Rental Housing Discrimination on

the Basis of Mental Disabilities:

Results of Pilot Testing

Study of Rental Housing

Discrimination on the Basis

of Mental Disabilities:

Final Report

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development  |  Office of Policy Development and Research

RENTAL HOUSING

DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS

OF MENTAL DISABILITIES:

RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING

DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS

OF MENTAL DISABILITIES:

FINAL REPORT

Prepared by

Joy Hammel

Janet Smith

University of Illinois at Chicago

Susan Scovill

Consultant

Ron Campbell

M. Davis and Company, Inc.

Rui Duan

HDR, Inc.

Prepared for

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Policy Development and Research

Submitted by

M. Davis and Company, Inc.

August 2017

Acknowledgments

This project could not have been completed successfully

Human Policy, Law, and Disability Studies; Marti Knisely,

without the commitment, dedication, and hard work

Community Support Initiative, the Technical Assistance

of many. We particularly thank the research team and

Collaborative; Katherine McDonald, Associate Professor,

administrative support staff at M. Davis and Company, Inc.

Syracuse University; Tia Nelis, Self-Advocacy Specialist at

Thanks are also due to Madeline Hoffman for assisting with

the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center, Institute

coordination, quality control, and guidance throughout

on Disability and Human Development, University of

the testing process and to May Raad of HDR, Inc., for their

Illinois at Chicago; Jan Peters, Executive Vice President

analysis contributions. Finally, this study would not have

and Chief Operating Officer, Eden Housing Inc.; Susan

been possible without the work of our local testing organi-

Ann Silverstein, Senior Attorney, Foundation Litigation,

zations, Access Living in Chicago (Jamie Wichman, Kelly

AARP; Karen Tamley, Commissioner of the Mayor’s Office

Chen) and The Equal Rights Center in Washington, D.C.

for People with Disabilities, City of Chicago; Victoria

(Kristen Barry and Valentine Khaminwa), and our outstand-

Tedder, Housing Counseling and Advocacy Program, San

ing group of testers—many of whom are members of the

Francisco Independent Living Resource Center; and Sam

very disability community that is the focus of this study.

Tsemberis, Pathways to Housing. Many thanks are due to

Kim Savage for her assistance in managing the expert panel.

A panel of expert advisers made invaluable contributions

to the authors’ understanding of the housing experiences

Anne Fletcher from the U.S. Department of Housing and

and challenges faced by people with mental disability,

Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and

reasonable accommodations, and protocol design and

Research, provided excellent guidance and oversight

data analysis. The panel members (and their organiza-

throughout this research effort.

tional affiliations at the time of the study) were Michael

Finally, special thanks and remembrance to Bonnie Milstein,

Allen, Relman, Dane & Colfax, PLLC; Anne Cameron

a lifelong advocate for disability rights and social justice,

Caldwell, Research and Innovations Officer and Director

who served on the initial project team and coordinated the

of the Autism NOW Resource Center, The ARC; Arlene

expert panel.

Kanter, Co-Director of the Syracuse University Center on

Disclaimer

The contents of this report are the views of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. government.

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

iii

Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................ vi

Data Analysis ................................................................ 27

Introduction .................................................................... vi

Measuring Discrimination ............................................. 27

Summary of Findings .....................................................vii

Findings of Incidence of Discrimination ............................... 29

Recommendations .........................................................viii

Data Reliability and Limitations .................................... 29

Study Overview ...................................................................... 1

E-mail Testing Findings ................................................. 29

Purpose and Goals of the Study ...................................... 1

Reasonable Accommodation Requests via E-mail ............ 31

Background and Previous Research on Housing

Telephone Testing Findings ........................................... 32

Discrimination Against People With MD .................. 1

Reasonable Accommodation Requests via Telephone ...... 34

Overview of Testing Focused on Individuals With MD .... 2

In-Person Testing Findings ............................................ 36

Paired Testing Protocols and Field Management ..................... 4

Findings From the Evaluation of Different Testing Modes ..... 38

Overview of Testing for Housing Discrimination ............. 4

People With Disabilities As Testers: Is It Feasible? ......... 38

Strengths and Limitations of Paired Testing in Different

Tester Profile: How Do You Isolate and Reveal Disability? .. 38

Testing Methods....................................................... 4

E-mail Testing: Strengths and Weaknesses ..................... 40

Overview of the Paired Testing Design and Process ......... 5

Telephone Testing: Strengths and Weaknesses ............... 41

Pretesting ........................................................................ 5

In-Person Testing: Strengths and Weaknesses As

E-mail Testing Protocols .................................................. 6

Evaluated by Testers With MD and Companion

Telephone Testing Protocols ............................................ 9

Testers ................................................................... 42

In-Person Testing Protocols ........................................... 12

Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations .................... 47

Overall Data Collection Oversight, Management, and

Project Leadership and Design ...................................... 49

Quality Control...................................................... 16

Recruitment and Selection of Testers ............................. 49

Sampling Methods ................................................................ 17

Training and Data Collection ......................................... 49

Sampling Frame ............................................................ 17

Appendix A: Qualitative Analyses and Findings on Overt

Allocation of Tests Across Market Size ........................... 17

and Subtle Discrimination Against People With Mental

Sample of Metropolitan Areas........................................ 18

Disabilities by Different Testing Modes ................................. 50

Selection of Advertised Units ........................................ 20

Qualitative Analysis Methodology ................................. 50

Risk of Detection ........................................................... 21

Data Analysis ................................................................ 51

Sampling of Units ......................................................... 21

Results .......................................................................... 53

Analysis of Testing Findings ................................................. 23

Discussion and Conclusions .......................................... 61

Summary of Tests Conducted ........................................ 23

Appendix B: References ........................................................ 63

Measuring Differential Treatment .................................. 24

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

iv

List of Tables

Table 23.  Differential Treatment in Response Received

for Renters With MI Found in E-mail Testing .... 31

Table 1.

