HOUSING DISCRIMINATION 

AGAINST RACIAL AND 

ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

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

www.huduser.org

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.
HOUSING DISCRIMINATION 

AGAINST RACIAL AND 

ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development 

Washington, D.C.

Prepared by: 

Margery Austin Turner 

Rob Santos 

Diane K. Levy 

Doug Wissoker 

Claudia Aranda 

Rob Pitingolo 

The Urban Institute

June 2013
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project could not have been completed successfully without the commitment and hard work of 

test coordinators, advance contact staff, testers, and other staff of the local testing organizations that 

participated. 

A panel of expert advisors made valuable contributions to our understanding of changes in rental and 

sales housing markets, analysis of tester racial and ethnic identifiability, and other protocol design and 

data analysis challenges. Panel members (and their organizational affiliations at the time of the study) 

were John Baugh (Washington University); James Follain (James R. Follain, LLC); Fred Freiberg (Fair 

Housing Justice Center); George Galster (Wayne State University); Carla Herbig (Department of Justice); 

Anne Houghtaling (National Fair Housing Alliance, HOPE Fair Housing Center); William Loges 

(Oregon State University); Stephen Ross (University of Connecticut); Greg Squires (George Washington 

University); and Shanna Smith (National Fair Housing Alliance).

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

this research. Specifically, the regional coordinators worked closely with the local testing organizations 

to ensure tests were conducted to the highest standards, and they provided valuable input to the full 

research team on testing protocols and analysis. Coordinators included Rani Bush, Maurice Destouet, 

Chris Healy, Katie Koopman, Thu Nguyen, and Sarale Sewell. David D’Orio designed the Web-based 

data system used to enter and share testing information, and he developed and managed the process for 

electronically sampling ads from online sources; Austin Nichols, Jenny Kenney, and Tim Waidmann 

provided helpful advice on analysis issues; Matt Rogers drafted the site-specific research findings and 

provided other editorial and research support; Tim Meko turned data into infographics to help better 

convey findings; Fiona Blackshaw provided excellent editing and formatting services; and Tim Ware 

assisted us throughout the study with project administration, including preparations for this final report. 

Finally, Judson James and Carol Star from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 

Office of Policy Development and Research provided excellent guidance and oversight throughout this 

research effort.

Despite the generous contributions from these individuals and organizations, any errors and omissions 

that may remain in this report are, of course, our own. All views expressed are those of the authors and 

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


 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 vii

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������xi

I. INTRODUCTION��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������1

Background ...................................................................................................... 1

Goals for the 2012 Housing Discrimination Study ...........................................................................................2

Strengths and Limitations of Paired Testing ......................................................................................................3

Organization of Report .....................................................................................................................................4

II. PAIRED TESTING PROTOCOLS AND FIELD MANAGEMENT���������������������������������������������������������������5

Rental Testing Protocols ................................................... 6

Sales Testing Protocols ...................................................................................................... 8

Data Collection Oversight, Management, and Quality Control........................................................................9

III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������13

Study Objectives..............................................................................................................................................13

Sample of Metropolitan Areas .........................................................................................................................14

Sampled Sites and Targeted Tests ....................................................................................................................19

Actual Tests Conducted ..................................................................................................................................19

Sampling Available Housing ............................................................................................................................22

Analysis Weights ................................................... 24

Measuring Differential Treatment ...................................................................................................................27

Multivariate Analyses of the Correlates of Differential Treatment ...................................................................34

IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������39

Rental Market Discrimination ........................................................................................................................39

Sales Market Discrimination ...........................................................................................................................50

V. VARIATIONS IN DISCRIMINATION ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������65

Change in Discrimination Over Time ............................................................................................................65

Metropolitan Estimates of Discrimination and Tests for the Influence of Housing Market Conditions ..........69

Identifiability of Minority Homeseekers ..........................................................................................................72

Multivariate Analysis of Variations in Discrimination .....................................................................................74

APPENDICES

Appendix A: HDS2012 Local Testing Organizations ......................................................................................79 

Appendix B: Master List of Asian and Hispanic Subgroups ............................................................................81

Appendix C: Tester Characteristics .................................................................................................................85

Appendix D: Rental Forms ..............................................................................................................................89

Appendix E: Sales Forms ...................................................................................................... .115

Appendix F: Metro-Specific Rental Estimates ...............................................................................................137

REFERENCES�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������163
viii HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit ES-1: Minority Homeseekers Told About and Shown Fewer Housing Units ...........................................................xi

Exhibit ES-2: Call for Rental Appointment ........................................................................................................................ xiii

Exhibit ES-3: In-Person Meeting with Rental Housing Provider ........................................................................................xiv

Exhibit ES-4: Inspect Available Rental Units ......................................................................................................................xiv

Exhibit ES-5: Minority Renters Told About and Shown Fewer Housing Units ...................................................................xv

Exhibit ES-6: Call for Sales Appointment ............................................................................................................................xv

Exhibit ES-7: In-Person Meeting with Sales Agent ..............................................................................................................xvi

Exhibit ES-8: Inspect Available For-Sale Homes .................................................................................................................xvi

Exhibit ES-9: Minority Homebuyers Told About and Shown Fewer Housing Units .........................................................xvii

Exhibit ES-10: Long-Term Trends in Net Measures of Rental Discrimination ...................................................................xix

Exhibit ES-11: Recent Trends in Rental Discrimination ......................................................................................................xx

Exhibit ES-12: Long-Term Trends in Net Measures of Sales Discrimination .......................................................................xx

Exhibit ES-13: Recent Trends in Sales Discrimination ........................................................................................................xxi

Exhibit ES-14: Trends in Segregation of Whites from Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians ........................................................xxii

Exhibit III-1: Summary of HDS2012 Integrated Sampling Plan ..........................................................................................15

Exhibit III-2: Distribution of 28 Distinct Sites by Racial/Ethnic Testing and Self-Representing 

Status for the HDS Sample .............................................................................................................................. 15

Exhibit III-3: HDS Certainty Metro Sites by Minority Testing Configuration ...................................................................16

Exhibit III-4: Self-Representing Metropolitan Areas ............................................................................................................16

Exhibit III-5: Sampling Strata for the 2012 HDS .................................................................................................................17

Exhibit III-6: Number of Sites Sampled by Stratum and Race/Ethnic Group .....................................................................18

Exhibit III-7: Site Selections and Target Numbers of Tests by Sampling Stratum ............................................................... 20

Exhibit III-8: In-Person Paired Tests Conducted by Site, Race-Ethnic Group and Test Type Actual Number of Tests ......21

Exhibit III-9: Stratum Weights for HDS Analysis ............................................................................................................... 26

Exhibit III-10: Formulation of Gross and Net Adverse Treatment in a Paired Testing Design ............................................32

Exhibit III-11: Illustration of Tabular Analyses of Adverse Treatment in Rental Housing Seeking Among Blacks..............32

Exhibit III-12: Illustration of Tabular Analyses of Adverse Treatment for Number of Inspections of Rental Housing ........33

Exhibit IV-1: Summary Measures of Discrimination Against Minority Renters ................................................................. 40

Exhibit IV-2: Information and Availability Indicators for White and Black Renters ............................................................41

Exhibit IV-3: Inspections and Unit Problem Indicators for White and Black Renters ........................................................ 42

Exhibit IV-4: Financial Indicators for White and Black Renters ......................................................................................... 43

Exhibit IV-5: Comments and Helpfulness Indicators for White and Black Renters ............................................................ 44

Exhibit IV-6: Information and Availability Indicators for White and Hispanic Renters ......................................................45
 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 ix

Exhibit IV-7: Inspections and Unit Problem Indicators for White and Hispanic Renters ....................................................45

Exhibit IV-8: Financial Indicators for White and Hispanic Renters .................................................................................... 46

Exhibit IV-9: Comments and Helpfulness Indicators for White and Hispanic Renters .......................................................47

Exhibit IV-10: Information and Availability Indicators for White and Asian Renters ......................................................... 48

Exhibit IV-11: Inspections and Unit Problem Indicators for White and Asian Renters ....................................................... 48

Exhibit IV-12: Financial Indicators for White and Asian Renters ........................................................................................49

Exhibit IV-13: Comments and Helpfulness Indicators for White and Asian Renters .......................................................... 50

Exhibit IV-14: Summary Measures of Discrimination Against Minority Homebuyers ........................................................51

Exhibit IV-15: Information and Availability Indicators for White and Black Homebuyers ..................................................53

Exhibit IV-16: Inspections and Unit Problems Indicators for White and Black Homebuyers ..............................................53

Exhibit IV-17: Financial Indicators for White and Black Homebuyers ................................................................................ 54

Exhibit IV-18: Comments and Helpfulness Indicators for White and Black Homebuyers ...................................................55

Exhibit IV-19: Steering Indicators for White and Black Homebuyers ................................................................................. 56

Exhibit IV-20: Information and Availability Indicators for White and Hispanic Homebuyers ............................................57

Exhibit IV-21: Inspections and Unit Problems Indicators for White and Hispanic Homebuyers ........................................57

Exhibit IV-22: Financial Indicators for White and Hispanic Homebuyers.......................................................................... 58

Exhibit IV-23: Comments and Helpfulness Indicators for White and Hispanic Homebuyers .............................................59

Exhibit IV-24: Steering Indicators for White and Hispanic Homebuyers ........................................................................... 60

Exhibit IV-25: Information and Availability Indicators for White and Asian Homebuyers .................................................61

Exhibit IV-26: Inspections and Unit Problems Indicators for White and Asian Homebuyers..............................................61

Exhibit IV-27: Financial Indicators for White and Asian Homebuyers ............................................................................... 62

Exhibit IV-28: Comments and Helpfulness Indicators for White and Asian Homebuyers ................................................. 63

Exhibit IV-29: Steering Indicators for White and Asian Homebuyers ................................................................................. 64

Exhibit V-1: Comparable Measures of Discriminatory Treatment for Renters, HDS2000 and HDS2012 ......................... 66

Exhibit V-2: Comparable Measures of Discriminatory Treatment for Homebuyers, HDS2000 and HDS2012 .................67

Exhibit V-3: Longer-Term Trends in Discriminatory Treatment of Blacks and Hispanics .................................................. 68

Exhibit V-4: Metropolitan Estimates of Discrimination Against Black Renters .................................................................. 69

Exhibit V-5: Metropolitan Estimates of Discrimination Against Hispanic Renters .............................................................70

Exhibit V-6. Metropolitan Housing Market Conditions and Levels of Differential Treatment Estimates from 

Alternative Regression Models of the Difference in Number of Units Shown ..............................................................71

Exhibit V-7: Racial/Ethnic Identifiability of Testers ............................................................................................................ 72

Exhibit V-8: Racial/Ethnic Identifiability and Levels of Differential Treatment ................................................................. 73

Exhibit V-9: Sources of Variation in Discrimination Against Renters Regression Models

of the Difference in Number of Units Shown ................................................................................................................75

Exhibit V-10: Sources of Variation in Discrimination Against Homebuyers Regression Models of Difference in Number of 

Units Shown .............................................................................................................................. 77
x HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012
Executive Summary

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

For much of the twentieth century, discrimination by private real estate agents and rental property 

owners helped establish and sustain stark patterns of housing and neighborhood inequality. Beginning in 

the late 1970s, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has rigorously monitored 

trends in racial and ethnic discrimination in both rental and sales markets approximately once each 

decade through a series of nationwide paired-testing studies. This summary report presents findings from 

the fourth such study, which applied paired-testing methodology in 28 metropolitan areas to measure the 

incidence and forms of discrimination experienced by black, Hispanic, and Asian renters and 

homebuyers.1

When well-qualified minority 

homeseekers contact housing providers 

to inquire about recently advertised 

housing units, they generally are just 

as likely as equally qualified white 

homeseekers to get an appointment 

and learn about at least one available 

housing unit. However, when 

differences in treatment occur, 

white homeseekers are more likely 

to be favored than minorities. Most 

important, minority homeseekers are 

told about and shown fewer homes and 

apartments than whites (Exhibit ES-1).2

Although the most blatant forms of housing discrimination (refusing to meet with a minority 

homeseeker or provide information about any available units) have declined since the first national 

paired-testing study in 1977, the forms of discrimination that persist (providing information about fewer 

units) raise the costs of housing search for minorities and restrict their housing options. Looking forward, 

national fair housing policies must continue to adapt to address the patterns of discrimination and 

disparity that persist today.

1 Based on standard U.S. Census Bureau practice, this report uses the term “Asian” to refer to all Asian and Asian American testers. In addition, the term “white” refers to non-Hispanic whites. 

2 All reported differences between minority and white treatment are statistically significant at the 0.90 level or higher. For specific tests of statistical significance, see the exhibits in Chapters IV 

and V. 
Executive Summary

xii HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

There can be no question that the housing

circumstances of whites and minorities 

differ substantially. Whites are more 

likely to own their homes, to occupy 

better quality homes and apartments, 

and to live in safer, more opportunityrich neighborhoods. However, it is less 

obvious whether—or how much—these 

disparities result from current racial and 

ethnic discrimination in the housing 

market because whites and minorities 

differ systematically in employment, 

income, assets, and debts.

Paired testing offers a uniquely effective tool for directly observing differential treatment of equally 

qualified homeseekers, essentially catching discrimination in the act 

In a paired test, two people, one white and the other minority, pose as equally qualified homeseekers and 

inquire about available homes or apartments. Researchers have adapted the tool to systematically measure how 

often discrimination occurs across housing markets and what forms it takes.3

Despite its power, paired testing 

cannot capture all forms of housing 

discrimination that might occur during 

a housing search. For example, it does 

not encompass differences in advertising 

practices that may limit a homeseeker’s 

knowledge about available housing 

options. It cannot measure differences 

in treatment that might occur after the 

initial inquiry—when homeseekers 

submit applications, seek mortgage 

financing, or negotiate lease terms. 

Moreover, the results presented here 

do not reflect the experience of the 

average or typical minority homeseeker, 

because testers presented themselves as 

unambiguously well-qualified for the 

advertised homes and apartments about 

In this study... More than 8,000 tests were conducted in a 

nationally representative sample of 28 metropolitan areas. In 

each test, two trained individuals—one white and the other 

black, Hispanic, or Asian—contacted a housing provider to 

inquire about a housing unit randomly selected from recently 

advertised homes and apartments. The two testers in each 

pair were matched on gender and age, and both presented 

themselves as equally and unambiguously well-qualified to rent 

or buy the advertised unit. Each tester independently recorded 

the treatment he or she experienced, including information about 

all the homes or apartments recommended and shown.

Understanding the numbers... Not every instance of 

white-favored treatment should be interpreted as systematic 

discrimination. In some tests, random factors may contribute 

to observed differences in treatment; in other tests, minorities 

may experience more favorable treatment than their white 

partners for systematic reasons. Therefore, we report the share 

of tests in which the white was favored over the minority, the 

share in which the minority was favored over the white, and the 

difference between the two. This difference—or net measure—

provides a conservative, lower-bound estimate of systematic 

discrimination against minority homeseekers, because it not 

only subtracts random differences from the gross measure of 

white-favored treatment, but may also subtract some differences 

that reflect systematic reverse discrimination. Gross measures 

of discrimination receive less emphasis in this report than in 

past national studies because analysis over the past 25 years 

strongly suggests that they reflect a lot of random differences 

in treatment, and that net measures more accurately reflect the 

systematic disadvantages faced by minority homeseekers.

3

 This study focuses on differential treatment discrimination—when equally qualified homeseekers receive unequal treatment from housing providers. For methodological details, see Chapters II 

and III. Federal law also prohibits forms of treatment that may appear equal on their face but that have a disparate impact on minority homeseekers.
Executive Summary

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 xiii

which they inquired.4 Evidence from other research suggests that when testers pose as more marginally 

qualified homeseekers, more discrimination occurs (Hunter and Walker 1996). For all these reasons, 

results reported here probably understate the total level of discrimination that occurs in the marketplace.

People of color still face discrimination when they search for housing today

Each paired test in this study compares the treatment of whites and minorities at three critical steps in the 

search for housing: 

1. First, testers attempted (by telephone or e-mail) to make appointments for in-person visits. 

2. If successful, they used the in-person visit to learn about available homes or apartments. 

3. Finally, if told about at least one available housing unit, testers sought to inspect homes or apartments. 

The discussion and exhibits that follow summarize the main findings at each of these three steps, first for 

renters and then for homebuyers. 

Discrimination against minority renters. Minority renters who call to inquire about recently advertised homes 

or apartments are rarely denied appointments that their white counterparts are able to make. In the vast majority 

of tests, if one tester is able to make an appointment, then both are. The very small treatment differences favor 

neither whites nor minorities (Exhibit ES-2).

When renters meet in person with housing providers, they are almost always told about at least one 

available unit. However, Hispanic renters are slightly more likely than equally qualified whites to be 

told that no homes or apartments are available (1.8 percentage points). Moreover, in about half of all 

in-person visits, one tester is told about more available units than the other, with whites significantly 

4

 All testers were assigned financial characteristics that qualified them for the housing units about which they were inquiring. Therefore, the assigned income levels varied widely, matching the 

variation in advertised rents and home prices in the sampled metropolitan areas. However, in most metropolitan areas, average incomes among black, Hispanic, and Asian households are lower 

than the average incomes assigned to testers.
Executive Summary

xiv HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

more likely to be favored than minorities, as detailed in Exhibit ES-3. Black, Hispanic, and Asian 

renters are all told about fewer housing units than equally qualified white renters. Blacks and Hispanics 

are told about one fewer unit for every five in-person visits; Asians are told about one fewer unit for 

every six in-person visits.

Finally, in about one-third of in-person 

visits, one tester is shown more units 

than his or her partner, with whites 

significantly more likely to be favored 

than minorities. As Exhibit ES-4 details, 

black, Hispanic, and Asian renters are all 

shown significantly fewer housing units 

than equally qualified whites. Blacks are 

shown about one fewer unit for every 25 visits; Hispanics are shown one fewer unit for every 14 visits; and 

Asians are shown one fewer unit for every 13 visits.

For example... In one rental test, the white tester arrived first 

and asked to see a two-bedroom apartment. The agent showed 

him the available two-bedroom unit as well as a one-bedroom 

apartment and provided application information for both units. 

The Hispanic tester arrived two hours later at the same office, but 

was told that nothing was available.
Executive Summary

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 xv

Taking all three steps into account (ability to make an appointment, availability of units, and agents’ 

willingness to show units), minority renters are told about and shown fewer homes and apartments than 

equally qualified whites (Exhibit ES-5). 

• Black renters who contact agents 

about recently advertised housing 

units learn about 11.4 percent 

fewer available units than equally 

qualified whites and are shown 4.2 

percent fewer units. 

• Hispanic renters learn about 12.5 

percent fewer available units than 

equally qualified whites and are 

shown 7.5 percent fewer units. 

• Asian renters learn about 9.8 

percent fewer available units than 

equally qualified whites and are 

shown 6.6 percent fewer units.

Minority renters sometimes experience other forms of discriminatory treatment as well, relating to 

housing costs and quality and the helpfulness of the rental agent. These differences are less consistent and 

smaller in magnitude than the differences in numbers of units available and shown. Details will be found 

in Chapter IV.

Discrimination against minority homebuyers. Like renters, minority homebuyers are rarely denied 

appointments that their white counterparts are able to make (Exhibit ES-6). However, black homebuyers are 

slightly more likely than equally qualified whites to be denied an in-person appointment (2.4 percentage points). 
Executive Summary

xvi HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

When homebuyers meet in person with housing providers, they are usually told about at least one 

available unit. However, agents frequently tell one tester about more available homes than the other, with 

whites significantly more likely to be favored than blacks and Asians, as illustrated in Exhibit ES-7. 

Consequently, for every two visits, black and Asian homebuyers learn about one fewer home than equally 

qualified whites. 

Finally, in about two-thirds of in-person visits, one tester is shown more units than his or her partner, 

with whites significantly more likely to be favored than blacks or Asians. As Exhibit ES-8 details, black 

and Asian renters are shown significantly fewer homes than equally qualified whites. Specifically, blacks 

are shown about one fewer home for every three in-person visits; Asians are shown one fewer home for 

every two in-person visits.
Executive Summary

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 xvii

Taking all three steps into account 

(ability to make an appointment, 

availability of units, and agents’ 

willingness to show units), black and 

Asian homebuyers are told about and 

shown fewer homes than equally 

qualified whites (Exhibit ES-9). 

• Black homebuyers who contact 

agents about recently advertised 

homes for sale learn about 17.0 

percent fewer available homes 

than equally qualified whites and 

are shown 17.7 percent fewer 

homes. 

• Asian homebuyers learn about 

15.5 percent fewer available 

homes than equally qualified 

whites and are shown 18.8 

percent fewer homes. 

Overall differences in treatment for Hispanic homebuyers are not statistically significant, and Hispanics are 

not recommended or shown a statistically different number of homes per inquiry than comparably qualified 

white homebuyers. This result extends across many forms of treatment and across the metropolitan areas where 

testing was conducted. As discussed further later, it also reflects a longer-term decline in discrimination against 

Hispanic homebuyers. 

Most of the for-sale homes recommended and shown to testers of all races and ethnicities are located in 

majority-white neighborhoods. In many cases, however, one tester is recommended and shown homes in 

neighborhoods that have a higher percentage of white residents, on average, than his or her partner. Whites 

are significantly more likely than blacks or Asians to be shown these neighborhoods with higher percentages 

of whites; and, when they are, the neighborhoods whites see are about 17 percentage points higher in the 

percentage of white residents than those shown to equally qualified blacks or Asians. However, minorities are 

sometimes shown “whiter” neighborhoods than their partners; and, when they are, the neighborhoods they see 

are 14 to 15 percentage points higher in proportion of white residents than those shown to equally qualified 

whites. As a consequence, across all tests, the average racial composition of neighborhoods recommended 

to whites is only slightly higher in white percentage than the average for blacks and Asians—less than 2 

percentage points more white. In other words, over multiple inquiries, the composition of neighborhoods 

recommended to minority homebuyers is very similar to the composition of those recommended to equally 

qualified whites. 

For example... In one sales test, the black tester called and 

spoke with an agent who insisted that she must be prequalified 

in order to see homes. The agent refused to meet with the tester 

until she had talked to a lender. The white tester was not asked 

about prequalification over the phone and was able to make an 

appointment to meet with the agent.
Executive Summary

xviii HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Minority homebuyers sometimes 

experience other forms of discriminatory 

treatment as well, relating to housing 

costs and financing, housing quality, and 

the helpfulness of the sales agent. These 

differences are less consistent and smaller 

in magnitude than the differences in 

numbers of homes available and shown. 

For details, see Chapter IV.

Variations in discrimination patterns.

In addition to estimating the overall 

incidence and severity of discrimination, 

a large-scale national testing study 

sheds light on important variations in 

discrimination, indicating what types 

of homeseekers are most disadvantaged, 

what types of agents discriminate most 

frequently, and where discrimination 

is most prevalent. This study finds that 

minority homeseekers whose ethnicity 

is more readily identifiable experience 

more discrimination than those who may be mistaken for whites. Specifically, black and Asian renters 

whose race is readily identifiable based on name and speech are significantly more likely to be denied 

an appointment than minorities perceived to be white. During an in-person visit, renters who are 

identifiably black, Hispanic, or Asian are shown fewer units than minorities who are perceived to be 

white. Similarly, homebuyers who are identifiably black or Asian face higher discrimination during the 

in-person visit than those who are perceived to be white.

The study does not support other widely held assumptions about when and where discrimination is most 

likely to occur. It does not find substantial differences in the incidence or severity of discrimination across 

metropolitan areas or regions of the country, suggesting that housing discrimination remains a national 

problem. It is neither more nor less severe in housing markets hit hardest by the Great Recession.5

What are the consequences of the discrimination documented here? When housing providers deny 

minority homeseekers information about some of the housing options offered to whites, the time and 

cost of minorities’ housing search rise and their choices are constrained. A recent survey of homebuyers 

finds that the median search lasts 12 weeks, with 12 homes seen (National Association of Realtors 2011). 

A black or Asian homebuyer would have to search longer or choose from a narrower set of options. 

Unfortunately, little is known about patterns of search among renters, but spending time inquiring about 

more advertisements and visiting more properties could be burdensome, especially for those with low 

incomes or inflexible work schedules.

Identifiability of minority homeseekers... When 

homeseekers call (or e-mail) to make an appointment, the 

housing provider might or might not identify their race or 

ethnicity. Even when homeseekers meet in person with 

housing providers, it is not certain that their race or ethnicity 

is accurately identified. In this study, a team of coders 

assessed the race/ethnicity of each tester based on reading 

the tester’s name and listening to a recording of his or her 

speech—the information available to an agent over the 

phone. A parallel assessment, conducted by other members 

of the coding team, was based on name, speech, and a 

photograph—the information available to an agent during 

an in-person meeting. Each tester was assessed by three 

independent coders based on name and speech and by three 

independent coders based on name, speech, and appearance. 

Minorities whose ethnicity is more readily identifiable experience 

more discrimination than those who may be mistaken for whites. 

This is the first time such an assessment has been performed as 

part of a national paired-testing study. 

5

 For more details on analysis of variations in discrimination, see Chapter V.
Executive Summary

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 xix

The most blatant forms of discrimination have declined since passage of the 

1968 Fair Housing Act

Due to changes in housing markets, sampling methods, and testing protocols, results from HUD’s four 

decennial paired-testing studies cannot be precisely compared. But they do provide a qualitative picture of 

trends in the adverse treatment of minority homeseekers. The first national paired-testing study, launched in 

1977, focused exclusively on discrimination against blacks (Wienk, et al. 1979). The 1989 Housing 

Discrimination Study measured discrimination against Hispanics as well as blacks (Turner, Struyk, and Yinger 

1991). And the 2000 Housing Discrimination Study produced national estimates of discrimination against 

black, Hispanic, and Asian homeseekers (Turner and Ross 2003a, 2003b; Turner, et al. 2002).

Trends in rental discrimination.

Exhibit ES-10 illustrates the long-term 

trends in two important net measures 

of discriminatory treatment for blacks 

and Hispanics: whether the agent told 

only the white tester that the advertised 

unit was available and whether the white 

tester was shown more units. In 1977, 

black renters were frequently denied 

access to advertised units that were 

available to equally qualified whites. This 

kind of “door slamming” discrimination 

had declined dramatically by 1989 and 

has continued to decline since. The 

net measure of discrimination for the 

number of units shown to black versus 

white renters actually increased between 

1977 and 1989 (possibly because blacks were less likely to be denied advertised housing outright) but has 

declined since. Denial of advertised units to Hispanic renters has also dropped substantially since 1989, 

while discrimination on the number of units shown appears to have declined between 1989 and 2000, 

but not between 2000 and 2012.
Executive Summary

xx HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Focusing on more recent trends, Exhibit ES-11 reports net estimates of discrimination for four comparable 

treatment measures in 2000 and 2012. These trend lines are overlaid on the associated statistical confidence 

intervals, illustrating that for many measures, the intervals are too wide to conclude with confidence that 

significant changes have occurred. Black renters today appear less likely than a decade ago to be told that 

advertised units are unavailable. Asian renters are more likely than a decade ago to be shown fewer units, but 

they are less likely to experience adverse treatment when making future arrangements with the agent. 

Changes in other measures of rental discrimination are not statistically significant, so we cannot draw 

definitive conclusions about whether discrimination against minority renters has increased or decreased.

Trends in sales discrimination. 

Exhibit ES-12 illustrates the long-term 

trends in two major net measures of 

discriminatory treatment for black and 

Hispanic homebuyers: whether the 

agent told only the white tester that the 

advertised unit was available and 

whether the white tester was shown 

more units. Like black renters, black 

homebuyers were frequently denied 

access to advertised homes in 1977. 

This form of discrimination had 

declined dramatically by 1989 and even 

more by 2000. The net measure of 

discrimination for the number of 

homes shown, however, does not 
Executive Summary

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 xxi

appear to have changed much over time. In contrast, adverse treatment of Hispanic homebuyers 

dropped substantially between 1989 and 2000 and remained low (too low to be statistically significant) 

through 2012.

Focusing on more recent trends in sales discrimination, we find less evidence of meaningful progress. 

Exhibit ES-13 reports net estimates of discrimination for six comparable treatment measures in 2000 and 

2012. These trend lines are overlaid on the associated statistical confidence intervals, illustrating that for 

virtually all measures, the intervals are too wide to conclude with confidence that significant changes have 

occurred. The only statistically significant change is for Hispanics, who are less likely than a decade ago to be 

denied financing help compared to equally qualified white homebuyers.
Executive Summary

xxii HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Taken together, these findings suggest 

that the blatant discrimination observed 

in the earliest paired-testing study 

(refusing to meet or provide information 

about any available units) is much less 

frequent today, but that other, less easily 

detectable forms of discrimination (providing information about fewer units) persist, limiting the 

information and options offered to minority homeseekers. The fact that blatant discrimination against 

well-qualified minority homeseekers is rare does not mean it never occurs or that more marginally qualified 

homeseekers do not face more frequent or severe barriers to housing choice.

For example... One agent told a white tester: “I’m not 

prejudiced but I wouldn’t recommend living in South 

Albuquerque...too many Hispanics. The further south you go the 

more you run into.”

Fair housing policies must continue to adapt to address today’s patterns of discrimination 

and disparity

The fair housing challenges facing the United States today extend beyond the discriminatory practices 

documented by this study. Beginning with the Great Migration of blacks from the rural south to northern 

and midwestern cities, discrimination by landlords and real estate agents blocked minorities from moving 

into white neighborhoods, and produced high levels of residential segregation in metropolitan areas across the 

country (Polikoff 2006). Too often, blacks and other minorities were excluded from neighborhoods with highquality housing, schools, and other public services. Lenders have been less willing to invest in predominantly 

minority communities (Oliver and Shapiro 1997) or have offered predatory loans and loan terms that stripped 

wealth from minority homeowners rather than helping build wealth (HUD 2000; Calem, Gillen, and 

Wachter 2004; Engel and McCoy 2008). Today, even middle-class minority neighborhoods have lower house 

price appreciation, fewer neighborhood amenities, lower-performing schools, and higher crime than white 

neighborhoods with comparable income levels (Cashin 2004; Pattillo-McCoy 1999; Pattillo 2005). Rigorous

research documents the high costs of 

racial and ethnic segregation—not just

for individuals but for society as a whole

(Carr and Kutty 2008; Hartman and

Squires 2010). 

Over the past three decades, blawwckwhite segregation has declined steadily 

(although it remains high in many 

metropolitan areas) and immigration has 

transformed the country’s population, 

bringing greater racial and ethnic 

diversity to the neighborhoods of both 

blacks and whites (Turner and McDade 

2012a, b). Hispanics and Asians are 

considerably less segregated from whites 

than are blacks (Exhibit ES-14). 

Moreover, most whites live in more 

Exhibit ES-14: Trends in Segregation of Whites from 

Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians

BLACKS

HISPANICS

Dissimilarity Index

Source: John R. Logan and Brian Stults. 2011. “The Persistence of Segregation 

in the Metropolis: New Findings from the 2010 Census.” Census Brief prepared 

for Project US2010. http://www.s4.brown.edu/vs2010.

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1980 1990 2000 2010

ASIANS
Executive Summary

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 xxiii

diverse neighborhoods today than they did three decades ago, reflecting the combined effects of 

immigration, greater minority access to white neighborhoods, and gentrification of some minority 

neighborhoods. 

Consistent with this trend, racial and ethnic prejudice is generally waning among Americans, and 

attitudes toward residential diversity are more open today—especially among young people. Most adults 

know and approve of the fact that federal law prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of race and 

ethnicity (Abravanel 2006). A declining share of the population expresses prejudice against blacks or 

distaste for black neighbors (Schumann et al. 1997; Krysan 2011). Recent surveys show a decline in the 

share of whites opposed to living in communities where half their neighbors are black (Krysan 2011). 

Trends in attitudes toward immigrants (and ethnic groups associated with immigration) are less clear. 

When immigration levels rise or high-profile immigration issues dominate the news, negative perceptions 

seem to rise (Lapinski et al. 1997; Espenshade and Belanger 1997).

Long-term trends in patterns of discrimination suggest that the attitudes and actions of rental and sales 

agents have changed over time, and that fair housing enforcement and public education are working. 

Despite the progress that has been achieved, fair housing enforcement and education are still needed to 

address the forms of discrimination that persist. Prejudice has by no means disappeared (see, for example, 

White 2012) and, as this latest paired-testing study documents, minorities still face significant barriers to 

housing search, even when they are well-qualified as renters or homebuyers.

Because the forms of discrimination that this study documents are very difficult for victims to detect, 

enforcement strategies should not rely primarily on individual complaints of suspected discrimination. 

HUD should encourage the local fair housing organizations it funds to conduct more proactive 

testing, especially in the sales market, where discrimination appears higher than in the rental market. 

Enforcement testing does not have to meet the statistical standards of research studies, but it should be 

thoughtfully designed and targeted and consistently implemented so that it detects discrimination that 

may be prevalent in particular neighborhoods, rental complexes, or companies. Proactive testing can 

reveal discriminatory practices that would otherwise go unpunished, and when housing providers know 

that testing is ongoing, they are more likely to comply with the law.

Local fair housing organizations should also expand and strengthen their relationships with Hispanic and 

Asian communities to address the discrimination experienced by all people of color. Historically, the fair 

housing movement has focused on discrimination against blacks. Although some local organizations have 

extended their scope in light of changing demographic realities, others have not yet done so. 
Executive Summary

xxiv HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

In addition, more locally targeted 

research testing may be needed to 

pinpoint the types of neighborhoods, 

housing providers, or homeseekers where 

discrimination is most prevalent. In 

particular, minority homeseekers with 

lower incomes, less wealth, weaker 

English language fluency, or blemished 

credit may face higher levels of 

discrimination than documented in 

this study.

As attitudes and market practices 

evolve, policymakers and fair housing 

practitioners need reliable research not 

only on patterns of discrimination, 

but also on other factors that may 

contribute to residential segregation 

and disparities in neighborhood quality. 

Minorities still suffer from substantial 

disparities in neighborhood amenities and access to opportunity (Logan 2011) and the levels and forms 

of housing discrimination captured by this paired-testing study cannot fully explain current levels of 

residential segregation. Information gaps, stereotypes and fears, local regulatory policies, and disparities in 

purchasing power all work together to perpetuate segregation, even though many Americans—minority 

and white—say they want to live in more diverse neighborhoods (Ellen 2008; Farley, Fielding, and 

Krysan 1997). Meaningful reductions in neighborhood segregation and inequality can only be achieved if 

we tackle all these causal forces at the same time. 

Enforcing existing fair housing protections remains essential. However, fair housing enforcement alone 

cannot reverse persistent patterns of segregation or undo the damage they cause. The evidence argues for 

a multipronged strategy that includes vigorous enforcement of anti-discrimination protections along with 

education—about the availability and desirability of diverse neighborhoods; local regulatory reforms and 

affordable housing development—to open up exclusive communities and preserve affordable options in 

gentrifying neighborhoods; neighborhood reinvestment—to equalize the quality of services, resources, 

and amenities in minority neighborhoods; and new incentives-to encourage and nurture stable diversity 

(Turner and Rawlings 2009). All these elements are required to achieve the fundamental goals of free and 

fair housing choice and healthy, opportunity-rich neighborhoods.

Research and enforcement testing differ... Because its goal 

is to measure the prevalence of discrimination across the market 

as a whole, research testing usually covers a representative 

sample of available homes and apartments, rather than targeting 

properties or communities where discrimination is suspected. 

In addition, to produce generalizable results, research testing 

requires a fairly large number of tests, covering many different 

housing providers, rather than multiple tests to clearly establish 

discrimination by a single provider. To generate results that can 

be aggregated across many tests, research protocols have to be 

rigidly consistent for every test, whereas the best enforcement 

protocols are flexible enough to respond to circumstances 

that arise in particular tests. Finally, research testing report 

forms require predefined, closed-ended responses that can be 

consistently compared across many tests, rather than detailed 

and nuanced narratives that convey exactly what happened in an 

individual test.
I. INTRODUCTION

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 1

I. INTRODUCTION

This report presents findings from the fourth national study of housing discrimination sponsored by 

the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The study applied the pairedtesting methodology in 28 metropolitan areas nationwide to directly measure the incidence and 

forms of discrimination experienced by black, Hispanic, and Asian6

 renters and homebuyers. It finds 

that when well-qualified minority homeseekers contact housing providers to inquire about recently 

advertised housing units, they generally are just as likely as equally qualified white homeseekers to get an 

appointment and learn about at least one available housing unit. However, when differences in treatment 

occur, white homeseekers are more likely to be favored than are minorities. Most important, minority 

homeseekers are told about and shown fewer homes and apartments than whites, raising the costs of 

housing search and limiting housing options.

Background

For much of the twentieth century, discrimination by private real estate agents, rental property owners, 

and lending institutions helped establish and sustain stark patterns of racial and ethnic segregation in 

neighborhoods across the county. When the federal Fair Housing Act was passed in 1968, black families 

were routinely—and explicitly—denied homes and apartments in white neighborhoods. 

Since the late 1970s, HUD has rigorously monitored trends in the incidence of racial and ethnic 

discrimination in both rental and sales markets approximately once each decade through a series 

of nationwide paired-testing studies. Paired testing is a powerful tool for observing discrimination 

in action. In a paired test, two individuals—one a minority and the other white—pose as equally 

qualified homeseekers. Both testers are carefully trained to make the same inquiries, express the same 

preferences, and offer the same qualifications and needs From the perspective of the housing provider, 

the only difference between the two is their race or ethnicity, and they should therefore receive the same 

information and assistance. Systematic differences in treatment—telling a minority homeseeker that 

an apartment is no longer available when the white partner is told he could move in next month, for 

example—provide direct evidence of discrimination.

The first national paired-testing study, launched in 1977, focused on discrimination against blacks and 

found high levels of discrimination in both rental and sales markets (Wienk et al. 1979). At that time, it 

was not uncommon for black homeseekers to be told that no homes or apartments were available to them 

or to be denied an opportunity to meet with a rental or sales agent. The 1989 Housing Discrimination 

Study measured discrimination against Hispanics as well as blacks and again found high levels of 

discriminatory treatment in both rental and sales markets nationwide. That study concluded that overall 

levels of discrimination against black homeseekers had not changed significantly since 1977, although its 

forms were changing to become more subtle and less easily detectable (Turner, Struyk, and Yinger 1991).

6

 Based on standard Census and American Community Survey practice, and because not all of the participating Asian testers were Asian Americans, we use the nomenclature Asian when 

identifying this population in this report.
I. INTRODUCTION

2 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Roughly a decade later, the 2000 Housing Discrimination Study found statistically significant levels 

of discrimination against black, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American homeseekers (Turner and 

Ross 2003a, 2003b; Turner et al. 2002). That study was explicitly designed to measure change in 

discrimination and concluded that, between 1989 and 2000, the overall incidence of discrimination 

against blacks declined in both rental and sales markets nationwide. The incidence of discrimination 

against Hispanic homebuyers also declined, but no significant change occurred for Hispanic renters 

(Turner et al. 2002).7

 However, the overall reductions in sales discrimination during the 1990s masked 

underlying changes in patterns of discrimination. 

Goals for the 2012 Housing Discrimination Study

The primary goal of the 2012 Housing Discrimination Study (HDS2012) is to produce current 

national estimates of discrimination against blacks, Hispanics, and Asians in rental and sales markets 

nationwide. In addition, it provides statistically valid estimates of rental market discrimination against 

blacks and Hispanics for a small number of major metropolitan areas (eight metro areas for black rental 

discrimination and eight metro areas for Hispanic rental discrimination). Although tracking trends in 

the incidence of discrimination is also important, HUD placed higher priority on accurately capturing 

current market practices than on precisely measuring change over time.

Achieving these goals was complicated by the fact that housing markets have changed substantially over the 

past decade. One important change has been the dramatic shift to using the Internet for advertising and 

initial information exchange. Technology now permits housing searches via cell phone, laptop, and home or 

work computers. Homeseekers may be able to gather more information about available rental and sales units 

without divulging their personal characteristics. At the same time, however, housing providers may be able 

to detect customer characteristics by screening phone messages, using Caller ID, or even employing realtime Web-based identity verification engines. Testing protocols must adapt to these technological changes, 

both to avoid detection and to capture differential treatment that might occur before in-person interactions. 

Therefore, HDS2012 modified the protocols used in previous national testing studies to include telephone 

and e-mail contacts by testers and to record differential treatment that may occur before in-person visits. In 

addition, the procedures for selecting random samples of rental and sales advertisements were modernized to 

take advantage of online sources and to mirror contemporary housing search behaviors more effectively.

In addition to these technological changes, the economic recession and the foreclosure crisis have 

dramatically affected both sales and rental markets nationwide. Slumping sales caused high backlogs in 

many markets, potentially pressuring real estate agents to move inventory, and bank-owned properties 

or foreclosure sales may have changed real estate marketing practices significantly in some communities. 

These unusual market conditions may have produced atypical patterns of treatment for minority 

homebuyers. However, because market conditions vary considerably across the country, analysis can 

explore how market conditions relate to the incidence or forms of discrimination. The HDS2012 ad 

sampling and testing protocols captured and included distressed sales and sales of bank-owned properties, 

when these properties were handled by real estate agents and advertised through conventional public 

sources. This study did not include properties for sale by owner, foreclosure auctions, or sales in which a 

bank marketed the property directly.

7

 Discrimination against Asians and Native Americans was not systematically measured before HDS2000, so trends over time cannot be assessed.
I. INTRODUCTION

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 3

In some parts of the country, high unemployment might have contributed to very weak rental markets as 

well, with property owners eager to find tenants. But in many others, an increase in rental housing seekers 

due to foreclosures and barriers to mortgage lending appears to have produced very tight market conditions, 

requiring rapid-response rental inquiry protocols. HDS2012 sampling procedures and testing protocols 

were adapted to reflect variations in market conditions across the country, the continuously updated pool of 

online rental advertisements, and the need for rapid response to rental ads, especially in tight markets.

Strengths and Limitations of Paired Testing

The paired-testing methodology originated as a tool for fair housing enforcement, detecting and 

documenting individual instances of discrimination. Since the late 1970s, paired testing has also been 

used to rigorously measure the prevalence of discrimination across the housing market. When large 

numbers of consistent and comparable tests are conducted for a representative sample of housing units, 

they directly measure patterns of adverse treatment based on race or ethnicity.

Although research testing shares common origins with enforcement testing, it differs in important ways. 

Because its goal is to measure the prevalence of discrimination across the market as a whole, research testing 

usually covers a representative sample of available homes and apartments, rather than targeting properties or 

communities where discrimination is suspected. In addition, to produce generalizable results, research testing 

requires a fairly large number of tests covering many different housing providers, rather than multiple tests, 

to clearly establish discrimination by a single provider. To generate results that can be aggregated across many 

tests, research protocols have to be rigidly consistent for every test, whereas the best enforcement protocols 

are flexible enough to respond to circumstances that arise in particular tests. Finally, research testing report 

forms require predefined, closed-ended responses that can be compared consistently across many tests, 

rather than detailed and nuanced narratives that convey exactly what happened in an individual test.

Paired testing has tremendous power and potential, but the methodology also has limitations. 

For practical reasons, paired testing cannot be applied to some of the important stages in a 

rental or sales transaction. For example, third-party testing protocols cannot legitimately involve 

the formal submission of fraudulent information in a signed rental or loan application, so it is not 

possible to capture discrimination that might occur at the final stage of a rental or sales transaction. 

Also, discrimination against established tenants or homeowners (such as in lease renewals or property 

maintenance) cannot be captured through paired testing because the housing provider already knows the 

details of consumers’ actual characteristics. As a consequence, the estimates of discrimination reported 

here do not capture all the forms of discriminatory treatment that minority homeseekers may experience, 

only those that occur during the initial inquiry and information gathering.

Moreover, the results presented here do not reflect the experience of the average or typical minority 

homeseeker, because testers presented themselves as unambiguously well-qualified for the homes and 

apartments about which they inquired. In most metropolitan areas, average incomes among black, 

Hispanic, and Asian households are lower than the average incomes assigned to testers. Evidence from other 

research on mortgage lending discrimination suggests that when testers pose as more marginally qualified 

homebuyers, differential treatment occurs more frequently (Hunter and Walker 1996). Therefore, results 

reported here probably understate the total level of discrimination that occurs in the marketplace.
I. INTRODUCTION

4 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Paired testing is explicitly designed to control for all relevant differences between testers so differences in 

treatment can be attributed to discrimination based on protected class. Nonetheless, random as well as 

systematic factors may contribute to observed differences, and some tester attributes or behaviors may 

not be fully controlled or observed. Therefore, not every instance of white-favored treatment should 

be interpreted as systematic discrimination. In some tests, random factors may contribute to observed 

differences in treatment; in other tests, minorities may experience more favorable treatment than their 

white partners for systematic reasons. Therefore, we report the share of tests in which the white was 

favored over the minority, the share in which the minority was favored over the white, and the difference 

between the two. This difference—or net measure—provides a conservative, lower-bound estimate of 

systematic discrimination against minority homeseekers, because it not only subtracts random differences 

from the gross measure of white-favored treatment, but may also subtract some differences that reflect 

systematic reverse discrimination. Gross measures of discrimination receive less emphasis in this report 

than in the prior national study, HDS2000. Analysis over the past 25 years strongly suggests that gross 

measures reflect a lot of random differences in treatment, and that net measures more accurately reflect 

the systematic disadvantages faced by minority homeseekers. 

Critics of paired testing have raised ethical and legal objections, arguing that the methodology deceives 

or entraps research subjects, imposes costs (of interacting with a fictitious customer), and may invade the 

privacy rights of the person or office being tested (see Edley 1993). However, a convincing argument can 

be made that paired testing is often the only feasible strategy for detecting and measuring discrimination, 

and that the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks.8

 These studies provide no lure or incentive for sales or 

rental agents to act any differently from the way they would otherwise act. Moreover, responsible testing 

studies intentionally involve as limited an intrusion as possible, taking up the minimum amount of time 

necessary. They also involve responding to offers (for homes and apartments) that are publicly advertised 

and subject to laws or regulations barring discrimination (Fix and Struyk 1993).

Organization of Report

The remainder of this report details the methods and results of HDS2012. Chapter II describes the 

paired-testing protocols and the procedures implemented to manage the nationwide data collection 

effort and ensure quality control. Chapter III documents sampling and statistical methods. Chapter 

IV presents national estimates of discrimination against blacks, Hispanics, and Asians in both rental 

and sales markets. Chapter V presents and discusses additional study findings, including local estimates 

of discrimination against minority renters for a small number of major metropolitan areas, analysis of 

variations in levels of discrimination, and estimates of change in discrimination since HDS2000.

8

 In Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman (1982), the Supreme Court held, “A tester who has been the object of a misrepresentation made unlawful... has suffered injury in precisely the form the 

statute was intended to guard against, and therefore has standing to maintain a damages claim.... That the tester may have approached the real estate agent fully expecting that he would receive 

false information, and without any intention of buying or renting a home, does not negate the fact of injury.”
II. PAIRED TESTING PROTOCOLS AND FIELD MANAGEMENT

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 5

II. PAIRED TESTING PROTOCOLS AND FIELD 

MANAGEMENT

The paired-testing protocols for HDS2012 were designed to support research rather than enforcement. 

Differences between the two types of testing encompass the number of tests to conduct, the selection of 

properties to test, how testing protocols are used, and the type of data collected. Research testing requires 

completing a large number of tests that will support statistical analysis of the collected data. Tests are 

based on housing ads selected at random from publicly available ad sources; there is no attempt to test 

a particular housing provider or housing unit. In contrast, enforcement tests target housing providers 

suspected of discriminating against certain homeseekers. Fair housing organizations often initiate tests 

after receiving complaints of unfair treatment. If an initial test suggests a difference in treatment between 

paired testers, the organization may conduct additional tests of the same provider to confirm results and 

compile evidence of discrimination. 

Tests conducted for research must produce consistent and comparable data that can be aggregated 

for analysis. Consequently, research testing protocols are inflexible; testers in all study sites must 

conduct tests in the same way. Enforcement protocols, in contrast, need to be flexible to respond to the 

circumstances of a particular case. Enforcement also collects more detailed, nuanced information on 

each test, whereas information collected for research comes from tester responses to mostly close-ended 

questions about their experience. The more highly structured, inflexible protocols of research testing 

allow analysts to control for differences in treatment between white and minority homeseekers and 

directly measure patterns of adverse treatment based on race and ethnicity.

