A Pilot Study of Landlord Acceptance 

of Housing Choice Vouchers

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development | Office of Policy Development and Research 
Visit PD&R’s website

huduser.gov

to find this report and others sponsored by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R). 

Other services of HUD User, PD&R’s research information service, include listservs, special interest 

reports, bimonthly publications (best practices, significant studies from other sources), access to public 

use databases, and a hotline (800-245-2691) for help accessing the information you need.
A Pilot Study of Landlord Acceptance 

of Housing Choice Vouchers

Prepared for

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Prepared by

Mary Cunningham

Martha Galvez

Claudia L. Aranda

Rob Santos

Doug Wissoker

Alyse Oneto

Rob Pitingolo

James Crawford

Urban Institute

September 2018
Acknowledgments

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funded this report. The 

authors are grateful to their funders, who make it possible for the Urban Institute to advance 

its mission. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to 

the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Funders do not determine research findings 

or the insights and recommendations of Urban Institute experts. Further information on 

the Urban Institute’s funding principles is available at www.urban.org/support.

A panel of expert advisers made valuable contributions to the research team’s understanding 

of the housing-related challenges that housing choice voucher holders face and to the research 

design and data analysis plan. Panel members (and their organizational affiliations at the time of 

the study) were Barbara Chandler (Metro Housing Boston, formerly known as Metropolitan Boston 

Housing Partnership), Stefanie DeLuca (Johns Hopkins University), Lance Freeman (Columbia 

University), Jack Goodman (Hartrey Advisors), Rachel Kleit (The Ohio State University), Rich 

Monocchio (Housing Authority of Cook County), Jennifer O’Neil (Quadel Consulting Corporation), 

Stephen Ross (University of Connecticut), MaryAnn Russ (Off the Grid Housing Consulting, 

previously with the Dallas Housing Authority), Corianne Scally (Urban Institute, previously with the 

Department of Geography and Planning, University at Albany, SUNY), James Stowe (Montgomery 

County Office of Human Rights), and Phil Tegeler (Poverty and Race Research Action Council).

The authors thank Urban Institute colleagues who contributed to the successful completion of 

this project. David D’Orio designed the web-based data system used to enter and share testing 

information. Kriti Ramakrishnan helped review the relevant literature and past studies on voucher 

discrimination. Jessica Luna (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service) and 

Brent Howell conducted secondary data analyses, contributed to the research design, and 

helped with project management early in the study. Alison Akridge-Foy managed the voucher 

acceptance testing stage and contributed to the qualitative analysis. Tim Ware and Kelley Hanni 

assisted the research team throughout the study with project management. Marge Turner 

provided sage advice during the course of the study and helpful comments on report drafts.

To complete this study, the Urban Institute partnered with the Fair Housing Foundation, the North Texas 

Fair Housing Center, and the Fair Housing Council of Northern New Jersey. This project could not have 

been completed successfully without the commitment and hard work of their test coordinators and testers.

Paul Joice and Carol Star from HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research provided 

excellent advice and oversight throughout this research effort, and Mark Shroder offered 

valuable suggestions on the final report. We are enormously grateful for their guidance.

Disclaimer

The contents of this report are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or 

policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. government.

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

Acknowledgments
Foreword

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) Housing Choice Voucher 

(HCV) program provides housing assistance to more than 2.2 million families, making it HUD’s 

largest rental assistance program. HUD sets the rules and funds more than 2,500 public housing 

authorities (PHAs) nationwide, which administer the program. PHAs use the funds to pay a monthly 

subsidy directly to a landlord on behalf of an eligible low-income household. PHAs maintain a 

waiting list, determine tenant eligibility for the program, calculate how much the tenant will pay 

the landlord and how much HUD will subsidize, conduct inspections, and pay the subsidy—but 

many other choices and responsibilities are left to the tenant and the landlord. This study focuses 

on one particular choice that landlords make: whether to participate in the voucher program.

Under federal law, landlords may have the legal right to turn away voucher holders. Some state and 

local governments have passed laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of source of income, 

but in most of the country landlords can choose not to rent to a household with a housing choice 

voucher. This study uses rigorous testing methods, across five diverse market areas, to assess 

whether and how landlords treat voucher holders differently from unsubsidized market renters. 

The researchers find that landlords often refuse to rent to voucher holders. In three of the five 

sites, the landlord denial rate was 67 percent or higher. In the two sites with lower levels of 

landlord denial (less than 31 percent), source-of-income antidiscrimination laws require landlords 

to accept vouchers. Sites with high levels of landlord denial also tend to have tight rental markets 

and relatively less-generous payment standards. In four of the five sites, landlord denial rates 

were substantially higher in low-poverty neighborhoods than in high-poverty neighborhoods.

Landlords are an important, and sometimes underappreciated, actor in the HCV program. Data from 

HUD’s administrative systems indicate that the number of landlords accepting vouchers has declined 

over the past decade, while the number of vouchers being utilized has increased. For the voucher 

program to realize its full potential—to provide assisted households access to safe and decent housing 

in neighborhoods of their choosing—the program must appeal to a wider variety of landlords. HUD 

and PHAs can do more to understand and address landlord complaints about the voucher program. 

This study is an important step toward understanding a problem and beginning to identify solutions.

Todd M. Richardson

General Deputy Assistant Secretary 

Office of Policy Development and Research

Foreword

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

v

Contents

Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................... ix

Chapter 1: Introduction............................................................................. 1

Chapter 2: Overview of the Housing Choice Voucher Program ................3

Chapter 3: Overview of Testing Methodology ......................................... 15

Chapter 4: How Difficult Is It To Find Voucher-Affordable Units?............23

Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers? ................29

Chapter 6: Do Landlords Treat Voucher Holders Differently

Than Other Apartment Seekers? ....................................................45

Chapter 7: Implications for Future Testing Studies..................................57

Chapter 8: Implications for Policy and Program Changes.......................65

Appendix A: Technical Appendix ............................................................71

Appendix B: Estimates of Differential Treatment During Telephone

Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angeles ............................................87

Appendix C: Estimates of Differential Treatment During In-Person

Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angeles ............................................93

Appendix D: Analyses of Differential Treatment by Tester

Pair Race and by Neighborhood Poverty Rate for Newark.............99

Appendix E: Identifiability Analysis .......................................................105

Appendix F: Qualitative Codebook ....................................................... 107

Appendix G: Testing Protocols..............................................................109

Appendix H: Test Coordinator Resources............................................. 115

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms ........................................................ 125

References............................................................................................ 167
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

vi

Tables, Figures, and Boxes

Tables, Figures, and Boxes

Table ES.1: Total Tests Completed by Site and Test Mode .......................x

Table ES.2: Level of Effort to Find Voucher-Affordable Units...................xi

Table ES.3: Voucher Acceptance Test Results and Voucher Denial

Rates by Site...................................................................................xii

Table ES.4: Voucher Acceptance Test Results by Site and

Low-, Medium-, and High-Poverty Census Tracts..........................xii

Table ES.5: Headline Measures of Differential Treatment in

Paired Telephone Tests in Newark, New Jersey ............................xiii

Table ES.6: Headline Measures of Differential Treatment in

Paired In-Person Tests in Newark, New Jersey .............................xiv

Table 2.1: Housing Choice Voucher Program Overview, 2016...................4

Figure 3.1: Flowchart of Testing Sequence for Housing

Discrimination Study—Vouchers .................................................... 16

Table 3.1: Select Test Site Characteristics............................................... 19

Table 3.2: Voucher Protections in Study Test Sites ................................20

Table 4.1: Advertisements Screened and Voucher

Acceptance Tests Completed.........................................................24

Table 4.2: Level of Effort To Find Voucher-Affordable Units ....................24

Table 4.3: ZIP Codes With No Available Units by Testing Site.................25

Table 4.4: Deciles of ZIP Code–Level Advertisements Screened

per Available Unit for Testing, by Testing Site ................................26

Table 4.5: Voucher Policy Information Listed in Advertisement Text .......27

Box 5.1: Sample Voucher Acceptance Test ............................................29

Table 5.1: Voucher Acceptance Tests Completed, by Site and 

Poverty Rate....................................................................................30
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

vii

Tables, Figures, and Boxes

Table 5.2: Voucher Acceptance Test Results and Voucher Denial 

Rates by Site...................................................................................31

Box 5.2: Sample “Unsure” and “Accepts with Conditions” Voucher 

Acceptance Test Narratives ............................................................31

Table 5.3: Voucher Acceptance Test Denial Rates by Site and Low-, 

Medium-, and High-Poverty Census Tracts....................................33

Table 5.4: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional 

Comments ......................................................................................34

Table 5.5: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional 

Landlord Comments, by Site ..........................................................34

Table 5.6: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional 

Landlord Comments, by Response—Does Not Accept Vouchers..35

Table 5.7: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional 

Landlord Comments, by Response—Accepts Vouchers 

With Conditions...............................................................................38

Table 5.8: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional 

Landlord Comments, by Response—Unsure of Voucher Policy .... 41

Table 5.9: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional 

Landlord Comments, by Response—Accepts Vouchers................ 41

Table 6.1: Total Tests Completed by Site and Test Mode .......................47

Table 6.2: Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired Telephone 

Tests in Newark, New Jersey ..........................................................48

Box 6.1: Examples of Landlords Missing Scheduled Appointments 

With Voucher Testers ......................................................................50

Box 6.2: Sample Questions About Employment and Other Information 

From Control Tests .........................................................................51

Table 6.3: Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired In-Person 

Tests in Newark, New Jersey ..........................................................52

Table A.1: Household Composition .........................................................79

Table A.2: Sample Calculation of Counterfactual Income for Two- and 

Three-Bedroom Households .........................................................80
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

viii

Tables, Figures, and Boxes

Table A.3: Initial Hard and Soft Test Targets by Site and Test Type ........83

Table A.4: Revised Test Targets Based on Field Experience...................83

Table A.5: Actual Completed Voucher Tests by Mode and Site ..............84

Table A.6: Initial and Final Voucher Acceptance Test Targets by Site .....84

Table A.7: Rental Housing Eligibility ........................................................86

Table B.1: Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired Telephone 

Tests, Fort Worth, Texas .................................................................88

Table B.2: Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired Telephone 

Tests in Los Angeles, California ......................................................90

Table C.1: Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired In-Person 

Tests in Fort Worth, Texas...............................................................94

Table C.2: Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired In-Person 

Tests in Los Angeles, California ......................................................96

Table D.1: Regression on Differences in Summary Measures of 

Differential Treatment—Newark, In-Person White Pairs Versus 

Black Pairs ....................................................................................100

Table D.2: Regression on Differences in Summary Measures of 

Differential Treatment—Newark, In-Person Low- Versus HighPoverty Census Tracts .................................................................. 102

Table E.1: Number of Respondents Who Accurately Identified 

Testers’ Race or Ethnicity .............................................................106

Table F.1: Codebook for Qualitative Analysis......................................... 107

Table G.1: Testing Protocols ..................................................................109
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

ix

Executive Summary

Executive 

Summary

This report presents findings from a fivesite pilot study of landlord acceptance or 

denial of federal housing choice vouchers. 

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) sponsored this study, 

and it is the first large-scale, multisite study of 

whether landlords treat people with vouchers 

differently than other renters. The project’s 

goals were to (1) identify testing methodologies 

for measuring differential treatment of renters 

who use housing vouchers authorized under 

Section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act 

of 1937, (2) identify the types and patterns of 

rental housing discrimination against voucher 

holders, and (3) measure the prevalence 

and extent of voucher-related discrimination, 

including differences in discrimination against 

racial and ethnic minorities and differences 

between low- and high-poverty neighborhoods.

The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program 

is the federal government’s largest rental 

housing assistance program. The goals of 

the HCV program are to increase access to 

safe, affordable housing units and to provide 

opportunities for low-income families to obtain 

rental housing outside areas of poverty or 

minority concentration (HUD, 2009). Voucher 

holders can, in theory, move anywhere in 

the country where a PHA administers the 

program, but their housing choices are severely 

constrained by their ability to navigate the 

private rental market, find a unit with rent below 

the payment standard, and identify a landlord 

who will participate in the program. Landlords 

decide, for the most part, if they want to accept 

vouchers as payment for their rental units.

Is it illegal for landlords to refuse to rent to 

voucher holders? The Fair Housing Act (Public 

Law 90-284), enacted in 1968 as Section VIII of 

the Civil Rights Act, aims to “prevent segregation 

and discrimination in housing, including in the 

sale or rental of housing and the provision of 

advertising, lending, and brokerage services 

related to housing.” Under the Fair Housing 

Act, landlords are prohibited from refusing to 

rent to members of protected classes—defined 

based on race, color, national origin, sex, 

religion, disability, and familial status. Voucher 

holders are not protected under the Act and 

landlords may have a legal right to turn away 

voucher holders. Although voucher holders are 

not protected under the Fair Housing Act, the 

program disproportionally serves members 

of protected classes—families with children, 

racial and ethnic minorities, and persons with 

disabilities. Some fair housing advocates 

argue that claims under the Fair Housing Act 

may be justified, because the act prohibits 

practices that may appear neutral—such as 

electing not to accept vouchers—but result in 

“disparate impacts,” for example, residential 

segregation, for a protected class. Beyond the 

federal statute, states and local jurisdictions 

have passed local ordinances, often referred 

to as source-of-income protections, to prohibit 

discrimination against voucher holders. In 

these locations, it is illegal for landlords to 

discriminate against voucher holders. For 

this study, we use the term discrimination to 

describe unequal or differential treatment of 

voucher holders, although this treatment is 

not necessarily illegal in all our testing sites.

Study Methodology 

The pilot study was designed to conduct 

voucher tests across neighborhoods in several 

sites, roughly in proportion to the prevalence 

of voucher-affordable housing in each site. 

Finding affordable housing required sampling 

advertisements from the Internet from virtually 

every ZIP Code in each site to achieve a target 

number of tests. Once eligible advertisements 

were identified, the study used a three-stage 

testing methodology to examine interactions 
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

x

Executive Summary

with landlords during the housing search. 

The first stage, the voucher acceptance test, 

was conducted in five sites: Fort Worth, 

Texas; Los Angeles, California; Newark, 

New Jersey; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 

and Washington, D.C.1

 During these tests, 

a female tester who would be perceived as 

White called landlords advertising rental units 

to ask, “Do you accept housing vouchers?”

If a landlord answered that he or she accepted 

vouchers, the test moved on to the second and 

third stages, which were conducted in three 

sites: Fort Worth, Los Angeles, and Newark. 

In the second stage, pairs of White, Black, 

and Hispanic female testers, matched on all 

characteristics (including race and ethnicity) 

other than voucher use (for example, White 

voucher holder versus White non-voucher 

holder, Black voucher holder versus Black 

non-voucher holder, and Hispanic voucher 

holder versus Hispanic non-voucher holder) 

conducted telephone tests to determine 

whether voucher holders were told about 

available housing and were able to secure 

appointments to view available units. If both 

testers were able to secure appointments, 

they proceeded to the third stage—in-person 

tests to determine whether voucher holders 

were able to meet with a landlord to see 

1 The Fort Worth site included Tarrant County and the cities of Fort Worth and Arlington. The Los Angeles site included all of Los Angeles County, except 

for 13 small cities with PHAs administering a small number of vouchers. The Newark site included four counties in northeastern New Jersey: Bergen, Essex, 

Hudson, and Passaic. The Philadelphia site included the city of Philadelphia and Bucks County. The Washington, D.C. site included the District of Columbia 

and Montgomery County, Maryland.

available housing. In both the telephone and 

in-person tests, voucher and control testers 

also recorded detailed information related to 

potential differential treatment, including landlord 

statements about eligibility requirements (for 

example, applications, credit checks, cosigner 

requirements, or eviction checks), qualifications 

for tenancy (for example, information requested 

on marital status, income, occupation, or 

employer), and housing costs (for example, 

rent quoted by the landlord and any fees, 

incentives, or move-in costs). These measures 

provided opportunities to assess whether 

landlords who stated they accepted vouchers 

ultimately denied voucher holders indirectly. 

The original study design anticipated 

approximately 2,550 voucher acceptance tests, 

1,650 paired telephone tests, and 1,200 paired 

in-person tests. However, because landlord 

denial rates were high, we completed far more 

voucher acceptance tests (3,780) than telephone 

and in-person paired tests (694 telephone and 

509 in-person tests; Table ES.1). Moreover, 

because of high voucher denial rates in Fort 

Worth and Los Angeles, few tests from those 

sites advanced to the second or third stages of 

testing. Newark accounted for 61 percent of all 

telephone tests and 73 percent of all in-person 

tests. In addition, high proportions of paired 

Table ES.1: Total Tests Completed by Site and Test Mode

 Test Site Voucher Acceptance Tests Telephone Tests In-Person Tests

Fort Worth, TX 1,146 142 73

Los Angeles, CA 998 126 62

Newark, NJ 782 426 374

Philadelphia, PA 422 NA NA

Washington, DC 432 NA NA

Total 3,780 694 509

NA = not applicable.
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

xi

Executive Summary

telephone tests in Fort Worth and Los Angeles 

sites ended without appointments to meet with 

landlords, which led to smaller than anticipated 

sample sizes of completed in-person tests for 

those sites. As a result, we discuss only 

Newark’s telephone and in-person test results.

Findings

Finding Voucher-Affordable Units Is 

Challenging

How difficult is it to find voucher-affordable 

units? During 16 months, we screened more 

than 341,000 online advertisements across the 

five study sites to find 8,735 advertisements for 

rental housing that appeared to be vouchereligible based on information in the ad. On 

average, we screened 39 advertisements to 

identify one potentially eligible unit. The effort 

required to find voucher-eligible housing differed 

dramatically across sites. For example, the 

average number of advertisements screened to 

identify a potentially eligible unit ranged from 

more than 50 in Los Angeles and Newark to 30 

in Fort Worth, 19 in Washington, D.C., and 11 in 

Philadelphia. Once we found advertisements for 

units that appeared eligible, Los Angeles and 

Newark required the most effort to contact the 

landlord, an average of about two contacts per 

potentially eligible advertisement (Table ES.2). 

As our testers searched for units, they did 

not precisely model the housing search a 

voucher holder might conduct. Nonetheless, 

their experience shows that searching for 

housing with vouchers is time consuming and 

frustrating. Voucher holders must navigate 

the rental market on their own, searching 

for units that meet the program rental cap. 

This search requires combing apartment 

listings and making multiple telephone calls 

to landlords to inquire about apartment 

availability. Many searches turn up short.

Many Landlords Do Not Accept 

Vouchers

The voucher acceptance tests show clear 

evidence of outright denial of vouchers, although 

denial rates varied widely (Table ES.3). Denial 

rates were highest in Fort Worth (78 percent) and 

Los Angeles (76 percent) and only somewhat 

lower in Philadelphia (67 percent). Rates were 

substantially lower in Newark (31 percent) 

and Washington, D.C. (15 percent). Moreover, 

across the five sites, between 9 and 25 percent 

of landlords said vouchers were accepted only 

under certain conditions or they were unsure of 

the voucher acceptance policy. Landlords were 

more likely to deny voucher holders in lowpoverty areas compared with high-poverty areas, 

particularly in the sites with the highest voucher 

denial rates (Table ES.4). In four of the five 

Table ES.2: Level of Effort to Find Voucher-Affordable Units

Test Site

Average Number 

of Advertisements 

Screened per Potentially 

Eligible Ad

Average Number of 

Contact Attempts per 

Potentially Eligible Ad

Number of Units Found 

Eligible and Available per 

Potentially Available Ad

Average Number 

of Advertisements 

Screened per Completed 

Voucher Acceptance Test

Fort Worth, TX 29.83 1.67 0.51 58.40

Los Angeles, CA 51.55 1.98 0.38 137.33

Newark, NJ 52.68 1.97 0.37 143.76

Philadelphia, PA 11.15 1.77 0.47 23.59

Washington, DC 18.82 1.54 0.54 35.07

Across sites 39.10 1.83 0.43 90.35
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

xii

Executive Summary

sites (all but Washington, D.C.), voucher denial 

rates were substantially higher for low-poverty 

census tracts than for high-poverty tracts.

We found lower landlord denial rates in sites 

that have legal protections against voucher 

discrimination (Table ES.3). In Newark and 

Washington, D.C., where voucher holders are a 

protected class under local source-of-income 

antidiscrimination laws, denial rates were lower 

compared with sites without such protections. 

Philadelphia also has a source-of-income 

antidiscrimination law, but neighboring Bucks 

County does not. In Los Angeles and Fort 

Table ES.4: Voucher Acceptance Test Results by Site and Low-, Medium-, and High-Poverty 

Census Tracts

Fort Worth Los Angeles Newark Philadelphia Washington, D.C.

Total tests 1,146 998 782 422 432

Voucher denial rate (%) 78.0 76.4 30.9 66.8 14.8

Standard error (%) 1.2 1.3 1.7 2.3 1.7

Average voucher denial rates 

in low-poverty areas (%) 85.0 81.5 37.7 82.5 16.2

Standard error (%) 2.1 2.3 3.0 5.1 3.0

Average voucher denial rates 

in medium-poverty areas (%) 81.1 80.7 28.8 70.9 15.0

Standard error (%) 1.8 2.1 2.6 3.4 2.8

Average voucher denial rates 

in high-poverty areas (%) 67.2 66.0 26.1 55.3 15.7

Standard error (%) 2.5 2.9 3.7 3.9 3.9

Statistical significance *** *** ** ***

** p < 0.05. *** p < 0.01.

Note: Significance tests measured the difference in denial rates in low-poverty tracts compared with denial rates in high-poverty tracts. 

Table ES.3: Voucher Acceptance Test Results and Voucher Denial Rates by Site

Fort Worth Los Angeles Newark Philadelphia Washington, D.C.

n % n % n % n % n %

Total tests 1,146 998 782 422 432

Denies vouchers 894 78.0 762 76.4 242 30.9 282 66.8 64 14.8

Accepts vouchers 132 11.5 148 14.8 342 43.7 99 23.5 306 70.8

Accepts vouchers 

with conditions 82 7.2 48 4.8 92 11.8 14 3.3 42 9.7

Unsure of voucher 

policy or other 38 3.3 40 4.0 106 13.6 27 6.4 20 4.6

Note: Testers recorded “accepts vouchers with conditions” whenever a landlord suggested vouchers would be accepted only under 

certain circumstances—for example, if the voucher was (or was not) from a particular public housing authority, if the voucher was for a 

certain unit size, if the voucher covered a certain amount of the rent, or if other requirements of tenancy (for example, a certain credit 

score) were met.
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

xiii

Executive Summary

Worth, no portion of the testing area has state 

or local laws against voucher discrimination. 

Source-of-income protections were not the only 

differences among the sites that could explain 

different outcomes. Washington, D.C., and 

Philadelphia had higher payment standards, 

and Washington, D.C., uses neighborhood-level 

payment standards. Although these results are 

suggestive of and consistent with a desirable 

voucher ordinance effect, it is not possible 

to conclude that voucher protections cause 

fewer denials. Housing market tightness, public 

housing authority (PHA) performance, and other 

factors could also affect landlord denial rates.

Landlords Generally Treat Voucher 

Holders Equally During Paired 

Telephone Inquiries

Do landlords who say they accept vouchers 

treat voucher holders differently than nonvoucher holders in phone calls? In paired phone 

tests, nearly all voucher testers were able to 

talk to landlords and secure appointments to 

view housing, with some small variations in 

treatment between the voucher and control 

testers that suggested landlords had some 

knowledge of how the HCV program works.

In 93 percent of the 426 paired telephone 

tests conducted in Newark, both the voucher 

holder and the control tester were able to make 

contact with a landlord to get information about 

housing, and 96 percent of testers who were 

able to speak to a landlord were told about one 

or more available units (Table ES.5). Nearly all 

(98 percent) of the testers—with and without 

vouchers—who were told that housing was 

available made appointments to view housing 

in person. During phone calls, landlords told 

the voucher testers about slightly fewer units 

compared with their counterparts without 

vouchers. The difference was statistically 

significant but quite small. On average, landlords 

told voucher testers about 1.1 units of available 

housing and testers without vouchers about 

1.2 units. Other small but statistically significant 

differences emerged through the Newark paired 

Table ES.5: Headline Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired Telephone Tests in Newark, 

New Jersey

Measure Both Control Voucher Net 

Difference

Standard 

Error of 

Difference

n

Testers able to obtain information about 

housing 93.4% 1.4% 2.6% – 1.2% 1.0% 426

If testers obtained housing information

Testers told any units available 95.5% 0.8% 0.5% 0.3% 0.6% 398

One tester told about more units 13.1% 6.0% 7.0% 2.3% 398 ***

Average number of units told about 1.22 1.14 0.08 0.04 398 **

Testers were able to get an appointment 98.2% 0.3% 0.5% – 0.3% 0.5% 380

Average rent for any unit $1,486 $1,494 – $9 $5 380

Average yearly net cost $20,309 $20,424 – $115 $105 380

** p < 0.05. *** p < 0.01.

Note: For the values presented as percentages, values in the “Control” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the control tester 

experienced the measure, but the voucher tester did not; values in the “Voucher” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the 

voucher tester experienced the measure, but the control tester did not; and the values in the “Both” column indicate the percentage of 

cases in which both testers experienced the treatment. 
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

xiv

Executive Summary

telephone tests in how landlords discussed 

qualifications for tenancy and housing costs. 

Considered together, these results suggest that 

landlords understand how the HCV program 

works and recognize the voucher as additional 

income available to the potential applicant. 

Landlords Are More Likely To Miss an 

Appointment With Voucher Holders

Only 58 percent of the in-person tests ended 

with both testers able to meet with a landlord, 

even though most paired telephone tests 

ended with both voucher holders and control 

testers making appointments to meet with a 

landlord (Table ES.6). Appointment no-shows 

were common, with about 11 percent of inperson tests ending with landlords standing 

up both testers. However, the voucher testers 

were 8 percentage points less likely to meet 

with a landlord to discuss their housing 

options. In addition, landlords told control 

testers about more units and invited them to 

inspect more units, but the differences are 

small (for example, 1.39 versus 1.19 units). 

Similar to the paired telephone tests, the inperson tests found that other forms of differential 

treatment were minimal and appeared to reflect 

the landlords’ understanding of vouchers 

as secure income dedicated to housing. 

Implications for Future Testing

This pilot study explored different testing 

methodologies to provide insight for design 

and implementation of future studies.

Voucher acceptance tests and in-person 

paired tests yield the most valuable 

information. One-sided voucher acceptance 

tests captured the primary form of discrimination 

against voucher holders. Such tests can be 

used to measure differences across sites and 

Table ES.6: Headline Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired In-Person Tests in Newark, 

New Jersey 

Measure Both Control Voucher Net 

Difference

Standard 

Error of 

Difference

n

Testers able to meet with landlord 58.0% 19.3% 11.2% 8.1% 2.9% 374 ***

If testers able to meet with landlord

Told any units available 95.4% 3.2% 0.5% 2.7% 1.6% 217 *

One tester told about more units 22.1% 6.0% 16.1% 3.2% 217 ***

Average number of units told about 1.39 1.19 0.20 0.05 217 ***

If available units recommended

Inspected units 87.0% 3.4% 3.4% 0.0% 1.7% 207

One tester inspected more units 82.6% 11.1% 6.3% 4.8% 2.6% 207 *

Average number of units inspected 1.05 1.00 0.05 0.04 207

Average rent for any unit $1,507 $1,508 – $1 $7 207

Average yearly net cost $20,613 $20,725 – $112 $114 207

* p < 0.10. *** p < 0.01.

Note: For the values presented as percentages, values in the “Control” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the control tester 

experienced the measure, but the voucher tester did not; values in the “Voucher” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the 

voucher tester experienced the measure, but the control tester did not; and the values in the “Both” column indicate the percentage of 

cases in which both testers experienced the treatment. 
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

xv

Executive Summary

across different types of neighborhoods. The 

in-person tests then provided a measure of failed 

attempts to meet with landlords at scheduled 

appointments. In contrast, we gleaned little 

unique information about differential treatment 

from telephone tests. These findings provide 

continued support for the use of in-person 

testing rather than telephone testing.

Tester profiles must reflect HCV program 

rules. A clear lesson from this study is that 

any rigorous paired-testing study of voucherholder discrimination must incorporate HCV 

program-specific policies and requirements 

to minimize risk of detection and ensure that 

findings are credible. Training must prepare 

testers for questions about the HCV program 

and the PHA where testing takes place. 

Assessing the role of race or ethnicity in 

voucher-holder discrimination is challenging. 

The primary goal of this study was to identify 

whether voucher holders face discrimination 

compared with non-voucher holders. This goal 

led us to pair testers on every dimension but 

the voucher (for example, Black voucher holder 

and Black non-voucher holder). We were also 

interested in understanding potential differences 

in treatment by race. Barring sample size issues, 

this approach would have enabled us to produce 

estimates of adverse treatment of voucher 

recipients relative to unsubsidized renters of the 

same race or ethnicity and to compare these 

estimates across racial and ethnic groups. If 

adverse treatment of minority voucher recipients 

relative to their matched unsubsidized cotesters 

were greater than that of White voucher 

recipients relative to their unsubsidized White 

counterparts, we could conclude that race or 

ethnicity exacerbates the negative treatment 

of voucher holders. However, high voucher 

denial rates undermined our ability to conduct 

enough in-person tests to perform conclusive 

analyses of whether differential treatment against 

voucher holders varies by race. To rigorously 

compare differential treatment experienced by 

non-White voucher holders with that of White 

voucher holders would have required us to use 

a larger sample of in-person paired tests, which 

we could not conduct due to the high rates of 

landlord denials during the voucher acceptance 

test. Future testing will need to balance the 

goal of understanding the role of race in 

voucher discrimination with that of isolating the 

incidence and nature of voucher discrimination.

Conducting testing in low-poverty areas is 

feasible. Testing in low-poverty “opportunity” 

areas is feasible without oversampling. Analyses 

of American Community Survey data found 

that sufficient voucher-affordable units are in 

low-poverty areas. Further, we were able to 

find target numbers of advertisements in many 

of these neighborhoods. The areas where 

finding advertisements proved most challenging 

were places with low vacancy rates and not 

necessarily areas with low poverty rates. 

To produce national estimates of 

discrimination against voucher holders, we 

recommend a multiphase approach. Voucher 

acceptance tests documented the extent and 

variability of outright voucher denials in diverse 

testing sites, and revealed the implications of 

high voucher denial rates on paired-testing 

efforts. These implications suggest the need 

for a robust, multiphase design that can 

accommodate variations in denial rates. The 

first phase would include voucher acceptance 

testing by phone in a large enough sample of 

sites (for example, 50 sites) to characterize 

voucher discrimination nationally. Such a large 

sample, furthermore, would enable researchers 

to identify sites where additional testing would 

be viable and would further inform policymakers 

about the nature of voucher refusal. The 

second phase would involve continued voucher 

acceptance testing in a subsample of sites, 

accompanied by in-person paired tests.

More research on landlords is needed. This 

study did not explore landlords’ motivations 

for accepting or denying vouchers. In-depth 

interviews with landlords who reject, set 
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

xvi

Executive Summary

conditions on, or accept voucher holders 

would shed light on landlords’ perceptions 

of the HCV program and voucher holders. 

Implications for Policy and 

Program Management

The challenges we encountered finding voucheraffordable rental housing in some sites and 

neighborhoods suggest that voucher holders’ 

housing searches are daunting. The difficulty 

finding landlords who will accept vouchers, 

particularly in low-poverty areas, likely increases 

the cost and duration of voucher housing 

searches, limits voucher holders’ housing and 

neighborhood options, and increases costs 

to local PHAs and HUD. With this difficulty in 

mind, we consider several policy and program 

changes to encourage landlord participation 

and to facilitate voucher holders’ searches.

Pursue legal protections for voucher 

holders. Although vouchers holders are not a 

protected class, the program is comprised of 

households that are protected under the Fair 

Housing Act and thus outcomes from the HCV 

program have potential fair housing implications. 

Among our five study sites, landlord refusal 

of vouchers is more common in jurisdictions 

without source-of-income protections. 

Coupled with other available evidence, this 

finding suggests that legal protections for 

voucher holders might improve HCV program 

outcomes and merit further consideration.

Encourage landlord participation and 

recruit landlords, particularly in low-poverty 

neighborhoods. One way to increase landlord 

participation in the HCV program is to make it 

more attractive through recruitment strategies 

and incentive programs. Some PHAs and 

neighborhood mobility programs that help 

voucher holders search for housing have 

liaisons to recruit landlords in opportunity 

neighborhoods. HUD and PHAs could strengthen 

financial incentives (or remove perceived 

disincentives) for landlords to participate. For 

instance, PHAs could offer one-time signing 

bonuses or financial incentives for new entrants 

or for landlords in low-poverty neighborhoods. 

Some jurisdictions are piloting initiatives that 

provide security deposits or insurance against 

damages or tenants vacating the unit before 

their lease expires. Other jurisdictions waive 

permit fees for repairs or improvements or 

provide landlords access to interest-free loans 

they can use to rehabilitate their properties. 

Set rents to be more competitive and improve 

program management. For vouchers to be 

appealing to private market landlords, they 

must offer rent payments comparable with the 

market. This study did not examine the role of 

payment standards or Fair Market Rents (FMRs) 

in the availability of voucher-affordable housing 

or in landlord denial rates, but we did observe 

that some sites with higher payment standards 

had lower rates of landlord denial. Adopting 

Small Area FMRs or payment standards better 

aligned with market rents could make the HCV 

program more appealing to landlords in high-rent 

markets. In addition to offering competitive rents, 

improving PHA management could attract more 

landlords. Critics of the HCV program argue 

that there are good business reasons landlords 

do not participate; they include complaints 

about PHAs that have poor customer service 

or that increase the cost of renting to voucher 

holders by taking too long to complete housing 

quality standards inspections or by not sending 

rent checks on time. To increase customer 

satisfaction among landlords and decrease the 

real or perceived costs of doing business with 

housing authorities, PHAs could streamline 

these tasks so that landlords are not financially 

penalized for participating in the HCV program.

Expand search time and provide housing 

search assistance. Extending search times from 

60 days to 120 days would provide more time for 

voucher holders to identify landlords with units 

available. This extension is particularly important 
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

xvii

Executive Summary

if voucher holders are searching for housing in 

opportunity neighborhoods or in tight housing 

markets where units are harder to find. Voucher 

holders may also benefit from housing search 

assistance—a combination of pre and postmove 

counseling, landlord outreach, and financial 

support for moves. Our findings on the difficulty 

identifying landlords who accept vouchers—

particularly in low-poverty areas—coupled 

with the evidence base on the importance 

of living in high-opportunity neighborhoods 

suggest these services may be an important 

step toward improving program outcomes 

and voucher holders’ long-term well-being.

Conclusion

This five-site study is the largest, most 

comprehensive test of voucher discrimination 

conducted to date, providing rigorous 

quantitative data on the prevalence of landlord 

denial and on the ways landlords treat voucher 

holders differently than similar prospective 

tenants. In designing and conducting nearly 

4,000 tests during 16 months, we gleaned 

lessons for future testing studies and housing 

policy, particularly related to voucher holders’ 

likely experiences searching for housing. We 

learned that the process of finding an available 

unit, reaching landlords, finding a landlord to 

accept vouchers, and then meeting with them 

to view the available housing was extremely 

difficult. It takes a lot of work to find housing with 

a voucher. The search requires sifting through 

numerous advertisements, making numerous 

calls, and facing frequent rejection. Our study 

reveals that many landlords refuse to accept 

vouchers. Voucher holders who want to find 

housing in an opportunity area—perhaps close to 

high-quality schools, jobs, and transportation—

face even more rejection. We learned that even 

if landlords said they accepted vouchers, they 

may treat voucher holders differently during 

apartment showings—standing them up at higher 

rates than control testers. Our findings should 

remind policymakers that landlords are not 

passive actors in the HCV program. Landlords 

play a critical role in narrowing or widening the 

choices available to voucher holders in their 

search for safe, affordable, quality housing. 
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

CHAPTER 1: 

Introduction

The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program 

(formerly known as Section 8) is the federal 

government’s largest housing assistance 

program. The goals of the HCV program are 

to increase access to safe, affordable housing 

units and to provide opportunities for lowincome families to obtain rental housing outside 

areas of poverty or minority concentration (HUD, 

2009). Voucher holders can, in theory, move 

anywhere in the country where the program 

is administered, but their housing choices are 

severely constrained by their ability to navigate 

the private rental market, find a unit that meets 

the rental cap, and identify a landlord who 

will participate in the program. Despite the 

importance of individual landlords’ decisions to 

accept or refuse voucher tenants, researchers 

have gathered little information about landlords’ 

behavior or their perceptions of the program.

Do landlords accept vouchers? Fair housing 

groups have conducted small local studies, 

mostly for enforcement purposes, to investigate 

landlord behavior. Methods for these studies 

varied widely and included some mix of 

passive screening of advertisements, screening 

landlords over the phone to see if they accept 

vouchers, and sending testers to screen 

landlords during on-site visits, sometimes with 

a paired tester. No matter the methodology, 

high rates of voucher refusal were common 

across all studies. These tests, however, were 

not designed for research purposes and thus 

have significant limitations in generalizability 

and replicability.

To understand more about how landlords 

interact with the HCV program, the Urban 

Institute, under contract with HUD, launched 

a five-site pilot study of discrimination against 

people who use federal housing choice 

vouchers to subsidize their rent payments. The 

goals of the study are to (1) identify testing 

methodologies for measuring differential 

treatment of renters who use housing vouchers, 

(2) identify the types and patterns of rental 

housing discrimination against voucher holders, 

and (3) measure the prevalence and extent 

of voucher-related discrimination, including 

differences in discrimination against racial 

and ethnic minorities and from low- and highpoverty neighborhoods.

This study used a three-stage testing 

methodology to examine interactions with 

landlords during the early stages of a housing 

search, including initial inquiries about 

available housing, discussions with landlords 

about the application process or housing 

options, and meetings with landlords to view 

available units. The first stage was done in 

five metropolitan areas, with female testers 

who would be perceived as White, calling 

landlords of advertised rental units to ask if 

they accepted vouchers (“voucher acceptance 

test”). The second and third stages of testing 

took place in three of the five study sites 

and used White, Black, and Hispanic paired 

female testers matched on all characteristics 

other than voucher use (for example, race 

or ethnicity, income, occupation, household 

characteristics, and rental history) to capture 

more nuanced measures of the incidence and 

nature of discrimination. 

Paired testing originated as a mechanism for fair 

housing enforcement agencies to investigate 

individual instances of discrimination and has 

been used for research purposes since the late 

1970s to document housing market practices. 

The method involves two individuals matched 

in every way except for the characteristic of 

interest—in this case, voucher use—inquiring 

about an advertised housing unit. Testers’ 

detailed records about their interactions 

with landlords are compared to quantify 

detailed measures of differential treatment. 

The approach is a powerful tool to document 
Chapter 1: Introduction

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

2

housing market discrimination in a critical 

phase of the housing search—the initial step of 

identifying available housing.2

Is it illegal for landlords to refuse to rent to 

voucher holders? The Fair Housing Act (Public 

Law 90-284), enacted in 1968 as Section 

VIII of the Civil Rights Act, aims to “prevent 

segregation and discrimination in housing, 

including in the sale or rental of housing 

and the provision of advertising, lending, 

and brokerage services related to housing.” 

Under the Fair Housing Act, landlords are 

prohibited from refusing to rent to members 

of protected classes—defined based on race, 

color, national origin, sex, religion, disability, 

and familial status. Voucher holders are not 

protected under the Act and, except for a few 

local jurisdictions that prohibit discrimination 

based on a person’s source of income, landlords 

may have the legal right to turn away voucher 

holders. Although voucher holders are not 

protected, the HCV program disproportionally 

serves members of protected classes—families 

with children, racial and ethnic minorities, and 

persons with disabilities. Some legal advocates 

argue that claims under the Fair Housing Act 

may be justified, because the act prohibits 

practices that may appear neutral—such as 

electing not to accept vouchers—but result in 

“disparate impacts” for a protected class. For 

this study, we use the term discrimination to 

describe unequal or differential treatment of 

voucher holders, although this treatment is not 

necessarily illegal in all our testing sites. 

This report is organized into eight chapters and 

nine technical appendices. Chapter 2 provides 

an overview of the HCV program and of the 

literature on voucher program outcomes and 

discrimination. Chapter 3 provides an overview 

of the testing methodology, with a more 

detailed methodology discussion included in 

appendix A. Chapter 4 discusses the process 

2 Paired testing stops short of capturing the differential treatment renters might experience after submitting rental applications, such as whether applications 

are ultimately accepted or the final terms of a lease. Continuing with submitting an application would entail testers submitting fraudulent information on 

applications.

of identifying voucher-affordable and eligible 

housing in each study site. Chapters 5 and 6 

present the findings from testing in the five study 

sites. Chapter 7 provides guidance for future 

voucher discrimination studies based on the 

experience of designing and implementing the 

current study. Finally, chapter 8 concludes and 

discusses implications for policy and program 

changes to improve landlord acceptance of 

housing vouchers. 
Chapter 2: Overview of the Housing Choice Voucher Program

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

3

CHAPTER 2: 

Overview of 

the Housing 

Choice Voucher 

Program

Characteristics of Housing 

Voucher Households

The HCV program is the nation’s largest rental 

housing assistance program, subsidizing the 

rents of approximately 2.3 million low-income 

households as of 2016, with an annual budget of 

approximately $22 billion. Commonly referred to 

as Section 8 after the relevant section of the 1974 

Housing Act, HUD manages the program through 

a network of more than 2,200 public housing 

authorities (PHAs) nationwide.3

The HCV program’s goals are to increase lowincome households’ access to safe, affordable 

housing in a wide range of neighborhoods, 

with an emphasis on helping voucher holders 

reach low-poverty, opportunity-rich areas (HUD, 

2009). In theory, by increasing voucher holders’ 

housing budgets and setting voucher rent caps 

high enough to include a large proportion of 

privately owned rental housing in any given 

jurisdiction, the HCV program should enable 

recipients to find high-quality housing in a 

wide range of neighborhoods. The program’s 

emphasis on neighborhood choice and quality 

is rooted in the evidence that individual wellbeing and life outcomes are closely tied to 

neighborhood characteristics (Briggs, 1997; 

3 Although more than 3,700 PHAs exist nationwide, a smaller subset runs HCV programs. See, for example, Cooper and Cooper (2016). All demographic 

information on housing choice voucher households in this chapter is from HUD (2016). See Orlebeke (2000) for an overview of the history and origins of 

housing vouchers and other federal housing assistance.

4 For example, the share of voucher holders who were non-White ranged from less than 50 percent in Seattle and Portland to approximately 65 percent in 

Minneapolis and Phoenix and to more than 80 percent in Dallas, Chicago, and Charlotte. Nearly all voucher holders in Atlanta and Miami (96 and 97 percent, 

respectively) were people of color (HUD, 2016).

Chetty and Hendren, 2015; Ellen and Turner, 

1997; Jencks and Mayer, 1990; Sampson, 2012; 

Turner, Nichols, and Comey, 2012; Wilson, 1987). 

Since 2015, vouchers have received renewed 

attention as a potential tool to improve lowincome households’ access to low-poverty 

neighborhoods. New evidence from the Moving 

to Opportunity experiment shows that each 

year a low-income child spends in high-poverty 

neighborhoods can negatively affect his or her 

economic prospects as an adult (Chetty and 

Hendren, 2015). Conversely, for every year a 

child spends in a high-quality area, he or she will 

later experience an increase in income of about 

0.5 percent (Chetty and Hendren, 2015).

The program primarily serves female-headed 

households, families with children, elderly 

people, and people with disabilities. In 2016, 

about 79 percent of voucher households 

nationwide were headed by women, 45 

percent had children, 24 percent had an 

elderly household head or spouse, and 23 

percent included a member with a disability. 

Most voucher holders (69 percent) were 

minority, including 17 percent Hispanic and 

48 percent non-Hispanic Black. The racial 

and ethnic makeup of voucher holders varies 

across metropolitan areas, but voucher 

holders tend to be disproportionately nonWhite compared with the population of the 

jurisdictions in which they live (Galvez, 2011).4

Table 2.1 lists characteristics of HCV program 

participants in 2016.

By law, voucher holders are among the lowest 

income households in the nation. To be eligible 

for a voucher, a family usually must have income 

below 50 percent of Area Median Income (AMI) 

for its jurisdiction, and PHAs are required to 

target 75 percent of vouchers to “extremely lowincome” households—defined by HUD as having 
Chapter 2: Overview of the Housing Choice Voucher Program

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

4

incomes below 30 percent of AMI or below the 

federal poverty threshold. In 2016, approximately 

38 percent of voucher holders had annual 

incomes below $10,000, and 64 percent had 

annual incomes below $15,000. These levels are 

well below the federal poverty level of $20,160 for 

a family of three. About one-third (31 percent) of 

voucher holders reported wages as their primary 

source of income.

Demand for housing choice vouchers—and 

federal rental housing assistance of any kind—far 

outstrips supply. Only about 21 percent of the 

estimated 22 million low-income households 

eligible for housing assistance receive it 

(Kingsley, 2017). As of 2012, more than 2.8 

million families were on waiting lists for vouchers 

(PAHRC, 2016). Because vouchers are so scarce, 

PHAs often hold lotteries for a place on their 

HCV program waiting lists. 

Vouchers are portable, and households 

with vouchers can use them to move to any 

privately owned rental unit that meets program 

requirements and has a landlord who will 

accept vouchers. Broadly stated, the program 

is a three-way partnership between a PHA, 

a voucher recipient, and a landlord. Voucher 

holders are responsible for finding available 

housing, maintaining their units, paying their 

portion of the rent, and upholding the terms of 

their lease agreement. Voucher holders also 

periodically verify their household composition 

and income with their PHA, and they must 

Table 2.1: Housing Choice Voucher Program Overview, 2016 

Total voucher-assisted units 2,265,478

Total individuals in voucher-assisted households 5,350,188

Average household income $14,122

Average household monthly rent payment $364

Average HUD per household monthly rent payment $760

Household characteristics (%)

Households with income < 50% AMI 94

Households with income < 30% AMI 73

Female-headed households 79

Female-headed households with children 41

Households with children 45

Household members with a disability 23

Households with an elderly household head or spouse 24

Race or ethnicity (%)

White, non-Hispanic 31

Non-White (any race or ethnicity) 69

Black, non-Hispanic 48

Native American 1

Asian or Pacific Islander 3

Multiple race 1

Hispanic 17

AMI = Area Median Income. HUD = U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Source: HUD (2016) 
Chapter 2: Overview of the Housing Choice Voucher Program

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

5

comply with program rules. Landlords must 

maintain units to meet HUD’s housing quality 

standards and enter into both leases with 

voucher tenants and housing assistance 

payment contracts with PHAs. PHAs, in turn, 

administer vouchers in compliance with HUD 

regulations and rent limits, inspect and approve 

all voucher-assisted units to ensure they meet 

quality standards, and pay landlords monthly 

for the voucher portion of the rent. Participating 

landlords receive the tenant’s share of rent 

directly from the tenant. 

Voucher households contribute 30 percent of 

their adjusted income toward rent, with the 

voucher covering the remainder of the rent up to 

the rent cap—although a particular household’s 

rent burden may vary (Dawkins and Jeon, 

2018; Devine et al., 2003; Mast and Hardiman, 

2017; McClure, 2005).5

 Vouchers are typically 

used for units with rents below rent caps or 

“payment standards” set by a combination 

of HUD and local housing authorities, but 

voucher households may choose units with 

rents above the payment standard if they pay 

the additional rent amount (their rent payment 

equaling 30 percent of their adjusted income, 

plus the difference between the unit rent and 

the payment standard). As discussed in more 

detail in the Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and 

Voucher Payment Standards section of this 

chapter, payment standards may vary by housing 

authority. With some exceptions, payment 

standards are typically set between 90 and 110 

percent of HUD-designated FMRs for the PHA’s 

jurisdiction.6

 HUD calculates FMRs annually by 

number of bedrooms and by jurisdiction (that is, 

county or metropolitan area).

PHAs allow voucher holders at least 60 days to 

find housing that meets program requirements 

5 A household may pay a minimum rent set by the PHA or 30 percent of its monthly income, whichever is greater. Households may be permitted to pay up to 

40 percent of their income toward rent when they move into a unit. Alternatively, households may pay more than 30 percent over time if rent on a unit rises, 

and the tenant is responsible for the difference between the PHA’s payment standard and the new rent.

6 At the PHA’s request, HUD can approve a payment standard of up to 120 percent of the metropolitan area’s published FMR if area median rent justifies it. 

These exceptions are only prevalent in a few metropolitan areas with tight or competitive rental markets. For more information, see Title 24—Housing and 

Urban Development (2017) §982.503, Payment Standard Amount and Schedule.

before their voucher “expires” and is reissued 

to another household on the waiting list. Search 

times vary by housing authority, and PHAs may 

extend the search period for individual searchers 

or establish longer initial search periods. Once a 

household has found a potential unit, they must 

request a physical inspection from the PHA. The 

PHA must grant approval before the household 

can sign a lease. 

HUD mandates that during HCV program 

orientations, PHAs provide information and 

resources to support moves to low-poverty 

neighborhoods. A management performance 

scoring system for PHAs (the Section 8 

Management Assessment Program) provides 

bonus points for poverty deconcentration efforts 

(for example, providing lists of units available in 

lower-poverty areas). A few PHAs take additional 

steps to encourage moves to low-poverty 

neighborhoods—either voluntarily or as a result 

of litigation—and operate “mobility” programs 

to help voucher holders find and secure housing 

in low-poverty, high-opportunity neighborhoods 

(Cunningham et al., 2010; Galvez, Simington, 

and Treskon, 2017; PRRAC, 2017). These notable 

exceptions aside, most voucher holders find 

housing on their own. Voucher holders are 

also typically responsible for housing costs 

beyond monthly rent payments, such as security 

deposits or application fees. 

Previous Research on Housing 

Choice Voucher Program 

Outcomes

Since the mid-1990s, an abundance of 

empirical research has examined HCV program 

outcomes. The existing research finds that the 

program improves housing quality and stability 
Chapter 2: Overview of the Housing Choice Voucher Program

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

6

for vulnerable households.7 Voucher holders 

and assisted households generally move less 

frequently than other low-income renters, who 

tend to experience high rates of residential 

mobility and instability (Galvez et al., 2014b; 

Gubits, Khadduri, and Turnham, 2009; Thabault 

and Platts-Mills, 2006). Similarly, studies 

show that voucher use significantly lowers 

risk of homelessness and minimizes spells of 

homelessness (Gubits et al., 2016; Khadduri, 

2008). Some research suggests that voucher 

holders may live in higher quality units compared 

with similarly low-income households, which 

are more vulnerable to exploitation from private 

market landlords (Desmond, 2016). Finally, 

voucher-assisted households also have lower 

rent burdens compared with similarly low-income 

households without housing assistance. For 

example, about one-half of all renters paid more 

than 30 percent of their income toward rent in 

2015, and about 83 percent of households with 

annual incomes under $15,000 paid more than 

30 percent of their income toward rent (JCHS, 

2017). In contrast, the average rent burden for 

voucher holders nationwide is between 30 and 

40 percent (Devine et al., 2003; McClure, 2005).8

However, the HCV program underperforms 

in helping recipients reach low-poverty or 

opportunity-rich neighborhoods. The average 

voucher holder lives in a neighborhood 

(typically approximated as a census tract) with 

lower poverty rates than the neighborhoods 

where public housing units are located. 