Testing Timeline .................................................. 5

Table 24.  Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters

Table 2.

Subject Lines Assigned Randomly for All

With MI Found in E-mail Testing ...................... 31

E-mail Tests ......................................................... 6

Table 25.  Summary of Reasonable Accommodation

Table 3.

E-mail Tester Scripts ............................................ 7

Requests by Testers With MD Found in E-mail

Testing ............................................................... 32

Table 4.

Reasonable Accommodation Request by Type

of Disability ......................................................... 8

Table 26.  Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters

With MD Found in Telephone Testing ............... 32

Table 5.

Telephone Tester Scripts .................................... 10

Table 27.  Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters

Table 6.

Examples of How MD May Affect Functional

With MI Found in Telephone Testing ................ 33

Aspects of Life and Maintenance of Housing ..... 14

Table 28.  Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters

Table 7.

Sampling Frame for People With MD, by Test

With I/DD Found in Telephone Testing ............. 33

Type .................................................................. 17

Table 29.  Summary of Reasonable Accommodation

Table 8.

Rental Market Sampling Frame .......................... 17

Requests by Testers With MD Found in

Table 9.

Allocation of Tests Across Market Size ............... 17

Telephone Testing .............................................. 34

Table 10.  Distribution of Population With Disabilities

Table 30.  Summary of Reasonable Accommodation

and Proportion With Cognitive Disabilities,

Request Responses by Specific Markets ............. 35

2009–2011 ........................................................ 18

Table 31.  Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters

Table 11.  Pool of Possible Markets (MSAs) Based on

With MD Found in In-Person Testing ................ 36

Statistical Criteria for Inclusion ......................... 19

Table 32.  Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters

Table 12.  Selected Markets by Size and  Olmstead Status .... 20

With MI Found in In-Person Testing ................. 36

Table 13.  Sample Allocation Plan Across Communities

Table 33.  Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters

and Test Types by Market Size ........................... 20

With I/DD Found in In-Person Testing .............. 37

Table 14.  Criteria for Inclusion in/Exclusion From Unit

Table 34.  Pros and Cons of E-mail Testing ........................ 41

Sample .............................................................. 21

Table 35.  Pros and Cons of Telephone Testing .................. 42

Table 15.  Total Tests Conducted by Test Mode .................. 23

Table 36.  Pros and Cons of In-Person Testing ................... 46

Table 16.  E-mail Sample Allocation by Market Size .......... 23

Table A-1.  Samples of Telephone and In-Person Testing ..... 51

Table 17.  Telephone Testing Allocation by Market Size ..... 24

Table A-2.  Subtle Discrimination Indicator Keyword

Table 18.  In-Person Sample Allocation by Location .......... 24

Groups .............................................................. 52

Table 19.  Differential Treatment Indicator Matrix .............. 25

Table A-3.  Response Difference in E-mail Content .............. 53

Table 20.  Possible Outcomes Matrix ................................. 27

Table A-4.  Subtle Discrimination Responses in Multiple

Categories ......................................................... 53

Table 21.  Differential Treatment in Response Received

for Renters With MD (I/DD+MI) Found in

Table A-5.  Subtle Discrimination in E-mail Testing ............. 55

E-mail Testing ................................................... 29

Table A-6.  Housing Provider Responses to RA Requests in

Table 22.  Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters

E-mail Testing ................................................... 55

With MD (I/DD+MI) Found in E-mail Testing ... 30

Table A-7.  Open Door/Closed Door in E-mail Testing ........ 55

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

v

Table A-8.  Subtle Discrimination in Telephone Testing ....... 57

List of Figures

Table A-9.  Overt Discrimination in Telephone Testing ........ 58

Table A-10. Housing Provider Responses to RA Requests

Figure 1.  Flow of Sample Selection and Testing Process ... 22

in Telephone Testing .......................................... 58

Figure 2.  Response Rate of E-mail Paired Tests ................. 23

Table A-11. Open Door/Closed Door in Telephone Testing... 58

Figure 3.  Response Rates of E-mail Paired Tests for

Table A-12. Subtle Discrimination in In-Person Testing ........ 60

Pro tected Testers Identifying as a Person With

MI .................................................................... 30

Table A-13. Overt Discrimination in In-Person Testing ......... 60

Figure A-1.  E-mail Testing Responses ................................... 50

Table A-14. Open Door/Closed Door in In-Person Testing ... 61

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

vi

Executive Summary

Introduction

From focus group input, the authors learned that individuals

with MI and I/DD experience potential discrimination at

More than 15 million people in the United States have some

different points of time in the rental process: when initially

type of mental disability (MD). Many of these individuals seek

attempting to gain information about available units, during the

community-based housing in the rental market. As a result of the

application process, and even after moving in and during their

U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in  Olmstead v.  L.C. , 527 U.S. 581

tenure in their home.

(1999), an increasing number of individuals with disabilities

are moving from nursing homes and other institutional and

After the literature review and focus group phases were con-

segregated settings into community-based settings. As a result,

ducted, protocols for conducting discrimination testing were

equality of access to the rental housing market has become

designed. A matched-pair testing design was created to examine

even more of a critical policy issue.

differences in treatment by housing providers between indi-

viduals with MI and I/DD (protected testers) and individuals

This study represents the first comprehensive examination of

without such disabilities (control testers). Paired testers were

discrimination in the rental housing market against people

matched on key characteristics other than disability, such as

with MD, specifically focusing on people with mental illness

income, race, gender, and age. The testing sought to examine

(MI) and those with intellectual or developmental disability (I/

differences in testers’ treatment across three modes of contact

DD). The goal of the study is to increase the understanding of

with housing providers: e-mail, telephone, and in person. These

the forms and prevalence of housing discrimination against this

modes generally represent the primary ways people, including

community as its members seek market-rate rental housing.