The field implementation component of this study started with the protocols and processes used for 

HDS2000, modified to incorporate changes in rental and sales housing markets, and in housing search 

practices, over the past 10 years. Testing was managed centrally by a field director who oversaw Urban 

Institute (UI)- and field-based regional coordinators. UI contracted with local testing organizations, 

including fair housing groups and others capable of conducting this specialized work, in the study sites. 

See Appendix A for a list of participating organizations.

Local testing organizations recruited testers according to the types of tests a site was assigned to conduct. 

Their recruitment activities also were guided by information that UI provided on local community 

demographics. For example, a site conducting Asian/white tests would be provided recruitment targets 

for Asian subgroups based on census data for that metropolitan area. In a city with a significant number 

of Vietnamese and Laotian residents, an organization would attempt to recruit more testers from these 

groups than from other Asian subgroups. See Appendix B for a master list of Asian and Hispanic 

subgroups.9

 Organizations also attempted to ensure a reasonable distribution of testers by sex and age.

Minority and white testers were matched on age and gender. They were assigned income, assets, and 

debt levels to make both testers unambiguously well qualified for the representative sample of advertised 

units and to make the minority tester slightly better qualified. As a result of being assigned income that 

made testers well qualified relative to the income necessary to rent or buy a unit being tested, on average, 

9

 Testers who identified as Hispanic and black but likely were perceived to be black participated as testers for black/white tests, changing their name if necessary.
II. PAIRED TESTING PROTOCOLS AND FIELD MANAGEMENT

6 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

white and Asian testers were assigned a slightly higher income than the average white or Asian renter 

and a slightly lower income than the average white or Asian homebuyer. Black and Hispanic testers 

were assigned a higher income than the average black or Hispanic renter or homebuyer.10 Test partners 

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

preferences. (Appendix C outlines how tester characteristics were developed for sales tests.) Testers 

contacted and visited rental or sales agents and systematically recorded the information and assistance 

they received about the advertised unit and other units, including location, rent or sales price, quality and 

condition, and other terms and conditions. Testers were not told who their test partner was; partners did 

not compare their experiences with one another.

Rental Testing Protocols

Protocols for rental tests were divided into eight steps. The first step in the process required making 

contact on each sampled advertisement before it could be assigned to testers. The advance contact 

confirmed details from an ad and collected additional information required to determine eligibility 

and assign tester characteristics. Second, a local test coordinator created a test assignment based on 

information collected from the sampled advertisement and the advance contact. Third, the coordinator 

met with each tester in the matched pair separately. During briefings, testers received and reviewed their 

assignment, reviewed test protocols, and discussed any questions or concerns with the coordinator. 

Fourth, testers were assigned to visit the housing provider using one of two approaches: no appointment/

drop-in, which was used when an advertisement provided information on location and office hours; or 

appointment, which was used when an advertisement provided insufficient information to allow a drop-in 

visit or the advance contact determined an appointment was necessary.11 Testers were assigned a Google 

Voice number and a Gmail account, which they used to make appointments and to receive messages 

from housing providers. The use of Google Voice/Gmail helped streamline communication by allowing 

testers to use a phone number that was solely for use on the project and whose digital voicemail could be 

accessed online by test coordinators and/or transcribed to text. Because voicemail messages from housing 

providers appeared as a written record in the testers’ assigned Gmail account and test coordinators received 

an e-mail alert when such messages were received, coordinators were able to monitor important and timely 

communication by forwarding messages received by tester accounts to a central e-mail account. When 

agents called to cancel or reschedule appointments, for example, test coordinators saw the message and 

alerted testers to take the appropriate next steps. Testers could make calls through the Google Voice system 

via a landline or their own cell phone (their Google number—not the number of the phone used to make 

the call—appeared on the housing provider’s Caller ID). The appointment protocol directed testers to make 

contact by telephone unless an e-mail address was provided in an advertisement instead of a phone number. 

Appointment contacts were documented to allow analysis of treatment at this early stage of a test. 

10 For the rent tests, white testers’ income was in the 59th percentile of actual white renters, black testers’ income was in the 73rd percentile of actual black renters; Hispanic testers’ income 

was in the 73rd percentile of actual Hispanic renters, and Asian testers’ income was in the 54th percentile of actual Asian renters. 

For the sales tests, white testers’ income was in the 47th percentile, black testers’ income was in the 60th percentile, Hispanic testers’ income was in the 63rd percentile, and Asian testers’ 

income was in the 46th percentile of actual homebuyers for the relevant racial or ethnic group.

11 Testers sought to meet with a housing provider using the most efficient approach possible. About half of all rental tests were drop-ins. In 13 test sites, 75 percent or more of all rental tests 

were drop-ins.
II. PAIRED TESTING PROTOCOLS AND FIELD MANAGEMENT

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 7

Fifth, testers conducted test visits following standardized testing protocols designed to gather key 

information for assessing differential treatment. Testers began each test by asking about the advertised unit 

or, in the event the advertised unit was no longer available, about any other units similar to the advertised 

unit in size, price, and the date available.12 Whether the advertised or similar units were available or not, 

testers always asked whether there were any other rental units that were within their price range, had at 

least the minimum number of bedrooms the testers’ (assigned) household needed, and were available when 

needed. Under no circumstances were testers to agree to a credit check, which would disclose the fact that 

their income and other information differed from what they might have told the provider. 

Sixth, testers completed report forms soon after finishing a test visit, to record information on the 

application process; whether and which utilities are included in the rent; the exact address of the unit; 

number of bedrooms; rent amount, amount of security deposit, and any other fees; the lease length; 

the date of availability; and any information about the tester gathered by the housing provider, such as 

income, employment, and family size. See Appendix D for all rental report forms.

Seventh, after testers completed all report forms, they attended a debriefing meeting with the test coordinator 

to clarify report forms, if necessary, and talk about any issues or concerns with the test. Debriefings were held 

in person with testers until coordinators were confident that a tester had mastered testing protocols and was 

comfortable with all the test report forms. After that, testers had the option of debriefing over the telephone.

The eighth and final step in the test process was documenting any follow-up contact with a housing 

provider. Testers completed a report form to record information on any e-mail or telephone calls from a 

housing provider as well as any follow-up contact a tester was instructed to initiate.

Although the field team had anticipated particular implementation challenges related to market changes 

since HDS2000, the team encountered two challenges during the testing period that previous national 

studies had not presented: 

• Real estate agents/brokers: In a number of metropolitan areas, testers had a particularly difficult time 

making appointments and conducting site visits as a result of real estate agents/brokers who refused 

to make firm appointments or provide testers with a specific address at which to meet. For example, 

real estate agents/brokers would tell testers they would call them the morning of the appointment to 

confirm a time and a place to meet. This practice left the testers unsure about whether they would be 

conducting a site visit the next day. In the instances when the agent did call the tester back the next 

day, there was frequently a short time between the call and when the agent was available to meet. 

The test coordinator would then be forced to decide whether to send out the first tester on a site visit 

without knowing whether the second tester would receive an appointment. If the second tester could 

not obtain an appointment, the test would be incomplete. 

• Management companies: In a number of areas, local testing organizations encountered management 

companies that owned many rental properties. Because it is common practice for the management 

companies to log visits by prospective tenants, it was a significant concern that testers who visited 

more than one property owned by the same company would be detected. Test coordinators had 

to keep careful records of which testers had previously visited properties owned by these large, 

multiproperty companies in order to avoid detection. 

12 Tests in which a housing unit was shown during an open house were assigned to ensure that testers visited at different times. If it was not possible for paired testers to visit at different times, the test 

would be deemed ineligible. In group showings, testers were instructed to adhere to the protocol, asking the provider the necessary questions even though the meeting was not one on one.
II. PAIRED TESTING PROTOCOLS AND FIELD MANAGEMENT

8 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Sales Testing Protocols

Sales tests had the same eight components as rental tests, though protocol details differed for a 

number of steps. On sales tests, local testing organizations made advance contacts only for sampled 

advertisements that did not include information on the location, sales price, or number of bedrooms 

of the housing unit for sale. If the ad contained all the information necessary to make an assignment, 

no advance contact was required.

During briefings, testers were allowed to create notes that included their assigned financial information 

so they could respond to any questions about their income and debt in detail should a housing provider 

ask for such information or offer to do a back-of-the-envelope assessment of the price of home the tester 

could afford. Testers were instructed to include only information on their finances so they would not 

need to shield the notes from a housing provider.

All sales tests began with an appointment contact except in very rare cases where there was no contact 

information for a housing provider but enough information to visit a sales office. Unlike rental 

appointment contacts, testers were not to mention the advertised home when contacting a housing 

provider to make an appointment. Testers were instructed to say that they had seen ads from the 

provider’s office and were interested in finding out what was available. 

During in-person visits, testers were instructed to ask first about the advertised home they were provided 

in their test assignment and then to ask about any other homes that had the same number of bedrooms 

as the advertised home. Testers were not provided with a ceiling on what they could afford nor a date 

by which they needed to buy a home in order to respond to any options the housing provider suggested 

they consider. If asked about price, testers were instructed to say they were unsure of what they could 

afford.13 They were not to select homes to view but instead were instructed to ask the housing provider 

for recommendations. They also were not to state a neighborhood preference, though if pushed on this 

question, they could offer a broad geographic area provided in their test assignment. Testers were available 

for an additional three hours beyond the initial site visit to view homes with the housing provider, 

though they were not to push the provider for additional time. This time could be spent during the first 

visit, if the provider had additional homes to show the tester, or could be spent during a second test visit. 

Testers completed test report forms soon after finishing a test visit, whether the visit was for the initial 

or second meeting with a housing provider for a particular test. Reports recorded information on the 

exact address of the homes recommended by the housing provider, the number of bedrooms in each 

recommended home, asking price on all recommended homes, information on financing options, and 

any information about the tester gathered by the housing provider, such as income, debt, credit score, 

employment, and family size. See Appendix E for all sales report forms.14 The debriefing and follow-up 

steps for sales tests were the same as those for rental tests.

13 Testers were asked a variation of the question on affordability in approximately half of tests overall, though in some test sites it rarely arose. No detection concerns related to affordability or 

prequalification were brought to the attention of the regional coordinators, though the lack of prequalification presented an obstacle to scheduling appointments in some sites. 

14 Forms for advance contact, appointment, and follow-up contact are the same for rental and sales and are included in Appendix C.
II. PAIRED TESTING PROTOCOLS AND FIELD MANAGEMENT

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 9

The field team faced three challenges while completing sales tests that previous national studies had 

not encountered: 

• Need for prequalification modification: When significant numbers of testers in a particular 

metropolitan area were repeatedly denied appointments by housing providers because they had 

not yet been prequalified, local testing organizations were granted permission to use a modified 

protocol. In total, nine sites ultimately used the prequalification modification, which allowed testers 

to tell housing providers over the phone that they had been prequalified for a particular dollar 

amount.15 If the agent asked to see the prequalification letter during the course of the site visit, the 

testers were instructed to say they had forgotten the letter.

• Gas prices/geographic distances: Many metropolitan areas in which the study was conducted could 

take several hours to travel from the furthest points. If a tester was assigned to a test where the 

housing provider’s office was a significant distance from the tester’s home and/or the local testing 

organization’s office, the tester spent multiple hours traveling to and from the first site visit. For 

sales tests that included second site visits, the total travel time could be considerable. The size of 

the distances that were traveled on tests coupled with the rise in gas prices during the testing period 

further challenged the entire project team to complete the required work with the available funds.

• Detection: In a number of metropolitan areas, local testing organizations encountered housing 

providers that used an online system to track clients and subscribe them to the Multiple Listing 

Service (MLS). Agents would use the e-mail address the tester had provided in order to register him 

or her on the site. If the agent discovered that the tester was already in the system, it indicated the 

tester had previously met with at least one other housing provider. In a few instances, the agent then 

confronted the tester about why the tester was meeting with multiple agents. In some project sites, 

the use of this online system was so extensive among housing providers that to avoid detection, test 

coordinators began assigning new e-mail addresses to testers for each subsequent sales test. This 

additional procedure increased the burden on test coordinators and testers, who had to memorize a 

new email address for every test they conducted. 

Data Collection Oversight, Management, and Quality Control

Regional coordinators provided oversight for all testing activities by maintaining weekly contact with 

local test coordinators and reviewing test reports.16 The weekly telephone and e-mail contacts between 

regional coordinators and local test coordinators allowed the field operations team to identify and correct 

any problems as quickly as possible. The contacts between regional coordinators and other field operations 

staff and the local testing groups were documented (dates of contact, issues discussed, problems identified, 

corrective actions required, outcome of corrective actions) to aid in transparency. In cases where problems 

did not improve, the regional coordinator responsible for the particular site increased supervision and, when 

necessary, visited the site to determine if a course correction was possible.

15 The sites were Albuquerque, New Mexico; Atlanta, Georgia; Chicago, Illinois; Dallas, Texas; Ft. Worth, Texas; Greensboro, North Carolina; Miami, Florida; Richmond, Virginia; and Washington, 

DC. Analysis shows little change in the average difference in units shown to white and minority testers when tests using the modified prequalification procedure are excluded.

16 Testing activities ran from midsummer 2011 to fall 2012. 
II. PAIRED TESTING PROTOCOLS AND FIELD MANAGEMENT

10 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

The research team used CODE, the Web-based data entry and test management system, for HDS2012. 

CODE was originally designed and implemented by the Urban Institute for HDS2000 and the 

Disability Discrimination Study. CODE’s integrated test assignment, data entry, and test management 

tools reduce data entry mistakes with built-in consistency checks and streamline data management, 

cleaning, analysis, and database delivery. UI’s field operations staff continuously monitored data in 

CODE to assess tester adherence to reporting requirements and progress toward testing targets. The 

CODE system automatically assigned identification numbers for ads, testers, e-mail and/or telephone 

inquiries, in-person visits, and inspected units, reducing a major source of potential data-entry errors.

Testers completed electronic forms for previsit contacts, in-person visits, and any follow-up contact 

that occurred. Test coordinators reviewed tests to ensure that report forms were complete and accurate 

before approving tests and submitting them to the research team. Once tests were recorded in CODE 

as completed, regional coordinators reviewed files from their sites to identify any problems with data 

quality. CODE allowed regional coordinators to identify who entered information on report forms 

and when information was entered. This in turn allowed them to identify the rare tests that appeared 

suspicious and assess whether a test had been tampered with or fabricated.

One of the greatest challenges faced by the local testing organizations involved in the study was recruiting 

and retaining testers. Although most of the groups had prior testing experience and many had a testing 

program in place when HDS2012 began, all of them had to recruit additional testers in order to conduct 

the required number of tests. Most organizations also had to further diversify the age, race, and ethnicity 

of their test pools. Most testing organizations had to conduct outreach to groups and community leaders 

within the Hispanic and/or Asian communities.

Although organizations were generally very successful in recruiting large numbers of testers, many groups 

suffered a high level of tester attrition, forcing test coordinators to continue recruiting at the same time 

they were coordinating large numbers of tests. Both the research team and the local testing organizations 

anticipated some tester attrition either immediately following the tester training session, when testers 

learn just how detailed the protocols are, or after testers conducted their first practice test, when some 

discover that they are not comfortable assuming a set of assigned characteristics. However, the level of 

tester attrition that followed the testers’ initial entry to the project was unexpectedly high.17 As new 

testers were recruited to replace them, regional coordinators had to conduct ongoing webinar training 

sessions, often for multiple sites at one time. Some local testing organizations suffered such high tester 

attrition during the testing period that they averaged one training session a month.

Another challenge was the change in either the executive director or on-site project manager position in 

one-third of the local testing organizations. Most of these staff changes came as a surprise. The transitions 

were challenging for both the UI field staff and local testing staff, and in some cases they contributed 

to unexpected delays in test completion. The loss of test coordinators and advance contact staff meant 

that regional coordinators had to devote significant time to training testing staff while continuing to 

fulfill their other critical roles, providing vital feedback to active test coordinators and enforcing multiple 

quality control measures. Ultimately, the UI field team determined that several testing organizations did

17 Many organizations attributed high tester attrition to the level of underemployment among many testers. When these testers received offers of more permanent employment, they gave up their 

work as HDS testers.
II. PAIRED TESTING PROTOCOLS AND FIELD MANAGEMENT

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 11

not have the capacity to complete the required number of tests according to the protocols. The UI field 

team either identified other local organizations to take over the work in those sites or increased the scope 

of work of organizations working in other HDS sites to manage the completion of the failed sites’ tests.18

18 Other testing organizations required additional technical and personnel support to complete their work. For field staff members who struggled with particular protocols, report forms, or 

test management, regional coordinators conducted additional one-on-one or small-group webinars on specific subjects and helped relay best practices of high-performing sites. In some 

cases, the UI team provided help by connecting one local testing organization to another. For example, if an organization was nearly finished with testing but had no testers remaining from 

a particular demographic, another group identified capable testers who were available to travel. This strategy was used in several sites. Additionally, the UI field team deployed local test 

coordinators who had successfully completed tests in their own sites to other locations. One test coordinator helped close out three different sites in two states. Another dedicated tester was 

trained as a test coordinator for the purpose of traveling to another site and ultimately spent more than six months away from home. Highly capable test coordinators and advance callers 

also helped sites in other metropolitan areas complete work, but did so by working remotely. They made test assignments via the online CODE system and briefed and debriefed testers via 

telephone or Web conference. The field staff members who were willing to travel to additional sites and who provided remote support to numerous other testing organizations were vital to 

the successful completion of the project. 
12 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012
III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 13

III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS

This section documents the sampling and analysis plan. We first review the study objectives, since these 

are the primary drivers of the research design. We then discuss the three-step, probability-based sampling 

plan that was implemented for rental and sales testing. The third, fourth, and fifth sections are devoted 

to metro site selection, sampling of neighborhoods, and electronic selection of the rental and sales ads 

for testing. We next present targeted and actual numbers of tests. We discuss the post-data collection 

processing of test data for use in our analyses. We conclude with subsections that discuss our analysis 

plan, including summary measures, screening, statistical tests, and finally the multivariate analysis of the 

correlates of differential treatment.

Study Objectives

The study objectives call for conducting a national paired-testing study of sufficient scope to produce

• Statistically valid and precise national estimates of discrimination experienced by blacks, Hispanics, 

and Asians relative to whites who seek rental and sales housing.

• Statistically valid and precise estimates of rental discrimination (relative to whites) for the eight 

largest Hispanic and eight largest black metropolitan areas. 

• An analytic exploration of sales steering, which is the practice of real estate agents guiding minority 

homeseekers away from homes in integrated or white neighborhoods by offering homes in minority 

neighborhoods.

• Statistically valid national estimates of change in rental and sales discrimination to continue 

documentation of the HDS series.

Before presenting our detailed approach to sampling sites, we should point out the trade-off between 

sampling for good current national estimates versus sampling to get the best estimate of change over time. 

In HDS2000, our initial sample of metro areas for black-white and Hispanic-Anglo testing retained 

the sites used in the 1989 sample to enhance the precision of estimated change-over-time measures. A 

subsequent wave of testing in HDS2000 added new metro areas to yield more precise point-in-time 

national estimates. A primary objective of HDS2000 was to obtain good trends estimates. Examining 

the 1989 to 2000 change in discrimination was meaningful in the sense that homeseeker behavior had 

not changed substantially during the interim. That is not the case for HDS2012, as reflected in the study 

objectives listed above. For the current study, it is more important to obtain good estimates of current 

national levels of rental and sales discrimination. This is quite reasonable given the dramatic changes in 

technology, market practices, and market conditions that have occurred over the past decade.

Accordingly, we drew a new sample of metropolitan testing sites based on data from the 2008 American 

Communities Survey (ACS) to reflect the current distribution of black, Hispanic, and Asian households. 

This approach produces less precise estimates of national changes over time but more accurate estimates 

of current patterns of discrimination.
III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 

14 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Sample of Metropolitan Areas

Ideally, the HDS2012 would employ three independent samples of metropolitan sites, with each tailored to 

a specific minority being tested. Unfortunately, this was not practicable for cost and logistic reasons because 

it would maximize the distinct number of sites within which testing would occur. Thus, our sampling 

approach focused on an “integration strategy” that would employ a probability sample of 28 distinct 

metropolitan areas rather than (28 x 3) = 84 sites. Under this strategy, minority-specific testing would 

occur for one, two, or all three minority groups in a given metropolitan area based on a sampling process 

that assigns minority testing groups to sites. In this subsection we discuss how this was accomplished. 

We begin our discussion by describing the necessary restriction of metropolitan areas within which 

testing could be conducted. This involves a concept of population coverage. Ideally, the HDS2012 

metropolitan site sampling would achieve 100 percent “coverage” of all metropolitan areas in the United 

States. But if testing was conducted in a metro area that was too small, the risk of detection would be 

unacceptably high. On the other hand, excluding metropolitan areas from the possibility of testing 

reduces the coverage of metropolitan sites and introduces the risk of noncoverage bias in the resulting 

discrimination estimates. So a proper balance must be achieved—to reduce the risk of detection by 

eliminating metropolitan sites from testing, yet retain sufficient numbers of metropolitan areas to avert 

the risk of noncoverage bias. 

We analyzed the housing market distribution across metropolitan areas based on total household 

estimates from the 2008 ACS. The smallest 159 metro areas (out of 298 in the United States) featured 

total household counts of fewer than 145,000. These 159 metros represented only about 10 percent of 

black, 9 percent of Hispanic, and less than 7 percent of Asian households. We excluded these areas from 

HDS2012 testing. Their exclusion would have negligible impact on estimates of discrimination because 

of the small amounts of the minority populations they represent. We also excluded other metropolitan 

sites depending on the racial or ethnic group being tested. The results were as follows:

• For black testing, we retained metro areas representing 88 percent coverage of all black households in 

the United States. 

• For Asians, excluding 213 sites (the original 159 plus 54) achieved an overall coverage of 90 percent

of Asian rental households.

• A similar exclusion for Hispanic sites achieved 88 percent coverage. 

These coverage levels are reasonable and reduce the disclosure risk associated with sampling sites for 

testing a racial or ethnic group when in fact few if any members of that group live in the metro area.

The 28 metropolitan sites used in HDS2012 testing represent three separate samples:

• 26 distinct metro sites for black testing. 

• 26 distinct sites for Hispanic testing.

• 23 distinct sites for Asian testing.

The first three rows of Exhibit III-1 summarize the sample site integrated design. The same sites are used 

for both rental and sales testing for each minority group.
III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 15

Exhibit III-1: Summary of HDS2012 Integrated Sampling Plan

Design feature Approach used

Total number of distinct testing sites 28

Number of sites for black testing 26

Number of sites for Hispanic testing 26

Number of sites for Asian testing 23

Subset of sites for metro-specific results 

Black/white 8

Hispanic/Anglo 8

Total number of tests 

Black/white 2,999

Hispanic/Anglo 2,998

Asian/white 2,248

A primary study objective called for separate rental discrimination estimates for the eight largest black 

rental metro areas and the eight largest Hispanic rental metro areas. We identified these sites by first 

ranking metro areas from largest to smallest according to the numbers of renter households using 

2008 ACS data. We did this separately for black, Hispanic, and Asian renter households to examine 

commonalities. Twelve metro areas were identified that collectively include the

• Eight metro areas with the highest number of black renter households.

• Eight metro areas with the highest number of Hispanic renter households.

• Two metro areas with the highest number of Asian renter households.

These 12 metro areas account for 37 percent of black renters, 46 percent of Hispanic renters, and 41 

percent of Asian renters in the United States. Clearly, there was a natural overlap in minority household 

distributions across the United States. We designated these 12 areas as self-representing for one, two, or all 

three minority groups. We then sampled 16 additional non-self-representing sites via stratified probability 

sampling (discussed below) to achieve 28 total distinct sites for testing (Exhibit III-2).

Exhibit III-2: Distribution of 28 Distinct Sites by Racial/Ethnic Testing 

and Self-Representing Status for the HDS Sample

Self-representing for 

at least one group Non-self-representing Total

Black testing 8 18 26

Hispanic testing 8 18 26

Asian testing 4 19 23

Distinct sites 12 16 28
III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 

16 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

For the HDS, the term certainty site denotes the metro areas within which testing was conducted with 

certainty for at least one racial or ethnic minority. Exhibit III-3 illustrates how the 12 certainty sites were 

integrated for racial/ethnic testing. The leftmost column shows the testing groups included with certainty

for a given metro area. Black, Hispanic, and Asian testing was conducted with certainty in four large 

metro areas: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston. The remaining 12 sites were designated as 

having one or two racial/ethnic groups for testing, although there was a chance that testing could have 

been conducted for two or all three groups, as shown in the rightmost two columns of Exhibit III-3.

Exhibit III-3: HDS Certainty Metro Sites by Minority Testing Configuration

Testing Site

Black, Hispanic, Asian

New York-Northeastern NJ

Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA

Chicago-Gary-Lake, IL

Houston-Brazoria, TX

Hispanic and black

Atlanta, GA

Potential Asian sites

Washington, DC/MD/VA

Philadelphia, PA/NJ

Detroit, MI

Hispanic only

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX

Potential black sites

Riverside-San Bernardino, CA

San Diego, CA

Miami-Hialeah, FL

The eight metro areas with the largest black and Hispanic renter populations are listed in Exhibit III-4. 

To meet the second study objective, separate estimates of black and Hispanic rental discrimination 

were required (see Exhibit III-4 column headings). Taken together, the two columns identify 12 

distinct metro areas (as indicated by the bold lettering on the left of each metro site). Separate rental 

discrimination estimates for rental housing were provided for these sites. Note that this includes 

Atlanta, the only metro area where HDS2000 found levels of black/white rental discrimination 

significantly above the national average.

Exhibit III-4: Self-Representing Metropolitan Areas

Top 8 Metro Areas in Rental Housing by Race or Ethnicity

Black (non-Hispanic) Hispanic

A New York-Northeastern NJ E Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA

B Chicago-Gary-Lake, IL A New York-Northeastern NJ

C Atlanta, GA H Houston-Brazoria, TX

D Washington, DC/MD/VA W Miami-Hialeah, FL

E Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA B Chicago-Gary-Lake, IL

F Philadelphia, PA/NJ X Riverside-San Bernardino, CA

G Detroit, MI Y Dallas-Fort Worth, TX

H Houston-Brazoria, TX Z San Diego, CA

Source: 2008 American Community Survey. 
III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 17

The remaining non-self-representing sites were selected via stratified sampling with probabilities 

proportional to racial/ethnic-specific rental housing. Sampling strata were formed by assembling sites into 

groups according to the dominant black/Hispanic/Asian population distributions.

To see how non-certainty sites were selected, consider Exhibit III-5. The table shows the number of sites 

selected in each of eight strata (rows) and the percentages of black, Hispanic, and Asian rental households 

that fall into each stratum.19 The top four rows represent the 12 certainty strata, while the bottom four 

rows depict the non-certainty strata.

Exhibit III-5: Sampling Strata for the 2012 HDS

Number of sites % black rental 

households

% Asian rental 

households

% Hispanic rental 

households

Black, Hispanic, Asian 3 19% 30% 31%

Top black & Hispanic 1 3% 2% 5%

Top black 4 16% 8% 4%

Top Hispanic 4 5% 6% 14%

Large black stratum 25 29% 9% 9%

Large Hispanic stratum 23 7% 13% 26%

Large Asian stratum 25 9% 32% 12%

Residual–black 54 13% – –

Total 139 100% 100% 100%

Note: Percentages are normed. 

Recall that a certainty site required that at least one of three racial/ethnic minorities be tested with certainty. 

In Exhibit III-5, testing on all three minority groups was performed in four sites: the three sites in the first 

row, labeled “Black, Hispanic, Asian,” and the single site in the second row, labeled “Top black & Hispanic.” 

For the eight distinct “certainty” sites represented by the next two rows (i.e., the third and fourth rows) 

labeled “Top black” and “Top Hispanic,” respectively, we drew a subsample of sites to determine which 

would be used for testing two or all three minority groups. Similarly, 18 sites were sampled from the 

bottom four strata (rows). 

19 This table does not show the metro sites in the United States that were excluded from selection using a minimum threshold of 145,000 households and other criteria; collectively the excluded 

areas represent the smallest metro areas in the nation and account for only 12–14 percent of black, Hispanic, and Asian rental housing. 
III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 

18 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Exhibit III-6 shows the results of the site sampling effort. The columns present the number of sampled sites 

by sampling stratum for black, Hispanic, and Asian testing. For instance, the large black stratum contains 

25 metro areas (as seen in Exhibit III-5), which are characterized by large numbers (and percentages) of 

black rental households (relative to those of Hispanics and Asians). Seven sites were selected for black 

rental and sales testing; these seven were sampled with probabilities proportional to black rental housing. 

From these seven, five were then subselected for Asian testing and six were subselected for Hispanic testing. 

The Asian and Hispanic subsamples were selected independently with probabilities proportional to their 

respective race/ethnic group rental housing and inversely proportional to the initial selection probability 

of the seven black sites. This approach yielded sites for Asian and Hispanic testing that are selected with 

probabilities proportional to their respective race/ethnic group. Mathematically, metro site (i) for this 

stratum had the following selection probabilities by race/ethnic group:

Site selection probability for black testing = 7 x m(i) /M = 7 x p(i),

where m(i) represents the number of black rental households in metro area i and M represents the total 

black rental households in the stratum. Given that seven black sites were selected with probabilities 

proportional to black rental housing, subsamples of sites for Asian and Hispanic testing (from the seven 

selected black sites) were then subselected using conditional probabilities as follows:

Conditional site selection probability for Asian testing = 5 x a(i)/[A x 7 x p(i)], and

Conditional site selection probability for Hispanic testing = 6 x d(i)/[D x 7 x p(i)],

where a(i), A, d(i), and D represent analogous quantities for Asian and Hispanics, respectively.

Exhibit III-6: Number of Sites Sampled by Stratum and Race/Ethnic Group

Black site 

allocation 

Asian site 

allocation 

Hispanic site 

allocation Distinct sites

Black, Hispanic, Asian 3 3 3 3

Top black & Hispanic 1 1 1 1

Top black 4 3 4 4

Top Hispanic 3 3 4 4

Large black stratum 7 5 6 7

Large Hispanic stratum 4 4 4 4

Large Asian stratum 3 4 4 4

Residual–black 1 – – 1

Total 26 23 26 28

Thus, Asian sites are sampled with overall probabilities proportional to Asian rental housing, and 

Hispanic sites are similarly sampled proportionally to Hispanic rental housing:

Overall site selection probability for Asian testing = (5/7) x a(i)/A, and

Overall site selection probability for Hispanic testing = (6/7) x d(i)/D.

The basic strategy for the integrated sample of sites was that of approaching as closely as possible a sample 

of black, Hispanic, and Asian sites whose selection probabilities are proportional to their respective race/

ethnic groups’ rental households counts. The process described above was repeated for each non-certainty 

sampling stratum in Exhibit III-6. 
III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 19

The stratum name signifies the racial or ethnic group that started the sequenced sampling. For 

instance, the “large Asian stratum” contains 25 metro areas with predominant percentages of Asian 

rental households (relative to those of Hispanics and blacks). Four sites were selected with probabilities 

proportional to Asian rental households for Asian and Hispanic testing, while three of these four sites 

were subsampled for black testing. 

Sampled Sites and Targeted Tests

Exhibit III-7 lists actual sites selected into the HDS2012 and their corresponding targeted numbers 

of tests by test type (rental and sales) and race/ethnic group. Roughly 4,900 rental and 3,400 sales 

tests were targeted across the 28 distinct sites. The 12 sites for which separate metro estimates of rental 

discrimination were needed were each assigned a target of 135 rental tests. All other sites were assigned 

44 to 46 rental tests for blacks and Hispanics and 46 to 47 rental tests for Asians (except the three largest 

metro areas and the large minority metro, which were assigned 60). This totaled about 1,880 rental tests 

each for blacks and Hispanics, and 1,121 for Asians.

For sales testing there was no need to provide separate estimates of discrimination for specific metro areas, 

so the tests were spread more evenly across the sample of sites to increase statistical precision. Forty-three 

sales tests were assigned to each metro area for blacks and Hispanics, and 49 were assigned to each Asian 

site. This totaled about 1,120 sales tests each for blacks, Hispanics, and Asians.

Actual Tests Conducted

Exhibit III-8 tabulates the in-person paired tests that have been completed by site, race/ethnicity, and test 

type. In addition to those tests listed, we conducted a number of “partial tests” in which one tester was 

not able to get an appointment to see the home. In some sites, groups conducted fewer in-person tests 

than they had been asked to complete, for two reasons. First, Boston fell substantially short of its target 

number of tests, owing to market conditions and other operational challenges. This resulted in a small 

reduction in statistical precision but a negligible impact on the study’s ability to detect discrimination. 

Second, when only one tester was able to make an appointment for an in-person visit, groups submitted 

“partial tests” if they completed data entry for both testers for the appointment contact phase of the test. 

These partial tests are central to the analysis of differential ability to get an appointment, even though 

they provide no information about differential treatment during the in-person visit.

A comparison of Exhibits III-7 (targeted) and III-8 (actual) reveals a very successful field operation. Actual 

tests completed were within 6 percent of targets for both rental and sales tests for three racial/ethnic groups, 

with only one exception. Hispanic sales tests came within 9 percent of the target. Moreover, within-site field 

performance (by tenure and racial/ethnic group) was successful in the vast majority of sites.
III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 

20 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Exhibit III-7: Site Selections and Target Numbers of Tests by Sampling Stratum

RENTAL TESTS SALES TESTS Total 

rental

Total 

sales

Total 

all 

tests Stratum Site Black Hispanic Asian Black Hispanic Asian

Largest 

MSAs

5600: New York-Northeastern NJ 135 135 60 43 43 49 330 135 465

1600: Chicago-Gary-Lake, IL 135 135 60 43 43 49 330 135 465

4480: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 135 135 60 43 43 49 330 135 465

Large 

black

8840: Washington, DC/MD/VA 135 46 46 43 43 49 227 135 362

6160: Philadelphia, PA/NJ 135 46 46 43 43 49 227 135 362

520: Atlanta, GA 135 46 46 43 43 49 227 135 362

2160: Detroit, MI 135 46 – 43 43 – 181 86 267

Large 

minority 3360: Houston-Brazoria, TX 135 135 60 43 43 49 330 135 465

Large 

Hispanic

5000: Miami-Hialeah, FL 47 135 – 43 43 – 182 86 268

6780: Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 47 135 47 43 43 49 229 135 364

1920: Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 47 135 47 43 43 49 229 135 364

7320: San Diego, CA – 135 47 – 43 49 182 92 274

Black 

5605: Newark, NJ 44 44 46 43 43 49 134 135 269

8280: Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL 44 44 46 43 43 49 134 135 269

3760: Kansas City, MO-KS 44 44 46 43 43 49 134 135 269

3120: Greensboro-Winston 

Salem-High Point, NC 44 44 – 43 43 – 88 86 174

1680: Cleveland, OH 44 44 46 43 43 49 134 135 269

720: Baltimore, MD 44 44 46 43 43 49 134 135 269

6760: Richmond-Petersburg, VA 44 – – 43 – – 44 43 87

Hispanic

4482: Orange County, CA 44 44 46 43 43 49 134 135 269

7240: San Antonio, TX 44 44 46 43 43 49 134 135 269

1921: Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 44 44 46 43 43 49 134 135 269

200: Albuquerque, NM 44 44 46 43 43 49 134 135 269

Asian

7400: San Jose, CA – 44 47 – 43 49 91 92 183

1120: Boston, MA 44 44 47 43 43 49 135 135 270

7600: Seattle-Everett, WA 44 44 47 43 43 49 135 135 270

5604: Middlesex-SomersetHunterdon, NJ 44 44 47 43 43 49 135 135 270

Small 

black 1760: Columbia, SC 44 – – 43 – – 44 43 87

Total tests 1,881 1,880 1,121 1,118 1,118 1,127 4,882 3,363 8,245
III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 21

Exhibit III-8: In-Person Paired Tests Conducted by Site, Race-Ethnic Group and Test Type 

Actual Number of Tests

RENTAL TESTS SALES TESTS Total 

rental

Total 

sales

Total 

all 

tests Stratum Site Black Hispanic Asian Black Hispanic Asian

Largest 

MSAs

New York-Northeastern NJ 135 139 70 54 42 49 344 145 489

Chicago-Gary-Lake, IL 118 108 44 35 39 39 270 113 383

Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 160 135 60 43 44 52 355 139 494

Large 

black

Washington, DC/MD/VA 134 69 46 38 40 45 249 123 372

Philadelphia, PA/NJ 133 45 40 39 43 41 218 123 341

Atlanta, GA 135 48 48 51 39 51 231 141 372

Detroit, MI 137 50 – 37 31 – 187 68 255

Large 

minority Houston-Brazoria, TX 134 134 62 43 43 51 330 137 467

Large 

Hispanic

Miami-Hialeah, FL 49 134 – 40 43 – 183 83 266

Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 49 135 48 43 42 49 232 134 366

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 58 135 47 43 43 49 240 135 375

San Diego, CA – 131 48 40 – 46 179 86 265

Black 

Newark, NJ 43 46 46 47 44 48 135 139 274

Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL 46 46 43 46 37 46 135 129 264

Kansas City, MO-KS 44 43 47 42 43 47 134 132 266

Greensboro-Winston 

Salem-High Point, NC 42 50 – 41 43 – 92 84 176

Cleveland, OH 44 45 46 46 47 51 135 144 279

Baltimore, MD 51 45 50 53 43 49 146 145 291

Richmond-Petersburg, VA 45 – – 41 – – 45 41 86

Hispanic

Orange County, CA 44 44 46 43 43 49 134 135 269

San Antonio, TX 44 44 49 43 46 48 137 137 274

Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 44 44 46 43 43 49 134 135 269

Albuquerque, NM 47 44 48 41 43 47 139 131 270

Asian

San Jose, CA – 44 47 – 43 50 91 93 184

 Boston, MA 22 9 16 12 12 9 47 33 80

Seattle-Everett, WA 44 43 47 41 39 47 134 127 261

Middlesex-SomersetHunterdon, NJ 46 44 48 43 43 48 138 134 272

Small 

black Columbia, SC 44 – – 43 – – 44 43 87

Total tests 1,892 1,854 1,092 1,131 1,018 1,060 4,838 3,209 8,047
III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 

22 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Sampling Available Housing

The approach used to sample rental and sales ads for testing was developed with the following two 

objectives:

• To draw random samples of ads from sources commonly used by rental housing seekers and 

homebuyers.

• To develop an efficient sampling mechanism that automates the selection and processing of ads as 

much as possible.

An important aspect of ad sampling involved identifying the appropriate frame from which to draw the 

sample. Since HDS2000 was conducted, Internet advertising has become increasingly widespread in both 

rental and sales markets, and the use of print sources has substantially declined. Large ad-accumulation Web 

sites for both rental and sales are available throughout most metropolitan areas across the country. However, 

the specific advertising portals differ for sales and rental markets. That is, a portal for sales may not be 

appropriate for rental housing, and vice versa. Thus, different websites were used to draw rental and sales ads.

Our sampling approach electronically harvested sales and rental ad listings from the Web. Quality control 

(QC) operations, eligibility determination, and final allocation of sample to local test coordinators were 

conducted by computer program before issuing ads to the field. 

The general overview of the framework was as follows: 

• Electronic harvesting of ads.

• QC and purging of ineligible ads.

• Geographic sampling of ads in proportion to rental housing (for rental tests) and home mortgage 

activity (for sales testing) by ZIP Code.

• Release of ads to test coordinators for review and assignment to testers.

Electronic harvesting was conducted using separate e-mail queries for each site. The ZIP Code-based 

queries were performed on several websites and continuously generated ads during the testing field 

period. The harvested ads were parsed and stored in database tables for further processing and sampling. 

Well over 2 million ads were harvested over the course of the testing period. 

The sales ad sampling process used real estate sites’ capabilities to issue daily e-mail notifications of new 

listings based on user-specified searches. We identified several major Web sources of real estate sales ads 

that covered all or parts of the United States. Each website provided access to listings found in the MLS. 

The websites allowed users to create e-mail notifications based on predefined real estate searches. The 

e-mail alerts were set to generate daily updates of new listings. Although the search criteria for each 

site varied, we employed standard search criteria common to all sites (e.g., ZIP Code, upper and lower 

bounds on listing price). 

To control the number of ads received in any single e-mail, we confined searches by geography based 

on a sample of ZIP Codes rather than harvesting ads from the entire metropolitan area. In this way the 

number of ad returned was sufficient for weekly testing. 
III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 23

Sales ads were harvested from major Internet ad sources according to the following process:

1. Ad Harvesting and Quality Control

A. E-mail accounts were set up for a specific MSA/ZIP Code (or groups of ZIP Codes) cohort.

B. E-mail alert notification requests were established at selected real estate Web portals; these sources 

were rotated weekly to randomize the order of the ads being sampled for testing. The e-mail alerts 

were sent to the corresponding e-mail account.

C. Using a Web application, ads were harvested from the e-mail accounts and the text was parsed 

into specific pieces of information (address, price, number of bedrooms, etc.) and stored in a 

database table.

D.QC was performed by computer program to remove ineligible ads (e.g., remove duplicates, short 

sales, listings outside the desired price range). 

2. Sampling Ads and Assignment to Local Test Coordinators

A. Eligible ads were sorted via a randomly generated number that was assigned when the ad was 

harvested.

B. Ads were assigned to test coordinators for further review, processing, and assignment.

C. As needed, additional websites were added to augment the ads from the major Web sources. 

Many of these sites were suggested by the local testing organizations.

The approach for rental units sampling was the same as the approach for sales, with a few modifications. 

We used Craigslist for each metropolitan area, supplementing with additional websites in some areas. 

Our ad sampling approach generated a sample of ads that was spread geographically according to the 

distributions of rental housing for rental testing and housing purchases (via counts of home mortgages) 

for sales testing. The sampling process employed a two-stage approach. First, two large and independent 

random samples of ZIP Codes (10,000 each) were generated according to the percentage distributions of 

rental housing (for rental tests) and home mortgages (for sales tests). These samples essentially represent 

samples of ZIP Codes selected with probabilities proportional to size. The pools of rental and sales ZIP 

Codes were then randomized and assigned weekly (as needed) to generate ad samples. Once a randomly 

sampled ZIP Code was selected for a week of field testing, the corresponding ads harvested during that 

week were pooled and randomly sampled for possible assignment to the field. Ideally, 10 ads per ZIP 

Code were sampled, and the first “eligible” ad encountered in the pool of 10 randomly sampled was 

released to the test coordinators for processing and testing.20

To allocate the ads for sales, we used the 2009 HMDA data on volume of home purchase loans by census 

tract. For rental ads, we used the ZIP Code-level counts of rental housing from the 2009 ACS, which 

were the most recent data available. A crosswalk from tract to ZIP Codes available from the U.S. Postal 

Service (and released via HUDUSER) was used to create the ZIP Code sampling frame for each site. 

20 Some or all of the 10 ads for a given sampled ZIP Code could be deemed ineligible by the test coordinator if, for instance, a duplicate ad was not caught by the computer program or if the 

realtor (sales) or landlord (rental) had recently been tested using another property.
III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 

24 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

A key ad sampling design feature in our approach involved the sampling of fresh ad listings, since this 

mimics the actual behavior of homeseekers. Fresh/new listings tend to garner more interest from both 

agents and homeseekers. To the extent possible, we sampled from the freshest ads available. This required 

continuous ad harvesting and updating for all ZIP Codes in a metro site. After an initial harvest to 

establish existing inventory at the start of the field process, new listings (i.e., ads that had not previously 

been published) were continuously harvested. As new listings appeared in our daily or weekly harvesting 

cycle, they were given selection priority for use in testing. If the number of new ads exceeded the number 

needed for testing, then a subset would be randomly sampled. When the volume of new listings fell short 

of the number needed for testing, the balance would be drawn randomly from the preexisting inventory. 

Midway through the testing field period, we assessed each metro site to examine whether the sampling of 

ads generated any “geographic holes,” defined as neighborhoods or communities that were not covered 

by the ad sampling. Holes could occur if all or most of the rental or sale homes in a community are not 

advertised through the population Web venues. Our spatial mapping analysis suggested that geographic 

holes were not a problem. 

Analysis Weights

The framework we adopted to generate statistically valid estimates is that of classical finite population 

sampling. However, the finite population used to invoke this theory is neither the housing nor rental ad. 

It is the collection of metro areas in the United States. Thus, our framework adopts probability sampling 

of metro sites in order to use finite population sampling theory to make inference to all metro areas in the 

nation. Paired-testing data are used to develop estimates of discrimination in each site. The sites were then 

combined using the stratum weights to provide statistically valid national estimates of discrimination. 

This basic logic drives how the paired-test level data were weighted.

Viewed from this perspective, two weighting tasks were addressed:

• Weighting of paired tests to develop valid estimates of metro-level discrimination.

• Weighting of sites to combine them into a national estimate.

All tests within a metro area were assigned the same individual weight. 

Sampling of sales and rental ads within a metro area is a complex venture because of the eligibility and 

disclosure-avoidance rules that must be implemented. For instance, tracking multiple appearances of ads, 

landlords, and/or real estate agents in different ad frames over continuous harvesting and sampling of ads 

was neither feasible nor necessary. Instead, random samples of available ads were drawn subject to the 

eligibility rules necessary to avert disclosure and retain relevance (e.g., room rentals are not eligible). 

Sales and rental ads were sampled in a way that geographically reflected rental and sales housing within a site 

by first sampling ZIP Codes with probability proportionate to size (pps) and then sampling an ad within 

the selected ZIP Code for a paired test. This approximately mimics a common equal probability sample 

design under a two-stage sample with pps and a fixed sample size drawn from the first-stage sampling unit. 

We therefore decided to weight tests equally within each site both for the national estimates and when 

metro-specific analyses were conducted. That is, the analysis of tests within sites is unweighted. 
III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 25

Weighting across sites was based on the site selection probabilities. Sites were selected with known 

selection probabilities. Under finite population sampling theory, a sampling weight equal to the 

reciprocal of the selection probability will produce statistically valid national estimates of rental and sales 

discrimination. However, because of inevitable variation in numbers of tests across sites, we employed 

poststratification so the weight of tests reflects the geographic distribution of rental and sales housing 

across sampling strata. Thus, poststratification aligned the data to known minority-specific rental and 

sales home distributions across sampling strata. 

Our strategy for weighting to create national estimates is that metro-level estimates of discrimination can 

be developed using the paired tests conducted in each site. Sites represent either themselves (certainty 

site, also called a self-representing stratum) or a (non-certainty) sampling stratum. A national estimate 

can be developed by applying the stratum weight associated with each respective site to its corresponding 

site estimate:

ˆy=∑h Wh yh (1)

where y denotes the national estimate, h indexes the sampling strata, Wh represents the sampling stratum 

weights, and yh represents the estimate of discrimination for sampling stratum h. Note that the estimate 

of discrimination for sampling stratum h may contain the paired tests of one site (e.g., certainty site), or 

those of several sites.

Poststratification adjustments were created for the six domains that comprise HDS: the crossclassification of minority group (black, Hispanic, Asian) by housing tenure (renter, owner). Exhibit III-9 

contains the control proportions for each sampling stratum by race or ethnic group and test type.

ˆ
III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 

26 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Exhibit III-9: Stratum Weights for HDS Analysis

SALES RENTAL

Stratum weights by group Stratum weights by group

Stratum Sites Black Hispanic Asian Black Hispanic Asian

Largest 

MSAs

5600: New York-Northeastern NJ 4.4% 3.0% 5.4% 9.4% 13.0% 12.6%

1600: Chicago-Gary-Lake, IL 5.3% 6.0% 5.0% 5.6% 4.1% 3.9%

4480: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 2.7% 10.4% 9.2% 3.7% 13.9% 13.6%

Large black

8840: Washington, DC/MD/VA 7.0% 2.3% 11.0% 4.3% 1.7% 7.6%

6160: Philadelphia, PA/NJ 3.9% 1.0% 3.5% 1.0%

520: Atlanta, GA 7.7% 1.3% 4.7% 1.4%

2160: Detroit, MI 3.5% 0.6% 3.3% 0.4%

Large 

minority 3360: Houston-Brazoria, TX 2.8% 5.4% 2.7% 3.0% 4.6% 1.9%

Large 

Hispanic

5000: Miami-Hialeah, FL 5.1% 5.9% 4.9% 4.1%

6780: Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 5.9% 7.5% 3.4% 6.1%

1920: Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 3.3% 3.3%

7320: San Diego, CA 2.4% 2.7%

Black 

5605: Newark, NJ 30.2% 10.1% 10.5% 29.2% 8.8% 9.0%

8280: Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL

3760: Kansas City, MO-KS

1680: Cleveland, OH

720: Baltimore, MD

3120: Greensboro-Winston Salem-High 

Point, NC

6760: Richmond-Petersburg, VA

Hispanic

4482: Orange County, CA 7.4% 31.0% 15.2% 7.1% 25.6% 13.4%

7240: San Antonio, TX

1921: Fort Worth-Arlington, TX

200: Albuquerque, NM

Asian

7400: San Jose, CA 11.3% 33.4% 12.0% 32.0%

1120: Boston, MA 6.8% 8.5%

7600: Seattle-Everett, WA

5604: Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon, 

NJ

Small black 1760: Columbia, SC 13.1% 12.8%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 27

Implicitly, the final analytic weight for any given national analysis will be the product of the three 

components:

• The within-site ad weight.