Nevertheless, she lives in a relatively distressed 

neighborhood—only a small proportion 

of voucher holders reach low-poverty 

neighborhoods (Devine et al., 2003; Galvez, 

2011; Pendall, 2000; Schwartz, McClure, 

and Taghavi, 2016). Black households with 

children, in particular, experience gains in 

7 See Ellen (2017) for an overview of the literature on HCV program outcomes.

8 Average rent burden for voucher holders was 29 percent, with some variation by region, in 2000. In 2002, about two-thirds of all voucher holders paid less 

than 31 percent of their income in rent (Devine et al., 2003; McClure, 2005). Most of the households with higher rent burdens had extremely low incomes 

(McClure, 2005). Analysis of HUD microdata provided for this study showed most voucher households nationwide had rent burdens close to 30 percent in 

2012, and nearly all had burdens below 40 percent.

9 For a recent overview of the literature on HCV program outcomes, see Ellen (2017). For an overview of PHA policies that may limit neighborhood mobility, 

see Tegeler, Haberle, and Gayles (2013).

neighborhood quality from voucher moves and 

live in significantly lower-poverty neighborhoods 

than similarly low-income Black families without 

vouchers. However, Black and Hispanic voucher 

holders remain underrepresented in high-quality 

neighborhoods (Sard and Rice, 2014; Schwartz, 

McClure, and Taghavi, 2016). 

Research is dated, but it suggests that many 

voucher holders do not move at all when they 

receive a voucher, opting instead to “lease 

in place” in the unit they lived in before they 

joined the HCV program (Feins and Patterson, 

2005; Finkel and Buron, 2001). About onefourth of voucher holders do not move from 

their prevoucher housing during their time in the 

program (Finkel and Buron, 2001). 

What Influences Housing Choice 

Voucher Program Outcomes?

The likelihood that voucher holders will 

successfully find housing, and where they 

will live, are influenced by various factors, 

including the availability of affordable housing, 

PHA policies, how voucher holders search for 

housing, and landlord willingness to accept 

vouchers. A full review of the literature on HCV 

program outcomes is beyond the scope of this 

study; for our purposes, the literature on landlord 

discrimination is of primary interest. In this 

section, we briefly discuss the roles of market 

constraints and the housing search process 

on voucher outcomes before turning to the 

theoretical framework and evidence on landlord 

discrimination.9

Availability of affordable housing. Affordable 

rental housing is increasingly scarce in most 

metropolitan areas, which undoubtedly poses 

a challenge for voucher holders. Nationally, as 

of 2014, only 46 affordable rental units were 
Chapter 2: Overview of the Housing Choice Voucher Program

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

7

available for every 100 households with incomes 

below 30 percent of AMI (Getsinger et al., 2017). 

Market tightness may also affect the extent to 

which voucher-affordable housing units are 

accessible. Voucher holders in tighter housing 

markets have been found to have lower success 

rates and longer search times compared with 

those in looser markets (Finkel and Buron, 2001; 

Shroder, 2002). Although research suggests that 

most neighborhoods contain some voucheraffordable units (Cunningham and Droesch, 

2005; Devine et al., 2003), low-poverty or 

high-opportunity areas have fewer such units 

(McClure, 2011). Using 2000 census data, 

McClure (2011) estimated that only 300,000 

FMR-affordable units would be available at any 

given time in opportunity areas. Early research 

on voucher holders’ locations in the Washington, 

D.C. area found they tended to live in areas with 

higher proportions of lower-rent units (Hartung 

and Henig, 1997).

Fair Market Rents and voucher payment 

standards. Vouchers are typically used for 

units with rents below thresholds that HUD and 

local housing authorities set. The monthly rental 

limit—or “payment standard”—varies by housing 

authority and, with some exceptions, is typically 

set between 90 and 110 percent of the HUDdesignated FMR for the PHA’s jurisdiction.10

HUD calculates FMRs annually by number of 

bedrooms and by jurisdiction (that is, county or 

metropolitan area) to reflect the amount below 

which 40 percent of area rental housing units are 

priced (or the 40th percentile). For example, an 

FMR of $500 for a one-bedroom unit suggests 

that HUD calculations of census, American 

Community Survey (ACS), and random-digit 

dialing survey data estimate that 40 percent of 

all one-bedroom units in that jurisdiction rent for 

$500 or less.11

Some research suggests that in some markets, 

the FMRs and payment standards set for 

10 For more information, see Title 24—Housing and Urban Development (2017) §982.503, Payment Standard Amount and Schedule.

11 See HUD (2018) for a detailed discussion of FMR calculations.

vouchers—which are usually set for large 

geographies—may not accurately reflect rents in 

submarkets, resulting in payment standards too 

low for high-cost areas yet inflated for low-cost 

areas. This variation causes voucher holders 

to cluster in lower cost areas where vouchers 

are more lucrative for landlords. For example, 

one study of Milwaukee, Wisconsin suggested 

that voucher holders paid slightly more in 

rent than unassisted renters for comparable 

units, at a total annual cost to the government 

of approximately $3.8 million (Desmond and 

Perkins, 2016). In 2000, HUD instituted FMRs 

at the 50th percentile in metropolitan areas with 

high concentrations of low-income voucher 

holders in high-poverty neighborhoods. Two 

of our testing sites—Washington, D.C., and 

Philadelphia—had 50th percentile FMRs during 

our testing period. In addition, Washington, D.C., 

used neighborhood-specific payment standards. 

In another effort to more accurately set voucher 

payment standards to reflect local market 

conditions, HUD developed Small Area FMRs 

(SAFMRs) based on the 40th percentile of rents 

at ZIP Code levels rather than at metropolitanarea levels. In 2016, the final rule on SAFMRs 

began the process of phasing out 50th 

percentile rents and implementing SAFMRs in 24 

metropolitan areas where they were expected to 

expand housing options for voucher holders.

To date, some researchers have explored 

how SAFMRs affect HCV program location 

outcomes, with mixed findings on how 

SAFMRs may influence the location and stock 

of affordable housing available to voucher 

holders. For example, Collinson and Ganong 

(2014) concluded that SAFMRs in Dallas, Texas, 

were more effective than standard FMRs at 

enabling households to move to lower-poverty, 

lower-crime neighborhoods. In 2017, HUD 

released an interim evaluation report of the 

SAFMR demonstration by Abt Associates, Inc. 

(Finkel et al., 2017), which found that SAFMRs 
Chapter 2: Overview of the Housing Choice Voucher Program

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

8

increased the availability of units in high-rent 

areas and decreased the availability of units 

in low-rent areas—with a net decrease in units 

available to voucher holders. A study by the 

New York University Furman Center (2018) 

sought to estimate whether the decline in units 

found in HUD’s interim evaluation would also 

occur in the 24 metropolitan areas named in 

HUD’s November 2016 final rule. The Furman 

Center analysis found that using SAFMRs would 

increase the share of affordable units in high-rent 

ZIP Codes, but decrease the share in low-rent 

ZIP Codes. The study showed that the number 

of units would decline in 4 of the 24 metropolitan 

areas, but overall, the expected increase in highrent ZIP Codes was larger than the decrease in 

low-rent areas. The study estimated that the total 

number of units affordable to voucher holders 

would increase by more than 9 percent.

Voucher housing search processes. Voucher 

holders also report racial discrimination during 

their voucher housings search. A survey of 300 

voucher holders in Alameda County, California 

found that nearly one-third perceived some 

sort of landlord discrimination, and 14 percent 

of those who perceived discrimination believed 

it was based on their race (Varady and Walker, 

2000). One survey found that about 4 percent 

of PHA administrators similarly attributed 

racial discrimination as the reason program 

participants were unable to use their vouchers to 

obtain housing (Maney and Crowley, 2000). 

A large body of literature explores voucher 

holders’ housing and neighborhood preferences 

and housing search practices. Most of this 

literature is qualitative and shows that voucher 

holders identify preferences for neighborhoods 

that are safe from crime and offer high-quality 

amenities or services. However, voucher holders 

do not necessarily target or end up in highquality neighborhoods (Cunningham, Sylvester, 

and Turner, 1999; DeLuca, Garboden, and 

Rosenblatt, 2013; Popkin and Cunningham, 

1999, 2000; Smith et al., 2002). Voucher holders 

in Chicago and Philadelphia, for example, 

reported being wary of unfamiliar neighborhoods 

or suburbs and limited their searches to more 

familiar central-city areas (Clampet-Lundquist, 

2004; Popkin and Cunningham, 2000). Research 

on HOPE VI relocations found that families 

avoided neighborhoods where they would be 

one of few non-White residents (Smith et al., 

2002). Voucher movers have also been found to 

prioritize unit characteristics over neighborhood 

characteristics (Rosenblatt and DeLuca, 2012; 

Smith et al., 2002). A lack of resources—such 

as car access—can also limit voucher holders’ 

ability to reach lower-poverty neighborhoods 

and place them at more risk of living in higher 

poverty areas (Pendall et al., 2014). Finally, 

some research suggests that voucher holders 

may have low expectations for available options 

or are poorly prepared to focus on school or 

neighborhood quality as a primary search factor, 

particularly in the context of long-term financial 

and family instability (Rosenblatt and DeLuca, 

2012). Moves are also often involuntary and 

under duress; these families often have limited 

resources or time for searches, and they face 

considerable obstacles finding available units 

or high-quality housing (DeLuca, Garboden, 

Rosenblatt, 2013). 

Information is limited about how voucher holders 

find out about housing, but they may rely mainly 

on social networks or turn to housing authorities 

for information, which could constrain their 

view of available housing options. Although not 

focused on voucher holders, a study by Krysan 

et al. (forthcoming) examined how renters in 

Washington, D.C., search for housing and found 

that renters tend to use their social networks—

mostly through existing friendships—to find units 

and to learn about neighborhoods and filter 

searches by ZIP Code and neighborhood. Krysan 

et al. also found that the primary difficulty in 

housing searches is finding a unit in the desired 

price range (forthcoming).

Several studies suggest that voucher holders rely 

on a “Section 8 submarket” that is concentrated 

in higher poverty areas with landlords who 
Chapter 2: Overview of the Housing Choice Voucher Program

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

9

are familiar with the HCV program (Briggs and 

Jacobs, 2002; Desmond, 2016; Desmond and 

Perkins, 2016; Popkin and Cunningham, 1999; 

Smith et al., 2002). In some cases, voucher 

holders may rely on PHA-maintained lists of 

available units that accept vouchers (Smith et 

al., 2002). These lists may primarily contain 

units in high-poverty areas, and PHAs may have 

disincentives to encourage voucher holders to 

engage in lengthy searches in lower-poverty 

areas (DeLuca, Garboden, and Rosenblatt, 2013). 

Families entering the voucher program may also 

convince their current landlords to accept their 

vouchers or may rent from landlords already 

familiar with vouchers (Kennedy and Finkel, 1994; 

Turner, Popkin, and Cunningham, 1999). A small 

qualitative study similarly found voucher holders 

sought out landlords who would accept poor 

credit or who would keep costs such as deposits 

or application fees low (Galvez, 2010). 

Finally, voucher holders may face barriers 

that complicate their searches or housing 

needs, such as large families, limited financial 

resources for moves, or chronic health problems 

(Galvez et al., 2014b; Pashup et al., 2005; 

Popkin and Cunningham, 1999; Rosenblatt 

and DeLuca, 2012). One study of assisted 

households in Washington state found that PHA 

clients are more likely than other low-income 

households to face serious physical, mental, 

and behavioral health problems (Mayfield et al., 

2015). Kennedy and Finkel (1994) and Shroder 

(2002) found that voucher success rates are 

lower for larger households. 

Landlord discrimination against voucher 

holders. The existing research consistently finds 

evidence of both perceived and actual landlord 

discrimination against voucher holders. Much 

of the research focuses on voucher holders’ 

own accounts of their experience with housing 

searches and landlords. In addition, we identified 

15 studies of various sizes and methodologies 

that examined the extent and nature of 

landlord discrimination by screening rental 

advertisements or testing landlords. 

Several studies found that voucher holders 

perceive landlord discrimination (DeLuca, 

Garboden, and Rosenblatt, 2013; Popkin 

and Cunningham, 1999, 2000). Galvez (2010) 

interviewed 31 Seattle voucher holders and 

found that one-half perceived discrimination 

during their housing search, either indirectly or 

through outright refusal to accept a voucher. A 

2011 survey of more than 400 Chicago voucher 

holders found that nearly one-half reported 

difficulty finding a landlord who would accept the 

voucher (CLCCRUL, 2014). In addition to reports 

of discrimination from voucher holders, a survey 

of PHA administrators found that 11 percent 

perceived that landlord discrimination made it 

difficult for voucher holders to use their vouchers 

(Maney and Crowley, 2000).

No national studies have examined, on a 

large scale or across metropolitan areas, the 

extent or nature of the discrimination voucher 

holders experience. In recent years, however, 

local fair housing organizations have explored 

discrimination against voucher holders. 

We identified 16 studies that examined the 

extent of landlord discrimination in jurisdictions 

nationwide between 2000 and 2017. Studies 

were identified from organizations in Austin, 

Texas; Boston; Chicago; Cuyahoga County, 

Ohio; central Indiana; Montgomery County, 

Maryland; New Orleans; New York City; Newton, 

Massachusetts; Seattle; and Washington, D.C. 

All but three studies (New York City in 2007, New 

Orleans in 2009, and Cuyahoga County in 2016) 

were conducted in areas with source-of-income 

protections in place. 

The methodologies, scales, and testing 

goals of these 16 studies varied, including 

screening print or online rental listings for 

explicit discriminatory language (for example, 

“no Section 8” or “no government programs”), 

contacting landlords or rental agencies by 

telephone during a day or series of days to 

see if they accepted vouchers or applied 

burdensome requirements to voucher holders 
Chapter 2: Overview of the Housing Choice Voucher Program

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

10

and sending paired or individual testers to talk 

to landlords in person about voucher policies. 

For most of these studies, descriptions of 

methodological approach were limited. About 

one-half of the studies used convenience 

samples, and most samples were small, with 

only five studies conducting more than 100 

tests. Three studies used matched, paired 

in-person testing. One study looked at 

variations in treatment by different voucher 

holder characteristics but did not compare 

with non-voucher holders.12 Regardless of 

size or approach, the testing studies all faced 

the challenge of which characteristics to vary 

among tester pairs—such as voucher status 

or race—and all the studies found evidence of 

voucher discrimination, in areas both with and 

without source-of-income protections. 

• In New Orleans, 75 percent of landlords 

rejected vouchers and an additional 7 

percent imposed extra barriers to voucherholding applicants (GNOFHAC, 2009). 

• In New York City, a study conducted before 

source-of-income protections were in 

place found that only 13 percent of units 

accepted vouchers (ACORN, 2007); a study 

conducted shortly after protections were 

enacted found signs of voucher denial in 

363 advertisements screened on a 1-day 

Craigslist review (Freiberg and Houk, 2008). 

The study identified the total ads retrieved 

using specific key words but did not assess 

a total number of advertisements available on 

the testing day. 

• Two studies in Montgomery County, 

Maryland found evidence of discrimination. 

In one study, discriminatory treatment was 

found in 15 percent of tests (Equal Rights 

Center, 2008), and in the other, discrimination 

was found in 6 cases out of 58 (Montgomery 

County Office of Human Rights, 2009). 

• Three studies conducted between 2003 

and 2011 in Washington, D.C., documented 

landlord discrimination in the form of outright 

denials or differential treatment of voucher 

holders compared with non-voucher holders 

in 61 percent of tests from 2003 to 2005 

(Equal Rights Center, 2005), 45 percent of 

tests conducted in 2010 (Equal Rights Center, 

2011), and 28 percent of tests conducted 

from 2011 to 2013 (Equal Rights Center, 

2013). Washington, D.C., enacted source-ofincome protections in 2005. 

• In Chicago, three studies conducted between 

2001 and 2011 documented landlord 

discrimination. In 2001, more than one-half 

of the landlords contacted by telephone (55 

percent) stated they did not accept vouchers 

or presented significant obstacles to voucher 

use (LCBH, 2002). The Chicago studies in 

2002 and 2011 found that voucher denial 

rates were higher in high-opportunity or 

“exception rent areas,” where the Chicago 

Housing Authority had assigned higher 

voucher payment standards (CLCCRUL, 

2014; LCBH, 2002). 

• In Seattle, tests conducted by e-mail and 

telephone showed evidence of voucher 

denials or differential treatment in 20 of 32 

tests (Seattle Office of Civil Rights, 2015).

• Smaller studies in Boston and nearby 

Newton, Massachusetts found evidence of 

denials or differential treatment of voucher 

holders compared with non-voucher holders 

(Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston, 2001; 

Newton Fair Housing Task Force, 2008). 

12 Montgomery County, Maryland (Montgomery County Office of Human Rights, 2009), New York (ACORN, 2007; Freiberg and Houk, 2008), and Washington, 

D.C. (Equal Rights Center, 2005, 2011, 2013) used convenience samples. Austin Tenants’ Council (2012), New York (ACORN, 2007; Freiberg and Houk, 2008), 

Cuyahoga County, Ohio (Healy and Lepley, 2016), and Washington, D.C. (Equal Rights Center, 2005) completed more than 100 tests. The Fair Housing 

Center of Greater Boston (2001) in Boston, Massachusetts and the Montgomery County Office of Human Rights (2009) in Montgomery County, Maryland 

completed small numbers of paired tests. The central Indiana study looked at variations in treatment by different voucher holder characteristics but did not 

compare with non-voucher holders (Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana, 2013).
Chapter 2: Overview of the Housing Choice Voucher Program

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

11

• In Cuyahoga County, voucher holders were 

told that vouchers were not accepted or they 

did not receive a response from a landlord 

(although the control tester did receive a 

response) in 92 percent of 104 tests (Healy 

and Lepley, 2016).

Intersection of racial discrimination and 

voucher discrimination. A few of the testing 

studies explored the intersection of voucher 

discrimination and racial discrimination in 

an effort to identify whether Black voucher 

holders experienced additional discrimination 

not experienced by White voucher holders. 

These studies used a variety of approaches 

to measure racial discrimination. The studies 

revealed evidence that landlords racially 

discriminated against Black voucher holders. 

In New Orleans, in 9 percent of cases, a Black 

voucher-holding tester was denied a unit that 

a White voucher-holding tester had previously 

been told was available (GNOFHAC, 2009). In 

Chicago, 16 percent of Black voucher testers 

were denied by landlords who had already 

told a White voucher tester that vouchers were 

accepted. Black voucher holders were also 

more likely to be told an unclear or equivocal 

response about voucher acceptance compared 

with White voucher testers; landlords told 

about 22 percent of White testers something 

other than a clear yes or no compared with 

48 percent of Black testers (LCBH, 2002). 

The 2011 Chicago studies found evidence 

of differential treatment of Black voucher 

holders in predominantly White neighborhoods 

(CLCCRUL, 2014). Finally, in Cuyahoga County, 

26 percent of Black testers experienced 

unfavorable treatment compared with 6 percent 

13 This legal status was not always the case. In 1987, Congress enacted a “take one, take all” provision, which required any landlord who rented to one 

voucher holder to accept all future voucher applicants, and an “endless lease” provision, which meant that landlords could not refuse to renew a lease after 

the term expired, absent good cause. Both provisions were removed with the adoption of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (Title 

V of Public Law 105-276). Congress has since stated its intention that the program should “operate like the unassisted market as much as possible” and 

has acknowledged that in the past “some program requirements have constrained the ability of owners to make rational business decisions” (U.S. Senate, 

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Report to Accompany S.462, The Public Housing Reform and Responsibility Act of 1997 with Additional 

Views 105 S. Rpt. 21). Quotations are from Committee reports (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-105srpt21/html/CRPT-105srpt21.htm.). Notable 

exceptions are Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program and Home Investment Partnership Program properties, as well as multifamily properties purchased 

from HUD, which are required to participate in the program. In fact, some research suggests that voucher holders often rent low-income housing tax credit 

units (Galvez et al., 2014a; O’Regan and Horn, 2012).

of White testers when an ad explicitly stated 

vouchers were not accepted (Healy and Lepley, 

2016). “Unfavorable treatment” included 

refusal to rent, refusal to negotiate, steering to 

other neighborhoods, or different terms and 

conditions. Black voucher testers experienced 

differential treatment on every telephone call 

they made to landlords renting in heavily White 

neighborhoods. These studies provide data 

on how Black voucher holders are treated 

compared with White voucher holders but not 

on how landlords respond to voucher holders 

compared with non-voucher holders. 

How Effective Are Sourceof-Income Discrimination 

Protections for Voucher Holders?

Voucher holders are not a protected class under 

the federal Fair Housing Act, and landlords in 

most jurisdictions can legally refuse to accept 

voucher holders as tenants.13 Because the 

HCV program serves primarily families with 

children, people of color, and people with 

disabilities, some advocates argue that landlords 

may discriminate against voucher holders as 

a proxy for discrimination by race or other 

characteristics protected under the Fair Housing 

Act (GNOFHAC, 2009; LCBH, 2002). 

Some states and local areas have made efforts 

to prevent discrimination against voucher 

holders. As of late 2017, 13 states plus the 

District of Columbia had enacted ordinances 

that outlaw discrimination based solely on a 

prospective tenant’s source of income, and 

local ordinances are in place in 53 cities and 
Chapter 2: Overview of the Housing Choice Voucher Program

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

12

10 counties (PRRAC, 2017).14 Many of these 

state and local laws specifically name federal 

housing assistance or housing choice vouchers. 

On the opposite side of the spectrum, Texas 

has prohibited local jurisdictions from adopting 

source-of-income protections,15 and Oregon 

exempts voucher holders specifically from 

protections. California’s law excludes housing 

choice vouchers and other government 

assistance as protected sources of income, 

but some cities within California name voucher 

holders as a protected class.

We identified five studies that examined the 

impacts of source-of-income protections on 

HCV program outcomes. The studies have mixed 

results, but they suggest antidiscrimination laws 

have modest effects on program outcomes. 

Looking at 50 metropolitan areas, Finkel and 

Buron (2001) found that voucher holders were 

more likely to successfully find housing in areas 

with protections (success rates of 76 percent 

compared with 69 percent in areas without 

protections). Freeman (2012) compared voucher 

utilization rates (a measure of the total number 

of vouchers available to a PHA that are in use) 

for adjacent jurisdictions with and without 

protections before and after antidiscrimination 

laws were passed or repealed. He found an 

increase in utilization rates after laws were 

passed (between 4 and 11 percentage points). 

Freeman and Li (2014) and Galvez (2011) 

found that voucher holders lived in slightly (1 

percentage point) lower poverty neighborhoods 

in jurisdictions where source-of-income laws 

were in place, but did not find that such 

laws had a measurable effect on dispersing 

concentrations of voucher holders. Finally, 

14 California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Wisconsin have 

state laws in place as does the District of Columbia. City laws are in place in California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin; county-level laws are in place in California, Florida, Illinois, 

Maryland, New York, Washington, and Wisconsin. As of August 2017, proposed legislation is pending in Hawaii, Maryland, and New York (PRRAC, 2017).

15 In February 2017, the Inclusive Communities Project, a Dallas-based nonprofit organization, filed a complaint against the state to challenge the legality of 

the law. See the Inclusive Communities Project Inc. v. Abbott (Case No. 3:17-cv-00440).

16 A ruling undermined Minnesota’s source-of-income antidiscrimination law that landlords did not have to comply with source-of-income antidiscrimination 

laws if they did not want to be subject to the administrative burden of participation in the HCV program. See Babcock v. BBY Chestnut (http://mn.gov/web/

prod/static/lawlib/live/archive/ctapun/0307/op030090-0729.htm). In contrast, in Montgomery County v. Glenmont Hills Associates (2007), the Maryland 

Court of Appeals noted that the voluntary nature of the program was not more important than the goal of increasing the supply of affordable housing for lowincome families (Daniel, 2010).

Metzger (2014) found no statistically significant 

differences in the geographic distribution of 

voucher holders in metro areas with and without 

source-of-income protections in place. 

What Drives Landlord 

Discrimination?

Practitioners, researchers, and advocates 

point to several reasons landlords might refuse 

vouchers. These reasons are typically related to 

landlord perceptions of housing authorities or of 

voucher holders, and whether landlords perceive 

that the benefits of participating in the HCV 

program outweigh the bureaucratic costs. 

The program is often portrayed as 

administratively burdensome for landlords, 

requiring paperwork, unit inspections, and 

interactions with housing authorities that 

are not necessary for unsubsidized tenants. 

Some legal challenges to source-of-income 

antidiscrimination laws have successfully argued 

that administrative burden is an acceptable 

justification for landlords to deny voucher 

holders.16 Landlords may avoid voucher holders 

because of the costs associated with waiting 

for PHA inspections or approvals and with 

maintaining or upgrading units to meet HUD 

housing quality standards. Interviews with 

landlords in Baltimore, Dallas, and Cleveland 

found that when landlords choose whether to 

participate in the HCV program, they weigh 

the costs and benefits—including financial 

incentives, perceptions of voucher holders, 

and program administration (for example, 

PHA management, inspections, administrative 

burden). If the rents for a voucher holder 
Chapter 2: Overview of the Housing Choice Voucher Program

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

13

and a non-voucher holder are fairly even, 

considerations about program administration are 

weighed more heavily (Garboden et al., 2018).

Landlord experience with or perceptions of 

particular PHAs—for example, bureaucracy, 

inspection timelines, customer service, or 

consistency of rent payments—may also lead 

them to reject vouchers from some PHAs. In 

New Orleans, for example, interviews with 18 

landlords revealed “extreme delays” in PHA 

rent payments and problems dealing with staff 

(GNOFHAC, 2009). Qualitative research with fair 

housing advocates in Baltimore, Washington, 

D.C., and Philadelphia suggested that landlords 

were reluctant to rent to voucher holders, 

because certain poorly performing PHAs made 

late rent payments (Zielenbach, 2006). The 

advocates also noted that absentee landlords 

concentrated in particular neighborhoods often 

failed to maintain their voucher-subsidized 

properties (Zielenbach, 2006). However, some 

landlords may avoid higher performing PHAs, 

because they might enforce housing quality 

violations more aggressively. Alternatively, Rosen 

(2014) found that landlords with less desirable 

units in distressed neighborhoods preferred the 

dependable, above-market rents vouchers offer 

and may target voucher holders and steer them 

to specific neighborhoods by offering incentives 

and amenities.

Finally, negative stereotypes of voucher 

holders are often noted as explanations for 

landlord discrimination. Voucher holders may 

be perceived as tenants prone to bringing 

crime or drugs to new neighborhoods or to not 

maintaining their housing.17 A study of voucher 

locations in 10 cities showed no evidence of a 

relationship between voucher holders and crime, 

and instead found that voucher holders tend to 

move to neighborhoods that are already high 

crime (Ellen, Lens, and O’Regan, 2012).

17 For evidence of this perception, see Rosin (2008) and Cunningham, Sylvester, and Turner (1999).
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

14
Chapter 3: Overview of Testing Methodology 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

15

CHAPTER 3: 

Overview 

of Testing 

Methodology 

This study was designed to identify testing 

methodologies for measuring differential 

treatment of housing choice voucher holders 

in the rental housing market; for measuring the 

prevalence and extent of housing discrimination 

against voucher holders, including differences 

for Black and Hispanic voucher holders 

and in low-poverty neighborhoods; and for 

identifying the types and patterns of housing 

discrimination against voucher holders. This 

chapter provides an overview of our testing 

approach and of the sites selected for testing. 

Detailed discussions of the testing protocols, 

testing oversight, sampling methodology, and 

data collection are in appendix A. The testing 

protocols are in appendix G.

To measure discrimination against voucher 

holders, we used a three-step testing process 

that included a voucher acceptance test, a 

paired telephone test, and as a continuation 

of the telephone test, a paired in-person test. 

In a paired test, two individuals matched in 

every way except for the characteristic being 

tested—in this case, housing choice voucher 

use—make the same inquiries to a landlord 

about housing and record details about 

the information and assistance provided. 

Comparisons of the test data that the two 

testers collected can provide direct evidence of 

differential treatment.

Voucher acceptance testing required identifying 

voucher-affordable units available for testing. The 

paired testing required finding units for which the 

landlords had directly acknowledged accepting 

18 Appendix I contains the testing report forms.

vouchers during a voucher acceptance test. 

Figure 3.1 presents the testing process.

The study team conducted voucher acceptance 

tests in five study sites: Fort Worth, Texas; 

Los Angeles, California; Newark, New Jersey; 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Washington, 

D.C. Paired telephone and in-person tests were 

conducted in three of the five sites: Fort Worth, 

Newark, and Los Angeles. Each site contained 

multiple jurisdictions (cities or counties) but, for 

simplicity, we refer to each site by the largest 

city in the testing area. We conducted testing 

between April 2016 and July 2017.

When designing this study, we planned 

to conduct approximately 2,550 voucher 

acceptance tests, 1,650 paired telephone tests, 

and 1,200 in-person paired tests (for more detail, 

see appendix A). Because of difficulty identifying 

voucher-available units and high voucher denial 

rates (discussed in detail in chapters 4, 5, and 

6), we ultimately completed more voucher 

acceptance tests than anticipated (3,780) but 

fewer telephone and in-person paired tests (694 

telephone and 509 in-person tests). Most of the 

paired tests (426 by telephone and 374 in person) 

were conducted in Newark.

Testing Approach

The integrated study design involved initial 

telephone tests preceding in-person interactions 

with landlords. This protocol enabled us to 

analyze differences between the telephone 

and in-person tests and to capture two related 

aspects of discrimination—outright voucher 

denials during the voucher acceptance test 

and differential treatment during the pairedtesting stages. After every interaction with a 

landlord, the testers completed detailed forms 

documenting their exchanges.18 In addition to 

the forms, testers created written narratives for 

all acceptance tests and for 20 percent of the 

paired telephone tests and paired in-person 

tests. The narratives were collected primarily 
Chapter 3: Overview of Testing Methodology 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

16

Figure 3.1: Flowchart of Testing Sequence for Housing Discrimination Study—Vouchers
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

17

Chapter 3: Overview of Testing Methodology 

as a quality control mechanism to ensure the 

testers followed the testing protocols, but they 

provided valuable insights on the interactions 

with landlords discussed in chapter 6.

The testing protocols used in this study built 

on those used in recent housing discrimination 

studies the Urban Institute conducted on race 

or ethnicity, disability, familial status, sexual 

orientation, and gender identity (Aron et al., 

2016; Levy et al., 2015; Levy et al., 2017; Turner 

et al., 2013). As in the prior studies, testing 

was managed centrally by a field director who 

oversaw project staff based at Urban and in 

the three pilot sites, where paired testing was 

conducted by local testing organizations. 

The Study Sample 

This study was based on a random sample 

of available rental units that was selected to 

match the geographic distribution of voucheraffordable rental units in each site. We used 

special tabulations of ZIP Code-level 5-year ACS 

data (2008–2012) to identify the total number 

of occupied two- and three-bedroom units in 

each ZIP Code with tenants paying rents at 

or below the local PHA payment standards. 

These data were then used to calculate target 

numbers of acceptance tests for each ZIP 

Code (or sometimes groups of ZIP Codes with 

small counts of qualified units) in each site. 

For example, for a site with voucher-affordable 

housing units evenly distributed across four 

ZIP Codes (25 percent in each ZIP Code), we 

aimed to complete 25 percent of all acceptance 

tests in each ZIP Code. Thus, we searched all 

ZIP Codes with units at or below the local PHA 

payment standards for eligible advertisements. 

These ZIP Code-level testing targets were only 

for the acceptance tests, not for the paired tests. 

The geographic distribution of the paired tests 

also reflected areas where landlords accepted 

vouchers and, for the in-person tests, agreed to 

meet with the testers.

19 ZIP Codes without units at or below the local PHA payment standards (according to ACS data) were not assigned a voucher acceptance test target; no 

advertisements in these locations were sampled nor screened.

Advertisements Identified for Testing

All ZIP Codes with units at or below the local 

PHA payment standards were assigned 

acceptance test targets that would lead to the 

sample matching the ACS distribution and were 

subject to ad searches and screening for eligible 

units to test.19 For each ZIP Code assigned a 

target number of acceptance tests, we manually 

screened online advertisements to identify 

advertisements for units that were eligible for 

vouchers and available for rent. “Eligible and 

available” was defined as two- or three-bedroom 

units available to rent at or below the maximum 

rent for the PHA that covered the jurisdiction. 

An additional layer in the “eligibility” process 

required the unit to be in the specific ZIP Codes 

that were searched for testing and had not yet 

met their test target goals. Advertisements 

were manually screened and sampled from a 

combination of up to nine websites, depending 

on the project site. If advertisements appeared 

eligible for testing, the testers would attempt to 

contact the landlord to confirm eligibility and 

availability, and begin the testing process.

Three Stages of Testing

Once advertisements for voucher-eligible and 

available units were identified, we used a threestage integrated testing approach.

Step 1. Voucher acceptance test. Initial contact 

with a landlord was by telephone, e-mail, or 

electronic contact form if no telephone number 

appeared in the advertisement. The tester tried 

to confirm if the advertised unit was available 

and eligible and to inquire whether vouchers 

were accepted. Testers portrayed single-female 

voucher holders who would be perceived as 

White, with one to four children, depending on 

the number of bedrooms in the available housing. 

Testers completed written narratives for each 

test describing what the landlord said about 

voucher acceptance and the HCV program and 
Chapter 3: Overview of Testing Methodology 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

18

participants. Testers also obtained detailed 

address information for the unit to match the 

housing to its census tract location and record 

the tract’s poverty rate.

Step 2. Paired telephone test. When a voucher 

acceptance test identified at least one eligible, 

available unit for which the landlord stated that 

vouchers were accepted, the advertisement was 

assigned to a tester pair to conduct a telephone 

test.20 Each tester contacted the landlord 

independently, with one tester portraying a 

voucher holder who mentioned having a voucher 

at the start of the call and one tester portraying 

a prospective renter who did not have a 

voucher. Each tester gathered information about 

availability, cost, whether utilities were included 

in the rent, the exact address of the unit, the 

application process, the security deposit, any 

fees, and other terms and conditions. Testers 

posing as voucher holders also documented any 

questions or comments made about the voucher. 

Both testers attempted to obtain an appointment 

to view the housing.

Step 3. Paired in-person test. The telephone 

tests in which both testers obtained an 

appointment proceeded to an in-person test. 

As in the telephone tests, testers posing as 

voucher holders mentioned that they had a 

housing voucher at the beginning of their site 

visit. Testers gathered the same key information 

as in the preceding telephone tests in addition to 

information about the quality of the unit’s interior 

and exterior conditions. Testers documented any 

follow-up contact with a landlord (via telephone, 

e-mail, or text message) within 14 days following 

a site visit. If a landlord made repeated contact 

with a tester, test coordinators instructed her to 

conclude interactions with the landlord.

Tester Profiles

All tests were conducted by female testers. 

For the voucher acceptance tests, testers 

20 A few tests proceeded to telephone testing after landlords stated they did not know whether vouchers were accepted, but that the tester should continue 

to pursue her inquiries while they determined their voucher policy.

21 Appendix E discusses the study’s ethnic or racial identifiability analysis.

presented as non-Hispanic White females in 

name and voice. For paired tests, the female 

testers were matched on race or ethnicity and 

age and were assigned comparable household 

compositions.21 Testers portrayed single mothers 

or grandmothers with one to four children or 

grandchildren, with the number, sex, and age of 

children assigned to testers depending on the 

number of bedrooms available and the relevant 

PHA guidelines for the unit location. Single 

women with children were selected for the tester 

profiles, because they represent 41 percent of 

housing choice voucher holders nationally and in 

our test sites (HUD, 2016).

Testers designated as voucher holders were 

assigned household incomes based on 30 

percent of AMI, and control tester incomes were 

based on 30 percent of AMI plus the estimated 

annual value of the voucher. Otherwise, voucher 

holders were assigned the same or slightly 

better qualifications than the control testers (for 

example, longer time at their current residence, 

longer time on the job). The slight differences 

in some assigned tester characteristics helped 

minimize the risk of detection, as identical 

characteristics might call attention to the 

testers. The voucher tester was assigned 

the slightly better qualifications in housing 

and employment tenure to ensure that any 

unfavorable treatment by the landlord was not 

attributable to these variables.

The voucher testers were all assigned vouchers 

from the local PHA for the jurisdiction where they 

were looking for housing, and they portrayed 

people who were moving to a new unit with a 

voucher they had received more than a year 

before (as opposed to using a newly issued 

voucher). This procedure prevented potential 

conflicts with testers portraying new voucher 

holders for PHAs that were not issuing new 

vouchers during the testing period.
Chapter 3: Overview of Testing Methodology 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

19

Voucher Discrimination and Race or 

Ethnicity

Although the primary research question focused 

on the prevalence of discrimination against 

voucher holders, it was important to explore 

how discrimination against testers based on 

voucher usage might vary by race or ethnicity. 

After considering several approaches for testing, 

we elected to conduct in-person tests, paired on 

race (White voucher holder versus White nonvoucher holder, Black voucher holder versus 

Black non-voucher holder, Hispanic voucher 

holder versus Hispanic non-voucher holder). 

Each paired test involved one tester posing as 

an unsubsidized renter and a second tester (of 

the same race and ethnicity) posing as a voucher 

recipient. Barring sample size issues, this 

approach enables us to produce estimates of 

adverse treatment of voucher recipients relative 

to unsubsidized renters of the same race or 

ethnicity and to compare these estimates across 

racial and ethnic groups. If adverse treatment 

of minority voucher recipients relative to their 

matched unsubsidized cotesters was greater 

than that of White voucher recipients relative to 

their unsubsidized White counterparts, we could 

conclude that race or ethnicity exacerbates the 

negative treatment of voucher holders.

22 All area population and vacancy rate data included in the test-site profiles are from the American Communities Survey’s 2011–2015 5-year estimates 

(Census Bureau, 2015). The counts of housing choice voucher households in each site are from HUD (2016).

Testing Sites

The five sites included in the study were 

selected based on size, geographic diversity, 

number of voucher recipients, demographic 

characteristics, and the capacity of local testing 

organizations. When evaluating potential pairedtesting sites, the project team gave the highest 

consideration to metropolitan areas with testing 

organizations that had prior testing experience, 

including exemplary performance on prior 

housing discrimination studies. Urban Institute 

staff based in Washington, D.C., exclusively 

conducted the acceptance tests, with local 

testing organizations conducting paired testing.

Ultimately, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. 

were selected for voucher acceptance tests, 

with Fort Worth, Newark, and Los Angeles 

selected for both acceptance and paired tests. 

Table 3.1 provides an overview of the testing 

sites.22 The three testing organizations that 

conducted paired tests for this study were 

familiar with their local rental markets, their local 

PHAs, and the PHA policies that could affect 

data collection, and all had experience working 

with housing choice voucher holders either 

during the housing search process or because 

of a discrimination complaint. All three pairedTable 3.1: Select Test Site Characteristics

Test Site

Number of Assigned 

Public Housing 

Authorities

Number of Counties Rental Vacancy Rate 

(%) Voucher-Assisted Units

Fort Worth, TX 3 1 9.2 12,177

Los Angeles, CA 6 1 3.7 78,448

Newark, NJ 4 4 3.8–9.0 22,947

Philadelphia, PA 2 2 6.4–7.4 23,526

Washington, DC 2 2 3.9–5.5 21,942

Notes: Rental vacancy rates are available at the county level; ranges are provided for sites covering more than one county. Voucherassisted units are the number of housing choice voucher households each PHA assisted, aggregated over the assigned PHAs in the 

test site.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2015); HUD (2016) 
Chapter 3: Overview of Testing Methodology 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

20

testing sites conducted tests with White and 

Black testers. Hispanic testers were employed 

in Fort Worth and Los Angeles, which have 

sizable Hispanic populations. 

Legal Protections for Voucher Holders 

in Testing Sites

As noted previously, the Fair Housing Act does 

not name voucher holders as a federally 

protected class, although federal law does 

prohibit source-of-income discrimination in 

properties receiving federal tax credits, grants, 

and other forms of federal assistance (NHLP, 

2017). The presence of source-of-income 

protections was not a selection criterion for the 

study, because assessing the effectiveness of 

such protections was not among the research 

questions that HUD identified and would be very 

difficult with a small sample of sites. 

Nevertheless, voucher protections did vary 

across the five test sites. The Newark and 

Washington, D.C. sites had protections 

throughout all areas tested (the state of New 

Jersey, the District of Columbia, and 

Montgomery County, Maryland), the Philadelphia 

site had partial coverage (the city of Philadelphia 

but not Bucks County, Pennsylvania), and the 

Fort Worth and Los Angeles sites did not have 

any protections in place. Table 3.2 provides an 

overview of legal coverage in the voucher testing 

sites as of September 2017. 

Fort Worth, Texas 

Voucher acceptance tests and paired testing 

took place in Tarrant County, which consists of 

the cities of Fort Worth and Arlington, covers 864 

square miles, and represents an approximate 

population of 1.9 million. The rental vacancy rate 

for Tarrant County was 9.2 percent in 2015.

23 HUD provided the study team with success rates for PHAs in the study sites from the Inventory Management System (IMS)/Public and Indian Housing 

Information Center (PIC) electronic system that PHAs use to submit information. For some households (for which the IMS/PIC does not include a record of 

a successful lease up or a record of a voucher expiration), HUD staff must infer whether a lease up was successful. As a result, the voucher success rates 

reported here are estimates, and their reliability depends on the accuracy of IMS/PIC data reported by the housing authority.

24 The Arlington Housing Authority’s waiting list was open before testing in May 2015 and June 2015, during testing in August 2016, and after testing from 

August 23–29, 2017.

Three PHAs administer housing choice 

vouchers in the testing area—the Tarrant 

County Housing Assistance Office, Fort Worth 

Housing Solutions, and the Arlington Housing 

Authority. The three PHAs were authorized 

to administer 12,177 vouchers in 2016. The 

Tarrant County PHA serves all areas in the 

county, including the citywide jurisdictions of 

Fort Worth Housing Solutions and the Arlington 

Housing Authority. In 2015, the voucher issuance 

success rate was 42 percent for the Tarrant 

County Housing Assistance Office, 45 percent 

for Fort Worth Housing Solutions, and 36 

percent for the Arlington Housing Authority.23

The PHA in Tarrant County opened the waiting 

list immediately before testing in March 2017 for 

the first time in 7 years. The Arlington Housing 

Authority’s waiting list was open for brief 

windows before, during, and after testing.24 The 

Fort Worth Housing Solutions waiting list has not 

been opened since July 2011.

Los Angeles, California

The Los Angeles County site included all cities 

within the county, excluding 13 small cities with 

individual PHAs administering small numbers of 

Table 3.2: Voucher Protections in Study 

Test Sites

Test site State County City

Fort Worth, TX

Los Angeles, CA

Newark, NJ X

Philadelphia, PA X

Washington, DC X X

Source: PRRAC (2017)
Chapter 3: Overview of Testing Methodology 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

21

vouchers.25 Both voucher acceptance tests and 

paired testing took place in Los Angeles. The 

testing area covered 3,882 square miles and 

represented an approximate population of more 

than 10 million. The rental vacancy rate for Los 

Angeles County was 3.7 percent in 2015—the 

lowest of the five test sites.

Six PHAs administer vouchers in the test sites: 

the Housing Authority of the County of Los 

Angeles, the Housing Authority of the City of Los 

Angeles, the Glendale Housing Authority, the 

City of Inglewood Housing Authority, the City of 

Pasadena Housing Department, and the City of 

Torrance Housing Assistance Office. All together, 

these PHAs were authorized to administer 78,448 

vouchers in 2016. In 2015, voucher issuance 

success rates for these PHAs ranged from 31 

percent at the Torrance Housing Assistance 

Office to 61 percent at the Glendale Housing 

Authority. Although none of these PHAs had 

open voucher waiting lists during the test period, 

the Inglewood Housing Authority’s waiting list 

was open 4 months before testing in December 

2015.26 The Housing Authority of the City of Los 

Angeles will open its waiting list in early 2018 for 

the first time since October 2004 (HACLA, 2017).

Newark, New Jersey

The Newark test site included four counties 

in northeastern New Jersey—Bergen, Essex, 

Hudson, and Passaic. Voucher acceptance tests 

and paired testing took place in Newark. This 

test site represented 593 square miles, with a 

population of roughly 2.9 million residents. The 

rental vacancy rates for these counties in 2015 

ranged from a low of 3.8 percent in Bergen to 

close to 5 percent in Hudson and Passaic to 9 

percent in Essex.

Rather than assigning multiple PHAs to tests 

throughout the site, we used the statewide 

25 The 13 cities not included in the Los Angeles test site were Baldwin Park, Burbank, Compton, Culver City, Hawaiian Gardens, Hawthorne, Long Beach, 

Norwalk, Pico Rivera, Pomona, Redondo Beach, Santa Monica, and South Gate. The cities of Glendale, Inglewood, Pasadena, and Torrance were included 

as of July 2016 to increase the stock of eligible units for testing.

26 Affordable Housing Online. 2017. “Section 8 Waiting Lists in California.” https://affordablehousingonline.com/open-section-8-waiting-lists/California.

27 https://affordablehousingonline.com/open-section-8-waiting-lists/New-Jersey.

HCV program that the New Jersey Department 

of Community Affairs administers as the PHA 

for all tests within this site. The agency is 

authorized to administer 22,947 vouchers across 

New Jersey. If asked, testers would indicate 

they had a voucher from the Department of 

Community Affairs and if pressed for more 

details, they would say that the voucher was 

processed through the local county office. The 

Department of Community Affairs sets voucher 

payment standards at the county level, which 

meant, for example, that a test conducted in 

Bergen County would have a different payment 

standard than a test conducted in Essex 

County. The voucher issuance success rate for 

the Department of Community Affairs was 84 

percent in 2015. The agency’s waiting list has 

been closed since June 2016, but some local 

PHAs within the test site have opened their 

waiting lists as recently as April 2017 (Housing 

Authority of the City of Passaic) and May 2017 

(Jersey City Housing Authority).27

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

Only voucher acceptance tests were conducted 

in Philadelphia. The test site included the 

City and County of Philadelphia, as well as 

Bucks County, Pennsylvania, which is north 

of Philadelphia. The test site covered 738 

square miles and represented a population of 

approximately 2.2 million residents. The rental 

vacancy rate was 7.4 percent in Philadelphia 

County and 6.4 percent in Bucks County.

Two PHAs operate housing authorities in 

Philadelphia and Bucks County—the Philadelphia 

Housing Authority and the Bucks County 

Housing Authority. Philadelphia’s program 

is authorized for 20,110 vouchers and Bucks 

County is authorized for 3,416. The 2015 

voucher issuance success rates for the housing 

authorities in Philadelphia and Bucks County 
Chapter 3: Overview of Testing Methodology 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

22

were 30 and 77 percent, respectively. Both 

waiting lists are currently closed; the Philadelphia 

Housing Authority’s waiting list has not been 

open since March 2010.28 Before that, the 

Philadelphia Housing Authority’s waiting list was 

open in 2000.

Washington, D.C.

Only voucher acceptance tests were conducted 

in Washington, D.C. The test jurisdiction included 

the District of Columbia and Montgomery 

County, Maryland. The city of Rockville in 

Montgomery County was excluded from testing. 

This test site covered 552 square miles and 

represented a population of roughly 1.7 million 

residents. The rental vacancy rate in 2015 was 

5.5 percent for the District of Columbia and 3.9 

percent for Montgomery County. 

Two PHAs were assigned to voucher-holder 

profiles in Washington, D.C.—the District of 

Columbia Housing Authority and the Housing 

Opportunities Commission of Montgomery 

County. The D.C. Housing Authority is authorized 

to administer 14,866 vouchers, and the 

Montgomery County PHA is authorized for 7,076. 

The D.C. Housing Authority’s voucher success 

rate was 90 percent in 2015, but the success 

rate was only 39 percent in Montgomery County. 

The Montgomery County voucher waiting list is 

currently open,29 but the Washington, D.C. waiting 

list has not opened since April 2013.30 The D.C. 

Housing Authority was the only PHA in the study 

to vary its payment standard by neighborhood 

location, as well as by number of bedrooms. For 

example, the payment standard for a unit in the 

Columbia Heights neighborhood differs from 

the payment standard for a unit in neighboring 

Petworth. Thus, although Montgomery County 

tests were based on one of two possible 

payment standards, tests in Washington, D.C., 

were based on 88 possible payment standards 

from 22 neighborhood locations.

28 https://affordablehousingonline.com/open-section-8-waiting-lists/Pennsylvania.

29 https://affordablehousingonline.com/open-section-8-waiting-lists/Maryland.

30 https://affordablehousingonline.com/open-section-8-waiting-lists/District-Of-Columbia.
Chapter 4: How Difficult Is It To Find Voucher-Affordable Units?

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

23

CHAPTER 4: 

How Difficult Is It 

To Find VoucherAffordable 

Units?

Methodology

Before we could begin testing, we needed to find 

landlords advertising units that had a rent below 

the payment standard and were available for 

rent. To do so, testers manually screened online 

apartment listings to identify units that appeared 

to be eligible for testing (that is, advertisements 

for units meeting size and rent requirements 

and in ZIP Codes where tests remained to 

be completed). Target numbers of voucher 

acceptance tests were set by ZIP Code and 

selected to match the geographic distribution 

of voucher-affordable rental units in each site. 

To find available units in the target ZIP Codes, 

testers sampled rental advertisements from up 

to nine websites. Testers used five of the nine 

websites (apartments.com, craigslist.org, move.

com, trulia.com, and zillow.com) in all five sites; 

the remaining four (apartmentguide.com, rent.

com, forrent.com, and socialserve.com) were 

also used in cities in which the project team 

determined they might provide units not listed on 

other websites.31

To ensure the searches for advertisements 

were unbiased, project staff were provided 

randomized lists of housing search websites and 

randomized strings of numbers that determined 

the order they would check websites and 

screen advertisements. In some cases, to avoid 

31 GoSection8.com, which explicitly includes ads from landlords who accept vouchers, was excluded from the study. The site was excluded for two reasons: 

first, the research team was concerned that goSection8.com listings are not representative of the rental market as a whole; and second, exploratory ad 

searches of 10 ZIP Codes using goSection8.com suggested that the site was not an effective source for expanding our sample of ads in our testing sites.

detection risk, we excluded advertisements for 

consideration for testing, because the landlords 

offering them had recently been called about 

a different unit. If we found a given unit to be 

ineligible or no longer available for rent, the 

testers would seek out other advertisements 

for the same target ZIP Code. We screened 

advertisements and selected for testing in 

this way until we reached the target number 

of tests for the ZIP code. Once we identified 

advertisements that appeared to be eligible for 

vouchers, the testers would call landlords to 

confirm the units were, in fact, eligible (that is, 

two or three bedrooms, renting at or below the 

maximum rent for the ZIP Code’s local PHA) and 

available for rent. We tested only advertisements 

for units that were eligible and available.

The Search for VoucherAffordable Units 

Most voucher holders must navigate the private 

rental market and find a unit on their own. 

Searching for housing that meets the voucher 

rental cap, as noted previously, can be difficult. 

As our testers searched for units, they were not 

modeling a voucher search exactly—for example, 

they used specific housing search websites, they 

may have excluded properties because landlords 

were already called about other units, and they 

had to look for advertisements in specific areas—

but our ability to find voucher-eligible units for 

testing provides some insight into what voucher 

holders may experience when searching for 

a unit and a landlord to accept their voucher. 

