yes, please record what the agent said: _____________________________________________ 

34. Were any remarks made by the agent about religion, persons with disabilities, or families with 

children? 

� Yes 

� No 

34a. If Yes, please record what the agent said: _____________________________________________ 
 

 

35. What arrangements were made regarding future contact between you and the agent? [check all that 

apply] 

� The agent said that he/she would contact you 

� The agent invited you to call him/her 

� Arrangements for future contact were not made 

� Other (specify): ________________________________________________________________ 

36. When was this report completed? 

Date (month/day/year): ____/____/____ Day of Week ____________________________ 

Time __ __:__ __ � AM � PM 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALL HDS SITE VISITS - SALES 

C If you made an appointment prior to this visit, please ask to speak with the person with 

whom you made the appointment to meet. If you are dropping in without an 

appointment on this site visit, please ask to speak with a sales agent. Express interest 

in and ask to view the housing that was advertised for sale. 

C Ask the agent to recommend other homes that have the same number of bedrooms as 

the advertised housing. Express interest in and ask to view any homes that are 

recommended by the agent provided that they have the same number of bedrooms as 

the advertised home or at least the minimum number of bedrooms for your household. 

C After viewing the advertised home, try to arrange to spend three hours looking at 

additional homes that are recommended by the agent. If, on the day of your initial site 

visit, the agent is unavailable or unable to show you the advertised home and/or other 

recommended homes, let the agent know that you would like to spend some time (e.g. 

a few hours, several hours, etc.) on another day viewing additional homes. 

C If, in response to your request that the agent recommend some homes to view, the 

agent presents you with a long list of homes available for sale, please ask the agent to 

select homes to show you so that you can begin to get an idea of what is available. If 

the agent refuses to pick out any homes on the list and insists that you make the 

selections, please tell the agent that you would like to take the list of homes with you 

so that you can spend some time looking it over. NEVER select the homes to view. 

C Please remember to obtain information about the exact address of each property that 

is recommended by the agent, including the number of bedrooms, current asking 

price, number of bathrooms, and other features and amenities, if this information is not 

provided by the end of your visit. 

C If the agent, someone in the agent’s office, or someone the agent calls while you are in 

the office, requests that you provide detailed personal and financial information about 

your income, debts, assets, etc. in order to help you figure out what price range of 

housing that you can afford, please provide this information exactly as it appears on 

your assignment form. Do not, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, provide your date of 

birth, social security number, or authorize anyone to conduct a credit check. If 

anyone asks about your credit standing or requests that a credit check be conducted, 

offer to characterize your credit as it appears on your assignment form. If you are 

provided with an estimated price range or with an estimated mortgage amount for 

which you might qualify, please remember to include this information in your notes. 

C If you are provided more detailed information about financing options, be sure to write 

down the information that is offered (e.g. type of financing, interest rates, down 

payment requirements, etc.). Also, if the agent refers you to a lender or mortgage 

broker for further assistance with financing, please remember to include this 

information in your notes. 

C Lastly, if by the end of your visit the agent has not volunteered his or her name, please 

ask for it. 
 

 

 

 

 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION 

Complete one form for each neighborhood that the agent discussed with you other than those 

surrounding recommended and/or inspected homes. 

CONTROL #: __ __ - __ __ - __ __ __ __ - 2 TESTER ID NUMBER: __ __ - __ __ __ 

1. Name of Area: __________________________________ 

2. This area is a: 

� County 

� Town or City 

� School District 

� Neighborhood 

� Don't know 

3. Did the agent make any of the following comments about the neighborhood? 

a. Noise 

9 Quiet 

9 Noisy 

9 No comment 

b. Safety 

9 Safe/low crime 

9 Dangerous/high crime 

9 No comment 

c. Schools 

9 Good 

9 Poor 

9 No comment 

d. Investment 

� Rising values/good investment 

� Flat values/not much appreciation 

� Declining values/depreciation 

� No comment 

e. Public Services 

� good services/amenities 

� poor/unreliable services 

� no comment 

f. Race or Ethnicity? 

9 Yes 

9 No 

If Yes, please record what the agent said: _________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDED HOME 

(Complete one form for each home recommended and/or inspected) 

CONTROL # - - - 2 TESTER ID# -

1. Full Address of Home 

(number) (street) (unit) 

(city or town) (state) (zip code) 

2. Basic Information 

a. Is this the advertised home? � Yes � No 

b. Did you inspect the home? � Yes � No 

c. How many bedrooms were in the home? 

d. What was the current asking price? 

3. What type of building is it? 4. Is this a newly built home that has 

never been occupied? 

� Single-family detached � Yes 

� Duplex � No 

� Rowhouse or Townhouse 

� Multi-family structure 

� Mobile home 

5. How do you rate the physical condition of the home’s INTERIOR? 

� Clean and in excellent repair, move-in condition 

� Some cleaning and minor maintenance needed, adequate 

� Very dirty and in need of substantial maintenance, serious problems 

� Not Applicable, did not view interior 

6. How do you rate the physical condition of the home’s EXTERIOR? 

� Clean and in excellent repair, move-in condition 

� Some cleaning and minor maintenance needed, adequate 

� Very dirty and in need of substantial maintenance, serious problems 

� Not Applicable, did not view exterior 

7. Did the agent make any of the following comments about the surrounding neighborhood? 

a. Noise b. Safety c. Schools 

� Quiet � Safe/low crime � Good 

� Noisy � Dangerous/high crime � Poor 

� No comment � No comment � No comment 

d. Investment e. Public Services 

� Rising values/good investment � Good Services/Amenities 

� Flat values/not much appreciation � Poor Services/Amenities 

� Declining values/depreciation � No comment 

� No comment 

f. Race or ethnicity? � Yes � No 

If Yes, please record what the agent said: 