individuals with MI and I/DD, might seek rental housing. In

The overall study design included a stepwise approach to

two of the modes, e-mail and telephone testing, a request for

testing the feasibility of involving individuals with MI and I/DD

a reasonable accommodation was also made by the protected

in discrimination testing and to obtaining data regarding their

tester to allow for the examination of housing providers’

treatment by rental housing providers. The study was initiated

responses.

with a comprehensive review of relevant literature and the

An initial set of exploratory tests was administered to examine

convening of multiple focus groups that included individuals

and refine testing protocols before broad-scale testing. After the

with MI and I/DD, disability and fair housing organizations,

exploratory testing, broad-scale pilot testing was conducted in

and policymakers. As very little discrimination research to date

multiple urban rental markets across the United States. Testing

has actually included these target populations as participants in

in each mode was divided equally between the two subcatego-

the process, the focus groups were particularly informative in

ries of MD (MI and I/DD), and more than 1,000 matched-pair

identifying specific issues faced by individuals with MI and I/

tests were administered—359 by e-mail in nine rental markets,

DD throughout the process of seeking rental housing. Barriers

668 by telephone in nine rental markets, and 101 in person in

identified by the focus group process included—

two large rental markets.

•  Negative and stigmatizing reactions and attitudes by

This study represents the first time that individuals with MI

housing providers and their agents.

and I/DD have been enlisted to serve as in-person testers in

•  Improper requests to disclose personal and disability-relat-

a comprehensive, multicity housing discrimination study.

ed information.

As a result, this study also contributes significantly to our

knowledge about research methodologies that are accessible,

•  A lack of understanding about what types of reasonable

inclusive, and participatory to individuals with MI and I/DD.

accommodations may be needed by individuals with MD.

Based on feedback from individuals with MI and I/DD, a testing

methodology was developed for this study in which individuals

•

The denial of proper requests for reasonable accommodations.

without MI and I/DD were trained and accompanied protected

•  Steering toward specific housing, buildings, or units based

testers as companions during in-person tests. These companion

on an individual’s disability.

testers served three roles: first, to act as a friend and natural

support to the protected tester during the testing; second, to

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

vii

further disclose the MD of the protected tester to the housing

In both e-mail and telephone testing, a significant percentage

provider; and third, to assist in preparing detailed field notes

of individuals with MI and I/DD also experienced adverse treat-

to document their testing experiences.

ment with respect to a request for a reasonable accommodation.

The reasonable accommodations requested were identified as

Summary of Findings

specific to the protected tester’s functional needs, such as the

use of an assistance animal to manage emotional and cognitive

The testing conducted in this study documented significant

issues or the need for a verbal reminder from the landlord to

levels of adverse differential treatment toward individuals with

pay the rent on time.

MI and I/DD when compared with individuals who did not

•

The willingness of a housing provider to grant a request for an

have MD. Pilot testing revealed that individuals with MI and I/

accommodation varied by mode of testing, with the rate of

DD were—

granting a request for a reasonable accommodation being

•

Less likely to receive a response to their inquiry (17.55 percent significantly higher when the request was made by telephone

of people without disabilities received a response com-

(59.14 percent willing to accommodate; 40.86 percent not

pared with 9.19 percent of people with MI and I/DD in

willing to accommodate) than by e-mail (15.38 percent

e-mail testing).

willing to accommodate; 84.62 percent not willing to

accommodate).1

•

Less likely to be told an advertised unit was available (5.94

percent of people without disabilities were told that the

•

Regardless of testing mode, a significant percentage of people

advertised unit was available compared with 0.99 percent

with MI and I/DD were given a negative response to their

of people with MI and I/DD in in-person testing).

reasonable accommodation request, ranging from outright

denials to more subtle barriers, such as an indication that

•

Less likely to be invited to contact the housing provider (7.69

the individual with MD would be responsible for actively

percent of people without disabilities were invited to

seeking out and appealing the denial of his or her request

contact the housing provider to see the unit compared

with higher-level managers whose name and contact

with 0.00 percent of people with MI and I/DD in e-mail

information were then not provided.2

testing).

The research also found that many housing providers simply

•

Less likely to be invited to inspect the available unit (21.26

did not respond to housing inquiries but that the probability

percent of people without disabilities were invited to

of a response increased based on the interpersonal nature of

inspect the unit compared with 16.47 percent of people

the interaction. For example, in-person inquiries received the

with MI and I/DD in telephone testing).

highest rates of response, followed by telephone inquiries, with

•

More likely to be encouraged to look at a different unit than the e-mail inquiries the most likely to be ignored.

one advertised in telephone testing, a potential indicator

Each of the three testing modes used (e-mail, telephone, and

of steering people with MI and I/DD toward specific

in person) yielded a different form of testing data that, when

buildings or areas within rental complexes, resulting in

viewed together, not only produced evidence of discrimination

segregated living patterns.

but also showed promise for bringing testing to a national scale

•

Treated adversely at disparate rates depending on disability

and provided insights on opportunities for future testing.

type, with higher rates of adverse treatment found for

Finally, this study yielded significant findings on how to con-

individuals with MI than for individuals with  I/DD. This

duct testing with testers with MD. In-person testing specifically

finding may indicate that individuals with MI face more

involving a person with MD demonstrated that people with MI

negative stereotypes and stigma from rental housing

and I/DD can serve as effective testers.3 The evidence from the

providers.

1 In-person testing protocols did not include a request by the protected tester for a reasonable accommodation.

2 In addition, testing results varied by metropolitan statistical area (MSA), with the rate of granting a reasonable accommodation request being lowest in the Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI MSA (38.6 percent), and highest in the Albuquerque, NM MSA (75.5 percent).