Overall, we found that identifying advertisements 

that were eligible for the program—that were 

affordable—was extremely challenging. 

During approximately 16 months of testing, 

we screened more than 341,000 online 

advertisements across the 5 study sites to 

find 8,735 advertisements for rental housing 

that appeared to be voucher eligible based 
Chapter 4: How Difficult Is It To Find Voucher-Affordable Units? 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

24

on the information listed in the ad. Tables 4.1 

and 4.2, respectively, present the numbers of 

advertisements screened and the effort needed 

to identify advertisements for testing by site.

Inquiring about these 8,735 advertisements, 

confirming their eligibility and availability, and 

then completing voucher acceptance tests 

often required multiple contact attempts with 

landlords. Testers made 16,026 contact attempts 

across the 5 sites by telephone, e-mail, or 

text to successfully complete 3,780 voucher 

acceptance tests.

On average, across the 5 sites, we screened 

roughly 39 advertisements to identify what 

appeared to be an eligible unit. The average 

number of contact attempts per these 

potentially eligible advertisements totaled 

nearly two contacts to reach the landlord. 

The effort required to find housing for testing 

differed dramatically across sites and for 

specific ZIP Codes. For example, the average 

number of advertisements screened to identify 

a unit that appeared to be eligible for testing 

ranged from more than 50 in Los Angeles and 

Newark to less than 20 in Washington, D.C., 

to 11 in Philadelphia (Table 4.2). Once testers 

found an advertisement that appeared to be 

eligible, Los Angeles and Newark required 

the most effort to contact the landlord and 

had the lowest rates of potentially eligible 

advertisements resulting in actual voucher 

acceptance tests (Table 4.2).

Table 4.1: Advertisements Screened and Voucher Acceptance Tests Completed

Test Site Advertisements 

Screened

Potentially VoucherEligible AdvertisementsTotal Provider Contacts 

and Attempts

Voucher Acceptance 

Tests Completed

Fort Worth, TX 66,932 2,244 3,755 1,146

Los Angeles, CA 137,059 2,659 5,260 998

Newark, NJ 112,417 2,134 4,194 782

Philadelphia, PA 9,955 893 1,579 422

Washington, DC 15,152 805 1,238 432

Total 341,515 8,735 16,026 3,780

Table 4.2: Level of Effort To Find Voucher-Affordable Units

Test Site

Average Number 

of Advertisements 

Screened per Potentially 

Eligible Ad

Average Number of 

Contact Attempts per 

Potentially Eligible Ad

Number of Units Found 

Eligible and Available 

per Potentially 

Available Ad

Average Number 

of Advertisements 

Screened per Completed 

Voucher Acceptance 

Test

Fort Worth, TX 29.83 1.67 0.51 58.40

Los Angeles, CA 51.55 1.98 0.38 137.33

Newark, NJ 52.68 1.97 0.37 143.76

Philadelphia, PA 11.15 1.77 0.47 23.59

Washington, DC 18.82 1.54 0.54 35.07

All sites 39.10 1.83 0.43 90.35
Chapter 4: How Difficult Is It To Find Voucher-Affordable Units? 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

25

The source of difficulty in Los Angeles and 

Newark differed greatly, although both sites 

required considerable effort per available eligible 

advertisement. In Los Angeles, the difficulty 

finding suitable advertisements, contacting 

landlords, and identifying units for testing 

seemed to reflect a tight local rental market. The 

rental vacancy rate in Los Angeles at the time of 

testing was approximately 3.5 percent. For Los 

Angeles, the combination of few eligible units 

available for testing and high voucher denial rates 

was an obstacle for completing paired tests. 

In Newark, the difficulty finding eligible units 

did not appear to be the result of market 

tightness; the rental vacancy rate ranged from 

approximately 4 to 9 percent at the time of 

testing. Instead, testing staff reported that in 

some ZIP Codes a few landlords controlled a 

disproportionate number of units. Limits were 

placed on how often testers called or tested 

a particular landlord to minimize the risk that 

landlords would discover they were being tested. 

In practice, these limits meant that units might be 

removed from the potential study sample, and a 

more aggressive effort might be needed in some 

ZIP Codes to find units for testing.

It is not clear why higher numbers of contact 

attempts were needed in some sites to 

reach landlords and to confirm available 

advertisements for testing, as Table 4.2 showed. 

Testing staff suggested that landlords operating 

at the lower rent end of the housing market faced 

high demand for affordable units and did not (or 

could not) respond to all inquiries or prioritize 

responding to messages and returning calls.

The effort required to find available units varied 

greatly across ZIP Codes. For example, across 

the 5 sites we screened advertisements in 504 

ZIP codes. In 74 of the ZIP Codes, we could 

not find any available units (Table 4.3). One-half 

of the ZIP Codes without available units were 

in Los Angeles, where they represented about 

18 percent of all screened advertisements. We 

examined patterns in the data to see if these “no 

advertisements” ZIP Codes were more likely to 

be low-poverty areas and found no evidence to 

support this hypothesis. 

Within ZIP Codes that had available units, the 

number of advertisements we had to review to 

find a unit varied considerably (Table 4.4). In 

some sites, a small percentage of ZIP Codes 

required a significant effort to find available 

units for testing. For example, in Fort Worth, 10 

percent of all available units identified were in 

ZIP Codes that required screening at least 160 

advertisements for each identified eligible unit. 

In contrast, one-half of the units identified in Fort 

Worth were in ZIP Codes that required screening 

24 or fewer advertisements. In Los Angeles and 

Newark, 10 percent of advertisements were in 

ZIP codes that required us to screen 255 to 331 

advertisements to find one eligible unit, whereas 

Table 4.3: ZIP Codes With No Available Units by Testing Site

Number of ZIP Codes 

With No Available Units

Number of 

Advertisements 

Reviewed

Number of 

Advertisements 

Reviewed in ZIP Codes 

Without Available Units

Percent of 

Advertisements 

Reviewed in ZIP Codes 

Without Available Units

Fort Worth, TX 0 66,932 0 0.0

Los Angeles, CA 37 137,059 24,849 18.1

Newark, NJ 27 112,513 3,199 2.8

Philadelphia, PA 2 9,955 253 2.5

Washington, DC 8 15,171 712 4.7
Chapter 4: How Difficult Is It To Find Voucher-Affordable Units? 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

26

one-half of the advertisements in those cities 

required screening only 39 to 51 advertisements. 

In Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., available 

units were relatively easier to find.

Our inability to find advertisements in some 

ZIP Codes—and the effort needed in others—

is important for two reasons. First, it shows 

how difficult it may be to identify units in some 

places, and second, it illustrates one way our 

testing process may differ from a typical voucher 

search. Because our study design required a 

specific sampling process, our testers kept 

searching for units in these ZIP Codes even when 

finding an available advertisement was extremely 

challenging—likely far past when a voucher 

holder might abandon efforts in that particular 

area. However, if a voucher holder were 

interested in living in a specific neighborhood 

because of proximity to family, transportation, 

jobs, or high-quality schools, he or she might 

search with similar intensity and face the same 

challenges we found—a lack of available units.

Voucher Preferences in Rental 

Advertisements

Although not the primary intention of the 

advertisement sampling or testing process, 

manually searching for advertisements 

provided an opportunity to identify whether 

advertisements explicitly noted “no Section 8” or 

equivalent language or mentioned that vouchers 

were accepted.

Once testers determined that a unit was eligible 

for voucher acceptance testing, the team 

checked the advertisement to record whether it 

mentioned the HCV program, vouchers, voucher 

holders, Section 8, or a PHA. The team recorded 

whether the advertisement explicitly said 

vouchers were accepted or not, or included any 

relevant comments about voucher assistance. 

Of the 8,735 eligible advertisements, 969 

(roughly 11 percent) contained any mention of 

vouchers (Table 4.5).

Overall, most (63 percent) advertisements 

that stated any information about vouchers 

indicated the acceptance of Section 8 or 

rental subsidies. About 25 percent stated that 

Section 8 was not accepted, and the remaining 

12 percent contained “other” information. The 

“other” category includes advertisements in 

which certain relevant key words or government 

assistance programs were mentioned, but 

a voucher policy was not explicitly noted. 

Examples include listing “TRA” (tenant-based 

rental assistance) or “government funds,” 

commenting about a PHA, or noting gosection8.

com (a website for landlords who accept 

vouchers). Many of these passive mentions of 

vouchers or housing assistance were likely for 

units that did accept vouchers. 

Table 4.4: Deciles of ZIP Code-Level Advertisements Screened per Available Unit for Testing, by 

Testing Site

Test Site Bottom 10% Median Top 10% Total ZIP Codes

Fort Worth, TX 10 24 160 43

Los Angeles, CA 9 39 255 181

Newark, NJ 20 51 331 97

Philadelphia, PA 5 22 38 65

Washington, DC 5 14 46 44

Notes: Weighted to reflect distribution of available units. Includes only ZIP Codes with at least one unit available for testing.
Chapter 4: How Difficult Is It To Find Voucher-Affordable Units? 

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

27

Conclusion

Our testing process did not exactly mirror a 

voucher holder’s search, but we gathered insight 

into the process and learned voucher-affordable 

units are difficult to find. Searching for housing 

is challenging for voucher holders. Most must 

navigate the rental market on their own, searching 

for units that meet the program rental cap. This 

search requires scouring apartment listings and 

making multiple telephone calls to landlords to 

inquire about apartment availability. Across the 

five sites, we screened 39 advertisements for 

every unit we identified, and it took nearly two 

attempts to reach the landlord to inquire about the 

unit. Searches can become even more difficult 

for voucher holders looking for an apartment in 

a particular neighborhood. Our analysis of the 

rental advertisements in our sample reveals that 

landlords rarely state their preferences for Section 

8 or clearly state they do not accept vouchers. 

Of the advertisements we reviewed, a small 

percentage (11 percent) included any information 

about vouchers— most of which noted that 

Section 8 or rental subsidies were accepted. 

Table 4.5: Voucher Policy Information Listed in Advertisement Text

Test Site Total 

Advertisements

Total Noting Voucher 

Policy Vouchers Denied Vouchers Accepted Other Related Comments

Fort Worth, TX 2,244

116 55 48 13

5.2% 2.5% 2.1% 0.6%

Los Angeles, CA 2,659

478 139 303 36

18.0% 5.2% 11.4% 1.4%

Newark, NJ 2,134

224 18 171 35

10.5% 0.8% 8.0% 1.6%

Philadelphia, PA

893

93 26 40 27

10.4% 2.9% 4.5% 3.0%

Washington, DC

805

58 3 49 6

7.2% 0.4% 6.1% 0.7%

Total 8,735

969 241 611 117

11.1% 2.8% 7.0% 1.3%

Percentage of advertisements noting voucher policy 24.9% 63.1% 12.1%
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

28
Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

29

CHAPTER 5: 

Do Landlords 

Accept 

Housing Choice 

Vouchers?

Methodology 

The voucher acceptance test was the first step 

in the testing process and it measured whether 

landlords accepted vouchers. As discussed 

previously, screening rental advertisements 

and identifying eligible and available units for 

testing was complex, but the acceptance test 

itself was straightforward. Once a tester verified 

a given unit was available and met voucher 

size and rent requirements, the tester revealed 

that she had a voucher and asked whether the 

landlord accepted vouchers. All acceptance 

testers were women who were perceived as 

White and portrayed voucher holders with one 

to four young children or grandchildren. Box 5.1 

provides an example of an exchange between a 

tester and landlord. 

Box 5.1: Sample Voucher

Acceptance Test

Tester: I’m calling about the ad for 

the apartment at [address]. 

Do you know if it’s still 

available for rent?

Landlord: It is, and it will be available 

on August 15th. 

Tester: It’s two bedrooms, correct?

Landlord: That’s correct.

Tester: And I saw that the rent 

was $1,875 a month. 

Is that right, and does 

that include utilities?

Landlord: Yes, it is $1,875 a month, 

and it only includes water. 

You will be responsible 

for everything else, like 

gas and electricity. 

Tester: Okay, great. And do you 

accept vouchers for this unit?

Landlord: What do you mean by 

vouchers? Like Section 8?

Tester: Yes, that’s right.

Landlord: Oh, yes. We accept those. 

The landlord’s response—yes, no, or in some 

instances more equivocal responses—was the 

outcome measure of interest. We calculated 

the landlord “denial rate” for each site as the 

proportion of landlords who told testers that 

vouchers were not accepted for an available 

rental unit. Detailed address information was also 

recorded for each test to match units to census 

tracts and examine differences in denial rates by 

low- and high-poverty tracts. 

Of the 3,780 voucher acceptance tests 

conducted in the five testing sites, 29 percent 

(1,083) were for units in neighborhoods with 

poverty rates below 10 percent (considered 

low-poverty areas) and 26 percent (999) were 

in neighborhoods with poverty rates of 30 

percent or higher (considered high-poverty 

areas). Roughly 38 percent (1,453) of the voucher 

acceptance tests we conducted were in mediumpoverty tracts (10–30 percent). For the remaining 

7 percent of the tests, the unit address could not 

be assigned to a census tract. Table 5.1 shows 

the number of tests conducted by site and in 

low-, medium-, and high-poverty census tracts. 
Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

30

Voucher Discrimination Found in 

All Five Sites 

Results from the voucher acceptance tests show 

clear evidence of outright denial of vouchers in 

each of the five sites, although denial rates varied 

widely. Denial rates were highest in Fort Worth 

and Los Angeles (78 and 76 percent, 

respectively) and somewhat lower but still high in 

Philadelphia (67 percent). Rates were 

substantially lower in Newark (31 percent) and 

Washington, D.C. (15 percent). Table 5.2 shows 

the overall denial rates by site.

It is not possible to draw conclusions about why 

denial rates varied by site. It is notable, however, 

that lower landlord denial rates correspond 

with places that have protections for voucher 

holders. In Newark and Washington, D.C., where 

voucher holders are a protected class under 

32 About 11 percent (45 of 422) of the voucher acceptance tests conducted in the Philadelphia-area site were conducted in Bucks County. Denial rates were 

slightly higher in Bucks County compared with the city of Philadelphia (71 percent compared with 66 percent), and a larger share of the Bucks County tests 

resulted in “accepts with conditions” or “unsure” responses by landlords (12 percent compared with 9 percent). However, the sample of voucher acceptance 

tests in Bucks County was too small to glean meaningful inferences.

33 Properties using low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) financing are required to consider voucher holders as tenants. Because of the difficulty identifying 

individual LIHTC units during the acceptance test, it was not possible to exclude these units or properties from testing. In an effort to understand the extent to 

which LIHTC units were included in the sample and whether denial rates varied for LIHTC units, HUD linked the acceptance test addresses to the publicly available 

database of LIHTC property addresses. Because of differences in how acceptance tests and LIHTC addresses are geocoded, it was not possible to assess with 

certainty the share of acceptance tests conducted on units in LIHTC properties. Among the 3,780 acceptance tests, 120 addresses matched to LIHTC property 

addresses, but additional units may not have matched because of incompatible data formats. For the 120 tests that did match to LIHTC addresses, 72 percent of 

landlords stated they accepted vouchers, 13 percent denied vouchers, and 15 percent were unsure or accepted vouchers with conditions.

local source-of-income antidiscrimination laws, 

denial rates were substantially lower compared 

with the sites that did not have protections. The 

city of Philadelphia has protections in place, 

but neighboring Bucks County, where we also 

conducted tests, does not.32 Los Angeles and 

Fort Worth do not have protections in place. 

However, source-of-income protections were not 

the only differences among the sites that could 

explain different outcomes. Sites also differed 

in how they set their rental caps. Specifically, 

the lowest voucher denial rates corresponded 

with areas that had higher FMR levels (50 

percent instead of 40 percent in Philadelphia and 

Washington, D.C.), as well as with the one site 

that had neighborhood-level payment standards 

ranging from approximately 80 to 130 percent 

of FMR (Washington, D.C.). The housing market, 

PHA performance, and other factors could also 

affect landlord denial rates.33

Table 5.1: Voucher Acceptance Tests Completed by Site and Poverty Rate

Acceptance Tests Fort Worth Los Angeles Newark Philadelphia

Washington, 

DC All Sites

Tests in low-poverty tracts 

(< 10%)

% 26.2 30.6 33.6 13.7 36.3 28.7

n 300 305 263 58 157 1,083

Tests in medium-poverty tracts 

(10–30%)

% 39.4 36.2 39.4 41.5 36.3 38.4

n 452 361 308 175 157 1,453

Tests in high-poverty tracts 

(> 30%)

% 30.4 26.0 18.2 38.2 20.6 26.4

n 348 259 142 161 89 999

Tests that could not be geocoded

% 4.0 7.3 8.8 6.6 6.7 6.5

n 46 73 69 28 29 245

Total voucher acceptance tests

% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

n 1,146 998 782 422 432 3,780
Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

31

Table 5.2: Voucher Acceptance Test Results and Voucher Denial Rates by Site

Test Results Fort Worth Los Angeles Newark Philadelphia Washington, DC

n % n % n % n % n %

Total tests 1,146 998 782 422 432

Denies vouchers 894 78.0 762 76.4 242 30.9 282 66.8 64 14.8

Accepts vouchers 132 11.5 148 14.8 342 43.7 99 23.5 306 70.8

Accepts vouchers with 

conditions 82 7.2 48 4.8 92 11.8 14 3.3 42 9.7

Unsure of voucher 

policy or other 38 3.3 40 4.0 106 13.6 27 6.4 20 4.6

Notes: Accepts vouchers with conditions refers to landlords who accept vouchers only if specific additional conditions are met. Other

responses included that the public housing authority would not pay its portion for the unit, the landlord was awaiting inspection to 

determine eligibility, and the landlord did not know what vouchers were.

Across the five sites, between 8 and 25 percent 

of the voucher acceptance tests resulted in a 

landlord stating vouchers were accepted only 

under certain conditions, or that the landlord 

was unsure of the voucher acceptance policy.34

For some tests recorded as “unsure,” landlords 

stated the tester should proceed with the 

conversation and potential application; in other 

cases, the landlord promised to follow up with 

a response but did not provide one after 24 

hours, could not be reached to clarify, or later 

responded that the unit was no longer available. 

“Accepts with conditions” was recorded 

whenever a landlord suggested vouchers would 

be accepted only under certain circumstances; 

for example, if the voucher was (or was not) from 

a particular PHA, if the voucher was for a certain 

unit size, if the voucher covered a certain amount 

of the rent, or if other requirements of tenancy 

(such as a certain credit score) were met. See 

Box 5.2 for examples of these two responses 

from landlords in the voucher acceptance test. 

34 A small number of “other” responses were also recorded and included with the “unsure” responses. “Other” responses include, for example, somewhat 

ambiguous responses, such as the landlords stating they were waiting for results of a unit inspection, that the PHA would not pay the voucher, or that they 

did not know what vouchers were.

Box 5.2: Sample “Unsure” and

“Accepts With Conditions” Voucher 

Acceptance Test Narratives

Most landlords told testers clearly whether they 

accepted vouchers. In some cases, however, 

landlords were either unsure or stated they 

would only take vouchers in certain situations.

Landlord is unsure of voucher policy

Newark, NJ: I asked [the landlord] if he 

accepted vouchers for this unit and he was 

not sure. [He] said he would ask the landlord 

and call me back. [He] did not call me back.

Washington, DC: I then asked if he would 

accept vouchers and he said he wasn’t sure if 

the owner would take them. He said he would 

have to check and said he would get back 

to me. He did not get my name or number.

Los Angeles, CA: When I asked about 

housing voucher acceptance, he clarified 

that I meant Section 8, and then he admitted 

he didn’t know much about the program. 

I asked if he would be willing to accept it, 

and he said that I should come by to view 

the unit and he would think about it after.
Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

32

Landlord accepts vouchers with conditions

Fort Worth, TX: I asked [the landlord] if 

she accepted vouchers and she said [PHA 

name] vouchers only. She added tenants 

must make 2.5 times the rent amount.

Newark, NJ: I asked [the landlord] if she 

accepted vouchers for this unit and she said, 

yes, that she accepts anything, but I need to 

have good credit of 650 or more. She asked me 

if my credit was 650 or more and I said yes.

Philadelphia, PA: I then asked if they accept 

vouchers. He then asked if I was talking about 

Section 8. I said yes. He asked how many 

bedrooms my voucher is for. I said I have a 

three-bedroom voucher. He then stated that 

they will accept three-bedroom Section 8. 

The “unsure” and “accepts with conditions” 

responses likely represent some combination 

of landlords or property managers who were 

genuinely unsure of their voucher policy, who 

accepted with some conditions but placed those 

conditions on all apartment seekers, who were 

familiar with the program and had no intention 

of accepting voucher holders, and who place 

conditions on voucher holders they do not place 

on other apartment seekers.

It is noteworthy that the “unsure” and “accepts 

with conditions” responses were far more 

common in Newark (about 25 percent) and 

Washington, D.C. (about 14 percent), which had 

the lowest denial rates and were the sites entirely 

covered by state or local source–of-income 

protections. Some evidence from previous 

smaller scale testing studies in Washington, 

D.C., suggests denial rates have declined 

since source–of-income protections were 

enacted in 2005; testing in 2011 documented 

a 17-percentage-point decrease (from 45 to 28 

percent) in voucher denials from 2005 testing 

(Equal Rights Center, 2005, 2011). The overall 

denial rates in these sites may be conservative 

estimates, and the more ambiguous responses 

could conceal landlord discrimination in places 

where local laws prevent landlords from denying 

voucher holders outright.

Voucher Denials More Common 

in Low-Poverty Areas

Landlords were more likely to deny voucher 

holders in low-poverty areas compared with 

high-poverty areas, particularly in the sites with 

the highest voucher denial rates. In four of the 

five sites (all but Washington, D.C.), the voucher 

denial rates were substantially higher for lowpoverty census tracts than for high-poverty 

tracts. The differences in denial rates between 

low- and high-poverty areas were statistically 

significant. Table 5.3 shows the results of the 

acceptance tests by neighborhood poverty rate 

for low- and high-poverty areas.

Specifically, in those four sites, denial rates were 

11 to 27 percentage points higher in low-poverty 

tracts compared with high-poverty tracts in 

the same sites. For example, in Newark, the 

denial rate in low-poverty tracts was 38 percent 

compared with 26 percent in high-poverty 

tracts. The difference between low- and highpoverty tracts was largest in Philadelphia, which 

had a denial rate of 83 percent in low-poverty 

tracts compared with 55 percent in high-poverty 

tracts. In Washington, D.C., however, denial 

rates were approximately the same in low- and 

high-poverty tracts.

Overall, denial rates were highest—between 82 

and 85 percent—in low-poverty tracts in Los 

Angeles, Fort Worth, and Philadelphia. Denial 

rates were lowest—about 16 percent—in highpoverty tracts in Washington, D.C.

Landlord Comments on 

Acceptance or Denial

While conducting voucher acceptance tests, the 

testers wrote brief narrative summaries of their 

interactions with landlords in addition to filling out 

forms recording test outcomes. These data were 

primarily collected for quality control to verify the 
Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

33

Table 5.3: Voucher Acceptance Test Denial Rates by Site and Low-, Medium-, and High-Poverty 

Census Tracts

Denial Rates per Census Tract Fort Worth Los Angeles Newark Philadelphia Washington, DC

Total tests 1,146 998 782 422 432

Voucher denial rate (%) 78.0 76.4 30.9 66.8 14.8

Standard error (%) 1.2 1.3 1.7 2.3 1.7

Average voucher denial rates 

in low-poverty areas (%)

85.0 81.5 37.7 82.5 16.2

Standard error (%) 2.1 2.3 3.0 5.1 3.0

Average voucher denial rates 

in medium-poverty areas (%)

81.1 80.7 28.8 70.9 15.0

Standard error (%) 1.8 2.1 2.6 3.4 2.8

Average voucher denial rates 

in high-poverty areas (%)

67.2 66.0 26.1 55.3 15.7

Standard error (%) 2.5 2.9 3.7 3.9 3.9

Statistical significance *** *** ** ***

** p < 0.05. *** p < 0.01.

Note: Significance tests measured the difference in denial rates in low-poverty tracts compared with denial rates in high-poverty tracts. 

information recorded on test forms. However, 

the descriptions also offer insights into landlord 

behavior and voucher testers’ experience 

searching for housing. It is important to note that 

these narratives reflect unsolicited comments 

the landlords made during the testing process. 

After testers asked landlords if they accepted 

vouchers, testers recorded the answers and any 

additional comments. The testers did not ask 

landlords to elaborate on their answers by asking 

why they did not accept vouchers. For this 

qualitative analysis, we coded these narratives 

using predefined codes and subcodes to identify 

and sort key themes and patterns.35

In more than one-half (60 percent) of the 

voucher acceptance tests, landlords did 

not make any additional comments beyond 

answering the voucher testers’ questions. During 

the remaining 40 percent of voucher acceptance 

tests, landlords offered some unsolicited 

comment. Table 5.4 shows the frequency of 

landlord comments.

35 See appendix F for qualitative codes and subcodes.

Landlords Who Accept Vouchers 

Are More Likely To Comment

Whether a landlord made a comment usually 

varied depending on whether he or she accepted 

vouchers (Table 5.5). Landlords who did not 

accept vouchers were less likely to provide 

additional comments compared with those who 

accepted vouchers. Specifically, 77 percent of 

all landlords who did not accept vouchers did 

not make any additional comments compared 

with about 53 percent of all landlords who 

accepted vouchers. Landlords who did accept 

vouchers were more likely to ask questions or to 

be more equivocal than landlords who did not 

accept vouchers in all the pilot sites except for 

Washington, D.C. This contrast was higher in Los 

Angeles, where about 83 percent of landlords 

who did not accept vouchers (630 of 762) made 

no additional comments compared with roughly 

45 percent who did accept them (67 of 148), 

and in Fort Worth, where roughly 79 percent of 

landlords who did not accept vouchers (684 of 

894) made no additional comments compared 
Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

34

Table 5.4: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional Comments

Acceptance Tests n %

No additional comments 2,268 60.0

At least one additional comment 1,512 40.0

 One additional comment 922 24.4

 Two additional comments 396 10.5

 More than two additional comments 194 5.1

Total 3,780 100.0

Table 5.5: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional Landlord Comments, by Site

Voucher 

Response 

Landlord 

Comment All Sites Fort Worth Los Angeles Newark Philadelphia Washington, DC

All

No additional 

comment

2,268 727 681 334 265 261

60.0% 63.4% 68.2% 42.7% 62.8% 60.4%

Additional 

comment

1,512 419 317 448 157 171

40.0% 36.6% 31.8% 57.3% 37.2% 39.6%

Total 3,780 1,146 998 782 422 432

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Does not 

accept 

vouchers

No additional 

comment

1,727 684 630 160 210 43

77.0% 76.5% 82.7% 66.1% 74.5% 67.2%

Additional 

comment

517 210 132 82 72 21

23.0% 23.5% 17.3% 33.9% 25.5% 32.8%

Total 2,244 894 762 242 282 64

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Accepts 

vouchers with 

conditions

No additional 

comment

0 0 0 0 0 0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Additional 

comment

278 82 48 92 14 42

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

278 82 48 92 14 42

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Unsure of 

voucher 

acceptance or 

other

No additional 

comment

69 8 11 21 18 11

29.9% 21.1% 27.5% 19.8% 66.7% 55.0%

Additional 

comment

162 30 29 85 9 9

70.1% 78.9% 72.5% 80.2% 33.3% 45.0%

Total

231 38 40 106 27 20

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Accepts 

vouchers 

No additional 

comment

541 46 67 166 52 210

52.7% 34.8% 45.3% 48.5% 52.5% 68.6%

Additional 

comment

486 86 81 176 47 96

47.3% 65.2% 54.7% 51.5% 47.5% 31.4%

Total 1,027 132 148 342 99 306

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

35

with about 35 percent who did accept them (46 

of 132). In Washington, D.C., landlords who did 

not accept vouchers were slightly less likely to 

make an additional comment than a landlord who 

did accept vouchers (about 67 percent to about 

69 percent).

Landlords Who Do Not Accept 

Vouchers 

As noted previously, in most tests (1,727 of 2,244) 

in which landlords did not accept vouchers, the 

landlord did not have any additional comments 

(Table 5.6). We found that a subset of these 

landlords would abruptly end the call after 

stating their voucher policy. In tests with an 

additional comment, however, we found that 

landlords expressed concerns about the voucher 

holder and vouchers or told the tester that the 

apartment would not qualify to accept vouchers.

Landlord Abruptly Ended the Call

In a few tests with no additional comment, 

testers encountered landlords who hung up 

the telephone immediately after voucher denial. 

Landlords who did not accept vouchers ended 

the call abruptly in slightly more than 3 percent of 

the tests (69 tests). Most of these tests occurred 

in Los Angeles, Newark, and Philadelphia. 

Testers who encountered such landlords 

recorded the following interactions.

I called and spoke with the landlord about 

[the available unit]. She said that it was 

still available for $1,700 per month. She 

said that you have to call her and make 

an appointment so she can meet you 

at the property. I asked if she accepted 

vouchers and she said they do not and 

then hung up on me.—Los Angeles, CA

I called and spoke to [the landlord], and 

she confirmed the unit information. I 

asked her if utilities were included and 

she said no. I asked her if she accepted 

vouchers and she said no. I asked if 

she had anything else and she hung up 

without answering.—Newark, NJ

I called and spoke with [the receptionist], 

who told me to contact this number to 

reach [the leasing landlord]. [He] picked up 

and confirmed the unit information. I asked 

if he accepted vouchers, and he asked if 

I meant Section 8. I said that I did, and he 

said that they didn’t accept Section 8, and 

he hung up.—Philadelphia, PA

Landlord Expressed Concerns About 

Vouchers and Voucher Holders

We found that 4.5 percent (101 tests) of 

landlords who did not accept vouchers made 

a negative comment or expressed concern 

about the HCV program or voucher holders. 

Table 5.6: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional Landlord Comments, by 

Response—Does Not Accept Vouchers

Acceptance Tests n Percent (%)

Total tests in which landlord does not accept vouchers 2,244

No additional comment 1,727 77.0

Landlord abruptly ended the call 69 3.1

Additional comment 517 23.0

Landlord expressed concerns about vouchers and voucher holders 101 4.5

Landlord could not accept vouchers 86 3.8

Landlord irregularly accepted vouchers or accepted vouchers in the past 108 4.8
Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

36

Concerns included the number of people 

who would be living or staying in the home, 

whether rent payments would be delayed, and 

whether property damage would occur. These 

concerns were expressed in one of two ways. 

The landlord either made a comment about the 

HCV program (for example, “Section 8 is too 

much work”) or about the voucher holders (for 

example, “Voucher holders are bad tenants”). 

In 74 of these tests, landlords expressed 

concerns about the HCV program. These 

concerns were most prevalent in Los Angeles 

and Newark. The following are examples of 

these conversations.

I asked the landlord if he accepted 

vouchers and he said no because it 

gives him a headache. I asked him if he 

had other available units nearby that 

would work for me and he said no.—Los 

Angeles, CA

I called [him] back [after the landlord 

did not call back] and was told that [he] 

remembered me and that he hadn’t called 

me back because the owner didn’t take 

vouchers. He said that she said that she 

had had a bad experience with Section 

8 and was unwilling to go through it 

again.—Newark, NJ

Although landlords expressing concerns 

with voucher holders was less prevalent—

occurring in 27 tests with landlords who did 

not accept vouchers—such interactions are 

still important to discuss for two reasons. 

They provide context for voucher holders’ 

experiences, and most took place in Newark 

(18 of 27), where statewide protections for 

voucher holders exist. The following are 

examples of these conversations.

I asked the landlord if he accepted 

vouchers. He said they used to but didn’t 

anymore because all the voucher holders 

were drug dealers so they had to run 

them out of the building.—Newark, NJ

I asked her if they accepted vouchers and 

he asked if I meant Section 8. I said that 

I did and he told me that he didn’t think 

that owner did anymore. He told me that 

he didn’t have anything against vouchers, 

but that the owner had a really bad 

experience with one tenant and it soured 

him on the program. He said that “it was 

like when you get a tenant with a bad dog 

and they never want dogs again. Not that 

you’re a dog.”—Newark, NJ

Landlord Could Not Accept Vouchers

In some cases, a landlord expressed that 

vouchers were not accepted, because he or she 

was not set up to participate in the program or 

the apartment would not pass inspection. This 

type of comment occurred in 3.8 percent (86 

tests) of the tests in which landlords did not 

accept vouchers. The following are typical of 

those conversations.

I asked [the landlord] if vouchers are 

accepted for it. He asked what kind I 

meant. I said Section 8, Bucks County. 

He then said, “No, we’re not certified.” I 

asked if he had any other properties that 

might work for me, and he said, “No, not 

for Section 8.”—Philadelphia, PA

I asked [the landlord] if vouchers are 

accepted for the place. He began, 

“Unfortunately,” and then paused for a 

few seconds before saying, “That place 

probably wouldn’t pass.” He asked 

where my voucher was from, “Tarrant 

County?” I said, “Fort Worth.” He said, 

“The inspection is so rigid, the house I live 

in probably wouldn’t pass. It’s just not—it 

wouldn’t be easy for [the process to be 

completed or you to move in].” I asked 

if he had any other properties for me to 

consider, and he said none were available 

that would pass their inspection.—Fort 

Worth, TX
Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

37

Landlord Irregularly Accepted 

Vouchers or Accepted Vouchers in the 

Past

We found that a subset of landlords (108 tests, 

or 4.8 percent of tests in which vouchers 

were not accepted) either irregularly accepted 

vouchers or accepted vouchers in the past. In 

57 of those tests, landlords told testers that 

they sometimes accepted vouchers but were 

not doing so currently. Landlords gave various 

reasons for not currently accepting vouchers, 

including that the building had reached capacity 

or that they could not accept vouchers for the 

advertised unit.

Landlords who said that they were currently 

at their capacity for vouchers tended to either 

simply state that they were at capacity or cite 

a specific percentage of housing that could be 

occupied by voucher holders.

I asked her if she accepted vouchers, and 

she said yes, however, they are currently 

at capacity.—Fort Worth, TX

I asked the agent if he accepted 

vouchers and he said no. He said only 

about 10 percent of their rentals accept 

vouchers.—Los Angeles, CA

Landlords who said that they were not able 

to accept vouchers for a specific unit usually 

referenced the inspection requirements or the 

time required complete the inspection.

I asked [the landlord] if he accepted 

vouchers for this unit and he said he 

usually does accept vouchers, but not for 

this unit.—Philadelphia, PA

She told me that she had contacted the 

owner, and while the owner normally 

takes Section 8, this unit wouldn’t pass 

the mandatory inspection. She said they 

didn’t have anything else.—Newark, NJ

Additionally, a group of landlords who did not 

accept vouchers (51 tests) stated that they used 

to accept vouchers and no longer did. Most of 

these tests (24 of the 51) occurred in Fort Worth. 

Most of these landlords did not give a reason 

for discontinuing their voucher acceptance. 

However, a few landlords provided a reason, 

such as having a negative experience with 

voucher holders or the housing authority.

I asked [the landlord] if vouchers are 

accepted for the upcoming unit. He asked 

if I was referring to Arlington County 

vouchers, and once I confirmed, he said no. 

I asked if he had any other two bedrooms I 

could then consider, and he said, “No, we 

don’t take vouchers at all. We decided to 

discontinue that ...”—Fort Worth, TX

I asked if she had other available units 

nearby that would work for me and she 

said no. She told me most of LA City 

stopped accepting vouchers.—Los 

Angeles, CA

I asked the landlord if he accepted 

vouchers and he said no. I asked him if 

he had other units available that would 

work for me. He said they do not accept 

vouchers anymore because the housing 

department was too hard to work with.—

Fort Worth, TX

Landlords Who Accept Vouchers With 

Conditions

As discussed previously in this chapter, we found 

that a number of landlords accepted vouchers, as 

long as certain conditions were met (278 tests); 

these responses were recorded as “accepts 

with conditions” (Table 5.7). By examining these 

narratives, we gained a greater understanding of 

the requirements placed on voucher holders—

although landlords may place these conditions on 

all renters. In most cases, conditions surrounded 

how much the voucher holder made (and whether 

she had a job), what her credit score was, how 

much the voucher was for, and which PHA was 

responsible for administering the voucher. Often 

landlords would set more than one condition, 
Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

38

particularly if those conditions were about the 

renter’s income or the voucher (for example, the 

voucher holder must make double the rent, and 

the voucher must be from a certain PHA). We 

also found that some of these conditions are 

not achievable for voucher holders—particularly 

those pertaining to income—and may actually 

be a way to screen out voucher holders without 

explicitly denying their voucher. 

Landlord Sets Work or Income 

Requirement

About 27 percent (76 of 278) tests had conditions 

related to voucher holders, including requiring 

that a voucher holder be employed (for example, 

must have a job, must provide pay check stubs 

for a certain number of weeks) or make at least 

a certain amount each year (for example, two 

times the rent, $40,000 annually). The following 

are examples of these conditions.

I asked [the landlord] if she accepted 

vouchers and she said Tarrant County 

vouchers only. She added tenants must 

make 2.5 times the rent amount.—Fort 

Worth, TX

I asked the landlord if he accepted 

vouchers and he said yes, as long as my 

annual income is over the minimum of 

$30,535.—Washington D.C.

Sometimes voucher holders could fulfill these 

conditions—as in the previous example in Fort 

Worth. Sometimes they could not. Cases in 

which the landlord could be denying the voucher 

holder without explicitly doing so include the 

following examples. 

I asked the landlord if she accepted 

vouchers and she said yes, but I also 

need to meet other qualifications. I asked 

what those qualifications were. She said 

I have to make 3.5 times the rent.—Fort 

Worth, TX

I asked [the landlord] if she accepted 

vouchers for this unit and she said yes, 

but my total annual income including the 

vouchers needs to be at least $60,000.—

Newark, NJ

I asked her if she accepted vouchers 

and she said they do, but I would have 

to qualify for the apartment on my own 

without considering the voucher.—

Washington, D.C.

In both the first and second example, it is not 

likely that the voucher holder would be able 

to meet the landlord’s income requirement. 

Specifically, in the first example, the rent for 

the apartment was set at $885 a month, so the 

tester needed an income of $37,170 a year to 

Table 5.7: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional Landlord Comments, by 

Response—Accepts Vouchers With Conditions

Acceptance Tests n Percent (%)

Total tests in which landlords accept vouchers with conditions 278

No additional comment 0 0.0

Additional comment 278 100.0

Landlord set work or income requirement 76 27.3

Landlord set credit requirement 59 21.2

Landlord set requirement on the voucher amount 66 23.7

Landlord set requirement on public housing authority management 77 27.7

Landlord set requirement on Housing Choice Voucher program 20 7.2
Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

39

qualify. In the paired test (discussed in more 

detail in chapter 6), neither the voucher nor the 

control tester would have been eligible for the 

apartment. Because of several factors, testers 

with and without a voucher were assigned 

incomes that would be within the vouchereligible income for each study site, plus the 

approximate annual value of the voucher 

subsidy.36 The voucher tester for this apartment 

would have had a family of three and an annual 

income of roughly $27,000, which included both 

her income from work and the annual amount 

of her voucher, and the control tester would 

also have had a family of three and an income 

of $26,995; both are well below the required 

amount. In the third example, the landlord is 

decreasing the chance that the voucher holder 

would be able to qualify by ignoring a significant 

portion of her monthly income.

Landlord Sets Credit Requirement

About 21 percent of the landlords who accepted 

with conditions (59 out of 278) set requirements 

around the voucher holder’s credit score, 

whether they were looking for “good” credit 

generally or a specific number. The former 

enabled the landlord more discretion when 

deciding whether to accept a voucher holder’s 

application. Some examples recorded by testers 

are as follows.

I asked [the landlord] if he takes vouchers 

for this unit. He said he does because 

they are not allowed to turn anyone away, 

but the owner requires a good credit 

score and a steady income. [He] asked 

me how my credit was and I said good. 

He said my credit needs to be in the 700s 

and I need to make four times the rent.—

Newark, NJ

I asked the landlord if they accepted 

vouchers and she said yes, but my credit 

score must be 650 and my income must 

be twice the rent amount.—Newark, NJ

36 See appendix A for a description for the counterfactual income process.

I asked about vouchers and he said as 

long as I have good credit and a job, he’ll 

take them.—Washington, D.C.

Landlord Sets Voucher Requirements

Landlords who placed requirements on 

vouchers, as opposed to voucher holders, 

usually did so through one of three 

mechanisms—the voucher amount, PHA 

management, or program requirements. 

Voucher amount. Roughly one-fourth of the 

landlord conditions were related to the voucher 

amount (66 of 278 tests). This type of comment 

was most common in Newark. These conditions 

included requirements that the voucher be for a 

specific amount (for example, at least $1,250) or 

that the voucher cover the full amount of rent. 

It was not always clear whether the landlord 

was including the voucher holder’s contribution 

when requiring that the voucher cover “the full 

amount of rent.” The following are examples of 

these conditions.

I asked [the landlord] if she accepted 

vouchers for this unit. [She] said voucher 

approval depends on the rent amount of 

the voucher. She said my voucher would 

need to be at least $1,575.—Fort Worth, TX

I asked him if he took vouchers, and he 

said yes, as long as it covered the rent.—

Newark, NJ

In a few cases, landlords set the condition that 

they would accept the voucher, but that they 

would increase the rent to the full amount the 

voucher allowed—essentially raising the rent they 

would receive but not affecting the portion the 

voucher holder would pay. 

I asked him if they took housing vouchers 

and he said that they did. He corrected 

himself and said that he did depending on 

where my voucher was from. I said that it 

was a state voucher and he said that they 
Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

40

would take it. He asked me how much my 

voucher was for and I said that it was up 

to $1,700. He told me that, in that case, 

he would set my rent at $1,690 and have 

it include all of the utilities so he could get 

more money from the housing authority.—

Newark, NJ

PHA management. About 28 percent of the 

landlords (77 of 278 tests) stated that they 

accepted vouchers only from a certain PHA. 

This type of comment was most prevalent in 

Fort Worth and Los Angeles; more than onehalf of the landlords in each site that accepted 

vouchers conditionally only accepted vouchers 

from a specific PHA (42 of 82 in Fort Worth and 

28 of 48 in Los Angeles). This preference was 

also evident in Newark, although on a smaller 

scale (7 of 92 tests). The following are examples 

of these conditions.

I asked if they accepted housing vouchers 

and she asked which kind. I told her Fort 

Worth Section 8 and she said that they 

only accepted Tarrant County. I asked 

about other units that would work and 

she said none of their units accepted Fort 

Worth housing.—Fort Worth, TX

I asked the landlord if she accepted 

vouchers and she said yes as long as 

it covers the rent and it is a Fort Worth 

voucher.—Fort Worth, TX

I asked [the landlord] if vouchers are 

accepted for it. He asked if I meant 

Section 8, and I said yes. He said that 

it depends on which housing authority 

my voucher is from and asked me where 

mine is from. I said LA County, and he 

told me that they are not accepting LA 

County vouchers at this time, only LA 

City.—Los Angeles, CA

Some landlords explicitly stated that the 

reason they were placing this condition on their 

acceptance was past difficulties with certain 

PHAs.

I asked if they accepted vouchers at this 

location and she asked where mine was 

from. I told her Fort Worth and she said 

they are not looking to work with Fort 

Worth since they are such a pain. They 

are willing to work with Tarrant County 

though since they are “much easier to 

deal with.”—Fort Worth, TX

I asked if they accepted vouchers and 

she said that everyone in the state was 

required to accept them, but that this 

property wasn’t inspected because of the 

complicated process in Orange. I asked 

again if that meant she would accept 

vouchers or not and she repeated that 

everyone in the state was required to 

accept vouchers, but that the property 

wasn’t inspected or cleared for vouchers. 

She told me that she didn’t have any 

available but that if she did and if I 

needed an apartment in another town, 

like Elizabeth, the process would be 

simple and she would be able to take 

them easily.—Newark, NJ

Program requirements. In about 7 percent of 

tests with landlords who accepted vouchers with 

conditions (20 of 278 tests), landlords expressed 

concern about one of the program requirements 

(for example, inspections, approval process) and 

set their condition to help mitigate that concern. 

For example, if a landlord was concerned about 

the inspection time, he or she would stipulate 

that the inspection would need to be completed 

by a certain time for the voucher to be accepted.

I then asked if they accept vouchers. She 

said they do accept vouchers but in order 

to see the unit, voucher holders need 

to give them a letter from the PHA that 

states that the voucher holder will be able 

to move in to the unit within 14 days of 

signing the lease. She then said that since 

the PHA has to do an inspection and the 

inspections can take a long time, they 

want to have this letter.—Fort Worth, TX
Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

41

Landlords Who Are Unsure of Housing 

Choice Voucher Program Policy

As Table 5.8 shows, most landlords who 

were unsure of their voucher policy made an 

additional comment (162 of 231). Landlords 

who were unsure of their voucher policy 

generally fell into one of two categories—those 

who were unfamiliar with the HCV program and 

those who did not know whether a specific 

property or management company accepted 

vouchers. These landlords would often tell 

testers that they would call them back with 

their voucher policy; however, approximately 

22 percent (or 50 tests) of landlords who said 

that they were unsure of their voucher policy 

did not call back the tester. Additionally, 

10 percent of landlords (23 tests) said that 

they needed to meet the voucher holder in 

person before revealing whether vouchers 

were accepted. Before ending the call, these 

landlords also asked clarifying questions 

about either the voucher or the voucher holder 

(discussed in the Landlords Who Accept 

Vouchers section).

Landlords Who Accept Vouchers

As noted previously, landlords gave responses 

without an additional comment in 52.7 percent 

of the tests in which vouchers were accepted 

(541 of 1,027 tests), and they were more likely 

to ask questions or to be more equivocal than 

landlords who did not accept vouchers (Table 

5.9). Most questions were directed toward 

learning more about the voucher or the voucher 

holder. These questions were not presented 

as conditions to voucher acceptance but were 

intended to help landlords learn more about 

their prospective tenants.

Table 5.8: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional Landlord Comments, by 

Response—Unsure of Voucher Policy

Acceptance Tests n Percent (%)

Total tests in which landlords were unsure of their voucher policy 231

No additional comment 69 29.9

Additional comment 162 70.1

Landlord did not call back 50 21.6

Landlord would not disclose policy until meeting the voucher holder 23 10.0

Landlord asked question about the voucher 35 15.2

Landlord asked question about the voucher holder 77 33.3

Table 5.9: Voucher Acceptance Tests With or Without Additional Landlord Comments, by 

Response—Accepts Vouchers

Acceptance Tests n Percent (%)

Total tests in which landlords accept vouchers 1,027

No additional comment 541 52.7

Additional comment 486 47.3

Landlord asked question about the voucher 202 19.7

Landlord asked question about the voucher holder 298 29.0
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

42

Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

Landlords who accepted vouchers and were 

interested in learning more about the voucher—

which occurred in 202 tests—generally asked 

which PHA had issued or managed the voucher 

(89 tests) or how much the voucher would 

cover (113 tests). The following are examples of 

these questions.

I asked [the landlord] if they accept 

vouchers for it. She said, “Yes, we do,” 

and asked me how much it was worth.—

Washington, D.C.

She then asked if I have Section 8. I said 

yes and asked if they accept Section 8. 

She said yes and asked how much my 

voucher was for. I told her $2,025.—Los 

Angeles

Landlords who accepted vouchers and were 

interested in learning more about who would be 

leasing the apartment—which occurred in 298 

tests—mainly asked questions about how many 

people would be moving in (121 tests) or whether 

the voucher holder was employed (86 tests). The 

following are examples of these questions.

When I asked if they accepted vouchers, 

she said they did and then asked how 

many people would be moving in.—

Washington, D.C.

I asked if he accepted vouchers for the 

unit and he said yes... He asked how 

many kids were moving in and I said 

one.—Newark, NJ

Unlike in the previous examples, landlords often 

asked questions across both categories.

I then asked if they accepted vouchers 

and she said yes, then asked how much 

my voucher was for, how much I would 

have to pay, if I had a job, how much I 

made, and if my credit was good. I said 

my voucher would cover the asking rent 

price, that the amount I would pay would 

be determined after the housing authority 

did their calculations, that I did have a job 

and that I made about $33,000 a year, and 

that I have good credit.—Washington, D.C.

I asked her if they accepted vouchers and 

she said yes. She asked me who would 

be living in the apartment and I said four. 

She asked me if there were children and 

I said three. She asked me how old they 

were and I said 9, 10, and 12. She asked 

me how much my voucher was for and I 

said $1,900. She asked me if I had a job 

and how much I made a year. I told her 

that I did have a job and I made about 

$30,000 a year.—Newark, NJ

Conclusion

We found evidence of voucher discrimination 

in all five sites. Voucher denial rates ranged 

from 15 to 78 percent and were highest in Fort 

Worth and Los Angeles, were relatively high 

in Philadelphia, but were significantly lower in 

Newark and Washington, D.C. Denial was more 

common in low-poverty areas. On average, 

denial rates were 11 to 27 percentage points 

higher in low-poverty tracts compared with 

high-poverty tracts in the same sites, excluding 

Washington, D.C. In Los Angeles and Fort 

Worth, denial rates in low-poverty areas hovered 

above 80 percent. Washington, D.C. was the 

only location for which denial rates in lowpoverty and high-poverty tracts were similar. 

Explaining why denial rates vary so significantly 

in these sites is difficult, because the sites vary 

on so many dimensions, including the local 

housing market, PHA performance, PHA rent 

levels, and source-of-income protections. Sites 

with local source-of-income protections have 

lower denial rates but other factors, such as 

how PHAs set the rents, may affect denial rates 

too. Local context matters when it comes to 

whether landlords accept vouchers. 

We did not ask landlords why they did or 

did not accept vouchers, and most did not 

offer additional comments; however, about 

one-fourth made unsolicited comments that 
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

43

Chapter 5: Do Landlords Accept Housing Choice Vouchers?

testers recorded. Some landlords did not 

accept vouchers because of concerns about 

the way the program operated (for example, 

PHA management) or the voucher holders (for 

example, concerns about drug dealing). Some 

landlords had accepted vouchers in the past but 

were not accepting them currently, suggesting 

that landlords would cap the number of vouchers 

they accepted or calibrate their acceptance based 

on the strength of the local housing market. Some 

landlords accepted vouchers with conditions 

placed work or income requirements on the 

voucher holder—a requirement they might also 

place on other renters without vouchers—and 

some asked about the voucher amount, noting 

that they required a specific rent or that the PHA 

pay most of the rent. These comments provide 

some insight into how landlords view participation 

in the HCV program and highlight the need for 

more research on landlord perspectives.
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

44
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

45

Chapter 6: Do Landlords Treat Voucher Holders Differently Than Other Apartment Seekers?

CHAPTER 6: 

Do Landlords 

Treat Voucher 

Holders 

Differently Than 

Other Apartment 

Seekers?

Methodology

The second and third steps in the threepart testing process were matched pair tests 

conducted first by telephone and then in person. 

Only voucher-affordable and available units with 

landlords who accepted vouchers were eligible to 

proceed to paired telephone testing. The paired 

in-person tests, in turn, were conducted only for 

units for which both voucher and control testers 

secured appointments during the telephone tests. 

All testers were women portraying single mothers 

or grandmothers with young children, matched, 

to the extent possible, on all characteristics 

other than voucher use. Chapter 3 and appendix 

A discuss tester profiles in detail. Specific 

household size was based on the number of 

bedrooms in the unit being tested. The member 

of the pair assigned to have a voucher was 

assigned at random. Income was assigned so 

that the control tester had income equal to that 

of the voucher-holding tester plus the value of the 

voucher. The order of contact—voucher versus 

control tester—was also assigned at random.