___________________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FOLLOW-UP CONTACT FORM
 

C COMPLETE AT LEAST ONE FORM FOR EACH TEST 

C DO NOT USE THIS FORM FOR APPOINTMENT CALLS 

C TESTER: NOTIFY TEST COORDINATOR OF ANY CONTACT AND FORWARD 

MATERIALS RECEIVED 

CONTROL #: __ __ - __ __ - __ __ __ __ - 2 TESTER ID NUMBER: __ __ - __ __ __ 

1. Was there any follow-up contact? 

� No 

� Yes (if yes, complete rest of form) 

2. Date and time of contact: 

Day of the Week: 

Date / / 

Time __ __ : __ __ � AM � PM 

3. Type of Contact 

� Telephone call to tester at home 

� Telephone message left at tester’s home 

� Voice mail message retrieved by Test Coordinator 

� Postal mail 

� E-mail 

� Other (Specify: ) 

4. Name of person making contact: 

5. Name of agency (if given): 

6. What was the stated purpose of the contact? [check all that apply] 

� Agent wanted to see if tester is still interested in purchase/rental 

� Agent wanted to recommend a lender to the tester 

� Agent wanted to let tester know about more housing 

� Agent wanted to get more information from tester 

� Agent wanted to thank tester 

� Other [specify]: 

7. Describe any materials received: 
Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

ANNEX 3 

TESTS OF STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE 

A3 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

ANNEX 3: TESTS OF STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE 

The gross measure of adverse treatment is simply an estimate of the probability that the 

white tester is favored over his or her minority partner, or the empirical mean of a variable (Z10) 

that takes on the value of one if the white tester is favored and zero otherwise. In simple 

random samples, the standard error of the gross measure estimate is square root of the 

element variance of this discrete outcome divided by the sample size; the element variance of 

the variable is simply 

σg

2

 = E[Z10

2

] - E[Z10]

2

 = Pr[Wik=1, Mik=0] ( 1.0 - Pr[Wik=1, Mik=0] ) 

where Wik is a Bernoulli variable denoting a favorable outcome for the white tester 

(1=favorable; 0=unfavorable) and Mik denotes the Bernoulli analogue for the Minority treatment 

outcome. Doubling the standard error yields a 95 percent confidence interval for the gross 

measure of adverse treatment. However, this apparently straightforward hypothesis test that 

the gross measure is greater than zero is not meaningful; the fact that any instances of white- or 

minority-favored treatment occurred in the sample of tests means (by definition) that the null 

hypothesis must be rejected (the probability of differential treatment in the total population 

cannot be equal to zero). In other words, a null hypothesis that a probability is zero is 

automatically rejected whenever at least one such event is observed. 

The (effective) sample size for these tests is quite large, and based on the central limit 

theorem the 95 percent confidence interval for the gross measure is simply the estimated 

measure plus or minus 1.96 times the estimated standard error. This assumes that the 

estimated proportion is neither close to zero or one. If percentages are extreme (say, greater 

than 0.95 or less than 0.05), nonsymmetrical confidence intervals are calculated using formulae 

in Fleiss (1981) with adjustments to variance which incorporate the design effect. Also, note 

that the standard error cannot be used to provide a statistical test that the gross measure is 

greater than or equal to zero. The gross measure is the estimate of an event probability. The 

null hypothesis that a probability equals zero is rejected upon even a single observation of the 

event because if the null is true the event cannot occur. 

The net measure of adverse treatment is the difference between the proportion of tests 

where the white is favored and the proportion where the minority is favored. For the net 

measure, the standard error of the estimate is based on a simple difference of means, and the 

variance of the net measure may be written as 

σn

2

 = Var[Wik] + Var[Mik] - 2 Cov[Wik, Mik] 

Wik and Mik are both binary variables, and calculations of their variance are straightforward. The 

element covariance can be calculated as follows: 

A3-1 
 

 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

σWM = Pr[Wik=1, Mik=1] * Pr[Wik=0, Mik=0] - Pr[Wik=1, Mik=0] * Pr[Wik=0, Mik=1] 

The null hypothesis that the net measure is positive and differs from zero (a one-sided 

test) is rejected with a 5 percent chance of a type I error or less if the net exceeds 1.65 times 

the estimated standard error. 

Results for individual states and metropolitan areas are based on small sample sizes of 

approximately 70 to 120 tests per site, tenure, and ethnic group. The statistical tests described 

earlier could be replaced by a t-test with N-1 degrees of freedom in which N is the sample size. 

This test, however, requires either an assumption that the errors are distributed normally or a 

large enough sample size to invoke the central limit theorem, which insures normality of the 

mean even when errors are non-Normal. We apply the central limit theorem for the confidence 

intervals on the gross measure of adverse treatment. Gross adverse treatment is simply a 

binary or Bernoulli variable. In practice, the frequencies arising from a Bernoulli variable are 

approximately distributed normally when each cell contains at least five entries. 

Neither the normality assumption nor the use of the central limit theorem is appropriate 

for the net measure of adverse treatment. For example, Heckman and Siegelman (1993) 

examines data from the Urban Institute employment tests and finds that the t-test for a 

difference of means is less likely to detect net adverse treatment against minority testers 

compared to more appropriate statistical tests. 

Heckman and Siegelman (1993) suggest that the one-sided test for whether net adverse 

treatment is greater than zero can be written as simply 

H0: E[Y10 | Y11=0, Y00=0] <= 0.5 

where Y11 is one if Wik=1 and Mik=1 and Y00 is one if Wik=0 and Mik=0. This test conditions on 

the occurrence of either relatively favorable white or minority treatment, and tests whether the 

conditional likelihood of white-favored treatment is 50 percent. This test, often called the sign 

test, is the uniformly most powerful statistical test for this null hypothesis. 

Under H0, the probability of observing N2 or more tests in which the white tester receives 

favorable treatment and the minority tester does not is the number of permutations under this 

restriction divided by the total number of permutations for which Nd tests can be assigned to two 

outcomes. 