• The site sampling weight.

• A post-stratification adjustment.

But since the paired tests are approximately self-weighting within a site (by design), the only weight 

adjustment that was necessary is poststratification. 

Operationally, we calculated test-level analytic weights separately for each outcome analysis because the 

number of tests available for a specific outcome could vary due to missing data and/or using a subset of 

the data.For example, “able to make an appointment” would have many more tests than “number of 

homes shown” because the latter analysis uses only a subset of the former tests. We first took the total 

number of sites within a stratum and gave the site an equal share of the stratum weight. If a stratum 

weight has a value of W and was represented by three sites, then the sets of tests from each site in that 

stratum were allocated a weight of W/3. Then the paired-test analytic weights were calculated separately 

within each site for a given outcome. The end result is that (1) each site in a stratum contributes an equal 

share to the stratum weight, and (2) each paired test within a site contributes equal shares of weight to its 

constituent site total.21

Measuring Differential Treatment

One strength of paired testing is that it provides a detailed picture of the forms discrimination takes, not 

just a single “yes or no” answer. This is important because forms of discrimination have changed over 

time and patterns of discrimination differ across protected classes. For example, outright refusal to make 

units available to blacks was common in 1977 but rare by 2000. Geographic steering increased between 

1989 and 2000 for black homebuyers, but not for Hispanics. And in 2000, Hispanic homebuyers 

were particularly likely to experience inferior assistance and advice about financing. Understanding 

these specifics is essential for effective fair housing enforcement, public education efforts, and training 

of housing providers. In addition, however, it is important to report to the public understandable 

summary measures that capture the overall incidence of differential treatment and reveal trends over time. 

Therefore, we report both “headline” measures of discrimination and more detailed indicators of the 

various forms that discrimination might take. 

In the remainder of this subsection, we first discuss the issues of using gross and net measures of 

discrimination and explain our approach. We then describe a new strategy for summarizing the findings 

across many treatment indicators into headline measures of discrimination, followed by a description 

of our approach to analyzing geographic steering for sales tests. Finally, we discuss our approach to the 

analysis of differences.

As in previous discrimination studies, we report both gross and net measures of differential treatment for 

each element of treatment being analyzed. 

21 For some of our analyses, it was necessary to smooth the weights within a stratum by assigning average weights to all tests in the stratum. This occurred, for example, in the tests for the 

stratum containing Boston, because of the small number of tests conducted there. This smoothing reduced extreme weight variability and stabilized stratum estimates, ensuring that the tests 

from a single site would not be weighted heavily relative to tests from other sites in the stratum.
III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 

28 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Gross measures represent the share of all tests in which the white homeseeker is favored over the minority 

tester. Some tests yield the opposite result (for at least some indicators), with the minority favored over 

the white tester. Therefore, we report the incidence of favored treatment for both the white and minority 

testers. Although gross measures of differential treatment are easily understandable, we believe that they 

generally overstate the frequency of systematic discrimination because nondiscriminatory random events 

are responsible for some portion of observed treatment.

We also report net measures of discrimination, defined as the proportion of white-favored treatment 

minus the proportion of minority-favored treatment, along with corresponding measures of statistical 

significance. For a given measure, the net measure provides a direct estimate of the degree of disadvantage 

in the rental or sales markets for minorities compared with whites. In general, the net measure provides 

a lower-bound estimate of systematic discrimination in favor of whites. To the extent that minorities are 

systematically favored over whites in some share of housing inquiries (reverse discrimination), the net 

measure will understate the incidence of discrimination against minorities. 

For those outcomes of a test that can be measured in amounts (e.g., number of recommended units and 

rent), we report the average amount for the white and minority tester and then report the net difference 

in the average amounts as a measure of the severity of discrimination. Because the difference is measured 

over a common set of tests, it provides a meaningful measure of the average degree of differential 

treatment of minorities relative to whites.

Gross measures of adverse treatment of minority homeseekers receive less emphasis in this report than 

in past national studies, because analyses over the past 25 years strongly suggest that they include 

substantial random differences in treatment, and that net measures more accurately reflect the systematic 

disadvantages faced by minority homeseekers. One important source of evidence on this issue is the small 

sample of three-part tests conducted as part of HDS2000. In these tests (conducted in two metropolitan 

areas), the in-person visit by a white tester was followed by two minority visits or the visit by a minority 

tester was followed by two white visits, all following the same protocols. Comparing the treatment of 

the two same-race testers provides a direct estimate of random (not race- or ethnicity-based) differential 

treatment. This exploratory triad testing effort suggested that most, if not all minority-favored treatment 

is random; it provides no convincing evidence that minority-favored treatment systematically exceeds 

differences in the treatment of same-race testers (see Turner and Ross 2003a).

For HDS2012, we adopted a new approach to summarize the findings across the many treatment 

indicators. We report seven key measures that we believe together provide a rounded picture of both the 

incidence and the severity of differential treatment over the natural course of a test. We then combine 

these into two overall measures that we believe concisely summarize the findings across the various stages 

of the test.

The seven summary measures represent treatment milestones in the sequence of events that comprise a 

paired test. They are best explained by discussing them in the context of a test:

1. For each test, we first measure whether both testers of a pair were able to obtain an appointment 

with an agent or meet with an agent (in the case of drop-ins). Summary measure #1 reports 

differential denial of in-person meeting.
III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 29

2. For tests in which both testers obtained appointments, we then measure whether both were told 

that a unit is available. Summary measure #2 reports differential denial of available units.

3. For tests in which both testers obtained appointments, we also measure the average number of units 

recommended. Summary measure #3 reports differential number of units recommended.

4. For tests where units were available to both testers, we then measure the number of units inspected. 

Summary measure #4 reports the differential number of units shown.

5. For those tests where units were available for both testers, we created an index of agent helpfulness 

based on four individual items, with some elements of the index differing for rentals and sales.22

For these measures we add 1 to the index if a tester has a positive outcome on an item. Summary 

measure #5 reports the differences between testers in agent helpfulness.

6. For those tests where units were available for both testers, we also report the average rent or price 

for the recommended units for each tester. Summary measure #6 reports the differential rent or sales 

price.

7. For sales tests where units were available to both testers, we measure the severity of racial steering, 

based on a comparison of the average percentage of non-Hispanic whites in the census tracts where 

the white and minority testers are shown homes. Summary measure #7 (for sales tests only) reports 

differential neighborhood racial/ethnic composition.

The first two of these measures highlight the frequency with which agents deny minority homeseekers 

access to available housing units, while the remaining measures reflect the severity of differential treatment 

experienced by minority homeseekers who gain access.23 The net measures for the number of units 

available, the number of units shown, the agent helpfulness index, rents and prices, and neighborhood 

racial/ethnic composition provide solid and continuous measures of the severity of differential treatment. 

An agent who tells a customer about more available units is likely to be taking the prospective renter or 

buyer more seriously. For a given agent, a larger difference in the number of units shown to the white 

and minority testers should reflect the level of investment the agent is willing to make. Similarly, an agent 

who favors one tester on cost and multiple customer service items is giving that tester an advantage in the 

renting or home buying process. 

This sequence of measures provides an easily understandable description of differential treatment in 

today’s housing markets that no single measure can communicate. It follows the natural sequence of 

the interaction between homeseeker and housing provider, which is appealing for ease in conveying the 

findings and allows reliance on data for the inspections, cost, and encouragement elements measured for 

only those cases where an actual unit was available.24

We combine key elements of these seven measures into two overall summary measures: the overall 

average number of homes recommended to a tester and the overall average number of homes inspected 

by a tester. We estimate these summary measures by combining information on whether testers got an 

22 For rental tests, we add one point to the index for each of the following: tester told about more available units, tester told rent is negotiable, tester given application to fill out or take home, and 

agent made arrangements for future contact. For sales tests, we include agent volunteered to help find financing, agent offered to prequalify tester, length of visit longer by more than an hour, 

and agent made arrangements for future contact.

23 The Urban Institute implemented a similar, sequential approach to summarize results from its employment discrimination studies.

24 This same sequential approach is applied to the detailed (gross and net) measures for the individual elements of each test. That is, availability measures are reported only for tests in which both 

testers were able to meet with an agent; and inspections, cost, and encouragement outcomes are presented for the subsample of tests in which both testers were told that at least one unit was 

available.
III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 

30 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

appointment with the average number of units recommended or shown for all those who met with an 

agent. Specifically, the summary measure of the average number of units recommended to a tester of a 

given race is calculated as:

Overall average units recommended = (proportion of tests that lead to meeting an agent) x 

(average number of units recommended to testers who meet an agent)

The summary measure of the average number of units shown to a tester of a given race is calculated as: 

Overall average units inspected = (proportion of tests that lead to meeting an agent) x (average 

number of units shown to testers who meet an agent)

These statistics combine the incidences of differential rates of getting appointments, being told units are 

available, and being shown units with the severity measures of the average number of number of units 

available and shown. We report both the levels of these summary measures for white and minority testers 

and the percentage difference in the averages between white and minority testers.

In addition to the two overall summary measures, we report a composite measure of differential access 

combining the incidences of (1) differential ability to gain an appointment, (2) differential number of 

units recommended, and (3) differential number of units shown. The composite measure is defined for all 

tests in which the appointment outcome was measured, or both testers met with an agent. A test is coded 

as white tester-favored if the white tester was favored on appointments, units recommended, or units 

shown without his or her minority teammate being favored on any of these measures. The test is coded 

as minority tester-favored if the minority tester is favored on any of the three measures without the white 

teammate being preferred. All other eligible tests are coded as equal treatment.25

To examine geographic steering in home sales, we compared the census tracts where the homes recommended 

or shown to white testers are located with the tracts recommended or shown to their minority partners. This 

required capturing and coding census geography of unit locations. The measures of steering are based on (1) 

a comparison of the number of tracts seen, (2) a comparison of the average characteristics of the tracts for 

units recommended or shown to the white and minority testers, and (3) whether comments made by agents 

tend to reinforce segregation. Our basic approach follows the work of Galster and Godfrey (2005) analyzing 

the data from HDS2000. We use the tract as the definition of neighborhood. 

Both racial/ethnic and class steering are examined in the comparison of tract characteristics. We base 

the analysis of racial/ethnic steering on a comparison of the racial composition of census tracts where 

homes were recommended or shown to the white and minority testers. If the white tester is shown homes 

in neighborhoods with a higher average percentage of non-Hispanic whites than the homes shown the 

minority tester, this counts as a segregation-reinforcing instance of differential treatment. If the reverse 

occurs, the test is coded as integration reinforcing. The difference in the average tract percentage of whites 

between testers must be at least 5 percentage points to count as differential treatment. We report the net 

measures of differential treatment in steering, as well as the gross differences in treatment that underlie 

them. To measure the severity of racial/ethnic steering, we calculate an average tract racial composition 

for the white and minority testers, taking the average of the tract percentage white of tracts recommended

25 This composite incidence measure is similar in construction to the measures of “consistent white-favored treatment” featured in HDS2000. Note that tests in some treatment favors the white 

and some favors the minority are classified as neither “white favored” nor “minority favored,” making this a conservative measure of overall adverse treatment.
III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 31

or shown for each test and then averaging over all tests. The difference in these overall averages provides a 

measure of how often whites are recommended and shown homes that are in whiter neighborhoods.

Class steering is defined similarly, using a comparison of the average socioeconomic characteristics 

of neighborhoods shown to the white and minority testers. The indicators include the tract-level 

homeownership rate, percentage nonpoor, and the median home value. For each measure, we coded 

whether the average over the homes recommended or shown favors the white or minority tester. 

Differences in the homeownership rate and percentage nonpoor must be at least 5 percentage points 

and the difference in home values must be at least 10 percent to count as preferred treatment. For each 

measure, we report averages across all tests for white and minority testers, the net difference between the 

averages, and then test whether the net difference is significantly different from zero.

The final steering analysis compares agent comments about neighborhoods that were made to white and 

minority testers to assess whether the comments reinforce segregation. We define each neighborhood 

as white, minority, or mixed. A neighborhood is categorized as non-Hispanic white if it has at least 90 

percent non-Hispanic whites, and minority if it has at least 50 percent minority. 

We label a test as reinforcing segregation if we see any of the following:

• Positive comments to the white tester about white neighborhoods.

• Negative comments to the white tester about minority neighborhoods.

• Negative comments to the minority tester about white neighborhoods.

• Positive comments to the minority tester about minority neighborhoods.

Without seeing any of the following:

• Negative comments to the white tester about white neighborhoods.

• Positive comments to the white tester about minority neighborhoods.

• Positive comments to the minority tester about white neighborhoods.

• Negative comments to the minority tester about minority neighborhoods.

We label a test as favoring integration if we see comments only in the second group, but not the first. 

The net incidence of tests favoring integration is given by the difference in the share of tests favoring 

segregation minus the share favoring integration.

Measures of the percent white and homeownership rate are from the 2010 census. Measures of 

percentage nonpoor and home values come from the 2006–10 ACS.

Our approach to the analysis of paired-testing data is designed to maximize insight into both the 

incidence and severity of differential treatment by housing providers by featuring the following:

• Tabular analyses showing overall favorable treatment for whites and minorities as well as the net 

estimates of adverse treatment (which is their difference).

• Significance levels associated with a two-sided test of hypothesis of “no adverse net treatment.”

• Multivariate analysis of whether and how environmental and personal factors might influence 

aspects of discrimination.
III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 

32 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Our tabular analyses feature estimates of gross and net adverse treatment from a paired-testing 

paradigm, drawing upon the formulation illustrated in Exhibit III-10. This formulation applies for 

outcomes that can be categorized as “yes” or “no” for each tester (e.g., told apartment available, told 

incentives are available). In this exhibit:

P11 = proportion of tests with “yes” for white tester and “yes” for minority tester

P10 = proportion of tests with “yes” for white tester and “no” for minority tester

P01 = proportion of tests with “no” for white tester and “yes” for minority tester

P00 = proportion of tests with “no” for white tester and “no” for minority tester

P1+ = proportion of tests with “yes” for white tester 

P0+ = proportion of tests with “no” for white tester

P+1 = proportion of tests with “yes” for minority tester

P+0 = proportion of tests with “no” for minority tester

Exhibit III-10: Formulation of Gross and Net Adverse Treatment in a Paired Testing Design

MINORITY TESTER

White tester Favorable Unfavorable Total

Favorable P11 P10 P1+

Unfavorable P01 P00 P0+

Total P+1 P+0 1.0

Gross white-favored treatment = P10

Net white-favored treatment = P10 - P01

These indicators are reorganized in tabular form in Exhibit III-11. The exhibit is a slight modification of 

the format used in the HDS2000 Final Report. Each row reports the shares of tests in which both testers 

receive favorable treatment, the shares in which only the white and only the minority tester receives 

favorable treatment, the net difference in favored treatment, and the standard error of the net difference 

(SEnet). As before, separate tables are devoted to black, Hispanic, and Asian treatment. 

Exhibit III-11: Illustration of Tabular Analyses of Adverse Treatment in Rental Housing Seeking Among Blacks

A B C D = B - C

Std error

Outcome (partial list) Both testers White Black Net difference

Tester(s) told units available P11 P1+ P+1 P10 - P01 SEnet

Tester(s) shown a unit P11 P1+ P+1 P10 - P01 SEnet

Tester(s) offered an incentive P11 P1+ P+1 P10 - P01 SEnet

* Net difference entries are flagged with asterisks indicating instances of two-sided statistical significance tests at the 0.01, 0.05 and 0.10 levels

We use two approaches to describe preference on continuous outcomes, such as the number of homes 

recommended or rent amount. First, we report the proportions of tests for which the white tester is 

preferred and for which the minority tester is preferred, the net difference in the proportions, and the 

standard error of the net difference. For most of our outcomes defined in dollars (e.g., rent, incentives, 

or home price), we first calculate the average of the measure (e.g., average rent) across available units or 

recommended homes. We label testers as preferred if they have a lower cost by at least 5 percent and 

compare the proportion of time the white and minority testers are preferred. The difference in these 

proportions provides a net measure of the incidence of differential treatment in the measure of cost. 
III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 33

Second, we calculate the average over all tests of the test-level measure (e.g., average rent across units 

available) for white testers, minority testers, the net difference in the averages, and the standard error of 

the net difference. This approach summarizes the severity of the different treatment observed. Examples 

of each approach are shown for the outcome “number of inspections” in Exhibit III-12. Note that the 

“Both testers” column is blank because the measure is defined based on a comparison of the values 

reported by the two testers. In this exhibit:

Nw = number units shown to the white tester on a test

Nb

 = number of units shown to black tester on the same test 

PNw>Nb = proportion of tests with white tester shown more units than black tester 

PNw<Nb = proportion of tests with minority tester shown more units than white tester

Avg(Nw) = average number of units shown to white testers

Avg(Nb

) = average number of units shown to black testers

Exhibit III-12: Illustration of Tabular Analyses of Adverse Treatment for Number of Inspections of Rental Housing 

A B C D = B - C

Std error

Outcome Both testers White Black Net difference

Tester shown more units PNw>Nb PNw<Nb PNw>Nb- PNw>Nb SEnet

# of units shown Avg(Nw) Avg(Nb

) Avg(Nw)- Avg(Nb) SEnet

Net difference entries will be flagged with asterisks indicating instances of two-sided statistical significance tests at the 0.01, 0.05 and 0.10 levels.

Tables are provided at the national level for sales and rental for blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, as well as 

for rentals in eight large metro areas for blacks and Hispanics.

For the national estimates, it is critical to adjust significance levels to account for the reduction of 

statistical precision associated with the complex sample design (i.e., use of clustered, two-stage sampling). 

For each outcome, we calculate the net difference between the white and minority tester, weighted to 

account for each site’s representation in the national population. We then use robust clustered standard 

errors and t-tests to conduct a two-sided test of net adverse treatment.26 The degrees of freedom are based 

on the number of sites included in the analysis following the indication by Angrist and Pischke (2008) 

that the p-values should be based on the number of clusters.

For estimates that combine the estimated probability of an appointment and the average number of 

units, we use the standard error of the average number of units.

For the metro-level estimates for rentals, we calculate significance levels for the discrete outcomes (e.g., 

unit was available) using the sign test. This statistical test uses only the tests where treatment is different 

for a given outcome and calculates the probability that we see as many whites favored relative to the 

number of minority favored as we do if the treatment was equal. For a continuous outcome such as the 

number of inspections and amount of incentives, we use robust standard errors (not clustered) and a 

t-test to conduct two-sided tests of net adverse treatment.27

26 The use of clustered standard errors accounts for the potential similarity of test results within site that was expected among tests in a common housing market and with a common pool of 

testers. This approach conservatively overlooks the stratification of the sample (i.e., assumes that sites were selected randomly from one large “stratum”). We chose this approach to achieve 

more stable estimates of standard errors due to the limited degrees of freedom afforded if stratification was taken into account.

27 We ignore clustering in the within-metro calculations, because of the limited number of tests in each metro area and the complexity of adjusting for clustering of tests undertaken by both the 

white and minority testers. 
III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 

34 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Multivariate Analyses of Variations in Differential Treatment

In this section, we describe the multivariate analyses used to examine variations in levels of 

discrimination. The goal is to examine how adverse treatment of each minority group varies with such 

factors as the condition of the local housing market, agency characteristics, neighborhood characteristics, 

and homeseeker characteristics. 

We measure adverse treatment as the difference in the number of units shown to white and minority 

testers.28 The average net difference is a summary measure for this study and indicates the severity of 

discrimination. If there is notable variation in discrimination, we expect it would show up in this measure.29

We use ordinary least squares regression to estimate the relationship between the difference in units 

shown and the characteristics of tests, testers, agency, neighborhood, and housing market. Separate 

models are estimated by race/ethnicity for rentals and sales. Estimates are weighted to account for each 

stratum’s representation in the national population, and we follow our general practice of reporting 

standard errors clustered by site. The models are based on tests in which both teammates met with an 

agent and values for all the independent variables were complete. 

The estimated coefficients from these models reflect the expected change in the net measure of 

discrimination associated with a one-unit change in the predictor. For example, consider the coefficient 

of “female testers.” The coefficient indicates how much higher or lower the net measure of discrimination 

against minorities is for female homeseekers than for male homeseekers. In other words, a coefficient of 

0.2 for “female testers” means that the net difference in the average number of units shown to whites 

and minorities is 0.20 units higher for women than for men. As before, the reported standard errors and 

asterisks indicate whether a reported difference is statistically significant. 

For many tests, some of the characteristics of the agent differ for the white and minority testers. For 

example, sometimes a white tester meets with an Hispanic agent while his or her minority partner 

meets with a non-Hispanic agent. To assess the effects of agent or agency characteristics on levels of 

discrimination, we are most interested in comparing tests in which both testers faced a particular type of 

agent with tests in which neither tester did so. For example, we want to compare tests where both testers 

met with an Hispanic agent with those where neither tester met with an Hispanic agent.

To address this, we treat three sets of characteristics as follows: 

1. Characteristics that apply to both testers are included in the model. For example, we include an 

indicator that testers are female. We also directly include measures that describe the team, such as 

minority tester was born in the United States.

2. For discrete (yes/no) characteristics that apply to only one tester, we include indicators that both 

testers have the characteristic, only the minority tester has the characteristic, and only the white 

tester has the characteristic. We report the coefficient on both testers have the characteristic, 

which estimates the difference in the net number of inspections between tests where both have the 

characteristic and where neither has the characteristic. 

28 As part of the analysis of the effects of perceived race/ethnicity, we also estimated models of differential ability to make an appointment.

29 We explored models of the number of units recommended and found results fairly similar to those for models of number of units shown.
III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 35

3. For continuous characteristics that differ across testers (i.e., tester age), we include the value for the 

white tester and the difference in the values between white and minority testers. The coefficient on 

the white tester indicates the effect of a change in the characteristics (e.g., age) for both testers.

We estimate three sets of regression models: a full specification, a model of the effects of perceived race/

ethnicity, and a model of the effects of housing market conditions. These are described below.

Full specification. The independent variables in this model include test characteristics, tester 

characteristics, agency characteristics, tract characteristics, and an indicator for each metro area in which 

testing was conducted. Most of the measures are indicators, defined as 1 if a test has a given characteristic 

and 0 if it does not. Exceptions include the measures of age and income, the maximum number of 

persons seen by the two testers, tract per capita income, and tract percentage white. In listing the 

measures included in the model, we indicate with an asterisk those measures defined 1 only if both testers 

met the condition. For these measures, the model also includes separate indicators for the “white tester 

only” and for “minority tester only.” 

Models include the following variables:

Test characteristics:

White tester went first

Both testers went in the afternoon*

Month of test

Tester characteristics:

Assigned child—both testers were assigned as having children

Assigned marriage—both tester were assigned to be married

Female—both testers were female

Minority tester born in the United States

Log of white assigned income

Both employed*

Both experienced testers*

Age of white tester

Difference in age of testers

Agency characteristics:

Faced same agent

Maximum number of people seen by the two testers (proxy for size of agency)

Both met black agent*

Both met Hispanic agent*

Both met Asian agent*

Both met agent of “other” or unknown race*

Both met female agent*
III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 

36 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Characteristics of the tract of the advertised unit:

Per capita income ($10,000s)

Percent white/10

In addition, we experimented with including median home value, percent homeowners, poverty 

rate, and the percentages of blacks and Hispanics in the tract.

Metro-level characteristics:

Indicator for each metropolitan area—these indicators are included to ensure that the 

relationships do not simply reflect differences across markets.

Models of perceived race/ethnicity. In a second set of models, we examine how net differences in whether 

an appointment was made and number of units shown vary with the perceived race or ethnicity of the 

minority tester. Appointment requests were mostly made by phone, so any differential treatment 

would have to result from impressions based on the name or speech patterns of the tester. Units were 

shown in person, so any differential treatment would result from a combination of the name, speech, 

and physical appearance of the tester.

For this analysis, we created two separate measures of perceived race. The first measure was based on 

the perceptions of three coders as to each tester’s race/ethnicity after hearing an audio recording and 

seeing the tester’s name. A second measure was based on the perceptions of three coders after seeing the 

tester’s name, hearing an audio recording, and seeing a photograph of the tester. Photographs and audio 

recordings of testers were submitted to UI by local test coordinators. For each measure, permitted codes 

were black, Hispanic, Asian, non-Hispanic white, and don’t know. The perceived race/ethnicity of a tester 

is measured as the proportion of the three coders who chose each category (e.g., proportion who believed 

the tester was black, etc.). 

We use parallel regression models to test whether (1) the difference in appointments made for white and 

minority testers varies with the perceived race/ethnicity of the minority tester based on speech and name; 

and (2) the difference in number of units shown to minority and white testers varies with the perceived 

race/ethnicity based on speech, name, and photograph. In other words, do minority homeseekers whose 

race or ethnicity is more identifiable face higher levels of discrimination (relative to whites) than minority 

homeseekers who are less identifiable. We include metro area indicators in each regression to control for any 

relationship between perceived race/ethnicity and the metropolitan area. These models differ from other 

multivariate analysis in that data from all three sets of tests (black, Hispanic, and Asian) are pooled. The 

coefficients measure the difference between the level of discrimination experienced by homeseekers who are 

perceived to be a given race or ethnicity (e.g., perceived black) and those who are perceived to be white.

Models of the influence of the housing market conditions. The goal of this analysis is to assess whether 

discriminatory treatment is more common in areas in which the housing market is tighter (or looser). 

We include an indicator of the condition of the housing market in a model of differential treatment and 

control for a subset of the variables from our full specification.

For rentals, we measured the condition of the housing market using:

Vacancy rate for rentals = (units for rent)/(occupied units + units for rent + units for sale), based 

on data from the 2010 ACS. 
III. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODS 

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 37

For sales, we experimented with four measures of housing market condition:

Vacancy rate for sales = (units for sale)/(occupied units + units for rent + units for sale) based on 

data from the 2010 ACS.

Serious delinquency rate (mortgages 90+ days delinquent and mortgages in foreclosure), first 

quarter 2012, using data from foreclosure-response.org.

Percentage change in home prices/100, third quarter 2006 to first quarter 2012, calculated from 

the Federal Housing Finance Agency House Price Index.

An indicator for six of our sites—Tampa, Miami, Riverside, Cleveland, Detroit, and Atlanta—

identified by a cluster analysis as relatively troubled markets. The measures used in defining the 

clusters were the homeowner vacancy rate, severe delinquency rate, real estate owned rate, and 

change in home prices between third quarter 2006 and first quarter 2012. The analysis to define the 

clusters was conducted using data the 366 Metropolitan Statistical Areas for the United States.

The regression model includes those variables from the full specification that are the same for both testers. 

That is, white tester went first, month of test, assigned child, assigned marriage, female, minority tester 

born in United States, log of white assigned income, both faced same agent, tract per capita income, and 

tract percent white. We did not include the indicators for each metropolitan area in this analysis because 

its inclusion would cause the metropolitan area variables to drop out of the model.

The two chapters that follow present the results of the analyses described here. Chapter IV presents 

current estimates of the incidence and forms of discrimination against minority renters and homebuyers. 

Chapter V presents findings regarding variations in discrimination, including change over time, 

differences between metropolitan markets, differences based on testers’ racial or ethnic identifiability, and 

other variations in tester, agency, or neighborhood characteristics.
38 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012
IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATI ON

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 39

IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION

This chapter presents current estimates of the incidence and forms of discrimination against black, Hispanic, 

and Asian homeseekers in rental and sales markets nationwide. When well-qualified minority homeseekers 

contact housing providers to inquire about recently advertised housing units, they generally are just as likely 

as equally qualified white homeseekers to get an appointment and learn about at least one available housing 

unit. However, when differences in treatment occur, white homeseekers are more likely to be favored than 

are minorities. Most important, minority homeseekers learn about and inspect fewer homes and apartments 

than whites, raising the costs of housing search and constraining their choices.30

Rental Market Discrimination

Exhibit IV-1 summarizes the most important forms of treatment at each of three steps in the rental 

housing inquiry:

1. Is the homeseeker able to make an appointment to meet with an agent?

If so,

2. Is the homeseeker told that at least one unit is available?

• How many units are available?

3. If units are available,

• What rent is quoted?

• Is the homeseeker shown available units?

• How many units are shown?

• How helpful is the agent?

Minority renters who call to inquire about recently advertised homes or apartments are rarely denied 

appointments that their white counterparts are able to make. And when renters meet in person with 

housing providers, they are almost always told about at least one available unit. However, Hispanic 

renters are slightly (but significantly) more likely than equally qualified whites to be told that no homes 

or apartments are available. Moreover, in about half of all in-person visits, one tester is told about more 

available units than the other, with whites significantly more likely to be favored than minorities. And in 

about a third of tests, one tester is shown more units than the other, with whites again significantly more 

likely to be favored than minorities. Overall, minority renters are told about and shown significantly 

fewer available housing units than comparably qualified whites. Agents also quote slightly higher rents to 

blacks and Hispanics than to whites. 

30 Throughout this chapter, discussion focuses on findings that are statistically significant, which are highlighted by bold font in the tables.
IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION

40 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Exhibit IV-1: Summary Measures of Discrimination Against Minority Renters 

Rental White Black Diff. White Hispanic Diff. White Asian Diff.

Only one tester able to make 

appointment? 1.0% 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.1% 0.4%

If able to meet with an agent:

Only one tester told units available? 3.0% 2.1% 0.9% 3.6% 1.8% 1.8%** 2.7% 2.4% 0.3%

Told about more available units? 27.5% 18.5% 9.0%*** 29.1% 16.2% 12.8%*** 27.0% 18.1% 8.8%**

Avg number of units available 

(per visit) 1.83 1.63 0.20*** 1.82 1.60 -0.22*** 1.79 1.63 0.17***

If available units recommended:

Average rent $1,122 $1,126 -$4* $1,291 $1,297 -$6*** $1,391 $1,389 $2

Level of agent helpfulness 1.47 1.50 -0.03 1.43 1.41 0.02 1.46 1.47 -0.01

Shown more units? 16.9% 14.1% 2.8%** 18.9% 12.9% 6.0%*** 20.4% 14.9% 5.5%**

Avg number of units shown 

(per visit) 1.28 1.23 0.04** 1.40 1.33 0.07*** 1.44 1.36 0.08**

Overall favored on access and 

availability 28.4% 19.6% 8.7%*** 28.9% 18.9% 10.1%*** 32.0% 22.6% 9.5%***

Overall average number of units 

available 1.75 1.55 0.20*** 1.76 1.54 0.21*** 1.73 1.56 0.17***

Overall average number of units 

shown 1.19 1.14 0.06** 1.33 1.23 0.10*** 1.36 1.27 0.09**

Note: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. * difference is statistically significant at the 0.10 level, ** at the 0.05 level, *** at the 0.01 level.

The bottom panel of Exhibit IV-1 presents overall measures of differential treatment for renters, taking 

into account all three steps in the housing inquiry (the ability to make an appointment, availability of 

units, and agents’ willingness to show units). White renters experience more favorable treatment than 

equally well-qualified blacks in 28.4 percent of inquiries, compared to 19.6 percent in which blacks are 

favored. Consequently, black renters learn about 11.4 percent fewer available units than equally qualified 

whites (0.20 fewer per inquiry on average) and are shown 4.2 percent fewer units (0.06 fewer per 

inquiry). White renters experience more favorable treatment than Hispanics in 28.9 percent of inquiries, 

compared to 18.9 percent in which Hispanics are favored. So Hispanic renters learn about 12.5 percent 

fewer available units than equally qualified whites (0.21 fewer per inquiry on average) and are shown 

7.5 percent fewer (0.10 fewer per inquiry). Finally, white renters experience more favorable treatment 

than Asians in 32.0 percent of inquiries, compared to 22.6 percent in which Asians are favored. So Asian 

renters learn about 9.8 percent fewer available units than equally qualified whites (0.17 fewer per inquiry 

on average) and are shown 6.6 percent fewer (0.09 fewer per inquiry). The remainder of this section 

provides more details about the treatment of black, Hispanic, and Asian renters in turn. This discussion 

focuses on the forms of treatment where white-favored treatment significantly exceeds minority-favored 

treatment, because this constitutes the clearest evidence of systematic discrimination.31

31 Because paired testing produces many indicators of differential treatment, there is a risk that some measures might be statistically significant as the random result of having so many 

measures. Therefore, we applied the sign test to 20 separate indicators of favorable or unfavorable treatment by rental housing providers. These tests suggest that the overall results for black 

and Hispanic renters (with 14 of 20 measures favoring whites) are unlikely to occur by chance (one-tailed p = 0.058). The results for Asian renters (7 of 19 measures favoring whites) could 

have occurred by chance (one-tailed p = 0.916). It is worth noting, however, that the specific items that favor the white and Asian teammates do not appear to have occurred randomly. Instead, 

the items that favor the white teammate are related to appointments and number of units told about and shown, while the items that favor the Asian teammate are primarily related to costs and 

willingness to negotiate. We also tested for the possibility that atypical levels of discrimination in one or more sampled metro areas might unduly influence the overall national estimates, and 

concluded that the national results reported here are not sensitive to any individual metro’s results.
IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 41

Black Renters 

About half of advertisements for 

available rental units invite homeseekers 

to drop in. Whites and blacks are 

equally likely to be able to arrange a 

meeting with an agent, through an 

in-person appointment or dropping 

in on the agency.32 (See Exhibit IV-2.) 

Moreover, when both white and black 

members of a tester pair meet with an 

agent in person, they are equally likely 

to be told that at least one unit is available. However, almost half the time, one tester is told about at least 

one more unit than his or her partner, with whites 9.0 percentage points more likely than comparable 

blacks to be told about more available units. Over all tests, blacks learn about 0.2 fewer available units 

per visit than whites. (Among tests in which the white tester is told about more available units, the 

difference in the number of units averages 1.68 units; among tests in which the black tester is told about 

more available units, the difference averages 1.40 units.) This means that, over five in-person visits to 

rental agents, a black homeseeker would learn about one fewer available unit than a comparable white. 

Exhibit IV-2: Information and Availability Indicators for White and Black Renters 

Rental market treatment measure Both White Black Difference

Std 

error of 

difference

N

Tester(s) able to make an appointment 94.6% 1.0% 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 2,009

If able to meet with an agent:

Tester(s) told any units available 95.0% 3.0% 2.1% 0.9% 0.7% 1,813

One tester told about more units than partner 27.5% 18.5% 9.0%*** 2.4% 1,813

Avg number of units available (per visit) 1.83 1.63 0.20*** 0.05 1,813

Note: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. *** difference is statistically significant at the 0.01 level.

32 The estimates of differential treatment at this initial stage understate the true rate at which testers were unable to obtain appointments. Although both members of each tester pair were 

instructed to make repeated attempts (by telephone or e-mail) to obtain an appointment, some attempts may have been abandoned by the second tester when the first was unsuccessful, due to 

strong financial incentives to complete in-person visits. These aborted tests were dropped from the analysis entirely and, because the order of the testing was randomized, should have no effect 

on the net measure of discriminatory denial.

For example...The white tester arrived in the morning, 

and asked if he could see the one-bedroom units that they had 

available. He was shown the two one-bedroom units that would 

be available by his move-in date, and was also shown a twobedroom unit that the agent said she wanted to show him so he 

could see what a larger apartment was like as well. The black 

tester arrived that afternoon and asked about one-bedroom 

units. He was shown both available one-bedroom units but not 

the two-bedroom unit.
IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION

42 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

When both white and black members of a tester pair are told about available units, they are equally likely to 

be shown at least one unit (Exhibit IV-3). However, in almost a third of these tests, one tester is shown more 

units than the other; in these cases, whites are 2.8 percentage points more likely than blacks to be favored. 

As a result, whites are shown 0.04 more units than blacks on average. (Among tests in which the white tester 

is shown more available units, the difference in the number of units shown averages 1.27 units; among tests 

in which the black tester is shown more available units, the difference averages 1.22 units.) This means that 

over 25 visits to agents where units are available, a black homeseeker would be shown one fewer available 

unit than a comparable white. In addition, blacks are shown units with more housing quality problems than 

equally qualified white homeseekers—0.05 more problem conditions per unit on average.33

Exhibit IV-3: Inspections and Unit Problem Indicators for White and Black Renters 

Rental market treatment measure Both White Black Difference

Std 

error of 

difference

N

If available units recommended:

Tester(s) able to inspect any units 88.7% 4.3% 3.4% 0.9% 1.1% 1,710

One tester inspected more units than partner 16.9% 14.1% 2.8%** 1.2% 1,710

Average number of units inspected (per visit) 1.28 1.23 0.04** 0.02 1,710

If units shown:

Tester(s) saw at least one unit without any problems 83.6% 8.1% 5.6% 2.5% 1.6% 1,540

One tester saw more problems per unit than partner 9.5% 12.9% -3.3%* 1.8% 1,537

Average number of problems per unit 0.15 0.20 -0.05** 0.03 1,537

Note: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. * difference is statistically significant at the 0.10 level, ** at the 0.05 level. 

When both white and black members of a tester pair are told about available units, whites are more likely 

than blacks to be offered a lower rent than their partners (Exhibit IV-4). Among tests in which the white 

tester is quoted a lower rent, the difference averages $122 a month, while among tests in which the black 

tester is quoted a lower rent, the difference averages $129 a month. Across all tests, the difference in rent 

is small—only $4 lower a month on average for whites. For many other financial indicators, we find no 

significant difference in the treatment of whites and blacks. However, whites are significantly more likely 

than blacks to be told about rent incentives and more likely to be told that up-front fees and security 

deposit or surety bond amounts are negotiable. These differences may give whites more bargaining 

power in negotiations over the costs of lease-up. Finally, when all the fees, deposits, and incentives are 

considered together with rent, the total first-year cost differs for comparable white and black homeseekers 

in about 4 of every 10 tests; and, when they differ, whites are 7.6 percentage points more likely than 

equally qualified blacks to be offered a lower total first-year cost. However, the difference in average firstyear costs is small and not statistically different from zero.34

33 The nature of this testing makes it difficult to distinguish between a tester who saw a unit without problem conditions and a tester who saw a unit that had problem conditions but did not notice 

them. We do not think this challenge inherently favors either the white or the minority tester.

34 Among tests in which the white tester is quoted a yearly net cost, the difference averages $1,685. Among tests in which the black tester is quoted a lower yearly net cost, the difference 

averages $1,736. 
IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 43

Exhibit IV-4: Financial Indicators for White and Black Renters

Rental market treatment measure Both White Black Difference Std error of 

difference N

If available units recommended:

Average rent for any unit $1,122 $1,126 -$4* $2 1,709

Tester(s) told higher rent than partner 10.7% 13.2% -2.5%* 1.3% 1,709

Tester(s) told that rent is negotiable 5.1% 10.9% 7.1% 3.9% 2.3% 1,709

Tester(s) offered month-to-month 1.8% 7.0% 8.0% -1.0% 1.1% 1,709

Tester(s) offered two-year lease 3.5% 7.4% 10.3% -2.9% 2.3% 1,709

Tester(s) told fees required for any unit 80.7% 5.3% 5.7% -0.4% 1.2% 1,710

One tester told higher fees than partner 19.7% 22.9% -3.2% 2.0% 1,679

Average fees for any unit $147 $155 -$8 $8 1,679

Tester(s) told fees negotiable 5.1% 10.1% 6.5% 3.5%** 1.7% 1,710

Tester(s) told payment required at move-in 45.2% 13.9% 11.4% 2.5% 3.1% 1,710

Average payments at move-in $764 $786 -$22 $44 1,685

Tester(s) told payments negotiable 1.8% 7.5% 5.8% 1.7% 1.1% 1,710

Tester(s) told about incentives 24.9% 12.9% 8.1% 4.8%*** 1.4% 1,710

Average yearly incentives $228 $282 -$54 $66 1,642

Tester(s) told security deposit required 99.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1,710

Tester(s) given choice between sec. deposit 

& bond 1.0% 1.0% 1.1% -0.1% 0.5% 1,710

Tester(s) told deposit or bond negotiable 10.4% 14.0% 8.7% 5.3%*** 1.8% 1,710

Average sec. deposit for any unit $811 $842 -$31 $19 1,423

Tester(s) told higher yearly net cost 16.8% 24.4% -7.6%*** 2.7% 1,363

Average yearly net cost $14,848 $14,898 -$50 $110 1,363

Note: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. ** difference is statistically significant at the 0.05 level, *** at the 0.01 level.

Most comments, questions, and information provided to blacks and whites do not differ significantly, 

and overall levels of agent helpfulness to whites and blacks are not significantly different. However, blacks 

are more likely than comparable white homeseekers to receive comments or questions about their credit 

standing, while whites are more likely than blacks to receive remarks about race or ethnicity. Specifically, 

blacks are 3.0 percentage points more likely than whites to receive comments or questions about their 

credit standing. And whites are 1.1 percentage points more likely than blacks to receive remarks about 

issues of race or ethnicity. In the vast majority of tests, neither the white nor the black receives these types 

of comments, questions, or remarks. 
IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION

44 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Exhibit IV-5: Comments and Helpfulness Indicators for White and Black Renters 

Rental market treatment measure Both White Black Difference

Std 

error of 

difference

N

If available units recommended:

Tester(s) told comment on fair housing 0.2% 1.8% 1.8% 0.0% 0.6% 1,710

Tester(s) told application must be completed 87.5% 5.1% 5.7% -0.5% 1.8% 1,710

Tester(s) told credit check must be completed 59.8% 13.8% 15.6% -1.8% 1.8% 1,710

Tester(s) told background check must be done 22.3% 16.4% 16.8% -0.4% 2.3% 1,710

Tester(s) told comments on credit standing 1.6% 4.2% 7.2% -3.0%** 1.3% 1,710

Tester(s) told comments on rent history 3.1% 10.7% 11.3% -0.6% 2.3% 1,710

Tester(s) told remarks about race/ethnicity 0.1% 1.8% 0.7% 1.1%** 0.5% 1,710

Tester(s) provided listings, floor plan, brochure, etc. 75.0% 7.3% 7.6% -0.4% 1.9% 1,710

Tester(s) provided more total items 29.5% 33.7% -4.2% 2.7% 1,710

Tester(s) told arrangement for contact 63.0% 13.2% 15.6% -2.4% 2.7% 1,710

Tester(s) told positive remark 27.7% 21.0% 19.5% 1.5% 2.4% 1,710

Tester(s) told more positive remarks 28.3% 30.1% -1.8% 3.2% 1,708

Tester(s) told negative remark 0.3% 3.4% 2.3% 1.0% 0.8% 1,710

Tester(s) told more negative remarks 3.4% 2.3% 1.1% 0.8% 1,708

Tester(s) received agent follow-up 9.1% 11.0% 10.5% 0.6% 2.1% 1,695

Average overall helpfulness score 1.47 1.50 -0.03 0.05 1,710

Note: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. ** difference is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

Hispanic Renters 

Whites and Hispanics are equally 

likely to be able to arrange a meeting 

with an agent, through an in-person 

appointment or dropping in on the 

agency (Exhibit IV-6). When both 

white and Hispanic members of a tester 

pair meet with an agent in person, 

most are told that units are available. However, when only one is told about available units, whites are 

1.8 percentage points more likely than comparably qualified Hispanics to be favored. In addition, in 

almost half the visits, one tester is told about at least one more unit than his or her partner, with whites 

12.8 percentage points more likely than comparable Hispanics to be told about more available units. 

As a consequence, whites learn about more available units than Hispanics—0.22 more units per visit 

on average. (Among tests in which the white tester is told about more available units, the difference in 

the number of units averages 1.54 units; among tests in which the Hispanic tester is told about more 

available units, the difference averages 1.43 units.) So, over five in-person visits to rental agents, a 

Hispanic homeseeker would learn about one fewer available unit than a comparable white. 

For example...The white tester arrived first and asked 

to see a two-bedroom apartment. The agent showed him 

the available two-bedroom unit as well as a one-bedroom 

apartment. The tester got application information for both units. 

The Hispanic tester arrived two hours later at the same office, 

but was told that nothing was available.
IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 45

Exhibit IV-6: Information and Availability Indicators for White and Hispanic Renters

Rental market treatment measure Both White Hispanic Difference

Std 

error of 

difference

N

Tester(s) able to make an appointment 96.1% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 1,986

If able to meet with an agent:

Tester(s) told any units available 94.6% 3.6% 1.8% 1.8%** 0.8% 1,775

One tester told about more units than partner 29.1% 16.2% 12.8%*** 1.6% 1,775

Avg number of units available (per visit) 1.82 1.60 0.22*** 0.04 1,775

Note: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. ** difference is statistically significant at the 0.05 level, *** at the 0.01 level.

When both white and Hispanic members of a tester pair are told about available units, they are equally likely 

to be shown at least one unit (Exhibit IV-7). In almost a third of these tests, one tester is shown more units 

than the other, with whites 6 percentage points more likely than Hispanics to be favored. As a result, whites 

are shown 0.07 more units per test than Hispanics. (Among tests in which the white tester is shown more 

available units, the difference in the number of units shown averages 1.29 units; among tests in which the 

Hispanic tester is shown more available units, the difference averages 1.32 units.) In other words, over 14 visits 

to agents where units are available, a Hispanic homeseeker would be shown one fewer available unit than a 

comparable white. The quality of units shown to white and Hispanic homeseekers does not differ significantly.

Exhibit IV-7: Inspections and Unit Problem Indicators for White and Hispanic Renters

Rental market treatment measure Both White Hispanic Difference Std error of 

difference N

If available units recommended:

Tester(s) able to inspect any units 91.7% 3.1% 2.7% 0.3% 0.7% 1,654

One tester inspected more units than partner 18.9% 12.9% 6.0%*** 1.0% 1,654

Average number of units inspected (per visit) 1.40 1.33 0.07*** 0.02 1,654

If units shown:

Tester(s) saw at least one unit without any problems 86.7% 5.0% 5.4% -0.3% 1.4% 1,493

One tester saw more problems per unit than partner 10.6% 9.4% 1.3% 1.9% 1,489

Average number of problems per unit 0.17 0.15 0.02 0.03 1,489

Note: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. *** difference is statistically significant at the 0.01 level.

When both white and Hispanic members of a tester pair are told about available units, whites are more 

likely than Hispanics to be offered a lower rent than their partners (Exhibit IV-8). Among tests in which 

the white tester is quoted a lower rent, the difference averages $183 a month. Among tests in which the 

Hispanic tester is quoted a lower rent, the difference averages $172 a month. Across all tests, the difference 

in rent is small—only $6 a month less on average. Most other financial indicators show no significant 

difference in the treatment of Hispanics and whites. However, whites are more likely to be informed about 

rent incentives and more likely to be told that security deposit or bond requirements are negotiable, possibly 

giving them more bargaining power in lease negotiations. Whites are also more likely to be told about 

payments required at move-in. When all the fees, deposits, and incentives are considered together with rent, 

whites are offered lower annual net costs than Hispanics—$101 lower on average.35

35 Among tests in which the white tester is quoted a lower annual net cost, the difference averages $2,213 a month. Among tests in which the Hispanic tester is quoted a lower net cost, the 

difference averages $2,112 a month. 
IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATI ON

46 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Exhibit IV-8: Financial Indicators for White and Hispanic Renters

Rental market treatment measure Both White Hispanic Difference Std error of 

difference N

If available units recommended:

Average rent for any unit $1,291 $1,297 -$6*** $2 1,653

Tester(s) told higher rent than partner 8.1% 10.9% -2.8%** 1.1% 1,653

Tester(s) told that rent is negotiable 4.2% 7.3% 6.2% 1.1% 1.3% 1,653

Tester(s) offered month-to-month 4.1% 4.0% 5.3% -1.3% 1.2% 1,653

Tester(s) offered two-year lease 4.0% 5.1% 8.2% -3.1% 2.5% 1,653

Tester(s) told fees required for any unit 83.9% 4.7% 4.6% 0.1% 1.0% 1,654

One tester told higher fees than partner 20.5% 20.3% 0.3% 1.6% 1,626

Average fees for any unit $146 $154 -$9 $11 1,626

Tester(s) told fees negotiable 3.9% 5.5% 4.8% 0.8% 0.6% 1,654

Tester(s) told payment required at move-in 43.9% 13.8% 10.2% 3.6%* 2.0% 1,654

Average payments at move-in $832 $828 $4 $34 1,634

Tester(s) told payments negotiable 1.1% 5.7% 4.7% 1.0% 1.1% 1,654

Tester(s) told about incentives 23.6% 10.8% 7.0% 3.8%** 1.6% 1,654

Average yearly incentives $245 $234 $11 $31 1,611

Tester(s) told security deposit required 99.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1,654

Tester(s) given choice between sec. 

deposit & bond 0.7% 1.1% 1.2% -0.1% 0.5% 1,654

Tester(s) told deposit or bond negotiable 7.8% 11.3% 5.4% 5.9%*** 1.7% 1,654

Average sec. deposit for any unit $867 $866 $1 $9 1,414

Tester(s) told higher yearly net cost 16.5% 20.2% -3.6% 2.8% 1,369

Average yearly net cost $17,168 $17,269 -$101*** $35 1,369

Note: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. * difference is statistically significant at the 0.10 level, ** at the 0.05 level, *** at the 0.01 level.