The voucher-holding tester of the paired 

telephone and in-person tests revealed she had 

a voucher before discussing any information 

about housing. Voucher testers did not ask 

directly whether vouchers were accepted but 

rather mentioned that they had a voucher and 

then continued the conversation with the landlord 

about the available housing. For example, a 

voucher tester might open the conversation 

like: “Hello, I saw an ad for a three bedroom at 

[address]. I have a voucher and I’m interested in 

renting that apartment.”

We measured differential treatment in many 

ways. The key measures of discrimination for the 

paired telephone test were whether testers were 

told about available housing when they spoke 

with a landlord and whether they were able to 

secure appointments to view available units. 

For the in-person tests, a key measure was the 

ability to successfully meet with a landlord to 

see housing during an in-person site visit. For 

both the telephone and in-person tests, voucher 

and control testers who were told about or 

viewed available housing used the tester forms 

to record detailed information related to potential 

differential treatment. Measures of differential 

treatment included—

• Landlord statements about eligibility 

requirements (for example, applications, 

credit checks, cosigner requirements, or 

eviction checks).

• Qualifications for tenancy (for example, 

information requested on marital status, 

income, occupation, or employer).

• Housing costs (for example, rent quoted 

by the landlord and any fees, incentives, or 

move-in costs).

These measures provided opportunities to assess 

whether landlords who stated they accepted 

vouchers ultimately denied voucher holders 

indirectly. Some past housing discrimination 

studies included more limited telephone contact 

with landlords—for example, to measure a 

tester’s ability to schedule an in-person test 

rather than to obtain detailed information about 

housing availability, cost, and terms—but this 

pilot study used a more comprehensive paired 

telephone test protocol to explore the relative 
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

46

Chapter 6: Do Landlords Treat Voucher Holders Differently Than Other Apartment Seekers?

contributions of telephone and in-person testing 

to measure discrimination against voucher 

holders. Studies examining discrimination against 

lesbians and gay men (Levy et al., 2017) and 

families with children (Aron et al., 2016) also used 

more comprehensive telephone tests.

High Rates of Voucher Denials in 

Los Angeles and Fort Worth Made 

It Impossible To Conduct Enough 

Paired Tests in These Locations

When designing this study, we expected 

to conduct approximately 2,550 voucher 

acceptance tests to achieve 1,650 paired 

telephone tests and 1,200 in-person paired 

tests.37 Acceptance test targets were later 

increased in Fort Worth and Los Angeles, as 

it became clear that challenges identifying 

advertisements for testing, combined with high 

voucher denial rates, required that many more 

acceptance tests be conducted before units 

could be identified for paired testing. In the end, 

we completed more voucher acceptance tests 

(3,780) than initially expected but nonetheless 

completed fewer telephone and in-person paired 

tests than anticipated (694 telephone and 509 

in-person tests). 

In total, we conducted 694 paired telephone tests 

and 509 in-person tests in the three testing sites 

where we conducted paired testing (Fort Worth, 

Los Angeles, and Newark). Newark represents 61 

percent of all paired telephone tests and 73 

percent of all in-person tests. High landlord 

denial rates in Fort Worth and Los Angeles, 

combined with the difficulty of finding eligible 

housing, resulted in small numbers of paired 

tests conducted in those sites (142 telephone and 

73 in-person tests in Fort Worth and 126 

37 For more detail, see appendix A.

38 See appendix B.

39 We did not attempt to combine the results for the three sites for two main reasons. Pooling tests would involve weighting the data from each site, which is 

difficult to do without obscuring results. Giving equal weight to each site, for example, would result in large standard errors caused by the larger standard 

errors in sites with small sample sizes, which would require large differences in treatment to be statistically significant. Weighting the sites proportionally, 

alternatively, would give the Newark results prominence (to varying degrees, based on different sample sizes for sets of outcome measures), resulting in 

findings that would not truly represent outcomes for the three sites and would be difficult to interpret.

telephone and 62 in-person tests in Los Angeles) 

and limited data for differential treatment 

measures that rely on in-person interactions with 

landlords. Table 6.1 shows the total numbers of 

paired telephone and in-person tests conducted 

in each site, along with the total voucher 

acceptance tests conducted in each site.

In Fort Worth and Los Angeles, a combination of 

high voucher denial rates and high proportions 

of paired telephone tests ending without 

appointments to meet landlords led to fewerthan-anticipated completed in-person tests.

For example, of the 998 acceptance tests 

completed in Los Angeles, only 62 proceeded 

to in-person tests, and only 40 of the in-person 

tests resulted in both voucher and control testers 

viewing units in person. Only 25 in-person tests 

were conducted in Los Angeles by Black tester 

pairs, with even fewer tests resulting in both 

testers meeting with a landlord. In Newark, nearly 

all (about 89 percent) telephone tests resulted 

in both testers securing an appointment for an 

in-person meeting with a landlord (380 of 426 

tests; Table 6.2). In contrast, only 56 percent of 

Fort Worth telephone tests (80 of 142 tests) and 

60 percent of Los Angeles telephone tests (75 

of 126 tests) resulted in both testers securing 

appointments to meet with landlords (and thus 

remain eligible to proceed to in-person tests).38

Given the high rates of outright denial of 

vouchers in Fort Worth and Los Angeles, few 

tests proceeded to in-person paired tests, 

leaving small sample sizes for paired testing—

particularly for measures collected during 

in-person interactions with landlords and for 

subgroup analyses by race and neighborhood 

poverty rate.39 As a result, we discuss only 

Newark for the telephone and in-person test 

results. Detailed results for the Fort Worth and 
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

47

Table 6.1: Total Tests Completed by Site and Test Mode

Test Site Voucher Acceptance Tests Telephone Tests In-Person Tests

Fort Worth, TX 1,146 142 73

Los Angeles, CA 998 126 62

Newark, NJ 782 426 374

Philadelphia, PA 422 NA NA

Washington, DC 432 NA NA

Total 3,780 694 509

NA = not applicable.

Chapter 6: Do Landlords Treat Voucher Holders Differently Than Other Apartment Seekers?

Los Angeles telephone and in-person tests are 

available in appendices B and C, but they should 

be interpreted with caution because of the small 

sample sizes. 

Landlords Generally Treat 

Voucher Holders Equally During 

Paired Telephone Inquiries

Table 6.2 presents results from the paired 

telephone tests in Newark.40 For the most part, 

the paired telephone tests in Newark revealed 

minimal additional evidence of discrimination 

against voucher holders. Once an eligible unit 

with a landlord who stated he or she accepted 

vouchers was identified, nearly all voucher 

holder and control testers were able to obtain 

information about housing and schedule 

appointments to see units through paired 

telephone tests.

In 93 percent of the 426 Newark paired telephone 

tests, both voucher holder and control testers 

were able to make contact with a landlord to 

get information about housing, and 96 percent 

of the testers who were able to speak to a 

landlord were told about one or more available 

units. Of the testers who were told about 

available housing, nearly all (98 percent) made 

appointments with landlords to view housing in 

40 Los Angeles and Fort Worth results are presented in appendix B.

41 Approximately 1 percent of assigned telephone tests failed to proceed to a paired test, because only one of the testers in a pair was able to secure an 

appointment.

person. There were no statistically significant 

differences in these outcomes for voucher 

holders compared with control testers. About 89 

percent of all paired telephone tests attempted 

in Newark resulted in either the voucher or the 

control tester securing appointments with a 

landlord and the test proceeding to in-person 

testing (380 of 426 tests).41

The Newark telephone testers with vouchers 

were told about slightly fewer units compared 

with their counterparts without vouchers. The 

difference was statistically significant but quite 

small. On average, voucher testers were told 

about 1.1 units of available housing, and testers 

without vouchers were told about 1.2 units. No 

significant differences emerge in rent or overall 

net costs or in testers being able to make an 

appointment or told about available units.

Differences in Treatment in 

Paired Telephone Tests Suggest 

Landlords Screen Voucher 

Holders and Non-Voucher 

Holders Using Different Criteria

Other small but statistically significant 

differences emerged through the Newark paired 

telephone tests in how landlords discussed 

qualifications for tenancy and housing costs. 
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

48

Chapter 6: Do Landlords Treat Voucher Holders Differently Than Other Apartment Seekers?

Table 6.2: Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired Telephone Tests in Newark, New Jersey

Measure Both Control Voucher Net 

Difference

Standard 

Error of 

Difference

n

Testers able to obtain 

information about housing

93.4% 1.4% 2.6% – 1.2% 1.0% 426

If testers obtained housing 

information

Testers told any units available 95.5% 0.8% 0.5% 0.3% 0.6% 398

One tester told about more 

units

13.1% 6.0% 7.0% 2.3% 398 ***

Average number of units told 

about

1.22 1.14 0.08 0.04 398 **

Testers able to get an 

appointment

98.2% 0.3% 0.5% – 0.3% 0.5% 380

Requirements

Told an application must be 

completed

67.4% 11.8% 11.6% 0.3% 2.7% 380

Told a credit check must be 

completed

60.8% 14.7% 12.6% 2.1% 2.5% 380

Told a cosigner is required 0.0% 2.4% 1.3% 1.1% 0.9% 380

Told a background check must 

be done

17.1% 17.6% 16.8% 0.8% 3.5% 380

Told an eviction check must be 

done

8.2% 13.7% 15.3% – 1.6% 3.1% 380

Offered a copy of application by 

landlord

3.4% 7.9% 6.3% 1.6% 2.3% 380

Told to apply online or given 

website address for application

0.8% 4.2% 7.1% – 2.9% 2.1% 380

Qualifications

Landlord requested marital 

status

0.3% 3.2% 2.6% 0.5% 1.4% 380

Landlord requested household 

size or composition

21.1% 16.1% 18.7% – 2.6% 3.2% 380

Landlord requested income 3.9% 10.5% 6.3% 4.2% 2.0% 380 **

Landlord requested source of 

income

3.4% 10.0% 9.7% 0.3% 2.1% 380

Landlord requested occupation 0.8% 6.6% 3.2% 3.4% 1.7% 380 **

Landlord requested employer 1.3% 7.9% 4.5% 3.4% 1.7% 380 *

Landlord requested length of 

employment

0.3% 2.6% 2.4% 0.3% 1.1% 380

Landlord requested credit 

standing

4.5% 14.2% 11.1% 3.2% 2.9% 380

(continued)
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

49

Chapter 6: Do Landlords Treat Voucher Holders Differently Than Other Apartment Seekers?

Table 6.2: Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired Telephone Tests in Newark, New Jersey 

(continued)

Measure Both Control Voucher Net 

Difference

Standard 

Error of 

Difference

n

Landlord requested rent history, 

including evictions

1.6% 4.7% 5.8% – 1.1% 1.5% 380

Landlord requested contact 

information

17.6% 15.8% 17.1% – 1.3% 2.2% 380

Landlord requested other information 0.0% 4.5% 3.2% 1.3% 1.0% 380

Comments

Told minimum or maximum income 

requirements

2.4% 7.4% 3.4% 3.9% 1.6% 380 **

Told whether qualified to rent the unit 0.5% 4.5% 7.6% – 3.2% 1.8% 380 *

Told comment on fair housing 0.0% 0.5% 0.8% – 0.3% 0.7% 380

Told remarks about race or ethnicity 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 380

Asked how security deposit will be 

paid

0.0% 0.8% 3.7% – 2.9% 1.2% 380 **

Told renter’s insurance is mandatory 0.3% 1.6% 1.6% 0.0% 1.0% 380

Rent and lease

Average rent for any unit $1,486 $1,494 – $9 $5 380

Fees, incentives, and move-in costs

Told fees that would go toward 

deposit or rent

37.1% 9.7% 9.5% 0.3% 2.0% 380

One tester told higher fees toward 

deposit or rent

12.9% 13.4% – 0.5% 2.7% 380

Average fees that would go toward 

deposit or rent

$536 $510 $26 $61 380

Told fees required for any unit 32.1% 7.1% 7.6% – 0.5% 1.8% 380

One tester told higher fees 13.2% 14.5% – 1.3% 2.5% 380

Average fees for any unit $536 $510 $26 $61 380

Told about incentives 1.1% 4.2% 1.8% 2.4% 0.9% 380 **

One tester told higher incentives 4.5% 2.6% 1.8% 0.9% 380 *

Average incentives $69 $41 $28 $20 380

Told security deposit required 93.7% 1.8% 2.6% – 0.8% 1.2% 380

Average security deposit for any unit $2,124 $2,121 $3 $24 351

One tester told higher yearly net cost 24.7% 30.5% – 5.8% 3.8% 380

Average yearly net cost $20,309 $20,424 – $115 $105 380

* p < 0.10. ** p < 0.05. *** p < 0.01.

Note: For the values presented as percentages, values in the “Control” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the control tester 

experienced the measure but the voucher tester did not; values in the “Voucher” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the 

voucher tester experienced the measure but the control tester did not; and the values in the “Both” column indicate the percentage of 

cases in which both testers experienced the treatment.
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

50

Chapter 6: Do Landlords Treat Voucher Holders Differently Than Other Apartment Seekers?

Considered together, these results suggest that 

landlords understood how the HCV program 

works and recognized the voucher as additional 

income available to the potential applicant. 

Specifically, landlords were significantly more 

likely to tell voucher testers they were qualified 

for the unit during the telephone tests compared 

with the testers without vouchers (net difference 

of 3.2 percentage points). Landlords were also 

significantly less likely to ask voucher holders 

for information about their income, occupation, 

or employment compared with the control 

testers (net difference of between 3.4 and 4.2 

percentage points). It could be that landlords 

were screening the control testers to make 

sure they were able to pay the rent, and they 

were more concerned about the unsubsidized 

applicants’ ability to pay than they were about 

the voucher applicants’ ability.

Similarly, landlords were more likely to ask the 

voucher testers about how they would pay a 

security deposit. Voucher holders are typically 

required to pay for non-rent costs on their own, 

without financial assistance from the PHA or 

through the voucher. Landlords familiar with 

the program may have specifically been more 

concerned about voucher holders’ ability to pay 

security deposits compared with the testers 

without a voucher. All testers for this study 

were prepared to tell the landlord the source 

of their security deposit funding, if asked, such 

as their income tax refund or a church fund. 

Finally, landlords were less likely to tell the 

voucher testers about incentives for moving in, 

such as reduced rent or security deposit. This 

practice may reflect the landlords’ understanding 

that households without vouchers may need 

additional financial incentives or help to afford 

the rent, whereas voucher holders already have 

the voucher subsidy. Alternatively, landlords may 

have offered more incentives to testers without 

vouchers in the hope of attracting them, as 

opposed to voucher holders, as tenants.

42 Los Angeles and Fort Worth results are presented in appendix C.

Landlords Are More Likely To 

Stand Up Voucher Holders for 

Apartment Viewings

Table 6.3 shows the detailed results from inperson testing in Newark.42 Although most 

telephone testers were able to obtain information 

about housing and make appointments to meet 

with a landlord, once these appointments were 

made, the voucher testers were significantly less 

likely (by 8 percentage points) to successfully 

meet with a landlord to discuss their housing 

options. Appointment no-shows were common 

for all testers, with about 11 percent of all inperson tests ending with both testers being 

stood up by the landlord. However, overall, 

landlords were significantly more likely to stand 

up voucher testers than their control matchedpair counterparts. 

Box 6.1 provides examples of voucher testers’ 

experiences of being stood up by landlords.

Box 6.1: Examples of Landlords Missing 

Scheduled Appointments With Voucher Testers 

Newark, NJ: After waiting for approximately 

15 minutes for [him] to arrive, I contacted 

him to confirm he still wanted to keep our 

appointment. [He] answered and said he would 

not meet with me because the owners didn’t 

want to rent to Section 8. I asked him if he 

had anything else that met my requirements 

he could show me. He told me he thinks he 

could show me something else on June 23. I 

asked for information about that unit and he 

responded that I should call him then (on June 

23) to confirm where and when we should 

meet to discuss that unit. We concluded the 

call and I left the apartment. On June 23, 2016, 

I called [the landlord] to confirm where we 

should meet per his request and he told me 

that he did not have anything available for me 

to meet with him about. I reminded him that 

he told me he did have something to show me 
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

51

Chapter 6: Do Landlords Treat Voucher Holders Differently Than Other Apartment Seekers?

and he said I should call him on June 23 to 

confirm a time and location to view it. He told 

me I was mistaken and hung up the telephone.

Newark, NJ: On Wednesday, I got to the 

property ... [and] after waiting 15 minutes with 

no sign of the agent I called [the landlord] and 

asked to speak with [him]. [He] picked up the 

line and ... I said, “Hi, I spoke to you earlier and 

told you I have a voucher. We spoke regarding 

the apartment and I’m in front of it now waiting 

for you and I was wondering if you were going 

to meet with me today.” He told me to hold 

on. Then he came back on the phone and said 

that they’re really not interested in renting to 

someone with a voucher because they really 

don’t understand the whole process and being 

that it’s the only residential unit they deal 

with, they don’t want any extra work because 

there’s a voucher involved. I said “Ok, thank 

you. Do you have anything else available?” 

and he said no. We ended the conversation. 

I then left the property shortly after that.

In addition, when both testers in a pair did 

successfully meet with a landlord, the voucher 

testers were less likely to be told units were 

available and were more likely (by 16 percentage 

points) to be told about fewer available units 

compared with their counterpart testers without 

a voucher. On average, voucher testers were 

told about fewer total units, although as with 

the paired telephone tests, the magnitude of the 

difference was statistically significant but quite 

small (1.2 units versus 1.4 units).

Also, consistent with the paired telephone 

tests, once voucher testers successfully met 

with landlords to discuss housing options, 

differential treatment was minimal and appeared 

to reflect the landlords’ understanding of 

vouchers as additional income for housing. The 

voucher testers were more likely to be offered 

an application, were less likely to be asked 

about their employers, and were less likely to 

be told about income requirements. Testers 

without vouchers were also more likely than 

their counterparts with vouchers to be asked for 

additional information. “Additional information” 

includes why the tester was moving, length of 

employment, and how she heard about the unit 

(Box 6.2).

Box 6.2: Sample Questions About Employment 

and Other Information From Control Tests

Questions about employment 

generally focused on its duration.

Los Angeles, CA: The [landlord asked] 

how long have you been at your job for. I 

told him I’ve been there for three years.

Newark, NJ: [The landlord] asked what 

town I work in. I replied Hackensack and 

he asked how long have I worked at my 

current job. I informed him, 2 years.

Requests for other information 

covered a range of topics.

Newark, NJ: Agent asked where I currently 

live and why I’m moving. I told her I live in 

the area but I’m just looking for something 

different with more room for my children.

Fort Worth, TX: [The landlord asked my] 

reason for moving. I said that the ad seemed 

like something that I would be interested in.

Fort Worth, TX: I spoke with [the 

landlord], and he asked if I had any 

evictions or felonies. I said no.

Los Angeles, CA: [The landlord asked] 

how I heard about the unit. 

Landlords were more likely to ask control testers 

about their employment or other information. 

This inquiry may be because landlords have less 

of a guaranteed rent payment with the control 

testers. As discussed in detail in appendix A, 

the voucher and control testers had roughly 

equivalent employment and income profiles 
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

52

Chapter 6: Do Landlords Treat Voucher Holders Differently Than Other Apartment Seekers?

 Table 6.3: Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired In-Person Tests in Newark, New Jersey

Measure Both Control Voucher Net 

Difference

Standard 

Error of 

Difference

n

Testers able to meet with landlord 58.0% 19.3% 11.2% 8.1% 2.9% 374 ***

If testers able to meet with 

landlord

Told any units available 95.4% 3.2% 0.5% 2.8% 1.6% 217 *

One tester told about more units 22.1% 6.0% 16.1% 3.2% 217 ***

Average number of units told about 1.39 1.19 0.19 0.05 217 ***

If available units recommended

Inspected units 87.0% 3.4% 3.4% 0.0% 1.7% 207

One tester inspected more units 11.1% 6.3% 4.8% 2.6% 207 *

Average number of units inspected 1.05 1.00 0.05 0.04 207

Requirements

Told an application must be 

completed

80.2% 6.8% 9.2% – 2.4% 2.9% 207

Told a credit check must be 

completed

74.9% 8.7% 9.2% – 0.5% 2.8% 207

Told a cosigner is required 0.5% 3.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 207

Told a background check must be 

done

19.8% 22.7% 16.9% 5.8% 4.0% 207

Told an eviction check must be 

done

10.6% 15.9% 16.9% – 1.0% 4.5% 207

Offered a copy of application by 

landlord

4.3% 9.2% 15.5% – 6.3% 3.5% 207 *

Told to apply online or given 

website address for application

21.7% 15.0% 18.4% – 3.4% 3.9% 207

Qualifications

Landlord requested marital status 1.4% 2.4% 2.4% 0.0% 1.5% 207

Landlord requested household size 

or composition

37.2% 15.9% 20.3% – 4.3% 4.2% 207

Landlord requested income 5.3% 13.5% 9.2% 4.3% 2.8% 207

Landlord requested source of 

income

7.2% 15.9% 13.5% 2.4% 4.3% 207

Landlord requested occupation 3.4% 10.1% 7.2% 2.9% 2.8% 207

Landlord requested employer 4.3% 15.0% 8.7% 6.3% 3.4% 207 *

Landlord requested length of 

employment

1.4% 4.8% 1.9% 2.9% 1.8% 207

Landlord requested credit standing 8.2% 16.4% 12.6% 3.9% 4.2% 207

Landlord requested rent history, 

including evictions

2.4% 5.8% 6.8% – 1.0% 2.4% 207

Landlord requested contact 

information

25.1% 15.5% 21.3% – 5.8% 3.7% 207

Landlord requested other 

information

0.5% 7.2% 1.0% 6.3% 1.9% 207 ***

(continued)
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

53

Chapter 6: Do Landlords Treat Voucher Holders Differently Than Other Apartment Seekers?

 Table 6.3: Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired In-Person Tests in Newark, New Jersey 

(continued)

Measure Both Control Voucher Net 

Difference

Standard 

Error of 

Difference

n

Comments

Told minimum or maximum income 

requirements

1.4% 10.1% 5.3% 4.8% 2.4% 207 *

Told whether qualified to rent the 

unit

0.5% 4.3% 6.8% – 2.4% 2.8% 207

Told comment on fair housing 0.0% 1.0% 1.4% – 0.5% 1.1% 207

Told remarks about race or 

ethnicity

0.5% 1.0% 2.4% – 1.4% 1.1% 207

Asked how security deposit will 

be paid

0.0% 2.4% 4.3% – 1.9% 2.2% 207

Told renter’s insurance is 

mandatory

0.5% 1.0% 1.9% – 1.0% 1.2% 207

Rent and lease

Average rent for any unit $1,507 $1,508 $0 $7 207

Fees, incentives, and move-in costs

Told fees that would go toward 

deposit or rent

2.9% 7.7% 4.8% 2.9% 2.6% 207

One tester told higher fees toward 

deposit or rent

8.2% 5.3% 2.9% 2.6% 207

Average fees that would go toward 

deposit or rent

$84 $70 $14 $38 207

Told fees required for any unit 71.0% 4.8% 7.7% ¬ – 2.9% 2.1% 207

One tester told higher fees 19.3% 22.7% – 3.4% 4.5% 207

Average fees for any unit $537 $580 – $43 $35 207

Told about incentives 1.9% 2.9% 3.4% – 0.5% 1.9% 207

One tester told higher incentives 3.4% 4.3% – 1.0% 2.3% 207

Average incentives $54 $65 – $11 $14 207

Told security deposit required 95.7% 1.9% 2.4% – 0.5% 1.5% 207

Average security deposit for any 

unit

$2,121 $2,147 – $26 $26 198

One tester told higher yearly net 

cost

30.0% 33.3% – 3.4% 6.2% 207

Average yearly net cost $20,613 $20,725 – $111 $114 207

* p < 0.10. *** p < 0.01.

Note: For the values presented as percentages, values in the “Control” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the control tester 

experienced the measure but the voucher tester did not; values in the “Voucher” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the 

voucher tester experienced the measure but the control tester did not; and the values in the “Both” column indicate the percentage of 

cases in which both testers experienced the treatment. 
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

54

Chapter 6: Do Landlords Treat Voucher Holders Differently Than Other Apartment Seekers?

when including the value of the voucher. 

Voucher-holding testers were assigned annual 

household incomes based on 30 percent of 

AMI for their household size and jurisdiction 

(consistent with the typical voucher holder 

nationwide), and incomes for control testers 

were based on 30 percent of AMI plus the 

estimated annual value of the voucher. This 

income assignment was intended to account 

for the income represented by the voucher and 

to prevent the possibility that landlords would 

simply dismiss the low-income unsubsidized 

applicants in favor of voucher holders.

Discrimination by Voucher Holder 

Race and by Neighborhood 

Poverty Rate

As noted previously, the private rental market 

has a long history of discriminating against 

apartment seekers because of their race or 

ethnicity, and some studies show differential 

treatment by race among those with vouchers. 

In addition, voucher holders have significant 

challenges locating units in low-poverty areas 

and often need extra assistance to move to 

these neighborhoods. To test for differences in 

outcomes by race and neighborhood poverty 

rate, we ran a series of regression analyses, each 

with an outcome of interest from the in-person 

tests as the dependent variable (for example, 

number of units told about) and indicator 

variables for the tester’s race (1 = Black) and 

the poverty rate of the census tract (1 = lowpoverty census tract) separately as independent 

variables. The coefficients and t-statistics on 

the independent variables identified differences 

in the outcomes of interest when controlling for 

these variables. Results from the regression 

analyses are in appendix D.43

Overall, our results show nearly no statistically 

significant differences in how testers were 

43 The analytic approach used for these analyses is consistent with analyses commonly done for other HUD housing discrimination studies the study team 

conducted that look for variations in differential treatment outcomes for different tester or test context characteristics. See, for example, the study examining 

housing discrimination against lesbians and gay men (Levy et al., 2017).

treated by race or neighborhood poverty 

rate for any of the differential treatment 

measures. These results—particularly those by 

neighborhood poverty rate—must be considered 

with caution and cannot be considered definitive 

evidence that no differences in treatment exist 

by voucher holders’ race or neighborhood 

poverty rate. The biggest limitation in exploring 

differences by race and neighborhood poverty 

rate is that we have only one site (Newark) with 

a large enough sample size to be analyzed. 

We did not conduct regression analyses with 

the Fort Worth and Los Angeles in-person 

test results, because their sample sizes were 

prohibitively small. For the Newark tests by 

neighborhood poverty rates, sample sizes 

for the low- and high-poverty neighborhoods 

were simply too small to draw any meaningful 

inferences. Only 42 tests conducted in highpoverty neighborhoods and 57 in low-poverty 

areas resulted in tester pairs collecting detailed 

differential treatment measures.

The primary goal of this study was to understand 

discrimination against voucher holders. This 

study was not designed to measure whether 

landlords treat Black voucher holders differently 

than White renters generally or than White 

voucher holders. The points of comparison for 

voucher testers were control testers of the same 

race. A discussion of the challenges addressing 

the intersection of racial discrimination and 

voucher discrimination is in chapter 7.

Conclusion

Using a telephone and in-person paired-testing 

methodology enabled us to measure differential 

treatment between voucher holders and nonvoucher holders. These pairs were matched 

on all characteristics (for example, gender, 

race, income, family size) except the voucher, 

indicating that any differences in treatment from 

landlords can be attributed to the voucher. The 
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

55

Chapter 6: Do Landlords Treat Voucher Holders Differently Than Other Apartment Seekers?

paired tests were conducted only with landlords 

who said they accepted vouchers during the 

voucher acceptance tests. The high denial rates 

among landlords in Fort Worth and Los Angeles 

made it impossible to complete our pairedtesting goals in these sites, which limited our 

analysis. These sites had a high rate of “door 

slamming,” and voucher holders had difficulty 

finding units in these locations and landlords to 

accept their voucher.

In Newark, a site with low denial rates, we 

conducted enough paired tests to look for 

nuanced forms of discrimination that might 

happen when a landlord is providing information 

about the unit or showing the unit. During the 

telephone stage, nearly all voucher holders and 

control testers could obtain information about the 

housing unit and schedule an appointment to see 

the unit. Small differences during the telephonepaired tests suggest that landlords use different 

screening criteria for voucher holders and nonvoucher holders. Notably, landlords were more 

likely to ask voucher holders about how they 

would pay their security deposit. Landlords were 

also more likely to ask non-voucher holders 

about their employment and income, suggesting 

that landlords are keeping their eye on control 

testers’ ability to pay the rent and have less 

concern about this factor from voucher holders, 

who come with a guaranteed rental subsidy.

During the in-person stage, our tester pairs 

met with landlords for apartment viewings. 

No-shows from landlords were common for all 

testers. About 11 percent of tests ended with the 

landlord standing up the voucher holder and the 

control tester. Voucher holders, however, were 

about 8 percentage points more likely than the 

control testers to be stood up. This behavior 

suggests that some landlords may have said they 

accepted vouchers during the telephone phase 

but did not follow through with meeting voucher 

holders, treating them differently than nonvoucher holders.

In addition to looking at differential treatment 

between voucher holders and non-voucher 

holders, we analyzed data to look for differences 

by race and neighborhood poverty rate. We 

were constrained in our ability to analyze these 

differences, because only Newark had enough 

paired tests. Our results showed no statistical 

differences in how testers were treated by race 

or neighborhood type. We caution against 

treating these findings as definitive, as they are 

constrained by sample size and were only for 

one site.
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

56
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

57

Chapter 7: Implications for Future Testing Studies

CHAPTER 7: 

Implications for 

Future Testing 

Studies

In addition to measuring discrimination against 

voucher holders, a goal of this pilot study was 

to explore different testing methodologies in 

order to inform future studies. In this chapter, 

we summarize lessons learned from designing 

and fielding the pilot study, and provide 

some recommendations for future voucher 

discrimination studies.

Lessons for Designing 

and Implementing Voucher 

Discrimination Testing Studies

Unique considerations emerged during the 

voucher discrimination study design and 

implementation process, and findings shed light 

on the different contributions of each stage of the 

testing process. First, the acceptance tests and 

paired in-person tests revealed the most useful 

information about the incidence and nature 

of discrimination. Second, adhering to HCV 

program and PHA rules required considerable 

effort. Finally, focusing on the lowest end of the 

rental housing market and a narrow range of unit 

sizes could be challenging. 

Acceptance Tests and In-Person 

Paired Tests Yield the Most Valuable 

Information 

As chapters 4, 5, and 6 described, the three 

stages of the testing process each yielded 

different information about discriminatory 

behavior. The voucher acceptance tests provided 

the most tangible measure of outright denials, 

particularly in places without source-of-income 

protections and with high denial rates, where the 

feasibility of paired tests was low. This stage also 

provided opportunities to capture differences in 

denial rates by neighborhood poverty rate.

Where landlords accepted vouchers, the 

paired telephone and in-person tests were 

each a powerful tool for capturing more subtle 

differences in treatment between voucher 

holders and their counterparts—but paired 

in-person tests offered more nuanced insights 

about the incidence and nature of discrimination. 

For example, control testers for both the inperson and the telephone tests were more 

likely to be told about more units than their 

counterparts. However, the magnitude of the 

difference in treatment was greater for the inperson tests. In-person control testers were 

told about more units 16 percent more often 

than voucher testers compared with 7 percent 

for phone tests. In addition, some observations 

about landlords’ differential treatment—notably, 

the additional measure of failed attempts to meet 

with landlords at scheduled appointments—can 

be revealed only through in-person interactions. 

In contrast, nearly all paired phone testers were 

able to make appointments with landlords to 

view housing.

In-person tests also more closely resemble 

a bona fide rental housing search, stopping 

short of submitting an application. In-person 

testers were instructed to talk with the person 

most likely to make final leasing decisions, 

but testers interacting with landlords over the 

telephone were less likely to speak with a final 

decision maker—partly because large property 

management companies use centralized call 

centers. Call center staff are not authorized 

to make leasing decisions and as experience 

from recent housing discrimination studies 

suggests, call center staff are carefully trained 

to follow a script and might be incentivized to 

convince homeseekers to schedule an in-person 

appointment (Aron et al., 2016; Levy et al., 2017). 

As a result, findings using telephone tests alone 

may reflect centralized call centers’ protocols 
Chapter 7: Implications for Future Testing Studies

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

58

rather than differential treatment by leasing 

agents. Recent studies of housing discrimination 

based on sexual orientation and against families 

with children also compared the relative utility 

of phone versus in-person testing (Aron et al., 

2016; Levy et al., 2017). These studies similarly 

suggest that modestly different patterns could be 

observed using in-person tests.

Tester Profiles Must Reflect Housing 

Choice Voucher Program Rules

A clear lesson from this study is that any 

rigorous paired-testing study of voucher-holder 

discrimination must incorporate HCV programspecific policies and requirements to minimize 

risk of detection and ensure that findings are 

credible. Tester training must prepare testers for 

questions unique to the HCV program and the 

PHA jurisdiction where testing takes place.

An additional factor affecting the effort 

needed to develop accurate tester profiles 

is the need to anticipate how variations in 

PHA characteristics or policies could affect 

landlords’ likelihood of accepting vouchers. 

For example, some landlords may prefer or 

avoid vouchers from certain PHAs—whether 

because they prefer certain payment standard 

or occupancy policies, because they perceive a 

particular PHA to be higher or lower performing 

or because they perceive a PHA to have 

more rigorous or accommodating inspection 

policies. Although it is impossible to anticipate 

all the reasons landlords may prefer or avoid 

particular PHAs, testing design must consider 

how different approaches might inadvertently 

emphasize landlord perceptions of particular 

PHAs rather than discrimination against 

voucher holders. 

For example, for the current study, we initially 

considered selecting a single PHA in each site 

to be assigned to all tests. This approach would 

simplify tester profiles but, because our testing 

44 During the design phase, the project team heard from housing counselors that many voucher holders do not have funds for a security deposit. If a landlord 

asked them, we wanted both testers in a pair to explain that they had the funds so that the security deposit could not become a variable that could affect the 

outcome of a test.

sites were larger than any single PHA jurisdiction, 

would have required some testers to present 

themselves as “porting” to new PHAs outside 

the “home” PHA’s jurisdiction. Porting could 

be unappealing to landlords concerned about 

additional administrative steps or delays. Instead, 

testers portrayed voucher holders moving within 

the jurisdiction of the advertised rental unit’s 

local PHA. This approach alleviated concerns 

about porting or highlighting specific PHAs 

but required a more complex testing approach 

with unique profiles for each of the 17 PHAs 

operating HCV programs in our testing sites, as 

chapter 3 described. This approach included 152 

different payment standards across the study 

sites, with separate standards by bedroom size 

and by neighborhood poverty rate. Occupancy 

standards were similarly complex.

It is also necessary to prepare testers to field 

potential questions from landlords about 

the HCV program and PHA policies. In most 

cases, landlords did not ask detailed questions 

during paired tests, but testers occasionally 

encountered landlords who were unfamiliar with 

the program and asked about how vouchers 

work, or landlords who knew about the program 

and asked specific questions about PHA 

case managers or HCV program offices. To 

prepare for these encounters, a HCV program 

primer was developed with information on 

the HCV program’s purpose and local-level 

implementation, as well as program eligibility 

requirements, portability, the voucher search 

timeline, unit inspections, utility allowances, 

payment standards, tenant and housing 

assistance payments, and occupancy guidelines. 

Testers portraying voucher holders were also 

assigned additional information relative to their 

control tester counterparts, to be provided only if 

the landlord asked—such as a source of funding 

for their security deposit.44
Chapter 7: Implications for Future Testing Studies

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

59

Setting Appropriate Income 

Profiles Is Critical

A critical component of the testing process 

involves setting voucher and control tester 

income levels so that paired testers were 

comparably qualified with respect to income and 

rent burden, while accounting for the use of a 

voucher by one tester.

Income assignments for testers designated 

as voucher holders were straightforward and 

consistent with program guidelines. Testers 

were assigned household incomes based on the 

voucher-eligible income limits of 30 to 40 percent 

of AMI. Establishing control testers’ incomes 

was more complicated and had important 

implications. If control tester incomes were set 

too low and rent burdens too high, landlords 

might favor the voucher-holding testers. 

Alternatively, if control testers’ income was set 

too high in comparison with voucher holders who 

had lower wage income not counting the voucher 

subsidy, landlords might favor control testers. We 

ultimately set control testers’ household incomes 

as equal to the voucher tester’s income plus the 

estimated value of the voucher income. Control 

testers paid higher percentages of their income 

toward rent compared with voucher holders 

(40 to 50 percent for control testers versus 30 

percent for voucher testers). However, this level 

of rent burden is consistent with low-income 

households’ true experiences in the private 

market and may even be lower than what is 

typical for low- or moderate-income households 

in our testing sites.

Consistent with past housing discrimination 

studies, both testers were assigned credible 

occupations based on their income. The voucher 

tester’s current employment, however, was 

slightly longer than the control tester’s, who had 

been in her current position for at least 2 years. 

45 In past housing discrimination studies, testers were unambiguously well qualified for the advertised housing. Testers were assigned comparable financial 

qualifications, with control testers assigned slightly lower incomes than their counterparts. This minimizes the risk of a landlord detecting overly similar tester 

pairs. Moreover, assigning the control tester the marginally less qualified characteristics helps ensure that any differential treatment can be attributed to 

the focal tester’s key characteristic (for example, race or ethnicity, gender) as opposed to the slight variations in financial profiles. For the current study, this 

approach was problematic, as the amount and source of income was tied to the characteristic in question for testing.

This small difference in current employment 

tenure, as well as in current residence, helped 

balance the lack of wage income compared with 

the control household and ensured the voucher 

holder would otherwise be as appealing a 

candidate as the control tester.45

As chapter 6 discussed, landlords in paired tests 

appeared to recognize the voucher as income 

and questioned the control testers about factors 

related to their ability to pay the rent.

Assessing the Role of Race and 

Ethnicity in Voucher-Holder 

Discrimination Is Complex

Our study was designed to measure the overall 

incidence and nature of voucher discrimination in 

our study sites. A longstanding question related 

to voucher discrimination is whether it is driven 

or exacerbated by racial discrimination, and 

whether landlords treat non-White voucher 

holders differently from White voucher 

holders. We did not explore whether landlords 

view vouchers as a proxy for race. Our ability 

to explore whether discrimination varied by the 

voucher holder’s race was dependent on our 

ability to collect a large number of in-person 

tests in which both testers interacted with a 

housing provider. Our study did not reveal racial 

bias in the one site we achieved a sufficiently 

large sample of in-person tests—but this result 

cannot be considered definitive evidence that 

voucher holders do not experience discrimination 

differently based on their race.

Some expert panel members initially suggested 

four-part in-person tests to capture the 

interaction of race and voucher use and 

examine whether landlords treat non-White 

voucher holders differently than White voucher 

holders. These tests involve four testers, 

matched on all characteristics aside from 
Chapter 7: Implications for Future Testing Studies

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

60

race and voucher use—a pair of White testers 

and a pair of Black testers. In each pair, one 

tester with a voucher and one without would 

test the same housing unit and landlord to 

capture differential treatment by both race and 

voucher use. Although theoretically possible, 

such tests were not incorporated into the 

final design because of concerns about their 

feasibility. In addition, these tests cannot shed 

light on whether landlords view vouchers as a 

proxy for race, or the extent to which voucher 

discrimination is driven by racial discrimination. 

The actual testing experience—particularly in 

Fort Worth and Los Angeles—suggests these 

tests would not have been feasible for the 

current pilot study and would be extremely 

challenging for any voucher discrimination 

studies aiming to complete large numbers of 

tests. The experience of this study suggests that 

large-scale, in-person voucher discrimination 

testing must anticipate high denial rates and 

unique testing challenges.

Future research, in addition to continuing to 

explore the overall incidence and nature of 

voucher discrimination, can focus explicitly on 

this question of whether non-White voucher 

holders experience different degrees or types 

of discrimination in the housing market. For 

example, an initial acceptance test phase can be 

followed by in-person paired testing with testers 

matched on voucher use and other qualifications, 

with the tester’s race or ethnicity as the central 

characteristics of interest. 

Conducting Testing in Low-Poverty 

Areas Is Feasible

An initial question and concern for this 

study was the feasibility of finding sufficient 

numbers of units in low-poverty neighborhoods 

(approximated as ZIP Codes) to allow for 

comparisons with higher poverty neighborhoods. 

Our experience was that testing in lowpoverty “opportunity” areas is feasible without 

oversampling low-poverty neighborhoods. 

Preliminary analyses of the ACS data used to 

set sampling targets suggested that sufficient 

voucher-affordable units were in low-poverty 

areas to make oversampling from these areas 

unnecessary. The testing team tracked the share 

of tests completed in low-poverty areas and 

was prepared to oversample advertisements in 

low-poverty neighborhoods if fewer than 15 to 

20 percent of voucher acceptance tests were in 

these areas. In the end, oversampling was not 

necessary.

Some neighborhoods did prove impossible to 

find target numbers of advertisements or units 

available for testing, but these areas appear to 

have been places with low vacancy rates and not 

necessarily areas with low poverty rates. In such 

places, oversampling would not be possible, 

because not enough units were available for 

testing.

Ad Screening and Contacting 

Landlords Is Challenging and Impacts 

Testing Timelines

For other housing discrimination studies with 

fewer limitations on unit size or cost, the 

study team was able to auto-harvest rental 

advertisements electronically “scraped” from 

online sources. In the current study, this 

automated approach was not feasible, because 

detailed information about location, cost, 

and size needed to be reviewed and verified 

before advertisements could move forward for 

testing. Instead, project staff manually screened 

advertisements found on housing websites to 

identify units that appeared to be eligible for 

testing, using a mapping tool created for this 

project that identified payment standards for 

each unit based on census tract and bedroom 

size. The study team conducted the sampling 

process and the voucher acceptance tests in 

their Washington D.C. office, as opposed to 

at local testing organizations, for all five sites. 

Eligible advertisements were transmitted to the 

three local testing organizations conducting 

paired testing.
Chapter 7: Implications for Future Testing Studies

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

61

Given the number of advertisements that 

had to be screened to find eligible housing 

and the difficulty reaching landlords who 

accepted vouchers (more than one-third of the 

acceptance tests required multiple contacts, 

and some tests required more than one mode 

of contact), it was difficult for the study team 

or local testing organizations to predict how 

many advertisements would be available to 

assign to paired testers in a given week, or 

when. As a result, tester pairs were not always 

able to accept assignments when they became 

available. Further, some testers left the study 

when they found they could not be guaranteed 

a reliable or predictable workload. This problem 

was particularly acute in Fort Worth and Los 

Angeles, which had very few acceptance tests 

proceeding to paired testing. Once tests were 

assigned for paired testing, as chapters 5 and 6 

noted, testers faced similar challenges reaching 

landlords. Sometimes testers could not make 

contact at all (at which point the test could not 

proceed). When they did reach landlords, they 

were asked to call again or to communicate by 

e-mail or text—extending the time and effort 

required to conduct a test.

The number of contacts and modes of 

communication have several other implications 

for testing logistics and timeline. Take the 

example of a voucher acceptance test in 

Newark: after the study team screened three 

advertisements from one source, a seemingly 

eligible advertisement was identified. The tester 

called and spoke to the landlord who said that he 

was unsure about voucher policy. The landlord 

stated he would call back, but he did not. In total, 

the tester attempted to reach the landlord seven 

times at two numbers the landlord provided 

and received two callbacks from the landlord 

before the test was closed out without resolving 

whether the landlord accepted vouchers. The 

multiple contacts and use of multiple telephone 

numbers increased the complexity of testing, 

the operational burden of recording detailed 

information for each exchange, and the potential 

risk that a landlord could glean a discrimination 

study was being conducted. To minimize the 

risk of detection, project staff tracked every 

contact made with a landlord, by whom it was 

made, under what alias (project staff regularly 

changed the names they provided to landlords), 

and with what outgoing telephone number (they 

also changed telephone numbers regularly). If 

contact with a landlord was determined to be a 

detection risk by the director of field operations, 

the landlord could be deemed ineligible for 

testing for a set period of time. As data collection 

proceeded and more landlords were excluded 

from testing because of detection concerns, the 

challenge of finding eligible advertisements grew.

The local testing organizations noted the 

challenge of contacting and meeting landlords 

as characteristic of the lower end of the market, 

particularly in tighter markets. With high demand 

for lower rent units, landlords do not need to 

respond to all inquiries or to prioritize customer 

service, such as responding to messages and 

returning calls. The local testing organizations 

in Fort Worth and Los Angeles have conducted 

hundreds of housing discrimination tests during 

multiple studies since 2011; for the study on 

discrimination against lesbians and gay men 

(Levy et al., 2017), the groups completed 

600 in-person tests in less than a year. 

These organizations noted that this voucher 

discrimination study was the most difficult and 

frustrating of the studies that the study team 

had conducted since 2011, and that it has shed 

light on how much support voucher holders 

may require to navigate a challenging, time 

consuming, and sometimes futile housing search 

process.

Recommendations for Future 

Voucher Discrimination Testing 

Studies

The challenges described previously provide 

useful insights to inform future studies. In the 

following, we outline the proposed components 

of a multiphase national study of voucher 
Chapter 7: Implications for Future Testing Studies

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

62

discrimination and the need for additional 

information about landlord behavior.

A Robust, Multiphase Design Strategy

A key finding of this study is that voucher 

acceptance tests provide immensely valuable 

information about the extent and variability of 

outright voucher denials in diverse testing sites, 

and reveal the implications of high voucher 

denial rates on paired-testing efforts. This 

finding suggests the need for a robust research 

design for future paired-testing studies that 

can accommodate variations in denial rates. 

In addition, we find that paired in-person 

tests provide more valuable information than 

paired phone tests. These insights in mind, we 

recommend a future national study of voucher 

discrimination using a two-phase approach that 

incorporates acceptance tests followed by paired 

in-person tests.

The first phase would include voucher 

acceptance testing by phone, conducted 

in a large sample of sites (for example, 50 

metropolitan areas nationwide). The goals of 

this phase would be (1) to characterize voucher 

discrimination nationally and (2) to identify sites 

where additional testing would be viable and 

provide additional information about the nature of 

discrimination against voucher holders.

The second phase would involve continued 

voucher acceptance testing in a subsample 

of sites with moderate denial rates, in order 

to conduct sufficient in-person paired tests to 

permit robust analysis. Sites with the highest 

voucher denial rates would be removed from the 

in-person testing sample, as in-person paired 

testing in these sites would be prohibitively 

challenging and the denial rates would reveal 

valuable information about the challenges facing 

local voucher holders in the rental market. 

Under this approach, paired-testing resources 

would be targeted to areas where paired testing 

was feasible and could reveal more nuanced 

discrimination.

Extended Data Collection as a Design 

Feature

Substantial effort is required to screen 

advertisements, identify eligible units, and 

conduct acceptance tests and in-person tests. 

In this study, the number of advertisements 

screened to complete a single voucher 

acceptance test ranged from 24 advertisements 

in Philadelphia to 145 advertisements in Newark 

(Table 4.2), and about 11 percent of all in-person 

tests ended with both testers being stood up 

by the landlord. These and other challenges 

described previously require extended time for 

testing. For this pilot, the testing organizations 

in Fort Worth and Los Angeles could have 

continued testing to achieve the 300 paired 

tests initially allocated to each site but would 

have needed to triple the timeline and budget 

predicted for this study based on previous 

paired-testing efforts. 

Research on Landlord Behavior

In chapter 5, we noted that landlords were not 

asked why they did not accept vouchers, and 

most did not comment on voucher denials during 

our testing. In the rare instances when comments 

were made, landlords expressed concerns about 

PHA HCV program implementation, declared 

beliefs that voucher holders are less appealing 

tenants because of perceived risky or illicit 

behaviors, and alleged previous difficulties with 

voucher tenants. These comments provide 

limited insight into how landlords view the HCV 

program. More focused research is needed to 

understand landlords’ perceptions of the HCV 

program and motivations to accept or deny 

voucher holders. This research could include 

indepth interviews with landlords who reject 

or set conditions on voucher holders, as well 

as with landlords who do accept vouchers. 

Research with landlords can also shed light on 

the extent to which racial discrimination drives 

voucher discrimination and how landlords 

perceive voucher holders of different racial 
Chapter 7: Implications for Future Testing Studies

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

63

or ethnic backgrounds. As chapter 8 notes, 

recruiting and retaining landlords into the HCV 

program will require more information about what 

drives landlords’ decisions to accept or deny 

voucher holders.

Conclusion

This chapter provided lessons learned from our 

current study and used findings to motivate 

design approaches for future testing studies on 

voucher discrimination. Innovative approaches 

are clearly warranted, given the challenges 

associated with voucher testing. We expect that 

additional design strategies could be developed 

with additional pilot testing research.
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

64
Chapter 8: Implications for Policy and Program Changes

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

65

CHAPTER 8: 

Implications 

for Policy 

and Program 

Changes

Landlords play a critical role in the HCV 

program. Will voucher holders find a unit to 

lease? How challenging will their housing 

search be? Where will their unit be? The 

answers to these questions depend, in part, 

on landlord denial rates. As chapter 2 noted, 

PHAs and HUD set the rent and occupancy 

requirements that guide individual voucher 

holders’ housing searches, but PHAs do not 

usually interact with landlords until a potential 

unit is identified for a housing quality 

inspection. Voucher holders are largely left to 

their own devices when it comes to finding 

housing, interacting with landlords, and 

successfully using their vouchers. Most PHAs 

determine program eligibility, issue vouchers, 

hold orientation sessions for voucher holders, 

and then send them to search in the private 

market without assistance.

This study sheds new light on voucher 

holders’ experiences during their housing 

searches. Through thousands of tests, we 

found that landlords routinely deny voucher 

holders, making it difficult for them to use 

their vouchers and find housing—especially 

in low-poverty neighborhoods. In the five 

sites we tested, the process of finding an 

available unit, reaching landlords, finding 

a landlord who accepts vouchers, and 

then meeting landlords in person to look 

at available housing was arduous. Our 

methodology may not directly mirror an 

actual voucher holders’ search experience 

because of our need to collect data from a 

representative sample of affordable rental 

housing, but our findings and experience 

conducting tests shed new light on the 

challenges voucher holders face finding 

housing in the private market. The search 

process likely includes reviewing multiple 

advertisements, making numerous telephone 

calls to reach landlords, facing frequent 

rejection, and, at times, having landlords 

deliberately miss appointments. The 

challenges have implications for voucher 

search times and success rates, with some 

jurisdictions more difficult to navigate than 

others. The difficult search process may 

demoralize voucher holders who hope to 

use the program as a path to improved 

neighborhood quality, and the arduous 

searches and frequent denials likely cost 

the system valuable resources. For the 

HCV program to function efficiently and 

fulfill its goal to help vulnerable families 

reach opportunity-rich neighborhoods, 

policymakers must increase landlord 

participation, especially in low-poverty 

neighborhoods.

This final chapter outlines recommendations 

to decrease landlord discrimination and 

increase landlord participation in the HCV 

program. Policymakers could take different 

approaches to achieving this critical 

outcome. They could minimize opportunities 

for discrimination, make the program more 

streamlined and attractive, or help voucher 

holders navigate the market. Each approach 

needs further exploration and evaluation 

to understand its potential effects and 

opportunities for testing.