Pr[N2 = k | Nd = N2 + N3] = Nd! / (2Nd (Nd - k)! k!) 

where N3 is the number of tests in which outcome 3 is observed. The critical value (NC) is 

chosen so that 

A3-2 
 

 

 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

Nd 

∑ Prob [ N2 = j | Nd ] ≤ 0.05 

j = NC 

Due to the nature of permutation tests, the sum of the probabilities will not equal 5 

percent exactly. In principle, a randomization test may be conducted so that the null will be 

rejected with some probability if N2 equals NC minus one.1

 In practice, however, the probability 

of a type one error given the observed values is simply calculated by setting NC equal to N2 in 

the equation above. 

Due to the small sample sizes for the three-part tests, we also use exact, non-parametric 

tests to determine the statistical significance of the net adverse treatment measures. A simple 

sign test can be constructed by creating a sample in which the events Y6 (W is not favored, M1 

is favored, and M2 is not favored) and Y7 (W is not favored, M1 is not favored, and M2 is 

favored) each create one observation in which differential treatment occurs between testers of 

the same race and the event Y5 (W is favored, M1 is not favored, and M2 is not favored) 

creates two observations in which white favored treatment occurs (Y5=1). The resulting sign 

test is 

Prob[Y5=1 | Y1 + Y2 + Y3 + Y4 + Y8 = 0] <= 0.5 

where the observations with Y5=1 enter the sample twice.2 

1

 Heckman shows that a randomized test can be used to obtain significant tests with exactly a 5% probability 

of a type I error. The randomized test rejects the null hypothesis if the value of N2 exceeds NC, and also rejects the 

null hypothesis with probability a if the net measure equals the NC minus one where the following equation holds: a 

p2 + p1 = 0.05, p1 the probability of a type I error implied by the cut-off of NC, and p2 is the increase in the probability 

of a type I error implied by lowering the cut-off to NC minus 1. 

2

 Strictly speaking this test is no longer a permutation test because the event Y5 cannot truly occur twice 

and the two across group comparisons in the triad test are mutually exclusive. Nonetheless, the sign test does 

provide a convenient non-parametric test for whether two probabilities differ from each other. 

A3-3 
Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

ANNEX 4 

METROPOLITAN ESTIMATES OF ADVERSE TREATMENT 

AGAINST ASIANS AND PACIFIC ISLANDERS FOR PHASE I
 

A4 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

ANNEX 4A: METROPLITAN ESTIMATES OF ADVERSE TREATMENT
 

AGAINST CHINESE AND KOREANS
 

LOS ANGELES - CHINESE/WHITE AND KOREAN/WHITE RENTAL TESTS 

RENTAL TREATMENT 

MEASURES 

Chinese/White Korean/White 

% white 

favored 

% Chinese 

favored 

net measure % white 

favored 

% Korean 

favored 

net measure 

Advertised unit available? 4.1% 9.5% -5.4% 10.7% 8.0% 2.7% 

Similar units available? 8.1% 17.6% -9.5% 8.0% 6.7% 1.3% 

Number units recommended 18.9% 24.3% -5.4% 18.7% 25.3% -6.7% 

Overall availability 17.6% 29.7% -12.2% 20.0% 25.3% -5.3% 

Advertised unit inspected? 10.8% 23.0% -12.2% 13.3% 9.3% 4.0% 

Similar units inspected 12.2% 8.1% 4.1% 4.0% 8.0% -4.0% 

Number units inspected 18.9% 14.9% 4.1% 17.3% 16.0% 1.3% 

Overall inspection 17.6% 28.4% -10.8% 18.7% 16.0% 2.7% 

Rent for advertised unit 7.7% 5.1% 2.6% 10.9% 15.2% -4.3% 

Rental incentives offered? 4.1% 6.8% -2.7% 8.0% 53.0% 2.7% 

Amount of security deposit 3.8% 7.7% -3.8% 2.6% 7.7% -5.1% 

Application fee required? 10.8% 13.5% -2.7% 10.7% 8.0% 2.7% 

Overall cost 16.2% 20.3% -4.1% 20.0% 24.0% -4.0% 

Follow-up contact from agent? 1.4% 1.4% 0.0% 4.0% 27.0% 1.3% 

Asked to complete application? 29.7% 8.1% 21.6% ** 24.0% 13.3% 10.7% 

Arrangements for future? 20.3% 12.2% 8.1% 33.3% 5.3% 28.0% ** 

Told qualified to rent? 1.4% 4.1% -2.7% 0.0% 4.0% -4.0% 

Overall encouragement 37.8% 20.3% 17.6% * 42.7% 21.3% 21.3% ** 

Overall hierarchical 

Overall consistency 

40.5% 47.3% -6.8% 

21.6% 17.6% 4.1% 

44.0% 42.7% 1.3% 

30.7% 20.0% 10.7% 

Note: For net estimates, * indicates statstical significance at the 90% level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level (using a two-tailed test). 

Gross estimates are by definition statistically significant. 