3 Contributing to these outcomes were training and support provided to the testers, the use of a companion tester, and the overall coordination of the testing by community-based disability rights organizations.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

viii

in-person testing suggests strongly that both populations could

the community of people with MI and  I/DD about their rights also do telephone testing if the same approach to training and

under federal, state, and local antidiscrimination laws, how

debriefing is used.

to recognize potential discrimination, and what actions to

take when faced with discrimination.

Recommendations

•

Additional research is necessary to better understand the

scope and severity of the discriminatory barriers encountered

These findings led the authors to make the following recom-

by individuals with MI and I/DD as they seek, obtain, and

mendations.

retain accessible rental housing. Findings from this pilot

•

A broad-based education initiative should be created to

study effort suggest that a national testing effort would be

educate housing providers, including owners and their

feasible.

agents, about fair housing rights and obligations, includ-

•

Individuals with MI and I/DD can and should be an integral

ing appropriate policies and practices when dealing with

part of future housing research and testing, housing dis-

individuals with MI, I/DD, and other MD.

crimination education initiatives, and efforts to strengthen

•  Public and private housing, disability, and civil rights

housing policy to promote equal housing opportunity.

organizations should  redouble efforts to engage and educate

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

1

Study Overview

Purpose and Goals of the Study

•  Short Paper 1:  Systematic Literature Review of Research

on Discrimination in Rental Housing on the Basis of Mental

The existing research related to housing discrimination and its

Disabilities.

effect on individuals with mental disability (MD)4 is particular-

ly limited; therefore, HUD launched this study with the goal of

•  Short Paper 2:  Getting Into and Maintaining Housing in the

increasing the understanding of the experiences of individuals

Private Rental Market: Experiences of People With Mental

with MD as they seek rental housing.

Disabilities.

The following research objectives identified by HUD guided

•  Short Paper 3:  The Potential for Discrimination in Rental

this study.

Housing for People With Mental Disabilities Moving Out of

Institutions to Community Living Under  Olmstead.

•  Develop and implement different testing methods and

approaches, evaluating their strengths and weaknesses, to

•  Short Paper 4:  Accessible &   Participatory Methods for establish a series of protocols for conducting paired testing

Involving People With Mental Disabilities in Housing Discrimi-

to determine and measure the degree to which people

nation Testing.

with MD experience discrimination in the search for rental

•  Short Paper 5:  Rental Housing Access & Discrimination

housing.

Experienced by People With Multiple Disabilities.

•  Conduct pilot testing using different testing procedures to

develop protocols for generating reliable estimates of any

Background and Previous Research

difference in the treatment of people with MD during the

on Housing Discrimination Against

process of searching for rental housing.

People With MD

•  Produce a qualitative and quantitative analysis of Title VIII

Automated Paperless Office Tracking System (TEAPOTS)

The federal Fair Housing Act (FHA)7 prohibits discrimination

data.5

in the sale, rental, and financing of housing and in other

housing-related transactions, on the basis of seven protected

•  Produce five short papers that expand the understanding

classes: race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, in the field of housing discrimination on the basis of MD.6

and disability. Housing providers are prohibited from consid-

The purpose of this study was not to generate national

ering these protected characteristics as the basis for rejecting

estimates of housing discrimination on the basis of MD, but

or refusing to negotiate with individuals seeking housing or

rather to pilot methods for conducting paired testing with this

housing-related services and from misrepresenting or limiting

protected class with the goal of demonstrating a potentially

housing opportunities based on any protected characteristic.

feasible approach to future nationwide testing.

In addition to having the basic prohibitions of the FHA against

Additional short papers have been developed to inform

housing discrimination for all protected classes, people with

researchers, practitioners, and consumers about the shape

disabilities have three additional protections under the FHA:

and scope of housing discrimination against people with MD.

(1) multifamily housing with four or more units, built for

These papers focus on the following related topics.

first  occupancy after March 13, 1991, must meet specific, if

4  Mental disability is defined as “(1) having a mental or psychological disorder or condition that limits a major life activity, including working; (2) any other mental or psychological disorder or condition that requires special education or related services; (3) having a record or history of a mental or psychological disorder or condition which is known to the employer or other entity covered by this part; or (4) being regarded or treated by the employer as having, or having had, any mental condition that makes achievement of a major life activity difficult” ( Foster v.  City of Oakland, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70094).

5 TEAPOTS provides data records regarding filed discrimination complaints. The analysis of TEAPOTS data on housing complaints based on MD is documented in a separate report.

6 These papers have been published by HUD separately.

7 Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 as amended in 1988, 24 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

2

relatively modest, accessibility requirements that allow for a

6.3 percent of the U.S. population in 2010, approximately 15.2

person with disabilities to access and use both the housing

million people age 15 or older, had difficulty with cognitive,

units and associated public use and common use areas; (2)

mental, or emotional functioning (Brault, 2012). This number

housing providers must make reasonable accommodations

includes people with both PD and I/DD. Using a broader defini-

to their rules, policies, practices, and services necessary for

tion and different methodology, however, the Substance Abuse

people with disabilities to equally enjoy the property; and

and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) estimates

(3) housing providers must allow residents with disabilities,

a much larger number of people who have experienced some

at the residents’ expense, to make reasonable modifications

form of PD in a year: 44.5 million adults age 18 or older.10 This

to physical structures necessary in order for them to use and

total comprises nearly 20 percent of the adult U.S. population.

enjoy the property.

Of this total, about 10.4 million adults (4.6 percent) of U.S.

population have severe MI (APA, 2000). Braddock et al. (2011)

In addition, in 1999, the United States Supreme Court ruled in

used a figure of 4.8 million for the population with I/DD.