Pursue Legal Protections for 

Voucher Holders

Voucher holders are not a protected class 

under the Fair Housing Act. In most locations 

across the country, landlord participation in 
Chapter 8: Implications for Policy and Program Changes

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

66

the program is voluntary. Although there are 

no protections for voucher holders, there 

are federal fair housing protections for racial 

and ethnic minorities, families, and people 

with disabilities. Many voucher recipients are 

members of these protected groups, and 

voucher protections, or lack thereof, may 

disproportionately affect them. The voucher 

denials we found for testers perceived as 

White mothers and grandmothers suggest that 

baseline discrimination against voucher holders 

as a group is common and pervasive—with 

potential fair housing implications for not acting 

to address it. 

As we noted in chapter 2, some jurisdictions 

have adopted protections for voucher holders 

through state and local ordinances, usually 

including vouchers as a protected source of 

income. Essentially, these protections minimize 

landlords’ ability to reject voucher holders 

outright, and they require landlords to consider 

voucher holders, as they would any other 

prospective tenant. The empirical evidence 

on source-of-income protections suggests 

they do not completely eliminate opportunities 

for discrimination and need to be vigorously 

enforced. However, they can remove landlords’ 

legal ability to turn all voucher holders away 

regardless of whether they are well-qualified, 

reliable tenants.

Among our five study sites, landlord 

discrimination against voucher holders was more 

common in jurisdictions without protections and 

less common where protections were in place. 

We also found that landlords discriminate against 

voucher holders even where it is illegal to do 

so. We did not design this study to measure the 

effectiveness or impact of source-of-income 

protections and consequently, we cannot predict 

the potential effect that protections might have 

on voucher discrimination. However, the patterns 

identified in our five study sites, coupled with 

existing evidence in the literature, suggest 

that protections may improve HCV program 

outcomes and merit further consideration.

Encourage Landlord Participation

Another way to increase landlord participation in 

the HCV program is to make it more attractive to 

landlords. Doing so will require a combination of 

recruiting landlords proactively, ensuring voucher 

payment standards meet market rents, improving 

program management, and creating incentives 

for participation in the program.

Recruit and Attract Landlords, 

Particularly in Low-Poverty Areas

One way to increase landlord participation 

is to actively identify and recruit landlords 

to participate in the program. Recruiting 

landlords can be labor intensive; it requires 

developing marketing materials and reaching 

out to associations and large property 

management companies, as well as actively 

cultivating relationships and trust with individual 

landlords. Some PHAs and neighborhood 

mobility programs that help voucher holders 

search for housing have liaisons on staff to 

target and recruit landlords, specifically those 

in opportunity neighborhoods. Currently, 

landlord liaisons are limited to a handful of 

PHAs nationwide. For example, the King County 

Housing Authority in Washington state worked 

with nonprofit housing providers, as well as the 

United Way of King County, the city of Seattle, 

and King County to create the Landlord Liaison 

Project. This partnership provides landlords 

with incentives to participate in the HCV 

program, including prescreening prospective 

tenants, a risk reduction fund, and a 24-hour 

response line (Landlord Liaison Project, 2010). 

The typical PHA, however, does not have 

resources to devote to marketing or outreach 

or the flexibility to designate staff to liaison 

activities. HUD can include these activities 

as an administrative cost or provide outreach 

funds. Alternatively, HUD can fund pilot 

programs through a combination of federal and 

philanthropic support to test liaison activities for 

HCV programs.
Chapter 8: Implications for Policy and Program Changes

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

67

Ensure Voucher Payment Standards 

Meet Market Rents

For vouchers to appeal to private market 

landlords, they must offer rent payments 

comparable with the market. This study did 

not examine the role of payment standards or 

FMRs in the availability of voucher-affordable 

housing or in landlord denial rates. As chapter 

4 discussed, many reasons could explain the 

availability of voucher-affordable housing. 

We do observe, however, that the lowest 

voucher denial rates correspond with areas 

that had higher FMRs (50 percent instead of 

40 percent in Philadelphia and Washington, 

D.C.), particularly with the one site where 

neighborhood-level payment standards ranged 

from approximately 80 to 130 percent of FMR 

(Washington, D.C.).

Adopting SAFMRs could expand the availability 

of voucher-affordable housing in higher cost 

areas and reduce the availability of voucheraffordable housing in lower cost areas. The 

existing evidence is mixed as to whether the 

net effect of this shift would be an increase 

or a decrease in the total number of voucheraffordable units. It is also important to consider 

possible interaction effects between the 

voucher discrimination observed in this study 

and the implementation of SAFMRs. On the one 

hand, SAFMRs should make vouchers more 

appealing to landlords in high-cost areas and 

perhaps reduce the voucher discrimination 

we observed. On the other hand, voucher 

discrimination might make it difficult for voucher 

holders to rent in higher cost areas, even with 

SAFMRs. Careful analysis and implementation 

of SAFMRs or neighborhood-level payment 

standards, including attention to implementation 

at the PHA level, is needed to ensure SAFMRs 

enable voucher holders to reach units in higher 

rent areas.

46 See, for example, Housing Authority of the County of Santa Cruz, “Security Deposit Program,” https://www.hacosantacruz.org/security-deposit-program/, 

or Connecticut Department of Housing, “Security Deposit Guarantee Program,” http://www.ct.gov/doh/cwp/view.asp?a=4513&q=530588.

47 Marin Housing Authority, “Landlord Partnership Program,” https://www.marinhousing.org/landlord-partnership-program.html.

Explore Financial Incentives for 

Landlords

In addition to ensuring rents are in line with the 

market, HUD and PHAs could strengthen the 

financial incentives (or remove the perceived 

disincentives) for landlords to participate in 

the program. For example, PHAs could offer 

landlords one-time signing bonuses or tax 

incentives for joining the HCV program or for 

being in low-poverty neighborhoods. Some 

jurisdictions are piloting initiatives that provide 

security deposits or insurance against damages 

or tenants vacating the unit before the lease 

expires.46 Other jurisdictions are waiving permit 

fees for repairs or improvements, or providing 

landlords with access to interest-free loans to 

rehabilitate their properties. For example, the 

Marin Housing Authority’s Landlord Partnership 

Program provides landlords with a security 

deposit of up to $2,500 per family, loss mitigation 

if the property is damaged, vacancy loss if the 

voucher holder vacates early, waived permit fees 

for building and planning, and a 24-hour hotline 

and rapid response to landlord concerns.47

Despite some promising experiments with these 

approaches, policymakers have limited data 

on how well these programs work and should 

consider testing and rigorously evaluating some 

of these approaches through the Moving to 

Work expansion, which will provide 100 PHAs 

with policy and funding flexibility to test changes 

to the HCV program in the interest of better 

program performance.

Improve Program Management

Critics of the HCV program argue that landlords 

have good business reasons not to participate. 

These reasons include complaints about PHAs 

that have poor customer service or that increase 

the cost of renting to voucher holders by taking 

too long to complete housing quality standards 

inspections and by not sending rent checks on 
Chapter 8: Implications for Policy and Program Changes

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

68

time. To increase customer satisfaction among 

landlords and decrease the real or perceived 

costs of doing business with housing authorities, 

PHAs must ensure they are streamlining tasks 

so that landlords are not financially penalized 

for participating in the program. Some PHAs 

have improved their business relationships 

with landlords by expediting inspections or 

paying rent by electronic deposit. Even with 

strong customer service, participating in the 

program may not always make financial sense 

for landlords, whose goal is to make a profit 

by renting their units. The authors of a threecity landlord study (Garboden et al., 2018) 

concluded that, when considering whether 

to accept voucher tenants, landlords weigh 

different considerations in different rental market 

contexts—but that improving the core aspects 

of PHAs’ interactions with landlords, such as 

inspections and the contract process, would 

encourage participation.

Help Voucher Holders Navigate 

the Housing Search

Helping voucher holders find housing and 

successfully use their vouchers, particularly in 

opportunity-rich neighborhoods, will require 

expanded search times, housing search 

assistance, and better maintained PHA lists of 

available housing.

Expand Search Time

As this study shows, finding a landlord willing 

to rent to a voucher holder can be extremely 

difficult. Extending search times from 60 to 120 

days would provide voucher holders more time 

to identify landlords with units available. This 

additional search time is particularly important 

if voucher holders are searching for housing in 

opportunity neighborhoods or in tight markets, 

where units are harder to find. In their success 

rate study, Finkel and Buron (2001) found that the 

national average search time was 83 days and 

nearly one-fourth of voucher-holder households 

took more than 120 days to find housing.

Currently, all voucher holders are allowed an 

initial search period of 60 days, with individual 

PHAs able to grant extensions as they deem 

appropriate (HUD, 2009).43 HUD’s Housing 

Choice Voucher Program Guidebook instructs 

PHAs to consider the following when granting 

and setting a time frame for extensions to 

voucher holders—the tightness of the local 

housing market, the approximate time spent on 

the PHA’s waiting list, the voucher holder’s level 

of effort in searching for housing, the voucher 

holder’s chances of finding a unit, the support 

services needed, and any circumstances that 

prevented the family from finding a unit (HUD, 

2009). Whether search times are extended varies 

widely across PHAs. DeLuca, Garboden, and 

Rosenblatt (2013) found that the Prichard and 

Mobile PHAs in Alabama almost never granted 

extensions and noted that PHAs are not required 

to accept an extended search time set by 

another PHA, which affects searches for voucher 

holders in metropolitan areas with multiple PHAs.

Provide Housing Search Assistance

Beginning with Chicago’s Gautreaux housing 

desegregation program in the 1980s, voucher 

mobility programs have evolved into robust 

services aimed at helping low-income families 

reach and remain in low-poverty neighborhoods 

(Galvez, 2017). These programs, however, 

remain uncommon. The Poverty and Race 

Research Action Council identifies only 15 

mobility programs as of 2015, with most the 

result of settlements from desegregation lawsuits 

(Berdahl-Baldwin, 2015). A 2010 scan of 11 

programs found that PHA efforts vary widely in 

the services they provide but typically offer a 

combination of pre and postmove counseling, 

move assistance, landlord outreach, and financial 

support for moves (Cunningham et al., 2010). 

Our findings on the difficulty identifying landlords 

who accept vouchers—particularly in lowpoverty areas—coupled with the evidence base 

on the importance of living in high-opportunity 

neighborhoods, highlights the importance of 

housing search assistance.
Chapter 8: Implications for Policy and Program Changes

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

69

Improve the Quality of Public Housing 

Authority Lists

PHAs commonly maintain lists of available 

housing units that accept vouchers, and voucher 

holders may rely on these lists for information 

about available housing. Researchers and 

housing advocates often note these lists mainly 

include units in higher poverty neighborhoods 

that already have concentrations of voucher 

holders. For example, DeLuca, Garboden, 

and Rosenblatt (2013) found that more than 

95 percent of the landlords on voucher lists 

from Mobile and Prichard housing authorities 

were both in medium- or high-poverty—and 

highly segregated—neighborhoods. They also 

found that PHA staff did not normally urge 

voucher holders to look for housing in lowpoverty neighborhoods; they suggested that 

this tendency is at least partly because those 

increased search times would decrease the 

PHAs’ success rates. In conjunction with landlord 

outreach, PHAs can help voucher holders by 

improving their lists of available units. HUD and 

PHAs can also work to improve the quality and 

reporting of success rate and search time data, 

to more precisely track this important measure of 

voucher holders’ ability to secure housing.

Conclusion

This five-site study is the largest, most 

comprehensive test of voucher discrimination 

conducted to date, providing rigorous, 

quantitative data on the prevalence of landlord 

discrimination and on ways landlords treat 

voucher holders differently than similar 

prospective tenants. We learned that finding 

an available unit, reaching landlords, finding a 

landlord to accept vouchers, and then meeting 

with that landlord to view the housing, was 

extremely difficult. It takes a lot of work to find 

housing with a voucher. The search requires 

sifting through numerous advertisements, 

making numerous calls, and facing frequent 

rejection. Our study revealed that landlords 

discriminate against voucher holders at high 

rates. Voucher holders who want to find housing 

in an opportunity area—perhaps close to highquality schools, jobs, and transportation—face a 

higher mountain to climb. They will find landlords 

in low-poverty areas are less likely to accept 

vouchers. We learned that even if landlords 

said they accepted vouchers, they may treat 

voucher holders differently during apartment 

showings—standing them up at higher rates than 

non-voucher holders. Landlords who accept 

vouchers, however, do not screen voucher 

holders as heavily as they do other apartment 

seekers, who they are more likely to ask about 

income and employment. This differential vetting 

behavior is likely because the subsidy provides 

some guarantee of payment. This finding 

suggests some landlords are interested in renting 

to voucher holders and may specifically market 

their apartments to them.

We learned that local context matters. Voucher 

denial rates varied significantly among the 

five sites. Although we cannot say why with 

certainty, a clear pattern emerged. Sites with 

local source-of-income protections and higher 

rent caps had more landlords saying they accept 

vouchers. Other factors, including housing 

market tightness and PHA performance, are also 

worthy of consideration as key factors that affect 

landlord decisions. More research on voucher 

discrimination is necessary to understand these 

patterns and their drivers. Further, although 

we learned about landlord perspectives by 

listening to them and observing their behaviors, 

policymakers need more research on how 

landlords view participation in the HCV program.

In designing and conducting nearly 4,000 tests 

during 16 months, we also gleaned lessons 

for housing policy—particularly related to 

improving the HCV program. We recommend 

that policymakers pursue legal protections for 

voucher holders; do more to recruit landlords, 

particularly those in low-poverty areas (this 

recruitment may include offering financial 

incentives and improving management of the 
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

70

Chapter 8: Implications for Policy and Program Changes

HCV program); set rents to better reflect the 

local market using smaller area comparisons; 

and provide voucher holders with more time 

to search and with assistance finding units in 

opportunity areas. 

The HCV program is the United States’ primary 

vehicle for providing housing assistance, serving 

more than 2 million households. The program 

is critical for ensuring housing affordability, but 

it is not realizing its promise. More could be 

done to ensure the program helps households 

reach opportunity-rich neighborhoods, places 

that could improve their lives. Our findings are a 

reminder that landlords are not passive actors in 

the HCV program. They have incredible power in 

deciding if voucher holders can use their housing 

assistance and where they can live. 
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

71

Appendix A: Technical Appendix

APPENDIX A: Appendix A: Technical Appendix Technical Appendix

This appendix describes in detail the methodology for the pilot study of voucher discrimination. Testing 

procedures are described first, followed by the sampling approach.

Testing Procedures

Testing procedures are discussed in subsections covering stages of testing, field operations 

management, data collection oversight, quality control, tester recruitment and hiring, tester training, and 

tester profiles.

Stages of Testing

Testing for the voucher discrimination study was conducted from April 2016 through July 2017. The 

following steps were used to complete the voucher acceptance and paired telephone and in-person tests. 

Each step corresponds with specific test forms or guidance documents. All testing procedures used by 

test coordinators and testers are described in appendix G. Test coordinator resources are included as 

appendix H. All test report forms are included as appendix I.

AD VERIFICATION AND VOUCHER ACCEPTANCE TEST

Testers perceived as being non-Hispanic White (in name and voice) were responsible for making initial 

contact with landlords to verify the availability and eligibility of sampled rental housing.

The testers for the initial contact and voucher acceptance tests portrayed single female voucher 

holders with children between the ages of 7 and 12, and the number of children depended on the 

housing’s number of bedrooms. Testers asked the landlord if he or she accepted vouchers after verifying 

unit availability and eligibility. Initial contact in response to advertisements was made via telephone if 

possible, by e-mail if no telephone number was listed, or by electronic contact form if no telephone 

number or e-mail address was listed. If landlords asked to be contacted via text message, testers were 

allowed to do so but were encouraged to minimize communication via text and speak via telephone 

whenever possible.

To reach the landlord, the tester could make up to three telephone calls (without leaving a message).

If the ad did not include a telephone number, the tester could send one e-mail or submit one electronic 

contact form. If the landlord could not be reached within 24 hours of the first attempted e-mail or 
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

72

1

electronic contact, the ad was dropped from testing. If the housing was found to be available and eligible, 

the advertisement was assigned to a voucher acceptance test. The information obtained from the voucher 

acceptance test was then recorded on the advance contact form. While completing the form, project staff 

identified the public housing authority (PHA) with jurisdiction at the address of the advertised unit. The 

location of the advertised unit was also identified as either a high- or a low-poverty census tract.

During the voucher acceptance test, the tester confirmed and recorded the following information.

n The exact date that the advertised housing was available (and, if the advertised housing was no 

longer available, what housing was available and when).

n The price of the available rental housing.

n The number of bedrooms in each available rental unit, focusing exclusively on two- and threebedroom units (if none were available, then the ad was deemed ineligible).

n The exact address of each available rental unit.

n Whether an appointment was required and office hours.

n Landlord comments about the PHA, voucher program, or voucher holders.

CREATION OF PAIRED TEST ASSIGNMENTS FOR UNITS THAT ACCEPTED VOUCHERS

Local test coordinators used information recorded on the advance contact form to make credible pairedtest assignments for units that accepted vouchers. Testers were matched on personal, financial, and 

household characteristics. All paired testers were female, matched on race or ethnicity and age (within 3 

to 5 years), and portrayed mothers or grandmothers with one to four children or grandchildren. The test 

authorization form specified the order in which each tester in the pair would contact the landlord, and the 

project’s online data collection system randomly assigned which tester would portray a voucher holder. A 

one-on-one briefing session preceded each new test assignment, with the test coordinators providing 

testers with a rental assignment form and detailed instructions that reminded testers of the key testing 

protocols.

Testers designated as voucher holders were assigned household incomes based on the vouchereligible income for each site (30 to 40 percent of Area Median Income [AMI]). Control testers’ household 

incomes were based on the same percentage of AMI assigned to the voucher-holding tester plus the 

estimated value of the voucher. Testers posing as voucher holders were also provided with information 

about the amount of their voucher, including their current total tenant payment (voucher holder’s share of 

the rent) and housing assistance payment (housing authority’s share of the rent). Testers were instructed 

to refuse any type of credit check, but they could respond to inquiries about their credit or their standing 

as a tenant by saying they had good credit and no problems with their rental history. Otherwise, voucher 

Appendix A: Technical Appendix
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

73

2 A PILOT STUDY OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER HOLDERS

holders were assigned the same or slightly better qualifications than the control testers (for example, 

longer time at current residence, longer time on the job).

INITIAL LANDLORD CONTACT FOR PAIRED TELEPHONE TESTS

As in the voucher acceptance tests, testers conducting paired telephone tests called landlords if a 

telephone number was provided in the advertisement. If no telephone number was provided, testers used 

e-mail or an electronic contact form. The initial contacts with landlords were assigned by test coordinators 

and were typically made 1 to 6 hours apart and never more than 24 hours apart. Following every attempt 

to schedule an appointment and obtain information about available housing, a tester completed an 

appointment contact form.

PAIRED TELEPHONE TESTS AND REQUESTS FOR HOUSING AND APPOINTMENT

Once a tester made contact with a landlord, the paired telephone tests captured detailed information 

about available housing that met the testers’ needs, as well as any requests for information or 

qualifications. If testers did not initially reach a person who could provide information about available 

housing, they asked to be connected to someone who had that information. At the outset of the 

conversation, testers designated as voucher holders conveyed their status to the landlord. Testers then 

tried to obtain the following information about each available unit: number of bedrooms, rent, date of 

availability, lease length (all available), utilities included (if any), exact address, amount of the security 

deposit (if any), whether an application was required, the amount of the application fee (if any), whether a 

credit check was required, and other fees (if any). Testers began the completion of a telephone report 

form within 1 hour of the call. If testers obtained information about available housing, they also completed

an available rental unit form (telephone version). Tests in which both testers were able to make an 

appointment to view available, eligible housing proceeded to an in-person test.

PAIRED IN-PERSON TESTS/REQUESTS FOR HOUSING

Testers who were assigned vouchers disclosed their status at the beginning of the in-person visit,

regardless of whether the landlord was the same person they spoke with on the telephone. The testers 

attempted to obtain the same information about available housing as during the telephone contact. They 

also recorded additional information on the interior and exterior physical conditions of the units. Within 1 

hour following the site visit, testers completed the site visit report form and the available rental unit form

(site visit version). All forms and notes were handed in to the test coordinators during the debriefing 

session. If a tester received followup contact of any kind from a landlord within 14 days of the site visit, 

the tester completed a followup contact form.

Appendix A: Technical Appendix
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

74

3

The data collected during a tester’s interaction with the landlord generally fell into one of two 

indicators: those that were used to ensure test protocols were followed and those that were used to 

measure and analyze differential treatment. Data collected throughout the process were used for quality 

control measures by the field operations team.

Field Operations Management

The study’s field operations team used the same essential management structure as that used in all 

housing discrimination studies conducted by the Urban Institute since 2011. The team has now overseen 

the successful completion of more than 14,000 paired tests in more than 40 metropolitan areas. For this 

study, the director of field operations supervised onsite regional coordinators, project staff, and voucher 

acceptance testers, as well as test coordinators and testers based in each site where paired testing was 

conducted. Although the sampling and voucher acceptance tests were conducted on site at Urban for all 

five pilot sites, the following local testing organizations conducted paired telephone and in-person tests.

n Fair Housing Council of Northern New Jersey (Newark, New Jersey).

n Fair Housing Foundation (Los Angeles, California).

n North Texas Fair Housing Center (Fort Worth, Texas).

A pool of 8 testers conducted the voucher acceptance tests, and 101 testers conducted the paired 

telephone and in-person tests. There were 39 Black testers, 39 White testers, and 23 Hispanic testers 

who completed tests.

Data Collection Oversight

Two experienced regional coordinators helped supervise and train the onsite ad sampling team and 

voucher acceptance testers, and they also oversaw the day-to-day efforts of the local testing 

organizations. The regional coordinators helped ensure the team adhered to project guidelines and 

timeframes. Their responsibilities included—

n Developing project materials, including training manuals and resources.

n Training project staff, local test coordinators, and testers (voucher acceptance testers as well as 

testers conducting paired tests) via in-person training sessions and webinars on sampling and 

testing protocols, as well as on the details of the voucher program.

Appendix A: Technical Appendix
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

75

4 A PILOT STUDY OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER HOLDERS

n Overseeing tester recruitment.

n Overseeing testing and test report preparation through frequent contact with local test 

coordinators, including a weekly meeting with each site.

If a significant issue arose during data collection, the regional coordinators worked with the director of 

field operations to ascertain the extent of the challenge and determine the required response. The 

regional coordinators documented any detection risks or concerning events via an incident report due at 

the end of any day when such an issue arose. The report included the identification of all relevant issues 

as well as whether the field operations team needed to take any further action.

In addition to the daily incident reports, the regional coordinators completed weekly site reports with 

summaries of each site’s number of completed tests, descriptions of any questions or issues that arose 

during the week, and what actions were taken. The field operations team met at least once each week to 

discuss the progress of all the sites, brainstorm possible solutions to field challenges, and share 

examples of best practices across sites.

Quality Control

To ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data collected, the study used the Central Online Data 

Entry (CODE) system. CODE was first designed for housing discrimination studies in 2000 and has been 

used on each subsequent Urban Institute study. The system was tailored for the voucher discrimination 

study to enhance its efficiency and to accommodate new sampling techniques, research protocols, tester 

forms, and tracking reports. CODE’s integrated test assignment, data entry, and test management tools 

reduce errors with built-in consistency checks and streamline data management, cleaning, and analysis.

Each CODE user was assigned a unique identification number and was granted a different level of 

access to testing forms depending on the user’s role (that is, tester, test coordinator, regional coordinator, 

or CODE administrator). Each test was also assigned a unique control number that allowed CODE to 

capture and log all activities within the system, which helped ensure data security. CODE created the 

control number when the project team completed a test authorization form for a sampled advertisement. 

The control number was carried through the multistep testing process for each form associated with the 

test.

Within 1 hour following each completed phase of their test assignment, testers logged into CODE and 

completed the corresponding tester forms. Local test coordinators then conducted an immediate and 

thorough review of the testers’ forms and confirmed they were completed. The field operations team 

continually monitored data in CODE to assess project staff, tester, and test coordinator adherence to 

Appendix A: Technical Appendix
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

76

5

reporting requirements and progress toward testing targets. Because CODE allows project staff to 

monitor data quality in real time, regional coordinators provided immediate feedback and could also 

quickly identify any instances of missing or incomplete data.

Tester Recruitment and Hiring

Supported by regional coordinators based at Urban, local testing organizations were responsible for 

recruiting, interviewing, and hiring testers to conduct paired telephone and in-person tests for this study. 

As in other recent housing discrimination studies, in anticipation of attrition, project staff recruited 15 to 20 

percent more testers than they deemed necessary to meet their targets. Testers are most likely to leave a 

project after the tester training session (when testers learn how detailed the protocols are) and after they 

conduct their first practice test (when some testers realize they may be uncomfortable portraying 

assigned but untrue characteristics). Local testing organizations conducted outreach to numerous 

community organizations to recruit Hispanic, White, and Black testers, depending on the testing 

conducted in their metropolitan areas.

Local testing organizations conducted in-person interviews with prospective tester candidates to 

determine whether an applicant could be selected. During the interview, project staff tried to determine 

whether applicants were comfortable maintaining confidentiality about the study (essential to any testing 

project) and objectivity. Testers had to be able to make fair and honest assessments of their testing 

experiences without making assumptions about landlord behavior. Project staff also conveyed to 

applicants the importance of following test protocols and remaining neutral, even if they should encounter 

treatment that might be considered discriminatory.

When selecting testers for the study, project staff considered their ability to form tester pairs based on 

key characteristics, such as race or ethnicity and age. In addition, based on applicants’ schedules, 

coordinators determined whether prospective tester pairs would be available to conduct tests within the 

required timeframes.

Housing discrimination studies since 2012 have conducted identifiability analyses to assess the 

likelihood that a landlord perceives a tester’s assigned race or ethnicity based on the tester’s name and 

recorded voice (testers read a short prepared script) as well as a standardized photograph. The approach 

used in this study is discussed in appendix E.

Appendix A: Technical Appendix
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

77

6 A PILOT STUDY OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER HOLDERS

Tester Training

Testers selected to participate in the voucher discrimination study completed a thorough tester training 

program that included a training session (conducted in person or via webinar) and a series of supervised 

telephone calls to landlords. The 6-hour training session covered the entire testing process, including the 

completion of data collection forms. The training session was an opportunity to discuss any questions 

before testers conducted their first test. Housing discrimination tester trainings included role plays, short 

film clips, and pop quizzes to increase tester engagement and reinforce key protocols. Because all testers 

needed to credibly portray voucher holders, the training session also included a primer on the voucher 

program itself, which covered—

n The voucher program’s purpose and local-level implementation.

n Eligibility requirements for voucher holders.

n Portability.

n The voucher search timeline.

n Unit inspections.

n Utility allowances.

n Payment standards, total tenant portion, and housing assistance payment.

n Occupancy guidelines.

Testers also met with test coordinators one on one during the briefing and debriefing before and after 

each test, including the initial practice test, to review checklists and report forms and ensure the protocol 

had been mastered. Testers could describe any challenges that arose while conducting a test and receive 

feedback from the test coordinator about what issues needed to be addressed.

Tester Profiles

Aside from race or ethnicity, the household and financial characteristics assigned to testers were 

established to closely match those of households that actually receive housing vouchers.

HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION

HUD data reveal that 91 percent of voucher households occupy rental units with one, two, or three 

bedrooms. Almost one-half (45 percent) of all vouchers go to female-headed households with children

(HUD, 2016). In the testing sites and nationally, a large proportion of voucher households (79 percent) 

are female headed and about one-half of all voucher households had children. Accordingly, testing was 

Appendix A: Technical Appendix
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

78

7

confined to female-headed households with children responding to rental ads for two- or three-bedroom

units (see section 2 for household characteristics). We decided to confine testing to female-headed 

households because this household type is disproportionately represented in the voucher program. 

Children assigned to a household were assigned ages between 7 and 12 years old. Eliminating 

children age 6 and younger meant that prospective landlords did not need to comply with additional lead 

safety requirements before turning over the unit. Additionally, because the presence of teenagers could 

affect the willingness of landlords to rent to a family, having older children was avoided. Tests were 

assigned one of a number of household compositions, all led by single women with children or 

grandchildren in their households (table A.1). 

We verified the PHA occupancy standards regarding households with children for each site to 

determine the appropriate assignment of children’s genders and avoid potential complications or landlord 

concerns with voucher occupancy standards.

COUNTERFACTUAL INCOME

One important and unique aspect to this study was the need to account for the value of the voucher in the 

income of the counterfactual tester. Voucher receipt is effectively an increase in a household’s available 

income for housing. It would be inappropriate to hold the incomes of the paired testers constant at 

prevoucher levels, with one tester in possession of a voucher. The purpose of the voucher was to allow 

low-income households to reach housing that would otherwise be unaffordable to them. Testing voucher 

holders against households of the same prevoucher income—and attempting to rent units that were 

affordable to the voucher holder because of the voucher subsidy—would present an unaffordable rental 

situation for the counterfactual tester and place that household at a clear disadvantage in the eyes of the 

landlord. If the counterfactual tester’s potential rent burden were to be set unrealistically high, landlords 

may reject the tester on that basis. Any observed differential treatment might simply reflect the financial 

disparity between two potential tenants, rather than possession of a voucher. 

However, setting the counterfactual income too high compared with the voucher holder’s prevoucher

or voucher-subsidized income could create a scenario in which landlords were presented a relatively 

wealthy household without a voucher and a low-income household with some voucher income. Landlord 

preference for the counterfactual household could in this scenario be attributed to the counterfactual 

household’s relative wealth, and not the landlord’s aversion to the voucher. Either scenario would provide 

biased estimates of discrimination against voucher holders.

Because of these factors, control testers were assigned an annual income equal to the vouchereligible income for each study site, plus the approximate annual value of the voucher subsidy. This 

approach provided the counterfactual tester sufficient income to rent the unit and to have a housing 

Appendix A: Technical Appendix
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

79

8 A PILOT STUDY OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER HOLDERS

budget comparable to that of the voucher holder, but not so much income as to place the counterfactual 

household in a higher socioeconomic class. 

Specifically, the appropriate baseline income for the voucher holder and counterfactual tester was 

based on 30 percent of AMI for each test site. The total annual value of the voucher based on the 

approximate housing assistance payment for a household at 30 percent of AMI was then estimated, 

adjusting for the presence of children in the household. The total value of the annual housing assistance 

payment was then added to the baseline income to establish the counterfactual tester income. In effect, 

the voucher and counterfactual testers had the same income, but from different sources. This approach 

also resulted in the counterfactual testers facing gross rent burdens comparable to the voucher-holder 

households’. We examined rent burdens for low-income households in each study site to ensure that we 

did not establish unrealistic counterfactual renter profiles. Table A.2 provides an example using eligibility 

guidelines and payment standards for one of the sites.

TABLE A.1

Household Composition

One Child Two Children Three Children Four Children

Test	site

1	

Girl

1	

Boy

2	

Girls	

or

1	

Girl	

and	

1	Girl	

and

2	

Girls	

and

3	

Girls

3	

Boys

1	Girl	

and

2	

Girls	

and

3	

Girls	

and

4	

Girls 4	Boys

2	

Boys

1	

Boy

2	

Boys

1	Boy 3	

Boys

2	

Boys

1	Boy

Fort	Worth

Arlington n/a n/a 2br 2br 2br 2br 2br 2br 3br 3br 3br 3br 3br

Fort	Worth n/a n/a 2br 2br 2br 2br 2br 2br 3br 3br 3br 3br 3br

Tarrant	County 2br 2br 2br 2br 2br 3br 2br 3br 3br 3br 3br 3br 3br

Los	Angeles

All PHAs n/a n/a 2br 2br 2br 2br 2br 2br 3br 3br 3br 3br 3br

Newark

All PHAs n/a 2br 2br 2br 2br 3br 2br 3br 3br 3br 3br 3br 3br

Philadelphia

Bucks	County n/a 2br 2br 2br 2br 3br 2br 3br 3br 3br 3br 3br 3br

Philadelphia 2br 2br 2br 3br 3br 3br 3br 3br n/a 3br n/a 3br 3br

Washington,	DC

Montgomery	County 2br 2br 2br 2br 3br 3br 3br 3br 3br 3br 3br 3br 3br

Washington,	DC 2br 2br 2br n/a 3br 3br 3br 3br n/a 3br n/a 3br 3br

2br = two-bedroom rental unit; 3br = three-bedroom rental unit; PHA = public housing authority; N/a = not applicable. 

Note: Our testing included exclusively two- and three-bedroom units. In some sites, some configurations of families would be 

eligible for one- and four-bedroom units. We did not use these family configurations for tester profiles. This in indicated in the table 

by n/a.

Appendix A: Technical Appendix
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

80

TABLE A.2

Sample Calculation of Counterfactual Income for Two- and Three-Bedroom Households

Two-Person Household Three-Person Household 

In Two Bedroom In Two Bedroom In Three Bedroom

A HCV eligibility based on 30% 

AMI − yearly income limit 

$ 19,600.00 A HCV eligibility based on 30% 

AMI − yearly income limit

$ 22,050.00 A HCV eligibility based on 30% 

AMI − yearly income limit 

$ 22,050.00 

B Adjusted annual voucher 

incomea (A − 480)

$ 19,120.00 B Adjusted annual voucher 

incomea = (A − (480 × 2)) 

$ 21,090.00 B Adjusted annual voucher 

incomea = (A − (480 × 2)) 

$ 21,090.00 

C Monthly PHA payment 

standard (2br)

$ 1,443.00 C Monthly PHA payment 

standard (2br)

$ 1,443.00 C Monthly PHA payment 

standard (3br) ^

$ 1,939.00 

D Est. monthly tenant shareb = 

(B ÷ 12) × 0.30

$ 478.00 D Est. monthly tenant shareb 3 

person = (B ÷ 12) × 0.30

$ 527.25 D Est. monthly tenant shareb 3 

person = (B ÷ 12) × 0.30

$ 527.25 

E Annual voucher value if unit 

rent equal to payment 

standard for 2br = (C − D) ×

12

$ 11,580.00 E Annual voucher value 3 

person if unit rent equal to 

payment standard for 2br = 

(C − D) × 12

$ 10,989.00 E Annual voucher value if unit 

rent equal to payment 

standard for 3br = (C − D) ×

12

$ 16,941.00 

F Annual gross voucher tester 

income for 2-person HH in 

2br 

( = A ) 

$ 19,600.00 F Annual gross voucher tester 

income for 3-person HH in 

2br 

( = A )

$ 22,050.00 F Annual gross voucher tester 

income for 3-person HH in 

3br 

( = A ) 

$ 22,050.00 

G Annual gross control tester 

income for 2-person HH in 

2br 

( = E + F)

$ 31,180.00 G Annual gross control tester 

income for 3-person HH in 

2br 

( = E + F)

$ 33,039.00 G Annual gross control tester 

income for 3-person HH in 

3br 

( = E + F)

$ 38,991.00 

Sources: FY 2014 Fair Market Rent: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html; FY 2014 income limits: 30% of AMI (“extremely low income”) household income limits: 

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr/fmr_il_history.html. 

Notes: A 2-person household is 1 female adult and 1 male child; a 3-person household is 1 female adult and 1 male and 1 female child. Sample calculations reflect 2014 Fair Market

Rents and income limits but are for illustrative purposes only; appropriate income limits were used for actual tester profiles.

a. Adjusted annual voucher income = gross income minus $480 deduction per child.

b. Also known as total tenant payment; for this example, based on 30 percent of monthly adjusted income. 

AMI = area median income; br = bedroom; HCV = Housing Choice Voucher; HH = household; PHA = public housing authority

Appendix A: Technical Appendix
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

81

1 0 A PILOT STUDY OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER HOLDERS

Sampling 

The sampling approach in this pilot study involved establishing testing targets for the voucher acceptance 

tests and manually searching for publicly available ads in each ZIP Code included in the study sites. Ads 

for testing were generated by stratified random sampling. Strata were composed of ZIP Codes within the 

five metropolitan sites, with at least one unit at or below the local PHA payment standards (according to 

5-year American Community Survey [ACS] data). Available rental units were sampled to achieve target 

numbers of voucher acceptance tests assigned to ZIP Codes, so that the resulting distribution of tests 

matched that of voucher-affordable rental units separately across ZIP Codes in each site.

47 Special 

tabulations of the combined 5-year ACS (2008–12) provided the data for ZIP Code-based estimates of 

two- and three-bedroom units that were voucher affordable (that is, units whose rent fell below the 

payment standards identified by the appropriate PHA for each ZIP Code in our study sites). The ACS 

percentage distributions across ZIP Codes were used to generate target numbers of voucher acceptance 

tests for each ZIP Code by taking the product of the total number of voucher tests desired for that site and 

the proportion of the site’s voucher-affordable units within that ZIP Code from the ACS distribution. For 

instance, if a ZIP Code in Washington, D.C., contained 1 percent of all voucher-affordable units in that 

site, then that ZIP Code would be assigned a target equal to 1 percent of the voucher acceptance tests.

And as the overall target number of voucher acceptance tests increased, the targets for that ZIP Code 

were increased proportionately. This strategy allowed independent ad searches for each ZIP Code until 

sufficient eligible ads were generated to achieve the desired target number of voucher tests. The result is 

a proportionate stratified sample of voucher tests for each site.

Whereas the number of voucher acceptance tests is proportional to available housing at the ZIP 

Code level, this would not be the case for telephone and in-person tests. The reason is that not all 

voucher acceptance tests result in telephone tests and not all telephone tests result in in-person tests. 

There is a natural dropoff caused by voucher denial or the unit being rented or otherwise becoming 

unavailable (being rented or withheld to prevent disclosure) in the intervening time between the required 

sequencing of acceptance, phone, and in-person testing. To the extent that such dropoffs diminish the 

proportionate representation of the remaining phone and in-person tests, the ability to generalize the 

results could arguably come into question. On the other hand, voucher denial is a reality. The rentals that 

remain for telephone and in-person testing have undergone voucher acceptance testing, just as voucher 

 47 ZIP Codes in each site with a target of less than one assigned acceptance test were combined to create a ZIP 

Code cluster from which at least one acceptance test was expected.

Appendix A: Technical Appendix

48

48
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

82

1 1

holders experience when they inquire about voucher acceptance. Thus, units deemed “voucher available” 

could reasonably be seen representing the natural distribution of rentals available to voucher holders after 

they inquire about housing and discard the rejections they encounter. However, the one remaining, 

unavoidable potential source of sampling bias is the units that were withheld due to threats of tester 

disclosure.

Returning to the sampling of ads for acceptance testing, some ZIP Codes—mostly those with a small 

number of units at or below the local PHA payment standards—were found to have few or no eligible ads 

for testing. When this occurred, we conducted ad searchers for these ZIP Codes for 4 weeks, then 

suspended for several weeks, and then searched for an additional 4 weeks. At the end of this second 4-

week search period, if no eligible ads were identified for testing, the ZIP Code was retired from the 

sample and no further searching was conducted. The unmet voucher acceptance test targets for these 

ZIP Codes, although small, were not redistributed.

Considerable uncertainty was associated with conducting paired tests, because a voucher 

acceptance test in which the landlord accepted vouchers had to precede each paired test. If, as we later 

found to be the case, a high proportion of landlords did not accept vouchers, large numbers of ads would 

need to be screened and tested to produce a sufficient number of tests to permit analysis. In sites with 

low voucher acceptance rates, we tried to obtain a sufficient sample for analysis of the paired tests by 

increasing the number of voucher acceptance tests. However, it turned out to be quite expensive given 

the cost and time required per paired test. As a result, we lowered our goals for the number of paired 

tests in sites with low voucher acceptance rates to reflect this difficulty. The number of voucher

acceptance tests per site was kept at or above that originally planned.

Initial targets of tests appear in table A.3. A total of 2,550 voucher tests was targeted, with 425 per 

site allocated to Newark, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C., and 638 and 637 assigned to Fort Worth 

and Los Angeles, respectively. Telephone and in-person testing was to be conducted in Fort Worth, Los 

Angeles, and Newark. Soft targets of 300 in-person tests that assumed that roughly one-half of landlords 

would accept vouchers were assigned to Fort Worth and Los Angeles. In these sites, equal numbers of 

White, Black, and Hispanic paired tests were initially sought. For Newark, a soft target of 200 in-person 

tests was sought, equally allocated to Black and White testers. 

Table A.4 presents the revised test targets adopted after experience in the field identifying ads for 

testing and facing high denial rates. Voucher acceptance test targets for Fort Worth, Los Angeles, and 

Newark were almost doubled, from 638, 637, and 425 to 1,152, 1,110, and 815, respectively. The inperson testing soft target for Newark was increased by 85 percent, from 200 to 370. This increase was 

meant to generate additional in-person tests for the one site (Newark) that had a higher rate of voucher 

acceptance.

Appendix A: Technical Appendix
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

83

1 2 A PILOT STUDY OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER HOLDERS

TABLE A.3

Initial Hard and Soft Test Targets by Site and Test Type

Site

Hard	Target:	Voucher	

Tests

Soft	Target:	Telephone	

and	In-Person	Tests

In-Person	Tests	by	Race	of Tester	

Pair

Black White Hispanic

Fort	Worth,	TX 638 300 100 100 100

Los	Angeles,	CA 637 300 100 100 100

Newark,	NJ 425 200 100 100 N/A

Philadelphia,	PA 425 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Washington,	DC 425 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Total 2,550 800 300 300 200

Notes: A hard test target represented one that was realistically obtainable; a soft target might or might not be obtainable, depending 

on the incidence of voucher acceptance and available eligible rental units within a site. The soft targets assumed that approximately 

50 percent of landlords would accept vouchers. 

N/A = not applicable.

TABLE A.4

Revised Test Targets Based on Field Experience

Site

Hard	Target:	Voucher	

Tests

Soft	Target:	Telephone	

and	In-Person	Tests

In-Person	Tests	by	Race	of	Tester	

Pair

Black White Hispanic

Fort	Worth,	TX 1,152 300 100 100 100

Los	Angeles,	CA 1,110 300 100 100 100

Newark,	NJ 815 370 185 185 N/A

Philadelphia,	PA 425 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Washington,	DC 425 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Total 3,927 970 385 385 200

Notes: A hard test target represented one that was realistically obtainable; a soft target might or might not be obtainable, depending 

on the incidence of voucher acceptance and available eligible rental units within a site. 

N/A = not applicable.

The final number of tests completed by mode and site appears in table A.5. Table A.6 presents the 

initial and final voucher acceptance test targets by site, along with the actual completed acceptance tests 

and percentages of revised goals achieved. Overall, the study achieved 96 percent of the revised targets. 

Appendix A: Technical Appendix
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

84

1 3

TABLE A.5

Actual Completed Voucher Tests by Mode and Site

Site

Voucher	

Tests

Telephone	

Tests

In-Person	

Tests

In-Person	Tests	by	Race	of	Tester	

Pair

Black White Hispanic

Fort	Worth,	TX 1,146 142 73 18 23 32

Los	Angeles,	CA 998 126 62 25 25 12

Newark,	NJ 782 426 374 188 186 N/A

Philadelphia,	PA 422 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Washington,	DC 432 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Total 3,780 694 509 231 234 44

N/A = not applicable.

TABLE A.6

Initial and Final Voucher Acceptance Test Targets by Site

Site

Initial	Target	

Voucher	Tests

Final	Target	

Voucher	Tests

Voucher	Tests	

Conducted

Percent of	Final	

Target

Fort	Worth,	TX 638 1,152 1,146 99

Los	Angeles,	CA 637 1,110 998 90

Newark,	NJ 425 815 782 96

Philadelphia,	PA 425 425 422 99

Washington, DC 425 425 432 102

Total 2,550 3,927 3,780 96

Ad Sampling

Ads were sampled using a manual search process for each ZIP Code in the study, with the objective of 

attaining the assigned target of voucher tests. To accomplish this, each site had a list of ZIP Codes and 

an associated number of hard-target voucher acceptance tests. Daily, sampling staff were assigned ZIP 

Codes whose targets had not yet been met. Ads were sampled from available rental housing stock within 

each metropolitan area by using the following websites: craigslist.org,

49 apartments.com, move.com, 

trulia.com, and zillow.com. In Los Angeles, socialserve.com was also used. Forrent.com was also used in 

Washington, D.C., Fort Worth, and Philadelphia. Apartmentguide.com and rent.com were also used in 

Newark, Washington, D.C., Fort Worth, and Philadelphia. GoSection8.com, which explicitly includes ads 

 49 If craigslist.org was the randomly selected website, project staff initially searched for housing by ZIP Code. If no 

eligible advertisements were identified, project staff conducted a secondary “place name” search before 

continuing to the next randomly selected housing search website. Project staff used the neighborhood name 

overlay as well as the place name on Google Maps to identify and then search the place names associated with 

the target ZIP Code. For example, the place name “Olney” is associated with the Philadelphia ZIP Code 19120. If 

an eligible ad was found, the project staff would then verify that the address was located in the target ZIP Code.

Appendix A: Technical Appendix
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

85

1 4 A PILOT STUDY OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER HOLDERS

from landlords who accept vouchers, was excluded from the study. The site was excluded for two 

reasons: first, the research team was concerned the website might result in over-representing landlords 

and properties that accept Housing Choice Vouchers; and second, exploratory ad searches of ten zip 

codes using Section8.com suggested that the site was not an effective source for expanding our sample 

of ads in our testing sites.

To ensure the searches for advertisements were unbiased, project staff were provided randomized 

lists of housing search websites and randomized strings of numbers that determined the order they would 

check websites and screen advertisements. To determine the payment standard for a particular ZIP Code 

or neighborhood, project staff used a mapping tool developed during the design phase of the study to 

confirm the highest possible allowable rent (including exception-area rents for low-poverty areas). 

Ads were screened to ensure that the unit met the following conditions.

n Had two or three bedrooms.

n Was offered at or below voucher payment standard for the geographic area.

n Was located in the appropriate geographic area.

n Was still available for rent.

n Was not otherwise ineligible (for example, was not a sublet or housing for sale).

The sampling design also featured an adaptive component to ensure that enough voucher tests were 

generated in low-poverty areas of each site. The distribution of voucher tests was continuously monitored 

by neighborhood poverty status (that is, low poverty versus high poverty). As each ad was sampled, the 

location of housing was geocoded so that neighborhood poverty status could be recorded. If our

monitoring showed that the number of voucher tests in low-poverty areas was falling short of the 15- to 

25-percent expectation, low-poverty ZIP Codes could be oversampled to boost the number. 

Oversampling was not necessary to meet goals for voucher acceptance tests in low-poverty 

neighborhoods. Table A.7 shows the rental housing eligibility criteria.