LOS ANGELES - CHINESE/WHITE AND KOREAN/WHITE SALES TESTS 

RENTAL TREATMENT 

MEASURES 

Chinese/White Korean/White 

% white 

favored 

% Chinese 

favored 

net measure % white 

favored 

% Korean 

favored 

net measure 

Advertised unit available? 14.3% 18.6% -4.3% 16.7% 9.7% 6.9% 

Similar units available? 12.9% 8.6% 4.3% 18.1% 12.5% 5.6% 

Number units recommended 45.7% 42.9% 2.9% 40.3% 44.4% -4.2% 

Overall availability 47.1% 42.9% 4.3% 56.9% 37.5% 19.4% 

Advertised unit inspected? 15.7% 20.0% -4.3% 22.2% 6.9% 15.3% ** 

Similar units inspected? 31.4% 20.0% 11.4% 22.2% 15.3% 6.9% 

Number units inspected 42.9% 41.4% 1.4% 37.5% 41.7% -4.2% 

Overall inspection 44.3% 44.3% 0.0% 59.7% 27.8% 31.9% ** 

Help with financing offered? 22.9% 15.7% 7.1% 43.1% 9.7% 33.3% ** 

Lenders recommended? 25.7% 25.7% 0.0% 20.8% 11.1% 9.7% 

Downpayment reqs discussed? 41.4% 10.0% 31.4% ** 23.6% 16.7% 6.9% 

Overall financing 47.1% 31.4% 15.7% 56.9% 23.6% 33.3% ** 

Follow-up contact from agent? 17.1% 12.9% 4.3% 15.3% 13.9% 1.4% 

Told qualified? 47.1% 2.9% 44.3% ** 31.9% 12.5% 19.4% ** 

Arrangements for future? 11.4% 10.0% 1.4% 4.2% 1.4% 2.8% 

Overall encouragement 57.1% 22.9% 34.3% ** 38.9% 26.4% 12.5% 

Overall hierarchical 

Overall consistency 

52.9% 47.1% 5.7% 

17.1% 7.1% 10.0% 

61.1% 38.9% 22.2% * 

18.1% 9.7% 8.3% 

Note: For net estimates, * indicates statstical significance at the 90 % level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level (using a two-tailed test). 

Gross estimates are by definition statistically significant. 

A4-1 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

ANNEX 4B: METROPLITAN ESTIMATES OF ADVERSE TREATMENT
 

AGAINST SOUTHEAST ASIANS
 

MINNEAPOLIS -SOUTHEAST ASIAN/WHITE RENTAL TESTS 

RENTAL TREATMENT 

MEASURES 

SE Asian/White 

% white 

favored 

% SE Asian 

favored 

net measure 

Advertised unit available? 3.9% 3.9% 0.0% 

Similar units available? 13.0% 11.7% 1.3% 

Number units recommended 31.2% 18.2% 13.0% 

Overall availability 32.5% 22.1% 10.4% 

Advertised unit inspected? 10.4% 2.6% 7.8% 

Similar units inspected 14.3% 3.9% 10.4% * 

Number units inspected 24.7% 7.8% 16.9% ** 

Overall inspection 31.2% 10.4% 20.8% ** 

Rent for advertised unit 20.8% 10.4% 10.4% 

Rental incentives offered? 6.5% 9.1% -2.6% 

Amount of security deposit 7.0% 2.3% 4.7% 

Application fee required? 9.1% 5.2% 3.9% 

Overall cost 20.8% 22.1% -1.3% 

Follow-up contact from agent? 2.6% 6.5% -3.9% 

Asked to complete application? 28.6% 11.7% 16.9% ** 

Arrangements for future? 18.2% 14.3% 3.9% 

Told qualified to rent? 6.5% 15.6% -9.1% 

Overall encouragement 39.0% 35.1% 3.9% 

Overall hierarchical 

Overall consistency 

50.6% 40.3% 10.4% 

24.7% 13.0% 11.7% 

Note: For net estimates, * indicates statstical significance at the 90% level, and ** indicates 

significance at the 95% level (using a two-tailed test). Gross estimates are by definition 

statistically significant. 

A4-2 
Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

ANNEX 5 

MAINLAND U.S. ESTIMATES OF ADVERSE TREATMENT 

AGAINST ASIANS AND PACIFIC ISLANDERS 

A5 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

ANNEX 5A: API RENTAL TESTS -- NATIONAL VS. MAINLAND U.S. 

HOUSING AVAILABILITY 

National Mainland U.S. 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure % white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure 

Advertised unit available? 

Similar units available? 

Number units recommended 

Overall availability 

7.2% 7.6% -0.4% 

11.2% 11.0% 0.2% 

25.6% 21.7% 3.9% 

28.8% 24.0% 4.8% 

7.1% 8.2% -1.1% 

10.6% 11.4% -0.8% 

23.1% 22.4% 0.7% 

26.3% 24.6% 1.8% 

HOUSING INSPECTION 

National Mainland U.S. 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure % white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure 

Advertised unit inspected? 

Similar units inspected? 

Number units inspected 

Overall inspection 

6.9% 10.9% -4.0% * 

6.7% 6.5% 0.2% 

12.9% 17.7% -4.8% 

14.6% 20.0% -5.3% * 

7.7% 11.9% -4.2% 

7.5% 7.3% 0.2% 

14.2% 18.9% -4.7% 

16.1% 21.4% -5.3% 

HOUSING COST 

National Mainland U.S. 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure % white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure

Rent for advertised unit 

Rental incentives offered? 

Amount of security deposit 

Application fee required? 

Overall cost 

10.1% 8.9% 1.2% 

9.1% 5.8% 3.3% 

7.3% 10.1% -2.8% 

8.4% 9.7% -1.3% 

18.5% 19.9% -1.4% 

11.4% 10.0% 1.3% 

9.8% 6.1% 3.7% 

8.2% 11.3% -3.2% 

8.6% 9.7% -1.1% 

19.8% 21.0% -1.2% 

AGENT ENCOURAGEMENT 

National Mainland U.S. 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure % white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure 

Follow-up contact from agent? 

Asked to complete application? 

Credit check required? 

Arrangements for future? 

Overall encouragement 

4.9% 1.7% 3.2% ** 

18.6% 19.1% -0.4% 

13.0% 22.5% -9.5% ** 

20.0% 12.5% 7.5% ** 

38.9% 36.6% 2.3% 

4.2% 1.6% 2.6% * 

18.3% 18.4% -0.2% 

13.6% 21.3% -7.6% ** 

19.5% 12.4% 7.1% ** 

38.4% 36.1% 2.3% 

SUMMARY MEASURES 

National Mainland U.S. 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure % white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure 

Hierarchical 

Consistency 

47.8% 43.4% 4.3% 

21.5% 17.4% 4.0% 

46.0% 45.1% 0.9% 

21.5% 18.3% 3.2% 

Note: For net estimates and change estimates, * indicates statstical significance at the 90 % level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level 

(using a two-tailed test). Gross estimates are by definition statistically significant. 