Olmstead v.  L.C. , 527 U.S. 581, that unjustified segregation of people with disabilities constitutes discrimination in violation

Little is known about the forms of discrimination people with

of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.8 Although the

MD experience when searching for housing. According to

beneficiaries of this ruling are all people with disabilities, the

NCD (2001), people with any disability are likely to encounter

decision has had a particularly significant effect on individuals

discrimination in three ways: (1) the housing is inaccessible, (2)

with MD living in restrictive and segregated settings, including

the landlord assumes that renters with disabilities are unable to

nursing homes and institutions. As states seek to comply with

live independently, and/or (3) the housing staff are unwilling to

the  Olmstead ruling, people with MD are moving out of insti-

modify rules and policies that exclude people with disabilities.

tutional settings in larger numbers and increasingly seeking

For people with MD, access to housing also may be affected by

housing in the private rental market.

histories of homelessness or incarceration, both of which can be

potential sources of additional discrimination.

Individuals with MD often face multiple challenges when they

seek housing in the rental housing market. Challenges may

include both economic barriers and stigma or suspicion on

Overview of Testing Focused on

the part of housing providers that limits their access to diverse

Individuals With MD

housing choices. Complaints based on disability make up the

largest number of housing discrimination complaints filed with

Although fair housing testing related to the barriers faced by the

federal, state, and local fair housing agencies and with private

disability community has been conducted in some metropolitan

fair housing groups (HUD, 2014a). In 2014, disability com-

areas, research on housing discrimination against people

plaints made up 51.84 percent, or 14,271 of the total number

with MD is particularly limited. Before this study, the most

of 27,528 fair housing complaints filed with HUD, its partner

significant examination of the level and nature of this type of

state and local agencies, and private fair housing enforcement

disability discrimination was published in a 2005 HUD Disabil-

organizations (NFHA, 2015).9 A significant portion of these

ity Discrimination Study report (DDS 2005; HUD, 2005).

complaints involves people with MD. For example, HUD (n.d.,

DDS 2005 explored the development of methodologies in

Table 1) noted that, in fiscal year 2010, fully 40 percent of the

testing for housing discrimination on the basis of MD using a

disability complaints involved MD, which includes people with

paired testing methodology previously used in testing for hous-

psychiatric disability or mental illness (PD/MI) and intellectual

ing discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity. DDS 2005

or developmental disability (I/DD).

employed a handful of in - person tests by individuals with MD

In the United States, the term “mental disability” includes

and telephone tests by testers without disabilities purportedly

a wide range of conditions. According to the U.S. Census

calling on behalf of individuals with MD.

Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation, about

8 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq.

9 This percentage is an increase from 49.51 percent of all complaints submitted in 2013.

10 SAMHSA defines  mental illness as the presence of mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder based on the diagnostic criteria in APA (2000).

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

3

Key findings of DDS 2005 exploratory testing included—

•  Testers with MD may be more effective if they conduct

tests relatively infrequently, and it would be preferable to

•  It is feasible to conduct in-person testing, and people with

extend the testing over a relatively long period of time,

MD can effectively serve as testers.

unless a large pool of testers with MD could be recruited.

•  It is challenging to recruit people with MD who can

The pilot testing documented in this report sought to build on

handle the role of a tester, and some individuals may need

the key findings observed in DDS 2005.

extra support and assistance.

•  Tests in which the person with MD was accompanied by

a “friend” without MD proved to be credible and effective

but significantly raised the cost of testing.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

4

Paired Testing Protocols and Field Management

Overview of Testing for Housing

to determine whether reasonable modifications or accommoda-

Discrimination

tions are permitted to enable a person with a disability to fully

enjoy living in the housing.

Testing is an investigative technique that serves as a powerful

tool for directly observing differences in treatment in the

Strengths and Limitations of Paired

practices of housing providers and their agents. Testers pose

as individuals seeking housing, contacting housing providers

Testing in Different Testing Methods

in a variety of ways to inquire about housing opportunities.

Testing can be conducted in a variety of configurations,

The origins of paired testing as a method of studying housing

depending on the issues being examined, but the most common

discrimination and identifying differential treatment lie in fair

and effective approach to observing differences in treatment

housing enforcement, in which testing is often used to identify

based on a particular characteristic is matched-pair testing.

individual housing providers who are violating housing

In this type of testing, two testers are assigned profiles that

discrimination laws.11 When paired testing is applied to large,

make them similarly situated and qualified for the housing

representative samples and implemented with rigorous con-

being tested, differing only in their membership in a protected

trols using a quasi-experimental research design, it can provide

class. The testers contact a housing provider and inquire

reliable estimates of the differences in treatment among

about available housing. Matched-pair testing allows for the

different populations and of the prevalence of discriminatory

observation of housing providers’ actions and statements and

behavior toward different protected classes. Paired testing also

measures whether and how people are treated differently

can be used to identify discrimination by a specific provider

during the housing search process. The tester exhibiting the

that violates the FHA.

characteristic being tested (for example, a disability) is referred

HUD has used testing as an investigative and research tool

to as the  protected tester and the tester without the characteristic for more than 40 years to identify and document discrimi-in the pair is the  control tester. The key to testing is to ensure natory housing practices.12 HUD has funded a wide variety

pairs are well matched on all variables except the one variable

of testing-based initiatives, including four national studies

or characteristic to be tested—this procedure ensures that

using the methodology of matched-pair testing to measure the

test results are unambiguous. The matched characteristics of

levels of housing discrimination based on race and ethnicity,

the tester pairs in this study included race, gender, age range,

and HUD has also funded national studies on discrimination

education, employment, household size, and income. The

against same-sex couples, families with children, people who

single variable that differed between matched testers was the

are deaf, and people who use wheelchairs.13 For people with

existence or absence of a particular MD.14 To minimize the risk

disabilities, testing can be used to identify instances of direct

of detection by housing providers during testing, some of the

discrimination, to obtain evidence of unequal treatment, and

characteristics assigned to a test pair were slightly enhanced to

favor the protected tester.

11 HUD has noted that: “Fair housing advocates have turned to testing as the most effective tool to investigate violations of fair housing law” (HUD, 2014b).