Appendix A: Technical Appendix
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

86

1 5

TABLE A.7

Rental Housing Eligibility

Eligible Ineligible

n Most	furnished	and	

unfurnished	rental	housing	

offered	by	real	estate	agents,	

property	management	

companies,	and	other	rental	

housing	providers,	including	

brokers.

n Most	types	of	rental housing	

structures	(for	example,	

apartments,	flats,	townhouses,

condominiums,	mobile	homes,	

duplexes,	single-family	

homes).

n Automatic	reply	to	advance	e-mail	contact	explaining	recipient	is	away	and	not	

expected	to	return	in	a	reasonable	amount	of	time

n E-mail	address	was	invalid	(when	e-mail	address	is	the	only	contact	information	

listed)

n Exceeds	payment	standards	for	test	site

n Housing/condos	for	sale

n Housing	for	older	persons

n Landlord recently	tested	or	tested	by	all	available	testers

n Landlord could	not	be	reached	after	three	calls

n Landlord does	not	accept	vouchers

n Located	on	Indian	land	(for	example,	reservations,	rancherías)

n No	reply	to	e-mail	inquiry/electronic	contact	within	24	hours

n No	two- or	three-bedroom	units	available

n No	units	currently	available for	rent

n Other	reasons	as	determined	by	the	director	of	field	operations	(e.g.,	detection	

issues,	conflicts	with	enforcement	activities)

n Outside	target	area	for	metropolitan	statistical	area

n Outside	ZIP	Code	area	for	test	site n Public	housing	development

n Share	or	roommate	situation

n Single-room	occupancy	dwellings

n Sublet

n Telephone	number	was	incorrect	or	no	longer	in	service	(when	telephone	

number	is	the	only	contact	information	listed)

n Temporary	or	short-term	rental	lease

Appendix A: Technical Appendix
Appendix B: Estimates of Differential Treatment During Telephone Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angeles

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

87

APPENDIX B: Estimates of 

Differential Treatment During 

Telephone Tests for Fort Worth 

and Los Angeles
Appendix B: Estimates of Differential Treatment During Telephone Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angeles

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

88

1 7

TABLE B.1 

Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired Telephone Tests, Fort Worth, Texas

Measure Both Control Voucher

Net	

Difference

Std.	Error	

of	

Difference N

Testers able to obtain information about 

housing 69.0% 14.8% 7.7% 7.0% 3.7% 142 *

If testers obtained housing information

Testers told any units available 81.6% 7.1% 0.0% 7.1% 2.2% 98 ***

One tester told about more units 23.5% 11.2% 12.2% 6.2% 98 *

Average number of units told about 1.22 1.06 0.16 0.07 98 **

Testers able to get an appointment 92.5% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0% 1.8% 80

Requirements

Told an application must be completed 93.8% 0.0% 6.3% -6.3% 2.5% 80 **

Told a credit check must be completed 86.3% 3.8% 5.0% -1.3% 2.8% 80

Told a cosigner is required 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% -1.3% 1.2% 80

Told a background check must be done 40.0% 23.8% 20.0% 3.8% 7.4% 80

Told an eviction check must be done 12.5% 21.3% 26.3% -5.0% 7.2% 80

Offered a copy of application by landlord 0.0% 3.8% 2.5% 1.3% 2.9% 80

Told to apply online or given website 

address for application 1.3% 5.0% 2.5% 2.5% 2.6% 80

Qualifications

Landlord requested marital status 0.0% 7.5% 2.5% 5.0% 2.9% 80 *

Landlord requested household 

size/composition 12.5% 20.0% 15.0% 5.0% 5.1% 80

Landlord requested income 2.5% 8.8% 5.0% 3.8% 4.3% 80

Landlord requested source of income 0.0% 2.5% 5.0% -2.5% 3.1% 80

Landlord requested occupation 0.0% 1.3% 2.5% -1.3% 2.2% 80

Landlord requested employer 0.0% 1.3% 2.5% -1.3% 2.2% 80

Landlord requested length of employment 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 80

Landlord requested credit standing 0.0% 6.3% 11.3% -5.0% 4.2% 80

Landlord requested rent history, including 

evictions 2.5% 8.8% 8.8% 0.0% 4.4% 80

Landlord requested contact information 23.8% 15.0% 7.5% 7.5% 4.3% 80 *

Landlord requested other information 0.0% 6.3% 0.0% 6.3% 2.6% 80 **

Comments

Told minimum or maximum income 

requirements 5.0% 17.5% 8.8% 8.8% 5.2% 80

Told whether qualified to rent the unit 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0% 1.8% 80

Told comment on fair housing 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 80

Told remarks about race/ethnicity 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 80

Asked how security deposit will be paid 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% -3.8% 2.3% 80

Told renter’s insurance is mandatory 1.3% 7.5% 2.5% 5.0% 3.9% 80

Rent and lease

Average rent for any unit $904 $942 -$38 $13 78

Fees, incentives, and move-in costs

Told fees that would go toward 

deposit/rent 93.6% 0.0% 2.6% -2.6% 1.8% 78

One tester told higher fees toward 

deposit/rent 11.5% 9.0% 2.6% 4.9% 78

Average fees that would go toward 

deposit/rent $39 $40 -$1 $3 78

Told fees required for any unit 32.1% 3.8% 7.7% -3.8% 3.7% 78

One tester told higher fees 12.8% 12.8% 0.0% 4.1% 78

Average fees for any unit $60 $62 -$2 $8 78

Told about incentives 7.7% 12.8% 9.0% 3.8% 4.0% 78

One tester told higher incentives 14.1% 11.5% 2.6% 5.0% 78

Average incentives $117 $90 $27 $37 78
Appendix B: Estimates of Differential Treatment During Telephone Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angeles

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

89

1 8 A PILOT STUDY OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER HOLDERS

Measure Both Control Voucher

Net	

Difference

Std.	Error	

of	

Difference N

Told security deposit required 84.6% 3.8% 1.3% 2.6% 1.9% 78

Average security deposit for any unit $503 $548 -$44 $38 62

One tester told higher yearly net cost 26.9% 35.9% -9.0% 8.5% 78

Average yearly net cost $11,235 $11,716 -$482 $164 78

*p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01

Note: For the values presented as percentages: values in the “Control” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the control 

tester experienced the measure but the voucher tester did not; values in the “Voucher” column indicate the percentage of cases in 

which the voucher tester experienced the measure but the control tester did not; and the values in the “Both” column indicate the 

percentage of cases in which both testers experienced the treatment. 
Appendix B: Estimates of Differential Treatment During Telephone Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angeles

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

90

1 9

TABLE B.2 

Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired Telephone Tests in Los Angeles, California

Measure Both Control Voucher

Net	

Difference

Std.	Error	

of	

Difference N

Testers able to obtain information about 

housing 79.4% 7.1% 6.3% 0.8% 2.4% 126

If testers obtained housing information

Testers told any units available 75.0% 7.0% 2.0% 5.0% 3.3% 100

One tester told about more units 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 4.5% 100

Average number of units told about 0.88 0.80 0.08 0.05 100

Testers able to get an appointment 85.3% 5.3% 5.3% 0.0% 3.8% 75

Requirements

Told an application must be completed 92.0% 2.7% 4.0% -1.3% 2.4% 75

Told a credit check must be completed 93.3% 2.7% 1.3% 1.3% 2.4% 75

Told a cosigner is required 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 75

Told a background check must be done 5.3% 9.3% 10.7% -1.3% 4.5% 75

Told an eviction check must be done 4.0% 8.0% 5.3% 2.7% 3.8% 75

Offered a copy of application by landlord 0.0% 4.0% 1.3% 2.7% 2.6% 75

Told to apply online or given website 

address for application 0.0% 8.0% 6.7% 1.3% 5.6% 75

Qualifications

Landlord requested marital status 1.3% 5.3% 0.0% 5.3% 2.6% 75 **

Landlord requested household 

size/composition 24.0% 16.0% 5.3% 10.7% 5.3% 75 *

Landlord requested income 0.0% 10.7% 1.3% 9.3% 4.6% 75 *

Landlord requested source of income 2.7% 4.0% 2.7% 1.3% 3.5% 75

Landlord requested occupation 0.0% 2.7% 1.3% 1.3% 2.3% 75

Landlord requested employer 1.3% 5.3% 0.0% 5.3% 2.1% 75 **

Landlord requested length of employment 0.0% 4.0% 2.7% 1.3% 3.5% 75

Landlord requested credit standing 2.7% 6.7% 2.7% 4.0% 3.6% 75

Landlord requested rent history, including 

evictions 0.0% 4.0% 1.3% 2.7% 2.4% 75

Landlord requested contact information 18.7% 16.0% 10.7% 5.3% 6.9% 75

Landlord requested other information 4.0% 12.0% 5.3% 6.7% 3.3% 75 **

Comments

Told minimum or maximum income 

requirements 1.3% 8.0% 4.0% 4.0% 3.0% 75 **

Told whether qualified to rent the unit 1.3% 4.0% 4.0% 0.0% 3.3% 75 *

Told comment on fair housing 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 2.7% 1.8% 75

Told remarks about race/ethnicity 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 1.3% 1.1% 75

Asked how security deposit will be paid 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0% 1.9% 75 **

Told renter’s insurance is mandatory 1.3% 0.0% 1.3% -1.3% 1.3% 75

Rent and lease

Average rent for any unit $1,736 $1,737 -$1 $3 75

Fees, incentives, and move-in costs

Told fees that would go toward 

deposit/rent 58.7% 8.0% 8.0% 0.0% 4.7% 75

One tester told higher fees toward 

deposit/rent 13.3% 10.7% 2.7% 5.3% 75

Average fees that would go toward 

deposit/rent $19 $39 -$19 $17 75

Told fees required for any unit 13.3% 12.0% 8.0% 4.0% 5.5% 75

One tester told higher fees 13.3% 8.0% 5.3% 5.6% 75

Average fees for any unit $50 $15 $36 $21 75

Told about incentives 1.3% 4.0% 1.3% 2.7% 2.5% 75

One tester told higher incentives 4.0% 2.7% 1.3% 2.4% 75

Average incentives $80 $78 $3 $31 75
Appendix B: Estimates of Differential Treatment During Telephone Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angeles

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

91

2 0 A PILOT STUDY OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER HOLDERS

Measure Both Control Voucher

Net	

Difference

Std.	Error	

of	

Difference N

Told security deposit required 92.0% 6.7% 1.3% 5.3% 3.6% 75

Average security deposit for any unit $1,895 $1,865 $30 $63 67

One tester told higher yearly net cost 33.3% 13.3% 20.0% 6.8% 75 ***

Average yearly net cost $22,647 $22,538 $109 $92 75

*p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01

Note: For the values presented as percentages: values in the “Control” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the control 

tester experienced the measure but the voucher tester did not; values in the “Voucher” column indicate the percentage of cases in 

which the voucher tester experienced the measure but the control tester did not; and the values in the “Both” column indicate the 

percentage of cases in which both testers experienced the treatment. 
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

92
Appendix C: Estimates of Differential Treatment During In-Person Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angeles

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

93

APPENDIX C: Estimates of Differential 

Treatment During In-Person Tests for 

Fort Worth and Los Angeles
Appendix C: Estimates of Differential Treatment During In-Person Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angeles

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

94

2 2 A PILOT STUDY OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER HOLDERS

TABLE C.1 

Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired In-Person Tests in Fort Worth, Texas

Measure Both Control	 Voucher

Net	

Difference

Std.	Error	

of	

Difference N

Testers able to meet with landlord 97.3% 2.7% 0.0% 2.7% 1.9% 73

If testers able to meet with landlord

Told any units available 98.6% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4% 1.5% 71

One tester told about more units 28.2% 16.9% 11.3% 7.9% 71

Average number of units told about 1.73 1.54 0.20 0.14 71

If available units recommended

Inspected units 61.4% 4.3% 7.1% -2.9% 3.5% 70

One tester inspected more units 7.1% 11.4% -4.3% 5.6% 70

Average number of units inspected 0.71 0.77 -0.06 0.06 70

Requirements

Told an application must be completed 98.6% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4% 1.4% 70

Told a credit check must be completed 88.6% 5.7% 0.0% 5.7% 2.5% 70 **

Told a cosigner is required 0.0% 2.9% 1.4% 1.4% 2.5% 70

Told a background check must be done 50.0% 24.3% 17.1% 7.1% 5.4% 70

Told an eviction check must be done 21.4% 22.9% 24.3% -1.4% 7.0% 70

Offered a copy of application by landlord 5.7% 10.0% 15.7% -5.7% 4.0% 70

Told to apply online or given website 

address for application 30.0% 17.1% 20.0% -2.9% 6.7% 70

Qualifications

Landlord requested marital status 1.4% 14.3% 8.6% 5.7% 4.7% 70

Landlord requested household 

size/composition 50.0% 11.4% 14.3% -2.9% 5.6% 70

Landlord requested income 1.4% 5.7% 11.4% -5.7% 5.6% 70

Landlord requested source of income 1.4% 7.1% 15.7% -8.6% 7.0% 70

Landlord requested occupation 2.9% 5.7% 10.0% -4.3% 4.3% 70

Landlord requested employer 5.7% 8.6% 11.4% -2.9% 5.5% 70

Landlord requested length of employment 0.0% 1.4% 4.3% -2.9% 3.0% 70

Landlord requested credit standing 5.7% 4.3% 15.7% -11.4% 5.2% 70 **

Landlord requested rent history, including 

evictions 8.6% 10.0% 11.4% -1.4% 4.4% 70

Landlord requested contact information 31.4% 11.4% 20.0% -8.6% 8.4% 70

Landlord requested other information 0.0% 10.0% 1.4% 8.6% 3.6% 70 **

Comments

Told minimum or maximum income 

requirements 10.0% 18.6% 11.4% 7.1% 5.9% 70

Told whether qualified to rent the unit 2.9% 0.0% 4.3% -4.3% 2.4% 70 *

Told comment on fair housing 0.0% 4.3% 0.0% 4.3% 2.2% 70 *

Told remarks about race/ethnicity 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4% 1.4% 70

Asked how security deposit will be paid 0.0% 0.0% 2.9% -2.9% 1.9% 70

Told renter’s insurance is mandatory 4.3% 8.6% 5.7% 2.9% 4.4% 70

Rent and lease

Average rent for any unit $889 $899 -$10 $9 70

Fees, incentives, and move-in costs

Told fees that would go toward 

deposit/rent 2.9% 4.3% 2.9% 1.4% 3.3% 69

One tester told higher fees toward 

deposit/rent 4.3% 2.9% 1.4% 3.3% 69

Average fees that would go toward 

deposit/rent $9 $8 $1 $7 70

Told fees required for any unit 97.1% 0.0% 1.4% -1.4% 1.5% 69

One tester told higher fees 18.8% 15.9% 2.9% 5.9% 69

Average fees for any unit $141 $133 $8 $28 70
Appendix C: Estimates of Differential Treatment During In-Person Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angeles

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

95

2 3

Measure Both Control	 Voucher

Net	

Difference

Std.	Error	

of	

Difference N

Told about incentives 13.0% 20.3% 8.7% 11.6% 5.7% 69 *

One tester told higher incentives 24.6% 14.5% 10.1% 6.8% 69

Average incentives $189 $142 $47 $43 70

Told security deposit required 79.7% 10.1% 1.4% 8.7% 3.7% 69 **

Average security deposit for any unit $446 $506 -$59 $36 55

One tester told higher yearly net cost 29.0% 42.0% -13.0% 11.8% 69

Average yearly net cost $11,011 $11,189 -$178 $128 70

*p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01

Note: For the values presented as percentages: values in the “Control” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the control 

tester experienced the measure but the voucher tester did not; values in the “Voucher” column indicate the percentage of cases in 

which the voucher tester experienced the measure but the control tester did not; and the values in the “Both” column indicate the 

percentage of cases in which both testers experienced the treatment. 
Appendix C: Estimates of Differential Treatment During In-Person Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angeles

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

96

2 4 A PILOT STUDY OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER HOLDERS

TABLE C.2 

Measures of Differential Treatment in Paired In-Person Tests in Los Angeles, California

Measure Both Control	 Voucher

Net	

Difference

Std.	Error	

of	

Difference N

Testers able to meet with landlord 71.0% 14.5% 9.7% 4.8% 6.7% 62

If testers able to meet with landlord

Told any units available 90.9% 4.5% 0.0% 4.5% 3.5% 44

One tester told about more units 4.5% 2.3% 2.3% 4.4% 44

Average number of units told about 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.06 44

If available units recommended

Inspected units 97.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40

One tester inspected more units 2.5% 0.0% 2.5% 1.8% 40

Average number of units inspected 1.03 1.00 0.03 0.02 40

Requirements

Told an application must be completed 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40

Told a credit check must be completed 95.0% 0.0% 5.0% -5.0% 3.6% 40

Told a cosigner is required 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40

Told a background check must be done 2.5% 12.5% 12.5% 0.0% 7.3% 40

Told an eviction check must be done 5.0% 10.0% 2.5% 7.5% 5.2% 40

Offered a copy of application by landlord 7.5% 7.5% 15.0% -7.5% 7.4% 40

Told to apply online or given website 

address for application 32.5% 10.0% 20.0% -10.0% 8.2% 40

Qualifications

Landlord requested marital status 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 2.8% 40 *

Landlord requested household 

size/composition 45.0% 12.5% 12.5% 0.0% 7.3% 40

Landlord requested income 5.0% 2.5% 0.0% 2.5% 2.7% 40

Landlord requested source of income 5.0% 5.0% 7.5% -2.5% 4.0% 40

Landlord requested occupation 0.0% 7.5% 7.5% 0.0% 3.6% 40

Landlord requested employer 10.0% 7.5% 7.5% 0.0% 5.1% 40

Landlord requested length of employment 2.5% 7.5% 10.0% -2.5% 6.0% 40

Landlord requested credit standing 0.0% 12.5% 12.5% 0.0% 6.3% 40

Landlord requested rent history, including 

evictions 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% -2.5% 2.7% 40

Landlord requested contact information 22.5% 12.5% 10.0% 2.5% 10.1% 40

Landlord requested other information 5.0% 10.0% 12.5% -2.5% 6.7% 40

Comments

Told minimum or maximum income 

requirements 0.0% 7.5% 5.0% 2.5% 4.3% 40

Told whether qualified to rent the unit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40

Told comment on fair housing 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40

Told remarks about race/ethnicity 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% 2.5% 2.6% 40

Asked how security deposit will be paid 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% -2.5% 2.7% 40

Told renter’s insurance is mandatory 0.0% 2.5% 5.0% -2.5% 2.7% 40

Rent and lease

Average rent for any unit $1,785 $1,783 $2 $1 40

Fees, incentives, and move-in costs

Told fees that would go toward 

deposit/rent 0.0% 2.5% 2.5% 0.0% 3.6% 40

One tester told higher fees toward 

deposit/rent 2.5% 2.5% 0.0% 3.6% 40

Average fees that would go toward 

deposit/rent $9 $1 $8 $9 40

Told fees required for any unit 80.0% 5.0% 2.5% 2.5% 4.4% 40

One tester told higher fees 20.0% 15.0% 5.0% 8.7% 40

Average fees for any unit $73 $39 $34 $33 40

Told about incentives 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% -5.0% 2.4% 40 *
Appendix C: Estimates of Differential Treatment During In-Person Tests for Fort Worth and Los Angeles

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

97

2 5

Measure Both Control	 Voucher

Net	

Difference

Std.	Error	

of	

Difference N

One tester told higher incentives 0.0% 5.0% -5.0% 2.4% 40 *

Average incentives $0 $117 -$117 $84 40

Told security deposit required 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40

Average security deposit for any unit $1,942 $2,071 -$129 $114 40

One tester told higher yearly net cost 27.5% 22.5% 5.0% 13.7% 40

Average yearly net cost $23,433 $23,388 $46 $76 40

*p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01

Note: For the values presented as percentages: values in the “Control” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the control 

tester experienced the measure but the voucher tester did not; values in the “Voucher” column indicate the percentage of cases in 

which the voucher tester experienced the measure but the control tester did not; and the values in the “Both” column indicate the 

percentage of cases in which both testers experienced the treatment. 
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

98
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

99

Appendix D: Analyses of Differential Treatment by Tester Pair Race and by Neighborhood Poverty Rate for Newark

APPENDIX D: Analyses of Differential 

Treatment by Tester Pair Race and 

by Neighborhood Poverty Rate for 

Newark
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

100

Appendix D: Analyses of Differential Treatment by Tester Pair Race and by Neighborhood Poverty Rate 

2 7

TABLE D.1Regression on Differences in Summary Measures of Differential Treatment: Newark, In-Person White Pairs versus 

White Black

Control Voucher 

Net 

Difference Control Voucher 

Net 

Difference

Differen

Differe

Black 

White 

P

Testers able to meet with landlord 19.9% 10.2% 9.7% 18.6% 12.2% 6.4% -3.3If testers able to meet with landlordTold any units available 1.9% 0.0% 1.9% 4.5% 0.9% 3.6% 1.7% One tester told about more units 20.8% 5.7% 15.1% 23.4% 6.3% 17.1% 2.0% Average number of units told about 1.39 1.17 0.22 1.39 1.22 0.17 -0.0If available units recommendedInspected units 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 5.8% 6.7% -1.0% -1.9One tester inspected more units 7.8% 3.9% 3.9% 14.4% 8.7% 5.8% 1.9% Average number of units inspected 1.12 1.06 0.06 0.99 0.94 -0.0RequirementsTold an application must be completed 6.8% 5.8% 1.0% 6.7% 12.5% -5.8% -6.7Told a credit check must be completed 9.7% 7.8% 1.9% 7.7% 10.6% -2.9% -4.8Told a cosigner is required 5.8% 1.9% 3.9% 1.9% 1.9% 0.0% -3.9Told a background check must be done 18.4% 14.6% 3.9% 26.9% 19.2% 7.7% 3.8% Told an eviction check must be done 12.6% 18.4% -5.8% 19.2% 15.4% 3.8% 9.7% Offered a copy of application by landlord 9.7% 10.7% -1.0% 8.7% 20.2% -11.5% -10.6Told to apply online or given website address for application 15.5% 15.5% 0.0% 14.4% 21.2% -6.7% -6.7QualificationsLandlord requested marital status 1.0% 1.9% -1.0% 3.8% 2.9% 1.0% 1.9% Landlord requested household size/composition 13.6% 21.4% -7.8% 18.3% 19.2% -1.0% 6.8% Landlord requested income 11.7% 9.7% 1.9% 15.4% 8.7% 6.7% 4.8% Landlord requested source of income 15.5% 13.6% 1.9% 16.3% 13.5% 2.9% 0.9% Landlord requested occupation 11.7% 3.9% 7.8% 8.7% 10.6% -1.9% -9.7Landlord requested employer 12.6% 6.8% 5.8% 17.3% 10.6% 6.7% 0.9% Landlord requested length of employment 3.9% 3.9% 0.0% 5.8% 0.0% 5.8% 5.8% Landlord requested credit standing 15.5% 12.6% 2.9% 17.3% 12.5% 4.8% 1.9% Landlord requested rent history, including evictions 5.8% 9.7% -3.9% 5.8% 3.8% 1.9% 5.8% Landlord requested contact information 15.5% 19.4% -3.9% 15.4% 23.1% -7.7% -3.8Landlord requested other information 7.8% 1.0% 6.8% 6.7% 1.0% 5.8% -1.0CommentsTold minimum or maximum income requirements 8.7% 4.9% 3.9% 11.5% 5.8% 5.8% 1.9% 
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

101

Appendix D: Analyses of Differential Treatment by Tester Pair Race and by Neighborhood Poverty Rate 

2 8 A PILOT STUDY OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER HOLDERS

White Black

Control Voucher 

Net 

Difference Control Voucher 

Net 

Difference

Differen

Differe

Black 

White 

P

Told whether qualified to rent the unit 1.0% 4.9% -3.9% 7.7% 8.7% -1.0% 2.9% Told comment on fair housing 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 1.9% -1.0% -1.0Told remarks about race/ethnicity 1.9% 2.9% -1.0% 0.0% 1.9% -1.9% -1.0Asked how security deposit will be paid 1.0% 3.9% -2.9% 3.8% 4.8% -1.0% 2.0% Told renter’s insurance is mandatory 1.0% 1.9% -1.0% 1.0% 1.9% -1.0% 0.0% Rent and leaseAverage rent for any unit $1,486 $1,490 -$4 $1,529 $1,526 $3 $8 Fees, incentives, and move-in costsTold fees that would go toward deposit/rent 5.8% 2.9% 2.9% 9.6% 6.7% 2.9% 0.0% One tester told higher fees toward deposit/rent 5.8% 3.9% 1.9% 10.6% 6.7% 3.8% 1.9% Average fees that would go toward deposit/rent $41 $46 -$6 $127 $93 $34 $39 Told fees required for any unit 3.9% 8.7% -4.9% 5.8% 6.7% -1.0% 3.9% One tester told higher fees 22.3% 20.4% 1.9% 16.3% 25.0% -8.7% -10.6Average fees for any unit $500 $526 -$26 $573 $632 -$59 -$3Told about incentives 2.9% 2.9% 0.0% 2.9% 3.8% -1.0% -1.0One tester told higher incentives 3.9% 3.9% 0.0% 2.9% 4.8% -1.9% -1.9Average incentives $61 $75 -$14 $47 $56 -$9 $5 Told security deposit required 2.9% 4.9% -1.9% 1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.9% Average security deposit for any unit $2,061 $2,066 -$5 $2,178 $2,223 -$45 -$3One tester told higher yearly net cost 36.9% 32.0% 4.9% 23.1% 34.6% -11.5% -16.4Average yearly net cost $20,227 $20,360 -$134 $20,996 $21,085 -$89 $44 

*p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01Note: For the values presented as percentages: values in the “Control” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the control tester experienced tester did not; values in the “Voucher” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the voucher tester experienced the measure but the control test
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

102

Appendix D: Analyses of Differential Treatment by Tester Pair Race and by Neighborhood Poverty Rate 

29

TABLE D.2 Regression on Differences in Summary Measures of Differential Treatment: Newark, In-Person Low- versus High-Pove

Low Poverty High Poverty

Control Voucher 

Net 

Difference Control Voucher 

Net 

Difference

Difference i

Difference Lo

and High-Pove

Pairs

Testers able to meet with landlord 24.0% 3.1% 20.8% 17.5% 12.5% 5.0% -15.8% If testers able to meet with landlordTold any units available 3.4% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -3.4% One tester told about more units 16.9% 3.4% 13.6% 38.1% 2.4% 35.7% 22.2% Average number of units told about 1.19 1.08 0.10 1.74 1.19 0.55 0.45 If available units recommendedInspected units 3.5% 3.5% 0.0% 2.4% 4.8% -2.4% -2.4% One tester inspected more units 7.0% 5.3% 1.8% 19.0% 7.1% 11.9% 10.2% Average number of units inspected 1.00 1.02 -0.02 1.21 1.00 0.21 0.23 RequirementsTold an application must be completed 8.8% 12.3% -3.5% 11.9% 9.5% 2.4% 5.9% Told a credit check must be completed 7.0% 7.0% 0.0% 16.7% 7.1% 9.5% 9.5% Told a cosigner is required 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 4.8% 2.4% 2.4% 0.6% Told a background check must be done 21.1% 12.3% 8.8% 19.0% 21.4% -2.4% -11.2% Told an eviction check must be done 19.3% 17.5% 1.8% 16.7% 16.7% 0.0% -1.8% Offered a copy of application by landlord 8.8% 19.3% -10.5% 7.1% 9.5% -2.4% 8.1% Told to apply online or given website address for application 15.8% 14.0% 1.8% 11.9% 23.8% -11.9% -13.7% QualificationsLandlord requested marital status 0.0% 3.5% -3.5% 2.4% 0.0% 2.4% 5.9% Landlord requested household size/composition 8.8% 15.8% -7.0% 21.4% 28.6% -7.1% -0.1% Landlord requested income 3.5% 12.3% -8.8% 16.7% 9.5% 7.1% 15.9% Landlord requested source of income 7.0% 19.3% -12.3% 14.3% 9.5% 4.8% 17.0% Landlord requested occupation 3.5% 10.5% -7.0% 9.5% 4.8% 4.8% 11.8% Landlord requested employer 5.3% 8.8% -3.5% 14.3% 9.5% 4.8% 8.3% Landlord requested length of employment 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% Landlord requested credit standing 12.3% 17.5% -5.3% 16.7% 16.7% 0.0% 5.3% Landlord requested rent history, including evictions 1.8% 1.8% 0.0% 7.1% 7.1% 0.0% 0.0% Landlord requested contact information 14.0% 24.6% -10.5% 14.3% 11.9% 2.4% 12.9% Landlord requested other information 5.3% 0.0% 5.3% 11.9% 2.4% 9.5% 4.3% CommentsTold minimum or maximum income requirements 7.0% 5.3% 1.8% 14.3% 4.8% 9.5% 7.8% 
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

103

30 A PILOT STUDY OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER HOLDERS

Low Poverty High Poverty

Control Voucher 

Net 

Difference Control Voucher 

Net 

Difference

Differenc

Difference 

and High-P

Pairs

Told whether qualified to rent the unit 3.5% 7.0% -3.5% 7.1% 9.5% -2.4% 1.1% Told comment on fair housing 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% Told remarks about race/ethnicity 0.0% 1.8% -1.8% 0.0% 7.1% -7.1% -5.4% Asked how security deposit will be paid 1.8% 1.8% 0.0% 2.4% 11.9% -9.5% -9.5% Told renter’s insurance is mandatory 0.0% 3.5% -3.5% 0.0% 2.4% -2.4% 1.1% Rent and leaseAverage rent for any unit $1,680 $1,680 $1 $1,350 $1,363 -$14 -$14 Fees, incentives, and move-in costsTold fees that would go toward deposit/rent 10.5% 8.8% 1.8% 7.1% 2.4% 4.8% 3.0% One tester told higher fees toward deposit/rent 12.3% 8.8% 3.5% 7.1% 2.4% 4.8% 1.3% Average fees that would go toward deposit/rent $171 $133 $37 $7 $32 -$25 -$62 Told fees required for any unit 5.3% 7.0% -1.8% 9.5% 14.3% -4.8% -3.0% One tester told higher fees 21.1% 22.8% -1.8% 16.7% 19.0% -2.4% -0.6% Average fees for any unit $748 $850 -$102 $205 $166 $39 $142 Told about incentives 0.0% 3.5% -3.5% 0.0% 2.4% -2.4% 1.1% One tester told higher incentives 1.8% 3.5% -1.8% 0.0% 2.4% -2.4% -0.6% Average incentives $35 $43 -$9 $40 $53 -$13 -$4 Told security deposit required 0.0% 8.8% -8.8% 4.8% 0.0% 4.8% 13.5% Average security deposit for any unit $2,310 $2,397 -$87 $1,887 $1,903 -$16 $71 One tester told higher yearly net cost 22.8% 36.8% -14.0% 33.3% 31.0% 2.4% 16.4% Average yearly net cost $22,958 $23,379 -$421 $18,240 $18,285 -$46 $376 

*p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01Note: For the values presented as percentages: values in the “Control” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the control tester experienced the tester did not; values in the “Voucher” column indicate the percentage of cases in which the voucher tester experienced the measure but the control tester 

Appendix D: Analyses of Differential Treatment by Tester Pair Race and by Neighborhood Poverty Rate 
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

104
Appendix E: Identifiability Analysis

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

105

APPENDIX E: Identifiability Analysis

3 1

Appendix E: Identifiability Analysis

To assess tester racial and ethnic identifiability, which we defined as the likelihood that a landlord would 

accurately perceive a tester’s race or ethnicity to be the same as their assigned race or ethnicity for 

paired testing, we used the method developed for a housing discrimination study in 2012, which we have

also used on subsequent studies.

First, local testing organizations recorded testers reading a short prepared script and, for testers 

conducting in-person testing, took photographs. Test coordinators sent the audio recordings, 

photographs, and names of all participating testers to the study team. This approach captured the 

information available to landlords to identify testers’ race or ethnicity during telephone and in-person 

interactions.

Study team members who did not know the testers then assessed racial and ethnicity identifiability by 

completing one of two questionnaires. For the first questionnaire, they read the names of testers who 

conducted remote tests, listened to each tester’s audio recording (that is, the information available to an 

agent over the telephone), and recorded what they perceived the tester’s race or ethnicity to be. For the 

second questionnaire, the reviewers viewed photographs and names and listened to audio recordings of 

testers who conducted in-person tests (that is, the information available to an agent during an in-person 

meeting). Three independent coders assessed each tester’s name, voice, and photo. We used these data 

to determine whether results varied when we excluded tests with testers whose race or ethnicity was not 

readily identifiable. Table E.1 shows the results of the identifiability analysis. More than 97 percent of all 

photographed testers and 78 percent of all voice-recorded testers were perceived as their assigned race

or ethnicity by at least two of three reviewers.

For the voucher discrimination study, as in other housing discrimination studies, the study team 

conducted the identifiability analyses for paired telephone and in-person testers after data collection was 

concluded. However, for prospective voucher acceptance testers, the racial or ethnic identifiability 

analysis was completed at the outset to confirm they would be perceived as non-Hispanic White females. 

Testing organizations should consider the extent to which testers who are racially or ethnically identifiable 

over the telephone or in person may be important for a particular testing project. Depending on the type of 

testing to be conducted, fair housing practitioners could determine whether to conduct identifiability 

analyses at the outset of a project and use the findings to decide which testers to hire.
Appendix E: Identifiability Analysis

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

106

3 2 A PILOT STUDY OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER HOLDERS

TABLE E.1 

Number of Respondents Who Accurately Identified Testers’ Race/Ethnicity

Photo Voice

Respondents n % n %

One 2 2.0 14 13.9

Two or more 98 97.0 79 78.2

Zero 1 1.0 8 7.9

Note: N = 101 testers.
Appendix F: Qualitative Codebook

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

107

APPENDIX F: Qualitative Codebook

3 3

Appendix F: Qualitative Codebook

TABLE F.1

Codebook for Qualitative Analysis 

Theme Subtheme

Stigma attached to 

voucher holders

Landlord says negative things/expresses concern with number of people in the home

Landlord says negative things/expresses concern with who would be staying in the home

Landlord says negative things/expresses concern about voucher holders

Landlord assumes voucher holder does not have a job

Landlord says negative things/expresses concern about receiving payment (rent or fees)

Landlord says negative things/expresses concern about property damage

Landlord says negative things/expresses concern about Section 8 in general

PHA management 

or program 

requirements

Landlord says negative things/expresses concern about the PHA

Landlord says will accept vouchers from specific PHAs/asks which PHA voucher is from

Landlord says negative things/expresses concern about requirements of the program (e.g.,

inspections, approval process, waiting times)

Landlord sets screening requirements

Landlord sets timing requirements around move-in approval process 

requirements/inspection requirements

Landlord sets occupancy requirements

Landlord asks about number of people/who would be moving in

Voucher holder must apply/register before viewing the unit

Voucher holder cannot meet with a person

Landlord sets 

income 

requirements

Landlord sets work/income/job requirements (including paystub requests)

Landlord asks about voucher holder’s job

Landlord sets credit score/application requirements/fee

Landlord sets deposit requirements (includes asks if you could pay)

Landlord references vouchers as a part of income/verifiable income

Landlord sets rent 

requirements

Landlord says rent depends on voucher amount

Landlord says rent is above voucher amount (includes landlord not taking voucher for 

certain size because of the payment standard for that size, incorrectly assuming rent is 

above voucher amount)

Landlords asks for additional payment

Landlords asks how much the voucher covers/sets requirements about coverage

Landlords asks how many bedrooms the voucher is for

Landlord sets bedroom requirement
Appendix F: Qualitative Codebook

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

108

3 4 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

Theme Subtheme

Landlord 

acceptance/denial 

details

Landlord acknowledges that he/she is required to take vouchers

Landlord excited about vouchers/interested in voucher holders

Landlord does not know if they accept and/or are uninformed about the voucher program

Landlord specifically references Section 8/Section 8 needs to be referenced

Landlord says that they do not have the certifications

Landlord says that they have hit their threshold on vouchers and are no longer accepting 

them

Landlord used to accept vouchers and no longer does

Landlord sets general desirability of applicant/application approval/must be like other 

applicants

Landlord says property accepts vouchers but management/agent doesn’t work with 

vouchers

Voucher holder must meet with agent/apply before being told about voucher policy

Landlord checking what he/she is legally obligated to do/not unless legally obligated

Landlord behavior 

patterns

Landlord stated that they would call back and didn’t

Landlord hung up/abruptly ended the call

Landlord expressed regret over voucher policy/lack of housing

Landlord suggests alternative housing (or search method) that would accept vouchers

Landlord comments on neighborhood/told to drive by house

Landlord addresses the voucher before the tester directly asks about voucher

Asks to talk to caseworker/tells voucher holder to talk to caseworker

Asks about evictions/felonies

Asks how long the voucher holder has had her voucher

Physical condition 

of housing No subthemes

No themes present, 

no additional 

comments

No subthemes

Landlord mentions 

tight housing 

market

There is a waitlist for all units
Appendix G: Testing Protocols

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

109

APPENDIX G: Testing Protocols

3 5

Appendix G: Testing Protocols

TABLE G.1

Testing Protocols

Issue Testing protocol

Types of paired test teams All paired test teams will consist of two individuals (one tester with a voucher and one 

control tester without a voucher) who are paired on personal, financial, and household 

characteristics so that the primary difference between their households is their sources

of income. Testers within pairs will be the same race/ethnicity, sex, and relative age. 

Tests will be distributed among Black, White, and Hispanic test teams. All test teams 

will be female-headed single-parent families.

Sampling of rental 

advertisements

The Urban Institute (Urban) will employ an advertisement sampling team to identify 

eligible two- and three-bedroom units by using housing search websites (e.g., 

craigslist.org, rent.com, apartments.com). The sampling team will use screening criteria 

specified by local public housing authority (PHA) guidelines to focus their search and 

determine advertisement eligibility. Details from eligible advertisements will be used to 

create a test authorization form (TAF), which includes details about the landlord to be 

contacted. 

Voucher acceptance tests Urban testers perceived as being non-Hispanic White (in name and voice) will contact 

landlords to verify the availability and eligibility of sampled rental housing. The testers 

will portray a single female voucher holder with children, the number of which will 

depend on the housing’s number of bedrooms. Testers will ask the landlords if they 

accept vouchers after verifying unit availability and eligibility.

Contact will ALWAYS be made in response to advertisements via telephone if possible, 

by e-mail (if no telephone number is listed), or by electronic contact form (if no 

telephone number or e-mail address is listed).

The tester will confirm

n the	exact	date	that	the	advertised	housing	is	available	(and,	if	the	advertised	housing	is	no	

longer	available,	what	housing	is	available	and	when);

n the	price	of	the	available	rental	housing; n the	size	(number of	bedrooms)	of	each	available	rental	unit,	focusing	exclusively	on	twoand	three-bedroom	units	(if	none	are	available,	the	ad	is	ineligible);

n the	exact	address	of	each	available	rental	unit;

n office	hours	(or,	if	there	are	no	office	hours,	whether	an	appointment is	required);	and

n housing	provider	comments	about	the	PHA/voucher	program/voucher	holders.

The testers can make up to three telephone calls (without leaving a message) or send 

one e-mail or submit one electronic contact form if the ad does not include a telephone 

number. If the landlord cannot be reached within 24 hours of the first attempted e-mail 

or e-contact, the ad will be dropped. If the advertisement remains eligible, the sampled 

advertisement will be assigned to a paired test. 

The information obtained from the voucher acceptance test and recorded on the 

advance contact form will be used by local test coordinators to make credible pairedtest assignments.

Authorization to test Local test coordinators will receive TAFs and advance contact forms for each test. The 

TAF specifies the order in which each tester will contact a landlord, and the advance 

contact form provides information on the available housing. The local test coordinator 

will create tester profiles and test assignments based on the information in the TAF and 

advance contact form.
Appendix G: Testing Protocols

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

110

3 6 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

Issue Testing protocol

Qualifications of testers Testers designated as voucher holders will be assigned household incomes based on 

the Housing Choice Voucher–eligible income (30 to 40 percent of area median income) 

for each site. Control testers’ household incomes will be based on the same 

percentage of area median income assigned to the tester designated as a voucher 

holder plus the estimated value of the voucher income. On other characteristics, 

voucher holders will be assigned the same or slightly better qualifications than the 

control testers (e.g., longer time at current residence, longer time on the job). 

Assignment of tester 

characteristics—general

Although some paired-tester characteristics will be their own, such as their 

race/ethnicity, their age, and in most cases, their name and home address, many tester 

characteristics will be assigned by the local test coordinator. To the extent possible, 

Black and Hispanic testers will be assigned profiles that make them as 

racially/ethnically identifiable as possible during telephone contact. For example, if a 

Hispanic tester has a surname that might be perceived as being White, she will be 

assigned a last name that would be perceived as Hispanic. A tester will complete one 

test assignment before receiving the next assignment.

Testers will also be assigned characteristics about their child’s or children’s age and 

sex. Testers will be assigned between one and four children, depending on the local 

PHA occupancy guidelines. All children will be between the ages of 7 and 12.

Assignment of tester 

characteristics—income and 

credit

Tester income will be automatically generated by the Central Online Data Entry 

(CODE) system based on financial inputs developed during the project’s design phase. 

Testers will be equipped to provide their annual and monthly gross income amounts. 

Testers posing as voucher holders will also be provided with the amount of their 

voucher, including their current total tenant payment and housing assistance payment. 

All testers will decline to authorize any type of credit check, but they will be able to 

respond to inquiries about their credit standing. All testers will say that their credit is 

good and that there are no problems with their rental history.

Assignment of tester 

characteristics—

employment and occupation

Local test coordinators will assign testers credible occupations based on the income 

assigned by the CODE system. Local test coordinators will assign testers within a pair 

comparable but not identical occupations (in terms of both education and field of 

endeavor).

Local test coordinators also will assign testers current length of employment: no tester 

will be employed for fewer than two years on her current job. 

The length of current employment assigned to testers with vouchers will always be the 

same or slightly longer than the length of current employment assigned to testers who 

do not have a voucher.

Assignment of tester 

characteristics—current 

housing

Testers will be assigned to indicate that they have lived at their current residence for no 

fewer than two years. Testers designated as voucher holders will always be assigned 

the same or slightly longer current residency than the control testers with whom they 

are matched. 

Assignment of tester 

characteristics—when 

housing is needed

Testers will be assigned a move-in date by which they need to find rental housing. 

They will be instructed to consider housing available up to 21 days after their assigned 

move-in date so that they can appear flexible should a landlord mention additional units 

available within this time frame. Local test coordinators will direct testers to request 

housing based on information in the selected advertisement and on information 

obtained from the voucher acceptance test. 

Assignment of tester 

characteristics—reason for 

moving

Local test coordinators and testers will receive considerable guidance in training 

sessions on how to respond appropriately to questions regarding the reason for 

moving. For example, looking for a larger unit and going through foreclosure are NOT 

appropriate responses. “Having recently relocated to the area” will also be excluded 

among others as an allowable response. These exclusions reflect our understanding of 

likely limitations facing voucher moves for families fitting our tester profile, and that 

landlords familiar with the voucher program may recognize. 
Appendix G: Testing Protocols

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

111

3 7

Issue Testing protocol

Assignment of tester 

characteristics—home 

telephone numbers and email addresses

Testers will be assigned both a Google Voice telephone number and a Gmail e-mail 

address. Testers will record personalized greetings on their voicemail telephone 

numbers. Voicemail and e-mail accounts will be systematically checked for messages 

at least once every three to four days after a test has taken place. This process will 

ensure that all follow-up contact from housing providers is documented systematically.

Assignment of tester 

characteristics—area or 

neighborhood preferences

Testers will never volunteer any area or neighborhood preferences. If pressed by a 

landlord to state whether a tester prefers any area, a tester will be able to identify a 

broad geographic area (either by name or by street boundaries). The broad geographic 

area will always include the area in which the advertised housing is located. Testers 

will always be open to considering other areas as well. Regional coordinators will work 

with local test coordinators before the assignment of practice tests to develop the broad 

geographic area definitions within each metropolitan statistical area. 

Assignment of tester 

characteristics—size and 

type of housing to be 

requested

The housing to be requested by testers will be based on the selected advertisement 

and the actual availability of housing as determined by the voucher acceptance test. 

Testers will initially inquire about and request an appointment to view the advertised 

housing according to the number of bedrooms being sought. Testers will also inquire 

about other housing that is

n adequate	for	the	tester’s	household	in	terms	of	size	(number of	bedrooms),

n within	the	tester’s	maximum	rent,	and

n available	for	the	time	that	the	tester	needs	housing.

Assignment of tester 

characteristics—whether 

tester owns car

Based on the price, location, and proximity to public transportation of the advertised 

housing, test coordinators must determine whether potential renters would be likely to 

own a car. Test coordinators will ensure that car ownership, or lack thereof, is 

consistent across the tester pair.

Tester instructions Local test coordinators will provide every tester with a detailed set of instructions that 

accompany each rental assignment form. These instructions will remind testers of the 

testing protocols they must follow. 

Communication between 

testers

Local test coordinators will coordinate the times and dates that testers make telephone 

calls and site visits to ensure that tests are conducted in accordance with the 

prescribed order and spacing requirements for such calls and visits. Testers will not be

told when their tester matches have called or visited a particular test site. 

Testers may discuss their testing experiences with the local test coordinator. However, 

testers are to maintain absolute confidentiality and not discuss their testing experiences 

with anyone else, including other testers. 

Testing approach: 

appointment contact or 

telephone inquiry about 

available housing followed 

by in-person site visit

All test assignments will require a tester to make an appointment before making a site 

visit. During the telephone contact, the tester will also obtain information about 

available housing. A tester will be assigned to contact the landlord by telephone unless 

the advertisement only provides an e-mail address or an electronic contact form.

Order of spacing of contacts 

for appointments

The order in which contact with the housing provider is made will be assigned at 

random and conveyed to the local test coordinator on the TAF.

The spacing of telephone, e-mail, or e-contacts for appointments by members of the 

test team should be between 1 and 6 hours apart and never more than 24 hours apart.

Following every attempt to schedule an appointment and obtain information about 

available housing, a tester will complete an appointment contact form. If testers obtain 

information about available housing, they will also complete a telephone report form 

and available rental unit form—telephone. 

Initial contacts: appointment 

contacts

Testers contacting the landlord by telephone will make two attempts to reach the 

housing provider before leaving a message on the third attempt. All testers will leave 

their assigned Google Voice telephone number on their message, and testers 
Appendix G: Testing Protocols

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

112

3 8 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

Issue Testing protocol

designated as voucher holders must disclose this during their message. If, after 24 

hours, testers have not received a response to their message, they will call a fourth and 

final time. If, on the fourth attempt, they are still unable to reach the housing provider, 

they will not leave a message. Testers contacting the landlord by e-mail or electronic 

contact form will send only one e-mail inquiry or submit only one electronic contact 

form. Testers must alert the local test coordinator immediately after leaving a telephone 

message, sending an e-mail, or submitting an electronic contact form so that voicemail 

and e-mail accounts can be closely monitored.

Upon contacting a landlord, testers will conduct a telephone test and then request an 

appointment to view the advertised housing. During this contact, testers designated as 

voucher holders must say so to the landlord at the outset of the conversation.

If both testers in the pair can obtain an appointment to view housing, both testers will 

proceed to the site visit stage. Both testers will always attempt to contact the landlord, 

but if only one tester can make an appointment at the telephone stage, neither tester 

will proceed to the site visit stage.

Before conducting the in-person site visit, testers will complete the telephone report 

forms to document information obtained during the initial telephone inquiry.

Order of spacing of site 

visits

Local test coordinators will be responsible for ensuring that testers initiate contact with 

the housing provider in the order specified on the TAF. Members of a test team should 

space visits between 1 and 24 hours, but no more than 48 hours, apart.

Site visit no-show Testers will visit a rental housing site to inquire about the advertised unit and other 

available housing that meets their needs and to view such housing. If the landlord has 

not arrived by the time of the appointment, testers will be instructed to wait 15 minutes 

for him/her to arrive. If the housing provider has not shown up after 15 minutes, testers 

will attempt to contact the landlord to confirm whether he/she will keep the scheduled 

appointment. If the tester can contact the housing provider and is told she cannot be 

shown units until a later time or that the landlord will not keep the appointment, she will 

be instructed to thank the landlord and leave the test site without scheduling a 

subsequent appointment. The canceled/deferred appointment is captured as a test 

outcome.

If the tester is unable to reach the landlord to confirm the appointment, the tester will 

wait an additional 45 minutes (for a total of 60 minutes) before leaving the test site. The 

site visit no-show is captured as a test outcome.

Site visits During the site visit, testers designated as voucher holders must say so to the landlord

at the outset of the visit, regardless of whether they spoke with the same agent during 

their appointment contact.

If testers are able to meet with a landlord during a site visit, tests should be completed 

in a single visit. No appointments should be made for a second visit. If a tester is ever 

told that no rental housing is available in response to her request, the tester will always 

inquire about when the agent expects to have an available unit.

After each site visit, testers must complete a site visit report form and other appropriate 

forms. Testers should begin filling out forms within an hour following the completion of 

each site visit.

Note-taking by testers Note-taking by all testers is required. Testers will only note information that an ordinary 

homeseeker would typically record. Local test coordinators will equip testers with 

notepads of different shapes, sizes, and colors. Notes taken by testers will be turned in 

to the local test coordinator, identified by test ID number, and retained until sent to 

Urban.

Documenting site visits 

made by testers

Testers will begin the appropriate test forms within one hour of completing site visits. 

Testers must submit all test reports to the local test coordinator via CODE before 

receiving the next test assignment. Testers may use a personal computer or approved 
Appendix G: Testing Protocols

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

113

3 9

Issue Testing protocol

electronic device to complete test forms.

Test narratives will be required on all telephone tests and 20 percent of site visit tests 

and will be randomly assigned.

Timing of debriefings Local test coordinators will debrief testers within 24 hours after each test assignment is 

completed, regardless of whether the test includes a site visit, and before providing the 

tester with the next test assignment. The local test coordinator will review all the test 

materials from that tester and check to make sure that all appropriate forms have been 

filled out completely and accurately. Once the local test coordinator is confident a tester 

has mastered the testing and reporting requirements, subsequent debriefings may take 

place via telephone. 

Follow-up contact If a tester receives follow-up contact of any kind from a landlord within 14 days of the 

site visit, the tester will document the follow-up contact by completing a follow-up 

contact form using the CODE system and notify the local test coordinator immediately.

If a tester receives follow-up contact of any kind from a housing provider more than 14 

days after the site visit, the tester should notify the local test coordinator immediately.

Local test coordinators will retrieve all follow-up messages left for testers on their 

assigned voicemail telephone numbers or e-mail accounts. Coordinators will document 

the follow-up and, if necessary, instruct testers to indicate that they are no longer 

interested.

Submission of test report 

forms

Local test coordinators will review test report forms for completeness and accuracy 

before submitting them electronically to Urban. Local test coordinators will complete a 

final assessment form for each test indicating whether the test was completed and if 

not, the reason. The regional coordinator will complete the form after reviewing the test 

file, indicating whether the test has passed quality review. If a test does not pass 

quality review, the regional coordinator will detail the reason. 

Analysis of test results Local test coordinators will not be expected to complete any comparative analysis of 

tester experiences. Test data analysis will be completed by the analysis team at Urban. 
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

114
Appendix H: Test Coordinator Resources

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

115

4 0 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

Appendix H: Test Coordinator 

Resources

TESTER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AND EVALUATION FORM

Tester name: ______________________________________

Things to mention over the telephone when scheduling interview

• Estimated interview time: 30-45 minutes

• Interview location, with specific address

• Your contact information

• Ask if tester has a valid driver’s license and access to a vehicle

For in-person interview:

Welcome & Introductions

• Introduce yourself and initiate a discussion of applicant’s résumé and experience

• Let the applicant know that you are recruiting for participants in a “research study” (do 

not offer any project specifics at this point)

Affiliation with the Housing Industry

• Applicant or immediate family member cannot work in housing industry

Screening question: Are you or any of your immediate family members affiliated with the 

housing industry (real estate agent, property manager, mortgage lender, homeowner’s 

insurance broker, title company employee, architect, developer, etc.)?

Confidentiality

• If applicant has passed initial screening, have applicant sign Tester Consent and Limited 

Waiver Agreement

• Make sure applicant understands the importance of keeping project information 

confidential, even if applicant does not decide to participate as a tester

Introduce Project

• Introduce HDS-SOI in brief (research study, paired testing, importance of objectivity)

• Testing is like “acting” or role-playing, and testers are given personal, household and 

financial characteristics that do not necessarily match their own

• Explain that the project deals with measuring discrimination against Housing Choice 

Voucher holders in the rental housing market. Testers should be comfortable with the 

overall objective of this study.

Screening questions:

• Do you have any reservations about your ability to be convincing as a tester, or are you 

reluctant to provide fabricated information to a housing provider in a test situation?

• Do you or does anyone you know participate in the HCV / Section 8 program?

• What is your overall comfort level discussing the HCV / Section 8 program?

APPENDIX H: Test Coordinator Resources
Appendix H: Test Coordinator Resources

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

116

4 1

• Do you have any knowledge about issues that affect HCV / Section 8 participants?

Tester Training Session, Project Timeline, Time Commitment and Location Details

• Provide Tester Training date, time and location. Stress that attendance is mandatory.

• Provide details about project timeline, and potential testing locations.

Question: What is your general availability to test (available days, nights, weekdays, weekends, 

etc.)?

Tester Compensation

• Explain the stipend/pay rate for attending Tester Training and conducting practice test.

• Explain the stipend/pay rate for each attempted test (appointment contact) and 

completed test (site visit), and discuss mileage rate if applicable.

Evaluation/Tester Application:

Note: if tester has answered the initial questions above to your satisfaction, please have them 

complete a Tester Application on CODE, and review the following pieces of information:

• Applicant’s race/ethnicity and age

• Applicant’s current employment and employment history

• Applicant’s weekly availability

• Applicant’s access to transportation for conducting tests

Does the applicant work or have immediate family members that work in the housing industry?

[ ] Yes [ ] No

Does the applicant have a high profile in the community or a prominent online presence that 

could cause a detection risk? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Will the applicant be able to attend the Tester Training Program and be available on a regular 

basis to conduct tests? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Does the applicant seem comfortable with the objectives of the study, and with the HCV / 

Section 8 program overall? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Is there any reason to believe that the applicant might be less than reliable and cooperative, or 

will have difficulty following instructions? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Is there any reason to believe that the applicant might have trouble reporting their test 

experiences in an accurate, complete and objective manner? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Is the applicant reasonably personable, well-groomed and articulate?

[ ] Yes [ ] No

Does the applicant possess adequate writing skills?

[ ] Yes [ ] No

Will the applicant be able to use CODE to enter test forms?

[ ] Yes [ ] No
Appendix H: Test Coordinator Resources

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

117

4 2 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

Were you able to note whether the applicant had a more outgoing or reserved personality?

[ ] Yes [ ] No

Please explain: ___________________________________

Is the applicant a good match for any other applicants you’ve previously interviewed?

[ ] Yes [ ] No

Please explain: ___________________________________

Evaluation of Appearance

Tester’s perceived race: ___________________________________

Tester’s perceived age or age range: ___________________________________

Applicant has an accent of any sort (if yes, explain)?

______________________________________

Did the applicant demonstrate any characteristics that may cause them to be an unsuitable 

match? 

Please explain: ___________________________________

Did applicant have any of the following?

• Neglect of personal hygiene

• Excessive tattoos or piercings?

• Excessive facial hair, unkempt hair, or flashy hairstyle/hair color?

• A style of dress that cannot be classified as “clean and casual”?