A5-1 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

ANNEX 5B: API SALES TESTS -- NATIONAL VS. MAINLAND U.S.
 

HOUSING AVAILABILITY 

National Mainland U.S. 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored net measure % white 

favored 

% API 

favored net measure 

Advertised unit available? 

Similar units available? 

Number units recommended 

Overall availability 

15.6% 14.6% 1.0% 

17.5% 11.0% 6.6% ** 

46.3% 36.8% 9.5% * 

49.3% 38.6% 10.7% ** 

15.4% 14.0% 1.4% 

17.6% 10.6% 7.0% ** 

46.0% 37.1% 8.9% * 

49.1% 38.8% 10.3% * 

HOUSING INSPECTION 

National Mainland U.S. 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored net measure % white 

favored 

% API 

favored net measure 

Advertised unit inspected? 

Similar units inspected 

Number units inspected 

Overall inspection 

16.7% 10.9% 5.7% ** 

21.4% 11.9% 9.4% ** 

45.7% 31.7% 14.0% ** 

50.7% 31.9% 18.8% ** 

16.3% 10.9% 5.4% * 

22.6% 11.6% 10.9% ** 

46.0% 31.0% 15.0% ** 

50.6% 31.3% 19.3% ** 

GEOGRAPHIC STEERING 

National Mainland U.S. 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored net measure % white 

favored 

% API 

favored net measure 

Steering - homes recommended 

Steering - homes inspected 

18.4% 16.3% 2.1% 

15.1% 14.8% 0.3% 

18.6% 15.9% 2.7% 

15.6% 14.8% 0.7% 

FINANCING ASSISTANCE 

National Mainland U.S. 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored net measure % white 

favored 

% API 

favored net measure 

Help with financing offered? 

Agent prequalified tester? 

Lenders recommended? 

Overall financing 

28.5% 13.5% 15.1% ** 

22.8% 18.4% 4.4% 

19.7% 14.4% 5.3% 

43.6% 28.3% 15.3% ** 

28.9% 13.0% 15.9% ** 

21.8% 17.5% 4.3% 

18.6% 13.8% 4.9% 

42.7% 27.6% 15.1% ** 

AGENT ENCOURAGEMENT 

National Mainland U.S. 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored net measure % white 

favored 

% API 

favored net measure

Follow-up contact from agent? 

Prequalification required? 

Told qualified? 

Arrangements for future? 

Overall encouragement 

12.6% 13.1% -0.5% 

14.0% 5.8% 8.1% ** 

23.6% 14.2% 9.4% ** 

11.7% 8.7% 2.9% 

39.6% 31.9% 7.7% * 

12.1% 12.9% -0.9% 

14.6% 5.9% 8.8% ** 

23.7% 14.9% 8.7% ** 

12.4% 9.1% 3.3% 

39.2% 32.7% 6.6% 

SUMMARY MEASURES 

National Mainland U.S. 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored net measure % white 

favored 

% API 

favored net measure 

Hierarchical 

Consistency 

58.7% 39.2% 19.6% ** 

20.4% 8.6% 11.8% ** 

58.2% 39.4% 18.8% ** 

21.1% 8.6% 12.5% ** 

Note: For net estimates and change estimates, * indicates statstical significance at the 90 % level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level 

(using a two-tailed test). Gross estimates are by definition statistically significant. 

A5-2 
Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

ANNEX 6 

COMPARISON OF ADVERSE TREATMENT 

AGAINST ASIANS AND PACIFIC ISLANDERS, BLACKS, AND 

HISPANICS FOR COMPARABLE SUB-SAMPLES OF SITES 

A6 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

ANNEX 6A: COMPARISON OF ADVERSE TREATMENT AGAINST API'S AND BLACKS FOR COMPARABLE SUB-SAMPLES 

RENTAL TREATMENT 

MEASURES 

Black/White API/White Difference from Black/White 

% white 

favored 

% black 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% minority 

favored 

Advertised unit available? 11.1% 9.3% 1.8% 7.2% 8.2% -0.9% 3.9% 1.1% 2.7% 

Similar units available? 13.3% 11.6% 1.7% 10.5% 10.7% -0.2% 2.8% 0.9% 1.9% 

Number units recommended 29.2% 18.5% 10.7% ** 23.8% 22.0% 1.8% 5.4% -3.5% 9.0% 

Overall availability 30.8% 22.0% 8.7% ** 27.0% 24.2% 2.8% 3.7% -2.2% 5.9% 

Advertised unit inspected? 13.1% 12.4% 0.7% 7.8% 13.0% -5.1% * 5.3% -0.6% 5.8% 

Similar units inspected 11.8% 6.8% 5.0% ** 7.8% 8.2% -0.4% 4.0% -1.3% 5.4% 

Number units inspected 23.2% 19.4% 3.8% 14.3% 20.7% -6.4% * 8.9% ** -1.3% 10.1% ** 

Overall inspection 26.5% 21.9% 4.5% 16.5% 23.5% -7.0% * 10.0% ** -1.5% 11.5% ** 

Rent for advertised unit 10.8% 13.0% -2.2% 10.9% 6.9% 4.0% -0.1% 6.1% * -6.2% 

Rental incentives offered? 6.5% 8.2% -1.7% 10.2% 6.0% 4.2% -3.7% 2.1% -5.8% * 

Amount of security deposit 5.1% 4.3% 0.8% 9.4% 9.8% -0.4% -4.3% -5.5% 1.2% 

Application fee required? 9.4% 15.6% -6.2% ** 9.1% 11.0% -1.9% 0.3% 4.6% -4.3% 

Overall cost 20.0% 24.7% -4.7% 20.5% 20.7% -0.1% -0.5% 4.0% -4.5% 

Follow-up contact from agent? 2.5% 3.9% -1.3% 3.7% 0.6% 3.0% ** -1.1% 3.3% ** -4.4% ** 

Asked to complete application? 16.8% 19.5% -2.7% 19.3% 15.6% 3.8% -2.5% 4.0% -6.5% 

Credit check required? 14.1% 18.2% -4.2% 12.6% 20.8% -8.1% ** 1.4% -2.5% 4.0% 

Arrangements for future? 11.9% 15.8% -4.0% 19.8% 13.1% 6.7% * -8.0% ** 2.7% -10.6% ** 

Overall encouragement 30.0% 41.2% -11.2% ** 38.8% 33.5% 5.3% -8.8% ** 7.7% * -16.4% ** 

Overall hierarchical 

Overall consistency 

47.4% 45.5% 1.9% 

19.6% 22.3% -2.7% 

47.4% 43.1% 4.3% 

22.3% 17.2% 5.2% 

0.1% 2.5% -2.4% 

-2.7% 5.1% -7.8% 

Note: For net estimates, * indicates statstical significance at the 90 % level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level (using a two-tailed test). Gross estimates are 

by definition statistically significant. 