Almost none of the comments, questions, and information provided to Hispanics and whites differ 

significantly (Exhibit IV-9). However, whites are 3.3 percentage points more likely than Hispanics to 

receive follow-up contact from agents they visited.
IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 47

Exhibit IV-9: Comments and Helpfulness Indicators for White and Hispanic Renters

Rental market treatment measure Both White Hispanic Difference

Std 

error of 

difference

N

If available units recommended:

Tester(s) told comment on fair housing 0.2% 1.8% 0.8% 1.0% 0.6% 1,654

Tester(s) told application must be completed 89.9% 4.4% 3.9% 0.5% 0.8% 1,654

Tester(s) told credit check must be completed 70.4% 10.3% 11.3% -1.0% 2.3% 1,654

Tester(s) told background check must be done 20.0% 16.3% 14.3% 2.0% 3.6% 1,654

Tester(s) told comments on credit standing 2.2% 5.8% 7.0% -1.1% 1.7% 1,654

Tester(s) told comments on rent history 3.1% 11.5% 11.4% 0.1% 2.0% 1,654

Tester(s) told remarks about race/ethnicity 0.3% 1.0% 2.1% -1.1% 0.8% 1,654

Tester(s) provided listings, floor plan, brochure, etc. 76.1% 5.6% 6.3% -0.7% 0.8% 1,654

Tester(s) provided more total items 30.2% 28.8% 1.5% 2.7% 1,654

Tester(s) told arrangement for contact 66.2% 12.7% 14.4% -1.7% 3.0% 1,654

Tester(s) told positive remark 30.5% 18.0% 18.7% -0.7% 1.7% 1,654

Tester(s) told more positive remarks 27.9% 28.6% -0.7% 2.4% 1,651

Tester(s) told negative remark 0.1% 3.5% 3.0% 0.6% 0.8% 1,654

Tester(s) told more negative remarks 3.5% 3.1% 0.5% 0.8% 1,651

Tester(s) received agent follow-up 10.6% 11.2% 7.9% 3.3%* 1.6% 1,638

Average overall helpfulness score 1.43 1.41 0.02 0.05 1,654

Note: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. * difference is statistically significant at the 0.10 level.

Asian Renters 

Whites and Asians are equally likely to be able to arrange a meeting with an agent, through an in-person 

appointment or dropping in on the agency (Exhibit IV-10). When both white and Asian members 

of a tester pair meet with an agent in person, they are equally likely to be told that at least one unit is 

available. However, almost half the time, one tester is told about at least one more unit than his or her 

partner, with whites 8.8 percentage 

points more likely than comparable 

Asians to be told about more available 

units. As a consequence, whites learn 

about more available units than 

Asians—0.17 more units per visit on 

average. (Among tests in which the 

white tester is told about more available 

units, the difference in the number of units averages 1.56 units; among tests in which the Asian tester is 

told about more available units, the difference averages 1.40 units.) So, over six in-person visits to rental 

agents, an Asian homeseeker would learn about one fewer available unit than a comparable white.

For example...The Asian tester saw the agent first and 

asked about the advertised two-bedroom unit. She was told 

that unit was available and was able to inspect it, but no other 

two-bedroom units were available. The white tester saw the 

advertised two-bedroom unit and was also told about four more 

two-bedroom units that were available in other locations. 
IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATI ON

48 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Exhibit IV-10: Information and Availability Indicators for White and Asian Renters 

Rental market treatment measure Both White Asian Difference Std error of 

difference N

Tester(s) able to make an appointment 96.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.4% 0.4% 1,150

If able to meet with an agent:

Tester(s) told any units available 94.9% 2.7% 2.4% 0.3% 0.8% 1,037

One tester told about more units than 

partner 27.0% 18.1% 8.8%** 3.3% 1,037

Avg number of units available (per visit) 1.79 1.63 0.17*** 0.05 1,037

Note: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. ** difference is statistically significant at the 0.05 level, *** at the 0.01 level.

When both white and Asian members of a tester pair are told about available units, they are equally likely 

to be shown at least one unit (Exhibit IV-11). In about a third of these tests, one tester is shown more units 

than the other, with whites 5.5 percentage points more likely to be favored. As a result, whites are shown 

0.08 more units per test than Asians. (Among tests in which the white tester is shown more available units, 

the difference in the number of units shown averages 1.30 units; among tests in which the Hispanic tester 

is shown more available units, the difference averages 1.22 units.) In other words, over 13 visits to agents 

where units are available, an Asian homeseeker would be shown one fewer available unit than a comparable 

white. The quality of units shown to white and Asian homeseekers does not differ significantly.

Exhibit IV-11: Inspections and Unit Problem Indicators for White and Asian Renters 

Rental market treatment measure Both White Asian Difference Std error of 

difference N

If available units recommended:

Tester(s) able to inspect any units 92.1% 3.8% 2.3% 1.5% 1.1% 968

One tester inspected more units than 

partner

20.4% 14.9% 5.5%** 2.3% 968

Average number of units inspected 

(per visit)

1.44 1.36 0.08** 0.03 968

If units shown:

Tester(s) saw at least one unit without 

any problems

87.5% 3.9% 6.5% -2.7% 1.9% 883

One tester saw more problems per unit 

than partner

10.5% 8.7% 1.8% 1.9% 879

Average number of problems per unit 0.14 0.12 0.02 0.02 879

Note: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. ** difference is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

Few financial indicators show significant differences in treatment (Exhibit IV-12). However, whites are 

more likely to be informed about rent incentives and more likely to be told that security deposit or bond 

requirements are negotiable. This may give whites more power in leasing negotiations.
IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 49

Exhibit IV-12: Financial Indicators for White and Asian Renters 

Rental market treatment measure Both White Asian Difference

Std 

error of 

difference

N

If available units recommended:

Average rent for any unit $1,391 $1,389 $2 $5 967

Tester(s) told higher rent than partner 9.2% 9.3% -0.1% 1.4% 967

Tester(s) told that rent is negotiable 5.1% 7.4% 8.2% -0.8% 1.9% 967

Tester(s) offered month-to-month 3.3% 3.7% 7.7% -4.0% 2.5% 967

Tester(s) offered two-year lease 3.6% 7.1% 7.1% 0.0% 2.8% 967

Tester(s) told fees required for any unit 82.3% 5.3% 5.5% -0.3% 2.1% 968

One tester told higher fees than partner 17.9% 23.4% -5.6% 3.2% 957

Average fees for any unit $203 $220 -$17 $11 957

Tester(s) told fees negotiable 3.8% 6.5% 6.8% -0.3% 1.8% 968

Tester(s) told payment required at move-in 41.6% 13.6% 12.4% 1.2% 4.7% 968

Average payments at move-in $796 $779 $17 $68 955

Tester(s) told payments negotiable 1.7% 3.9% 6.2% -2.3% 1.7% 968

Tester(s) told about incentives 22.5% 11.2% 8.6% 2.6%** 1.2% 968

Average yearly incentives $264 $329 -$65 $69 941

Tester(s) told security deposit required 99.7% 0.0% 0.2% -0.2% 0.2% 968

Tester(s) given choice between sec. deposit & bond 1.4% 1.3% 1.1% 0.3% 0.3% 968

Tester(s) told deposit or bond negotiable 8.6% 11.4% 6.5% 4.9%** 2.0% 968

Average sec. deposit for any unit $954 $948 $6 $11 817

Testers told higher yearly net cost 61.8% 20.7% 17.5% 3.3% 4.4% 795

Average yearly net cost $18,092 $18,010 $82 $122 795

Note: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. * difference is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

Most comments, questions, and information provided to Asians and whites do not differ significantly, nor 

do overall levels of agent helpfulness (Exhibit IV-13). However, differences in treatment are statistically 

significant for a few items. Whites are 5.2 percentage points more likely to be told that an application 

must be submitted and 3.8 points more likely to be told that a credit check will be required. Asians are 

3.4 percentage points more likely than whites to be provided listings, floor plans, and brochures, and 5.2 

percentage points more likely than their white partners to be given more total items by the agent.
IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATI ON

50 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Exhibit IV-13: Comments and Helpfulness Indicators for White and Asian Renters 

Rental market treatment measure Both White Asian Difference

Std 

error of 

difference

N

If available units recommended:

Tester(s) told comment on fair housing 0.5% 1.3% 1.0% 0.3% 0.4% 968

Tester(s) told application must be completed 85.1% 8.7% 3.5% 5.2%** 1.9% 968

Tester(s) told credit check must be completed 65.4% 13.6% 9.8% 3.8%* 1.8% 968

Tester(s) told background check must be done 14.7% 13.2% 13.7% -0.5% 4.1% 968

Tester(s) told comments on credit standing 1.5% 6.4% 8.6% -2.2% 1.5% 968

Tester(s) told comments on rent history 3.7% 10.9% 14.4% -3.5% 2.3% 968

Tester(s) told remarks about race/ethnicity 0.0% 1.3% 3.2% -1.9% 1.4% 968

Tester(s) provided listings, floor plan, brochure, etc. 74.6% 4.2% 7.5% -3.4%** 1.2% 968

Tester(s) provided more total items 26.1% 31.3% -5.2%* 2.9% 968

Tester(s) told arrangement for contact 70.2% 12.6% 12.8% -0.2% 1.8% 968

Tester(s) told positive remark 25.3% 19.5% 21.9% -2.5% 3.1% 968

Tester(s) told more positive remarks 27.4% 32.1% -4.7% 3.4% 966

Tester(s) told negative remark 0.6% 2.6% 2.6% 0.0% 0.9% 968

Tester(s) told more negative remarks 2.6% 2.6% 0.0% 0.9% 966

Tester(s) received agent follow-up 11.3% 12.3% 9.8% 2.5% 2.2% 964

Average overall helpfulness score 1.46 1.47 -0.01 0.06 968

Note: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. * difference is statistically significant at the 0.10 level, ** at the 0.05 level.

Sales Market Discrimination

Exhibit IV-14 summarizes the most important forms of treatment at each of three steps in a homebuyer’s 

inquiry:

1. Is the homebuyer able to make an appointment to meet with an agent?

If so,

2. Is the homebuyer told that at least one unit is available?

3. How many homes are available?

• If homes are available,

• What price is quoted?

• How helpful is the agent?

• Is the homeseeker shown available units?

• How many homes are shown?

• What is the racial/ethnic composition of the tracts where homes are shown?
IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 51

Like renters, minority homebuyers are rarely denied appointments that their white counterparts are able 

to make. However, black homebuyers are slightly (but significantly) more likely than equally qualified 

whites to be denied an in-person appointment. When homebuyers meet in person with housing 

providers, they are usually told about at least one available unit. However, agents frequently tell one tester 

about more available homes than the other, with whites significantly more likely to be favored than blacks 

or Asians. And black and Asian homebuyers are shown significantly fewer homes than equally qualified 

whites. Agents offer black and Asian homebuyers less information and assistance than equally qualified 

whites, and recommend and show them fewer available homes. Differences in treatment between 

Hispanic and white homebuyers are not statistically significant. 

Exhibit IV-14: Summary Measures of Discrimination Against Minority Homebuyers

White Black Diff. White Hispanic Diff. White Asian Diff.

Only one tester able to make 

appointment? 3.4% 1.1% 2.4%** 2.2% 1.8% 0.4% 1.6% 2.6% -1.0%

If able to meet with an agent:

Only one tester told units 

available? 9.5% 7.4% 2.1% 8.8% 9.0% -0.2% 9.1% 7.5% 1.6%

Told about more available homes? 46.1% 32.7% 13.4%*** 39.9% 37.7% 2.3% 44.1% 34.9% 9.2%

Average number of units available 3.40 2.90 0.50*** 3.04 2.76 0.28 3.36 2.81 0.55*

If available homes recommended: 

Quoted a higher price 27.8% 33.1% -5.3% 27.0% 28.6% -1.6% 28.9% 31.5% -2.6%

Average price $288,017 $292,029 -$4,012 $306,693 $312,313 -$5,621 $378,219 $380,412 -$2,193

Level of agent helpfulness 2.58 2.46 0.12 2.59 2.50 0.08 2.80 2.60 .21***

Shown more units? 39.3% 30.0% 9.3%** 36.0% 34.0% 2.0% 42.1% 28.2% 13.9%**

Average number of units shown 2.16 1.87 0.30** 2.15 2.06 0.10 2.31 1.89 0.42***

Shown homes in whiter n’hoods? 20.5% 15.5% 5.0%* 25.8% 20.8% 5.1% 25.4% 19.5% 5.9%**

Average neighborhood % white 66.1% 64.3% 1.8%** 53.5% 53.9% 0.4% 59.2% 58.0% 1.2%*

Overall favored on access and 

availability 40.7% 30.9% 9.8%** 39.0% 32.6% 6.4% 44.0% 33.1% 11.0%*

Overall avg number of units 

available 3.12 2.59 0.53*** 2.89 2.61 0.28 3.16 2.67 0.49*

Overall avg number of units 

shown 1.75 1.44 0.32** 1.75 1.67 0.08 1.92 1.56 0.36**

Note: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. * difference is statistically significant at the 0.10 level, ** at the 0.05 level, *** at the 0.01 level.

Taking into account all three steps in the housing inquiry (ability to make an appointment, availability of 

homes, and agents’ willingness to show homes), black and Asian homebuyers are told about and shown 

fewer homes than equally qualified whites, as shown in the bottom panel of Exhibit IV-14. Specifically, 

white homebuyers experience more favorable treatment than equally well-qualified blacks in 40.7 percent 

of inquiries, compared with 30.9 percent in which blacks are favored. Consequently, black homebuyers 

who contact agents about recently advertised homes for sale learn about 17.0 percent fewer available 

homes than equally qualified whites (0.53 fewer per inquiry on average) and are shown 17.7 percent 

fewer (0.32 fewer per inquiry). White homebuyers experience more favorable treatment than Asians in 

44.0 percent of inquiries, compared to 33.1 percent in which Asians are favored. So Asian homebuyers 
IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATI ON

52 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

learn about 15.5 percent fewer available homes than equally qualified whites (0.49 fewer per inquiry on 

average) and are shown 18.8 percent fewer (0.36 fewer per inquiry). Overall differences in treatment for 

Hispanic and white homebuyers are not statistically significant, and Hispanics are not recommended or 

shown a statistically different number of homes per inquiry than comparably qualified white homebuyers. 

Most homes shown to testers are located in majority-white neighborhoods. In many cases, one tester is 

recommended homes in neighborhoods that are whiter, on average, than his or her partner. Whites are 

significantly more likely than minorities to be recommended these whiter neighborhoods, particularly 

compared with blacks. However, minorities are sometimes shown whiter neighborhoods than their 

partners. Across all tests, differences in the average racial composition of neighborhoods recommended 

to minorities and whites are very small and not statistically significant. In other words, over multiple 

inquiries, the composition of neighborhoods recommended to minority homebuyers is very similar to the 

composition of those recommended to equally qualified whites.

The remainder of this section provides more details about the treatment of black, Hispanic, and Asian 

homebuyers in turn. This discussion focuses on the forms of treatment where white-favored treatment 

significantly exceeds minority-favored treatment, because this constitutes the clearest evidence of 

systematic discrimination.36

Black Homebuyers 

For the vast majority of advertised homes, if one tester is able to make an appointment (by phone or e-mail) 

to meet with an agent in person, the other is as well. In the small share of cases where differences occur, blacks 

are 2.4 percentage points more likely than comparable whites to be denied an appointment (Exhibit IV-15).

When both white and black members 

of a tester pair meet with a sales agent 

in person, they are equally likely to be 

told that something is available and to 

have at least one home recommended 

by the agent. However, in 8 of every 10 

tests, more homes are recommended 

to one tester than the other, and in these cases, whites are 13.4 percentage points more likely than 

comparable black homebuyers to be favored. These differences mean that on average, whites learn about 

0.50 more available homes per test. (Among tests in which the white tester is told about more homes, 

the difference in the number of homes averages 3.30; among tests in which the black tester is told about 

more homes, the difference averages 3.11.) This means that for every two visits to a sales agent, a black 

homebuyer learns about one fewer available home than an equally qualified white homebuyer.

For example...The black tester called and spoke with an 

agent who insisted that she must be prequalified in order to see 

homes. He refused to meet with her until she had talked to a 

lender. The white tester was not asked about prequalification over 

the phone, and made an appointment to meet with the agent.

36 Because paired testing produces many indicators of differential treatment, there is a risk that some measures might be statistically significant as the random result of having so many measures. 

Therefore, we applied the sign test to 15 separate indicators of favorable or unfavorable treatment by sales agents. These tests suggest that the overall results for black and Asian homebuyers 

(with 12 of 15 and 11 of 15 measures favoring whites) are unlikely to occur by chance (one-tailed p = .0175 for blacks and p = 0.059 for Asians). The results for Hispanic homebuyers (9 of 15 

measures favoring whites) could have occurred by chance (one-tailed p = 0.304). We also tested for the possibility that atypical levels of discrimination in one or more sampled metro areas might 

unduly influence the overall national estimates, and concluded that the national results reported here are not sensitive to any individual metro’s results.
IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 53

Exhibit IV-15: Information and Availability Indicators for White and Black Homebuyers 

Sales market treatment measure Both White Black Difference

Std 

error of 

difference

N

Tester(s) able to make an appointment 88.3% 3.4% 1.1% 2.4%** 0.9% 1,244

If able to meet with an agent:

Tester(s) told any homes available 78.9% 9.5% 7.4% 2.1% 1.4% 1,072

One tester told about more homes than partner 46.1% 32.7% 13.4%*** 3.4% 1,072

Avg number of homes available (per visit) 3.40 2.90 0.50*** 0.15 1,072

Note: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. * difference is statistically significant at the 0.05 level, *** at the 0.01 level.

When both white and black members of a tester pair receive recommendations about available homes, they 

are equally likely to be shown at least one home (see exhibit IV-16). However, in almost three-quarters of 

these tests, one tester is shown more units than the other, and whites are 9.3 percentage points more likely 

than blacks to be favored. On average, whites are shown 0.30 more units per test than equally qualified 

blacks.(Among tests in which the white tester is shown more homes, the difference in the number of 

homes averages 2.42 homes; among tests in which the black tester is shown more homes, the difference 

averages 2.18 homes.) This means that for every three visits in which at least some available homes are 

recommended, blacks inspect one fewer home than comparable white homeseekers. In addition, blacks are 

more likely than comparable whites to be shown homes with one or more physical deficiencies.37

Exhibit IV-16: Inspections and Unit Problems Indicators for White and Black Homebuyers 

Sales market treatment measure Both White Black Difference

Std 

error of 

difference

N

If available homes recommended: 

Tester(s) able to inspect any homes 55.1% 13.2% 13.7% -0.5% 2.8% 800

One tester inspected more homes than partner 39.3% 30.0% 9.3%** 3.7% 800

Avg number of homes inspected (per visit) 2.16 1.87 0.30** 0.12 800

If units shown:

Tester(s) saw at least one home without any 

problems

93.6% 4.8% 1.2% 3.6%** 1.7% 452

One tester saw more problems per home than 

partner

24.8% 14.1% 10.7%*** 3.8% 449

Average number of problems per home 0.18 0.15 0.03 0.03 449

Note: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. ** difference is statistically significant at the 0.05 level, *** at the 0.01 level.

When both white and black members of a tester pair receive recommendations, the prices for the homes 

recommended do not differ significantly (Exhibit IV-17). And most other financial indicators show 

no significant treatment differences. However, agents are more likely to ask blacks whether they are 

prequalified and to request information about their credit. In contrast, agents more often offer whites 

help with prequalification and suggest a home price for which they could qualify.

37 The nature of this testing makes it difficult to distinguish between a tester who saw a home with physical deficiencies and a tester who saw a home that had physical deficiencies but did not 

notice them. We do not think this challenge inherently favors either the white or the minority tester.
IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION

54 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Exhibit IV-17: Financial Indicators for White and Black Homebuyers 

Sales market treatment measure Both White Black Difference Std error of 

difference N

If available homes recommended:

One tester told higher home prices 27.8% 33.1% -5.3% 4.4% 797

Avg home price $288,017 $292,029 -$4,012 $3,585 797

Tester(s) asked about prequalification 75.1% 7.5% 13.2% -5.7%** 2.5% 800

Tester(s) asked for information on debts 3.5% 9.6% 10.4% -0.8% 1.8% 800

Tester(s) asked for information on credit 8.3% 13.1% 18.5% -5.4%** 2.6% 800

Tester(s) told not qualified 0.0% 0.1% 0.5% -0.4% 0.3% 800

Tester(s) offered financing help 45.6% 18.9% 16.7% 2.2% 3.3% 800

Tester(s) told about finance options 17.1% 16.7% 19.4% -2.7% 3.0% 800

Tester(s) offered prequalification 3.5% 14.2% 7.9% 6.3%** 2.6% 800

Tester(s) told suggested home price 12.0% 23.0% 12.5% 10.5%*** 2.9% 800

Tester(s) told a mortgage amount 0.7% 7.2% 7.6% -0.5% 2.2% 800

Tester(s) told interest rate 5.8% 19.9% 15.2% 4.7% 3.0% 800

Tester(s) told down payment 9.0% 21.3% 16.3% 5.0% 3.5% 800

Tester(s) told about personal finance 33.5% 18.8% 26.9% -8.1% 4.8% 800

Note: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. * difference is statistically significant at the 0.10 level, ** at the 0.05 level, *** at the 0.01 level.

Overall levels of agent helpfulness do not differ significantly for whites and blacks, nor do most comments. 

However, agents spend more time with white homeseekers than with equally qualified blacks—11 minutes 

longer on average. Interestingly, whites are more likely than blacks to hear comments from agents about fair 

housing protections or requirements, about race or ethnicity, and about noise problems.
IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATI ON

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 55

Exhibit IV-18: Comments and Helpfulness Indicators for White and Black Homebuyers

Sales market treatment measure Both White Black Difference

Std 

error of 

difference

N

If able to meet with an agent:

Tester(s) told arrangement for contact 92.4% 3.4% 4.2% -0.7% 1.1% 1,072

One tester received more time with agent 23.5% 15.8% 7.7%*** 2.6% 1,042

Average time spent with agent (minutes) 115 104 11*** 4 1,042

Tester(s) received agent follow-up 30.1% 21.8% 17.2% 4.6% 3.6% 1,072

If available homes recommended:

Tester(s) told comment on fair housing 0.4% 5.5% 1.9% 3.6%*** 1.2% 800

Tester(s) told remarks about race/ethnicity 0.0% 3.0% 1.2% 1.8%* 1.1% 800

Tester(s) told positive comments about noise 7.4% 15.5% 17.8% -2.3% 3.4% 800

Tester(s) told negative comments about noise 0.7% 6.7% 3.5% 3.1%* 1.7% 800

Tester(s) told positive comments about safety 3.4% 10.1% 12.3% -2.2% 2.6% 800

Tester(s) told negative comments about safety 0.1% 0.9% 0.6% 0.3% 0.5% 800

Tester(s) told positive comments about schools 9.7% 17.1% 15.0% 2.1% 3.6% 800

Tester(s) told negative comments about schools 0.0% 1.7% 1.1% 0.7% 0.7% 800

Tester(s) told positive comments about investment 3.1% 14.4% 12.7% 1.7% 2.8% 800

Tester(s) told negative comments about investment 0.2% 3.2% 3.9% -0.7% 1.3% 800

Tester(s) told positive comments about services 3.8% 11.7% 11.9% -0.3% 3.0% 800

Tester(s) told negative comments about services 0.0% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% 0.4% 800

Tester(s) referred to another agent 0.6% 6.3% 4.9% 1.4% 2.5% 800

Tester(s) asked to sign documents 6.9% 13.9% 10.0% 3.9% 2.9% 800

Average overall helpfulness score 2.58 2.46 0.12 0.07 800

Note: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. * difference is statistically significant at the 0.10 level, *** at the 0.01 level.

The census tracts of recommended and inspected homes are, on average, about two-thirds white, with 

high homeownership rates and low poverty rates.38 In more than half the tests, the tracts where one tester 

is recommended and shown homes are whiter on average than where the other tester is recommended 

and shown homes (Exhibit IV-19). In these cases, whites are 8.0 percentage points more likely than their 

black partners to be recommended homes in whiter neighborhoods and 5.0 percentage points more likely 

to be shown homes in whiter neighborhoods. Overall, whites are recommended and shown homes in 

slightly whiter neighborhoods than blacks, with an average difference under 2 percentage points. (Among 

tests in which the white tester is recommended homes in whiter neighborhoods, the neighborhoods are 

16.4 percentage points whiter; when the black tester is recommended homes in whiter neighborhoods, 

the difference averages 13.9 percentage points.)39 Other characteristics of neighborhoods recommended 

and shown to whites and blacks do not differ significantly. However, whites hear more positive comments 

about white neighborhoods and more negative comments about minority neighborhoods than do blacks, 

potentially steering them away from mixed or minority neighborhoods.

38 The advertised units that triggered each paired test are located in tracts similar to those recommended and shown to testers.

39 Differences for tests in which one tester was shown homes in whiter neighborhoods are similar.
IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATI ON

56 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Exhibit IV-19: Steering Indicators for White and Black Homebuyers

Sales market treatment measure White Black Difference Std error of 

difference N

If available homes recommended: 

Homes in whiter tracts 24.8% 16.8% 8.0%** 2.9% 784

Avg tract percent white 66.1% 64.3% 1.8%** 0.8% 784

Homes in tracts w/higher homeownership 24.3% 25.6% -1.3% 2.9% 784

Avg tract homeownership 70.9% 71.2% -0.3% 0.5% 784

Homes in tracts w/higher home prices 40.6% 39.0% 1.5% 3.2% 784

Avg tract median home price $308,826 $306,104 $2,722 $2,308 784

Homes in tracts w/lower poverty 9.1% 8.2% 0.9% 2.6% 784

Avg tract percent nonpoor 91.5% 91.3% 0.2% 0.2% 784

Comments about homes in more tracts 34.3% 26.2% 8.1% 5.0% 793

Avg number positive comments re: white neighborhoods 0.14 0.10 0.04** 0.01 793

Avg number positive comments re: minority neighborhoods 0.25 0.23 0.02 0.06 793

Avg number negative comments re: white neighborhoods 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 793

Avg number negative comments re: minority neighborhoods 0.06 0.02 0.04** 0.02 793

Share of comments favoring segregation and integration 12.2% 9.2% 3.1% 2.3% 793

If homes shown:

Homes in whiter tracts 20.5% 15.5% 5.0%* 2.7% 441

Avg tract percent white 67.3% 65.8% 1.4%*** 0.5% 441

Homes in tracts w/higher homeownership 23.0% 28.9% -5.9% 6.1% 441

Avg tract homeownership 69.8% 71.0% -1.2% 1.3% 441

Homes in tracts w/higher home prices 37.0% 42.4% -5.4% 6.3% 441

Avg tract median home price $300,255 $302,618 -$2,363 $7,717 441

Homes in tracts w/lower poverty 8.6% 7.1% 1.5% 2.6% 441

Avg tract percent nonpoor 91.7% 91.5% 0.3% 0.3% 441

Note: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. * difference is statistically significant at the 0.10 level, ** at the 0.05 level, *** at the 0.01 level.

Hispanic Homebuyers 

For the vast majority of advertised homes, if one tester is able to make an appointment (by phone or 

e-mail) to meet with an agent in person, the other is as well. And the very small share of cases where 

differences occur do not favor either whites or Hispanics (see Exhibit IV-20).

When both white and Hispanic members of a tester pair meet with a sales agent in person, they are 

equally likely to be told that something is available and to have at least one home recommended by 

the agent. In about 8 of every 10 tests, more homes are recommended to one tester than the other, but 

these differences do not systematically favor either group.40 And on average, agents recommend the same 

number of homes to both white and Hispanic testers.

40 When whites are recommended more homes, the difference averages 3.33 units; when Hispanics are recommended more homes, the difference averages 2.78 units.
IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 57

Exhibit IV-20: Information and Availability Indicators for White and Hispanic Homebuyers

Sales market treatment measures Both White Hispanic Difference

Std 

error of 

difference

N

Tester(s) able to make an appointment 92.8% 2.2% 1.8% 0.4% 0.9% 1,193

If able to meet with an agent:

Tester(s) told any homes available 76.7% 8.8% 9.0% -0.2% 2.9% 1,043

One tester told about more homes than partner 39.9% 37.7% 2.3% 4.6% 1,043

Avg number of homes available (per visit) 3.04 2.76 0.28 0.22 1,043

Notes: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. No differences are statistically significant. 

When both white and Hispanic members of a tester pair receive recommendations, both are equally 

likely to be shown homes, with no significant difference in the number shown per test (Exhibit IV-21).41

Exhibit IV-21: Inspections and Unit Problems Indicators for White and Hispanic Homebuyers

Sales market treatment measures Both White Hispanic Difference

Std 

error of 

difference

N

If available homes recommended:

Tester(s) able to inspect any homes 62.5% 10.5% 13.4% -2.9% 3.1% 737

One tester inspected more homes than partner 36.0% 34.0% 2.0% 4.0% 737

Avg number of homes inspected (per visit) 2.15 2.06 0.10 0.14 737

If units shown:

Tester(s) saw at least one home without any 

problems

94.5% 2.6% 1.8% 0.9% 1.6% 440

One tester saw more problems per home than 

partner

18.8% 21.0% -2.2% 3.1% 438

Average number of problems per home 0.15 0.19 -0.04 0.05 438

Notes: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. No differences are statistically significant. 

The prices for the homes recommended to white and Hispanic homebuyers do not differ significantly 

(Exhibit IV-22). Also, the only statistically significant difference in treatment with respect to financing is 

that Hispanics are more likely than whites to be asked about their credit. 

41 When whites are shown more homes, the difference averages is 2.51 units; when Hispanics are shown more homes, the difference averages 2.37 units.
IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION

58 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Exhibit IV-22: Financial Indicators for White and Hispanic Homebuyers 

Sales market treatment measure Both White Hispanic Difference Std error of 

difference N

If available homes recommended:

One tester told higher home prices 27.0% 28.6% -1.6% 6.2% 739

Average home price $306,693 $312,313 -$5,621 $7,217 739

Tester(s) asked about prequalification 78.0% 9.4% 8.7% 0.7% 2.6% 737

Tester(s) asked for information on debts 4.9% 9.5% 16.4% -6.8% 4.4% 737

Tester(s) asked for information on credit 9.9% 14.2% 21.0% -6.8%* 3.3% 737

Tester(s) told not qualified 0.0% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 737

Tester(s) offered financing help 47.7% 16.0% 15.5% 0.5% 3.0% 737

Tester(s) told about finance options 17.4% 20.7% 17.5% 3.2% 2.8% 737

Tester(s) offered prequalification 3.1% 11.7% 9.1% 2.6% 2.8% 737

Tester(s) told suggested home price 11.5% 17.1% 15.8% 1.3% 4.3% 737

Tester(s) told a mortgage amount 2.0% 7.5% 7.5% 0.0% 1.9% 737

Tester(s) told interest rate 9.8% 16.7% 16.9% -0.2% 3.3% 737

Tester(s) told down payment 14.6% 18.9% 16.5% 2.3% 3.5% 737

Tester(s) told about personal finance 41.5% 19.6% 20.0% -0.4% 3.1% 737

Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. ** difference is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

Overall levels of agent helpfulness to white and Hispanic homebuyers are generally similar (Exhibit IV-23). 

However, agents are 6.2 percentage points more likely to make follow-up contact with whites than with 

Hispanics and 7.0 percentage points more likely to make positive comments about housing as an investment.
IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 59

Exhibit IV-23: Comments and Helpfulness Indicators for White and Hispanic Homebuyers 

Sales market treatment measure Both White Hispanic Difference

Std 

error of 

difference

N

If able to meet with an agent:

Tester(s) told arrangement for contact 94.0% 3.3% 2.6% 0.6% 0.9% 1,043

One tester received more time with agent 18.7% 20.7% -2.0% 5.0% 974

Average time spent with agent (minutes) 116 120 -4 7 974

Tester(s) received agent follow-up 34.8% 21.4% 15.2% 6.2%** 2.4% 1,043

If available homes recommended:

Tester(s) told comment on fair housing 0.2% 3.8% 3.2% 0.6% 0.7% 737

Tester(s) told remarks about race/ethnicity 0.1% 2.7% 1.8% 0.8% 1.0% 737

Tester(s) told positive comments about noise 11.7% 16.8% 20.2% -3.3% 4.1% 737

Tester(s) told negative comments about noise 1.4% 6.0% 4.8% 1.3% 1.4% 737

Tester(s) told positive comments about safety 6.0% 10.9% 15.6% -4.6% 4.2% 737

Tester(s) told negative comments about safety 0.0% 1.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 737

Tester(s) told positive comments about schools 10.0% 14.2% 17.4% -3.3% 3.1% 737

Tester(s) told negative comments about schools 0.0% 1.3% 0.4% 1.0% 0.6% 737

Tester(s) told positive comments about investment 5.7% 16.5% 9.4% 7.0%*** 2.3% 737

Tester(s) told negative comments about investment 0.1% 3.3% 2.1% 1.2% 1.4% 737

Tester(s) told positive comments about services 6.5% 13.3% 13.9% -0.6% 4.6% 737

Tester(s) told negative comments about services 0.0% 0.7% 0.4% 0.4% 0.5% 737

Tester(s) referred to another agent 0.3% 6.2% 5.5% 0.7% 1.5% 737

Tester(s) asked to sign documents 5.4% 11.0% 9.0% 1.9% 1.9% 737

Average overall helpfulness score 2.59 2.50 0.08 0.07 737

Note: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. ** difference is statistically significant at the 0.05 level, *** at the 0.01 level.

The census tracts for homes recommended and shown to white and Hispanic testers are, on average, 

about 55 percent white, with high homeownership rates and low poverty rates.42 The neighborhoods 

where Hispanics are recommended and shown homes do not differ significantly in any respect from the 

neighborhoods where whites are recommended and shown homes (Exhibit IV-24). 

42 The advertised units that triggered each paired test are located in tracts similar to those recommended and shown to testers. These tract characteristics differ slightly from those in the black/

white tests because of differences in the metropolitan areas where black/white and Hispanic/white testing was conducted.
IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION

60 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Exhibit IV-24: Steering Indicators for White and Hispanic Homebuyers

Sales market treatment measure White Hispanic Difference

Std 

error of 

difference

N

If available homes recommended: 

Homes in whiter tracts 22.6% 20.8% 1.8% 1.8% 727

Avg tract percent white 53.5% 53.9% -0.4% 0.4% 727

Homes in tracts w/higher homeownership 24.4% 25.6% -1.3% 2.7% 727

Avg tract homeownership 67.2% 67.2% 0.0% 0.5% 727

Homes in tracts w/higher home prices 41.3% 37.0% 4.3% 3.7% 727

Avg tract median home price $349,322 $349,490 -$168 $2,377 727

Homes in tracts w/lower poverty 9.5% 10.0% -0.5% 2.0% 727

Avg tract percent nonpoor 90.4% 90.3% 0.1% 0.2% 727

Comments about homes in more tracts 34.6% 27.8% 6.8% 5.2% 732

Avg number positive comments re: white neighborhoods 0.05 0.06 -0.02 0.03 732

Avg number positive comments re: minority neighborhoods 0.49 0.44 0.06 0.12 732

Avg number negative comments re: white neighborhoods 0.01 0.00 -0.00 0.00 732

Avg number negative comments re: minority neighborhoods 0.07 0.07 -0.01 0.02 732

Share of comments favoring segregation and integration 11.7% 13.6% -1.9% 2.1% 732

If homes shown:

Homes in whiter tracts 25.8% 20.8% 5.1% 3.1% 432

Avg tract percent white 56.1% 55.8% 0.2% 0.5% 432

Homes in tracts w/higher homeownership 24.8% 25.5% -0.7% 3.7% 432

Avg tract homeownership 69.0% 68.6% 0.4% 0.6% 432

Homes in tracts w/higher home prices 39.3% 39.4% -0.1% 3.7% 432

Avg tract median home price $350,232 $353,620 -$3,388 $3,542 432

Homes in tracts w/ lower poverty 11.4% 10.8% 0.6% 2.9% 432

Avg tract percent nonpoor 90.8% 90.6% 0.3% 0.2% 432

Notes: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. No differences are statistically significant.

Asian Homebuyers 

For the vast majority of advertised homes, if one tester is able to make an appointment (by phone or 

e-mail) to meet with an agent in person, the other is as well. Also, the very small share of cases where 

differences occur do not favor either whites or Asians (see Exhibit IV-25).

When both white and Asian members of a tester pair meet with a sales agent in person, they are equally 

likely to be told that something is available and to have at least one home recommended by the agent. In 

8 of every 10 tests, more homes are recommended to one tester than the other, though these differences 

do not systematically favor either group. On average, whites learn about 0.55 more available homes per 

test. (When whites are told about more available homes, the difference in the number of homes averages 

3.55; among tests in which Asians are told about more homes, the difference averages 2.91.)
IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 61

Exhibit IV-25: Information and Availability Indicators for White and Asian Homebuyers

Sales market treatment measure Both White Asian Difference

Std 

error of 

difference

N

Tester(s) able to make an appointment 92.2% 1.6% 2.6% -1.0% 1.6% 1,170

If able to meet with an agent:

Tester(s) told any homes available 79.5% 9.1% 7.5% 1.6% 2.3% 1,047

One tester told about more homes than partner 44.1% 34.9% 9.2% 5.8% 1,047

Avg number of homes available (per visit) 3.36 2.81 0.55* 0.30 1,047

Notes: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. No differences are statistically significant.

When whites and Asians are told that 

homes are available, they are equally 

likely to be shown at least one home 

(Exhibit IV-26). However, when one 

tester is shown more units than the 

other, whites are 13.9 percentage 

points more likely than to be favored 

than Asians. Overall, whites are shown 

0.42 more units per test than equally 

qualified Asians. (When whites are favored, they are able to inspect an average of 2.37 more homes; when 

Asians are favored, they inspect an average of 2.05 more homes.) This means that for every two visits in 

which at least some available homes are recommended, Asians inspect one fewer home than a comparable 

white homeseeker. The quality of units shown to whites and Asians does not differ significantly.

For example...When the white tester, who went first, asked 

about the advertised home, he was told that it was available. He 

viewed the home along with six other homes, and his site visit 

lasted three hours total. The Asian tester went the next day, was 

told that the advertised home was available, and inspected it. 

However, he was only recommended three additional homes to 

view, and his site visit lasted only two hours. 

Exhibit IV-26: Inspections and Unit Problems Indicators for White and Asian Homebuyers

Sales market treatment measure Both White Asian Difference

Std 

error of 

difference

N

If available homes recommended:

tester(s) able to inspect any homes

One tester inspected more homes than partner

average number of homes inspected (per visit)

62.0% 11.4%

42.1%

2.31

12.0%

28.2%

1.89

-0.6%

13.9%**

0.42***

4.3%

5.4%

0.13

799

799

799

If units shown:

tester(s) saw at least one home without any

problems

97.1% 1.5% 0.8% 0.7% 0.8% 471

One tester saw more problems per home than 

partner

20.8% 15.0% 5.8% 4.3% 470

average number of problems per home 0.15 0.14 0.01 0.04 470

Note: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. ** difference is statistically significant at the 0.05 level, *** at the 0.01 level.
IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION

62 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

When both white and Asian members of a tester pair receive recommendations, the prices for the homes 

recommended do not differ significantly (Exhibit IV-27). However, agents are 7.5 percentage points more 

likely to offer whites help with financing and 9.8 percentage points more likely to offer to prequalify the 

tester. They are also more likely to discuss financing options, interest rates, and personal finances and to 

suggest an affordable price point and mortgage amount to whites.

Exhibit IV-27: Financial Indicators for White and Asian Homebuyers

Sales market treatment measure Both White Asian Difference Std error of 

difference N

If available homes recommended:

One tester told higher home prices 28.9% 31.5% -2.6% 2.8% 803

Average home price $378,219 $380,412 -$2,193 $5,316 803

Tester(s) asked about prequalification 81.6% 7.3% 7.1% 0.2% 2.2% 799

Tester(s) asked for information on debts 9.7% 14.4% 14.1% 0.3% 3.9% 799

Tester(s) asked for information on credit 15.3% 17.9% 16.6% 1.3% 3.5% 799

Tester(s) told not qualified 0.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.4% 799

Tester(s) offered financing help 54.7% 18.7% 11.1% 7.5%** 3.0% 799

Tester(s) told about finance options 15.7% 24.8% 14.7% 10.1%*** 3.0% 799

Tester(s) offered prequalification 8.3% 17.8% 8.0% 9.8%** 4.3% 799

Tester(s) told suggested home price 14.9% 22.4% 15.6% 6.8%* 3.9% 799

Tester(s) told a mortgage amount 2.5% 15.0% 6.8% 8.2%*** 2.8% 799

Tester(s) told interest rate 11.5% 20.6% 11.6% 9.0%*** 3.2% 799

Tester(s) told down payment 17.8% 21.0% 15.0% 6.0% 4.0% 799

Tester(s) told about personal finance 37.2% 25.2% 15.7% 9.5%*** 3.0% 799

Note: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. * difference is statistically significant at the 0.10 level, ** at the 0.05 level, *** at the 0.01 level.

Agents offer white homebuyers significantly more help than equally qualified Asians (Exhibit IV-28). In 

particular, whites are 12.1 percentage points more likely than Asians to receive follow-up contact from 

agents. In addition, whites are more likely than Asians to receive both positive and negative comments 

about noise and negative comments about schools and investments, while Asians are more likely to 

receive positive comments about safety. Receiving these types of comments does not unambiguously 

reflect either favorable or unfavorable treatment, since one can imagine circumstances in which such 

comments are genuinely helpful as well as circumstances in which they are discouraging or disparaging. 
IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 63

Exhibit IV-28: Comments and Helpfulness Indicators for White and Asian Homebuyers

Sales market treatment measure Both White Asian Difference

Std 

error of 

difference

N

If able to meet with an agent:

Tester(s) told arrangement for contact 93.0% 3.4% 3.5% -0.1% 1.0% 1,047

One tester received more time with agent 20.2% 19.5% 0.7% 2.7% 1,018

Average time spent with agent (minutes) 115 111 4 4 1,018

Tester(s) received agent follow-up 32.8% 25.0% 12.9% 12.1%** 4.3% 1,047

If available homes recommended:

Tester(s) told comment on fair housing 0.6% 5.3% 2.0% 3.3% 2.1% 799

Tester(s) told remarks about race/ethnicity 0.3% 4.7% 3.9% 0.9% 1.6% 799

Tester(s) told positive comments about noise 11.9% 17.0% 23.5% -6.5%* 3.2% 799

Tester(s) told negative comments about noise 1.1% 9.1% 4.6% 4.5%** 2.0% 799

Tester(s) told positive comments about safety 4.6% 11.5% 25.0% -13.5%*** 4.3% 799

Tester(s) told negative comments about safety 0.1% 1.2% 1.1% 0.1% 0.5% 799

Tester(s) told positive comments about schools 13.8% 16.8% 20.1% -3.2% 3.4% 799

Tester(s) told negative comments about schools 0.0% 2.2% 0.8% 1.4%* 0.7% 799

Tester(s) told positive comments about investment 4.2% 13.2% 15.5% -2.3% 4.0% 799

Tester(s) told negative comments about investment 0.6% 5.3% 3.3% 2.0%* 1.2% 799

Tester(s) told positive comments about services 4.2% 15.9% 15.3% 0.5% 3.3% 799

Tester(s) told negative comments about services 0.0% 0.7% 0.6% 0.1% 0.4% 799

Tester(s) referred to another agent 0.5% 3.5% 4.4% -0.9% 1.0% 799

Tester(s) asked to sign documents 4.6% 10.3% 11.2% -0.9% 1.8% 799

Average overall helpfulness score 2.80 2.59 0.21*** 0.07 799

Note: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. * difference is statistically significant at the 0.10 level, ** at the 0.05 level, *** at the 0.01 level.

The census tracts where recommended and inspected homes are located are, on average, about 60 

percent white, with high homeownership rates and low poverty rates.43 In three-quarters of the tests, 

the tracts where one tester is recommended and shown homes are whiter on average than where the 

other tester is recommended and shown homes. In these cases, whites are 4.6 percentage points more 

likely than their Asian partners to be recommended homes in whiter neighborhoods, and 5.9 percentage 

points more likely to be shown homes in whiter neighborhoods. Overall, however, the average racial 

composition of tracts recommended differs by only 1.2 percentage points, and the average for tracts 

shown does not differ significantly. (Among tests in which the white tester is recommended homes in 

whiter neighborhoods, the neighborhoods are 17.0 percentage points whiter; where the Asian tester is 

recommended homes in whiter neighborhoods, the difference averages 15.4 percentage points.)44 Whites 

are also more likely than Asians to be shown homes in neighborhoods with higher home prices, although 

the average difference in neighborhood home prices is not statistically significant. Finally, whites are more 

likely than Asians to hear negative comments about minority neighborhoods. 

43 The advertised units that triggered each paired test are located in tracts similar to those recommended and shown to testers.

44 The difference for tests in which one tester was shown homes in whiter neighborhoods is quite similar. 
IV. INCIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION

64 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Exhibit IV-29: Steering Indicators for White and Asian Homebuyers

Sales market treatment measures White Asian Difference Std error of 

difference N

If available homes recommended: 

Homes in whiter tracts 25.6% 21.0% 4.6%** 2.1% 785

Avg tract percent white 59.2% 58.0% 1.2%* 0.6% 785

Homes in tracts w/higher homeownership 25.0% 29.0% -4.0% 2.5% 785

Avg tract homeownership 68.2% 68.6% -0.4% 0.6% 785

Homes in tracts w/higher home prices 42.5% 39.8% 2.7% 3.7% 785

Avg tract median home price $427,689 $420,727 $6,962 $4,271 785

Homes in tracts w/lower poverty 10.5% 9.1% 1.5% 1.5% 785

Avg tract percent nonpoor 92.1% 92.0% 0.1% 0.2% 785

Comments about homes in more tracts 36.5% 32.0% 4.5% 4.7% 787

Avg number positive comments re: white neighborhoods 0.07 0.13 -0.06 0.08 787

Avg number positive comments re: minority neighborhoods 0.48 0.37 0.11 0.07 787

Avg number negative comments re: white neighborhoods 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 787

Avg number negative comments re: minority neighborhoods 0.10 0.05 0.05* 0.03 787

Share of comments favoring segregation and integration 14.3% 11.5% 2.7% 2.3% 787

If homes shown:

Homes in whiter tracts 25.4% 19.5% 5.9%** 2.6% 463

Avg tract percent white 58.8% 57.5% 1.3% 0.9% 463

Homes in tracts w/higher homeownership 30.6% 24.5% 6.1% 6.7% 463

Avg tract homeownership 70.8% 69.5% 1.3% 1.0% 463

Homes in tracts w/higher home prices 45.4% 35.6% 9.9%* 5.4% 463

Avg tract median home price $444,261 $435,718 $8,543 $5,360 463

Homes in tracts w/lower poverty 11.4% 8.6% 2.7% 2.2% 463

Avg tract percent nonpoor 92.8% 92.4% 0.4% 0.3% 463

Note: Numbers do not subtract to differences because of rounding. * difference is statistically significant at the 0.10 level, ** at the 0.05 level.
V. VARIATI ONS IN DISCRIMINATION

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 65

V. VARIATIONS IN DISCRIMINATION

This chapter explores four questions about the estimates of discrimination presented in Chapter IV. 