12 Testing cannot capture all forms of housing discrimination. It is most effective at the early stages of the search for housing, including contacting providers to inquire about housing opportunities and visiting properties to view units and obtain information about the rental (or sales, lending, and insurance) process and associated costs. Testers generally have fictitious profiles, and testing rarely proceeds through the actual application stage. Testing also does not effectively capture issues found later in the housing process, such as decisions made based on submitted applications or how residents in a protected class are treated after they move in, such as maintenance or lease termination.

13 See HUD (2013a) and HUD (2015).

14 Because of the need to isolate the single variable of MD (either MI or I/DD) and the need to ensure that the profiles made the testers financially qualified for the housing, the testing protocols could not reflect the real life experience of many people with MD searching for rental housing, whose lives and characteristics are much more complex than the rigors of research testing would allow.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

5

Overview of the Paired Testing Design  DDS 2005 study, which conducted a small number of explor-and Process

atory telephone and in-person tests based on MD employing

some individuals with MD as protected testers.

This study included testing components in nine selected rental

The e-mail and telephone testing in this study was conducted

markets using matched-pair testing via e-mail, telephone, and

from a central location in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The

in-person visits.15 The overall goals were to (1) enhance the

in-person testing was performed by local testing organizations

understanding of the barriers faced by individuals with MD

in two markets: Access Living in the Chicago-Joliet-Naperville,

in their search for rental housing, (2) determine the type and

IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA; hereafter, Chi-

nature of discrimination that might be encountered, (3) eval-

cago) and The Equal Rights Center in the Washington-Arling-

uate the utility of different approaches to paired testing when

ton-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSA (hereafter, Washington,

conducting research on housing discrimination on the basis

D.C.). These testing organizations recruited, trained, and

of MD, and (4) assess the feasibility of employing individuals

managed the in-person testing in the field with support and

with MD as testers. The testing in this study was not designed

supervision from the study team.

to produce a national estimate of rental discrimination, but

rather was designed to develop and evaluate the utility of

different testing approaches and techniques for measuring

Pretesting

housing discrimination among this particular protected class.

Before beginning the pilot testing, pretests were conducted for

As shown in Table 1, the testing for this study took place over

each testing mode (e-mail, telephone, and in-person testing).

a 1 1/2-year period in 2013 and 2014. The timeframes for

The purpose of the pretesting was to ensure that (1) data

each mode of testing were staggered, with each new testing

collection protocols and strategies were designed correctly;

mode beginning with pretesting to confirm the effectiveness

(2) testers were trained to execute the tests appropriately; (3)

of that mode and to assess the need for any methodological

administrative procedures were effective; (4) the data entry,

adjustments. The testing protocols in this study built on the

coding, and interpretation process accurately captured the

protocols established in previous studies; the e-mail testing

experiences of testers; and (5) feedback was produced quickly,

protocols mirrored those used in a national e-mail testing

without detection, so as to permit adjustments in the testing

study of same-sex couples, and the telephone testing and

protocols.

in-person testing protocols mirrored those established in the

Table 1. Testing Timeline

2013

2014

3rd Q

4th Q

1st Q

2nd Q

3rd Q

4th Q

Testing

E-mail

Pretest

Pilot testing

Washington, D.C.a/Chicagob

Remaining markets/RA request

Telephone

Pretest

Pilot testing Washington, D.C.a/Chicagob

Pilot testing remaining markets

In person

Pretest

Pilot testing

RA = reasonable accommodation.

a Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area.

b Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area.

15 The rental markets tested were in the following metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs): the Albuquerque, NM; Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI; Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN; Fresno, CA; Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA; Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN; New Haven-Milford, CT; Syracuse, NY; and Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSAs.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

6

Focus group input and a review of relevant literature provided

Table 2. Subject Lines Assigned Randomly for All

information about how people with MD engage in the housing

E-mail Tests

search process and identified unique factors affecting their

1.  One bedroom apartment

housing search. Information from national and local disability

2.  Apartment for rent

groups in Washington, D.C., and Chicago helped to identify

3.  Unit for rent

the different sources used to locate housing units available for

4.  Craigslist - 1br apartment

rent. These organizations also assisted in providing testers with

5.  Craigslist Rental

consistent, realistic, and believable identities and backgrounds.

6.  Unit availability

In ‐ person testers with MD portrayed their own disability and 7.  Apartment posted on craigslist

additional characteristics consistent with the tester profile

8.  Craigslist apartment posting

provided by the study team.

9.  Inquiry about your apartment

Testing protocols were designed so as to create identities that

10.  Saw your Craigslist Apartment ad

clearly disclosed the protected tester’s MD by incorporating

11.  In response to your Craigslist listing

supporting information such as previous hospitalization or

institutionalization and affiliation with relevant community

A variety of e-mail “scripts” were developed to serve as the

support agencies to ensure that the presence of MD was

body of the message (see Table 3). In the body of the text, the

unambiguously communicated to the housing provider. This

protected tester discloses disability early in the text in one of

background information was also used to provide testers with

the following direct manners.

ready answers to the typical types of questions asked by rental

agents, such as, “Why are you looking at this property?” and

MI—“I have a mental health issue.”

“Where do you work?”

I/DD—“I have a developmental disability.”

Control—none.

E-mail Testing Protocols

The e-mail text also contained a secondary reveal by the

The e-mail testing did not use individuals serving as testers

protected tester, with a parallel addition by control testers,

in the traditional sense. Replicating the protocols of HUD

referring to their previous residence.