Applicant Selected? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Date: ___________________________________
Appendix H: Test Coordinator Resources

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

118

4 3

TESTER BRIEFING CHECKLIST: HDS-SOI

(For use by test coordinator; one briefing checklist must be placed in each test file)

Control #___________________________________

Tester 1 Name:________________________________________________________ Tester 1 

ID#:___________________ 

Tester 2 Name:________________________________________________________Tester 2 

ID#:___________________ 

Tester 1 Appointment Contact to be made on (date)_______________ between (time) ____________ and 

____________

Tester 2 Appointment Contact to be made on (date)_______________ between (time) ____________ and 

____________

Tester 1 Site Visit to be made on (date)____________ _____________ between (time) ____________ and 

____________

Tester 2 Site Visit to be made on (date)__________ _______________ between (time) ____________ and 

____________

Note: T1 and T2 must initiate contact in the order specified. If the order or spacing is incorrect, the test will 

be disqualified. The appointment contact calls/e-mails/electronic contact must be spaced 1 to 6 hours apart, but no 

more than 24 hours apart. If the tester does not get an answer, they will leave a message on the first call. If, after 24 

hours, they have not received a call back, they will call a second time. If they still do not get an answer, they will NOT 

leave a message. Testers contacting the housing provider by e-mail/electronic contact will send only one initial 

inquiry.

Please complete the following tasks during the briefing. Never brief testers at the same time.

1. Provide the Tester with the following items: T1 T2

□ completed Rental Assignment Form ___ ___

□ tester instructions ___ ___

□ a copy of Important Reminders for HDS Testers ___ ___

□ a notepad or notebook ___ ___

□ a ballpoint pen ___ ___

□ telephone number for TC (so they can reach you in an emergency or after hours) ___ ___

2. Review the Rental Assignment Form with the tester to make sure the tester is comfortable 

portraying the characteristics that have been assigned to them. ___ ___

3. Review the test instructions with the tester, including when the tester is expected to make the

appointment contact and the date and time when they should try to schedule the appointment ___ ___

4. Review the Important Reminders for HDS Testers. ___ ___

5. Reinforce protocols and make certain the tester understands all of them completely ___ ___

6. Remind the tester to call/text you when they have completed the appointment contact/site 

visit. ___ ___

7. Remind the tester you will be available to discuss any insensitive, inappropriate, or 

discriminatory treatment after the test at the debriefing. ___ ___

8. Remind the tester note taking is mandatory on the appointment contact and the site visit. 

Once the test is completed, the tester must turn the notes in along with their Rental 

Assignment Form and anything given to them by the housing provider. ___ ___
Appendix H: Test Coordinator Resources

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

119

4 4 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

9. Remind the tester that the forms must be started on CODE within an hour of completing the 

test. If the tester cannot comply with this requirement, make certain you provide the tester 

with paper forms to fill out. Remind the tester that they will have 24 hours to enter the data 

from the paper forms into CODE. ___ ___

10. 10. Ask the tester if they have any questions or concerns and address them thoroughly. ___ ___
Appendix H: Test Coordinator Resources

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

120

4 5

TESTER DEBRIEFING CHECKLIST: HDS-SOI

(For use by test coordinator; one debriefing checklist must be placed in each test file)

Control #______________

Tester 1 Name:______________________________________ Tester ID#: 

________________________

Tester 2 Name:______________________________________ Tester ID#: 

________________________

Tester 1 Appointment Contact Date: _____________________ Time: ______________________

Tester 2 Appointment Contact Date: _____________________ Time: ______________________

Tester 1 Site Visit Date: _______________________________ Time: ______________________

Tester 2 Site Visit Date: _______________________________ Time: ______________________

REMINDER: DO NOT DEBRIEF TESTERS AT THE SAME TIME

Before the testers arrive: T1 T2

1. Review CODE to make sure all forms were completed correctly and corroborate

each other.

□ Appointment Contact Form (for each attempt) ____ _____

□ Telephone Test Report Form _____ _____

□ Available Rental Unit Form – Telephone (for each unit they were told about) _____ _____

□ Site Visit Test Report Form _____ _____

□ Available Rental Unit Form – In-Person (for each unit they were told about) _____ _____

□ Site Visit Test Narrative (if required to complete one) _____ _____

2. If assigned, make sure the narrative provides a detailed, chronological account

of the tester’s experience. _____ _____

3. Make notes of any corrections that need to be made. _____ _____

4. Compare tester 1 information to tester 2 information to determine if spacing of tests

is correct. _____ _____

While testers are in your office: T1 T2

1. Collect all of the test materials from the tester, including:

□ the original Rental Assignment Form including instructions _____ _____

□ any paper test forms in the event the tester could not access the

CODE system within one hour following a site visit _____ _____

□ tester notes: confirm they are initialed and dated. Be sure to add the

tester’s ID number and test control number; confirm all pertinent

information is documented (e.g., rent, number of units, application

and move-in fees, etc.) _____ _____

□ any materials received from the housing provider during the site visit _____ _____

2. Ask the testers if they have any comments, questions, or concerns about the test. _____ _____

3. Ask the tester to summarize the test. By having the tester recount the full exchange

with the housing provider, including what questions were asked and what responses

were given, you can usually discern if the tester made any protocol mistakes and if

the tester completed the forms correctly. _____ _____

4. Based on your quality review of the tester’s CODE forms/notes, do you have 

questions about any of the answers provided? If so, talk to the tester about 

them and identify which answers are incomplete or require corrections. Once the

corrections are made, double check that the forms are complete and accurate. _____ _____
Appendix H: Test Coordinator Resources

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

121

4 6 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

5. Review all the forms: T1 T2

□ Appointment Contact Form(s) – Are all contact attempts documented? _____ _____

□ Telephone Test Report Form

o Are all questions answered / none left blank? _____ _____

o If the voucher tester was told vouchers are not accepted, did the

tester provide a detailed account of this conversation? _____ _____

□ Available Rental Unit Form(s) - Telephone

o Does each unit meet their needs (i.e., date needed, max rent, size)? _____ _____

o Do they have a form for each unit they were told about that met their

needs? _____ _____

o Costs and Incentives – are all fees they were told about included? _____ _____

□ Site Visit Test Report Form

o Are all questions answered / none left blank? _____ _____

o If the voucher tester was told vouchers are not accepted, did the

tester provide a detailed account of this conversation? _____ _____

□ Available Rental Unit Form(s) – In-Person

o Does each unit meet their needs (i.e., date needed, max rent, size)? _____ _____

o Do they have a form for each unit they were told about that met their

needs? _____ _____

o Costs and Incentives – are all fees they were told about included? _____ _____

□ Narrative (if required)

o Is all the information in the narrative included on their other forms and

do they match? _____ _____

o Is all the information from the notes included in the narrative and do

they match? _____ _____

6. Remind the tester to keep an eye on their Google Voice and HDS e-mail account to

monitor follow-up contact for 14 days after the test completion. Remind the tester to

complete Follow-Up Contact Forms for any contact they receive. _____ _____

7. Discuss the tester’s availability for future tests and (if possible) brief them on their

next test or schedule a time to do so. _____ _____

After both testers have been debriefed (final review):

Compare forms between T1 and T2 and ask yourself the following questions:

1. Did testers initiate appointment contact in order and within 1 and 24 hours of

each other? Yes No

2. Did both testers inquire about the assigned housing? Yes No

3. Did the voucher tester mention that they had a housing voucher? Yes No

4. Did both testers only report units that met their needs

(i.e., date needed, price range, size)? Yes No

5. Did both testers make their site visit between 1-24 hours and not more than

48 hours of each other? Yes No

6. Did both testers follow all other protocols correctly? Yes No

7. Did both testers fill out CODE correctly and on time? Yes No

After you have answered these questions, do the following:

1. Whether or not the test is acceptable, complete the Final Assessment Form

2. Organize the following documents in one file folder:

□ briefing checklist

□ debriefing checklist

□ Rental Assignment Forms for both testers

□ tester notes for both testers
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

122

Appendix H: Test Coordinator Resources

4 7

3. Make sure to clearly label the folder with the test control number and the tester IDs

4. Let your RC know that this test is complete and ready for review.
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

123

Appendix H: Test Coordinator Resources

4 8 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

IMPORTANT REMINDERS FOR HDS-SOI TESTERS

□ Did you thoroughly review your Rental Assignment Form?

o Have you memorized the characteristics assigned to you in your profile?

o Do you know what size and type of housing that you are requesting?

o Have you reviewed the instructions attached to your site visit?

o Are you uncomfortable with any assigned characteristics?

o Are you confused by any instructions?

o Is it possible this housing provider might recognize you?

o Is information missing or incomplete?

□ Do you know where you are going? Do you need further directions to the test site? (When 

you arrive at the test site, it is always a good idea to double check the address to make 

certain you are at the correct location)

□ Are you dressed appropriately for the type of test you will be performing?

□ Have you allowed enough time for travel to the test site so that you will arrive on time for 

your appointment? (If something happens that causes a delay and you know you will be 

late, call your test coordinator for further instructions)

□ Do you have a note pad and pen for taking notes? (REMEMBER: NOTE TAKING IS 

MANDATORY!)

□ Do you have a plan for keeping all test related forms (i.e., your assignment form, paper 

forms for filling out CODE, etc.) out of sight in your car while you are on the assignment? 

(Suggestion: Put them in the glove box or under the seat)

□ Do you have a cell phone with you to call your test coordinator when you have completed 

the test, as well as if any problems should arise?

□ Have you made arrangements with the test coordinator to start completing test forms in 

CODE within one hour after your site visit?

□ If you are unable to start on CODE forms within one hour after completing your site visit, do 

you have all of the appropriate paper forms you will need? Have you made arrangements to 

transfer the data from the paper forms into CODE within 24 hours of completing your site 

visit?

□ Have you made arrangements with the test coordinator for debriefing/review of your test 

forms?

□ Do you remember the key HDS testing guidelines?

o Act interested in finding a place to live and be convincing in your role.

o Be observant. Remember to take notes and record exact addresses, prices, etc.

o Keep an open mind and maintain your objectivity.

o Stick to your assignment and put aside your personal tastes, interests and preferences.

o Always maintain confidentiality about your testing activities.
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

124

4 9

o Do not volunteer too much information. Allow the agent to ask questions and inquire 

about your housing needs and qualifications.

o If you are ever in doubt about what to do, call the test coordinator.

o If you experience insensitive, inappropriate, or discriminatory treatment, discuss your 

concerns with your test coordinator immediately after your test or during your debriefing.

Appendix H: Test Coordinator Resources
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

125

APPENDIX I: Testing Report Forms

5 0 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

TESTER APPLICATION

Site [auto-fill]

Tester ID [auto-fill]

SECTION 1: APPLICANT’S BASIC INFORMATION

Name (First Name Last Name) ______________________________________

Street Address ______________________________________

City ______________________________________

State ______________________________________

Zip Code (00000) ______________________________________

Primary Phone Number [000-000-0000] ______________________________________

E-mail Address ______________________________________

SECTION 2: APPLICANT’S QUALIFICATIONS

Do you or a member of your immediate family presently work for, serve on the board of directors of, or 

have a financial interest in any housing industry trade association or companies that are in the business 

of providing housing or real estate services? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, describe your or your family member’s

involvement. ______________________________________

If yes, would this involvement or interest prevent you from being objective or reporting your test 

experiences in a fair and unbiased manner? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Do you hold any views, positive or negative, about any segment of the housing industry that would 

prevent you from being objective or reporting your test experiences in a fair, accurate and unbiased 

manner?

[ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, please describe. ______________________________________

One part of testing is playing an assigned role and assuming characteristics, which are not your own. Do 

you have any reservations (religious or otherwise) about providing information about yourself that is not 

true, including marital status, familial status, employment characteristics, and financial characteristics?

[ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, please describe. ______________________________________

Do your current professional or volunteer activities in the community give you such a high profile that you 

might be recognized on a test? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, please describe. ______________________________________

Is there any reason you can think of that might make it difficult for you to maintain confidentiality about 

your testing activities? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, please describe. ______________________________________

Aside from anything previously mentioned, is there anything else that might exclude or disqualify you from

being a tester? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, please describe. ______________________________________

Do you have any prior experience using a computer (e.g., word processing, data entry, internet, etc.)?

[ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, please describe. ______________________________________
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

126

5 1

Please provide your general availability to participate. Select yes or no for each date and time.

Time Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

Morning 

(8-12pm)

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

Afternoon 

(12-4pm)

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

Evening 

(4-8pm)

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

Do you have a valid driver’s license? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Do you own or have regular access to a vehicle that

you can use for testing? [ ] Yes [ ] No

SECTION 3: APPLICANT’S PERSONAL INFORMATION

Date of Birth (mm/dd/yyyy) ______________________________________

Be sure to pick the year of your birth, not the current year

Age ______________________________________

Race [ ] White

[ ] Black / African-American

[ ] Asian / Pacific Islander

[ ] Other(Specify)

If Other, please specify: ______________________________________

National Origin [ ] Non-Hispanic [ ] Hispanic

Gender [ ] Female [ ] Male

What is your first language? [ ] English [ ] Spanish

[ ] Other (Specify)

If Other, please specify: ______________________________________

Are you currently employed? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, are you currently employed on a full-time

or part-time basis? [ ] Full-time [ ] Part-time

If you are currently employed, provide the name of

employer, location, your job title, and length of

employment. ______________________________________

Please provide a list of previous types of employment: ______________________________________

Are you currently attending school? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, are you currently attending school on a full-time

or part-time basis? [ ] Full-time [ ] Part-time

If you are currently attending school, provide the name

of school, location, degree you are seeking, and

program/department. ______________________________________

Highest level of education completed [ ] Grade school or less

[ ] Some high school

[ ] GED

[ ] High school diploma

[ ] Some vocational / technical or business 

school
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

127

5 2 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

[ ] Vocational / technical / business certificate / 

diploma

[ ] Some college

[ ] Associate degree (AA; AS)

[ ] Bachelor’s degree (BA; BS)

[ ] Some graduate/professional school

[ ] Graduate/professional degree

Your estimated gross annual income [ ] Under $10,000 [ ] $10,000 - $19,999

[ ] $20,000 - $29,999 [ ] $30,000 - $39,999

[ ] $40,000 - $49,999 [ ] $50,000 - $74,999

[ ] $75,000 - $99,999 [ ] $100,000 or more

Your family’s estimated gross annual income (i.e., the shared gross annual income of you and all other 

people in the living quarters who are either related to you by birth, marriage, or adoption; or persons with 

whom you share a romantic relationship):

[ ] Under $10,000 [ ] $10,000 - $19,999

[ ] $20,000 - $29,999 [ ] $30,000 - $39,999

[ ] $40,000 - $49,999 [ ] $50,000 - $74,999

[ ] $75,000 - $99,999 [ ] $100,000 or more

Please provide the name, gender, age, and relationship of all other members of your family (people in the 

living quarters [not including yourself] who are either related to you by birth, marriage, or adoption; or 

persons with whom you share a romantic relationship):

Name Gender Age Relationship	to	

Applicant

Person	1 [specify] [ ]	Female	

[ ]	Male

[specify] [specify]

[The same questions are repeated for the second, third, fourth, and fifth family members]

SECTION 4: APPLICANT’S EXPERIENCE AS A HOMESEEKER

Length of time at current residence [ ] Less than 1 year [ ] 1 to 2 years

[ ] 3 to 5 years [ ] 6 to 10 years 

[ ] More than 10 years

Do you presently rent or own your home? [ ] Rent [ ] Own [ ] Other (Specify)

If Other, please specify: ______________________________________

Do you live in shared housing (group home, with

roommates, etc.)? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Type of dwelling [ ] Single-family home – detached

[ ] Mobile home [ ] Apartment

[ ] Condominium [ ] Co-op

[ ] Duplex or townhouse [ ] Other (Specify)

If Other, please specify: ______________________________________

Are you looking to rent or purchase housing at the

present time or within the next several months? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, please describe. ______________________________________

Are you currently, or have you ever participated

in the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV, aka Section 8)

program? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, please describe your participation and include

which agency the voucher was administered by ______________________________________

Is your rent currently subsidized through any other 

program? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, please name and describe the program ______________________________________
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

128

5 3

SECTION 5: APPLICANT’S EXPERIENCE AS A TESTER

Have you ever been a tester? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, estimate how many tests you have done ______________________________________

If yes, what type(s) of testing have you conducted in the past?

Rental [ ] Yes [ ] No

Sales [ ] Yes [ ] No

Lending [ ] Yes [ ] No

Insurance [ ] Yes [ ] No

Employment [ ] Yes [ ] No

Public Accommodation [ ] Yes [ ] No

Other (Specify) [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Other, please specify ______________________________________

SECTION 6: APPLICATION SUBMISSION

Please read each of the following statements carefully and mark your initials to agree to the terms of 

participation as presented.

I understand that I have voluntarily agreed to participate as a tester in the Housing Discrimination Study –

SOI (HDS-SOI), which is being conducted by the Urban Institute and sponsored by the U. S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

I agree. Please initial here. ______

I agree to maintain complete confidentiality about HDS-SOI, and all of my HDS-SOI testing activities, 

including the names of housing providers I contact, any materials I receive from them or my organization, 

and the testing protocols for this project. Once the test coordinator notifies me that the project is 

complete, I can talk about my participation; however, I will keep confidential information about housing 

agents I met with during this project.

I agree. Please initial here. ______

Should I choose to end my involvement in the project prior to its completion, I agree to maintain 

confidentiality about HDS-SOI for a period of three (3) years unless direct notice is provided to me by the 

local testing organization, the Urban Institute, or HUD informing me that HDS-SOI information is no longer 

confidential.

I agree. Please initial here. ______

I agree that I will have no claim against the Urban Institute in the event that unlawful discrimination is 

indicated or established by my testing experience.

I agree. Please initial here. ______

I have read and signed the HDS-SOI Tester Consent and Limited Waiver Agreement in its entirety and 

agree to the terms of my participation as presented.

I agree. Please initial here. ______

Full name ______________________________________

Date (mm/dd/yyyy) ______________________________________

This form is complete [ ] Yes [ ] No

SECTION 7: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Is this applicant proficient in reading and writing

in English? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Is this applicant fluent in English? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If fluent in English, does this applicant have a discernible

accent of any kind? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, describe ______________________________________

Is this applicant's race or ethnicity clearly visibly

discernible based on their photo? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Is this applicant's race or ethnicity clearly discernible

based on their name and voice recording? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

129

5 4 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

Was the applicant selected? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If no, why not? ______________________________________

For selected applicants, please complete the following information after the tester training:

Date tester attended training session (mm/dd/yyyy) ___/___/_____

Name/location of facility ______________________________________

Date tester completed practice test(s) (mm/dd/yyyy) ___/___/_____

Name to be used for testing ______________________________________

Address to be used for testing

First line of address ______________________________________

Second line of address (city/state/zip) ______________________________________

Google Voice number to be used for testing

000-000-0000 ______________________________________

E-mail address to be used for testing ______________________________________

Additional comments ______________________________________
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

130

5 5

EDIT RENTAL Test Authorization Form

Transaction Type [auto-fill]

Site [auto-fill]

Week [auto-fill]

Control Number [auto-fill]

Ad Id Number [auto-fill]

Date of Issuance (mm/dd/yyyy) ___/___/_____

Sampler Code ______________________________________

Test Type [auto-fill]

Required Sequence [auto-fill]

Narrative Required [auto-fill]

Random Numbers [randomly ordered list of numbers]

Random Sources [randomly ordered list of websites]

Geocoding Results from Census [auto-fill]

High poverty or low poverty area [ ] High poverty [ ] Low poverty

High poverty or low poverty area is different than

value returned by Census [auto-fill]

Area Preference: If you are pressed by the agent, you

may state that you are looking in ______________________________________

Ad Information

Date the Ad appeared (mm/dd/yyyy) ___/___/_____

Source Name (choose) [list of websites]

Text of Ad ______________________________________

Address ______________________________________

City ______________________________________

State [list of states]

Zipcode of advertisement [list of zip codes]

Ad Search Information

For each source, enter the amount of advertisements that were reviewed:

Craigslit.com ______________________________________

Apartments.com ______________________________________

Move.com ______________________________________

Rent.com ______________________________________

Trulia.com ______________________________________

Zillow.com ______________________________________

ForRent.com ______________________________________

ApartmentGuide.com ______________________________________

Other Source ______________________________________
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

131

5 6 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

Contact Information

Name of Agent/Company/Complex ______________________________________

Phone Number 1 [000-000-0000] ______________________________________

Extension 1 ______________________________________

Phone Number 2 [000-000-0000] ______________________________________

Extension 2 ______________________________________

Email 1 ______________________________________

Email 2 ______________________________________

Ad URL 1 ______________________________________

Ad URL 2 ______________________________________

Ad URL 3 ______________________________________

Voucher Information

Location information: ______________________________________

Did the advertisement include any mention of the HCV

program / vouchers / voucher holders / Section 8 / the

Public Housing Authority? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, what did the advertisement say? [ ] Vouchers/Section 8 welcome

[ ] No vouchers/Section 8

[ ] Other

If other, specify? ______________________________________

Editor Name ______________________________________

Release this test? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

132

5 7

ADVANCE CONTACT FORM

Control Number [auto-fill]

Date the Ad appeared (mm/dd/yyyy) [auto-fill]

Source Name [auto-fill]

Address [auto-fill]

City [auto-fill]

State [auto-fill]

Zipcode of advertisement [auto-fill]

Name of Agent/Company/Complex [auto-fill]

Ad URL 1 [auto-fill]

Contact Information

Phone Number 1 [auto-fill]

Phone Number 2 [auto-fill]

Email 1 [auto-fill]

Location information: [auto-fill]

Site Code [auto-fill]

Week [auto-fill]

Control Number [auto-fill]

Advance Contact Form Sequence [auto-fill]

Area Preference: If you are pressed by the agent, you

may state that you are looking in [auto-fill from Edit Rental TAF]

SECTION 1: CONTACT INFORMATION

Please complete one form for each evaluation or contact.

Who initiated contact? [ ] Sampler/ACE

[ ] Housing Provider

ACE initials ______________________________________

With whom did you speak (name, if given): ______________________________________

Type of contact: [ ] Telephone [ ] E-mail

[ ] Text Message

[ ] Electronic Contact Form

Telephone number of housing provider

(If called/text messaged only): ______________________________________

E-mail address of housing provider

(If e-mailed only): ______________________________________

Date contact was made ___/___/_____

Day of the week that contact was made [ ] Mon [ ] Tues [ ] Wed [ ] Thurs

[ ] Fri [ ] Sat [ ] Sun

Time ___:___ [ ] AM [ ] PM
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

133

5 8 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

SECTION 2: DISPOSITION OF THE ADVANCE CONTACT

Is this the final advance contact? [ ] Yes

[ ] No, and will attempt to contact housing 

provider again

Please note that changes to the 'Final Advance Call' status will delete the existing household 

compositions in the PAF and any assignments that have been created.

If this is NOT the final advance contact, why not? [ ] No answer/kept ringing/went to voicemail

[ ] Was hung up on

[ ] Dropped call

[ ] Left message with a person who did not have 

information

[ ] Housing provider will call back

[ ] Told to call back later

[ ] Awaiting response to e-mail / electronic 

contact form / VM

[ ] Asked to check website / e-mail

[ ] Asked to contact another number

[ ] Other

If other, specify: ______________________________________
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

134

5 9

Did you ask the housing provider about available

housing? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If no, why not? [ ] Another reason approved by Urban

[ ] Apartment locator service

[ ] Automatic e-mail response stating recipient is 

unavailable

[ ] Duplicate ad

[ ] Exceeds payment standards for test site

[ ] Housing for older persons

[ ] Housing for sale

[ ] Housing provider already tested

[ ] Housing provider could not be reached after 3 

calls

[ ] Invalid URL / deleted advertisement

[ ] Invalid e-mail address

[ ] Located on Indian land (e.g., reservations, 

rancherías, etc.)

[ ] No reply within 24 hours (e-mail / electronic 

contact form)

[ ] No 2 or 3 bedroom units available

[ ] No units currently available for rent

[ ] Other

[ ] Outside of target area for MSA

[ ] Outside of zip code area for test site

[ ] Public housing

[ ] Share situation

[ ] Single room occupancy

[ ] Sublet

[ ] Telephone number incorrect / no longer in 

service

[ ] Temporary / short term rental

If another reason approved by Urban, specify ______________________________________

If other, specify ______________________________________
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

135

6 0 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

Did you ask the housing provider if they accept HCV? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If no, why not? [ ] Another reason approved by Urban

[ ] Exceeds payment standards for test site

[ ] Apartment locator service

[ ] Broker with upfront fee

[ ] Housing for older persons

[ ] Housing for sale

[ ] Located on Indian land (e.g., reservations, 

rancherías, etc.)

[ ] No 2 or 3 bedroom units available

[ ] No units currently available for rent

[ ] Other

[ ] Outside of target area for MSA

[ ] Outside of zip code area for test site

[ ] Public housing

[ ] Share situation

[ ] Single room occupancy

[ ] Sublet

[ ] Temporary / short term rental

[ ] No reply within 24 hours (e-mail / electronic 

contact form / text)

If another reason approved by Urban, specify ______________________________________

If Other, specify ______________________________________

If you did ask the housing provider if they accept

HCV, what were you told? [ ] Housing provider accepts HCV

[ ] Housing provider does not accept HCV

[ ] Housing provider sometimes accepts HCV but 

not currently

[ ] Housing provider sometimes accepts HCV but 

with conditions

[ ] Housing provider unsure of HCV acceptance 

policy

[ ] No reply within 24 hours (e-mail / electronic 

contact form / text)

[ ] Other

If the housing provider sometimes accepts HCV

but not currently, please describe their comments ______________________________________

If the housing provider sometimes accepts HCV

but with conditions, please describe their comments ______________________________________

If Other, specify ______________________________________

Remember, if voucher denial is the only reason for ineligibility, you will still record information 

about each available unit below.

If this is the final advance contact and you have determined that this housing is eligible for paired 

testing or voucher denial is the only reason for ineligibility, please enter information about each 

available unit (or type of unit, if applicable) below:
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

136

Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

61

# Street City State ZIP Code #	of Beds Rent	 Price Date Available High- or	Low- Poverty	area? Advertised Unit? Does	the	housing	p

accept	HCV	for	th

a.

[ ]	2[ ]	3 [geocoded] [ ]	Yes

[ ]	No

[ ]	Housing	provider	accepts	HCV[ ]	Housing	provider	does	not	accept	HC[ ]	Housing	provider	sometimes	accepts[ ]	Housing	provider	accepts	HCV	but	wi[ ]	Housing	provider	unsure	of	HCV	acce[ ]	Other[ ]	Unknown/Did	not	inquire

b.

[ ]	2[ ]	3 [geocoded] [ ]	Yes

[ ]	No

[ ]	Housing	provider	accepts	HCV[ ]	Housing	provider	does	not	accept	HC[ ]	Housing	provider	sometimes	accepts[ ]	Housing	provider	accepts	HCV	but	wi[ ]	Housing	provider	unsure	of	HCV	acce[ ]	Other[ ]	Unknown/Did	not	inquire

c.

[ ]	2[ ]	3 [geocoded] [ ]	Yes

[ ]	No

[ ]	Housing	provider	accepts	HCV[ ]	Housing	provider	does	not	accept	HC[ ]	Housing	provider	sometimes	accepts[ ]	Housing	provider	accepts	HCV	but	wi[ ]	Housing	provider	unsure	of	HCV	acce[ ]	Other[ ]	Unknown/Did	not	inquire

d.

[ ]	2[ ]	3 [geocoded] [ ]	Yes

[ ]	No

[ ]	Housing	provider	accepts	HCV[ ]	Housing	provider	does	not	accept	HC[ ]	Housing	provider	sometimes	accepts[ ]	Housing	provider	accepts	HCV	but	wi[ ]	Housing	provider	unsure	of	HCV	acce[ ]	Other[ ]	Unknown/Did	not	inquire

e.

[ ]	2[ ]	3 [geocoded] [ ]	Yes

[ ]	No

[ ]	Housing	provider	accepts	HCV[ ]	Housing	provider	does	not	accept	HC[ ]	Housing provider	sometimes	accepts	[ ]	Housing	provider	accepts	HCV	but	wi[ ]	Housing	provider	unsure	of	HCV	acce[ ]	Other[ ]	Unknown/Did	not	inquire
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

137

6 2 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

Type of building? [ ] Apartment Building - 4 or fewer units

[ ] Apartment Building - 5 to 50 units

[ ] Apartment Building – 51 or more units

[ ] Duplex

[ ] Mobile Home

[ ] Single-family Home

[ ] Unsure / don’t know

What are the office hours? ______________________________________

Does the agent/rental office accept appointments? [ ] Must make an appointment

[ ] Option of an appointment or dropping-by

[ ] No appointment, but may drop-by

Verify the address to be visited: ______________________________________

Highest monthly rent of available unit ______________________________________

When you asked the housing provider which utilities

were included in the rent, what were you told? [ ] ALL utilities included in rent

[ ] SOME utilities included in rent

[ ] NO utilities included in rent

[ ] Housing provider unsure / unable to answer

Is the assigned address in a low poverty or high

poverty area? [ ] Not Coded

[ ] High poverty

[ ] Low poverty

Identify the Public Housing Authority with jurisdiction

at this address [list of Public Housing Authorities]

Please note that any time you change the PHA, you will need to resave the form to ensure that the 

correct payment standards are returned by the CODE system. To retrieve the correct payment 

standards click here. Also note that changes to an Advance Contact Form for the final contact are 

written to the PAF and will delete the existing PAF and any assignments that have been created.

Select Payment Standard for this Unit: [ ] 2 Bedroom Payment Standard

[ ] 3 Bedroom Payment Standard

Please note that changes to the Payment Standard will delete the existing PAF and any 

assignments that have been created.

Number of Bedrooms for this test [ ] 2 bedrooms [ ] 3 bedrooms

Please note that changes to the number of bedrooms will delete the existing PAF and any 

assignments that have been created

SECTION 3: COMMENTS

Did the agent make any comments about the HCV

program / vouchers / voucher holders / Section 8,

including why vouchers are accepted / denied? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, what did the agent say? [ ] Vouchers/Section 8 welcome

[ ] No vouchers/Section 8

[ ] Other

If other, specify ______________________________________

Did the agent make any comments about the Public

Housing Authority? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

138

6 3

After you asked about voucher acceptance, did the housing provider ask for any of the following 

information?

How many bedrooms your voucher was for? [ ] Yes [ ] No

The age(s) of your child/children? [ ] Yes [ ] No

How much rent your voucher was for? [ ] Yes [ ] No

How much of the rent you would have to pay? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If your voucher included utilities? [ ] Yes [ ] No

When your voucher expires? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If you had a job or where you work? [ ] Yes [ ] No

How you would come up with the money for the

security deposit / move-in fees? [ ] Yes [ ] No

The inspection / approval of the housing by the Public

Housing Authority? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, what did they say? ______________________________________

Narrative: ______________________________________

SECTION 4: FORM SUBMISSION

This form is complete [ ] Yes [ ] No

Please note that changes to the completion status of this form will delete the existing PAF and 

any assignments that have been created.

SECTION 5: RC APPROVAL

RC Approval [ ] Yes, unit is in sampled ZIP

[ ] Yes, unit is not in sampled ZIP

[ ] No

If no, why not? [ ] Housing provider deemed ineligible

[ ] Other

[ ] Practice test

[ ] Protocol violation

[ ] Test forms incomplete by ACE

If Other, specify ______________________________________

RC Notes ______________________________________
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

139

6 4 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

TEST AUTHORIZATION FORM

Transaction Type [auto-fill]

Site [auto-fill]

Week [auto-fill]

Control Number [auto-fill]

Ad Number [auto-fill]

Date of Issuance (mm/dd/yyyy) [auto-fill]

Sampler Code [auto-fill]

Test Type [auto-fill]

Sequence Requirement [auto-fill]

Narrative Requirement [auto-fill]

Ad Date (mm/dd/yyyy) [auto-fill]

Source Name [auto-fill]

Text of Ad [auto-fill]

Ad URL 1 [auto-fill]

Release this test? [auto-fill]
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

140

6 5

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT FORM

Changes in the PAF for will delete the assignments.

Transaction Type [auto-fill]

Site [auto-fill]

Week [auto-fill]

Control Number [auto-fill]

Test Type [auto-fill]

Advertisement URL [auto-fill]

Housing Provider Information

Name of Agent/Company/Complex [auto-fill]

Street [auto-fill]

City [auto-fill]

State [auto-fill]

Zip Code (00000) [auto-fill]

Contact Information

Phone Number [000-000-0000] [auto-fill]

Alt. Phone Number [000-000-0000] [auto-fill]

E-mail Address [auto-fill]

Housing Information

Note: 'Number of bedrooms' and 'PHA' have been entered in the final Advance Contact Form.

PHA for this test [auto-fill]

Number of bedrooms to request [auto-fill]

Available Household Composition for this PHA [list of Household Composition options]

Once you have selected the household composition for this test, click here to generate the 

household members for this test

Family Composition

Family Composition: Children’s ages and gender: Child 1 Sex [M/F] Age [7-12]

Child 2 Sex [M/F] Age [7-12]

Child 3 Sex [M/F] Age [7-12]

Child 4 Sex [M/F] Age [7-12]

Payment Standard

Payment Standard for this Unit from ACE Form [auto-fill]

High poverty or low poverty area from ACE Form [auto-fill]

Included Utilities from ACE Form [auto-fill]

Highest Monthly Rent of Available Unit [auto-fill]

Testers and Availability

Select the testers that will be used for this test [Tester 1] [Tester 2]

Will testers portray mothers or grandmothers? [ ] Mothers [ ] Grandmothers

Move-in date to request ______________________________________

Area Preference: If you are pressed by the agent, you

may state that you are looking in [auto-fill from ACE Form]

Test Status

Narrative Requirement [ ] Yes [ ] No

Test Released [ ] Yes [ ] No
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

141

6 6 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

RENTAL ASSIGNMENT FORM

System Test Information

Site [auto-fill]

Control Number [auto-fill]

Tester Sequence [auto-fill]

Transaction Type [auto-fill]

Tester Type [auto-fill]

Change this Tester from randomly assigned [ ] Yes [ ] No

Reason that this Tester is being changed ______________________________________

Randomly Assigned Tester [auto-fill]

Target date and time of first appointment call ______________________________________

Target date and time for scheduling appointment ______________________________________

SECTION 1: INFORMATION ABOUT TESTER’S HOUSEHOLD

Household Composition [auto-fill]

Tester will portray a mother or grandmother? [auto-fill]

Household Income Gross Monthly Income Gross Annual Income

Tester [auto-fill] [auto-fill]

Children Name Sex Age

Child	1 [auto-fill] [auto-fill]

[The same information is provided for up to four children]

EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION

Tester’s current occupation: ______________________________________

Name of tester’s current employer: ______________________________________

First line of tester’s employer’s address: ______________________________________

Second line of tester’s employer’s address: ______________________________________

Length of employment at current job: [2 – 15 years]

CURRENT RENTAL HOUSING SITUATION

Total Amount of Current Rent [auto-fill]

Tenant Portion of Current Rent [auto-fill]

Housing Assistance Portion of Current Rent [auto-fill]

Voucher Expiration Date __/__/____

Years at Current Residence [2 – 15 years]

Tester owns a car? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Reason for Moving? [ ] Ad sounded like something I’d be interested in 

[ ] Had to move while landlord is remodeling

[ ] Landlord wants to rent to family member / 

friend

[ ] Lived at current apartment long enough; 

ready for change

[ ] No reason, just would like a new place

[ ] Owner selling building; want to start looking 

now

[ ] Would like to be settled before school starts
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

142

6 7

OTHER CHARACTERISTICS

Type of current housing: Renting, 12 month lease

Credit standing: Good, no late payments

History of rent payment at current residence: Always on time

Other characteristics: Non-smoking, no pets

Other places visited: Just started looking

SECTION 2: ASSIGNED HOUSING

INFORMATION ABOUT HOUSING PROVIDER

Name of Agent/Company/Complex (if known) [auto-fill]

Street [auto-fill]

City [auto-fill]

State [auto-fill]

Zip Code (00000) [auto-fill]

Contact information for test site:

First listed telephone number [auto-fill]

Second listed telephone number [auto-fill]

First listed e-mail address [auto-fill]

Second listed e-mail address [auto-fill]

Advertisement: Name of source [auto-fill]

Advertisement: Date of Publication [auto-fill]

Advertisement: Text of Ad [auto-fill]

Advertisement: URL [auto-fill]

TYPE OF HOUSING TO BE REQUESTED

Assigned Minimum Number of Bedrooms [auto-fill]

Remember, for HDS-SOI, all testers can consider units with bedroom sizes greater than their 

Assigned Minimum Number of Bedrooms so long as the units are available on or within three 

weeks after their assigned move-in date and are at or below the assigned maximum rent.

Move-in date to request [auto-fill]

Maximum Rent Price [auto-fill]

Area Preference: If you are pressed by the agent,

you may say that you are looking in [auto-fill]

Remember: You are always open to considering any areas recommended by the agent.

Source of Security Deposit: If you are pressed by the

agent, you may say that funds for the security deposit

can be attained from ______________________________________

Voucher Testers: If you are pressed by the agent, you

may say that your Public Housing Authority is ______________________________________

Voucher Testers: If you are pressed by the agent, you

may say that you have been a voucher holder since ______________________________________

SECTION 3: TESTER’S INFORMATION

Tester Name [auto-fill]

Phone Number [000-000-0000] [auto-fill]

E-mail Address [auto-fill]

National Origin [auto-fill]

Tester’s Race [auto-fill]

Tester’s Age [auto-fill]

1. HCV PROGRAM REMINDERS:

The Housing Choice Voucher program provides a subsidy used to pay a portion of a low-income family’s 

monthly rent. “Housing Choice Voucher” / “HCV program” are formal names and the program used to be called 
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

143

6 8 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

“Section 8”. For any given test, testers may be assigned to portray a voucher holder and will tell housing 

providers they have a voucher at the beginning of their appointment contact and in-person site visit. If housing 

providers prefer to use another term such as “Section 8,” testers will continue to use the term suggested by the 

housing provider.

Testers posing as voucher holders will never ask housing providers if they accept vouchers and will never 

describe their voucher as a “2-bedroom voucher” or a “3-bedroom voucher,” unless the housing provider 

directly asks how many bedrooms the voucher is for.

Testers posing as voucher holders will portray current voucher holders looking for a new unit. That means that 

your family was on a waitlist at one point, met initial program eligibility requirements, was issued a voucher, and 

continues to meet eligibility requirements.

Testers will always be moving within their initial PHA’s jurisdiction and will not be porting out. Voucher testers 

will be assigned a voucher expiration date which will always be at least 60 days from the date of the test. 

Testers will never sign a lease but it’s important that voucher testers understand that unit inspections are 

required for units rented by actual families with vouchers.

Testers posing as voucher holders will not need to estimate the amount of their utility allowance but a housing 

provider may ask how voucher testers will cover the cost of utilities. If asked, the voucher tester can say that 

the PHA currently provides a utility allowance to help cover the cost of utilities that aren’t included in the rent 

and that an allowance will be calculated by the PHA once the unit inspection is completed.

All testers will be provided with their annual income, monthly income, current rent amount, and maximum 

amount of rent they are able to pay for the new unit. Testers posing as voucher holders will also be told what 

they currently pay (Total Tenant Payment, TTP) and what the PHA currently pays (Housing Assistance 

Payment, HAP) for their current unit.

All testers will be assigned a minimum number of bedrooms related to their household composition. Testers will 

never inquire about units with fewer bedrooms than their assigned minimum number of bedrooms. Testers can 

consider units with bedroom sizes greater than their assigned minimum number of bedrooms so long as the 

units are available to you on or within three weeks after their assigned move-in date and are at or below the 

assigned maximum rent.

2. GOOGLE VOICE INSTRUCTIONS

If you are contacting a housing provider via telephone, place the call to the housing provider using your 

assigned HDS Google Voice number.

To make a call with Google Voice through a computer:

1. Log in to Google Voice at voice.google.com

2. In the upper left-hand corner, click the red Call button, which will prompt a box to appear.

3. Type in the number you wish to call, and choose the forwarding telephone you’d like to call with.

4. Click Connect. Google will now call the forwarding telephone you selected in Step 3.

5. Pick up the call when it rings. Google will connect you with the number you typed in Step 3.

To make a call with Google Voice from one of your Google Voice forwarding telephones:

1. Use one of your Google Voice forwarding telephones, and dial your Google Voice number.

2. When prompted, enter your pin number and press #.

3. Follow the voice instructions to make an outgoing call by pressing 2.

4. Dial the number you wish to call.

5. Google Voice will connect you.

To make a call with Google Voice from a telephone not associated with your Google Voice account:

1. Dial your Google Voice number from any phone.

2. When you reach your voice message, hit *.

3. When prompted, enter your pin.

4. You will be prompted to enter the forwarding phone number associated with your Google Voice 

account and then #.

5. To place a call, press 2.

6. Enter the phone number you’d like to dial followed by #.

3. INSTRUCTIONS FOR HDS-SOI APPOINTMENT CONTACT:

Contact the housing provider listed in the advertisement and request information about housing that meets your 

needs and an appointment to meet with someone to discuss the housing mentioned during the telephone call. 

You should always contact the housing provider by telephone unless the advertisement does not include a 

telephone number, in which case you will be directed to use e-mail or an electronic contact form. You need not 

make your appointment with any particular agent.
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

144

6 9

Making appointment contact:

There are two key goals to keep in mind when contacting a housing provider:

1. Obtain information about all available housing that meets your needs

2. Request an appointment to view housing that meets your needs

• If, during the first two calls, you cannot reach a housing provider, you will not leave a message. If, on the 

third attempt, you are still unable to reach a housing provider, you will leave a message. All testers will 

leave their first and last name and assigned Google Voice number in the message. Voucher testers must 

explain that they have a voucher during the voice message. Testers assigned a voucher will not ask if 

vouchers are accepted and will not describe their voucher as a “2-bedroom voucher” or a “3-bedroom 

voucher,” unless directly asked how many bedrooms the voucher is for. You must alert your test 

coordinator immediately after leaving a telephone message. If you do not receive a return call within 24 

hours after leaving the message, you must call the housing provider a fourth time, but this time you should 

not leave a message. Once you make the fourth call, you should advise your test coordinator.

• If you reach the housing provider (or if the housing provider returns your call), voucher testers must 

explain that they have a voucher at the outset of this conversation. Testers assigned a voucher will 

not ask if vouchers are accepted and will not describe their voucher as a “2-bedroom voucher” or a “3-

bedroom voucher,” unless directly asked how many bedrooms the voucher is for.

• It is essential that you take notes during the appointment contact. You will need these notes in order 

to fill out test forms after the appointment contact has been completed.

All testers will inquire about the availability of Assigned Housing, explicitly referring to:

A. The specific advertised unit (if applicable) from your Rental Assignment Form

AND

B. Your assigned minimum number of bedrooms

You will NOT explicitly mention a maximum rent, move-in date, or minimum number of bedrooms but will 

instead refer to these characteristics internally to filter acceptable units from the agent’s response. If, however, 

you are asked directly about your maximum rent, desired move-in date or minimum number of bedrooms, you 

may respond with this information. 

Regardless of whether there are available units with your assigned minimum number of bedrooms, you 

must ask the agent if there are any other units available. Again, internally refer to your maximum rent, 

move-in date, and minimum number of bedrooms to filter out which units meet your needs. Obtain information 

about and make an appointment to view all units that meet your needs:

ü Have at least the assigned minimum number of bedrooms needed for your household

ü Are within your maximum rent

ü Are available to you on or within three weeks after your assigned move-in date

Goal #1: Obtain information about available housing

There are 10 crucial pieces of information you must obtain for every unit that meets your needs:

Unit Information

Whenever you are informed about rental housing that meets your needs (i.e., has at least your assigned 

minimum number of bedrooms, is at or below your maximum rent, and is available to you on or within three 

weeks after your assigned move-in date), document the following for each unit you are told about:

1. Exact address

2. Number of bedrooms

3. Date of availability

If the agent confirmed a unit available outside your move-in date would work for you, the date of availability 

should be recorded as the move-in date the agent agreed would work.

Rent and Fees

You must record the monthly rent amount based on a 12-month lease for each unit you’re told about, as well as 

fees associated with moving in and renting the unit. Include non-mandatory fees (fees for pets, optional 

amenities, optional parking, etc.) in your notes and narrative (if applicable) but only mandatory fees (fees that 

must be paid to move into and reside in the unit) will be recorded on your Available Rental Unit Form(s) -

Telephone.

4. Rent ($/month)

5. Security deposit (if any)

6. Other fees (if any)

Do not ask about incentives (reduced rent, waived fees, etc.) but document any incentives you’re told about.
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

145

7 0 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

Utilities

You must ask about utilities. Do not ask about amenities (gym, pool, etc.) but document any amenities you’re 

told about. Specifically, you must find out:

7. Which utilities are included in rent, if any (list)

Application Process

You will ask about the application process and whether a credit check is required. Do not ask for an 

application or about other types of background checks. However, document whether the housing provider 

offered to send you an application or directed you to an online application and if you were told about other 

background check requirements. If the housing provider offers to send you an application, have them send it to 

your assigned HDS e-mail account. You must find out:

8. Whether an application is required (Y/N)

9. Whether an application fee must accompany a completed application (Y/N) - If yes, how much is it?

10. Whether a credit check is required (Y/N)

You may have to ask for some of the 10 crucial pieces of information listed above if it is not volunteered.

Goal #2: Request an appointment to view housing that meets your needs

If there is at least one unit that meets your needs (i.e., has at least your assigned minimum number of 

bedrooms, is at or below your maximum rent, and is available to you on or within three weeks after your 

assigned move-in date), you should request an appointment to meet with an agent to view units on the 

day/time assigned by your test coordinator. You will need to capture the following specific information about 

your appointment:

1. Date, day and time of the appointment

2. Name of the person with whom you will meet

3. Address and meeting location (agent’s office, a specific unit, other)

Notify your test coordinator of your appointment.

• If the agent tells you that no rental housing is available that meets your needs, thank the agent and ask for 

her or his name if you do not already have it. Notify the test coordinator after your contact with the agent.

• If you receive a text message from a housing provider, you may respond with a text message. However, 

you should never initiate communication with a housing provider via text.

• Always thank the person you speak with for their assistance and ask for their name if it has not been 

provided by the end of your call.

If your test coordinator authorizes you to e-mail or electronically contact the housing provider, send only one email from your assigned HDS e-mail account. Alert your test coordinator so that the e-mail account can be 

monitored. Use the text or language that has been provided to you by your test coordinator, and inquire about 

making an appointment to view the advertised rental housing from your Rental Assignment Form. Voucher 

testers will be directed to mention that they have a voucher in their e-mail/electronic contact form 

message. After the initial e-mail/electronic contact, your interaction with a housing provider may proceed via email or may continue on the telephone.

4. INSTRUCTIONS FOR HDS-SOI IN-PERSON SITE VISITS:

At the outset of your site visit, voucher testers must tell the housing provider that they have a voucher.

• It is essential that you take notes during the in-person site visit. You will need these notes in order to 

fill out test forms after the in-person site visit has been completed.

• All testers will inquire about and ask to view the housing you discussed during appointment contact.

• After inquiring about the housing discussed during appointment contact, and regardless of whether such 

housing is still available, you must ALWAYS ask about the availability of other units with your assigned 

housing characteristics.

• Assigned Housing includes units that:

ü Have at least the assigned minimum number of bedrooms needed for your household

ü Are within your maximum rent

ü Are available to you on or within three weeks after your assigned move-in date

There are 12 crucial pieces of information you must obtain for every unit that meets your needs:

Unit Information

Whenever you are informed about rental housing that meets your needs (i.e., is at least your assigned 

minimum number of bedrooms, is at or below your maximum rent, and is available to you on or within three 

weeks after your assigned move-in date), document the following for each unit you are shown or told about:
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

146

7 1

1. Exact address

2. Unit number

3. Floor number

4. Number of bedrooms

5. Date of availability

If the agent confirmed a unit available outside your move-in date would work for you, the date of availability 

should be recorded as the move-in date the agent agreed would work.

Rent and Fees

You must record the monthly rent amount based on a 12-month lease for each unit you’re told about, as well as 

fees associated with moving in and renting the unit. Include non-mandatory fees (fees for pets, optional 

amenities, optional parking, etc.) in your notes and narrative (if applicable) but only mandatory fees (fees that 

must be paid to move into and reside in the unit) will be recorded on your Available Rental Unit Form(s) – Site 

Visit.

6. Rent ($/month)

7. Security deposit (if any)

8. Other fees (if any)

Do not ask about incentives (reduced rent, waived fees, etc.) but document any incentives you’re told about.

Utilities

You must ask about utilities. Do not ask about amenities (gym, pool, etc.) but document any amenities you’re 

told about. Specifically, you must find out:

9. Which utilities are included in rent, if any (list)

Application Process

You will ask about the application process and whether a credit check is required. Do not ask for an 

application or about other types of background checks. However, document whether an application was 

offered to you and if you were told about other background check requirements. If an application is offered, you 

may take it with you. You must find out:

10. Whether an application is required (Y/N)

11. Whether an application fee must accompany a completed application (Y/N) - If yes, how much is it?

12. Whether a credit check is required (Y/N)

You may have to ask for some of the 12 crucial pieces of information listed above if it is not volunteered.

If you are asked to sign a guest log or complete a guest card, you may do so using the information from your 

Rental Assignment Form, making sure to use your HDS-assigned e-mail and Google Voice number.