First, it assesses how levels of discrimination have changed since the last national housing discrimination 

study, HDS2000. Second, it presents local estimates of discrimination against black and Hispanic 

renters for selected metropolitan areas and tests for potential differences in levels of both rental and sales 

discrimination based on metropolitan housing market conditions. Third, it asks whether homeseekers 

who are identifiably black, Hispanic, or Asian are more likely to experience discrimination than 

those who may be mistaken for whites. Finally, it explores potential variations in the incidence of 

discrimination that might help inform future fair housing enforcement and public education efforts.45

Change in Discrimination Over Time

Estimates of change in discrimination since the last national paired-testing study (HDS2000) must be 

interpreted with great caution for several reasons. First, housing markets have changed dramatically in 

the decade since HDS2000 was conducted, and many aspects of the paired-testing methodology were 

modified in the current study to better measure patterns of discrimination in today’s markets.46 Even 

if the study procedures from 2000 were repeated in 2012, market conditions, advertising and search 

mechanisms, and housing provider incentives differ so substantially that comparisons of findings across 

studies would be complicated to interpret. Finally, because the statistical confidence intervals for most 

measures of change are quite wide, there is a high likelihood that some policy-relevant differences exist 

but are not statistically significant.

Given that caution, we present comparisons for selected measures of treatment, assessing the margin of 

error for changes in the net measures of differential treatment.47 These comparisons suggest that changes 

in discrimination over the past decade are generally small but because almost none are statistically 

significant, we cannot draw definitive conclusions about whether discrimination has increased or 

decreased over the last decade. 

Among renters, blacks today appear less likely than a decade ago to be told that advertised units are 

unavailable compared to equally qualified whites (Exhibit V-1). Asian renters are more likely than a 

decade ago to be told that advertised units are unavailable, but they are less likely to experience adverse 

treatment when making future arrangements with the agent. Note that the increases for Asians are 

relative to very low rates of discrimination measured in the 2000 study. Among homebuyers, the only 

statistically significant change is for Hispanics, who are less likely to be denied financing help than a 

decade ago (Exhibit V-2). 

45 Throughout this chapter, discussion focuses on findings that are statistically significant, which are highlighted by bold font in the tables.

46 For example, in HDS2000, Asian/white testing took place in 11 metropolitan areas that together accounted for 77 percent of the total Asian population living in metropolitan areas. In HDS2010, 

23 metropolitan areas were sampled as part of an integrated design to represent over 90 percent of the population.

47 We approximated the confidence intervals for HDS2000 using the Phase 1 public-use files for blacks and Hispanics and using all data for Asian. The calculation approach accounts for 

statistical clustering of data within sites, essentially following the approach used for HDS2010. The resulting confidence intervals are larger than those relied on in the original study.
V. VARIATIONS IN DISCRIMINATION

66 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Exhibit V-1: Comparable Measures of Discriminatory Treatment for Renters, HDS2000 and HDS2012 

HDS2000 HDS2012 Change 

in net

Margin 

% white % min Net % white % min Net of error

Black

Advertised unit available 11.9 8.1 3.8% 4.7 4.5 0.2% -3.6% ±4.4%*

Inspected more units 22.9 16.2 6.8% 18.3 15.0 3.3% -3.5% ±5.9%

Offered incentives 9.6 7.0 2.5% 12.9 8.1 4.8% 2.3% ±4.4%

Future arrangements 14.9 16.5 -1.6% 13.2 15.6 -2.4% -0.8% ±7.2%

Hispanic

Advertised unit available 11.3 5.7 5.5% 5.3 2.5 2.7% -2.8% ±5.3%

Inspected more units 22.1 15.2 6.9% 21.2 13.4 7.8% 0.9% ±7.6%

Offered incentives 10.0 6.9 3.0% 10.8 7.0 3.8% 0.8% ±5.6%

Future arrangements 18.2 17.0 1.1% 12.7 14.4 -1.7% -2.8% ±9.7%

Asian

Advertised unit available 7.2 7.6 -0.4% 5.1 3.4 1.7% 2.1% ±5.6%

Inspected more units 12.9 17.7 -4.8% 21.7 16.0 5.7% 10.5% ±9.3%**

Offered incentives 9.1 5.8 3.3% 11.2 8.6 2.6% -0.7% ±6.1%

Future arrangements 20.0 12.5 7.5% 12.6 12.8 -0.2% -7.7% ±8.5%*

Notes: Margin of error is for 95 percent confidence level. * difference is statistically significant at the 0.10 level, ** at the 0.05 level.
V. VARIATIONS IN DISCRIMINATION

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 67

Exhibit V-2: Comparable Measures of Discriminatory Treatment for Homebuyers, HDS2000 and HDS2012

HDS2000 HDS2012 Change 

in net

Margin 

% white % min Net % white % min Net of error

Black

Advertised unit available 15.0% 15.0% 0.0% 12.8% 14.1% -1.3% -1.3% ±7.2%

Inspected more units 42.0% 32.6% 9.4% 36.9% 28.1% 8.8% -0.6% ±11.3%

Financing help 19.6% 17.3% 2.3% 18.9% 16.7% 2.2% 0.0% ±12.2%

Agent pre-qual’d tester 19.1% 14.2% 4.9% 14.2% 7.9% 6.3% 1.4% ±8.1%

Agent recomm. whiter 

neighborhoods 17.3% 12.2% 5.1% 24.8% 16.8% 8.0% 4.3% ±9.9%

Future arrangements 6.0% 8.2% -2.2% 3.4% 4.2% -0.7% 2.9% ±4.2%

Hispanic

Advertised unit available 12.7% 14.8% -2.1% 13.0% 13.2% -0.2% 1.9% ±9.4%

Inspected more units 36.1% 38.5% -2.4% 33.6% 32.4% 1.2% 3.6% ±15.5%

Financing help 24.3% 12.0% 12.4% 16.0% 15.5% 0.5% -11.9% ±10.7%**

Agent pre-qual’d tester 20.4% 14.9% 5.5% 11.7% 9.1% 2.6% -2.9% ±10.7%

Agent recomm. whiter 

neighborhoods 17.1% 14.8% 2.3% 22.6% 20.8% 1.8% -0.5% ±7.5%

Future arrangements 6.2% 5.4% 0.8% 3.3% 2.6% 0.6% -0.2% ±5.1%

Asian

Advertised unit available 15.6% 14.6% 1.0% 15.2% 12.1% 3.0% 2.0% ±9.5%

Inspected more units 45.7% 31.7% 14.0% 37.6% 27.7% 10.0% -4.1% ±16.9%

Financing help 28.5% 13.5% 15.1% 18.7% 11.1% 7.5% -7.5% ±11.3%

Agent pre-qual’d tester 22.8% 18.4% 4.4% 17.8% 8.0% 9.8% 5.4% ±13.0%

Agent recomm. whiter 

neighborhoods 18.4% 16.3% 2.1% 25.6% 21.0% 4.6% 2.5% ±12.3%

Future arrangements 11.7% 8.7% 2.9% 3.4% 3.5% -0.1% -3.1% ±6.8%

Notes: Margin of error is for 95 percent confidence level. ** difference is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

What can one conclude about longer-term trends in discrimination, drawing from findings from the 

1977 and 1989 discrimination studies? Although changes in market conditions, housing search processes, 

sampling procedures, and testing protocols make precise comparisons impossible, we can draw some 

broad qualitative conclusions about patterns of change in discrimination against black and Hispanic 

homeseekers.48

48 HDS2000 was the first study that measured discrimination against Asian homeseekers, so it is not possible to assess longer term trends.
V. VARIATIONS IN DISCRIMINATI ON

68 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

In 1977, black renters were frequently denied access to advertised units (Exhibit V-3); this type of 

discrimination had declined dramatically by 1989 and has continued to decline since. Discrimination 

concerning the number of units shown to black renters actually increased between 1977 and 1989 

(possibly because they were less likely to be denied advertised housing outright), but it has declined since. 

Denial of advertised units to Hispanic renters has also dropped substantially since 1989. Discrimination 

on the number of units shown also appears to have declined between 1989 and 2000, but not between 

2000 and 2012. 

Like black renters, black homebuyers were frequently denied access to advertised units in 1977. This 

form of discrimination had declined dramatically by 1989 and even more by 2000. Discrimination with 

the number of homes shown, however, does not appear to have changed much over time. In contrast, 

adverse treatment of Hispanic homebuyers dropped substantially between 1989 and 2000 and remains at 

very low levels today. 

Exhibit V-3: Longer-Term Trends in Discriminatory Treatment of Blacks and Hispanics

Taken together, these findings suggest that the most blatant forms of “door slamming” discrimination 

observed in the earliest paired-testing study are much less frequent today, but that other, less easily 

detectable forms of discrimination persist, limiting the information and options offered to minority 

homeseekers.
V. VARIATIONS IN DISCRIMINATION

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 69

Metropolitan Estimates of Discrimination and Tests for the Influence of Housing Market Conditions

In eight large metropolitan areas, the number of black and Hispanic rental tests was expanded to make 

it possible to report local estimates of discrimination. Overall, local estimates mirror the national results 

reported in Chapter IV, although the smaller sample sizes mean that the local estimates have less power 

to detect significant differences. Appendix D presents complete results for each of these metros. Here 

we focus on the two overall measures of discrimination: differences in the number of units available and 

shown to minority and white homeseekers. 

Rental agents tell blacks about fewer available units than equally qualified whites in all eight metro 

areas for which local estimates were computed. In five metro areas (Atlanta, Washington, Houston, Los 

Angeles, and Philadelphia), the differences between whites and blacks in number of units available are 

statistically significant. In Atlanta and Philadelphia, the differences are substantially above the national 

average (of 0.2 units per inquiry). In seven of the eight metros, agents also show blacks fewer units than 

equally qualified whites (Washington, DC, is the only exception). These differences are statistically 

significant in Atlanta, Houston, and Philadelphia, with the estimate for Philadelphia above the national 

average (of 0.06 units per inquiry).

Exhibit V-4: Metropolitan Estimates of Discrimination Against Black Renters

Difference in Number of units

White and Black testers 
V. VARIATIONS IN DISCRIMINATI ON

70 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

In each of the eight metro areas where local estimates were computed for Hispanic/white tests, rental 

agents tell Hispanics about fewer available units than equally qualified whites. In three of the areas 

(Dallas, Houston, and Riverside), the differences between whites and Hispanics in number of units 

available are not statistically significant. In six of the eight metros, agents show Hispanics fewer units 

than equally qualified whites, but none of these differences are statistically significant. In no sites are the 

estimated differences significantly above the average national difference (of 0.21 units per inquiry). In 

Houston, the difference in units shown is below the national average (of 0.10 units per inquiry).

Exhibit V-5: Metropolitan Estimates of Discrimination Against Hispanic Renters

Difference in Number of Units

White and Hispanic Testers 
V. VARIATIONS IN DISCRIMINATI ON

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 71

To test the hypothesis that discrimination against minority homeseekers might be influenced by housing 

market conditions, we used regression analysis to test for potential effects of several metropolitan market 

indicators on differences between whites and minorities in the number of housing units shown. We used 

data from all 28 sites for this analysis. For rental market discrimination, we tested for variations based 

on metro-area rental vacancy rates. For sales market discrimination, we tested for variations based on (1) 

metro-area homeowner vacancy rates in 2012; (2) percent change in median house prices since the peak 

of the housing boom (mid-2006); and (3) the share of mortgages that were seriously delinquent as of 

the first quarter of 2012.49 These models were separately estimated for blacks, Hispanics, and Asian, and 

results are reported in Exhibit V-6. 

For each model, this exhibit reports the change in the difference in number of units shown to whites and 

minorities associated with a one-unit increase in the measure listed in the left-hand column. For example, 

the coefficient 0.0013 in the first row indicates that a one-unit increase in the vacancy rate (e.g., from 1 

to 2 percent) is associated with a 0.0013 increase in the difference in the number of units shown to white 

and black testers. This tiny difference is not statistically significant, as indicated by the lack of an asterisk 

and that the estimated coefficient is far less than twice the reported standard error.

The only statistically significant result reflects higher levels of discrimination against Asian homebuyers 

in metropolitan markets that experienced rising house prices during the recession and recovery. Given the 

absence of any pattern of meaningful relationships, it does not seem sensible to give this isolated finding 

much weight. Overall, therefore, we find no compelling evidence that metropolitan-wide housing market 

conditions significantly influence the incidence of discrimination against minority homeseekers.

Exhibit V-6: Metropolitan Housing Market Conditions and Levels of Differential Treatment Estimates From 

Alternative Regression Models of the Difference in Number of Units Shown

Market measure

BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN

Coef. Std. error Coef. Std. error Coef. Std. error

Rental tests

Metro area rental vacancy rate (percent) 0.0013 0.023 0.0088 0.019 0.0254 0.0332

N 1,806 1,769 1,032

Sales tests

Model 1:

% change in metro area median housing price/100 -0.650 0.477 -0.141 0.223 1.124 0.515**

Model 2:

Homeowner sales vacancy rate (percent) 0.329 0.226 -0.046 23.372 0.158 0.237

Model 3:

Serious delinquency rate (percent) 0.0280 0.0319 -0.060 0.025 0.0534 0.0468

N 1,068 1,036 1,038

Notes: For each model, the table reports the coefficient on a market measure from a regression model of white-minority difference in number of units shown. The model also includes controls for test, tester, 

agency, and tract characteristics that are the same for both testers and the month of the test. The model does not control for the metropolitan area. Price change is measured between third quarter of 2006 and 

first quarter of 2012; vacancy rates are measured in 2012, and serious delinquency rate is measured in the first quarter of 2010. The analysis is based on tests in which both testers met an agent. ** difference 

is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

49 We also experimented with a cluster analysis using all three of these market indicators to identify the most distressed sales markets in our study sample (Atlanta, Cleveland, Detroit, Miami, 

Riverside, and Tampa). Levels of discrimination did not differ significantly by whether a site was among the most distressed.
V. VARIATI ONS IN DISCRIMINATION

72 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Identifiability of Minority Homeseekers

When homeseekers call (or e-mail) to make an appointment, the housing provider might or might not 

accurately identify their race or ethnicity. Even when homeseekers meet in person with housing providers, 

it is not certain that their race or ethnicity is accurately identified. In HDS2012, a team of coders (Urban 

Institute employees who did not know any of the testers) assessed the race/ethnicity of each tester based 

on reading the tester’s name and listening to a recording of his or her speech—the information available 

to an agent over the phone. A parallel assessment was conducted (by other members of the coding team) 

based on name, speech, and a photograph—the information available to an agent during an in-person 

meeting. Each tester was assessed by three independent coders based on name and speech and by three 

independent coders based on name, speech, and appearance. As a result, it is possible to explore whether 

minorities who are identifiable are more likely to experience discrimination.50

The race or ethnicity of most HDS2012 testers is identifiable based only on their names and their speech 

(Exhibit V-7). Roughly two-thirds of minority testers are correctly identified, with Asian testers the least and 

Hispanic testers the most identifiable. More than 90 percent of white testers are correctly identified based 

on name and speech. Minorities who are misidentified based on name and speech are most often classified 

as white. Testers in all racial/ethnic groups are more identifiable in person, but even so, a significant share of 

Hispanics and Asians are misidentified (again, Exhibit V-7). Asians who are misidentified based on name, 

speech, and appearance are equally likely to be classified as black, Hispanic, or white.

Exhibit V-7: Racial/Ethnic Identifiability of Testers

ACTUAL RACE and ETHNICITY of TESTERS

Black Hispanic Asian White

Perceived race and ethnicity based on name and speech

Black 65.7% 2.9% 5.2% 4.8%

Hispanic 1.4% 76.7% 6.7% 2.9%

Asian 2.8% 1.8% 61.7% 0.9%

White 28.1% 17.9% 23.6% 90.9%

Don’t know 2.0% 0.7% 2.9% 0.5%

Perceived race and ethnicity based on name, speech, and photograph

Black 97.7% 1.3% 7.0% 0.5%

Hispanic 0.5% 86.2% 6.8% 0.9%

Asian 0.6% 1.3% 81.2% 0.0%

White 1.1% 10.1% 3.4% 97.4%

Don’t know 0.1% 1.1% 1.7% 1.2%

50 This is the first time such an assessment has been performed as part of a national paired-testing study.
V. VARIATIONS IN DISCRIMINATION

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 73

At the telephone or e-mail inquiry stage, renters who are identifiably black or Asian are significantly more 

likely to experience adverse treatment (relative to whites) than minorities who are perceived to be white. 

Specifically, Exhibit V-8 reports how disparities at the appointment stage and for number of units shown 

to whites and minorities differ when the minority tester is perceived to be black, Hispanic, or Asian (as 

indicated in the left-hand column) than when the minority tester is perceived as white. For example, the 

coefficient 0.014 in the first row indicates that testers who are perceived as black face a 1.4 percentage 

point higher rate of net adverse treatment at the appointment stage than testers who are perceived as 

white. This difference is statistically significant at the 10 percent level as indicated by the single asterisk.

Black and Asian renters whose race is identifiable based on name and speech are significantly more likely 

to experience discrimination at the appointment stage than those perceived to be white. For minority 

homebuyers, racial/ethnic identifiability has no statistically significant effect at the appointment stage. 

During the in-person visit, renters who are identifiably black, Hispanic, or Asian are shown fewer units 

relative to their white counterparts than minorities who are perceived to be white. Similarly, homebuyers 

who are identifiably black or Asian face higher discrimination during the in-person visit than minorities 

who are perceived to be white.

Exhibit V-8: Racial/Ethnic Identifiability and Levels of Differential Treatment

RENTALS SALES

Coef. Std. error Coef. Std. error

Models of difference in whether received appointment

Perceived race and ethnicity based on name and speech

Black 0.014 0.008* 0.012 0.024

Hispanic 0.009 0.006 -0.004 0.028

Asian 0.011 0.006* -0.009 0.022

Don’t know -0.020 0.024 0.078 0.093

Constant -0.003 0.004 0.002 0.017

N 4,839 3,393

R-squared 0.021 0.018

Models of difference in number of units shown

Perceived race and ethnicity based on name, speech, and photograph

Black 0.180 0.083** 0.981 0.558*

Hispanic 0.256 0.097** 0.775 0.539

Asian 0.172 0.086* 1.048 0.543*

Don’t know 0.235 0.287 0.693 0.993

Constant -0.122 0.081 -0.617 0.515

N 4,584 3,109

R-squared 0.009 0.040

Notes: Model also controls for site. Perceived race and ethnicity based on the three independent evaluations. Samples include tests for which at least two evaluators indicated that the white tester was white. 

* difference is statistically significant at the 0.10 level, ** at the 0.05 level.
V. VARIATI ONS IN DISCRIMINATION

74 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Multivariate Analysis of Variations in Discrimination

National and metropolitan estimates provide evidence of the persistence of discrimination in rental and 

sales markets, but questions remain about the circumstances in which discrimination may be more or less 

likely. If analysis suggests that discrimination is more likely for particular types of homeseekers or housing 

providers, enforcement and education efforts could be more effectively targeted. Therefore, we explored 

the potential contributions of customer characteristics, agent attributes, and neighborhood composition 

to differences in the number of housing units shown to whites and minorities. Few consistent or 

compelling patterns emerge.51

Exhibit V-9 presents results from a regression model testing for variations in levels of rental market 

discrimination based on characteristics of tests, testers, rental agencies, and location of the advertised 

unit. More specifically, this analysis assesses the extent to which differences in the number of housing 

units shown to equally qualified minorities and whites vary systematically. The exhibit reports how 

disparities (between white and minority testers) in the number of units shown varies with presence of 

the characteristic (or a higher value of the characteristic) indicated in the left-hand column. For example, 

the coefficient of -0.085 on “female tester” indicates that discrimination with respect to the number of 

units shown is on average 0.085 units lower for women than for men. The coefficient of 0.099 on “both 

met Hispanic agent” indicates that when both testers meet an Hispanic agent, differential treatment is 

higher by 0.099 units than when both testers meet a white agent. Finally, a $10,000 increase in per capita 

income is associated with a .005 unit increase in discrimination. None of these estimates are statistically 

significant, as indicated by the lack of an asterisk.

Few coefficients in Exhibit V-9 are statistically significant, and no consistent patterns emerge. Black renters 

face significantly higher levels of discrimination if they are male or visit larger housing providers. Hispanic 

renters face higher levels of discrimination if they are higher income or meet with a female agent. Asians face 

higher levels of discrimination if they meet a black agent or if they meet a different agent than their white 

counterpart. No relationships are observed between the racial/ethnic or socioeconomic composition of 

census tracts where advertised units are located and levels of discrimination.

The estimated effects of race of agent do not provide support for the hypothesis that minority agents give 

preferred treatment to homeseekers of their own race or ethnicity. For example, while there is marginally 

significant evidence that black agents discriminate more than white agents against Asians, there is no 

evidence that they are less likely to discriminate against black homeseekers. In addition, the analysis 

provides no evidence that Hispanic agents are less likely to discriminate against Hispanics or that Asian 

agents are less likely to discriminate against Asians.52

51 Given the large number of potential relationships tested and the small number of statistically significant results, it would be misleading to place great weight on individual coefficients that are 

significant.

52 Across all rental tests, testers identified 50 percent of agents as white, 16 percent as black, 23 percent as Hispanic, 4 percent as Asian, and 6 percent as “don’t know” or “other.” 
V. VARIATIONS IN DISCRIMINATI ON

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 75

Exhibit V-9: Sources of Variation in Discrimination Against Renters 

Regression Models of the Difference in Number of Units Shown

 BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN

Coef. Std. 

error

Coef. Std. 

error

Coef. Std. 

error

Test characteristics 

Afternoon tests 0.028 0.094 -0.017 0.114 0.098 0.135

White tester went first -0.027 0.040 0.015 0.041 0.160 0.081 *

Tester characteristics

Assigned child -0.030 0.055 0.130 0.100 -0.089 0.064

Assigned marriage 0.057 0.046 -0.018 0.054 0.083 0.135

Female -0.082 0.044 * -0.049 0.048 0.018 0.062

Minority tester born in U.S. 0.135 0.090 -0.057 0.039 0.087 0.090

Log (white assigned income) -0.016 0.071 0.160 0.053 *** -0.015 0.091

Both employed -0.039 0.048 -0.049 0.050 -0.061 0.129

Both experienced testers 0.097 0.103 -0.042 0.134 0.127 0.174

Age -0.001 0.002 0.004 0.002 -0.005 0.004

Agency characteristics

Same agent 0.007 0.047 -0.072 0.057 -0.204 0.073 ***

Max # people seen 0.109 0.059 * -0.004 0.032 -0.064 0.059

Both met black agent 0.009 0.098 0.017 0.140 0.190 0.089 **

Both met Hisp. agent 0.107 0.067 -0.025 0.080 -0.095 0.107

Both met Asian agent 0.259 0.302 -0.013 0.095 0.047 0.091

Both met female agent 0.001 0.055 0.127 0.051 ** 0.002 0.057

Tract characteristics

Per capita income ($10,000) 0.004 0.009 0.002 0.014 -0.001 0.014

% white/10 0.002 0.011 -0.005 0.021 0.004 0.019

Constant -0.131 0.660 -1.400 0.448 *** 0.348 0.885

N 1,732 1,666 991

R-squared 0.066 0.083 0.112

Notes: The table reports coefficients from a regression model (by race/ethnicity) of the difference in number of units shown to the white and minority testers. The model independent variables are those listed in 

the table, as well as controls for metropolitan area, calendar month, indicators that a characteristic only applies to one tester, and differences in age between the testers. Analysis based on rental tests in which 

both testers met an agent. * difference is statistically significant at the 0.10 level, ** at the 0.05 level, *** at the 0.01 level.
V. VARIATI ONS IN DISCRIMINATION

76 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

In the sales market, we find more factors associated with variations in discrimination against blacks, 

but not against Asian or Hispanics (Exhibit V-10). Again, this analysis focuses on differences between 

minorities and whites in the number of homes shown. Black homebuyers face significantly higher levels 

of discrimination if they are childless or male.53 They face higher levels of discrimination from large 

agencies (a finding that also applies for black renters). Finally, discrimination against black homebuyers is 

lower when the advertised home is located in a whiter neighborhood. In other words, black homebuyers 

are more likely to be shown at least as many homes as an equally qualified white when inquiring about 

homes in predominantly white neighborhoods. Asian testers face higher levels of discrimination when 

they meet with female agents. The lack of consistent patterns across these results makes it difficult to 

draw conclusions with relevance for fair housing policy or practice.

Unfortunately, the data provide only weak evidence on whether the race or ethnicity of the agent affects 

the degree of discrimination. As discussed in Chapter III, our primary interest is in comparing tests in 

which both teammates met with an agent of the same race or ethnicity. In the sales market, black and 

Asian agents are rare: testers met with a black agent in only 5 percent of the tests and with an Asian agent 

in only 3.5 percent of the tests. (In contrast, testers met with an Hispanic agent in 10 percent of the 

tests.) This translates into very few tests in which both teammates met with a black agent (72 sales tests 

over the three racial/ethnic groups) or an Asian agent (44 sales tests). (In contrast, both teammates met 

with an Hispanic agent in 161 tests).54 Because of this, the precision of the estimated effects of meeting a 

black or Asian sales agent are quite low, and we cannot draw reliable conclusions. Although it is possible 

that black homebuyers may experience lower levels of discrimination from black agents, these effects 

may well reflect differences in the particular circumstances (e.g., metro area) in which the relatively small 

number of tests took place.

53 In addition, for the black and Hispanic tests, discrimination is higher for tester pairs in which both testers are employed outside their roles as testers. This is counter to the expectation that 

employed persons, who might be viewed as having stronger “soft skills,” would face less discrimination.

54 We include an indicator of tests with Asian agents in the regression model to ensure that the reference group was white agents, but do not report the results in the text.
V. VARIATIONS IN DISCRIMINATI ON

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 77

Exhibit V-10: Sources of Variation in Discrimination Against Homebuyers 

Regression Models of Difference in Number of Units Shown

BLACK HISPANIC ASIAN

Coef. Std. 

error

Coef. Std. 

error

Coef. Std. 

error

Test characteristics 

Afternoon tests -0.223 0.240 -0.005 0.225 -0.207 0.224

White tester went first -0.129 0.108 0.366 0.179 * -0.061 0.121

Tester characteristics

Assigned child -0.538 0.191 *** 0.259 0.213 0.013 0.243

Assigned marriage -0.039 0.221 -0.182 0.291 0.190 0.239

Female -0.502 0.253 * -0.094 0.383 0.339 0.303

Minority tester born in U.S. 0.481 0.309 -0.068 0.376 0.291 0.321

Log (white assigned income) 0.165 0.175 0.108 0.186 0.009 0.169

Both employed 0.632 0.287 ** 0.784 0.322 ** 0.238 0.346

Both experienced testers -0.386 0.259 -0.412 0.379 -0.930 0.253 ***

Age -0.005 0.012 -0.006 0.019 0.026 0.017

Agency characteristics

Same agent -0.076 0.274 0.069 0.238 -0.106 0.171

Max # people seen 0.486 0.194 ** -0.083 0.153 0.093 0.148

Both met black agent -0.580 0.326 * -0.424 0.543 -0.359 0.342

Both met Hisp agent 0.266 0.501 -0.136 0.313 0.067 0.568

Both met female agent 0.148 0.195 0.159 0.171 0.623 0.205 ***

Tract characteristics

Per capita income ($10,000) 0.024 0.026 0.022 0.035 -0.031 0.037

% white/10 -0.067 0.041 0.063 0.066 -0.073 0.063

Constant -1.412 1.258 -2.116 2.111 -0.540 1.736

N 1,062 1,030 1,023

R-squared 0.1743 0.113 0.1464

Notes: The table reports coefficients from a regression model (by race/ethnicity) of the difference in number of units shown to the white and minority testers. The model independent variables are those listed in 

the table, as well. The analysis is based on sales tests in which both testers met an agent. * difference is statistically significant at the 0.10 level, ** at the 0.05 level, *** at the 0.01 level.
78 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012
Appendix A

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 79

APPENDIX A: HDS2012 LOCAL TESTING 

ORGANIZATIONS
Appendix A

80 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

APPENDIX A. HDS2012 LOCAL TESTING ORGANIZATIONS 

The following organizations were contracted to conduct paired tests for HDS2012: 

Test Site Organization 

Albuquerque, NM United South Broadway Corporation 

Atlanta, GA Metro Fair Housing Services, Inc. 

Baltimore, MD Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc. 

Boston, MA Metropolitan Boston Housing Partnership 

The Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston 

Chicago-Gary-Lake, IL HOPE Fair Housing Center 

South Suburban Housing Center 

Cleveland, OH Housing Research & Advocacy Center 

Columbia, SC South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center 

Dallas, TX North Texas Fair Housing Center 

Detroit, MI Fair Housing Center of Metropolitan Detroit 

Fort Worth-Arlington, TX North Texas Fair Housing Center 

Greensboro-Winston Salem-Highpoint, NC Greensboro Housing Coalition 

Houston-Brazoria, TX Greater Houston Fair Housing Center 

Kansas City, MO-KS Urban League of Kansas 

Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA Housing Rights Center 

Miami-Hialeah, FL Housing Opportunities Project for Excellence, Inc. (HOPE, Inc.) 

Middlesex-Somerset-Hunterdon, NJ New Jersey Citizen Action 

Newark, NJ Fair Housing Council of Northern New Jersey 

New Jersey Citizen Action 

New York, NY Fair Housing Justice Center, Inc. 

Orange County, CA Fair Housing Foundation 

Philadelphia, PA/NJ Fair Housing Rights Center in Southeastern Pennsylvania 

Richmond-Petersburg, VA Housing Opportunities Made Equal of Virginia, Inc. (HOME) 

Riverside-San Bernardino, CA Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, Inc. 

San Antonio, TX Fair Housing Council of Greater San Antonio 

San Diego, CA Fair Housing Foundation 

Fair Housing Council of San Diego 

San Jose, CA Project Sentinel 

Seattle-Everett, WA Fair Housing Center of Washington 

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Fair Housing Continuum, Inc. 

Washington, DC/MD/VA Equal Rights Center 
Appendix B

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 81

APPENDIX B: MASTER LIST OF ASIAN AND 

HISPANIC SUBGROUPS
Appendix B

82 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

APPENDIX B: MASTER LIST OF ASIAN AND HISPANIC SUBGROUPS 

Each local testing organization was provided local demographic data on Asian and Hispanic 

subgroups represented in their testing area. The data were used to guide tester recruitment 

efforts. These lists indicate the subgroups from which local lists were drawn. 

Asian Subgroups: 

Asian American 

Asian Indian 

Bangladeshi 

Cambodian 

Chinese 

Filipino 

Hmong 

Indonesian 

Japanese 

Korean 

Lankan 

Laotian 

Malaysian 

Melanesian 

Micronesian 

Native Hawaiian 

Pacific Islander 

Pakistani 

Polynesian 

Taiwanese 

Vietnamese 
Appendix B

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 83

Hispanic Subgroups: 

Central American (Costa Rican, Guatemalan, Honduran, Nicaraguan, Panamanian, Salvadorian 

and other Central American 

Cuban 

Dominican 

Mexican 

Puerto Rican 

South American (Argentinean, Bolivian, Chilean, Colombian, Ecuadorian, Paraguayan, 

Peruvian, Uruguayan, Venezuelan, and other South American) 

Spanish 

All other Hispanic or Latino groups 
84 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012
Appendix C

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 85

APPENDIX C: ASSIGNED FINANCIAL 

CHARACTERISTICS EXAMPLE - SALES
Appendix C

86 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

APPENDIX C: ASSIGNED FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS EXAMPLE - SALES 

Address 700 Park View Drive, Washington, DC 20010 

Number of Bedrooms 3 

Home price $101,970 

Type of home Single Family 

Phone (202)123-4567

Name of Agent/Company/Complex Associates Realty 

Test Released Yes 

Transaction Type Sales 

Household Composition Married Couple, 2 Children (Different Genders) 

Home price is entered into the 

calculator. 

Testers’ finances are calculated 

based on their assigned 

household composition. 

Minority White 

Total Monthly Income for Household $2,691 $2,530 

Total Gross Annual Income of Household $32,288 $30,355 

Tester Annual Income $19,824 $18,776 

Tester Monthly Income $1,652 $1,565 

Spouse Annual Income $12,464 $11,579 

Spouse Monthly Income $1,039 $965 

Checking Account Balance $2,870 $2,533 

Savings Account Balance $20,289 $19,772 

Balance owed on debt to creditor 1 $899 $750 

Monthly payment of debt to creditor 1 $108 $90 

Creditor 1 - type of account Car loan Car loan 

Balance owed on debt to creditor 2 $0 $0 

Monthly payment of debt to creditor 2 $0 $0 

Creditor 2 - type of account N/A N/A 

Balance owed on debt to creditor 3 $187 $181 

Monthly payment of debt to creditor 3 $23 $22 

Creditor 3 - type of account Credit Card Credit Card 

Balance owed on debt to creditor 4 $131 $105 

Monthly payment of debt to creditor 4 $16 $13 

Creditor 4 - type of account Credit Card Credit Card

Balance owed on debt to creditor 5 $0 $0 

Monthly payment of debt to creditor 5 $0 $0 

Creditor 5 - type of account N/A N/A 

FICO score 704 696 

FICO score (spouse) 704 699 

Amount of Current Rent $646 $637 

Total balance owed on all debts $1217 $1036 

Total monthly payments on all debts $147 $125 

Total Assets $23,159 $22,305 

Monthly household income is calculated 

as approximately 5-times the monthly 

mortgage payment on a 30-year fixed 

loan at current interest rates. 

Spouse income is assigned as 37.5% 

to 45% of testers’ income. 

Checking account balance is assigned 

11% to 12% of total cash assets. 

Savings account balance makes up the 

remainder. 

Testers are assigned similar loan 

characteristics (credit card, auto loan, 

department store loan). 

FICO score is assigned as 700 to 705 

for the minority tester and 695 to 700 for 

the white tester. 

Current monthly rent is calculated as 

approximately 25% of assigned monthly 

income. 

Total assets are calculated so that 

testers can always afford to make a 

20% down payment on the home. 
Appendix C

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 87

Steps in Setting up Parameters:

1.	 Get sales price of advertised unit.

2.	 Get assigned marital status of tester.

3. Get race of tester.

4.	 Select parameters from database based on site, race, marital status, and housing price.

Steps in Creating the Financial Characteristics of Testers:

1. Calculate down payment amount by multiplying the home sales price by the down

payment percentage.

2.	 Calculate loan amount by subtracting the down payment amount from the sales price.

3. Calculate monthly property taxes by multiplying the housing sales price by the property

tax rate and divide by 12.

4.	 Calculate monthly mortgage payment based on the advertised unit sale price, the

interest rate parameter, and a constant payment schedule for 360 months.

5.	 Calculate monthly housing expense by adding the monthly mortgage payment and the

monthly property tax payment.

6. Calculate cash asset requirement by multiplying loan amount by the closing cost

percentage and adding that to the down payment amount

7.	 Calculate monthly income.by dividing the total monthly expenses by a random number

between the Front End Ratio Minimum and Front End Ratio Maximum. Calculate annual

income by multiplying monthly income by 12.

8.	 Calculate the current monthly rent using the rental test calculations for the tester’s

monthly income.

9. Calculate monthly non-housing credit payments by multiplying monthly income by a

random number between the minimum back end ratio and the maximum back end ratio

and subtracting it from the total monthly expenses.

10. Calculate tester's share of annual income. If single, tester gets assigned the total amount

of annual income. If married, the annual income is multiplied by a random number

between the “Spouse Income Share Minimum” and “Spouse Income Share Maximum”.

This number is assigned to the tester. The tester’s monthly income is the tester’s share

of the annual income divided by 12.

11. Calculate spouse's share of annual income. If single, these amounts are set to 0. If

married, the tester’s annual income is subtracted from the total annual income and this

number is assigned to the spouse. The spouse’s monthly income is the spouse’s share

of the annual income divided by 12.

12. Calculate total credit balance by dividing the “Non Housing Payments” by the “Interest

Rate Non Housing” parameter.

13. Calculate cash assets by multiplying the tester’s asset required by a random number

between the “Required Cash Assets Percent Minimum” and “Required Cash Assets

Percent Minimum” parameters.

14. Calculate checking account balance by multiplying the tester’s total assets by a random

number between the “Check Balance Minimum” and the “Check Balance Maximum”

parameters.

15. Calculate savings account balance by subtracting the checking balance amount from the

total assets.
Appendix C

88 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

16. Assign credit score by selecting a random number between the “Credit Score Minimum”

and the “Credit Score Maximum” parameters. If married, do the same calculation for the

spouse.

17. Assign car loan one by multiplying the “Total Credit Balance” by a random number

between the “Car Loan 1 Share Minimum” and “Car Loan 1 Share Maximum”

parameters. Create the car loan payment by multiplying the “Non Housing Payments” by

the same random number.
Appendix D

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 89

APPENDIX D: RENTER FORMS
Appendix D

90 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

ADVANCE CONTACT FORM 

(UPDATE FORM FOR EACH CONTACT ATTEMPTED) 

Control # - - - 1 

Person attempting contact

Type of contact  ̈ Phone  ̈ E-Mail  ̈ Text Message 

If telephone contact, complete below: 

Phone Number(s): ( ) 

( ) 

If e-mail contact, complete below: 

Sender’s Name: _______________________________________ 

Sender E-mail Address:

Recipient Name: ________________________________________________________________________ 

Recipient E-mail Address: 

Day of the Week:

Date / / Time :  ̈ AM  ̈ PM 

If contact was made by telephone, complete below: 

1. With whom did you speak? : _____________________________________________________________

2. Were you able to obtain housing information during this advance call?  ̈ Yes  ̈ No

2a. If No, why not?

 ̈ Told to Call Back Later 

 ̈ Housing provider could not be reached 

 ̈ Telephone number was incorrect 

 ̈ No Answer 

 ̈ Telephone Number No Longer in Service 

 ̈ Other (Specify):
Appendix D

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 91

If contact was made by e-mail, complete below: 

3. Did the e-mail response provide you with housing information?  ̈ Yes  ̈ No

3a. If No, why not? 

 ̈ Invalid e-mail address 

 ̈ Automatic reply explaining someone would contact me later 

 ̈ Automatic reply explaining recipient is away from e-mail, on vacation, etc. 

 ̈ No reply 

 ̈ Told to call agent 

 ̈ Asked for more information 

 ̈ Other (Specify): ) 

If contact was made by either phone or email, continue: 

4. Housing Information (enter one type of unit [i.e., bedroom size] per line):

Address of Apartment/House # of 

Bedrooms 

Price Date Available 

MM/DD/YY 

Advertised Unit? 

a.  ̈ Yes  ̈ No 

b.  ̈ Yes  ̈ No 

c.  ̈ Yes  ̈ No 

d.  ̈ Yes  ̈ No 

e.  ̈ Yes  ̈ No 

5. What are the office hours?

6. Is it possible to drop in to speak with an agent about the available housing?

 ̈ Yes (you may drop in)  ̈ No (you must have an appointment) 

7. Verify the address to be visited:

8. Is this the final advance contact?  ̈ Yes  ̈ No
Appendix D

92 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

9. Based on the results of the advance contact, is the housing ineligible for any reason?  ̈ Yes  ̈ No

9a. If Yes, please specify a reason for ineligibility: 

RENTAL TESTS 

 ̈ Share situation 

 ̈ Single Room Occupancy 

 ̈ Apartment locator service 

 ̈ Sublet 

 ̈ Temporary/short-term rental 

 ̈ Public/subsidized housing development 

 ̈ No unit is available for rent 

 ̈Owner does not have more than 4 units 

SALES TESTS 

 ̈ For sale by owner 

 ̈ Exceeds price range for MSA 

 ̈ Multi-unit structure for sale 

 ̈ Seasonal/vacation housing 

 ̈ Unimproved lot (housing is yet to be constructed) 

 ̈ Housing that is uninhabitable 

 ̈ New mobile home for sale through dealership 

 ̈ Sale of mobile home but not the land parcel on which it is located 

 ̈ Short Sale 

 ̈ Foreclosure Property 

 ̈ Contact information (name of agent or agency and phone number/e-mail address) for the listing 

agent or agency is not directly accessible after attempting to access that information through the links 

provided on the TAF 

 ̈ An electronic contact form was the only method found for responding to the ad after attempting to 

access listing agent/agency contact information through the links provided on the TAF 

RENTAL AND SALES TESTS 

 ̈ Housing provider could not be reached after several attempts 

 ̈ Telephone number no longer in service 

 ̈ Telephone number was incorrect 

 ̈ E-mail address was invalid (when the e-mail address was the only contact information listed) 

 ̈ Automatic reply to advance e-mail contact explaining recipient is away from e-mail, on vacation, 

etc. (only when agent is not expected to return in a reasonable amount of time to conduct the test). 

 ̈ Outside of target area for MSA 

 ̈ Located on Indian land (e.g., reservations, Rancherias, etc). 

 ̈Housing for older persons 

 ̈Same race/tenure test already conducted at this housing provider in the same week 

 ̈Other reasons as determined by the Director of Field Operations (e.g., detection issues, conflicts 

with enforcement activities, etc.) 

 ̈ Other (Specify):
Appendix D

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 93

10. Based on the source of the advertisement, the wording of the advertisement, and/or information obtained

from a rental agent during the advance contact, please check the most appropriate response: 

10a. The rental advertisement refers to a specific rental unit that is available by this housing provider. 

 ̈ Yes  ̈ No 

10b. The advertisement contains wording that clearly indicates the availability of a “type” of rental unit rather 

than a specific rental unit (e.g., “Studios and One Bedroom Apartments Available!!”).  ̈ Yes  ̈ No 

10c. The advertisement only contains general rental housing availability (e.g., “We have units available”). 

 ̈ Yes  ̈ No 

10d. I am not sure whether the rental advertisement refers to a specific rental unit or whether it refers to a 

“type” of rental housing that is generally available through this housing provider.  ̈ Yes  ̈ No 

10e. Other (specify)

11. The exact address of the available housing unit is available in the advertisement and/or from the housing

provider.  ̈ Yes  ̈ No 

12. General Comments:

13. This form is complete.  ̈ Yes  ̈ No
Appendix D

94 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

_________________________________ 

__________________________ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 

__________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________ 

HOUSING DISCRIMINATION STUDY 

Assignment Form - RENTAL 

SITE:________________ 

CONTROL #: __ __ - __ __ - __ __ __ __ - 1 TESTER ID NUMBER: __ __ - __ __ __ 

Type of Approach: Drop In Appointment 

Date of Visit (mm/dd/yy): __/__/__ 

TEST SITE 

1. Name of Test Site (Agent/Company/Complex, if known):

2. Site Address:___________________________________________ __________

(number and street) (unit #) 

(city) (state) (zip) 

3. Telephone number of test site:

First phone number: (___) ___ − ____ 

Second phone number: (___) ___ − ____

Source of Information on Test Site 

 Advertisement:

Name of Source: ________________ 

Date of Publication: ______________ 

Text of Ad: 

Type of Housing to be Requested 

Number of Bedrooms to Request: ___ 

Minimum number of Bedrooms Willing to Accept: ___

Type of Unit: _________ 

 Monthly Rent: ________ 
Appendix D

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 95

 Household Composition: 

Single Adult 

Single Female Adult, 1 child

 Married Couple, No Children 

Married Couple, 1 child

 Married Couple, 2 children (same gender) 

Married Couple, 2 children (different gender) 

Married Couple, 3 children 

Rent maximum: $_____ per month 

Area Preference 

If you are pressed by the agent, you may state that you are looking in: __________________ 

Remember: You are always open to considering any areas recommended by the agent! 

Reason for moving: 

 Lived at current apartment long enough, ready for change 

Have to move while landlord is remodeling 

 Landlord wants to rent to family member/friend 

Owner selling building; want to start looking now

 Ad sounded like something would be interested in 

Would like to be settled before school starts 

Living with family member/friend; want own place

 Renting from relative/friend; want own place 

Currently subletting; tenant moving back 

Have recently relocated to the area 

No reason, just would like a new place 

Other places visited: Just started looking 

ASSIGNED CHARACTERISTICS 

Tester Name: __________________ 

 Tester Address: __________________________________________ __________

 (number and street) (unit #) 

__________________________ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 

(city) (state) (zip) 
Appendix D

96 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Voice Mail Number Assigned to Tester: (___) ___ − ____ 

E-mail Address Assigned to Tester: ______________________

INFORMATION ON TESTER AND TESTER’S HOUSEHOLD 

Tester’s Race: __________________

National Origin: _________________ 

Tester’s Gender: M / F 

Tester’s Age: _________ 

Household Income Gross Monthly Income Gross Annual Income 

 Tester 

Spouse 

 Total for Household 

Other 

Persons in 

Household 

Relationship Name Sex Age 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

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:____________________________________________ 

Name of spouse’s current employer:____________________________________________ 

First line of spouse’s employer’s address:________________________________________

 Second line of spouse’s employer’s address: _____________________________________ 

Spouse’s length of employment at current job:_____________________________________ 

Credit Standing: Excellent, no late payments 
Appendix D

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 97

CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION 

Type of current housing: Rent 

Amount of Current Rent: $______ 

Years at Current Residence: ______ 

Type of Rental Agreement at Current Residence: Month-to-Month / Lease 

History of rent payment at current residence: Always on time

 Other characteristics: Non-smoking, no pets 

Tester owns a car? : Yes / No 

Directions to test site: 

_________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________ 
Appendix D

98 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

INSTRUCTIONS FOR HDS CONTACTS FOR APPOINTMENTS - RENTAL 

INSTRUCTIONS: 

Please contact the housing provider listed in the advertisement and request an appointment to meet 

with someone to discuss the rental housing that was advertised. You should always contact the 

housing provider by telephone unless there is only an e-mail address listed, in which case you should 

contact the housing provider via e-mail. You need not make your appointment with 

any particular agent. 

If you are contacting a housing provider via telephone: 

•	 Place the call to the housing provider using your Google Voice number. 

To make a call with Google Voice: 

1. Log in to Google Voice at voice.google.com 

2. In the upper right-hand corner, click the green Call button, which will prompt a box to appear. 

3. Type in the number you wish to call, and choose the forwarding phone you’d like to call with 

from the drop down menu. 

4. Click Connect. Google will now call the forwarding phone 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. 

6. Talk! 

To make a call with Google Voice from one of your Google Voice forwarding phones: 

1. Choose one of your Google Voice forwarding phones, and dial your Google Voice number. 

2. When the voicemail begins, hit * 

3. Enter voicemail pin, and 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. 

•	 Call up to twice without leaving a message. On the third attempt, leave a brief message. Let 

the housing provider know that you would like to meet to discuss the rental housing that was 

advertised for rent. Provide your Google Voice number and ask the housing provider to call 

you back and let you know whether it might be possible to obtain an appointment on your 

assigned day and time (indicated above). 

•	 If you reach the housing provider (or if the housing provider returns your call), express 

interest in and ask for an appointment to view the advertised rental housing (defined as the 

particular unit in the ad (if applicable) and one or more units that are comparable in number 

of bedrooms and price). If the agent informs you that the advertised unit and other units with 

the same number of bedrooms and comparable in price are no longer available, you will ask if 

there are any OTHER rental units that: 

1. have at least the minimum of bedrooms for your household; 

2. are within your price range; and 

3. are available when you need it (within one week of your assigned date). 

•	 If possible, avoid having an extended or lengthy conversation about rental housing options, 

your qualifications, or your housing needs over the phone. If necessary, you can always say 

that you are pressed for time and that you would prefer to discuss these details when you visit 

the office. 

•	 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 you are contacting a housing provider via e-mail: 

•	 Use only the e-mail address assigned to you for use on HDS tests. 
Appendix D

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 99

•	 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 (defined as the particular 

unit in the ad, if applicable) on your assigned day and time (indicated above) and one or more 

units that are comparable in number of bedrooms and price. 

•	 If the agent informs you that the advertised unit and other units with the same number of 

bedrooms and comparable in price are no longer available, you will ask if there are any OTHER 

rental units that: 

1. have at least the minimum of bedrooms for your household; 

2. are within your price range; and 

3. are available when you need it (within one week of your assigned date). 