(2013a), the de facto “tester” was the text of each paired e-mail

MI—psychiatric hospital (“I have been living in a psychiatric and not the individual sending the e-mails. Test administrators

center for the past year”).

sent out all e-mails inquiring about advertised rental units and

I/DD—group home (“I have been living in a group home for

then reviewed and coded the responses. The text of the paired

the past year”).

e-mails contained similar language asking about the housing

unit for rent. The only difference between the two e-mails was

Control—dorm, parents, divorce (“I have been living with my

that one e-mail stated the person making the inquiry had MD

parents, or just finished school and was living in a dorm, or just

(either MI or I/DD). A total of 359 paired e-mail tests were ad-

got divorced”).

ministered, including 78 paired e-mail tests that incorporated

The “dual disclosure” text samples in table 3 include reveal of

a request for a reasonable accommodation in the e-mail of the

the disability plus the alternate living scenarios, which provided

protected tester.

a sufficient number of options and ensured that the text sam-

ples were comparable.

E-mail Testing Script

Including both a statement about having a disability and a

A benefit of using e-mail for testing is that the message is

type of previous living arrangement was designed to provide

completely controlled and consistent for the protected tester

clear and unambiguous evidence to a housing provider that

and the control tester in the pair. Moreover, an e-mail response

the prospective tenant had MD. Disclosing the current housing

from a housing provider gives verbatim statements to code and

situation of the protected tester is important because it not

analyze in relation to the initial e-mail inquiry. For each e-mail

only signals that the person has a disability (a requirement for

test, the subject line (see Table 2) and the message were short

that living situation), but it also signals that the applicant does

and relatively neutral in tone, with standard information being

not have experience living in the private market, which can

requested.

make the individual appear to be more of a risk to the housing

provider. This same justification applies to the disclosure of the

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

7

Table 3. E-mail Tester Scripts

Protected Tester

Control Tester

Hello. I am interested in your 1 br. Apt. on <specify address>. Is it Hi, my name is <name>, and I am very interested in your 1br apt available? Is there a time I could come by and see it? I have a <disability located at <specify address>. I have been living in <alternate housing identifier> and have been living in <alternate housing identifier> and am identifier>. Could you let me know if it is still available and when a ready to get my own apartment. Thank you. <name>

convenient time to view it would be? Thank you. <name>

Hello. Your apartment (<specify location>) seems to be what I had in Hello. I saw your 1 br apt ad on CL at <specify address>. My name mind. Is it still available? I’d like to come by and view the apartment; is <name> and I am looking for a place that matches this description.

could you contact me with an available time to do so? I have a <disability  I’ve been living in <alternate housing identifier> and I’m ready to get identifier> and I’ve been living in <alternate housing identifier> but I want my own apartment. Is it available and, if so, can I see the unit? Thanks, to get my own apartment now. Thanks, <name>

<name>

Hello, I am writing in response to your listing for the 1 bedroom

I saw your ad for a 1Br apartment on Craigslist located at <specify apartment located at <specify address>. Is it available? May I come and location>. Is this apartment still available? I would like to set a time to see it? I’ve been living in <alternate housing identifier> because I have a see it. Can you tell me what hours you would be available so we can

<disability identifier> and I’m ready to get my own apartment. Thank you  schedule a visit? I’m looking forward to getting my own apt. I have for your time, <name>.

been living in <alternate housing identifier>. I can be reached at this return email. Thanks, <name>

I saw your ad for a 1Br apartment on Craigslist located at <specify loca-Hello, I am writing in response to your listing for the 1 bedroom

tion>. Is this apartment still available? I would like to set a time to see it.

apartment located at <specify address>. Is it available? May I come Can you tell me what hours you would be available so we can schedule and see it? Let me know when would be a good time to come by. I’ve

a visit? I’m looking forward to getting my own apt. I have been living in been living in <alternate housing identifier> and I’m ready to get my

<alternate housing identifier> due to my <disability identifier>. I can be own apartment. Thank you for your time, <name>.

reached at this return email. Thanks, <name>

Hello. I saw your 1 br apt ad on CL at <specify address>. My name is Hello. Your apartment (<specify location>) seems to be what I had in

<name> and I have a <disability identifier>. I am looking for a place that mind. Is it still available? I’d like to come by and view the apartment; matches this description. I’ve been living in <alternate housing identifier>  could you contact me with an available time to do so? I have been because I have a <disability identifier> and I’m ready to get my own living in <alternate housing identifier> but I want to get my own apart-apartment. Is it available and, if so, can I see the unit? Thanks, <name> ment now. Thanks, <name>

Hello, I would like set up a time to see the place you advertised on Hi, I am writing in response to your listing for the 1 bedroom apartment

<specify the address>. I was wondering, is this apartment still available?

located at <specify address>. Is it available? May I come and see it?

Also, is there any particular time that works best for a showing? I have I’ve been living in <alternate housing identifier> and I’m ready to get a <disability identifier> and have been living in <alternate housing iden-my own apartment. Thank you for your time, <name>.

tifier>. Please contact me for your most convenient time to view it. Best regards, <name>

current housing situation of the control tester, which is neces-

common request by people with MD, particularly for people

sary for parity. The inclusion of phrases such as “I’m ready to

with some forms of MD, and is also becoming a common

get my own apartment” and “I’m excited about my own place”

source of fair housing complaints filed.16

provides counterbalancing information that mirrors the profile

The use of a request for a reminder of rent being due was an

of the protected tester and raises a similar first apartment

accommodation recommended by the study’s expert panel. It

concern for a housing provider.

reflects a common housing-related concern for people with MD,

In 78 of the paired e-mail tests, the protected tester included a

especially because it may help a tenant keep his or her apart-

request for a reasonable accommodation. Table 4 summarizes

ment. Before this study, little was known about how housing

the different reasonable accommodation requests used in those

providers would actually respond to this type of request, which

additional tests. A request to have an assistance animal live

requires the housing provider to be actively engaged with the

at the test property was included because it is an increasingly

tenant on a regular basis.

