HOUSING DISCRIMINATION 

AGAINST RACIAL AND

ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Executive Summary

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

Executive Summary

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.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 1

A Glass Half Full: Discrimination Against Minority 

Homeseekers and Implications for Fair Housing Policy

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 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 of the full report. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2 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 

opportunity-rich 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 

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 in the full report. Federal law also prohibits forms of treatment that may appear equal on their face but that have a disparate impact on minority homeseekers.

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.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 3

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 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

4 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

more likely to be favored than minorities, as detailed in Exhibit 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 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 5

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 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 of the full report. 

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

appointments that their white counterparts are able to make (Exhibit 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

6 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 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 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 7

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 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

8 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 in the full 

report.

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.

5

 For more details on analysis of variations in discrimination, see Chapter V of the full report.

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. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 9

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 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

10 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Focusing on more recent trends, Exhibit 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 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 11

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 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

12 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.

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, black-white 

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 14). Moreover, 

most whites live in more diverse 

neighborhoods today than they did 

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.”
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 13

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

14 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.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012 15

SOURCES

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.

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.

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). 

Hartman, Chester and Gregory D. Squires. 2010. The Integration Debate: Competing Futures for American Cities. New 

York: Routledge.

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.

Lapinski, J.S., P. Peltola, G. Shaw, and A. Yang. 1997. “Immigrants and Immigration.” Public Opinion Quarterly 61:356-83.

Krysan, Maria. 2011. “Data Update to Racial Attitudes in America.” An update and website established 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/.

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, Mary E. 2005. “Black Middle-Class Neighborhoods.” Annual Review of Sociology 31(1): 305-29.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

16 HOUSING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES 2012

Pattillo-McCoy, Mary. 1999. Black Picket Fences: Privilege and Peril Among the Black Middle-Class. Chicago: University 

of Chicago Press.

Polikoff, Alexander. 2006. Waiting for Gautreaux: A Story of Segregation, Housing, and the Black Ghetto. Evanston, IL: 

Northwestern University Press.

Rusk, David. 1993. Cities without Suburbs. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Schuman, Schuman, Charlotte Steeh, Lawrence Bobo, and Maria Krysan. 1997. 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.” http://metrotrends.org/commentary/segregation.cfm.

—. 2012b. “Immigration Brings Diversity to Neighborhoods Where African Americans Live.” 

http://www.metrotrends.org/commentary/diversity2.cfm.

Turner, Margery Austin and Lynette Rawlings. 2009. “Promoting Neighborhood Diversity: Benefits, Barriers, and 

Strategies.” Report published on UI website; Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

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.

—. 2003b. Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 3 - Native Americans. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development.

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