For both telephone and e-mail contact: 

•	 If you are able to make an appointment, please remember to obtain in writing the exact date 

and time of your appointment along with the name of the person who will be meeting with you 

(if applicable). Also, make sure you have the exact address and directions to the rental office. 

•	 Record every contact you make on the Appointment Contact Form as part of your effort to 

obtain an appointment. 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALL HDS SITE VISITS - RENTAL 

INSTRUCTIONS: 

•	 If you made an appointment prior to this visit, please ask to speak to the person with whom 

you made the appointment. If you are dropping in without an appointment on this site visit, 

please ask to speak with a rental agent. 

•	 You will express interest in and ask to view the advertised unit (defined as the particular unit 

in the ad (if applicable) and any units that are comparable in number of bedrooms and price). 

If the agent informs you that the advertised unit and other units with the same bedroom size 

at a comparable price are no longer available, you will express interest in and ask to view any 

other units that: 

1. have at least the minimum number of bedrooms for your household; 

2. are within your price range; and 

3. are available when you need it (within one week of your assigned date). 

•	 Please remember to obtain information about the exact address (including apartment #), 

number of bedrooms, amount of rent, security deposit, other fees, lease length, which utilities 

are included and the dates of availability for any homes or apartments suggested by the 

agent. 

•	 If you are told about any homes or apartments that meet your needs, please ask about the 

application process, find out what amount of money, if any, would need to accompany a 

completed application, and whether a credit check is conducted. 

•	 Do not ask for or complete a rental application. If the agent offers you an application, you 

should agree to take it with you. 

•	 Lastly, if by the end of your visit the agent has not volunteered his or her name, please ask for 

it. 
Appendix D

100 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

APPOINTMENT CONTACT FORM 

(ALL CONTACTS WITH AGENT MADE PRIOR TO ANY SITE VISIT SHOULD BE RECORDED ON AN APPOINTMENT CONTACT FORM. 

FILL OUT ONE FORM FOR EACH CONTACT ATTEMPTED BY TESTER OR RECEIVED FROM AGENT.) 

Control # - - - 1 

Tester ID # -

Type of contact  ̈ Phone  ̈ E-Mail  ̈ Text Message 

Day of the Week Contact was Attempted: 

Date / / Time :  ̈ AM  ̈ PM 

If contact by telephone, complete below: 

Call was Initiated by  ̈ Tester  ̈ Agent 

Caller Name:

Caller Phone Number: ( ) 

Call Recipient Name:

Call Recipient Phone Number: ( ) 

If contact by e-mail, complete below: 

E-mail was Sent by  ̈ Tester  ̈ Agent 

Sender Name:

Sender E-mail Address:

Recipient Name: 

Recipient E-mail Address:

If contact by text message, complete below: 

Text Message Sender Name:

Text Message Sender Phone Number: ( ) 

Text Message Recipient Name:

Text Message Recipient Phone Number: ( ) 

For agent initiated e-mail, complete below: 

1. Was this e-mail a response to a previous message?  ̈ Yes  ̈ No
Appendix D

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 101

2. If yes, did you receive this e-mail within 24 hours of the previous message?  ̈ Yes  ̈ No

3. What was the purpose of the agent’s message?

 ̈ Confirm appointment time

 ̈ Cancel appointment and reschedule

 ̈ Cancelled appointment, but did not reschedule

 ̈ Other (specify)

For tester initiated telephone call, complete below: 

4. Was the appointment call completed?  ̈ Yes  ̈ No

4a. If appointment call was NOT completed, why not? 

 ̈ Left message on voicemail, pager, etc. 

 ̈ Left message with person 

 ̈ Told to call back later 

 ̈ No answer 

 ̈ Wrong number

 ̈ Telephone number no longer in service 

 ̈ Test terminated by Test Coordinator 

 ̈ Other (specify) 

(If an Appointment Call is not completed, a site visit cannot be conducted.) 

For agent initiated telephone call, complete below: 

5. Call was received by  ̈ Tester  ̈ Test coordinator

6. What was the purpose of the agent's call?

 ̈ Confirm appointment time 

 ̈ Cancel appointment or reschedule 

 ̈ Canceled appointment, but did not reschedule 

 ̈ Other (specify) 

For agent initiated text message, complete below: 

7. What was the purpose of the agent's text message?

 ̈ Confirm appointment time 

 ̈ Cancel appointment or reschedule 

 ̈ Canceled appointment, but did not reschedule 
Appendix D

102 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

 ̈ Other (specify) 

If contact was made, continue: 

8. Did you make an appointment or site visit arrangements?  ̈ Yes  ̈ No

9. If appointment or site visit arrangements were NOT made, why not?

 ̈ Told no appointment was necessary to visit 

 ̈ Agent will not make an appointment 

 ̈ No housing is available 

 ̈ Test terminated by Test Coordinator 

 ̈ Other (specify) 

If an appointment or site visit arrangement was made, continue: 

10. When is your site visit scheduled for?

 Day of the Week

 Date / / 

 Time :  ̈ AM  ̈ PM

11. Name of person you have arranged to meet:

12. Location to meet (agent’s office, address of specific home, other):

13. Additional information: __ __________________________ 

14. This form is complete:  ̈ Yes  ̈ No
Appendix D

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 103

_________________________________ 

__________________________ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 

_______________________________ 

HOUSING DISCRIMINATION STUDY 

SITE VISIT REPORT FORM - RENTAL 

CONTROL #: __ __ - __ __ - __ __ __ __ - 1 TESTER ID NUMBER: __ __ - __ __ __ 

1. Name of Test Site (Agent/Company/Complex, if known): 

2. Address: ______________________________________________________ 

________________ (number and street) 

(unit #) 

(city) (state) (zip) 

3. Type of Visit: Drop In Appointment 

4. Date and Time of Site Visit:

 Date (month/day/year): __ __/__ __/__ __ Day of Week: 

 Appointment Time: __ __:__ __ AM PM 

5. Time began (office arrival):__ __:__ __ AM PM

 Time greeted by staff/agent (if applicable):__ __:__ __ AM PM 

 Time began meeting with agent (if applicable):__ __:__ __ AM PM 

 Time ended (departure): __ __:__ __ AM PM 

6. Information on persons with whom you had contact during your visit 

[check responses where appropriate]: 

Name/ Race/Ethnicity (check one Gender Age Group 

Position entry) Primary 

W=White I=American Person 

B=Black Indian Who 

Provided H=Hispanic O=Other Info 

A=Asian/ DK=Don't

 Pacific Islander Know 

W B H A I O DK M F 18- 31- 46- 65 

30 45 65 + 

1. Name:___________________ 

Position: ___________________ 

2. Name:___________________ 

Position: ___________________ 
Appendix D

104 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

__________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________ 

3. Name:___________________ 

Position: ___________________ 

4. Name:___________________ 

Position: ___________________ 

5. Name:___________________ 

Position: ___________________ 

7. Were you able to meet with an agent to discuss housing options? 

 Yes 

No 

7a. If No, why not? 

(If you were not able to meet with an agent, then this form is complete. Do not 

continue.) 

8. Did the agent speak with you in: 

English only 

Another language only (specify): ____________________________________ 

A mix of English and another language (specify): 

9. Did you switch from speaking English to speaking another language? 

Yes 

No 

10. Did you meet with the agent:

 Individually (i.e., one-on-one) 

 In a group (i.e., with at least one other homeseeker) 

11. How many “advertised (assigned)” housing units were you told were available? ______ 

units 

[“Advertised” housing has the assigned number of bedrooms for your household, is in your 

price range, and is available when you need it. "Advertised" housing also includes housing 

that was not explicitly mentioned in the ad.] 

12. Whether you asked or the agent offered, were you told that any “other” housing was 

available? [“Other” housing has at least the minimum number of bedrooms for your 

household, is in your price range, and is available when you need it. "Other" housing also 

includes housing with a greater number of bedrooms than the advertised (assigned) unit.] 
Appendix D

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 105

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

 Yes 

No 

12a. If Yes, how many “other” housing units that meet your needs were you told were 

available? ________ Units 

13.How many TOTAL rental housing units did the agent tell you were available: 

______________ Rental Units. 

14. If no units were available, were you offered to be placed on a waiting list?

 Yes 

No 

15. How many TOTAL rental units did you inspect that meet your needs? ______________ 

Rental Units. (Model units inspected may be included in this total if they represent a unit that 

meets your needs.) 

16. During your visit, did the agent comment on or make reference to any of the following: Fair 

Housing Laws, Equal Housing Opportunity, Open Housing Ordinance, or Antidiscrimination Laws? 

Yes 

No 

16a. If Yes, what was the comment or reference? 

17. Did the agent tell you that an application form of some kind must be completed before 

renting a unit? 

Yes 

No 

18. Did the agent ask you to complete an application during your visit or give you an application 

to take with you? 

Yes 

No 

19. Did the agent tell you that a credit check was part of the application process? 

Yes 

No 

20. Did the agent tell you that a criminal background check was part of the application process? 

Yes 
Appendix D

106 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

_________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

No 

21. Complete the grid below regarding any of your qualifications to rent that were requested by

the agent. (check only one per line) 

Qualification I 

volunteered 

Agent 

Requested 

Exchanged 

in earlier 

contact 

Agent did 

not obtain 

a. Your marital status

b. Your family size

c. Your or spouse’s income

d. Your or spouse’s occupation

e. Your or spouse’s length of employment

f. Your credit standing

g. Your rent history

h. Your address/phone number

i. Other:

22. Any agent comments on tester’s qualifications to rent?

_________________________________________________________________________

23. Did the agent make any remarks about race or ethnicity that were not associated with the

building(s) or neighborhood(s) in which the available rental housing was located? 

Yes 

No 

23a. If Yes, record agent’s comment: 

24. Did the agent provide you with any of the following items THAT YOU DID NOT ASK FOR?

(check all that apply) 

 ̈ Business Card 

 ̈ Brochure 

 ̈ Listings 

 ̈ Floor Plan 

 ̈ Rental/Lease Agreement 

 ̈ Gift 

 ̈ Food or beverage 

 ̈ Other (specify): 
Appendix D

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 107

________________________________________________________________ 

25. What arrangements were made regarding future contact between you and the agent?

(check all that apply)

 ̈The agent said that he/she would contact you

 ̈ The agent invited you to call him/her

 ̈ Future arrangements were not made

 ̈ Other (specify):

26. This form is complete:

Yes 

No 

27. When was this report completed?

Date (month/day/year): ____/____/____ Day of Week 

____________________________ Time __ __:__ __  ̈ AM  ̈ PM 
Appendix D

108 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

_________________________________________________________ __________

AVAILABLE RENTAL UNIT 

Complete one form for each unit that you were told about and that met your needs (housing has 

at least the minimum number of bedrooms for your household, is in your price range, and is 

available when you need it) 

CONTROL #: __ __ - __ __ - __ __ __ __ - 1 TESTER ID NUMBER: __ __ - __ __ __ 

SEQUENCE #: ___ of ___ 

1. Address:

(street name and number) (unit) 

________________________________________ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

(city) (state) (zip code) 

1a. Type of Building 

 Apartment Building - 4 or Fewer Units

 Apartment Building - 5 to 50 Units

 Apartment Building - 51 or More Units

 Single-Family Home

 Mobile Home 

Basic Information 

2. Is this the advertised (assigned) unit? (i.e., same number of bedrooms as assigned)

Yes

No

 Not sure 

3. Did you inspect a unit today?

Yes

No

4. What did you inspect?

 Actual available unit 

 Model similar to actual available unit

 Other unit similar to the actual available unit 

 Nothing

5. Date Available __ __ / __ __ / __ __

6. How much is the rent? $ / month 

7. Did the agent inform you that the rent was negotiable?
Appendix D

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 109

Yes

No

7a. If Yes, please describe: ____________________ 

8. Number of bedrooms

9. Number of bathrooms ______________________

10. Length of Lease? [check all that apply]

 Month-to-month 

 Three month 

 Six month 

One year 

Two year 

 Other (specify): ______________________ 

11. Did the unit have any of the following INTERIOR physical conditions? [check all that apply]

 Broken plaster or peeling paint

 Discoloration of a floor, wall or ceiling due to water leakage 

 Exposed wiring 

12. Did the building’s EXTERIOR have any of the following physical conditions?

[check all that apply]

 Sagging roof 

 Broken window 

Boarded up windows 

Fees 

13. Were you told about any fees that would be required AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION?

Yes 

No 

13a. Specify any fees that you were told would be required AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION. 

Name of Fee Amount of Fee 

(e.g., Credit Check, Cleaning Fee, Application Processing fee, etc.) 

$ 

$ 

$ 

$ 
Appendix D

110 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

14. Enter the TOTAL AMOUNT (in dollars) of the fees you were told would be required at the

time of application: 

15. Did the agent inform you that any of the fees listed above were in any way negotiable?

$_______________________________________ 

Yes 

No 

15a. If Yes, please describe: ________________________________ 

Security Deposit/Surety Bond 

16. Is a security deposit and/or surety bond required?

Yes 

No 

 Agent did not know 

16a. If Yes, how much is it? 

Security Deposit $_________________________________________________________ 

Surety Bond $____________________________________________________________ 

17. Did the agent inform you that any part of the security deposit was negotiable?

Yes 

No 

17a. If Yes, please describe: _______________________________ 

18. Did the agent inform you that any part of the surety bond was negotiable?

Yes 

No 

18a. If Yes, please describe: _______________________________ 

19. Did the agent provide you with a choice between a security deposit and a surety bond?

Yes 

No 

Move-in Payments 

20. Were you told about any payments that would be required AT THE TIME OF MOVE IN?

Yes 

No 

20a. Specify any payments that you were told would be required AT THE TIME OF MOVE IN. 
Appendix D

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 111

Name of Payment Amount of Payment 

(e.g., First and Last Month’s Rent) 

$ 

$ 

$ 

21. Enter the TOTAL AMOUNT (in dollars) of the payments you were told would be required at

the time of move in: $_______________________________________ 

22. Did the agent inform you that any of the payments listed above were in any way negotiable?

Yes 

No

22a. If Yes, please describe: ________________________________ 

Financial Incentives/Specials 

23. Did the agent inform you that you might be able to take advantage of any financial

incentives or specials if you decided to apply for and rent this unit?

Yes 

No 

Type of Value Monthly/Annual # of Months 

Incentive/Special 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

TOTAL VALUE OF 

INCENTIVES/SPECIALS 

24. Did the agent make any of the following comments about the building and/or surrounding

neighborhood?

a. Noise

 Quiet

 Noisy 

No comment 

b. Safety

 Safe / low crime 

 Dangerous / high crime 

No comment 
Appendix D

112 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

c. Schools

Good 

Poor 

No comment 

d. Maintenance / Services

 Good Services / Amenities 

 Poor Services / Amenities 

No comment 

e. Race or Ethnicity

 Yes 

No 

If Yes, please record what the agent said: 

25. This form is complete.  ̈ Yes  ̈ No
Appendix D

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 113

HOUSING DISCRIMINATION STUDY 

RENTAL NARRATIVE 

Control # -

Tester ID Number: 

-

-

- 1 

Narrative: 

Preparer of Test Narrative:

I prepared this test narrative which is, to the best of my recollection, a true and accurate account

of the events that took place during a test in which I participated.

Today’s Date: / /

Day of Week: 

Time: :  ̈ a.m.  ̈ p.m.
Appendix D

114 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

FOLLOW-UP CONTACT FORM

Χ COMPLETE AT LEAST ONE FORM FOR EACH TEST 

Χ DO NOT USE THIS FORM TO RECORD APPOINTMENT CONTACT 

Χ TESTER: NOTIFY TEST COORDINATOR OF ANY CONTACT AND FORWARD MATERIALS RECEIVED 

CONTROL #: __ __ - __ __ - __ __ __ __ - 1 TESTER ID NUMBER: __ __ - __ __ __ 

SEQUENCE #: _________ of _________ 

1. Was there any follow-up contact?

 Yes (If Yes, complete rest of form) 

No 

2. Date and time of contact:

Day of the Week: 

Date / ___ ___ / ___ ___

Time __ __ : __ __ AM PM 

3. Type of Contact

Telephone call / voicemail message to tester’s cell phone 

 Voicemail message retrieved by Local Test Coordinator 

 Postal mail 

 E-mail 

 Text Message 

Other (Specify): ______________________ 

4. Name of person making contact: ______________________

5. Name of agency (if given): ______________________

6. What was the stated purpose of the contact? [check all that apply]

 Agent wanted to see if tester is still interested in purchase/rental

 Agent wanted to recommend a lender to the tester

 Agent wanted to let tester know about more housing 

 Agent wanted to get more information from tester

 Agent wanted to thank tester 

 Other (specify): ______________________ 

7. Describe any materials received:

8. This form is complete.  ̈ Yes  ̈ No
Appendix E

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 115

APPENDIX E: SALES FORMS
Appendix E

116 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

_________________________________ 

__________________________ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 

__________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________ 

HOUSING DISCRIMINATION STUDY 

Assignment Form - SALES 

SITE:_______________ 

CONTROL #: __ __ - __ __ - __ __ __ __ - 1 TESTER ID NUMBER: __ __ - __ __ __ 

Type of Approach: Drop In Appointment 

Date of Visit (mm/dd/yy): __/__/__ 

TEST SITE 

1. Name of Test Site (Agent/Company/Complex, if known):

2. Site Address:___________________________________________ __________

(number and street) (unit #) 

(city) (state) (zip) 

3. Telephone number of test site:

First phone number: (___) ___ − ____ 

Second phone number: (___) ___ − ____

Source of Information on Test Site 

 Advertisement:

Name of Source: ________________ 

Date of Publication: ______________ 

Text of Ad: 

Type of Housing to be Requested 

Number of Bedrooms to Request: ___ 

Minimum number of Bedrooms Willing to Accept: ___

Type of home: ________ 

Home Price: ________ 
Appendix E

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 117

 Household Composition: 

Single Adult 

Single Female Adult, 1 child

 Married Couple, No Children 

Married Couple, 1 child

 Married Couple, 2 children (same gender) 

Married Couple, 2 children (different gender) 

Married Couple, 3 children 

Rent maximum: $_____ per month 

Area Preference 

If you are pressed by the agent, you may state that you are looking in: __________________ 

Reason for moving: 

 Tired of renting; would like a place of my own 

Seems like a good time to buy 

 Been renting for a long time; owning seems good. 

Would like the tax benefits of homeownership

 Always wanted to own but never took the time 

Would like the freedom to decorate my own home 

Buying our/my first home 

 Ready for the responsibility of homeownership 

Have recently relocated to the area 

Other places visited: Just started looking 

ASSIGNED CHARACTERISTICS 

Tester Name: __________________ 

 Tester Address: __________________________________________ __________

 (number and street) (unit #) 

__________________________ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 

(city) (state) (zip) 

Voice Mail Number Assigned to Tester: (___) ___ − ____ 

E-mail Address Assigned to Tester: ______________________
Appendix E

118 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

INFORMATION ON TESTER AND TESTER’S HOUSEHOLD 

Tester’s Race: __________________

National Origin: _________________ 

Tester’s Gender: M / F 

Tester’s Age: _________ 

FICO Score:_________ 

Spouse’s FICO Score:_______ 

Household Income Gross Monthly Income Gross Annual Income 

 Tester 

Spouse 

 Total for Household 

Reason tester can afford the downpayment: 

I’ve been saving quite a while

 My/our parents are helping me/us 

I inherited money from a relative

 I/we had equity in a previously owned home 

Other 

Persons in 

Household 

Relationship Name Sex Age

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

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:____________________________________________ 

 Tester’s Previous Occupation:_________________________________________________ 

Name of Tester’s Previous Employer:___________________________________________ 

First line of tester’s previous employer’s address:__________________________________ 

Second line of tester’s previous employer’s address:_______________________________ 

Length of employment at previous job:___________________________________________ 

Name of spouse’s current employer:____________________________________________ 

First line of spouse’s employer’s address:________________________________________ 
Appendix E

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 119

 Second line of spouse’s employer’s address: _____________________________________ 

Spouse’s length of employment at current job:_____________________________________ 

Name of spouse’s previous employer:__________________________________________ 

First line of spouse’s previous employer’s address:_________________________________

 Second line of spouse’s previous employer’s address: ______________________________ 

Spouse’s length of employment at previous job:____________________________________ 

Household Assets 

Financial Institution Balance 

1. $

2. $

3. $

4. $

Household Debts 

Creditors

Name Type of Account Monthly Payment Balance Owed 

1. $ $

2. $ $

3. $ $

4. $ $

5. $ $

6. $ $

Credit Standing: Excellent, no late payments
Appendix E

120 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

CURRENT HOUSING SITUATION 

Type of current housing: Rent 

Amount of current rent: $______ 

Years at Current Residence: ______ 

Type of Rental Agreement at Current Residence: Month-to-Month / Lease 

History of rent payment at current residence: Always on time

Other characteristics: Non-smoking, no pets 

Tester owns a car? : Yes / No 

Directions to test site: 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR HDS CONTACTS FOR APPOINTMENTS 

STRUCTIONS: 

_________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________ IN

Please contact the housing provider listed in the advertisement to request an appointment to meet 

with someone to discuss buying a home. You will use the assigned method of communication 

(telephone or e-mail) listed on your Test Assignment Form to contact the housing provider for an 

appointment. You need not make your appointment with any particular agent. 

If you are contacting a housing provider via telephone: 

Place the call to the housing provider using your Google Voice number. 

To make a call with Google Voice: 

1. Log in to Google Voice at voice.google.com

2. In the upper right-hand corner, click the green Call button, which will prompt a box to appear.

3. Type in the number you wish to call, and choose the forwarding phone you’d like to call with

from the drop down menu.

4. Click Connect. Google will now call the forwarding phone 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.

6. Talk!

To make a call with Google Voice from one of your Google Voice forwarding phones: 

1. Choose one of your Google Voice forwarding phones, and dial your Google Voice number.

2. When the voicemail begins, hit *

3. Enter voicemail pin, and 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.

•	 Do not mention the advertised home for sale during your telephone conversation. If

asked why you are calling this real estate company, you may say that you have seen homes

listed by their company (without mentioning the specific advertisement).

•	 If you are able to speak to an agent, convey interest in buying a home, but try to avoid a long

or extended conversation about specific homes or your qualifications over the phone. If

necessary, you can always say that you are pressed for time and would prefer to discuss the

details when you arrive for your appointment.
Appendix E

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 121

•	 Make the appointment for the date and time frame specified in the instructions (listed above).

•	 If you are able to make an appointment, please remember to obtain the exact date and time

of your appointment along with the name of the person who will be meeting with you. Also,

make sure you have the exact address and directions to the sales office.

•	 If the agent tells you that you must bring certain documents along with you to the real estate

office (e.g., tax statements, payroll stubs, etc.), you should simply tell the agent that you will

try to pull some information together and bring it with you to the meeting without promising

that you will arrive with all of the documents that the agent requested. Obviously, you will not

bring any documents with you to the meeting, but you should be prepared to provide detailed

information from your test assignment form concerning your income, debts, assets, credit

history, and FICO score (which you will list on your “cheat sheet”).

•	 If the agent asks you about Pre-Qualification, follow the guidance given below:

o If an agent asks whether anyone has “pre-qualified” you or helped you figure out what

you can afford, you should indicate that you have not met with anyone to discuss your

financial qualifications.

o If a real estate sales agent recommends that you meet with a mortgage broker or

financing specialist while in the sales office, you should be agreeable to that

arrangement (although you will not authorize a credit check or provide your social

security number or date of birth under any circumstances). Do not agree to visit a

lender or mortgage broker prior to meeting with the agent.

o If the agent tells you that you must first talk with a lender prior to visiting the

real estate office, please tell the agent that you appreciate the suggestion but that

you would still like to meet with the agent to find out what the company might have to

offer. Do not refuse to meet with a lender. Instead, simply indicate that you would first

like to meet with the real estate agent. If the agent is still unwilling to make an

appointment, please thank the agent and notify the Test Coordinator immediately to

obtain further instructions.

•	 Thank the agent you speak with for the information or assistance and ask for the agent’s

name if it has not been provided during your conversation.

•	 When making appointment calls, be persistent. In the event that you do not reach an agent on

your first attempt, try calling at different times of the day. Both testers must get a response

within 24 hours to conduct the test. After 3 unsuccessful attempts to reach a housing provider,

leave a short message with your Google Voice number stating that you are trying to arrange a

meeting to discuss homes for sale for a particular day and time (indicated above) and notify

your Test Coordinator.

If you are contacting a housing provider via e-mail: 

•	 Use only the e-mail address assigned to you for use on HDS tests.

•	 Use the text or language that has been provided to you by your Test Coordinator, and inquire

about making an appointment to view available homes for sale. Do not mention the

advertised home for sale.

•	 Make the appointment for the date and time frame specified in the instructions (listed above).

•	 If the agent tells you that you must bring certain documents along with you to the real estate

office (e.g., tax statements, payroll stubs, etc.), you should simply tell the agent that you will

try to pull some information together and bring it with you to the meeting without promising

that you will arrive with all of the documents that the agent requested. Obviously, you will not

bring any documents with you to the meeting, but you should be prepared to provide detailed

information from your test assignment form concerning your income, debts, assets, credit

history, and FICO score (which you will list on your “cheat sheet”).

•	 If the agent asks you about Pre-Qualification, follow the guidance given below:

o If an agent asks whether anyone has “pre-qualified” you or helped you figure out what

you can afford, you should indicate that you have not met with anyone to discuss your

financial qualifications.

o If a real estate sales agent recommends that you meet with a mortgage broker or

financing specialist while in the sales office, you should be agreeable to that

arrangement (although you will not authorize a credit check or provide your social
Appendix E

122 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

security number or date of birth under any circumstances). Do not agree to visit a 

lender or mortgage broker prior to meeting with the agent. 

o If the agent tells you that you must first talk with a lender prior to visiting the

real estate office, please tell the agent that you appreciate the suggestion but that 

you would still like to meet with the agent to find out what the company might have to 

offer. Do not refuse to meet with a lender. Instead, simply indicate that you would first 

like to meet with the real estate agent. If the agent is still unwilling to make an 

appointment, please thank the agent and notify the Test Coordinator immediately to 

obtain further instructions. 

For both telephone and e-mail contact: 

•	 If you are able to make an appointment, please remember to obtain in writing the exact date

and time of your appointment along with the name of the person who will be meeting with you

(if applicable). Also, make sure you have the exact address and directions to the sales office.

•	 Record every contact you make on the Appointment Contact Form as part of your effort to

obtain an appointment.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALL HDS SITE VISITS - SALES 

INSTRUCTIONS: 

•	 If you made an appointment prior to this visit, please ask to speak with the person with whom

you have the appointment. If you made a “general” appointment (i.e., you do not have a set

appointment with a particular agent), you will ask to speak with any available sales agent. If

you are dropping in without an appointment on this site visit, please ask to speak with a sales

agent.

•	 Express interest in and ask to view the home that was advertised for sale. Ask the agent to

recommend other homes that have the same number of bedrooms as the advertised home.

•	 Express interest in and ask to view any homes that are recommended by the agent provided

that they have the same number of bedrooms as the advertised home or at least the minimum

number of bedrooms for your household.

•	 After viewing the advertised home, be prepared to spend up to three (3) additional hours

viewing other recommended homes for sale. These additional homes may be inspected during

your initial site visit or on one subsequent site visit that you arrange with the real estate

agent.

•	 If, in response to your request that the agent recommend some homes to view, the agent

presents you with a long list of homes available for sale, please ask the agent to recommend

homes to show you so that you can begin to get an idea of what is available. If the agent

refuses to pick out any homes on the list and insists that you make the selections, please tell

the agent that you would like to take the list of homes with you so that you can spend some

time looking it over. NEVER select the homes to view.

•	 Please remember to obtain information about the exact address (including the unit number, if

applicable) of each property that is recommended by the agent, the number of bedrooms,

current asking price, and the type of home, if this information is not provided by the end of

your visit.

•	 If an agent asks whether anyone has “pre-qualified” you or helped you figure out what you

can afford, you should indicate that you have not met with anyone to discuss your financial

qualifications. If the agent offers to assist you to figure out your price range, or if he/she

recommends that you speak with a lender, mortgage broker, or someone else to be “prequalified”, please provide any requested information about your income, debts, assets,

etc. exactly as it appears on your assignment form.

•	 Remember that you are allowed to speak with a mortgage broker or real estate financing

specialist based in the real estate office you are visiting. You also may speak via telephone

with a mortgage broker or real estate financing specialist while you are meeting with the real

estate agent. If an agent, at any point, tells you that you must make arrangements to go to
Appendix E

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 123

another location to visit a lender or financing specialist of some kind, you should thank the 

agent for this advice but politely decline to do so at this time. 

•	 Do not, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, provide your date of birth, social security number, or

authorize anyone to conduct a credit check. If anyone asks about your credit standing or

requests that a credit check be conducted, offer to characterize your credit as it appears on

your assignment form. If you are provided with an estimated price range or with an estimated

mortgage amount for which you might qualify, please remember to include this information in

your notes.

•	 If you are provided more detailed information about financing options, be sure to write down

the information that is offered (e.g., type of financing, interest rates, down payment

requirements, etc.). Also, if the agent refers you to a lender or mortgage broker for further

assistance with financing, please remember to include this information in your notes.

•	 Lastly, thank the agent for the information and if by the end of your visit the agent has not

volunteered his or her name, please ask for it.
Appendix E

124 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

HOUSING DISCRIMINATION STUDY 

SITE VISIT REPORT FORM - SALES 

CONTROL #: __ __ - __ __ - __ __ __ __ - 1 TESTER ID NUMBER: __ __ - __ __ __ 

1. Location of Office:

Firm Name (if applicable): ____________________________________________________

Office/Room Number: _______________________________________________________

Firm Address: _____________________________________________________________

(number and street)

__________________________ 

(city) 

__ __ 

(state) 

 (unit #) 

__ __ __ __ __ 

 (zip) 

2.

Day of Week: 

Date and Time of meeting:

Date (month/day/year): __ __/__ __/__ __

_______________________________

Appointment Time: __ __:__ __  ̈ AM  ̈ PM

3. Time began (office arrival):__ __:__ __ AM PM

 Time greeted by staff/agent (if applicable):__ __:__ __ AM PM 

 Time began meeting with agent (if applicable):__ __:__ __ AM PM 

 Time ended (departure):__ __:__ __ AM PM 

4. Is this your second meeting?

 ̈ Yes 

 ̈ No 

5. Information on persons with whom you had contact during your visit

[check responses where appropriate]:

Name Race/Ethnicity (check one 

entry) 

Gender Age Group 

Primary 

Person 

Who 

Provided 

Info 

W=White 

B=Black 

H=Hispanic 

A=Asian/ 

 Pacific Isla

I=American 

Indian 

O=Other 

DK=Don't

nder Know 

Position W B H A I O DK M F 18-

30 

31-

45 

46-

65 

65 

+ 

1. Name:___________________

Position: ___________________  ̈

2. Name:___________________  ̈
Appendix E

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 125

Position: ___________________ 

3. Name:___________________

Position: ___________________  ̈

4. Name:___________________

Position: ___________________  ̈

6. Were you able to meet with an agent today to discuss housing options?

 ̈ Yes

 ̈ No

6a. If Yes, where did you meet? 

 ̈ Agent’s office 

 ̈ Somewhere else 

6b. If No, why not? 

7. Did the agent decline to meet with you today?

 ̈ Yes

 ̈ No

7a. If yes, why? 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

 (If you were not able to meet with an agent, then this form is complete. Do not 

continue.) 

8. Did the agent speak with you in:

English only 

Another language only (specify): ____________________________________ 

A mix of English and another language (specify): 

____________________________________ 

9. Did you switch from speaking English to speaking another language?

Yes 

No 

10. When you asked about the availability of the advertised home, what were you told? [Check

only ONE box]

 ̈ Home is available

 ̈ Home is not available
Appendix E

126 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

_______________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________ 

 ̈ The agent did not know the status of the house. 

 ̈ Home available but agent recommended that I not consider it 

 ̈ Something else (specify): 

11. Did the agent recommend any other homes than the advertised home?

 ̈ Yes

 ̈ No

 ̈ Agent did not know

11a. If Yes, how many “other” homes did the agent recommend? ____Homes 

12. How many TOTAL homes were recommended to you, including the advertised

home?______ Add units from Questions 10 [if you answered “Home is available”] and 

11a. 

13. How many TOTAL homes did you inspect? _______

14. How many homes did the agent offer for your review in a listing or other format (i.e., these

homes were NOT SPECIFICALLY RECOMMENDED)? ______ Homes

15. During your visit, did the agent comment on or make reference to any of the following: Fair

Housing Laws, Equal Housing Opportunity, Open Housing Ordinance, or Anti-discrimination

Law?

 ̈ Yes

 ̈ No

15a. If yes, what was the comment or reference? 

16. At any time during your visit, did the agent refer you to another real estate agent for

assistance in buying a home?

 ̈ Yes

 ̈ No

16a. If Yes, did this other agent work for the same real estate agency?

 ̈ Yes 

 ̈ No 

16b. If you were referred, and the agent worked for the same agency, using the numbers from 

question 5, enter the number of the person to whom you were referred: [enter line #] 
Appendix E

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 127

17. Was the agent’s role described to you as being one of the following:

 ̈ Buyer’s agent

 ̈ Seller’s agent

 ̈ Dual agent

 ̈ Did not disclose

18. Were you asked to sign any agreements or documents?

 ̈ Yes

 ̈ No

18a. If Yes, please specify each below: 

Document Name Purpose Did you sign? 

1.  ̈ Yes  ̈ No 

2.  ̈ Yes  ̈ No 

3.  ̈ Yes  ̈ No 

4.  ̈ Yes  ̈ No 

19. Did the agent ask if you had already visited a lender or been pre-qualified for financing?

 ̈ Yes

 ̈ No

20. Did the agent REFUSE to provide any services unless you were pre-qualified by a lender

(and agent did not offer a way for you to be prequalified during the site visit)?

 ̈ Yes

 ̈ No

20a. If yes, check all that apply: 

 ̈ Agent could not tell me about the advertised home 

 ̈ Agent could not recommend any homes to me 

 ̈ Agent could not provide me with any listings 

 ̈ Agent could not show me any homes 

 ̈ Agent would show me only the advertised home but no other homes 

 ̈ Agent would not make a second site visit appointment with me 

21. Complete the grid below regarding any of your qualifications to purchase a house that were

requested by the agent at any point. (check only one per line)

Qualification I Agent Obtained Agent did
Appendix E

128 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

volunteered Requested earlier not obtain 

a. Your marital status

b. Your family size

c. Your or spouse’s income

d. Your or spouse’s occupation

e. Your or spouse’s length of employment

f. Your savings/assets (e.g. funds available

for downpayment, closing costs, etc.) 

g. Your debts

h. Credit Standing

i. Reason for moving

j. Geographic preference

k. Your address/phone number

l. Your current housing situation (rent/own)

m. Other:

22. Did the agent tell you that you were not qualified to be a homebuyer at this time?

 ̈ Yes

 ̈ No

23. Did the agent volunteer to help you find financing or recommend a mortgage company,

lender or broker?

 ̈ Yes

 ̈ No 

24. Did the agent discuss the type of financing that might be available to you?

 ̈ Yes

 ̈ No

25. During the visit, did anyone pre-qualify you or calculate for an estimated home price or loan

amount for which you could qualify using your specific financial information (income, debts, 

and assets)?

 ̈ Yes

 ̈ No

26. Home Price:

Did the agent suggest a home price or price range for which you might qualify?

 ̈ Yes
Appendix E

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 129

 ̈ No 

26a. If Yes, what was the home price or price range? (If entering price instead of price range, 

enter in the highest box.) 

$ ___________________ (lowest) $ ___________________ (highest) 

27. Loan/Mortgage Amount:

Did the agent suggest a mortgage amount ($ borrowed) or range for which you might

qualify?

 ̈ Yes

 ̈ No

27a. If Yes, what was the total loan amount range? 

$ ___________________ (lowest) $ ___________________ (highest) 

28. Interest Rates:

Did the agent mention interest rates for mortgage loans?

 ̈ Yes

 ̈ No
Appendix E

130 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

28a. If Yes, what were the interest rates mentioned? 

________% (lowest) ________% (highest) 

29. Monthly Payments:

Did the agent mention monthly payments for a mortgage loan?

 ̈ Yes

 ̈ No

29a. If Yes, what were the monthly payments? 

$ ___________________ (lowest) $ ___________________ (highest) 

30. Downpayment:

Did the agent mention the likely downpayment on a house?

 ̈ Yes

 ̈ No

31a. If Yes, what was the downpayment amount or percentage?

 Downpayment Amount: $ __________ (lowest) $ __________ (highest)

 Downpayment Percent: ________% (lowest) ________% (highest) 

32. Did the agent discuss any of the following with you? [check all that apply]

 ̈ Paying down debts

 ̈ Debt consolidation

 ̈ Downpayment assistance (gift, special program)

 ̈ Co-signer

 ̈ Seller assistance

 ̈ Pre-qualification letter

32a. For any items discussed, please describe what you were told: 

33. Did the agent discuss or make any comments about specific neighborhoods or geographic

areas that were not associated with any recommended homes? (If yes, fill out a

Neighborhood Information Form.)

 ̈ Yes

 ̈ No

34. Did the agent make any remarks about race or ethnicity that were not associated with any

particular homes or neighborhoods?
Appendix E

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 131

_____________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________ 

 ̈ Yes 

 ̈ No 

34a. If Yes, please record what the agent said: 

35. Did the agent provide you with any of the following items THAT YOU DID NOT ASK FOR?

(check all that apply) 

 ̈ Business Card 

 ̈ Brochure 

 ̈ Listings 

 ̈ Homebuying guide/video 

 ̈ Financing Information 

 ̈ Financing Worksheet 

 ̈ Mortgage Calculator 

 ̈ Gift 

 ̈ Food or beverage 

 ̈ Other (specify): ________________________________ 

36. What arrangements were made regarding future contact between you and the agent?

[check all that apply] 

 ̈ The agent said that he/she would contact you 

 ̈ The agent invited you to call him/her 

 ̈ Arrangements for future contact were not made 

 ̈ Other (specify): 

37. When was this report completed?

Date (month/day/year): ____/____/____ Day of Week 

Time __ __:__ __  ̈ AM  ̈ PM 

38. This form is complete.  ̈ Yes  ̈ No
Appendix E

132 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

_________________________________________________________ __________ 

________________________________________ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 

RECOMMENDED HOME 

(Complete one form for each home recommended and/or inspected) 

CONTROL #: __ __ - __ __ - __ __ __ __ - 1 TESTER ID NUMBER: __ __ - __ __ __ 

SEQUENCE #: ___ of ___ 

1. Full Address of Home

(street name and number) (unit) 

(city) (state) (zip code) 

2. Basic Information

a. Is this the advertised home?

Yes 

No 

b. How many bedrooms were in the home? _______________

c. What was the current asking price? $ 

d. Did you inspect the home?

Yes 

 No (skip to question 6) 

3. What type of building is it?

 Single-family detached 

Duplex 

Rowhouse or Townhouse 

 Multi-family structure 

Mobile Home 

4. Did the unit have any of the following INTERIOR physical conditions? [check all that apply]

 Broken plaster or peeling paint

 Discoloration of a floor, wall or ceiling due to water leakage 

 Exposed wiring 

5. Did the unit have any of the following EXTERIOR physical conditions? [check all that apply]

 Sagging roof 

 Broken window 

 Boarded up windows 
Appendix E

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 133

6.	 Did the agent make any of the following comments about the surrounding

neighborhood?

a.	 Noise

Quiet 

Noisy 

No comment

b.	 Safety

Safe/low crime 

Dangerous/high crime 

No comment 

c. 	Schools

Good 

Poor 

No comment 

d. Investment

Rising values/good investment

Flat values/not much appreciation 

Declining values/depreciation 

No comment

e.	 Public Services

Good Services/amenities

Poor/unreliable services 

No comment 

f. Race or ethnicity? 

Yes 

No 

If Yes, please record what the agent said about race or ethnicity:

7. This form is complete.  ̈ Yes  ̈ No 
Appendix E

134 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION 

Complete one form for each neighborhood that the agent discussed with you other than those 

surrounding recommended and/or inspected homes. 

CONTROL #: __ __ - __ __ - __ __ __ __ - 1 TESTER ID NUMBER: __ __ - __ __ __ 

1. Name of Area: __________________________________

2. This area is a:

 County 

 Town or City 

School District 

 Neighborhood 

 Don't know 

Other 

3. Did the agent make any of the following comments about the neighborhood?

a. Noise

 Quiet 

 Noisy 

No comment 

b. Safety

 Safe/low crime 

 Dangerous/high crime 

No comment

c. Schools

Good 

Poor 

No comment 

d. Investment

 Rising values/good investment 

 Flat values/not much appreciation 

 Declining values/depreciation 

No comment 

e. Public Services

 Good services/amenities 
Appendix E

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 135

___________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________ 

 Poor/unreliable services 

No comment 

f. Race or Ethnicity?

 Yes 

No 

If Yes, please record what the agent said: _________________________________________ 

4. This form is complete.  ̈ Yes  ̈ No
Appendix E

136 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

HOUSING DISCRIMINATION STUDY 

SALES NARRATIVE

Control # - - - 1 

Tester ID Number: -

Site Visit Number:  ̈ 1  ̈ 2 

Narrative: 

Preparer of Test Narrative:

I prepared this test narrative which is, to the best of my recollection, a true and accurate account

of the events that took place during a test in which I participated. 

Today’s Date: / /

Day of Week: 

Time: :  ̈ a.m.  ̈ p.m.
Appendix F

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 137

APPENDIX F: METRO-SPECIFIC RENTAL 

ESTIMATES
Appendix F

138 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

APPENDIX F. METRO-SPECIFIC RENTAL ESTIMATES 

This appendix presents current estimates of the incidence and forms of rental discrimination 

experienced by blacks and Hispanics in selected metropolitan markets where large samples of 

paired tests were conducted. For each metropolitan market, we provide a complete set of 

treatment indicators, discussing those where the incidence and severity of treatment differs 

between whites and minorities. The results are ordered by metropolitan market. This section 

solely deals with the variation in experiences upon meeting with an agent, as there was no 

significant difference in any metropolitan market in the ability to make an appointment over the 

phone. 

Atlanta 

Black Renters. When both black and white members of a tester pair meet with an agent in 

person, whites are 5.4 percentage points more likely to be told any unit is available. Moreover, 

in 62 percent of tests one partner was told about more units than the other, with whites 27.9 

percentage points more likely to be told about at least one more unit than comparable blacks. 

Over all the tests, blacks learn about .46 fewer available units per visit than whites, meaning 

that over just two in-person visits to rental agents, a black homeseeker would learn about 

approximately one fewer available unit than a comparable white. 

If both white and black members of a tester pair are told about available units, the black 

homeseeker is still 7.5 percentage points less likely than the white to be shown at least one unit. 

However, the average number of units shown to blacks and whites does not differ significantly 

When both testers inspect at least one unit, whites report .23 more problems, on average, with 

inspected units. Furthermore, in almost one-quarter of tests, one tester saw more problems than 

the other, and in these cases whites are 19 percentage points more likely to have seen more 

problems, while blacks are 15.2 percentage points more likely to have seen at least one home 

without any problems. 

For many financial indicators, we find no significant difference in the treatment of whites 

and blacks. However, blacks are significantly more likely than whites to be offered a month-tomonth lease, while whites are more likely than blacks to be told about higher fees and have 

payment required at move in. However, the difference in average net costs is small and not 

statistically different from zero. 

Most comments, questions, and information provided to blacks and whites do not differ 

significantly, and overall levels of agent helpfulness to whites and blacks are not significantly 

different. Additionally, in the one-quarter of tests that an agent followed up with only one tester, 

the agent is 9.2 percentage points more likely to follow up with just the white tester. However, 

blacks are more likely than comparable white homeseekers to receive comments or questions 

about their credit standing and rent history. 
Appendix F

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 139

Chicago 

Black Renters. Rental unit availability and inspection measures do not differ significantly for 

black and white testers in the Chicago MSA. However, black testers on average see more 

problems, are more likely to see more problems, and are less likely to see at least one home 

with no problems, than their white counterparts. Most comments, questions, and information 

provided to blacks and whites are not significantly different, though blacks are more likely to be 

told a credit check must be completed than whites are, and whites are 9 percentage points more 

likely than blacks to receive a follow up from the rental agent. 

However, blacks are more likely than whites to be told that fees are required for a 

particular unit and to be quoted higher fees for a unit, while required payments at move-in are 

$200 greater for blacks than for whites. Overall, average first year net cost is $350 higher for 

black homeseekers than for whites. Furthermore, in the over 45 percent of cases in which one 

homeseeker faces a higher net cost than the other, whites are favored over blacks by almost 25 

percentage points. 

Hispanic Renters. There is no significant difference in the rates at which Hispanic and white 

testers in Chicago are informed about or inspect available units. Though average differences in 

costs and financial components of the rental minimally favor whites, these differences are not 

statistically significant, except for the $131 in higher payments, on average, required of 

Hispanics at move-in. 

Most comments, questions, and information provided to Hispanics and whites were not 

significantly different, though Hispanics report a higher likelihood of hearing comments on their 

credit standing. Additionally, agents are more likely to make arrangements for future contact 

with whites than with Hispanics, though agents actually follow-up with Hispanics and whites at 

an equal rate. 

Dallas 

Hispanic Renters. When both white and Hispanic members of a tester pair meet with an agent 

in person, they are equally likely to be told that at least one unit is available. However, in the 

56.2 percent of cases that one tester is told about at least one more unit than his or her partner, 

whites are 19.2 percentage points more likely than Hispanics to learn about more units. As a 

result, whites find out about .23 more units overall than Hispanics do, on average. The average 

number of units inspected does not significantly differ between whites and Hispanics, though 

Hispanic testers are marginally more likely than white testers to view any units at all. Whites are 

also more likely to see more problems with inspected units than Hispanics, and less likely to see 

at least one home without any problems. 

Most financial indicators show no significant difference for Hispanics and whites. 

Hispanic testers are more likely than whites to be told higher fees for any unit, though they are 

also more likely to be told fees are negotiable, and to be offered a two year lease. There is 

significant variation in comments received and information provided by homeseekers, with 

whites less likely than Hispanics to be told a background check is required, and more likely than 
Appendix F

140 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Hispanics to receive comments on rent history, be provided with more items by the rental agent, 

and have arrangements made for future contact (though agents are equally likely to follow up 

with Hispanics and whites). White homeseekers are also more likely than Hispanic 

homeseekers to receive a positive remark from the agent, and more likely to receive more 

positive remarks than their Hispanic counterpart. Finally, rental agents are more helpful to 

whites, on average, than to Hispanics. 

Detroit 

Black Renters. When whites and blacks in Detroit are both able to meet with an agent, 16.9 

percent of the time one tester is told a unit is available while their partner is told it is not, with 

whites 7.3 percentage points more likely than comparable blacks to be favored. Moreover, when 

one tester is told about more units than his or her partner (which occurs 58 percent of the time), 

whites are 14.5 percentage points more likely to be favored. This results in whites learning 

about .22 more units, on average, than comparable black homeseekers. However, amongst 

pairs that both learn about an available unit, there is no statistical difference in the number of 

units inspected, and amongst pairs that both inspect units, there is no statistical difference in the 

number of problems encountered. 

There is neither a statistical difference in average rent quoted to the testers, nor in 

average payment required at move in. On average, however, blacks are quoted $52 more in 

fees and informed of a security deposit that is $94 larger than those quoted to comparable 

whites. As a result, in the 66 percent of cases in which one homeseeker is quoted a higher net 

cost than the other, whites are favored over blacks by 19 percentage points. Moreover, white 

homeseekers report an average first year net cost that is $257 less than comparable black 

homeseekers do. 

Comments, questions, and information provided to blacks and whites are not 

significantly different, though when the agent only follows up with one tester, he or she favors 

the white homeseeker by 12.5 percentage points over the black homeseeker. 