SALES TREATMENT 

MEASURES 

Black/White API/White Difference from Black/White 

% white 

favored 

% black 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

net 

measure 

% minority 

favored 

% white 

favored 

Advertised unit available? 13.7% 12.8% 0.9% 15.9% 14.4% 1.6% -2.2% -1.6% -0.7% 

Similar units available? 18.0% 17.5% 0.5% 16.6% 12.2% 4.5% 1.4% 5.4% -3.9% 

Number units recommended 51.2% 31.1% 20.2% ** 40.6% 41.1% -0.5% 10.6% ** -10.1% ** 20.7% ** 

Overall availability 49.4% 38.7% 10.7% ** 46.1% 40.7% 5.3% 3.3% -2.0% 5.3% 

Advertised unit inspected? 13.6% 14.1% -0.6% 16.8% 10.8% 6.1% * -3.2% 3.4% -6.6% 

Similar units inspected? 21.3% 18.4% 2.9% 23.3% 13.3% 9.9% ** -2.0% 5.0% -7.0% 

Number units inspected 43.0% 33.2% 9.8% ** 40.4% 34.3% 6.1% 2.7% -1.1% 3.7% 

Overall inspection 42.7% 36.7% 6.0% 47.3% 32.2% 15.1% ** -4.6% 4.4% -9.1% 

Steering - homes recommended 

Steering - homes inspected 

23.3% 13.1% 10.2% ** 

16.4% 10.7% 5.8% ** 

19.0% 14.9% 4.1% 

15.1% 14.2% 0.9% 

4.3% -1.8% 6.1% 

1.3% -3.5% 4.8% 

Help with financing offered? 16.2% 11.6% 4.5% 29.1% 13.6% 15.4% ** -12.9% ** -2.0% -10.9% ** 

Agent prequalified tester? 22.4% 11.4% 11.0% ** 20.1% 16.6% 3.5% 2.4% -5.2% 7.6% 

Lenders recommended? 17.4% 16.5% 0.8% 18.8% 14.4% 4.4% -1.4% 2.1% -3.6% 

Overall financing 36.0% 23.0% 13.0% ** 41.9% 27.1% 14.8% ** -5.8% -4.1% -1.7% 

Follow-up contact from agent? 19.9% 16.1% 3.8% 11.3% 14.4% -3.1% 8.6% ** 1.8% 6.9% 

Prequalification required? 12.2% 17.4% -5.2% * 14.9% 6.9% 7.9% ** -2.7% 10.5% ** -13.1% ** 

Told qualified? 32.1% 9.9% 22.2% ** 24.7% 14.7% 10.0% ** 7.4% * -4.8% 12.2% ** 

Arrangements for future? 3.4% 10.6% -7.3% ** 12.9% 9.4% 3.5% -9.5% ** 1.2% -10.7% ** 

Overall encouragement 39.1% 32.1% 7.0% 39.3% 34.2% 5.1% -0.3% -2.1% 1.9% 

Overall hierarchical 

Overall consistency 

53.8% 44.1% 9.7% * 

14.6% 11.7% 2.9% 

58.0% 39.6% 18.4% ** 

20.6% 8.5% 12.1% ** 

-4.2% 4.5% -8.7% 

-6.0% * 3.2% -9.2% ** 

Note: For net estimates, * indicates statstical significance at the 90 % level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level (using a two-tailed test). Gross estimates are 

by definition statistically significant. 

A6-1 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

ANNEX 6B: COMPARISON OF ADVERSE TREATMENT AGAINST API'S AND HISPANICS FOR COMPARABLE SUB-SAMPLES 

RENTAL TREATMENT 

MEASURES 

Hispanic/N-H white API/White Diff from Hispanic/N-H white 

% n-H white 

favored 

% Hispanic 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% minority 

favored 

net 

measure 

Advertised unit available? 11.1% 4.8% 6.2% ** 5.6% 8.1% -2.5% 5.5% -3.2% 8.7% ** 

Similar units available? 12.5% 11.6% 0.9% 10.5% 11.8% -1.4% 2.1% -0.2% 2.3% 

Number units recommended 31.3% 17.4% 13.9% ** 21.2% 22.1% -0.9% 10.0% ** -4.8% 14.8% ** 

Overall availability 33.3% 19.9% 13.4% ** 23.4% 24.8% -1.4% 9.9% ** -4.9% 14.9% ** 

Advertised unit inspected? 13.9% 8.2% 5.7% ** 7.8% 10.5% -2.7% 6.0% -2.3% 8.4% ** 

Similar units inspected 8.1% 8.2% -0.1% 7.0% 7.1% -0.1% 1.2% 1.2% 0.0% 

Number units inspected 22.4% 16.0% 6.5% ** 14.1% 17.2% -3.1% 8.3% ** -1.2% 9.6% ** 