Do not initiate, suggest or offer to make any arrangements for future contact with the rental agent. As a 

tester, you may thank a rental agent for his or her assistance, but you must refrain from suggesting that you will 

get back to the agent or that the agent should contact you. Make sure to obtain the name of the rental agent if it 

has not been provided by the end of the in-person site visit and notify your test coordinator upon completion of 

the site visit.
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

147

7 2 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

APPOINTMENT CONTACT FORM

Site [auto-fill]

Transaction Type [auto-fill]

Tester ID [auto-fill]

Control Number [auto-fill]

Tester type [auto-fill]

Appointment Contact Form Sequence [auto-fill]

SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION

Who initiated contact? [ ] Tester initiated to conduct test

[ ] Tester initiated to cancel test

[ ] Tester initiated to confirm appointment

[ ] Housing provider

Type of contact [ ] Telephone

[ ] E-mail

[ ] Electronic Contact Form

[ ] Text Message

Date that contact was attempted ___/___/_____

Day of the week that contact was attempted [ ] Mon [ ] Tues [ ] Wed [ ] Thurs

[ ] Fri [ ] Sat [ ] Sun

Start time ___:___ [ ] AM [ ] PM

End time ___:___ [ ] AM [ ] PM

Name of housing provider, if given ______________________________________

Telephone number of housing provider

(if called/text messaged only) [000-000-0000] ______________________________________

E-mail address of housing provider

(if e-mailed only) ______________________________________

SECTION 2: DISPOSITION OF CONTACT

If you initiated contact to confirm a previously

scheduled appointment, were you able to reach the

housing provider? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, what were you told? [ ] Housing provider would keep the appointment

[ ] Housing provider would not keep the 

appointment

If the housing provider would not keep the appointment,

what did they tell you? [ ] Housing provider offered to reschedule

[ ] Housing provider would not reschedule

[ ] Housing provider had no units available for 

rent

[ ] Housing provider offered unit info over the 

telephone

[ ] Other
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

148

7 3

If Other, specify ______________________________________

Were you able to reach someone who was able to

provide housing information? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If no, why not? [ ] Dropped call

[ ] Left message with a person who did not have 

information

[ ] No answer, left message (3rd call)

[ ] No answer, did not leave message (1st, 2nd or 

4th call)

[ ] No answer / kept ringing / went to VM but 

unable to leave message

[ ] No response in 24 hours to e-mail / electronic 

contact form

[ ] Telephone number incorrect / no longer in 

service

[ ] Told housing provider will call back

[ ] Told to call another location

[ ] Told to call back later

[ ] Was hung up on (after disclosure of voucher)

[ ] Was hung up on (no disclosure of voucher)

[ ] Other

If Other, specify ______________________________________

SECTION 3: FORM SUBMISSION

This form is complete [ ] Yes [ ] No

Delete this record (for TC use only) [ ] Yes [ ] No
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

149

7 4 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

TELEPHONE REPORT FORM – HDS-SOI

Site [auto-fill]

Tester ID [auto-fill]

Week [auto-fill]

Control Number [auto-fill]

Tester Type [auto-fill]

Were you assigned a voucher for this test? [ ] Yes [ ] No

SECTION 1: INFORMATION ABOUT HOUSING

Voucher tester: Did you tell the agent that you have a

voucher before receiving specific unit information

(e.g. unit availability, rent rates, etc.)? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If you did not tell the agent that you had a voucher before

receiving specific unit information, why not? ______________________________________

Did the agent mention if vouchers are accepted

by the property? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, what did the agent say [ ] Yes, vouchers accepted

[ ] No, vouchers not accepted

[ ] Agent had to check to see if vouchers accepted

[ ] Agent didn’t know and did not offer to find out

[ ] Something else

If the agent made any comments regarding the

property’s voucher policy, please describe ______________________________________

After voucher disclosure, did the agent provide you

with housing information? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If no, please describe this conversation in detail ______________________________________

All testers: Did you obtain information about housing? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If no, why not? [ ] Agent suggested we communicate in person

[ ] Agent wasn’t knowledgeable about housing 

details

[ ] Unable to reach housing provider

[ ] Voucher tester: After disclosure, agent wouldn’t 

give info

[ ] Other

[ ] Unable to reach housing provider

If Other, specify ______________________________________

Information on persons with whom you spoke:

Name Position Perceived	Race	/	

Ethnicity

Sex	/

Gender

Perceived	Age	

Group

Primary	Person	Who	

Provided	Info

Person	1 [specify] [specify] White,	Black,	Hispanic,	

Asian/PI,	Amer.	Ind.,	

Other,	Don’t	Know

[ ]	Female

[ ]	Male

18-30,	31-45,	

46-65,	Over	

65,	Don’t	

Know

[ ]	Yes

[ ]	No

[The same questions are repeated for the second and third persons contacted]

SECTION 2: AVAILABILITY OF UNITS

How many TOTAL units were you told were available that

had at least your minimum number of bedrooms, were

available when you need them, and were at or below

your maximum rent? ______________________________________
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

150

7 5

If no units were available, were you offered to be placed

on a waiting list? [ ] Yes [ ] No

SECTION 3: APPLICATION INFORMATION

Did the agent inform you that any of the following were necessary for the application process?

Application form [ ] Yes [ ] No

Credit check [ ] Yes [ ] No

Co-signer [ ] Yes [ ] No

Criminal background check [ ] Yes [ ] No

Eviction check [ ] Yes [ ] No

Did the agent offer to send you a copy of the application? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Did the agent suggest you apply on-line or give you the

website address for the application? [ ] Yes [ ] No

SECTION 4: QUALIFICATIONS

Please indicate if the following pieces of personal information were volunteered by you, requested by 

the agent, or not obtained by the agent.

Your marital status [ ] I volunteered [ ] Agent requested

[ ] Agent did not obtain

If volunteered or requested, please describe ______________________________________

Your household size / composition [ ] I volunteered [ ] Agent requested

[ ] Agent did not obtain

If volunteered or requested, please describe ______________________________________

Your income (i.e. how much you make) [ ] I volunteered [ ] Agent requested

[ ] Agent did not obtain

If volunteered or requested, please describe ______________________________________

Your source of income [ ] I volunteered [ ] Agent requested

[ ] Agent did not obtain

If volunteered or requested, please describe ______________________________________

Your occupation (i.e. your type of job) [ ] I volunteered [ ] Agent requested

[ ] Agent did not obtain

If volunteered or requested, please describe ______________________________________

Your employer (i.e. who you work for) [ ] I volunteered [ ] Agent requested

[ ] Agent did not obtain

If volunteered or requested, please describe ______________________________________

Your length of employment [ ] I volunteered [ ] Agent requested

[ ] Agent did not obtain

If volunteered or requested, please describe ______________________________________

Your credit standing [ ] I volunteered [ ] Agent requested

[ ] Agent did not obtain

If volunteered or requested, please describe ______________________________________

Your rent history, including evictions [ ] I volunteered [ ] Agent requested

[ ] Agent did not obtain

If volunteered or requested, please describe ______________________________________

Your contact information (e.g. telephone, e-mail,

address, driver license) [ ] I volunteered [ ] Agent requested

[ ] Agent did not obtain

If volunteered or requested, please describe ______________________________________

Other [ ] I volunteered [ ] Agent requested

[ ] Agent did not obtain
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

151

7 6 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

If Other, specify ______________________________________

SECTION 5: COMMENTS

ALL TESTERS - During your conversation, did the agent comment on or reference any of the following:

Minimum or maximum income requirements (monthly or

annual)? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

Whether you are qualified to rent the unit? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

Fair Housing Laws, Equal Housing Opportunity, Open

Housing Ordinance, or Anti-discrimination Laws? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

Race or ethnicity? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

How you would come up with the money for the

security deposit? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

Mandatory renter’s insurance? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

VOUCHER TESTERS - During your conversation, did the agent comment on or reference any of the 

following:

Public housing / the Public Housing Authority? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

Vouchers in general/ the HCV program /the Section

8 program/ voucher holders? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

The inspection/approval of the housing by the

Public Housing Authority? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

The dollar value of your voucher? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

How much of the rent you would pay / the housing

agency would pay? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

If your voucher includes utilities? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

How many bedrooms your voucher was for? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

When your voucher expires? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

ALL TESTERS – GENERAL COMMENTS ______________________________________

SECTION 6: APPOINTMENT INFORMATION

Were you able to obtain an appointment? [ ] No

[ ] Yes, appointment was scheduled
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

152

7 7

[ ] Yes, appointment was confirmed (previously 

scheduled)

If no, why not? [ ] No units were available / nothing to show

[ ] Agent hung up / refused to schedule 

appointment / did not recommend the unit(s)

[ ] Housing provider cancelled appointment, 

suggested rescheduling

[ ] Housing provider cancelled appointment, did not 

reschedule

[ ] Leasing office / agent too busy within the 

upcoming week

[ ] Other

[ ] Unable to reach housing provider

If other, specify: ______________________________________

If you were able to obtain an appointment, please complete the section below.

Date ___/___/_____

Day of the appointment [ ] Mon [ ] Tues [ ] Wed [ ] Thurs

[ ] Fri [ ] Sat [ ] Sun

Time ___:___ [ ] AM [ ] PM

Name of the person you have arranged to meet with ______________________________________

Location of meeting [ ] Agent’s office

[ ] Address of specific home

[ ] Other

If Other, specify ______________________________________

Address of meeting

Name of test site

(Agent/Company/Complex, if known) ______________________________________

Meeting address ______________________________________

Suite number (if applicable) ______________________________________

City ______________________________________

State ______________________________________

Zip Code (00000) ______________________________________

SECTION 7: NARRATIVE ______________________________________

SECTION 8: FORM SUBMISSION

This form is complete: [ ] Yes [ ] No

Timestamp ______________________________________
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

153

7 8 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

AVAILABLE RENTAL UNIT FORM (TELEPHONE)

Site [auto-fill]

Tester ID Number [auto-fill]

Tester type [auto-fill]

Control Number [auto-fill]

Available Unit Form Sequence [auto-fill]

SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT AVAILABLE UNIT

Where was the information obtained? [ ] Described by agent over the telephone

(Check all that apply) [ ] E-mail from agent

[ ] Website

Address of Available Unit

Address of unit ______________________________________

City ______________________________________

State ______________________________________

Zip Code (00000) ______________________________________

Number of bedrooms: [ ] 2 bedrooms [ ] 2 bedrooms + den

[ ] 3 bedrooms [ ] 3 bedrooms + den

[ ] Other

If Other, please specify ______________________________________

Date available ___/___/_____

SECTION 2: COSTS AND INCENTIVES

Costs: Please carefully record all costs related to renting this available unit.

How much is the rent? ($___/month) ______________________________________

Were you told about any upfront fees that would be

applied toward your rent if you were approved? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, please report the amount of the fee ______________________________________

Is a security deposit and/or surety bond required? [ ] Yes – choice of security deposit or surety 

bond

[ ] Yes – security deposit

[ ] Yes – surety bond

[ ] No

If yes, please report the amount accordingly:

Security deposit amount ______________________________________

Surety bond amount ______________________________________

Were you told about any upfront fees that would be

applied toward your security deposit / surety bond if

you were approved? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, please report the amount of the fee ______________________________________

Is a non-refundable application fee required? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, please report the application fee amount: ______________________________________
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

154

7 9

Where you told about any additional mandatory fees? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Name of first mandatory fee [ ] Administrative/processing fee

[ ] Agent’s/Broker’s/Realtor’s/ALS fee

[ ] Amenity fee (access to gym, pool, etc.)

[ ] Cleaning/pest control fee

[ ] Credit/background check fee (separate from 

application fee)

[ ] Fee to hold housing off the market/reservation 

fee

[ ] HOA/condo fee

[ ] Key/lock/access fee (for first set)

[ ] Maintenance fee

[ ] Move-in fee

[ ] Other fee

[ ] Parking/garage fee

[ ] Township/village/borough fee

If Other, specify: ______________________________________

Is this a one-time/annual or monthly fee? [ ] One-time/annual [ ] Monthly

Amount of fee ______________________________________

[The same questions are repeated for the second through sixth mandatory fees]

Incentives: Please carefully record all incentives related to renting this available unit.

Were you told about any incentives available to you if you decide to apply and rent the unit right away? 

(Do not include incentives available if you refer a friend or if you rent the apartment before your assigned 

move-in date. If the agent offered a free month’s rent amortized over the length of the lease, record this 

only as a free month’s rent.) [ ] Yes [ ] No

Name of first incentive [ ] Gift card/cash back

[ ] Reduced/waived administrative/processing 

fee

[ ] Reduced/waived 

agent’s/Broker’s/Realtor’s/ALS fee

[ ] Reduced/waived amenity fee (access to gym, 

pool, etc.)

[ ] Reduced/waived application fee

[ ] Reduced/waived cleaning/pest control fee

[ ] Reduced/waived Credit/background check fee 

(separate from application fee)

[ ] Reduced/waived fee to hold housing 

/reservation fee

[ ] Reduced/waived HOA/condo fee

[ ] Reduced/waived Key/lock/access fee (for first 

set) (for first set)

[ ] Reduced/waived maintenance fee

[ ] Reduced/waived move-in fee

[ ] Reduced/waived other fee

[ ] Reduced/waived parking/garage fee

[ ] Reduced/waived rent (free months)

[ ] Reduced/waived rent (monthly reduction)

[ ] Reduced/waived security deposit

[ ] Reduced/waived township/village/borough fee

If Other, specify: ______________________________________

Is this a one-time/annual or a monthly incentive? [ ] One-time/annual [ ] Monthly

Amount of incentive: ______________________________________

[The same questions are repeated for the second through sixth incentives]
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

155

8 0 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

SECTION 3: COMMENTS

Did the housing provider make any of the following

comments about the building and/or surrounding

neighborhood? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Noise [ ] Quiet[ ] Noisy

[ ] No comment

Safety [ ] Safe/low crime

[ ] Dangerous/high crime

[ ] No comment

Schools [ ] Good [ ] Poor

[ ] No comment

Services / Maintenance / Amenities [ ] Good services/maintenance/amenities

[ ] Poor services/maintenance/amenities

[ ] No comment

Did the housing provider make any comments about

this particular unit/building? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

General comments ______________________________________

SECTION 4: FORM SUBMISSION

This form is complete [ ] Yes [ ] No

Delete this record (TC use only) [ ] Yes [ ] No

Geocoding for Address [auto-fill geocoding results]
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

156

8 1

SITE VISIT REPORT FORM

Site [auto-fill]

Tester ID [auto-fill]

Week [auto-fill]

Control Number [auto-fill]

Tester Type [auto-fill]

Were you assigned a voucher for this test? [ ] Yes [ ] No

SECTION 1: INFORMATION ABOUT HOUSING

Name of Test Site (Agent/Company/Complex, if known) ______________________________________

Address of leasing office ______________________________________

Suite number (if applicable) ______________________________________

City ______________________________________

State ______________________________________

Zip Code (00000) ______________________________________

SECTION 2: DATE AND TIME OF SITE VISIT

Date ___/___/_____

Day of Week [ ] Mon [ ] Tues [ ] Wed [ ] Thurs

[ ] Fri [ ] Sat [ ] Sun

Appointment Time ___:___ [ ] AM [ ] PM

Time began (office arrival)

Arrival time ___:___ [ ] AM [ ] PM

Time greeted by staff/agent (if applicable) ___:___ [ ] AM [ ] PM

Time began meeting with agent (if applicable) ___:___ [ ] AM [ ] PM

Time ended (departure)

Departure Time ___:___ [ ] AM [ ] PM

SECTION 3: INFORMATION ON PERSONS WITH WHOM YOU HAD CONTACT DURING YOUR VISIT

Name Position Perceived	Race	/	

Ethnicity

Sex	/

Gender

Perceived	

Age	Group

Primary	Person	Who	

Provided	Info

Person	1 [specify] [specify] White,	Black,	

Hispanic,	Asian/PI,	

Amer.	Ind.,	Other,	

Don’t	Know

[ ]	Female

[ ]	Male

18-30,	31-45,	

46-65,	Over	

65

[ ]	Yes

[ ]	No

[The same questions are repeated for the second, third, fourth, and fifth persons met during the site visit]

Were you able to meet with an agent to discuss

housing options? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If No, why not? ______________________________________

Did you meet with the agent: [ ] Individually (i.e., one-on-one)

[ ] In a group (i.e., with at least one other 

homeseeker)

Voucher tester: Did you indicate to the housing provider

that you have a voucher before receiving specific

unit information (e.g. unit availability, rent rates, etc.)? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If you did not tell the agent that you had a voucher

before receiving specific unit information, why not? ______________________________________

Did the agent mention if vouchers are accepted

by the property? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, what did the agent say? [ ] Yes, vouchers accepted

[ ] No, vouchers not accepted

[ ] Agent had to check with someone else to see if 

vouchers accepted
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

157

8 2 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

[ ] Agent didn’t know if vouchers accepted, and did 

not offer to find out

[ ] Something else

If the agent made any comments regarding the

property’s voucher policy, please describe ______________________________________

After voucher disclosure, did the agent provide you

with housing information? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If no, please describe this conversation in detail ______________________________________

SECTION 4: AVAILABILITY OF UNITS

How many TOTAL units were you told were available that

had at least your minimum number of bedrooms, were

available when you need them, and were at or below

your maximum rent? ______________________________________

How many TOTAL units did you inspect?

(Model units inspected should be included in this total.) ______________________________________

If no units were available, were you offered to be

placed on a waiting list? [ ] Yes [ ] No

SECTION 5: APPLICATION INFORMATION

Did the agent inform you that any of the following were necessary for the application process?

Application form [ ] Yes [ ] No 

Credit check [ ] Yes [ ] No

Co-signer [ ] Yes [ ] No

Criminal background check [ ] Yes [ ] No

Eviction check [ ] Yes [ ] No

Did the agent ask you to complete an application

(either in-person or online) during your visit? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Did the agent give you an application to take with you

or invite you to apply online? [ ] Yes [ ] No

SECTION 6: QUALIFICATIONS

Please indicate if the following pieces of personal information were volunteered by you, requested by the agent, 

exchanged in a prior contact, or not obtained by the agent.

Your marital status [ ] I volunteered [ ] Agent requested

[ ] Exchanged earlier [ ] Agent did not 

obtain

If volunteered or requested, please describe ______________________________________

Your household size / composition [ ] I volunteered [ ] Agent requested

[ ] Exchanged earlier [ ] Agent did not 

obtain

If volunteered or requested, please describe ______________________________________

Your income (i.e. how much you make) [ ] I volunteered [ ] Agent requested

[ ] Exchanged earlier [ ] Agent did not 

obtain

If volunteered or requested, please describe ______________________________________

Your source of income [ ] I volunteered [ ] Agent requested

[ ] Exchanged earlier [ ] Agent did not

obtain

If volunteered or requested, please describe ______________________________________

Your occupation (i.e. your type of job) [ ] I volunteered [ ] Agent requested

[ ] Exchanged earlier [ ] Agent did not 

obtain

If volunteered or requested, please describe ______________________________________
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

158

8 3

Your employer (i.e. who you work for) [ ] I volunteered [ ] Agent requested

[ ] Exchanged earlier [ ] Agent did not 

obtain

If volunteered or requested, please describe ______________________________________

Your length of employment [ ] I volunteered [ ] Agent requested

[ ] Exchanged earlier [ ] Agent did not 

obtain

If volunteered or requested, please describe ______________________________________

Your credit standing [ ] I volunteered [ ] Agent requested

[ ] Exchanged earlier [ ] Agent did not 

obtain

If volunteered or requested, please describe ______________________________________

Your rent history, including evictions [ ] I volunteered [ ] Agent requested

[ ] Exchanged earlier [ ] Agent did not 

obtain

If volunteered or requested, please describe ______________________________________

Your contact information

(e.g. telephone, e-mail, address, driver license) [ ] I volunteered [ ] Agent requested

[ ] Exchanged earlier [ ] Agent did not 

obtain

If volunteered or requested, please describe ______________________________________

Other [ ] I volunteered [ ] Agent requested

[ ] Exchanged earlier [ ] Agent did not 

obtain

If Other, specify ______________________________________

SECTION 7: COMMENTS

ALL TESTERS - During your conversation, did the agent comment on or reference any of the following:

Minimum or maximum income requirements (monthly or

annual)? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

Whether you are qualified to rent the unit? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

Fair Housing Laws, Equal Housing Opportunity, Open

Housing Ordinance, or Anti-discrimination Laws? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

Race or ethnicity? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

How you would come up with the money for the

security deposit? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

Mandatory renter’s insurance? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

VOUCHER TESTERS - During your conversation, did the agent comment on or reference any of the 

following:

Public housing / the Public Housing Authority? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

Vouchers in general/the HCV program/the Section

8 program/ voucher holders? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

The inspection/approval of the housing by the

Public Housing Authority? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

159

8 4 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

The dollar value of your voucher? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

How much of the rent you would pay / the housing

agency would pay? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

If your voucher includes utilities? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

How many bedrooms your voucher was for? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

When your voucher expires? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

ALL TESTERS – GENERAL COMMENTS ______________________________________

SECTION 8: MATERIALS RECEIVED

Did the agent provide you with any of the following items that you did not ask for?

(select all that apply) 

Business Card [ ] Yes [ ] No

Brochure [ ] Yes [ ] No

Listings [ ] Yes [ ] No

Floor Plan [ ] Yes [ ] No

Rental / Lease Agreement [ ] Yes [ ] No

Gift [ ] Yes [ ] No

Food and/or beverage [ ] Yes [ ] No

Other [ ] Yes [ ] No

If other, specify: ______________________________________

SECTION 9: ARRANGEMENTS FOR FUTURE CONTACT

Were arrangements for future contact made? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If arrangements for future contact were made, please specify:

The agent said that she/he would contact you [ ] Yes [ ] No

The agent invited you to call her/him [ ] Yes [ ] No

Other [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Other, specify ______________________________________

SECTION 10: FORM SUBMISSION

This form is complete: [ ] Yes [ ] No

Timestamp ______________________________________
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

160

8 5

AVAILABLE RENTAL UNIT FORM (IN-PERSON SITE VISIT)

Site [auto-fill]

Tester ID [auto-fill]

Tester type [auto-fill]

Control Number [auto-fill]

Available Unit Form Sequence [auto-fill]

SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT AVAILABLE UNIT

Address of Available Unit

Number and Street ______________________________________

Unit Number ______________________________________

Floor ______________________________________

City ______________________________________

State ______________________________________

Zip Code (00000) ______________________________________

Number of bedrooms: [ ] 2 bedrooms [ ] 2 bedrooms + den

[ ] 3 bedrooms [ ] 3 bedrooms + den

[ ] Other

If Other, please specify ______________________________________

Number of bathrooms ______________________________________

Date available (mm/dd/yyyy) ___/___/______

Did you inspect a unit during your site visit? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, what type of unit did you inspect? [ ] Actual available unit [ ] Model unit

[ ] Other unit similar to the actual available unit

Did the unit have any of the following INTERIOR physical conditions?

Broken plaster or peeling paint [ ] Yes [ ] No

Discoloration of a floor, wall or ceiling due to

water leakage [ ] Yes [ ] No

Exposed wiring [ ] Yes [ ] No

Did the building’s EXTERIOR have any of the following physical conditions?

Sagging roof [ ] Yes [ ] No

Broken window [ ] Yes [ ] No

Boarded up windows [ ] Yes [ ] No
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

161

8 6 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

SECTION 2: COSTS AND INCENTIVES

Costs: Please carefully record all costs related to renting this available unit.

How much is the rent? ($___/month) ______________________________________

Were you told about any upfront fees that would be

applied toward your rent if you were approved? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, please report the amount of the fee ______________________________________

Is a security deposit and/or surety bond required? [ ] Yes – choice of security deposit or surety 

bond

[ ] Yes – security deposit

[ ] Yes – surety bond

[ ] No

If yes, please report the amount accordingly

Security deposit amount ______________________________________

Surety bond amount ______________________________________

Were you told about any upfront fees that would be

applied toward your security deposit / surety bond if

you were approved? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, please report the amount of the fee ______________________________________

Is a non-refundable application fee required? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, please report the application fee amount: ______________________________________

Where you told about any additional mandatory fees? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Name of first mandatory fee [ ] Administrative/processing fee

[ ] Agent’s/Broker’s/Realtor’s/ALS fee

[ ] Amenity fee (access to gym, pool, etc.)

[ ] Cleaning/pest control fee

[ ] Credit/background check fee (separate from 

application fee)

[ ] Fee to hold housing off the market/reservation 

fee

[ ] HOA/condo fee

[ ] Key/lock/access fee (for first set)

[ ] Maintenance fee

[ ] Move-in fee

[ ] Other fee

[ ] Parking/garage fee

[ ] Township/village/borough fee

If Other, please specify: ______________________________________

Is this a one-time/annual or monthly fee? [ ] One-time/annual [ ] Monthly

What is the amount of this fee? ______________________________________

[The same questions are repeated for the second through sixth mandatory fees]
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

162

8 7

Incentives: Please carefully record all incentives related to renting this available unit.

Were you told about any incentives available to you if you decide to apply and rent the unit right away? 

(Do not include incentives available if you refer a friend or if you rent the apartment before your assigned 

move-in date. If the agent offered a free month’s rent amortized over the length of the lease, record this 

only as a free month’s rent.)

[ ] Yes [ ] No

Name of first incentive [ ] Gift card/cash back

[ ] Reduced/waived administrative/processing 

fee

[ ] Reduced/waived 

agent’s/Broker’s/Realtor’s/ALS fee

[ ] Reduced/waived amenity fee (access to gym, 

pool, etc.)

[ ] Reduced/waived application fee

[ ] Reduced/waived cleaning/pest control fee

[ ] Reduced/waived credit/background check fee 

(separate from application fee)

[ ] Reduced/waived fee to hold 

housing/reservation fee

[ ] Reduced/waived HOA/condo fee

[ ] Reduced/waived key/lock/access fee (for first 

set)

[ ] Reduced/waived maintenance fee

[ ] Reduced/waived move-in fee

[ ] Reduced/waived other fee

[ ] Reduced/waived parking/garage fee

[ ] Reduced/waived rent (free months)

[ ] Reduced/waived rent (monthly reduction)

[ ] Reduced/waived security deposit

[ ] Reduced/waived township/village/borough fee

If Other, please specify: ______________________________________

Is this a one-time/annual or a monthly incentive? [ ] One-time/annual [ ] Monthly

Amount of incentive? ______________________________________

[The same questions are repeated for the second through sixth incentives]
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

163

8 8 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

SECTION 3: COMMENTS

Did the housing provider make any of the following

comments about the building and/or surrounding

neighborhood? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Noise [ ] Quiet[ ] Noisy

[ ] No comment

Safety [ ] Safe/low crime

[ ] Dangerous/high crime

[ ] No comment

Schools [ ] Good [ ] Poor

[ ] No comment

Services / Maintenance / Amenities [ ] Good services / maintenance / amenities

[ ] Poor services / maintenance / amenities

[ ] No comment

Did the housing provider make any comments about

this particular unit/building? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Yes, what was the comment or reference? ______________________________________

General comments ______________________________________

SECTION 4: FORM SUBMISSION

This form is complete [ ] Yes [ ] No

Delete this record (TC use only) [ ] Yes [ ] No

Geocoding for Address [auto-fill geocoding results]
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

164

8 9

RENTAL NARRATIVE FORM

Class ID [auto-fill]

Site [auto-fill]

Tester ID [auto-fill]

Control Number [auto-fill]

Narrative:

This form is completed [ ] Yes

[ ] No
Appendix I: Testing Report Forms

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

165

9 0 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOUSING C HOICE VOUCHER HOLDER S

FOLLOW-UP CONTACT FORM

Site [auto-fill]

Tester type [auto-fill]

Tester ID [auto-fill]

Control Number [auto-fill]

Follow-up Form Sequence Number [auto-fill]

SECTION 1: DOCUMENTING FOLLOW-UP CONTACT

Was there any follow-up contact? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Who initiated contact? [ ] Tester

[ ] Housing provider

Name of housing provider/agent (if given) ______________________________________

Type of contact [ ] Telephone call / voicemail

[ ] Postal mail

[ ] E-mail

[ ] Text Message

Date and time of contact

Date ___/___/_____

Day of the week [ ] Mon [ ] Tues [ ] Wed [ ] Thurs

[ ] Fri [ ] Sat [ ] Sun

Time ___:___ [ ] AM [ ] PM

What was the stated purpose of the contact? (Check all that apply)

Personal message from housing provider thanking

tester for calling or visiting and / or asking if tester

has any additional questions. [ ] Yes [ ] No

Personal message from housing provider asking

if tester is still interested in housing. [ ] Yes [ ] No

Personal message from housing provider wanting

to let tester know about more available units. [ ] Yes [ ] No

Personal message from housing provider wanting

to get more information from tester. [ ] Yes [ ] No

Automated message (call or e-mail) from housing

provider thanking tester for calling or visiting and / or

providing additional general information. [ ] Yes [ ] No

Automated message asking tester to take part in a

marketing survey or something similar. [ ] Yes [ ] No

Other [ ] Yes [ ] No

If Other, please specify ______________________________________

SECTION 2: FORM SUBMISSION

This form is complete [ ] Yes [ ] No

Delete this record (for TC use only) [ ] Yes [ ] No
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

166
References

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

167

References

Aron, Lauran, Claudia L. Aranda, Douglas 

Wissoker, Brent Howell, Robert Santos, 

Molly Scott, and Margery Austin Turner. 

2016. Discrimination Against Families 

With Children in Rental Housing Markets: 

Findings of the Pilot Study. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development. https://www.

huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/

HDSFamiliesFinalReport.pdf.

Austin Tenants’ Council. 2012. Voucher Holders 

Need Not Apply: An Audit Report on 

the Refusal of Housing Choice Vouchers 

by Landlords in the Austin MSA. Austin, 

TX: Austin Tenants’ Council. http://

www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.

cfm?id=211114.

Berdahl-Baldwin, Audrey. 2015. Housing 

Mobility Programs in the US. Washington, 

DC: PRRAC. http://prrac.org/pdf/

HousingMobilityProgramsInTheUS2015.pdf.

Briggs, Xavier de Souza. 1997. “Moving Up 

Versus Moving Out: Neighborhood Effects 

in Housing Mobility Programs,” Housing 

Policy Debate 8 (1): 195–234.

Briggs, Xavier de Souza, and Elizabeth S. 

Jacobs. 2002. Qualitative Research on 

‘Moving to Opportunity’: Report on a 

Conference. Washington, DC: Fannie Mae 

Foundation.

Chetty, Raj, and Nathaniel Hendren. 2015. 

The Impacts of Neighborhoods on 

Intergenerational Mobility: Childhood 

Exposure Effects and County-Level 

Estimates. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

University; National Bureau of Economic 

Research.

Clampet-Lundquist, Susan. 2004. “HOPE VI 

Relocation: Moving to New Neighborhoods 

and Building New Ties,” Housing Policy 

Debate 15 (4): 415–447.

Chicago Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights 

under Law (CLCCRL). 2014. Final Report: 

Fair Housing Testing and Survey Project 

for the Chicago Housing Authority. 

Chicago: Chicago Lawyer’s Committee for 

Civil Rights under Law.

Collinson, Robert, and Peter Ganong. 2016. The 

Incidence of Housing Voucher Generosity. 

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. 

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/ganong/

files/collinsonganong105.pdf.

Cooper, Emily, and Sloane Cooper. 2016. Section 

8 Made Simple—Special Edition. Boston: 

Technical Assistance Collaborative. http://

www.tacinc.org/media/58886/S8MS Full 

Book.pdf.

Cunningham, Mary K., and Audrey Droesch. 

2005. Neighborhood Quality and Racial 

Segregation. Washington, DC: Urban 

Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/

default/files/publication/51941/411248-

Neighborhood-Quality-and-RacialSegregation.PDF.

Cunningham, Mary K., Molly M. Scott, Chris 

Narducci, Sam Hall, and Alexandra 

Stanczyk. 2010. Improving Neighborhood 

Location Outcomes in the Housing Choice 

Voucher Program: A Scan of Mobility 

Assistance Programs. Washington, 

DC: Urban Institute. http://www.urban.

org/research/publication/improvingneighborhood-location-outcomeshousing-choice-voucher-program-scanmobility-assistance-programs.

Cunningham, Mary K., David Sylvester, and 

Margery Austin Turner. 1999. Section 

8 Families in the Washington Region: 

Neighborhood Choices and Constraints. 

Washington, DC: Metropolitan Washington 

Council of Governments.
References

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

168

Daniel, Tamica H. 2010. “Bringing Real Choice 

to the Housing Choice Voucher Program: 

Addressing Voucher Discrimination Under 

the Federal Fair Housing Act,” Georgetown 

Law Journal 98: 769–794. http://

georgetown.lawreviewnetwork.com/files/

pdf/98-3/Daniel.PDF.

Dawkins, Casey, and Jae Sik Jeon. 2018. 

“Housing Cost Burden in the Housing 

Choice Voucher Program: The Impact of 

HUD Program Rules,” Cityscape 20 (1): 

39–62. 

DeLuca, Stephanie, Philip M. E. Garboden, and 

Peter Rosenblatt. 2013. “Segregating 

Shelter: How Housing Policies Shape 

the Residential Locations of Low-Income 

Minority Families,” Annals of the American 

Academy of Political and Social Science

647 (1): 268–299.

Desmond, Matthew. 2016. Evicted: Poverty and 

Profit in the American City. New York: 

Penguin Random House.

Desmond, Matthew, and Kristin L. Perkins. 2016. 

“Are Landlords Overcharging Housing 

Voucher Holders?” City and Community 15 

(2): 137–162. https://scholar.harvard.edu/

mdesmond/publications/are-landlordsovercharging-housing-voucher-holders.

Devine, Deborah J., Robert W. Gray, Lester 

Rubin, and Lydia B. Taghavi. 2003. 

Housing Choice Voucher Location 

Patterns: Implications for Participant 

and Neighborhood Welfare. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, Office of Policy 

Development and Research. http://www.

huduser.org/publications/pdf/location_

paper.pdf.

Ellen, Ingrid Gould. 2017. What Do We 

Know About Housing Choice 

Vouchers? Working paper. New 

York: New York University, Furman 

Center. http://furmancenter.org/files/

HousingChoiceVouchers_WorkingPaper_

IngridGouldEllen_14AUG2017.pdf.

Ellen, Ingrid Gould, Michael C. Lens, and 

Katherine O’Regan. 2012. “American 

Murder Mystery Revisited: Do Housing 

Voucher Households Cause Crime?” 

Housing Policy Debate 22 (4): 551–572.

Ellen, Ingrid Gould, and Margery Austin Turner. 

1997. “Does Neighborhood Matter? 

Assessing Recent Evidence,” Housing 

Policy Debate 8 (4): 833–866.

Equal Rights Center. 2005. In Search of Decent 

Housing in the DC Metropolitan Area: The 

Affordable Housing Crisis for Section 8 

Voucher Holders. Washington, DC: Equal 

Rights Center. 

. 2008. A Step Away From Homelessness: 

Housing Choice Voucher Holders Denied 

Housing in Montgomery County, MD. 

Washington, DC: Equal Rights Center.

. 2011. Still in Search of Decent Housing: 

A Five-Year Reflection on Discrimination 

Against Housing Choice Voucher Holders 

in the District of Columbia. Washington, 

DC: Equal Rights Center. https://www.

scribd.com/document/54123374/Still-inSearch-of-Decent-Housing.

. 2013. Will You Take My Voucher? An 

Update on Housing Choice Voucher 

Discrimination in the District of Columbia. 

Washington, DC: Equal Rights Center. 

https://equalrightscenter.org/wp-content/

uploads/will_you_take_my_voucher.pdf.

Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana. 2013. 

Fair Housing Rental Testing Audit Report. 

Indianapolis, IN: Fair Housing Center of 

Central Indiana. https://www.fhcci.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/12/4-12-13-FHCCITesting-Audit-Report.pdf.
References

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

169

Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston. 2001. 

We Don’t Want Your Kind Living Here: A 

Report on Discrimination in the Greater 

Boston Rental Market. Boston: Fair 

Housing Center of Greater Boston. 

Feins, Judith D., and Rhiannon Patterson. 2005. 

“Geographic Mobility in the Housing 

Choice Voucher Program: A Study of 

Families Entering the Program, 1995–

2002,” Cityscape 8 (2): 21–48.

Finkel, Meryl, and Larry Buron. 2001. Study on 

Section 8 Voucher Success Rates. Volume 

I, Quantitative Study of Success Rates in 

Metropolitan Areas. Cambridge, MA: Abt 

Associates.

Finkel, Meryl, Samuel Dastrup, Kimberly Burnett, 

Thyria Alvarez, Carissa Climaco, and Tanya 

de Sousa. 2017. Small Area Fair Market Rent 

Demonstration Evaluation: Interim Report. 

Washington, DC: Abt Associates. https://

www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/

pdf/SAFMR-Interim-Report.pdf.

Freeman, Lance. 2012. “The Impact of Source 

of Income Laws on Voucher Utilization,” 

Housing Policy Debate 22 (2): 207–319.

Freeman, Lance, and Yunjing Li. 2014. “Do 

Source of Income Anti-Discrimination 

Laws Facilitate Access to Less 

Disadvantaged Neighborhoods?” Housing 

Studies 29 (1): 88–107.

Freiberg, Fred, and Diane L. Houk. 2008. 

No License to Discriminate: Real 

Estate Advertising, Source of Income 

Discrimination, and Homelessness in New 

York City. New York: Fair Housing Justice 

Center. http://www.fairhousingjustice.org/

wp-content/uploads/2012/11/License_to_

Discriminate_finalDRAFT.pdf.

Galvez, Martha M. 2010. Getting Past ‘No’: 

Housing Choice Voucher Holders’ 

Experiences With Discrimination and 

Search Costs. Draft. Washington, 

DC: Poverty and Race Research 

Action Council. http://prrac.org/pdf/

GettingPastNo.pdf.

. 2011. “Defining ‘Choice’ in the Housing 

Choice Voucher Program.” Ph.D. Diss. 

New York: New York University. 

. 2017. Assisted Housing Mobility Initiatives. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Partnership on 

Mobility From Poverty. http://www.

mobilitypartnership.org/publications/

assisted-housing-mobility-initiatives.

Galvez, Martha, Callie Black, Barbara Felver, 

and Sharon Estee. 2014. Characteristics 

of Housing Assistance Recipients 

From Three Public Housing Authorities. 

Olympia: Washington State Department 

of Social and Health Services, Research 

and Data Analysis Division. https://www.

dshs.wa.gov/sesa/rda/research-reports/

characteristics-housing-assistancerecipients-three-public-housing-authorities.

Galvez, Martha, Maya Brennan, Brady Meixell, 

and Rolf Pendall. 2017. Housing as a 

Safety Net. Washington, DC: Urban 

Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/

publication/housing-safety-net.

Galvez, Martha, Sharon Estee, Irina Sharkova, 

Quinghua Liu, Barbara Felver, and 

Jim Mayfield. 2014. Housing Matters: 

Characteristics and Experiences of TANF 

Clients by Housing Status. Olympia: 

Washington State Department of Social 

and Health Services, Research and Data 

Analysis Division. https://www.dshs.

wa.gov/sites/default/files/SESA/rda/

documents/research-11-211.pdf. 

Galvez, Martha, Jasmine Simington, and Mark 

Treskon. 2017. Moving to Work and 

Neighborhood Opportunity. Washington, 

DC: Urban Institute. https://www.urban.

org/research/publication/moving-workand-neighborhood-opportunity. 
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

170

Garboden, Philip M. E., Eva Rosen, Stefanie 

DeLuca, and Kathryn Edin. Forthcoming. 

“Taking Stock: What Drives Landlord 

Participation in the Housing Choice 

Voucher Program?”

Getsinger, Liza, Lily Posey, Graham MacDonald, 

Josh Leopold, and Katya Abazajian. 

2017. The Housing Affordability Gap for 

Extremely Low-Income Renters in 2014. 

Washington, DC: Urban Institute. https://

www.urban.org/research/publication/

housing-affordability-gap-extremely-lowincome-renters-2014. 

Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center 

(GNOFHAC). 2009. Housing Choice in 

Crisis: An Audit Report on Discrimination 

against Housing Choice Voucher 

Holders in the Greater New Orleans 

Rental Housing Market. New Orleans: 

Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action 

Center. http://www.gnofairhousing.

org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/

HousingChoiceInCrisis2009.pdf.

Gubits, Daniel, Jill Khadduri, and Jennifer 

Turnham. 2009. Housing Patterns of 

Low-Income Families With Children: 

Further Analysis of Data From the Study 

of the Effects of Housing Vouchers on 

Welfare Families. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

University.

Gubits, Daniel, Marybeth Shinn, Michelle Wood, 

Stephen Bell, Samuel Dastrup, Claudia D. 

Solari, Scott R. Brown, Debi Mclnnis, Tom 

McCall, Utsav Kattel, Abt Associates, Inc., 

and Vanderbilt University. 2016. Family 

Options Study: 3-Year Impacts of Housing 

and Services Interventions for Homeless 

Families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development.

Hartung, John M., and Jeffrey Henig. 1997. 

“Housing Vouchers and Certificates as 

a Vehicle for Deconcentrating the Poor: 

Evidence From the Washington, DC, 

Metropolitan Area,” Urban Affairs Review

32 (3): 403–419.

Healy, Lenore, and Michael Lepley. 2016. 

Housing Voucher Mobility in Cuyahoga 

County. Cleveland: The Housing Center: 

Housing Research and Advocacy Center. 

http://www.thehousingcenter.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/02/CuyahogaCounty-Voucher-Mobility-Report.pdf.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD). 2009. Housing 

Choice Voucher Program Guidebook

(7420.10g). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development. 

. 2016. “Picture of Subsidized 

Households.” Database. http://www.

huduser.org/portal/datasets/picture/

yearlydata.html.

. 2018. “Fair Market Rents.” https://www.

huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html

Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard 

University (JCHS). 2017. The State of 

the Nation’s Housing 2015. Cambridge, 

MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies 

of Harvard University. http://www.jchs.

harvard.edu/sites/default/files/jchs-sonhr2015-full.pdf.

Jencks, Christopher, and Susan E. Mayer. 1990. 

“The Social Consequences of Growing 

Up in a Poor Neighborhood.” In InnerCity Poverty in the United States, edited 

by Laurence E. Lynn and Michael G. 

H. McGeary. Washington, DC: National 

Academies Press: 111–186.

Kennedy, Stephen D., and Meryl Finkel. 1994. 

Section 8 Rental Voucher and Rental 

Certificate Utilization Study: Final Report. 

Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

Khadduri, Jill. 2008. Housing Vouchers Are 

Critical for Ending Family Homelessness. 

References
A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

171

Washington, DC: National Alliance to End 

Homelessness. 

Kingsley, G. Thomas. 2017. Trends in Housing 

Problems and Federal Housing Assistance. 

Washington, DC: Urban Institute. https://

www.urban.org/research/publication/

trends-housing-problems-and-federalhousing-assistance. 

Krysan, Maria, Kyle Crowder, Molly M. Scott, and 

Carl Hedman, with Sade Adeeyo, Somala 

Diby, and Sierra Latham. Forthcoming. 

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Housing 

Search. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development.

Landlord Liaison Project. 2010. 2010 

Performance and Evaluation Report. 

Seattle: King County Housing Authority. 

http://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/

socialServices/housing/documents/

HFP_HHP/HHP/Landlord_Liaison_Project_

Final_2010.ashx.

Lawyers Committee for Better Housing, Inc. 

(LCBH). 2002. Locked Out: Barriers to 

Choice for Housing Voucher Holders. 

Chicago: Lawyers Committee for Better 

Housing, Inc. http://lcbh.org/sites/default/

files/resources/2002-lcbh-housingvoucher-barriers-report.pdf.

Levy, Diane K., Margery Austin Turner, Rob 

Santos, Doug Wissoker, Claudia L. 

Aranda, Rob Pitingolo, and Helen Ho. 

2015. Discrimination in the Rental Housing 

Market Against People Who Are Deaf 

and People Who Use Wheelchairs: 

National Study Findings. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, Office of Policy 

Development and Research. https://www.

huduser.gov/portal/publications/fairhsg/

hds_disability.html.

Levy, Diane K., Doug Wissoker, Claudia L. 

Aranda, Brett Howell, Rob Pitingolo, 

Sarale Sewell, and Rob Santos. 2017. A 

Paired-Testing Pilot Study of Housing 

Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples 

and Transgender Individuals. Washington, 

DC: Urban Institute. https://www.urban.

org/research/publication/paired-testingpilot-study-housing-discrimination-againstsame-sex-couples-and-transgenderindividuals. 

Maney, Brian, and Sheila Crowley. 2000. 

“Scarcity and Success: Perspectives on 

Assisted Housing,” Journal of Affordable 

Housing & Community Development Law 9 

(4): 319–368. 

Mast, Brent D., and David Hardiman. 2017. 

“Project-Based Vouchers,” Cityscape 19 

(2): 301–322.

Mayfield, Jim, Callie Black, Barbara Felver, 

Sharon Estee, Elizabeth Speaker, and 

Deleena Patton. 2015. Characteristics of 

Public Housing Assistance Recipients 

in Washington State: A Profile of DSHS 

Clients Served by Public Housing 

Authorities in 2013. Olympia: Washington 

State Department of Social and Health 

Services, Research and Data Analysis 

Division. https://www.dshs.wa.gov/sites/

default/files/SESA/rda/documents/

research-11-223.pdf.

McClure, Kirk. 2005. “Rent Burden in the 

Housing Choice Voucher Program,” 

Cityscape 8 (2): 5–20. https://www.jstor.

org/stable/20868590?seq=1 - page_scan_

tab_contents.

. 2011. Housing Choice Voucher Marketing 

Opportunity Index: Analysis of Data 

at the Tract and Block Group Level. 

Assisted Housing Research Cadre Report. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, Office 

of Policy Development and Research.

References
References

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

172

Metzger, Molly W. 2014. “The Reconcentration of 

Poverty: Patterns of Housing Voucher Use, 

2000 to 2008,” Housing Policy Debate 24 

(3): 544–567. http://www.tandfonline.com/

doi/abs/10.1080/10511482.2013.876437.

Montgomery County Office of Human Rights. 

2009. Office of Human Rights FY 2009 

Fair Housing Testing. Rockville, MD: 

Montgomery County Office of Human 

Rights, Fair Housing Program. 

New York City ACORN. 2007. Housing for 

Everyone: New York City, Section 8, and 

Source of Income Discrimination. New 

York: New York City ACORN. 

New York University Furman Center. 2018. How 

Do Small Area Fair Market Rents Affect the 

Location and Number of Units Affordable 

to Voucher Holders? New York: New 

York University, Furman Center. http://

furmancenter.org/files/NYUFurmanCenter_

SAFMRbrief_5JAN2018_1.pdf.

Newton Fair Housing Task Force. 2008. City 

of Newton Fair Housing Action Plan, 

Appendix A: Housing Discrimination Audit 

Report to the City of Newton (Fair Housing 

Center of Greater Boston, April 2006). 

Newton, MA: Official City Website. http://

www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/

documents/46406.

O’Regan, Katherine M., and Keren M. Horn. 

2012. What Can We Learn About the LowIncome Housing Tax Credit Program by 

Looking at the Tenants? Washington, DC: 

National Low Income Housing Coalition. 

http://furmancenter.org/files/publications/

LIHTC_paper_July_2012_1.pdf.

Orlebeke, Charles J. 2000. “The Evolution of Low 

Income Housing Policy, 1949 to 1999,” 

Housing Policy Debate 11 (2): 489–520. 

https://oied.ncsu.edu/selc/wp-content/

uploads/2013/03/Orlebeke-HPD-2000-

Evolution-of-LI-Housing-Policy.pdf.

Pashup, Jennifer, Kathryn Edin, Greg J. Duncan, 

and Karen Burke. 2005. “Participation 

in a Residential Mobility Program From 

the Client’s Perspective: Findings From 

Gautreaux Two,” Housing Policy Debate 16 

(3–4): 361–392.

Pendall, Rolf. 2000. “Why Voucher and Certificate 

Users Live in Distressed Neighborhoods,” 

Housing Policy Debate 11 (4): 881–909. 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.10

80/10511482.2000.9521391.

Pendall, Rolf, Casey Dawkins, Evelyn 

Blumenberg, Christopher Hayes, Arthur 

(Taz) George, Zach McDade, Jae 

Sik Jeon, Eli Knaap, Gregory Pierce, 

and Michael Smart. 2014. Driving to 

Opportunity: Understanding the Links 

Among Transportation Access, Residential 

Outcomes, and Economic Opportunity 

for Housing Voucher Recipients. 

Washington, DC: Urban Institute. https://

www.urban.org/research/publication/

driving-opportunity-understandinglinks-among-transportation-accessresidential-outcomes-and-economicopportunity-housing-voucher-recipients/

view/full_report.

Popkin, Susan J., and Mary K. Cunningham. 

1999. CHAC Section 8 Program: Barriers 

to Successful Leasing Up. Washington, 

DC: Urban Institute. 

. 2000. Searching for Section 8 Housing in 

Chicago. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Poverty and Race Research Action Council 

(PRRAC). 2017. Expanding Choice: 

Practical Strategies for Building a 

Successful Housing Mobility Program, 

Appendix B: State, Local, and Federal 

Laws Barring Source-of-Income 

Discrimination. Washington, DC: Poverty 

and Race Research Action Council. http://

www.prrac.org/pdf/AppendixB.pdf.
References

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

173

Public and Affordable Housing Research 

Corporation. 2016. Housing Agency 

Waiting Lists and the Demand for Housing 

Assistance. Cheshire, CT: Public and 

Affordable Housing Research Corporation. 

https://www.housingcenter.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/11/waiting-listspotlight-executive-summary.pdf. 

Rosen, Eva. 2014. “Rigging the Rules of the 

Game: How Landlords Geographically Sort 

Low Income Renters,” City & Community

13 (4): 310–340. http://www.prrac.org/pdf/

Rosen_Landlords_2014.pdf.

Rosenblatt, Peter, and Stefanie DeLuca. 2012. 

“‘We Don’t Live Outside, We Live in Here’: 

Neighborhood and Residential Mobility 

Decisions among Low-Income Families,” 

City & Community 11 (3): 254–284. 

Rosin, Hanna. 2008. “American Murder Mystery,” 

Atlantic Monthly July/August: 40–54. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/

archive/2008/07/american-murdermystery/306872

Sampson, Robert J. 2012. Great American City: 

Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood 

Effect. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sard, Barbara, and Douglas Rice. 2014. 

Creating Opportunity for Children: How 

Housing Location Can Make a Difference. 

Washington, DC: Center on Budget and 

Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.

org/research/creating-opportunity-forchildren.

Seattle Office of Civil Rights. 2015. “FAQ on 2015 

Testing.” http://www.seattle.gov/civilrights/

civil-rights/fair-housing/testing/faq.

Schwartz, Alex, Kirk McClure, and Lydia Taghavi. 

2016. “Vouchers and Neighborhood 

Distress: The Unrealized Potential for 

Families with Housing Choice Vouchers to 

Reside in Neighborhoods with Low Levels 

of Distress,” Cityscape 18 (3): 207–227.

Shroder, Mark. 2002. “Locational Constraint, 

Housing Counseling, and Successful 

Lease-Up in a Randomized Housing 

Voucher Experiment,” Journal of Urban 

Economics 51 (2): 315–338.

Smith, Robin E., Arthur Naparstek, Susan Popkin, 

Lesley Bartlett, Lisa Bates, Jessica Cigna, 

Russell Crane, and Elizabeth Vinson. 2002. 

Housing Choice for HOPE VI Relocatees. 

Washington, DC: Urban Institute. https://www.

urban.org/research/publication/housingchoice-hope-vi-relocatees/view/full_report.

Tegeler, Philip, Megan Haberle, and Ebony 

Gayles. 2013. “Affirmatively Furthering Fair 

Housing in HUD Housing Programs: A First 

Term Report Card,” Journal of Affordable 

Housing and Community Development 

Law 22: 27–60.

Thabault, Isabelle M., and Eliza T. Platts-Mills. 

2006. Discrimination Against Participants 

in the Housing Choice Voucher Program: 

An Enforcement Strategy. Washington, 

DC: Poverty and Race Research Action 

Council. 

Turner, Margery Austin, Austin Nichols, and 

Jennifer Comey. 2012. Benefits of Living 

in High-Opportunity Neighborhoods: 

Insights From the Moving to Opportunity 

Demonstration. Washington, DC: 

Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/

research/publication/benefits-living-highopportunity-neighborhoods.

Turner, Margery Austin, Susan J. Popkin, and 

Mary K. Cunningham. 1999. Section 

8 Mobility and Neighborhood Health: 

Emerging Issues and Policy Challenges. 

Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
References

A PILOT STUDY OF LANDLORD ACCEPTANCE OF HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS

174

Turner, Margery Austin, Rob Santos, Diane 

K. Levy, Doug Wissoker, Claudia L. 

Aranda, and Rob Pitingolo. 2013. 

Housing Discrimination Against Racial 

and Ethnic Minorities 2012. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, Office of Policy 

Development and Research. https://www.

huduser.gov/portal/Publications/pdf/HUD514_HDS2012.pdf.

Varady, David P., and Carol C. Walker. 2000. 

Case Study for Section 8 Rental Vouchers 

and Rental Certificates in Alameda County, 

California: Final Report. New Brunswick, 

NJ: Rutgers University, Center for Urban 

Policy Research.

Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly 

Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the 

Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: 

University of Chicago Press.

Zielenbach, Sean. 2006. “Moving Beyond the 

Rhetoric: Section 8 Housing Choice 

Voucher Program and Lower Income 

Neighborhoods,” Journal of Affordable 

Housing and Community Development 

Law 16 (1): 9–39.

September 2018

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410-6000