Houston 

Black Renters. Houstonian blacks and whites are equally likely to be told any unit is available, 

but in 48 percent of tests one homeseeker is told about more units than the other. In those 

cases, white homeseekers are favored by 17.1 percentage points over black homeseekers, and 

on average whites are told about .26 more units per visit than comparable blacks. Similarly, 

when both white and black members of a tester pair are told about available units, they are 

equally likely to be shown at least one unit, but whites are shown .12 units more overall than 

comparable blacks, on average. Moreover, when both testers inspected at least one unit, the 

black tester is more likely to see more problems than his or her white partner, and less likely to 

see at least one unit without any problems. Consequently, blacks see .21 more problems per 

unit, on average, than whites do. 
Appendix F

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 141

The average rent and overall yearly net costs quoted to black and white testers are not 

statistically different, but there is some variation in other financial discussions. Blacks are more 

likely than whites to be offered both month-to-month rental contracts and two year leases, but 

whites are more likely than blacks to be told that fees and deposit or bond requirements are 

negotiable. Additionally, in the 49.1 percent of cases in which only one homeseeker is told a 

credit check is required, agents are 37.1 percentage points more likely to make that request of 

the black partner than of the white partner. Moreover, in the 57.8 percent of tests in which only 

one tester is told a background check is required, agents are 42.2 percentage points more likely 

to require the check from the black homeseeker than the white homeseeker. 

Though we do not find a statistical difference in most other individual variables pertaining 

to comments, questions, and information provided to the testers, blacks report receiving more 

positive remarks than comparable whites. At the same time, whites are more likely to receive a 

follow-up from the rental agent, and whites rate the agent as being more helpful, on average, 

than blacks do. 

Hispanic Renters. Hispanic renters in Houston are 18.6 percentage points less likely than 

whites to be told about more units, and are told about .33 fewer units overall, on average, than 

whites. The Hispanics face generally higher average costs than white homeseekers, including 

$14 more in monthly rent, $32 more in average payments required at move-in, and $221 more 

in average first year net costs. Furthermore, when one partner is told about higher net costs 

than the other (which occurs 39 percent of the time), Hispanics are 16.5 percentage points more 

likely than their white partners to have higher net costs. Hispanic testers are also over 45 

percentage points more likely to be offered a two year lease than their white counterparts. 

Though there are only minimal differences in variables pertaining to information given, 

there is significant variation in the percentage of Hispanics and the percentage of whites who 

hear certain comments and remarks. Agents are more likely to make comments about Hispanic 

testers’ credit standing, tell Hispanics a credit check is required, and tell Hispanics a 

background check must be completed than they are to make any of these comments to whites. 

At the same time, Hispanics are more likely than whites to report receiving any positive remarks 

from the agent, and more likely to report receiving more positive remarks from the agent than 

their partner. Finally, rental agents are more likely to follow-up with white homeseekers than 

with Hispanics. 

Los Angeles 

Black Renters. Testers in Los Angeles are equally likely to be told any unit was available, but in 

26.3 percent of tests one partner is told about more units than the other. In those cases, white 

homeseekers are favored by 7.5 percentage points, and on average whites are told about .13 

more units overall than comparable blacks. Similarly, when both white and black members of a 

tester pair are told about available units, they are equally likely to be shown at least one unit, but 

whites are shown .09 units more than comparable blacks, on average. Additionally, in the 22 

percent of cases that one tester sees more units than the other, whites are favored over blacks 
Appendix F

142 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

by 9.4 percentage points. There is no statistical difference in the number of problems seen in 

units inspected by the testers, however. 

Though there is no statistical difference in average rent and fees that testers are 

informed of, we find significant differences in other financial indicators. Whites are more likely 

than blacks to be told that rent is negotiable, to be offered a two year lease, and to be told about 

financial incentives, while blacks are more likely than whites to be told that payments are 

required at move-in. The average security deposit is $39 higher for blacks than for comparable 

whites, and the average payment required at move in is $267 higher for blacks than for whites, 

while the average incentives offered to whites are $79 higher than the average incentive offered 

to blacks. As a result, the average first year net cost to blacks is $406 greater than it is for 

comparable whites, and blacks are 16 percentage points more likely than their white partners to 

be told about higher net costs. 

Although financial offers generally favor white testers over black testers, agents are 

rated as more helpful, on average, by blacks than by whites. Additionally, whites are more likely 

than blacks to be told a background check is required, and also more likely to receive comments 

on their credit standing and rent history. At the same time, in the 30.2% of instances in which 

the agent made arrangements for future contact with one tester and not the other, he or she did 

so with the black tester 20.2 percentage points more frequently than with the white tester, 

though there is no statistical difference in the actual follow-up rate. 

Hispanic Renters. Angeleno Hispanics are less likely than comparable whites to be told about 

more units than their partner, but this does not result in Hispanics learning about a significantly 

different number of units. When both testers are told a unit is available, whites are more likely 

than Hispanics to inspect more units (though Hispanics and whites are equally likely to inspect 

any units), and see .13 more units overall, on average than comparable Hispanics. Hispanics 

also see .09 more problems per unit, on average, than their white counterparts. 

There are only minimal statistical differences in reported experiences in other areas. 

Hispanics are more likely than whites to be told about higher average first year net costs than 

their partners, while whites are more likely than Hispanics to be told that payments required at 

move-in and the security/surety bond is negotiable. Agents are more likely to make 

arrangements for future contact with Hispanic homeseekers than with whites, though there is no 

statistical difference in the actual follow-up rate, and Hispanics rate their rental agent as more 

helpful, on average, than whites do. 

Miami 

Hispanic Renters. There are no significant differences in unit availability and inspections for 

white and Hispanic homeseekers in Miami, though whites see .15 more problems in inspected 

units, on average, than Hispanics, and are also more likely to see more problems than their 

Hispanic partner and less likely to see at least one home without any problems. 

Most financial indicators favor neither Hispanic nor white testers, though agents are 

more likely to offer whites a two-year lease and tell whites that payments required at move-in 
Appendix F

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 143

and security deposits or surety bonds are negotiable. Agents are also more likely to tell 

Hispanics than whites that a background check must be completed, and provide Hispanics with 

informational materials. At the same time, whites are likely to hear comments on their rent 

history and remarks about race or ethnicity than Hispanics, and rental agents are more helpful 

to whites, on average, than to Hispanics. 

New York 

Black Renters. Homeseekers encounter minimal variation in their experiences with the New 

York rental market. There is no significant difference in the number of units blacks and whites 

either learn about or inspect, nor in the financial variables. 

Other indicators do favor blacks or whites, but with no consistent pattern. White 

homeseekers are more likely than black homeseekers to be told that a background check must 

be done and hear comments on rent history. Whites also receive fewer total items from the 

agents, and are less likely to be offered a month-to-month lease than blacks. Black testers 

encounter .1 more problems, on average, than their white counterparts, and are less likely than 

whites to be told that payments required at move-in were negotiable. 

Hispanic Renters. White testers in New York are more likely to have been told about more 

units than their Hispanic partners, though this did not result whites either being told about a 

significantly different number of units or inspecting a different number of units, on average. 

Aside from two other indicators—agents are more likely to make remarks about race/ethnicity, 

and less likely to make arrangements for future contact with Hispanics than with whites—there 

are no other significant differences in variables observed in this study. 

Philadelphia 

Black Renters. Black and white Philadelphians are equally likely to be told at least one unit is 

available, but in 40.6 percent of tests one homeseeker is told about more units than the other. In 

those cases, white homeseekers are favored by 18 percentage points over black homeseekers, 

and on average whites are told about .35 more units per visit than comparable blacks (the 

equivalent of one fewer unit over three visits). Similarly, when white and black partners are both 

told about available units, they are equally likely to be shown at least one unit, but whites are 

shown .21 units overall more than blacks, on average. Additionally, in the 28.7 percent of cases 

that one tester sees more units than the other, whites are favored by 13.1 percentage points 

over blacks. There is no statistical difference in the average number of problems seen in units 

inspected by the testers, however. 

Average costs faced by white and black homeseekers do not differ significantly for most 

types of payments, though on average blacks are informed of $425 higher payments required at 

move-in, and $115 higher security deposits, than comparable whites are. Moreover, the average 

net cost quoted to black testers was $480 higher, on average, than the net cost quoted whites, 

and blacks are over 25 percentage points more likely to be a quoted a higher average net cost 

than their partner. Across all categories of costs (including average rent, fees, security deposit, 
Appendix F

144 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

and move-in costs), whites are more likely than blacks to be told that the quoted amount was 

negotiable. 

Comments made by agents frequently differ by race, but with no consistent pattern. 

Whites are more likely than blacks to be told a background check needed to be done and hear 

remarks made about race or ethnicity, while blacks are more likely than whites to hear 

comments about their credit standing and rent history. Agents are more likely to arrange for 

future contact with black testers than with white testers, but there is no significant difference in 

the actual follow-up rate with either partner. 

Riverside 

Hispanic Renters. When both white and Hispanic members of a tester pair meet with an agent 

in person, they are equally likely to be told that at least one unit is available. However, in the 48 

percent of instances in which one homeseeker is told about at least one more unit than his or 

her partner, whites are 11.2 percentage points more likely to learn about more units, and learn 

about .17 more units, on average, than Hispanics do. However, there is no significant difference 

in the average number of units inspected, the likelihood of one tester inspecting more units than 

the other, or the number of problems encountered per unit. 

Though the average rent quoted by the agents is approximately equal for Hispanics and 

whites, other financial indicators vary by race. When one partner is told higher fees for any unit 

than the other, which occurs in 32.5 percent of cases, Hispanics are 14.1 percentage points 

more likely to be told about higher fees than whites are. Hispanics face fees that are $31 higher, 

on average, than comparable whites, though they are also 8.8 percentage points more likely to 

be told fees are negotiable for any unit. Similarly, when only one partner is told payment is 

required at move-in, which occurs 48.6 percent of the time, Hispanics are 31 percentage points 

more likely than whites to hear about the required payment, and are told of move-in payments 

$344 higher, on average, than those told to comparable whites. Ultimately, Hispanic 

homeseekers are quoted average first year net costs that are $574 higher than those quoted 

white homeseekers, and when one tester is quoted higher average costs than the other (which 

occurs more than half of the time), Hispanics are 35.8 percentage points more likely than whites 

to be told higher average costs. 

Most comments, questions, and information provided to blacks and whites do not differ 

significantly, and overall levels of agent helpfulness to whites and blacks are approximately 

equal. However, Hispanics are more likely than whites to receive positive remarks from the 

agent, and in the 42.5 percent of the time that one partner reports more positive remarks than 

the other, Hispanic homeseekers are 17.7 percentage points more likely to report more positive 

remarks than their white partner. Additionally, agents are less likely to tell white homeseekers 

than Hispanic homeseekers that a background check must be completed, and more likely to 

make arrangements for future contact with Hispanics than with whites (though there was no 

statistical difference in the rate at which the agent followed-up with the testers). 
Appendix F

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 145

San Diego 

Hispanic Renters. Hispanics and whites in San Diego are equally likely to be told any unit is 

available, but whites learn about .18 more units per visit than Hispanics. This difference does 

not carry over into the average number of units inspected, but Hispanics are more likely to see 

more problems than their white counterpart, and less likely to see at least one home with no 

problems. Hispanic testers see .16 more problems per inspection, on average, than comparable 

white testers. 

Though the difference in average rent quoted to whites and blacks is not statistically 

different from zero, Hispanic testers are more likely to be offered a two-year lease than white 

testers. Whites are also quoted average fees that are $30 higher than those quoted Hispanics, 

though Hispanics are told about security deposit requirements that are $51 higher, on average, 

than those told to whites. The average first year net costs to Hispanics are $238 greater than 

the average first year net costs to whites. 

There is no statistical difference in the types of information given testers, or in most 

requirements. However, agents are more likely to comment on the credit standing of Hispanic 

homeseekers than white homeseekers, and also more likely to make comments about 

Hispanics’ rent history. Overall, Hispanics are more likely than whites to report receiving positive 

remarks from the agent, and in instances when testers reported different quantities of positive 

remarks, Hispanics are 24.8 percentage points more likely than whites to report having received 

more positive comments. Finally, agents are more likely to follow up with Hispanic homeseekers 

than with white homeseekers. 

Washington, DC 

Black Renters. In the Washington, DC, MSA, whites and blacks are equally likely to be told that 

a unit is available, and in the 54 percent of cases in which one tester is told about more units 

than the other, there is no statistical difference in whether the white tester or black tester was 

favored. Over all tests, however, whites learn about .41 units more than blacks. When both 

testers are told about a unit, one tester ends up inspecting more units than the other 45 percent 

of the time, but neither blacks nor whites are favored. Though there is no statistical difference in 

the number of problems seen when both testers inspected a unit, blacks are 9.2 percentage 

points more likely to see at least one home without problems. 

Most comments, questions, and information provided to blacks and whites are not 

significantly different, though when one tester is provided more total items (which occurs in 74 

percent of cases), blacks are almost 17 percentage points more likely to be favored. Although 

the average rent does not statistically differ for whites and blacks, the average payment due at 

move-in is $262 less for whites than for blacks. Furthermore, when only one tester is told about 

incentives, whites are 12.5 percentage points more likely to be favored, and on average receive 

$168 more in incentives than blacks. As a result, the average first year net cost is $402 less for 

white renters than for black renters. Furthermore, in the 40 percent of cases in which one 
Appendix F

146 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

homeseeker faces a higher net cost than the other, whites are favored over blacks by 20.2 

percentage points. 
Appendix F

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 147

Atlanta: Black Renters

Rental market treatment measure 

Tester(s) able to make an appointment 

Both 

98.5% 

White 

0.0% 

Black 

0.0% 

Difference 

0.0% 

P 

1.000 

N 

137 

If able to meet with an agent: 

Tester(s) told any units available 

One tester told about more units than partner

Avg number of units available (per visit) 

93.0% 6.2% 

45.0% 

2.12 

0.8% 

17.1% 

1.66 

5.4% 

27.9%*** 

0.46*** 

1.000 

0.000 

0.000 

129 

129 

129 

If available units recommended: 

Tester(s) able to inspect any units 

One tester inspected more units than partner 

Average number of units inspected (per visit) 

Average rent for any unit 

Tester(s) told that rent is negotiable 

Tester(s) offered month-to-month 

Tester(s) offered two-year lease 

Tester(s) told fees required for any unit 

One tester told higher fees than partner 

Average fees for any unit 

Tester(s) told fees negotiable 

Tester(s) told payment required at move-in 

Average payments at move-in 

Tester(s) told payments negotiable 

Tester(s) told about incentives 

Average yearly incentives 

Tester(s) told security deposit required 

Tester(s) given choice between sec. deposit & bond 

Tester(s) told deposit or bond negotiable 

Average sec. deposit for any unit 

Tester(s) told higher yearly net cost 

Average yearly net cost 

Tester(s) told comment on fair housing 

Tester(s) told application must be completed 

Tester(s) told credit check must be completed 

Tester(s) told background check must be done 

Tester(s) told comments on credit standing

Tester(s) told comments on rent history 

Tester(s) told remarks about race/ethnicity 

Tester(s) provided listings, floor plan, brochure, etc. 

Tester(s) provided more total items 

Tester(s) told arrangement for contact

Tester(s) told positive remark 

Tester(s) told more positive remarks 

Tester(s) told negative remark 

Tester(s) told more negative remarks 

Tester(s) received agent follow-up 

Average overall helpfulness score 

87.5% 

3.3% 

1.7% 

4.2% 

92.5% 

3.3% 

78.3% 

10.8% 

32.5% 

100.0% 

0.8% 

26.7% 

0.0% 

96.7% 

64.2% 

35.8% 

1.7% 

5.8% 

0.0% 

91.7% 

84.2% 

27.5% 

0.0% 

6.7% 

8.3% 

18.3% 

1.21 

$829 

8.3% 

0.0% 

9.2% 

4.2% 

31.9% 

$142 

9.2% 

15.0% 

$736 

20.8% 

15.8% 

$175 

0.0% 

0.0% 

25.8% 

$317 

28.2% 

$11,169 

1.7% 

1.7% 

15.8% 

15.0% 

0.8% 

2.5% 

0.0% 

0.8% 

34.2% 

8.3% 

25.8% 

34.2% 

2.5% 

2.5% 

17.6% 

1.63 

0.8% 

10.8% 

1.11 

$823 

7.5% 

5.0% 

3.3% 

1.7% 

18.1% 

$133 

14.2% 

5.8% 

$673 

15.0% 

14.2% 

$202 

0.0% 

3.3% 

15.0% 

$305 

20.5% 

$11,076 

2.5% 

0.8% 

16.7% 

22.5% 

7.5% 

14.2% 

0.0% 

4.2% 

40.8% 

5.8% 

16.7% 

29.2% 

3.3% 

3.3% 

8.4% 

1.68 

7.5%** 

7.5% 

0.10 

$6 

0.8% 

-5.0%** 

5.8% 

2.5% 

13.8%** 

$9 

-5.0% 

9.2%** 

$63 

5.8% 

1.7% 

-$28 

0.0% 

-3.3% 

10.8%* 

$12 

7.7% 

$92 

-0.8% 

0.8% 

-0.8% 

-7.5% 

-6.7%** 

-11.7%*** 

0.0% 

-3.3% 

-6.7% 

2.5% 

9.2% 

5.0% 

-0.8% 

-0.8% 

9.2%* 

-0.04 

0.012 

0.175 

0.109 

0.301 

1.000 

0.031 

0.118 

0.453 

0.027 

0.342 

0.345 

0.043 

0.120 

0.360 

0.868 

0.436 

1.000 

0.125 

0.085 

0.354 

0.418 

0.424 

1.000 

1.000 

1.000 

0.233 

0.021 

0.003 

1.000 

0.219 

0.461 

0.629 

0.161 

0.567 

1.000 

1.000 

0.050 

0.651 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

116 

116 

120 

120 

119 

120 

120 

116 

120 

120 

120 

79 

78 

78 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

119 

120 

If units shown: 

Tester(s) saw at least one unit without any problems 

One tester saw more problems per unit than partner 

Average number of problems per unit 

79.0% 1.0% 

21.9% 

0.29 

16.2% 

2.9% 

0.06 

-15.2%*** 

19%*** 

0.23*** 

0.000 

0.000 

0.000 

105 

105 

105 
Appendix F

148 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Chicago: Black Renters 

Rental market treatment measure 

Tester(s) able to make an appointment 

Both 

86.0%

White 

0.7%

Black 

0.0% 

Difference 

0.7% 

P 

1.000 

N 

143

If able to meet with an agent: 

Tester(s) told any units available 

One tester told about more units than partner 

Avg number of units available (per visit) 

95.3% 2.8%

24.3%

1.64

1.9% 

14.0% 

1.50 

0.9% 

10.3% 

0.14 

1.000 

0.117 

0.208 

107

107

107

If available units recommended: 

Tester(s) able to inspect any units 

One tester inspected more units than partner

Average number of units inspected (per visit)

Average rent for any unit 

Tester(s) told that rent is negotiable

Tester(s) offered month-to-month 

Tester(s) offered two-year lease 

Tester(s) told fees required for any unit

One tester told higher fees than partner

Average fees for any unit 

Tester(s) told fees negotiable 

Tester(s) told payment required at move-in 

Average payments at move-in 

Tester(s) told payments negotiable 

Tester(s) told about incentives 

Average yearly incentives 

Tester(s) told security deposit required

Tester(s) given choice between sec. deposit & bond 

Tester(s) told deposit or bond negotiable 

Average sec. deposit for any unit 

Tester(s) told higher yearly net cost 

Average yearly net cost 

Tester(s) told comment on fair housing

Tester(s) told application must be completed

Tester(s) told credit check must be completed

Tester(s) told background check must be done 

Tester(s) told comments on credit standing

Tester(s) told comments on rent history

Tester(s) told remarks about race/ethnicity

Tester(s) provided listings, floor plan, brochure, etc. 

Tester(s) provided more total items

Tester(s) told arrangement for contact

Tester(s) told positive remark 

Tester(s) told more positive remarks 

Tester(s) told negative remark 

Tester(s) told more negative remarks 

Tester(s) received agent follow-up 

Average overall helpfulness score 

94.2% 

5.0% 

1.0%

1.0% 

64.1% 

2.9%

39.8% 

0.0%

9.7% 

98.1% 

0.0% 

2.9%

0.0% 

79.6% 

60.2% 

20.4% 

2.9% 

1.0% 

0.0% 

57.3% 

67.0% 

31.1% 

1.9%

5.0% 

1.9% 

21.4% 

1.34 

$1,188 

6.9% 

1.0%

4.0% 

4.9% 

17.2% 

$86 

5.8%

4.9% 

$435 

9.7%

11.7% 

$65 

0.0% 

0.0% 

9.7%

$1,105 

10.5% 

$15,762 

1.0% 

5.8% 

11.7% 

15.5% 

6.8% 

12.6% 

1.0% 

10.7% 

22.3% 

12.6% 

16.5% 

26.7% 

2.9%

3.0% 

17.0% 

1.35 

1.9% 

14.6% 

1.26 

$1,191 

10.9% 

2.0% 

5.0% 

16.5% 

32.3% 

$96 

6.8% 

19.4% 

$634 

5.8% 

7.8% 

$58 

0.0% 

0.0% 

6.8% 

$1,148 

35.1% 

$16,113 

0.0% 

10.7% 

22.3% 

25.2% 

8.7% 

6.8% 

1.9% 

12.6% 

34.0% 

20.4% 

18.4% 

33.7% 

1.9% 

2.0% 

8.0% 

1.51 

0.0% 

6.8% 

0.08 

-$3 

-4.0% 

-1.0% 

-1.0% 

-11.7%* 

-15.2%** 

-$10 

-1.0% 

-14.6%** 

-$200*** 

3.9% 

3.9% 

$7 

0.0% 

0.0% 

2.9% 

-$43 

-24.6%*** 

-$351* 

1.0% 

-4.9% 

-10.7%* 

-9.7% 

-1.9% 

5.8% 

-1.0% 

-1.9% 

-11.7% 

-7.8% 

-1.9% 

-6.9% 

1.0% 

1.0% 

9.0%* 

-0.17 

1.000 

0.324 

0.368 

0.808 

0.481

1.000 

1.000 

0.064 

0.044

0.494 

1.000 

0.019 

0.002 

0.454 

0.383 

0.774 

0.500

1.000 

0.629 

0.211 

0.009

0.065 

1.000

0.332 

0.090 

0.164 

0.804 

0.263

1.000 

0.839 

0.148

0.229

1.000 

0.443 

1.000 

1.000 

0.076 

0.132 

103 

103

103

101 

101

101

101 

103

99

99 

103

103 

97 

103

103 

90 

103

103 

103

63 

57

57 

103

103

103

103 

103

103

103

103 

103

103

103 

101 

103

101 

100 

103 

If units shown: 

Tester(s) saw at least one unit without any problems

One tester saw more problems per unit than partner

Average number of problems per unit 

79.4% 13.4%

6.3% 

0.10

4.1% 

21.1% 

0.23 

9.3%** 

-14.7%*** 

-0.13* 

0.019 

0.009 

0.056 

97

95

95
Appendix F

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 149

Chicago: Hispanic Renters 

Rental market treatment measure 

Tester(s) able to make an appointment 

Both 

72.3% 

White 

0.6% 

Hispanic 

0.0% 

Difference 

0.6% 

P 

1.000 

N 

173 

If able to meet with an agent: 

Tester(s) told any units available 

One tester told about more units than partner 

Avg number of units available (per visit) 

99.0% 1.0% 

20.0% 

1.90 

0.0% 

22.0% 

1.76 

1.0% 

-2.0% 

0.14 

1.000 

0.878 

0.252 

100 

100 

100 

If available units recommended: 

Tester(s) able to inspect any units 

One tester inspected more units than partner 

Average number of units inspected (per visit) 

Average rent for any unit 

Tester(s) told that rent is negotiable 

Tester(s) offered month-to-month 

Tester(s) offered two-year lease 

Tester(s) told fees required for any unit 

One tester told higher fees than partner 

Average fees for any unit 

Tester(s) told fees negotiable 

Tester(s) told payment required at move-in 

Average payments at move-in 

Tester(s) told payments negotiable 

Tester(s) told about incentives 

Average yearly incentives 

Tester(s) told security deposit required 

Tester(s) given choice between sec. deposit & bond 

Tester(s) told deposit or bond negotiable 

Average sec. deposit for any unit 

Tester(s) told higher yearly net cost 

Average yearly net cost 

Tester(s) told comment on fair housing 

Tester(s) told application must be completed 

Tester(s) told credit check must be completed 

Tester(s) told background check must be done 

Tester(s) told comments on credit standing 

Tester(s) told comments on rent history 

Tester(s) told remarks about race/ethnicity 

Tester(s) provided listings, floor plan, brochure, etc. 

Tester(s) provided more total items 

Tester(s) told arrangement for contact 

Tester(s) told positive remark 

Tester(s) told more positive remarks 

Tester(s) told negative remark 

Tester(s) told more negative remarks 

Tester(s) received agent follow-up 

Average overall helpfulness score 

94.8% 

3.1% 

0.0% 

1.0% 

72.2% 

2.1% 

22.7% 

2.1% 

8.2% 

100.0% 

2.1% 

0.0% 

1.0% 

86.6% 

68.0% 

18.6% 

1.0% 

3.1% 

0.0% 

50.5% 

52.6% 

19.6% 

0.0%

5.2% 

4.1% 

21.6% 

1.58 

$1,275 

8.2% 

2.0% 

5.1% 

14.4% 

25.8% 

$118 

7.2% 

14.4% 

$165 

2.1% 

9.3% 

$107 

0.0% 

1.0% 

5.2% 

$1,200 

11.8% 

$16,614 

0.0% 

4.1% 

9.3% 

19.6% 

4.1% 

9.3% 

1.0% 

12.4% 

27.8% 

27.8% 

16.5% 

25.8% 

6.2% 

6.2% 

15.6% 

1.31 

0.0% 

12.4% 

1.45 

$1,275 

6.1% 

0.0% 

5.1% 

6.2% 

21.6% 

$130 

5.2% 

17.5% 

$296 

5.2% 

6.2% 

$247 

0.0% 

1.0% 

5.2% 

$1,219 

17.6% 

$16,755 

0.0% 

6.2% 

17.5% 

14.4% 

15.5% 

18.6% 

5.2% 

18.6% 

40.2% 

9.3% 

14.4% 

19.6% 

1.0% 

1.0% 

13.5% 

1.22 

4.1% 

9.3% 

0.12 

$0 

2.0% 

2.0% 

0.0% 

8.2% 

4.1% 

-$12 

2.1% 

-3.1% 

-$131** 

-3.1% 

3.1% 

-$140 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

-$19 

-5.9% 

-$141 

0.0% 

-2.1% 

-8.2% 

5.2% 

-11.3%** 

-9.3% 

-4.1% 

-6.2% 

-12.4% 

18.6%*** 

2.1% 

6.2% 

5.2% 

5.2% 

2.1% 

0.09 

0.125 

0.163 

0.227 

0.976 

0.791 

0.500 

1.000 

0.115 

0.659 

0.705 

0.774 

0.720 

0.016 

0.453 

0.607 

0.327 

1.000 

1.000 

1.000 

0.632 

0.607 

0.491 

1.000 

0.754 

0.169 

0.487 

0.019 

0.122 

0.219 

0.362 

0.175 

0.004 

0.856 

0.451 

0.125 

0.125 

0.851 

0.343 

97 

97 

97 

98 

98 

98 

98 

97 

97 

97 

97 

97 

93 

97 

97 

91 

97 

97 

97 

59 

51 

51 

97 

97 

97 

97 

97 

97 

97 

97 

97 

97 

97 

97 

97 

97 

96 

97 

If units shown: 

Tester(s) saw at least one unit without any problems 

One tester saw more problems per unit than partner 

Average number of problems per unit 

88.3% 4.3% 

7.5% 

0.11 

4.3% 

10.8% 

0.13 

0.0% 

-3.2% 

-0.02 

1.000 

0.629 

0.653 

94 

93 

93 
Appendix F

150 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Dallas: Hispanic Renters 

Rental market treatment measure 

Tester(s) able to make an appointment 

Both 

100.0% 

White 

0.0% 

Hispanic 

0.0% 

Difference 

0.0% 

P 

1.000 

N 

135 

If able to meet with an agent: 

Tester(s) told any units available 

One tester told about more units than partner 

Avg number of units available (per visit) 

93.8% 3.8% 

37.7% 

1.76 

2.3% 

18.5% 

1.53 

1.5% 

19.2%*** 

0.23** 

1.000 

0.005 

0.011 

130 

130 

130 

If available units recommended: 

Tester(s) able to inspect any units 

One tester inspected more units than partner 

Average number of units inspected (per visit) 

Average rent for any unit 

Tester(s) told that rent is negotiable 

Tester(s) offered month-to-month 

Tester(s) offered two-year lease 

Tester(s) told fees required for any unit 

One tester told higher fees than partner 

Average fees for any unit 

Tester(s) told fees negotiable 

Tester(s) told payment required at move-in 

Average payments at move-in 

Tester(s) told payments negotiable 

Tester(s) told about incentives 

Average yearly incentives 

Tester(s) told security deposit required 

Tester(s) given choice between sec. deposit & bond 

Tester(s) told deposit or bond negotiable 

Average sec. deposit for any unit 

Tester(s) told higher yearly net cost 

Average yearly net cost 

Tester(s) told comment on fair housing 

Tester(s) told application must be completed 

Tester(s) told credit check must be completed 

Tester(s) told background check must be done

Tester(s) told comments on credit standing

Tester(s) told comments on rent history 

Tester(s) told remarks about race/ethnicity 

Tester(s) provided listings, floor plan, brochure, etc. 

Tester(s) provided more total items 

Tester(s) told arrangement for contact 

Tester(s) told positive remark 

Tester(s) told more positive remarks 

Tester(s) told negative remark 

Tester(s) told more negative remarks 

Tester(s) received agent follow-up 

Average overall helpfulness score 

86.9% 

0.8% 

0.0% 

0.8% 

88.5% 

1.6% 

27.0% 

0.0% 

32.0% 

100.0% 

2.5% 

9.0% 

0.0% 

92.6% 

54.9% 

29.5% 

0.0% 

7.4% 

0.0% 

94.3% 

69.7% 

44.3% 

0.8% 

11.5% 

0.0% 

19.7% 

1.25 

$877 

4.9% 

5.7% 

2.5% 

4.1% 

14.9% 

$123 

1.6% 

23.0% 

$342 

3.3% 

19.7% 

$257 

0.0% 

4.1% 

4.9% 

$270 

29.8% 

$11,042 

1.6% 

4.1% 

18.0% 

18.0% 

7.4% 

36.1% 

0.0% 

4.9% 

48.4% 

23.0% 

20.5% 

41.0% 

1.6% 

1.6% 

9.0% 

1.47 

4.1% 

14.8% 

1.17 

$873 

5.7% 

10.7% 

9.8% 

4.1% 

28.9% 

$134 

7.4% 

13.9% 

$262 

3.3% 

11.5% 

$196 

0.0% 

0.8% 

13.9% 

$268 

21.4% 

$10,953 

0.0% 

3.3% 

25.4% 

31.1% 

2.5% 

10.7% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

18.9% 

6.6% 

6.6% 

13.9% 

2.5% 

2.5% 

12.3% 

1.29 

-4.1%* 

4.9% 

0.08 

$4 

-0.8% 

-4.9% 

-7.4%** 

0.0% 

-14.0%** 

-$11 

-5.7%* 

9.0% 

$79 

0.0% 

8.2% 

$61 

0.0% 

3.3% 

-9.0%** 

$2 

8.3% 

$89 

1.6% 

0.8% 

-7.4% 

-13.1%* 

4.9% 

25.4%*** 

0.0% 

4.9%** 

29.5%*** 

16.4%*** 

13.9%*** 

27.0%*** 

-0.8% 

-0.8% 

-3.3% 

0.18** 

0.063 

0.441 

0.205 

0.585 

1.000 

0.263 

0.035 

1.000 

0.040 

0.119 

0.065 

0.135 

0.105 

1.000 

0.143 

0.194 

1.000 

0.219 

0.035 

0.842 

0.360 

0.478 

0.500 

1.000 

0.272 

0.052 

0.146 

0.000 

1.000 

0.031 

0.000 

0.001 

0.005 

0.000 

1.000 

1.000 

0.557 

0.037 

122 

122 

122 

122 

122 

122 

122 

122 

121 

121 

122 

122 

120 

122 

122 

119 

122 

122 

122 

83 

84 

84 

122 

122 

122 

122 

122 

122 

122 

122 

122 

122 

122 

122 

122 

122 

122 

122 

If units shown: 

Tester(s) saw at least one unit without any problems 

One tester saw more problems per unit than partner 

Average number of problems per unit 

89.6% 0.9% 

12.3% 

0.20 

7.5% 

4.7% 

0.09 

-6.6%** 

7.5%* 

0.11** 

0.039 

0.096 

0.016 

106 

106 

106 
Appendix F

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 151

Detroit: Black Renters 

Rental market treatment measure 

Tester(s) able to make an appointment 

Both 

99.3% 

White 

0.0% 

Black 

0.0% 

Difference 

0.0% 

P 

1.000 

N 

138 

If able to meet with an agent: 

Tester(s) told any units available 

One tester told about more units than partner 

Avg number of units available (per visit) 

83.1% 12.1% 

36.3% 

1.77 

4.8% 

21.8% 

1.55 

7.3% 

14.5%** 

0.23* 

1.000 

0.044 

0.072 

124 

124 

124 

If available units recommended: 

Tester(s) able to inspect any units 

One tester inspected more units than partner 

Average number of units inspected (per visit) 

Average rent for any unit 

Tester(s) told that rent is negotiable 

Tester(s) offered month-to-month 

Tester(s) offered two-year lease 

Tester(s) told fees required for any unit 

One tester told higher fees than partner 

Average fees for any unit 

Tester(s) told fees negotiable 

Tester(s) told payment required at move-in 

Average payments at move-in 

Tester(s) told payments negotiable 

Tester(s) told about incentives 

Average yearly incentives 

Tester(s) told security deposit required 

Tester(s) given choice between sec. deposit & bond 

Tester(s) told deposit or bond negotiable 

Average sec. deposit for any unit 

Tester(s) told higher yearly net cost 

Average yearly net cost 

Tester(s) told comment on fair housing 

Tester(s) told application must be completed 

Tester(s) told credit check must be completed 

Tester(s) told background check must be done 

Tester(s) told comments on credit standing

Tester(s) told comments on rent history 

Tester(s) told remarks about race/ethnicity 

Tester(s) provided listings, floor plan, brochure, etc. 

Tester(s) provided more total items 

Tester(s) told arrangement for contact

Tester(s) told positive remark 

Tester(s) told more positive remarks 

Tester(s) told negative remark 

Tester(s) told more negative remarks 

Tester(s) received agent follow-up 

Average overall helpfulness score 

80.8% 

1.0% 

1.9% 

1.0% 

76.0% 

5.8% 

52.9% 

5.8% 

25.0% 

100.0% 

0.0% 

13.5% 

0.0% 

85.6% 

54.8% 

18.3% 

1.0% 

3.8% 

0.0% 

83.7% 

76.9% 

30.8% 

0.0% 

1.9% 

5.8% 

13.5% 

1.03 

$665 

12.4% 

2.9% 

7.6% 

8.7% 

28.0% 

$51 

18.3% 

13.5% 

$428 

10.6% 

19.2% 

$162 

0.0% 

1.0% 

26.0% 

$338 

22.4% 

$8,641 

2.9% 

9.6% 

18.3% 

9.6% 

2.9% 

8.7% 

1.9% 

8.7% 

36.5% 

12.5% 

25.0% 

30.8% 

1.9% 

1.9% 

17.3% 

1.62 

6.7% 

15.4% 

1.05 

$664 

7.6% 

2.9% 

1.9% 

10.6% 

31.0% 

$103 

11.5% 

22.1% 

$455 

19.2% 

11.5% 

$263 

0.0% 

0.0% 

20.2% 

$432 

43.4% 

$8,898 

4.8% 

4.8% 

20.2% 

18.3% 

1.9% 

4.8% 

1.0% 

6.7% 

30.8% 

9.6% 

18.3% 

30.8% 

1.9% 

1.9% 

4.8% 

1.62 

-1.0% 

-1.9% 

-0.02 

$1 

4.8% 

0.0% 

5.7% 

-1.9% 

-3.0% 

-$52*** 

6.7% 

-8.7% 

-$27 

-8.7% 

7.7% 

-$101 

0.0% 

1.0% 

5.8% 

-$94*** 

-21.1%** 

-$257** 

-1.9% 

4.8% 

-1.9% 

-8.7% 

1.0% 

3.8% 

1.0% 

1.9% 

5.8% 

2.9% 

6.7% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

12.5%** 

0.00 

1.000 

0.856 

0.815 

0.916 

0.383 

1.000 

0.109 

0.824 

0.795 

0.009 

0.281 

0.188 

0.526 

0.150 

0.215 

0.425 

1.000 

1.000 

0.471 

0.000 

0.033 

0.025 

0.727 

0.302 

0.875 

0.136 

1.000 

0.424 

1.000 

0.804 

0.550 

0.678 

0.371 

1.000 

1.000 

1.000 

0.011 

1.000 

104 

104 

104 

105 

105 

105 

105 

104 

100 

100 

104 

104 

98 

104 

104 

92 

104 

104 

104 

92 

76 

76 

104 

104 

104 

104 

104 

104 

104 

104 

104 

104 

104 

104 

104 

104 

104 

104 

If units shown: 

Tester(s) saw at least one unit without any problems 

One tester saw more problems per unit than partner 

Average number of problems per unit 

89.3% 6.0% 

6.0% 

0.08 

2.4% 

9.5% 

0.14 

3.6% 

-3.6% 

-0.06 

0.453 

0.581 

0.271 

84 

84 

84 
Appendix F

152 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Houston: Black Renters 

Rental market treatment measure 

Tester(s) able to make an appointment 

Both 

97.1% 

White 

0.7% 

Black 

0.0% 

Difference 

0.7% 

P 

1.000 

N 

138 

If able to meet with an agent: 

Tester(s) told any units available 

One tester told about more units than partner 

Avg number of units available (per visit) 

89.9% 7.0% 

32.6% 

1.72 

3.1% 

15.5% 

1.46 

3.9% 

17.1%*** 

0.26** 

1.000 

0.007 

0.014 

129 

129 

129 

If available units recommended: 

Tester(s) able to inspect any units 

One tester inspected more units than partner 

Average number of units inspected (per visit) 

Average rent for any unit 

Tester(s) told that rent is negotiable 

Tester(s) offered month-to-month 

Tester(s) offered two-year lease 

Tester(s) told fees required for any unit 

One tester told higher fees than partner 

Average fees for any unit 

Tester(s) told fees negotiable 

Tester(s) told payment required at move-in 

Average payments at move-in 

Tester(s) told payments negotiable 

Tester(s) told about incentives 

Average yearly incentives 

Tester(s) told security deposit required 

Tester(s) given choice between sec. deposit & bond 

Tester(s) told deposit or bond negotiable 

Average sec. deposit for any unit 

Tester(s) told higher yearly net cost 

Average yearly net cost 

Tester(s) told comment on fair housing 

Tester(s) told application must be completed 

Tester(s) told credit check must be completed 

Tester(s) told background check must be done

Tester(s) told comments on credit standing

Tester(s) told comments on rent history 

Tester(s) told remarks about race/ethnicity 

Tester(s) provided listings, floor plan, brochure, etc. 

Tester(s) provided more total items 

Tester(s) told arrangement for contact

Tester(s) told positive remark 

Tester(s) told more positive remarks 

Tester(s) told negative remark 

Tester(s) told more negative remarks 

Tester(s) received agent follow-up 

Average overall helpfulness score 

76.7% 

0.0% 

1.7% 

0.9% 

92.2% 

1.7% 

97.4% 

0.0% 

23.3% 

100.0% 

0.9% 

6.0% 

0.0% 

93.1% 

37.9% 

23.3% 

0.0% 

15.5% 

0.0% 

91.4% 

74.1% 

23.3%

0.0% 

0.9% 

11.2% 

20.7% 

1.08 

$842 

5.2% 

2.6% 

4.3% 

0.9% 

26.7% 

$107 

8.6% 

0.0% 

$833 

2.6% 

11.2% 

$158 

0.0% 

2.6% 

18.1% 

$342 

9.5% 

$11,208 

0.0% 

2.6% 

6.0% 

7.8% 

1.7% 

26.7% 

1.7% 

1.7% 

28.4% 

10.3% 

16.4% 

18.1% 

3.4% 

3.4% 

9.5% 

1.57 

6.9% 

12.1% 

0.96 

$849 

2.6% 

8.6% 

18.1% 

1.7% 

18.1% 

$99 

1.7% 

0.9% 

$830 

0.9% 

8.6% 

$137 

0.0% 

1.7% 

4.3% 

$363 

19.0% 

$11,328 

0.9% 

4.3% 

43.1% 

50.0% 

6.9% 

26.7% 

0.9% 

4.3% 

45.7% 

10.3% 

31.9% 

44.8% 

4.3% 

4.3% 

0.0% 

1.42 

4.3% 

8.6% 

0.12* 

-$8 

2.6% 

-6.0%* 

-13.8%*** 

-0.9% 

8.6% 

$7 

6.9%** 

-0.9% 

$4 

1.7% 

2.6% 

$20 

0.0% 

0.9% 

13.8%*** 

-$20 

-9.5% 

-$119 

-0.9% 

-1.7% 

-37.1%*** 

-42.2%*** 

-5.2% 

0.0% 

0.9% 

-2.6% 

-17.2%** 

0.0% 

-15.5%** 

-26.7%*** 

-0.9% 

-0.9% 

9.5%*** 

0.15* 

0.383 

0.143 

0.052 

0.209 

0.508 

0.092 

0.002 

1.000 

0.169 

0.259 

0.039 

1.000 

0.855 

0.625 

0.678 

0.277 

1.000 

1.000 

0.002 

0.459 

0.152 

0.136 

1.000 

0.727 

0.000 

0.000 

0.109 

1.000 

1.000 

0.453 

0.040 

1.000 

0.022 

0.000 

1.000 

1.000 

0.001 

0.091 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

80 

84 

84 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

116 

If units shown: 

Tester(s) saw at least one unit without any problems 

One tester saw more problems per unit than partner 

Average number of problems per unit 

84.3% 12.4% 

4.5% 

0.06 

3.4% 

20.2% 

0.27 

9%* 

-15.7%*** 

-0.21*** 

0.057 

0.004 

0.008 

89 

89 

89 
Appendix F

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 153

Houston: Hispanic Renters 

Rental market treatment measure 

Tester(s) able to make an appointment 

Both 

97.1% 

White 

0.7% 

Hispanic 

0.7% 

Difference 

0.0% 

P 

1.000 

N 

138 

If able to meet with an agent: 

Tester(s) told any units available 

One tester told about more units than partner 

Avg number of units available (per visit) 

97.7% 0.8% 

32.6% 

1.83 

1.6% 

14.0% 

1.50 

-0.8% 

18.6%*** 

0.33*** 

1.000 

0.003 

0.001 

129 

129 

129 

If available units recommended: 

Tester(s) able to inspect any units 

One tester inspected more units than partner 

Average number of units inspected (per visit) 

Average rent for any unit 

Tester(s) told that rent is negotiable 

Tester(s) offered month-to-month 

Tester(s) offered two-year lease 

Tester(s) told fees required for any unit 

One tester told higher fees than partner 

Average fees for any unit 

Tester(s) told fees negotiable 

Tester(s) told payment required at move-in 

Average payments at move-in 

Tester(s) told payments negotiable 

Tester(s) told about incentives 

Average yearly incentives 

Tester(s) told security deposit required 

Tester(s) given choice between sec. deposit & bond 

Tester(s) told deposit or bond negotiable 

Average sec. deposit for any unit 

Tester(s) told higher yearly net cost 

Average yearly net cost 

Tester(s) told comment on fair housing 

Tester(s) told application must be completed 

Tester(s) told credit check must be completed 

Tester(s) told background check must be done 

Tester(s) told comments on credit standing 

Tester(s) told comments on rent history 

Tester(s) told remarks about race/ethnicity 

Tester(s) provided listings, floor plan, brochure, etc. 

Tester(s) provided more total items 

Tester(s) told arrangement for contact 

Tester(s) told positive remark 

Tester(s) told more positive remarks 

Tester(s) told negative remark 

Tester(s) told more negative remarks 

Tester(s) received agent follow-up 

Average overall helpfulness score 

77.8% 

1.6% 

1.6% 

7.1% 

93.7% 

0.0% 

97.6% 

0.0% 

15.9% 

100.0% 

2.4% 

4.8% 

0.0% 

94.4% 

31.7% 

11.9% 

0.0% 

7.9% 

0.0% 

89.7% 

77.0% 

26.2%

0.0% 

3.2%

5.6% 

19.0% 

1.09 

$831 

4.8% 

5.6% 

3.2% 

0.8% 

21.4% 

$102 

0.8% 

0.0% 

$801 

1.6% 

13.5% 

$136 

0.0% 

0.8% 

10.3% 

$287 

11.3% 

$11,246 

0.0% 

4.8% 

11.9% 

18.3% 

4.8% 

16.7% 

0.0% 

7.1% 

35.7% 

7.9% 

19.8% 

27.8% 

1.6% 

1.6% 

12.7% 

1.46 

11.9% 

19.8% 

1.12 

$845 

3.2% 

4.0% 

48.4% 

2.4% 

18.3% 

$99 

1.6% 

0.8% 

$832 

3.2% 

7.9% 

$103 

0.0% 

1.6% 

7.1% 

$264 

27.8% 

$11,467 

0.8% 

0.8% 

36.5% 

39.7% 

19.0% 

23.0% 

2.4% 

2.4% 

34.9% 

11.9% 

34.9% 

46.8% 

2.4% 

2.4% 

1.6% 

1.39 

-6.3% 

-0.8% 

-0.03 

-$14*** 

1.6% 

1.6% 

-45.2%*** 

-1.6% 

3.2% 

$3 

-0.8% 

-0.8% 

-$32*** 

-1.6% 

5.6% 

$33 

0.0% 

-0.8% 

3.2% 

$23 

-16.5%** 

-$221*** 

-0.8% 

4.0% 

-24.6%*** 

-21.4%*** 

-14.3%*** 

-6.3% 

-2.4% 

4.8% 

0.8% 

-4.0% 

-15.1%** 

-19.0%** 

-0.8% 

-0.8% 

11.1%*** 

0.07 

0.134 

1.000 

0.639 

0.005 

0.754 

0.774 

0.000 

0.625 

0.672 

0.519 

1.000 

1.000 

0.001 

0.688 

0.248 

0.108 

1.000 

1.000 

0.523 

0.223 

0.014 

0.007 

1.000 

0.125 

0.000 

0.002 

0.001 

0.322 

0.250 

0.146 

1.000 

0.424 

0.029 

0.017 

1.000 

1.000 

0.001 

0.447 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

94 

97 

97 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

126 

If units shown: 

Tester(s) saw at least one unit without any problems 

One tester saw more problems per unit than partner 

Average number of problems per unit 

90.8% 4.1% 

7.1% 

0.14 

3.1% 

8.2% 

0.12 

1.0% 

-1.0% 

0.02 

1.000 

1.000 

0.786 

98 

98 

98 
Appendix F

154 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Los Angeles: Black Renters 

Rental market treatment measure 

Tester(s) able to make an appointment 

Both 

100.0% 

White 

0.0% 

Black 

0.0% 

Difference 

0.0% 

P 

1.000 

N 

160 

If able to meet with an agent: 

Tester(s) told any units available 

One tester told about more units than partner 

Avg number of units available (per visit) 

99.4% 0.0% 

16.9% 

1.57 

0.6% 

9.4% 

1.44 

-0.6% 

7.5%* 

0.13** 

1.000 

0.088 

0.034 

160 

160 

160 

If available units recommended: 

Tester(s) able to inspect any units 

One tester inspected more units than partner 

Average number of units inspected (per visit) 

Average rent for any unit 

Tester(s) told that rent is negotiable 

Tester(s) offered month-to-month 

Tester(s) offered two-year lease 

Tester(s) told fees required for any unit 

One tester told higher fees than partner 

Average fees for any unit 

Tester(s) told fees negotiable 

Tester(s) told payment required at move-in 

Average payments at move-in 

Tester(s) told payments negotiable 

Tester(s) told about incentives 

Average yearly incentives 

Tester(s) told security deposit required 

Tester(s) given choice between sec. deposit & bond 

Tester(s) told deposit or bond negotiable 

Average sec. deposit for any unit 

Tester(s) told higher yearly net cost

Average yearly net cost 

Tester(s) told comment on fair housing 

Tester(s) told application must be completed 

Tester(s) told credit check must be completed 

Tester(s) told background check must be done 

Tester(s) told comments on credit standing 

Tester(s) told comments on rent history 

Tester(s) told remarks about race/ethnicity 

Tester(s) provided listings, floor plan, brochure, etc. 