Overall inspection 25.8% 17.0% 8.8% ** 15.6% 20.0% -4.4% 10.2% ** -3.0% 13.2% ** 

Rent for advertised unit 14.9% 8.7% 6.1% * 9.7% 10.8% -1.1% 5.2% -2.1% 7.2% 

Rental incentives offered? 9.4% 3.7% 5.7% ** 9.1% 5.5% 3.6% 0.3% -1.8% 2.1% 

Amount of security deposit 11.6% 9.2% 2.4% 7.3% 12.5% -5.2% 4.3% -3.3% 7.6% 

Application fee required? 13.6% 10.9% 2.7% 9.2% 10.6% -1.3% 4.4% 0.4% 4.0% 

Overall cost 26.8% 17.1% 9.7% ** 19.1% 21.8% -2.7% 7.8% ** -4.6% 12.4% ** 

Follow-up contact from agent? 3.9% 2.9% 0.9% 4.1% 1.6% 2.6% * -0.3% 1.4% -1.6% 

Asked to complete application? 16.4% 18.8% -2.4% 17.7% 19.7% -2.0% -1.3% -0.9% -0.4% 

Credit check required? 18.4% 17.5% 1.0% 13.9% 20.1% -6.2% * 4.6% -2.6% 7.2% 

Arrangements for future? 14.0% 19.9% -5.9% ** 20.2% 12.0% 8.2% ** -6.2% * 7.9% ** -14.1% ** 

Overall encouragement 35.4% 34.0% 1.4% 38.2% 35.9% 2.3% -2.8% -2.0% -0.8% 

Overall hierarchical 

Overall consistency 

56.0% 35.9% 20.1% ** 

24.4% 14.9% 9.5% ** 

45.1% 45.3% -0.2% 

22.5% 19.5% 3.0% 

10.9% ** -9.4% ** 20.4% ** 

1.9% -4.6% 6.4% 

Note: For net estimates, * indicates statstical significance at the 90 % level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level (using a two-tailed test). Gross estimates are by 

definition statistically significant. 

SALES TREATMENT 

MEASURES 

Hispanic/N-H white API/White Diff from Hispanic/N-H white 

% n-H white 

favored 

% Hispanic 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net 

measure 

% white 

favored 

net 

measure 

% minority 

favored 

Advertised unit available? 10.6% 18.0% -7.4% ** 16.0% 13.6% 2.4% -5.4% 4.4% -9.8% ** 

Similar units available? 19.7% 10.9% 8.8% ** 17.3% 9.3% 7.9% ** 2.4% 1.5% 0.9% 

Number units recommended 43.2% 36.8% 6.4% 46.7% 36.1% 10.5% * -3.5% 0.7% -4.1% 

Overall availability 41.7% 44.8% -3.2% 50.0% 37.9% 12.1% ** -8.4% ** 6.9% * -15.3% ** 

Advertised unit inspected? 11.0% 20.3% -9.4% ** 16.3% 10.9% 5.5% * -5.4% 9.5% ** -14.8% ** 

Similar units inspected? 16.8% 12.6% 4.1% 22.4% 12.5% 9.9% ** -5.6% 0.1% -5.7% 

Number units inspected 36.2% 37.8% -1.6% 46.1% 31.8% 14.3% ** -9.8% ** 6.0% -15.9% ** 

Overall inspection 35.5% 45.0% -9.5% ** 51.1% 31.8% 19.4% ** -15.6% ** 13.2% ** -28.9% ** 

Steering - homes recommended 

Steering - homes inspected 

19.4% 15.1% 4.3% 

19.3% 12.6% 6.7% ** 

19.1% 17.0% 2.1% 

16.8% 16.0% 0.8% 

0.3% -1.8% 2.2% 

2.5% -3.4% 5.9% 

Help with financing offered? 30.4% 9.5% 20.9% ** 27.1% 13.1% 14.0% ** 3.3% -3.5% 6.8% 

Agent prequalified tester? 28.5% 10.5% 18.1% ** 23.0% 16.4% 6.6% * 5.6% -5.9% 11.5% ** 

Lenders recommended? 29.6% 9.1% 20.5% ** 19.0% 14.9% 4.1% 10.7% ** -5.7% 16.4% ** 

Overall financing 45.2% 18.4% 26.8% ** 41.2% 28.4% 12.8% ** 4.0% -9.9% ** 13.9% ** 

Follow-up contact from agent? 12.7% 14.2% -1.5% 11.1% 13.7% -2.6% 1.6% 0.5% 1.1% 

Prequalification required? 6.9% 12.0% -5.1% ** 13.8% 6.5% 7.3% ** -6.9% ** 5.5% * -12.4% ** 

Told qualified? 23.9% 11.2% 12.7% ** 25.2% 14.2% 11.0% ** -1.2% -3.0% 1.7% 

Arrangements for future? 7.8% 8.0% -0.2% 12.7% 9.2% 3.5% -4.9% * -1.2% -3.6% 

Overall encouragement 34.9% 29.8% 5.1% 38.4% 33.6% 4.7% -3.5% -3.8% 0.4% 

Overall hierarchical 

Overall consistency 

49.8% 46.6% 3.2% 

21.7% 11.2% 10.6% ** 

57.8% 39.6% 18.2% ** 

20.7% 9.3% 11.4% ** 

-8.1% ** 7.0% * -15.0% * 

1.0% 1.8% -0.8% 

Note: For net estimates, * indicates statstical significance at the 90 % level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level (using a two-tailed test). Gross estimates are by 

definition statistically significant. 

A6-2 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

ANNEX : API RENTAL TESTS -- ASIANS AND PACIFIC ISLANDERS VS. ASIANS ONLY 

HOUSING AVAILABILITY 

Asians and Pacific Islanders Asians only 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure % white 

favored 

% Asians 

favored 

net measure 

Advertised unit available? 

Similar units available? 

Number units recommended 

Overall availability 

7.2% 7.6% -0.4% 

11.2% 11.0% 0.2% 

25.6% 21.7% 3.9% 

28.8% 24.0% 4.8% 

7.0% 9.3% -2.4% 

11.5% 12.3% -0.8% 

23.5% 24.0% -0.5% 

27.1% 26.1% 1.0% 

HOUSING INSPECTION 

Asians and Pacific Islanders Asians only 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure % white 

favored 

% Asians 

favored 

net measure 

Advertised unit inspected? 