Tester(s) provided more total items 

Tester(s) told arrangement for contact 

Tester(s) told positive remark 

Tester(s) told more positive remarks 

Tester(s) told negative remark 

Tester(s) told more negative remarks 

Tester(s) received agent follow-up 

Average overall helpfulness score 

100.0% 

1.9% 

6.9% 

2.5%

83.0% 

3.1% 

23.9% 

0.0% 

13.8%

100.0% 

0.0% 

4.4% 

0.0% 

98.7% 

96.2% 

3.1% 

4.4% 

0.6% 

0.0% 

44.0% 

64.2% 

20.8% 

0.0%

4.4% 

0.0% 

15.7% 

1.43 

$1,405 

10.1% 

8.8% 

6.3% 

4.4% 

17.7% 

$98 

8.8% 

6.9% 

$350 

4.4% 

15.7% 

$180 

0.0% 

0.0% 

13.2% 

$1,033 

10.4% 

$18,411 

1.3% 

0.6% 

1.9% 

13.2% 

8.8% 

10.1% 

0.0% 

16.4% 

27.0% 

5.0% 

18.9% 

23.9% 

3.1% 

3.1% 

7.5% 

1.43 

0.0% 

6.3% 

1.35 

$1,415 

2.5% 

4.4% 

1.3% 

2.5% 

13.3% 

$87 

3.8% 

22.6% 

$617 

5.0% 

4.4% 

$101 

0.0% 

0.6% 

7.5% 

$1,072 

26.4% 

$18,818 

0.6% 

0.6% 

0.6% 

2.5% 

2.5% 

1.3% 

0.6% 

13.8% 

21.4% 

25.2% 

17.6% 

24.5% 

1.3% 

1.3% 

3.1% 

1.56 

0.0% 

9.4%** 

0.09** 

-$10 

7.5%** 

4.4% 

5.0%** 

1.9% 

4.4% 

$11 

5.0% 

-15.7%*** 

-$267*** 

-0.6% 

11.3%*** 

$79*** 

0.0% 

-0.6% 

5.7% 

-$39* 

-16.0%*** 

-$406*** 

0.6% 

0.0% 

1.3% 

10.7%*** 

6.3%** 

8.8%*** 

-0.6% 

2.5% 

5.7% 

-20.1%*** 

1.3% 

-0.6% 

1.9% 

1.9% 

4.4% 

-0.13* 

1.000 

0.017 

0.034 

0.271 

0.012 

0.189 

0.039 

0.549 

0.392 

0.639 

0.115 

0.000 

0.000 

1.000 

0.002 

0.001 

1.000 

1.000 

0.163 

0.064 

0.002 

0.000 

1.000 

1.000 

0.625 

0.001 

0.031 

0.001 

1.000 

0.665 

0.362 

0.000 

0.896 

1.000 

0.453 

0.453 

0.143 

0.060 

159 

159 

159 

159 

159 

159 

159 

159 

158 

158 

159 

159 

153 

159 

159 

153 

159 

159 

159 

157 

144 

144 

159 

159 

159 

159 

159 

159 

159 

159 

159 

159 

159 

159 

159 

159 

159 

159 

If units shown: 

Tester(s) saw at least one unit without any problems 

One tester saw more problems per unit than partner 

Average number of problems per unit 

83.6% 7.5% 

6.9% 

0.15 

5.7% 

8.8% 

0.14 

1.9% 

-1.9% 

0.02 

0.664 

0.690 

0.750 

159 

159 

159 
Appendix F

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 155

Los Angeles: Hispanic Renters 

Rental market treatment measure 

Tester(s) able to make an appointment 

Both 

94.4% 

White 

0.0% 

Hispanic 

0.0% 

Difference 

0.0% 

P 

1.000 

N 

143 

If able to meet with an agent: 

Tester(s) told any units available 

One tester told about more units than partner 

Avg number of units available (per visit) 

98.5% 0.7% 

20.1% 

1.65 

0.7% 

9.7% 

1.59 

0.0% 

10.4%** 

0.06 

1.000 

0.038 

0.471 

134 

134 

134 

If available units recommended: 

Tester(s) able to inspect any units 

One tester inspected more units than partner 

Average number of units inspected (per visit) 

Average rent for any unit 

Tester(s) told that rent is negotiable 

Tester(s) offered month-to-month 

Tester(s) offered two-year lease 

Tester(s) told fees required for any unit 

One tester told higher fees than partner 

Average fees for any unit 

Tester(s) told fees negotiable 

Tester(s) told payment required at move-in 

Average payments at move-in 

Tester(s) told payments negotiable 

Tester(s) told about incentives 

Average yearly incentives 

Tester(s) told security deposit required 

Tester(s) given choice between sec. deposit & bond 

Tester(s) told deposit or bond negotiable 

Average sec. deposit for any unit 

Tester(s) told higher yearly net cost 

Average yearly net cost 

Tester(s) told comment on fair housing 

Tester(s) told application must be completed 

Tester(s) told credit check must be completed 

Tester(s) told background check must be done 

Tester(s) told comments on credit standing

Tester(s) told comments on rent history 

Tester(s) told remarks about race/ethnicity 

Tester(s) provided listings, floor plan, brochure, etc. 

Tester(s) provided more total items 

Tester(s) told arrangement for contact 

Tester(s) told positive remark 

Tester(s) told more positive remarks 

Tester(s) told negative remark 

Tester(s) told more negative remarks 

Tester(s) received agent follow-up 

Average overall helpfulness score 

99.2% 

6.1% 

12.1% 

0.8% 

84.1% 

2.3% 

7.6% 

0.0% 

23.5% 

100.0% 

0.0% 

4.5% 

0.8% 

98.5% 

97.0% 

1.5% 

2.3% 

1.5% 

0.8% 

58.3% 

58.3% 

26.5% 

0.0% 

13.6% 

0.8% 

19.7% 

1.51 

$1,403 

5.3% 

3.0% 

2.3% 

3.0% 

13.6% 

$84 

1.5% 

9.8% 

$68 

6.1% 

6.1% 

$208 

0.0% 

0.0% 

14.4% 

$904 

4.5% 

$17,701 

0.8% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

25.8% 

5.3% 

5.3% 

0.8% 

3.8% 

22.7% 

9.1% 

15.9% 

22.0% 

1.5% 

1.5% 

10.6% 

1.41 

0.0% 

9.8% 

1.38 

$1,408 

3.0% 

2.3% 

1.5% 

3.8% 

14.4% 

$76 

1.5% 

6.1% 

$121 

0.8% 

4.5% 

$204 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.8% 

$869 

11.4% 

$17,786 

0.0% 

1.5% 

3.0% 

3.0% 

1.5% 

3.0% 

1.5% 

6.8% 

20.5% 

22.7% 

18.2% 

27.3% 

2.3% 

2.3% 

4.5% 

1.61 

0.8% 

9.8%* 

0.13** 

-$6 

2.3% 

0.8% 

0.8% 

-0.8% 

-0.8% 

$8 

0.0% 

3.8% 

-$53** 

5.3%** 

1.5% 

$4 

0.0% 

0.0% 

13.6%*** 

$35 

-6.8%* 

-$85 

0.8% 

-1.5% 

-3.0% 

22.7%*** 

3.8% 

2.3% 

-0.8% 

-3.0% 

2.3% 

-13.6%*** 

-2.3% 

-5.3% 

-0.8% 

-0.8% 

6.1% 

-0.20** 

1.000 

0.053 

0.046 

0.493 

0.549 

1.000 

1.000 

1.000 

1.000 

0.633 

1.000 

0.383 

0.041 

0.039 

0.791 

0.866 

1.000 

1.000 

0.000 

0.152 

0.078 

0.424 

1.000 

0.500 

0.125 

0.000 

0.180 

0.549 

1.000 

0.424 

0.791 

0.008 

0.766 

0.457 

1.000 

1.000 

0.115 

0.032 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

131 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

132 

If units shown: 

Tester(s) saw at least one unit without any problems 

One tester saw more problems per unit than partner 

Average number of problems per unit 

85.5% 6.9% 

4.6% 

0.13 

2.3% 

9.2% 

0.22 

4.6% 

-4.6% 

-0.09* 

0.146 

0.238 

0.061 

131 

131 

131 
Appendix F

156 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Miami: Hispanic Renters 

Rental market treatment measure 

Tester(s) able to make an appointment 

Both 

96.4% 

White 

0.7% 

Hispanic 

2.2% 

Difference 

-1.4% 

P 

0.625 

N 

139 

If able to meet with an agent: 

Tester(s) told any units available 

One tester told about more units than partner 

Avg number of units available (per visit) 

90.2% 6.1% 

25.8% 

1.37 

3.8% 

18.2% 

1.27 

2.3% 

7.6% 

0.11 

0.625 

0.237 

0.231 

132 

132 

132 

If available units recommended: 

Tester(s) able to inspect any units 

One tester inspected more units than partner 

Average number of units inspected (per visit) 

Average rent for any unit 

Tester(s) told that rent is negotiable 

Tester(s) offered month-to-month 

Tester(s) offered two-year lease 

Tester(s) told fees required for any unit 

One tester told higher fees than partner 

Average fees for any unit 

Tester(s) told fees negotiable 

Tester(s) told payment required at move-in 

Average payments at move-in 

Tester(s) told payments negotiable 

Tester(s) told about incentives 

Average yearly incentives 

Tester(s) told security deposit required 

Tester(s) given choice between sec. deposit & bond 

Tester(s) told deposit or bond negotiable 

Average sec. deposit for any unit 

Tester(s) told higher yearly net cost 

Average yearly net cost 

Tester(s) told comment on fair housing 

Tester(s) told application must be completed 

Tester(s) told credit check must be completed 

Tester(s) told background check must be done

Tester(s) told comments on credit standing

Tester(s) told comments on rent history 

Tester(s) told remarks about race/ethnicity 

Tester(s) provided listings, floor plan, brochure, etc. 

Tester(s) provided more total items 

Tester(s) told arrangement for contact 

Tester(s) told positive remark 

Tester(s) told more positive remarks 

Tester(s) told negative remark 

Tester(s) told more negative remarks 

Tester(s) received agent follow-up 

Average overall helpfulness score 

94.2% 

7.5% 

0.8% 

0.0% 

75.0% 

0.8% 

55.0% 

3.3% 

1.7% 

100.0% 

0.0% 

5.0% 

0.0% 

84.2% 

67.5% 

59.2% 

5.0% 

3.3% 

0.0% 

65.8% 

83.3% 

35.8% 

0.0% 

5.8% 

2.5% 

18.3% 

1.31 

$1,378 

11.7% 

4.2% 

9.2% 

5.0% 

29.1% 

$151 

5.0% 

10.0% 

$897 

10.8% 

8.3% 

$105 

0.0% 

0.0% 

15.8% 

$1,257 

20.2% 

$18,980 

0.8% 

4.2% 

6.7% 

7.5% 

17.5% 

25.0% 

5.8% 

4.2% 

19.2% 

7.5% 

17.5% 

31.7% 

4.2% 

4.2% 

10.0% 

1.45 

3.3% 

11.7% 

1.20 

$1,363 

6.7% 

0.8% 

0.0% 

8.3% 

26.5% 

$163 

4.2% 

12.5% 

$989 

2.5% 

4.2% 

$45 

0.0% 

0.0% 

5.0% 

$1,192 

19.3% 

$18,872 

0.0% 

10.0% 

10.8% 

23.3% 

15.0% 

7.5% 

0.0% 

12.5% 

30.0% 

5.8% 

23.3% 

38.3% 

1.7% 

1.7% 

10.0% 

1.23 

-0.8% 

6.7% 

0.11 

$15 

5.0% 

3.3% 

9.2%*** 

-3.3% 

2.6% 

-$12 

0.8% 

-2.5% 

-$92 

8.3%** 

4.2% 

$60 

0.0% 

0.0% 

10.8%** 

$65 

0.9% 

$109 

0.8% 

-5.8% 

-4.2% 

-15.8%*** 

2.5% 

17.5%*** 

5.8%** 

-8.3%** 

-10.8% 

1.7% 

-5.8% 

-6.7% 

2.5% 

2.5% 

0.0% 

0.22*** 

1.000 

0.243 

0.113 

0.149 

0.286 

0.219 

0.001 

0.454 

0.712 

0.580 

1.000 

0.701 

0.165 

0.021 

0.302 

0.183 

1.000 

1.000 

0.015 

0.113 

1.000 

0.471 

1.000 

0.143 

0.383 

0.003 

0.749 

0.001 

0.016 

0.041 

0.117 

0.804 

0.392 

0.445 

0.453 

0.453 

1.000 

0.008 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

117 

117 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

118 

120 

120 

120 

113 

109 

109 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

120 

If units shown: 

Tester(s) saw at least one unit without any problems 

One tester saw more problems per unit than partner 

Average number of problems per unit 

78.8% 4.4% 

17.7% 

0.30 

14.2% 

8.8% 

0.15 

-9.7%** 

8.8%* 

0.14* 

0.027 

0.099 

0.063 

113 

113 

113 
Appendix F

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 157

New York: Black Renters 

Rental market treatment measure 

Tester(s) able to make an appointment 

Both 

95.9% 

White 

0.0% 

Black 

0.0% 

Difference 

0.0% 

P 

1.000 

N 

146 

If able to meet with an agent: 

Tester(s) told any units available 

One tester told about more units than partner 

Avg number of units available (per visit) 

97.0% 1.5% 

22.0% 

1.77 

1.5% 

15.9% 

1.65 

0.0% 

6.1% 

0.12 

1.000 

0.322 

0.252 

132 

132 

132 

If available units recommended: 

Tester(s) able to inspect any units 

One tester inspected more units than partner 

Average number of units inspected (per visit) 

Average rent for any unit 

Tester(s) told that rent is negotiable 

Tester(s) offered month-to-month 

Tester(s) offered two-year lease 

Tester(s) told fees required for any unit 

One tester told higher fees than partner 

Average fees for any unit 

Tester(s) told fees negotiable 

Tester(s) told payment required at move-in 

Average payments at move-in 

Tester(s) told payments negotiable 

Tester(s) told about incentives 

Average yearly incentives 

Tester(s) told security deposit required 

Tester(s) given choice between sec. deposit & bond 

Tester(s) told deposit or bond negotiable 

Average sec. deposit for any unit 

Tester(s) told higher yearly net cost 

Average yearly net cost 

Tester(s) told comment on fair housing 

Tester(s) told application must be completed 

Tester(s) told credit check must be completed 

Tester(s) told background check must be done 

Tester(s) told comments on credit standing

Tester(s) told comments on rent history 

Tester(s) told remarks about race/ethnicity 

Tester(s) provided listings, floor plan, brochure, etc. 

Tester(s) provided more total items 

Tester(s) told arrangement for contact

Tester(s) told positive remark 

Tester(s) told more positive remarks 

Tester(s) told negative remark 

Tester(s) told more negative remarks 

Tester(s) received agent follow-up 

Average overall helpfulness score 

96.9% 

8.6% 

0.0% 

18.0% 

66.4% 

0.8% 

72.7% 

6.3% 

7.0% 

100.0% 

0.0% 

0.8% 

0.0% 

67.2% 

61.7% 

4.7% 

8.6% 

0.0% 

0.8% 

52.3% 

71.9% 

11.7% 

0.8% 

3.1% 

0.0% 

18.0% 

1.73 

$2,489 

12.5% 

2.3% 

19.5% 

9.4% 

25.8% 

$454 

10.9% 

12.5% 

$3,353 

14.1% 

3.9% 

$156 

0.0% 

0.0% 

8.6% 

$2,686 

23.1% 

$35,731 

2.3% 

15.6% 

13.3% 

11.7% 

8.6% 

15.6% 

4.7% 

8.6% 

14.8% 

10.2% 

27.3% 

31.3% 

4.7% 

5.5% 

3.9% 

1.37 

1.6% 

15.6% 

1.60 

$2,506 

13.3% 

9.4% 

16.4% 

10.2% 

36.3% 

$528 

9.4% 

7.8% 

$3,094 

4.7% 

3.9% 

$864 

0.0% 

0.8% 

6.3% 

$2,722 

20.4% 

$34,770 

5.5% 

10.9% 

12.5% 

4.7% 

15.6% 

4.7% 

1.6% 

16.4% 

32.8% 

9.4% 

21.9% 

25.0% 

4.7% 

4.7% 

10.2% 

1.42 

-1.6% 

2.3% 

0.13 

-$17 

-0.8% 

-7.0%** 

3.1% 

-0.8% 

-10.5% 

-$75 

1.6% 

4.7% 

$258 

9.4%** 

0.0% 

-$708 

0.0% 

-0.8% 

2.3% 

-$36 

2.8% 

$961 

-3.1% 

4.7% 

0.8% 

7.0%* 

-7.0% 

10.9%*** 

3.1% 

-7.8% 

-18.0%*** 

0.8% 

5.5% 

6.3% 

0.0% 

0.8% 

-6.3%* 

-0.05 

0.500 

0.761 

0.177 

0.280 

1.000 

0.035 

0.659 

1.000 

0.141 

0.620 

0.845 

0.327 

0.309 

0.023 

1.000 

0.292 

1.000 

1.000 

0.648 

0.701 

0.771 

0.304 

0.344 

0.392 

1.000 

0.078 

0.150 

0.009 

0.289 

0.110 

0.004 

1.000 

0.450 

0.410 

1.000 

1.000 

0.096 

0.520 

128 

128 

128 

128 

128 

128 

128 

128 

124 

124 

128 

128 

126 

128 

128 

124 

128 

128 

128 

116 

108 

108 

128 

128 

128 

128 

128 

128 

128 

128 

128 

128 

128 

128 

128 

128 

128 

128 

If units shown: 

Tester(s) saw at least one unit without any problems 

One tester saw more problems per unit than partner 

Average number of problems per unit 

80.6% 11.3% 

15.3% 

0.18 

4.8% 

14.5% 

0.29 

6.5% 

0.8% 

-0.11* 

0.115 

1.000 

0.086 

124 

124 

124 
Appendix F

158 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

New York: Hispanic Renters 

Rental market treatment measure 

Tester(s) able to make an appointment 

Both 

97.2%

White 

0.0%

Hispanic 

0.0% 

Difference 

0.0% 

P 

1.000 

N 

145

If able to meet with an agent: 

Tester(s) told any units available 

One tester told about more units than partner 

Avg number of units available (per visit) 

96.3% 3.0%

28.9%

2.06

0.7% 

16.3% 

1.87 

2.2% 

12.6%** 

0.19 

1.000 

0.040 

0.119 

135

135

135

If available units recommended: 

Tester(s) able to inspect any units 

One tester inspected more units than partner 

Average number of units inspected (per visit) 

Average rent for any unit 

Tester(s) told that rent is negotiable

Tester(s) offered month-to-month 

Tester(s) offered two-year lease 

Tester(s) told fees required for any unit

One tester told higher fees than partner

Average fees for any unit 

Tester(s) told fees negotiable 

Tester(s) told payment required at move-in 

Average payments at move-in 

Tester(s) told payments negotiable 

Tester(s) told about incentives 

Average yearly incentives 

Tester(s) told security deposit required

Tester(s) given choice between sec. deposit & bond 

Tester(s) told deposit or bond negotiable 

Average sec. deposit for any unit 

Tester(s) told higher yearly net cost

Average yearly net cost 

Tester(s) told comment on fair housing

Tester(s) told application must be completed

Tester(s) told credit check must be completed

Tester(s) told background check must be done 

Tester(s) told comments on credit standing

Tester(s) told comments on rent history

Tester(s) told remarks about race/ethnicity

Tester(s) provided listings, floor plan, brochure, etc. 

Tester(s) provided more total items

Tester(s) told arrangement for contact 

Tester(s) told positive remark 

Tester(s) told more positive remarks 

Tester(s) told negative remark 

Tester(s) told more negative remarks 

Tester(s) received agent follow-up 

Average overall helpfulness score 

94.7% 

8.4% 

3.1%

18.3% 

64.9% 

6.1% 

62.6% 

4.6% 

7.6% 

100.0% 

0.0% 

0.8% 

0.0% 

73.3% 

58.8% 

2.3% 

9.2%

0.8% 

1.5% 

53.4% 

68.7%

23.7% 

0.0% 

3.8% 

1.5% 

24.4% 

1.89 

$2,268 

9.2% 

1.5%

13.7% 

9.2% 

27.6% 

$331 

10.7% 

16.0% 

$2,857 

11.5% 

5.3% 

$262 

0.0% 

0.0% 

11.5% 

$2,300 

33.0% 

$32,906 

0.8% 

9.2% 

14.5%

7.6% 

10.7% 

9.2% 

2.3% 

11.5% 

25.2% 

7.6%

19.1% 

26.0% 

4.6% 

4.6% 

5.4% 

1.20 

0.8% 

16.0% 

1.81 

$2,280 

13.0% 

4.6% 

21.4% 

14.5% 

32.5% 

$399 

8.4% 

10.7% 

$2,674 

9.2% 

7.6% 

$193 

0.0% 

0.8% 

6.1% 

$2,339 

22.6% 

$32,958 

0.0% 

11.5% 

13.0% 

9.9% 

14.5% 

6.1% 

8.4% 

10.7% 

21.4% 

16.8% 

23.7% 

32.1% 

7.6% 

7.6% 

6.9% 

1.34 

0.8% 

8.4% 

0.08 

-$13 

-3.8% 

-3.1% 

-7.6% 

-5.3% 

-4.9% 

-$68 

2.3% 

5.3% 

$183 

2.3% 

-2.3% 

$69 

0.0% 

-0.8% 

5.3% 

-$39 

10.4% 

-$52 

0.8% 

-2.3% 

1.5% 

-2.3% 

-3.8% 

3.1% 

-6.1%* 

0.8% 

3.8% 

-9.2%* 

-4.6% 

-6.1% 

-3.1% 

-3.1% 

-1.5% 

-0.14 

1.000 

0.169 

0.488 

0.580 

0.458 

0.289 

0.184 

0.281 

0.567

0.513 

0.690 

0.311 

0.329 

0.701 

0.629 

0.530 

1.000 

1.000 

0.210 

0.522 

0.193

0.904 

1.000 

0.701 

0.868 

0.678 

0.487 

0.503 

0.057 

1.000 

0.609

0.050 

0.504 

0.422 

0.454 

0.454 

0.804 

0.106 

131 

131 

131 

131 

131

131

131 

131

123

123 

131 

131 

130 

131 

131 

124 

131

131 

131 

118 

106

106 

131

131

131

131 

131

131

131

131 

131

131

131 

131 

131 

131 

130 

131 

If units shown: 

Tester(s) saw at least one unit without any problems 

One tester saw more problems per unit than partner 

Average number of problems per unit 

79.8% 10.5% 

12.9% 

0.20 

5.6% 

18.5% 

0.23 

4.8% 

-5.6% 

-0.03 

0.263 

0.337 

0.578 

124 

124 

124 
Appendix F

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 159

Philadelphia: Black Renters 

Rental market treatment measure 

Tester(s) able to make an appointment 

Both 

92.5% 

White 

2.7% 

Black 

1.4% 

Difference 

1.4% 

P 

0.688 

N 

147 

If able to meet with an agent: 

Tester(s) told any units available 

One tester told about more units than partner 

Avg number of units available (per visit) 

97.0% 0.8% 

29.3% 

1.75 

2.3% 

11.3% 

1.41 

-1.5% 

18.0%*** 

0.35*** 

0.688 

0.001 

0.000 

133 

133 

133 

If available units recommended: 

Tester(s) able to inspect any units 

One tester inspected more units than partner 

Average number of units inspected (per visit) 

Average rent for any unit 

Tester(s) told that rent is negotiable 

Tester(s) offered month-to-month 

Tester(s) offered two-year lease 

Tester(s) told fees required for any unit 

One tester told higher fees than partner 

Average fees for any unit 

Tester(s) told fees negotiable 

Tester(s) told payment required at move-in 

Average payments at move-in 

Tester(s) told payments negotiable 

Tester(s) told about incentives 

Average yearly incentives 

Tester(s) told security deposit required 

Tester(s) given choice between sec. deposit & bond 

Tester(s) told deposit or bond negotiable 

Average sec. deposit for any unit 

Tester(s) told higher yearly net cost

Average yearly net cost 

Tester(s) told comment on fair housing 

Tester(s) told application must be completed 

Tester(s) told credit check must be completed 

Tester(s) told background check must be done 

Tester(s) told comments on credit standing 

Tester(s) told comments on rent history 

Tester(s) told remarks about race/ethnicity

Tester(s) provided listings, floor plan, brochure, etc. 

Tester(s) provided more total items 

Tester(s) told arrangement for contact 

Tester(s) told positive remark 

Tester(s) told more positive remarks 

Tester(s) told negative remark 

Tester(s) told more negative remarks 

Tester(s) received agent follow-up 

Average overall helpfulness score 

99.2% 

4.7% 

3.1% 

5.4% 

89.1% 

7.8%

65.9% 

3.9%

15.5% 

100.0% 

2.3% 

11.6% 

0.0% 

92.2% 

73.6% 

17.8% 

2.3% 

2.3% 

0.0% 

55.0% 

69.0% 

24.8% 

0.0%

13.2% 

0.8% 

20.9% 

1.47 

$1,075 

10.1% 

3.9% 

9.3% 

1.6% 

16.5% 

$150 

10.9% 

5.4% 

$948 

11.6% 

10.1% 

$285 

0.0% 

0.0% 

19.4% 

$1,082 

9.1% 

$14,734 

0.8% 

0.8% 

6.2% 

20.2% 

3.9% 

5.4% 

4.7% 

11.6% 

28.7% 

5.4% 

19.4% 

26.4% 

3.9% 

3.9% 

15.5% 

1.50 

0.0% 

7.8% 

1.26 

$1,085 

2.3% 

2.3% 

7.0% 

1.6% 

9.4% 

$130 

3.1% 

21.7% 

$1,373 

3.9% 

5.4% 

$254 

0.0% 

2.3% 

7.0% 

$967 

34.7% 

$15,214 

3.1% 

2.3% 

13.2% 

8.5% 

11.6% 

14.7% 

0.0% 

8.5% 

27.1% 

21.7% 

26.4% 

35.7% 

3.1% 

3.1% 

8.5% 

1.45 

0.8% 

13.2%*** 

0.21*** 

-$10 

7.8%** 

1.6% 

2.3% 

0.0% 

7.1% 

$20 

7.8%** 

-16.3%*** 

-$425*** 

7.8%** 

4.7% 

$31 

0.0% 

-2.3% 

12.4%*** 

$115* 

-25.6%*** 

-$480*** 

-2.3% 

-1.6% 

-7.0% 

11.6%** 

-7.8%** 

-9.3%** 

4.7%** 

3.1% 

1.6% 

-16.3%*** 

-7.0% 

-9.3% 

0.8% 

0.8% 

7.0% 

0.05 

1.000 

0.008 

0.004 

0.151 

0.021 

0.727 

0.664 

1.000 

0.121 

0.123 

0.031 

0.001 

0.000 

0.041 

0.263 

0.490 

1.000 

0.250 

0.009 

0.051 

0.000 

0.000 

0.375 

0.625 

0.108 

0.020 

0.041 

0.029 

0.031 

0.557 

0.906 

0.001 

0.298 

0.219 

1.000 

1.000 

0.150 

0.573 

129 

129 

129 

129 

129 

129 

129 

129 

127 

127 

129 

129 

128 

129 

129 

127 

129 

129 

129 

122 

121 

121 

129 

129 

129 

129 

129 

129 

129 

129 

129 

129 

129 

129 

129 

129 

129 

129 

If units shown: 

Tester(s) saw at least one unit without any problems 

One tester saw more problems per unit than partner 

Average number of problems per unit 

75.0% 10.2% 

14.1% 

0.37 

8.6% 

15.6% 

0.30 

1.6% 

-1.6% 

0.07 

0.839 

0.871 

0.460 

128 

128 

128 
Appendix F

160 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Riverside: Hispanic Renters 

Rental market treatment measure 

Tester(s) able to make an appointment 

Both 

100.0%

White 

0.0%

Hispanic 

0.0% 

Difference 

0.0% 

P 

1.000 

N 

135

If able to meet with an agent: 

Tester(s) told any units available 

One tester told about more units than partner 

Avg number of units available (per visit) 

91.2% 4.8%

29.6%

1.35

4.0% 

18.4% 

1.18 

0.8% 

11.2%* 

0.17** 

1.000 

0.092 

0.031 

125

125

125

If available units recommended: 

Tester(s) able to inspect any units 

One tester inspected more units than partner 

Average number of units inspected (per visit) 

Average rent for any unit 

Tester(s) told that rent is negotiable

Tester(s) offered month-to-month 

Tester(s) offered two-year lease 

Tester(s) told fees required for any unit 

One tester told higher fees than partner

Average fees for any unit 

Tester(s) told fees negotiable 

Tester(s) told payment required at move-in 

Average payments at move-in 

Tester(s) told payments negotiable 

Tester(s) told about incentives 

Average yearly incentives 

Tester(s) told security deposit required

Tester(s) given choice between sec. deposit & bond 

Tester(s) told deposit or bond negotiable 

Average sec. deposit for any unit 

Tester(s) told higher yearly net cost

Average yearly net cost 

Tester(s) told comment on fair housing

Tester(s) told application must be completed

Tester(s) told credit check must be completed

Tester(s) told background check must be done 

Tester(s) told comments on credit standing

Tester(s) told comments on rent history

Tester(s) told remarks about race/ethnicity

Tester(s) provided listings, floor plan, brochure, etc. 

Tester(s) provided more total items 

Tester(s) told arrangement for contact 

Tester(s) told positive remark 

Tester(s) told more positive remarks 

Tester(s) told negative remark 

Tester(s) told more negative remarks 

Tester(s) received agent follow-up 

Average overall helpfulness score 

75.2% 

0.0% 

4.4%

0.0%

94.7% 

3.5%

26.5% 

0.0% 

15.9% 

100.0% 

0.0% 

0.0%

0.0% 

95.6% 

96.5% 

4.4% 

0.9% 

6.2% 

0.0% 

88.5% 

65.5%

23.9%

0.0% 

4.4% 

7.1% 

19.5% 

1.04 

$1,101 

4.4% 

4.4%

1.8%

0.0% 

14.2% 

$95 

2.7%

8.8% 

$391 

1.8% 

19.5% 

$161 

0.0% 

2.7% 

7.1%

$535 

12.3% 

$13,970 

0.0% 

2.7%

0.0%

10.6% 

2.7% 

10.6% 

0.0% 

2.7% 

36.3% 

10.6%

9.7%

12.4% 

2.7% 

2.7% 

5.3% 

1.40 

9.7% 

15.9% 

0.98 

$1,110 

1.8% 

10.6% 

1.8% 

2.7% 

28.3% 

$126 

11.5% 

39.8% 

$734 

2.7% 

11.5% 

$119 

0.0% 

1.8% 

4.4% 

$536 

48.1% 

$14,544 

0.9% 

1.8% 

3.5% 

20.4% 

4.4% 

12.4% 

0.0% 

5.3% 

37.2% 

22.1% 

22.1% 

30.1% 

3.5% 

3.5% 

9.7% 

1.39 

-2.7% 

3.5% 

0.06 

-$9 

2.7% 

-6.2% 

0.0% 

-2.7% 

-14.2%** 

-$31* 

-8.8%** 

-31.0%*** 

-$344*** 

-0.9% 

8.0% 

$42 

0.0% 

0.9% 

2.7% 

-$2 

-35.8%*** 

-$574*** 

-0.9% 

0.9% 

-3.5% 

-9.7%* 

-1.8% 

-1.8% 

0.0% 

-2.7% 

-0.9% 

-11.5%** 

-12.4%** 

-17.7%*** 

-0.9% 

-0.9% 

-4.4% 

0.01 

0.648 

0.636 

0.347 

0.124 

0.453 

0.143 

1.000 

0.250 

0.021

0.067 

0.021 

0.000 

0.000 

1.000 

0.175 

0.249 

1.000 

1.000 

0.581 

0.896 

0.000

0.000 

1.000 

1.000 

0.125 

0.090 

0.727 

0.845 

1.000 

0.508 

1.000 

0.047 

0.029 

0.006 

1.000 

1.000 

0.332 

0.923 

113 

113 

113 

113 

113

113

113

113 

113

113 

113

113 

111 

113 

113 

111 

113

113 

113

108 

106

106 

113

113

113

113 

113

113

113

113 

113 

113

113

113 

113 

113 

113 

113 

If units shown: 

Tester(s) saw at least one unit without any problems 

One tester saw more problems per unit than partner 

Average number of problems per unit 

78.8% 12.9% 

7.1% 

0.12 

4.7% 

15.3% 

0.26 

8.2% 

-8.2% 

-0.15 

0.118 

0.167 

0.113 

85 

85 

85 
Appendix F

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 161

Rental market treatment measure 

Tester(s) able to make an appointment 

Both 

100.0%

White 

0.0%

Hispanic 

0.0% 

Difference 

0.0% 

P 

1.000 

N 

139

If able to meet with an agent: 

Tester(s) told any units available 

One tester told about more units than partner 

Avg number of units available (per visit) 

87.8% 4.1% 

23.6%

1.37

8.1% 

17.1% 

1.20 

-4.1% 

6.5% 

0.18* 

1.000 

0.322 

0.068 

123 

123

123

If available units recommended: 

Tester(s) able to inspect any units 

One tester inspected more units than partner 

Average number of units inspected (per visit)

Average rent for any unit 

Tester(s) told that rent is negotiable

Tester(s) offered month-to-month 

Tester(s) offered two-year lease 

Tester(s) told fees required for any unit

One tester told higher fees than partner

Average fees for any unit 

Tester(s) told fees negotiable 

Tester(s) told payment required at move-in 

Average payments at move-in 

Tester(s) told payments negotiable 

Tester(s) told about incentives 

Average yearly incentives 

Tester(s) told security deposit required

Tester(s) given choice between sec. deposit & bond 

Tester(s) told deposit or bond negotiable 

Average sec. deposit for any unit 

Tester(s) told higher yearly net cost 

Average yearly net cost 

Tester(s) told comment on fair housing

Tester(s) told application must be completed

Tester(s) told credit check must be completed

Tester(s) told background check must be done 

Tester(s) told comments on credit standing

Tester(s) told comments on rent history 

Tester(s) told remarks about race/ethnicity

Tester(s) provided listings, floor plan, brochure, etc. 

Tester(s) provided more total items

Tester(s) told arrangement for contact

Tester(s) told positive remark 

Tester(s) told more positive remarks 

Tester(s) told negative remark 

Tester(s) told more negative remarks 

Tester(s) received agent follow-up 

Average overall helpfulness score 

88.0% 

1.0% 

9.5%

0.0%

88.9% 

0.0%

86.1% 

0.0%

11.1% 

97.2% 

1.9% 

4.6%

0.0% 

95.4% 

98.1% 

5.6% 

1.9% 

0.9%

0.0% 

62.0% 

74.1% 

28.7%

0.0%

9.3% 

0.9% 

7.4% 

1.03 

$1,506 

1.0% 

8.6%

2.9%

1.9% 

16.5% 

$95 

2.8%

1.9% 

$1,362 

4.6%

12.0% 

$91 

0.0% 

0.9% 

8.3%

$969 

7.9% 

$20,536 

0.0% 

3.7%

1.9%

7.4% 

1.9% 

5.6%

0.0% 

19.4% 

34.3% 

11.1% 

5.6%

11.4% 

0.9%

1.0% 

0.9% 

1.37 

4.6% 

9.3% 

1.04 

$1,520 

5.7% 

6.7% 

9.5% 

3.7% 

9.7% 

$65 

2.8% 

3.7% 

$1,419 

3.7% 

10.2% 

$81 

0.0% 

0.9% 

3.7% 

$1,021 

15.8% 

$20,773 

0.0% 

0.9% 

0.0% 

3.7% 

8.3% 

19.4% 

1.9% 

10.2% 

32.4% 

10.2% 

24.1% 

36.2% 

0.9% 

1.0% 

7.5% 

1.31 

-3.7% 

-1.9% 

-0.01 

-$14 

-4.8% 

1.9% 

-6.7%* 

-1.9% 

6.8% 

$30*** 

0.0% 

-1.9% 

-$56 

0.9% 

1.9% 

$10 

0.0% 

0.0% 

4.6% 

-$51** 

-7.9% 

-$238* 

0.0% 

2.8% 

1.9% 

3.7% 

-6.5%* 

-13.9%*** 

-1.9% 

9.3% 

1.9% 

0.9% 

-18.5%*** 

-24.8%*** 

0.0% 

0.0% 

-6.5%** 

0.06 

0.219 

0.815 

0.867

0.141 

0.125

0.804 

0.092 

1.000 

0.248

0.006 

1.000 

1.000 

0.117 

1.000 

0.839 

0.622 

0.250 

1.000 

0.267 

0.049 

0.152 

0.081 

1.000 

0.375 

0.500 

0.388 

0.065 

0.006 

0.500 

0.110 

0.906

1.000 

0.001 

0.000 

1.000 

1.000 

0.039 

0.555 

108 

108 

108

105 

105

105

105

108

103

103 

108

108 

104 

108

108 

104 

108

108 

108

105 

101 

101 

108

108

108

108 

108

108

108

108 

108

108

108

105 

108

105 

107 

108 

If units shown: 

Tester(s) saw at least one unit without any problems 

One tester saw more problems per unit than partner

Average number of problems per unit 

80.0% 14.7% 

2.2% 

0.04

1.1% 

15.1% 

0.19 

13.7%*** 

-12.9%** 

-0.16*** 

0.000 

0.013

0.005 

95 

93

93

San Diego: Hispanic Renters 
Appendix F

162 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Washington, DC: Black Renters 

Rental market treatment measure 

Tester(s) able to make an appointment 

Both 

98.5%

White 

0.0%

Black 

0.0% 

Difference 

0.0% 

P 

1.000 

N 

137

If able to meet with an agent: 

Tester(s) told any units available 

One tester told about more units than partner 

Avg number of units available (per visit) 

90.3% 4.8%

30.6%

2.12

4.8% 

23.4% 

1.71 

0.0% 

7.3% 

0.41*** 

1.000 

0.328 

0.008 

124

124

124

If available units recommended: 

Tester(s) able to inspect any units 

One tester inspected more units than partner 

Average number of units inspected (per visit) 

Average rent for any unit 

Tester(s) told that rent is negotiable

Tester(s) offered month-to-month 

Tester(s) offered two-year lease 

Tester(s) told fees required for any unit

One tester told higher fees than partner

Average fees for any unit 

Tester(s) told fees negotiable 

Tester(s) told payment required at move-in 

Average payments at move-in 

Tester(s) told payments negotiable 

Tester(s) told about incentives 

Average yearly incentives 

Tester(s) told security deposit required

Tester(s) given choice between sec. deposit & bond 

Tester(s) told deposit or bond negotiable 

Average sec. deposit for any unit 

Tester(s) told higher yearly net cost

Average yearly net cost 

Tester(s) told comment on fair housing

Tester(s) told application must be completed

Tester(s) told credit check must be completed

Tester(s) told background check must be done 

Tester(s) told comments on credit standing

Tester(s) told comments on rent history

Tester(s) told remarks about race/ethnicity

Tester(s) provided listings, floor plan, brochure, etc. 

Tester(s) provided more total items

Tester(s) told arrangement for contact

Tester(s) told positive remark 

Tester(s) told more positive remarks 

Tester(s) told negative remark 

Tester(s) told more negative remarks 

Tester(s) received agent follow-up 

Average overall helpfulness score 

87.5% 

2.7% 

0.0%

4.5%

92.9% 

5.4%

26.8% 

0.0% 

22.3% 

100.0% 

5.4% 

10.7%

0.0% 

91.1% 

59.8% 

25.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

0.0% 

92.9% 

77.7% 

25.9% 

0.0% 

17.9% 

6.3% 

20.5% 

1.38 

$1,672 

11.6% 

3.6%

7.1%

5.4% 

31.3% 

$153 

13.4%

16.1% 

$214 

1.8% 

17.9% 

$423 

0.0% 

5.4% 

15.2%

$514 

10.1% 

$20,086 

1.8% 

4.5% 

18.8% 

15.2% 

0.0% 

7.1% 

0.9% 

0.9% 

28.6% 

8.9% 

25.0% 

28.6% 

2.7% 

2.7% 

20.8% 

1.62 

4.5% 

25.0% 

1.41 

$1,680 

7.1% 

1.8% 

1.8% 

1.8% 

27.7% 

$160 

10.7% 

19.6% 

$477 

5.4% 

5.4% 

$255 

0.0% 

4.5% 

17.0% 

$555 

30.3% 

$20,488 

0.9% 

4.5% 

15.2% 

24.1% 

3.6% 

12.5% 

0.9% 

3.6% 

45.5% 

13.4% 

17.9% 

25.0% 

3.6% 

3.6% 

18.9% 

1.77 

1.8% 

-4.5% 

-0.04 

-$9 

4.5% 

1.8% 

5.4% 

3.6% 

3.6% 

-$7 

2.7% 

-3.6% 

-$263*** 

-3.6% 

12.5%*** 

$168*** 

0.0% 

0.9% 

-1.8% 

-$41 

-20.2%*** 

-$402 

0.9% 

0.0% 

3.6% 

-8.9% 

-3.6% 

-5.4% 

0.0% 

-2.7% 

-17.0%** 

-4.5% 

7.1% 

3.6% 

-0.9% 

-0.9% 

1.9% 

-0.15 

0.774 

0.576 

0.682 

0.345 

0.383

0.688 

0.109 

0.289 

0.630

0.603 

0.701 

0.636 

0.001 

0.289 

0.009 

0.004 

1.000 

1.000 

0.868 

0.392 

0.004

0.016 

1.000 

1.000 

0.627 

0.174 

0.125 

0.286 

1.000 

0.375 

0.048

0.424 

0.312 

0.699 

1.000 

1.000 

0.551 

0.104 

112 

112 

112 

112 

112

112

112

112

112

112 

112

112 

111 

112 

112 

109 

112

112 

112

89 

89

89 

112

112

112

112 

112

112

112

112 

112

112

112 

112 

112 

112 

106 

112 

If units shown: 

Tester(s) saw at least one unit without any problems 

One tester saw more problems per unit than partner 

Average number of problems per unit 

87.8% 0.0% 

11.2% 

0.14 

9.2% 

5.1% 

0.09 

-9.2%*** 

6.1% 

0.05 

0.004 

0.210 

0.326 

98 

98 

98 
REFERENCES

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 163

REFERENCES 

Abravanel, Martin. 2006. Do We Know More Now? Trends in Public Knowledge, Support, and Use of Fair 

Housing Law. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

http://www.huduser.org/Publications/pdf/FairHousingSurveyReport.pdf.

Angrist, Joshua, and Jorn-Steffen Pischke. 2008. Mostly Harmless Econometrics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton 

University Press. 

Calem, Paul S., Kevin Gillen, and Susan Wachter. 2004. “The Neighborhood Distribution of Subprime 

Mortgage Lending.” Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 29(4): 393-410.

Carr, James H. and Nandinee K. Kutty. 2008. Segregation: The Rising Costs for America. New York: 

Routledge.

Cashin, Sheryll. 2004. The Failures of Integration: How Race and Class Undermine America’s Dream. New 

York: PublicAffairs.

Edley, Christopher, Jr. 1992. “Implications of Empirical Studies on Race Discrimination.” In Clear 

and Convincing Evidence: Measurement of Discrimination in America, edited by Michael Fix and 

Raymond J. Struyk (377-91). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Ellen, Ingrid Gould. 2008. “Continuing Isolation: Segregation in America Today.” In Segregation: The 

Rising Costs for America, edited by James H. Carr and Nandinee K. Kutty (261-77). New York: 

Routledge.

Engel, Kathleen C. and Patricia A. McCoy. 2008. “From Credit Denial to Predatory Lending: The 

Challenge of Sustaining Minority Homeownership.” In Segregation: The Rising Costs for America, 

edited by James H. Carr and Nandinee K. Kutty (81-124). New York: Routledge.

Espenshade, Thomas J., and Maryann Belanger. 1998. “U.S. Public Perceptions and Reactions to 

Mexican Migration.” In At the Crossroads: Mexican Migration and U.S. Policy, edited by Frank D. 

Bean, Rodolfo O. de la Garza, Bryan R. Roberts and Sidney Weintraub. New York: Rowman and 

Littlefield.

Farley, Reynolds, Elaine L. Fielding, and Maria Krysan. 1997. “The Residential Preferences of Blacks and 

Whites: A Four-Metropolis Analysis” Housing Policy Debate 8(4). 

Fix, Michael, and Raymond J. Struyk, eds. 1993. Clear and Convincing Evidence: Testing for 

Discrimination in America. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Galster, George, and Erin Godfrey. 2005. “By Words and Deeds: Racial Steering by Real Estate Agents in 

the U.S. in 2000.”  Journal of the American Planning Association 71:251-68.

Hartman, Chester and Gregory D. Squires. 2010. The Integration Debate: Competing Futures for American 

Cities. New York: Routledge.
REFERENCES

164 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363. 1982. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/455/363/

case.html.

Hunter, William C., and Mary Beth Walker. 1996. “The Cultural Affinity Hypothesis and Mortgage Lending 

Decisions.” Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 13(1): 57-70.

Krysan, Maria. 2011. “Data Update to Racial Attitudes in America.” An update and Web site to complement 

Howard Schuman, Charlotte Steeh, Lawrence Bobo, and Maria Krysan. Racial Attitudes in America: 

Trends and Interpretations. Rev. ed., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. http://www.igpa.

uillinois.edu/programs/racial-attitudes/.

Lapinski, J.S., P. Peltola, G. Shaw, and A. Yang. 1997. “Immigrants and Immigration.” Public Opinion 

Quarterly 61:356-83.

Logan, John. 2011. Separate and Unequal: The Neighborhood Gap for Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians in 

Metropolitan America. Providence, RI: Brown University. http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/Data/

Report/report0727.pdf.

Oliver, Melvin L., and Thomas M. Shapiro. 1997. Black Wealth/White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial 

Inequality. New York: Routledge.

Pattillo-McCoy, Mary. 1999. Black Picket Fences: Privilege and Peril among the Black Middle-Class. Chicago: 

University of Chicago Press.

Pattillo, Mary E. 2005. “Black Middle-Class Neighborhoods.” Annual Review of Sociology 31(1): 305–29.

Polikoff, Alexander. 2006. Waiting for Gautreaux: A Story of Segregation, Housing, and the Black Ghetto.

Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

ProPublica. 2012. Living Apart: Fair Housing in America. http://www.propublica.org/series/living-apart.

Ross, Sonya, and Jennifer Agiesta. 2012. “AP poll: Majority harbor prejudice against blacks.” http://bigstory.

ap.org/article/ap-poll-majority-harbor-prejudice-against-blacks.

Rusk, David. 1993. Cities without Suburbs. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Schuman, Howard, Charlotte Steeh, Lawrence Bobo, and Maria Krysan. 1998. Racial Attitudes in America: 

Trends and Interpretations. Rev. ed. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Turner, Margery Austin and Zachary McDade. 2012a. “Broad Improvements Mask Stark Differences in 

Metropolitan Racial Segregation.” MetroTrends. http://metrotrends.org/commentary/segregation.cfm.

———. 2012b. “Immigration Brings Diversity to Neighborhoods Where African Americans Live.” 

MetroTrends http://www.metrotrends.org/commentary/diversity2.cfm

Turner, Margery, and Stephen Ross. 2003a. Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2 – Asians 

and Pacific Islanders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
REFERENCES

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 165

———. 2003b. Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 3 – Native Americans. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Turner, Margery Austin, and Lynette Rawlings. 2009. “Promoting Neighborhood Diversity: Benefits, 

Barriers, and Strategies.” Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Turner, Margery, Stephen Ross, George Galster, and John Yinger. 2002. Discrimination in Metropolitan 

Housing Markets: Phase 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development.

Turner, Margery, Raymond Struyk, and John Yinger. 1991. Housing Discrimination Study Synthesis.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2000. Curbing Predatory Home Mortgage 

Lending. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

White, Elon James. 2012. Poll: Racial Prejudice Has Risen Since 2008. Elongated thoughts. http://www.

theroot.com/blogs/elongated-thoughts/majority-americans-harbor-negative-feelings-towards-blacksnot-shocking.

Wienk, Ronald E., Clifford E. Reid, John C. Simonson, and Frederick J. Eggers. 1979. Measuring 

Discrimination in American Housing Markets: The Housing Market Practices Survey. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Washington, DC 20410-6000

June 2013