Similar units inspected? 

Number units inspected 

Overall inspection 

6.9% 10.9% -4.0% * 

6.7% 6.5% 0.2% 

12.9% 17.7% -4.8% 

14.6% 20.0% -5.3% * 

7.5% 12.8% -5.4% ** 

7.3% 7.4% -0.1% 

13.9% 19.5% -5.6% 

16.1% 22.0% -5.9% 

HOUSING COST 

Asians and Pacific Islanders Asians only 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure % white 

favored 

% Asians 

favored 

net measure

Rent for advertised unit 

Rental incentives offered? 

Amount of security deposit 

Application fee required? 

Overall cost 

10.1% 8.9% 1.2% 

9.1% 5.8% 3.3% 

7.3% 10.1% -2.8% 

8.4% 9.7% -1.3% 

18.5% 19.9% -1.4% 

11.7% 10.0% 1.8% 

10.3% 5.8% 4.5% * 

7.5% 11.9% -4.3% 

9.6% 8.6% 1.0% 

21.3% 21.2% 0.1% 

AGENT ENCOURAGEMENT 

Asians and Pacific Islanders Asians only 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure % white 

favored 

% Asians 

favored 

net measure 

Follow-up contact from agent? 

Asked to complete application? 

Credit check required? 

Arrangements for future? 

Overall encouragement 

4.9% 1.7% 3.2% ** 

18.6% 19.1% -0.4% 

13.0% 22.5% -9.5% ** 

20.0% 12.5% 7.5% ** 

38.9% 36.6% 2.3% 

5.1% 2.2% 2.8% * 

17.5% 16.7% 0.8% 

14.0% 21.4% -7.4% ** 

20.6% 11.7% 8.9% ** 

40.9% 34.5% 6.4% 

SUMMARY MEASURES 

Asians and Pacific Islanders Asians only 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored 

net measure % white 

favored 

% Asians 

favored 

net measure 

Hierarchical 

Consistency 

47.8% 43.4% 4.3% 

21.5% 17.4% 4.0% 

47.0% 44.7% 2.3% 

23.9% 16.7% 7.2% * 

Note: For net estimates and change estimates, * indicates statistical significance at the 90 % level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level 

(using a two-tailed test). Gross estimates are by definition statistically significant. 
 

Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 - Asians and Pacific Islanders 

ANNEX : API SALES TESTS -- ASIANS AND PACIFIC ISLANDERS VS. ASIANS ONLY
 

HOUSING AVAILABILITY 

Asians and Pacific Islanders Asians only 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored net measure % white 

favored 

% Asians 

favored net measure 

Advertised unit available? 

Similar units available? 

Number units recommended 

Overall availability 

15.6% 14.6% 1.0% 

17.5% 11.0% 6.6% ** 

46.3% 36.8% 9.5% * 

49.3% 38.6% 10.7% ** 

15.4% 14.8% 0.7% 

18.6% 10.9% 7.7% ** 

47.8% 36.9% 10.9% ** 

49.8% 38.7% 11.2% ** 

HOUSING INSPECTION 

Asians and Pacific Islanders Asians only 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored net measure % white 

favored 

% Asians 

favored net measure 

Advertised unit inspected? 

Similar units inspected 

Number units inspected 

Overall inspection 

16.7% 10.9% 5.7% ** 

21.4% 11.9% 9.4% ** 

45.7% 31.7% 14.0% ** 

50.7% 31.9% 18.8% ** 

16.9% 11.1% 5.8% * 

24.4% 12.6% 11.8% ** 

48.7% 30.2% 18.5% ** 

52.1% 31.4% 20.7% ** 

GEOGRAPHIC STEERING 

Asians and Pacific Islanders Asians only 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored net measure % white 

favored 

% Asians 

favored net measure 

Steering - homes recommended 

Steering - homes inspected 

18.4% 16.3% 2.1% 

15.1% 14.8% 0.3% 

19.8% 15.2% 4.6% 

17.1% 14.7% 2.4% 

FINANCING ASSISTANCE 

Asians and Pacific Islanders Asians only 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored net measure % white 

favored 

% Asians 

favored net measure 

Help with financing offered? 

Agent prequalified tester? 

Lenders recommended? 

Overall financing 

28.5% 13.5% 15.1% ** 

22.8% 18.4% 4.4% 

19.7% 14.4% 5.3% 

43.6% 28.3% 15.3% ** 

30.8% 13.2% 17.6% ** 

23.4% 18.1% 5.3% 

19.8% 14.6% 5.2% 

44.3% 29.9% 14.4% ** 

AGENT ENCOURAGEMENT 

Asians and Pacific Islanders Asians only 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored net measure % white 

favored 

% Asians 

favored net measure 

Follow-up contact from agent? 

Prequalification required? 

Told qualified? 

Arrangements for future? 

Overall encouragement 

12.6% 13.1% -0.5% 

14.0% 5.8% 8.1% ** 

23.6% 14.2% 9.4% ** 

11.7% 8.7% 2.9% 

39.6% 31.9% 7.7% * 

12.6% 14.8% -2.1% 

14.9% 6.1% 8.8% ** 

25.5% 14.4% 11.2% ** 

11.8% 8.1% 3.7% 

41.2% 33.1% 8.0% 

SUMMARY MEASURES 

Asians and Pacific Islanders Asians only 

% white 

favored 

% API 

favored net measure % white 

favored 

% Asians 

favored net measure 

Hierarchical 

Consistency 

58.7% 39.2% 19.6% ** 

20.4% 8.6% 11.8% ** 

58.2% 39.9% 18.3% ** 

19.9% 7.3% 12.6% **

Note: For net estimates and change estimates, * indicates statistical significance at the 90 % level, and ** indicates significance at the 95% level 

(using a two-tailed test). Gross estimates are by definition statistically significant.