16 HUD uses the term “assistance animals,” which includes emotional support animals. According to HUD’s notice on Service Animals and Assistance Animals for People with Disabilities in Housing and HUD-Funded Programs, an assistance animal “is an animal that works, provides assistance, or performs tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability, or provides emotional support that alleviates one or more identified symptoms or effects of a person’s disability” (HUD 2013b: 2).

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

8

Table 4. Reasonable Accommodation Request by Type of Disability

MI

I/DD

1.  I have a support animal, a cat, which helps me cope with my chronic  I do have some trouble remembering things and I’d like to know if you pain. Will that be okay?

can call me with a reminder that my rent is due a couple of days before it’s due. Could you do that?

2.  I have a companion dog named Bob. He makes it possible for me

Could you call me with a reminder that my rent is due a few days

to go outside. He will need a grassy area by the apartment. Is there before? Sometimes I have trouble remembering things and staying

someplace he can use?

organized.

3.  I have a therapeutic cat to help me deal with my illness. I want to I can’t always remember things. Could you come by or call me to

make sure that’s ok with you.

remind me that my rent is due?

4.  I have some memory problems. Could you call me with a reminder

My dog is my support animal and I want to make sure she can stay

that my rent is due a couple of days before it’s due?

with me in this apartment.

5.  I will need a reminder that my rent is due a couple of days before.

My dog provides emotional support for me and it’s important that I can Could you call or come by to remind me?

keep her in this apartment. Will that be okay?

6.  I sometimes have trouble staying organized and remembering. Could  I have a cat as an emotional support and companion animal. I want to you call or come by to remind me that the rent is due in a couple of be sure it’s ok with you for me to keep her.

days?

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness.

Training for E-mail Testing

Conducting the E-mail Testing and Quality

In January 2014, project training was conducted for e-mail test

Control

administrators. All e-mail test administrators were rigorously

Sampling of the advertised rental units within markets used

trained to ensure a common understanding of the project’s

both automated and manual methods. An automated data-min-

overall purpose, quality assurance responsibilities, and terms

ing tool (the “scraper tool”) was used to select and collect data

and definitions. Training topics included an introduction to

from advertisements on craigslist in each study market. In

the project, an overview of fair housing and discrimination

addition to automated sampling, local newspapers and other

testing, e-mail testing procedures, and a review of testing

materials featuring rental housing advertisements in the selected

forms. Special emphasis was placed on the fact that test

markets were sampled manually, with every seventh post select-

administrators were to be objective collectors of information.

ed. All ads were filtered using the preselected criteria including

The confidential nature of all study and testing information

size of the unit, rental amount, and e-mail address. Ads that did

was also emphasized with all study participants. This training

not provide the necessary information, and those describing

conformed to standard survey research guidelines and replicat-

units set aside for low-income residents, seniors, or people with

ed those from HUD (2013a).

disabilities, were excluded from the sample. A more detailed

E-mail test administrators also received technical training

description of the process for selecting advertised units for the

for e-mail generation and coding of e-mail responses. This

overall study is provided in the Sampling Methods section.

training was critical to ensure team members’ understanding

After rental advertisements from each market were collected,

of specific coding guidelines and requirements and ensure

postings from each rental market were placed in a database,

consistency and efficiency during the testing process. For the

and matched-pair e-mail testing commenced. During the data

coding component of the e-mail testing, the training approach

collection period (April through August 2014), rental advertise-

involved learning a process that could be effectively and

ments were randomly assigned to matched pairs of e-mails from

consistently replicated across multiple test administrators. The

a person with MD and a person without MD.

same e-mail response was initially coded by the whole team.

Any differences were discussed and resolved. As this coding

Quality control (QC) was intrinsic to every level of the e-mail

was critical to the success of the project, this process continued

testing process. The procedures described in this section were

for several days until test administrators were uniform in their

used in identifying housing units and providers to be tested,

coding of test e-mail responses.

in executing the tests, and in collecting test data to minimize

the risk of detection by housing providers who might become

involved in more than one mode of testing.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

9

The scraper tool provided samples from internet-advertised

inquiries from, and incoming responses to, the test e-mail

rental units for the e-mail tests. QC mechanisms were em-

accounts daily, and the tracking lists were compared against—

bedded in the scraper tool to remove duplicates, and the test

•  The number of outgoing and incoming e-mails saved to the

administrator was responsible for providing a final QC review

server.

of the pooled rental advertisements generated by the scraper.

The test coordinator reviewed randomly selected entries and

•  The number of e-mails coded for each entry in the

noted any exceptions to the protocols, which were logged in

tester-level table.

an exception file so the same decision rules could be applied to

•  Access-generated e-mail contents for randomly selected

subsequent exceptions. For example, if the scraper tool picked

entries.

up an apartment listing that was actually part of a single-family

home, this listing was removed from the sample and logged so

Only one inquiry was sent to each advertised property, and

that the same protocol would be followed for all future instances.

there was no followup if a housing provider did not respond to

an e-mail. Tests remained open throughout the entire testing

For each e-mail test, the e-mail text, subject lines, and tester

period, although most responses (90.1 percent) occurred within

names were designed to appear as natural housing inquiries.

2 days of the original e-mail. If a response from the advertised

The tests were also matched at the semantic level, so that

property was received, testers did not send a return e-mail. For

level of interest, length of e-mail text, and word choice were

cases in which a test e-mail received multiple responses from

all similar. Thus, in all aspects, except for the disability of the

the same advertised property, all were coded in the Access database.

hypothetical individual who sent the housing inquiry e-mail,

the paired e-mail tests were matched.

The Microsoft Access program used for coding input was

custom designed to ensure complete, accurate, and high-quality

The order of which e-mail was sent first, either the control or

data. For example, acceptable ranges for responses were pre-

protected tester’s e-mail, was randomized to address the poten-

programmed to help prevent data entry error. In addition, the

tial effect on the test outcome of the order in which the inquiry

possibility of incomplete or missing data was prevented by not

was received by the housing provider. The counterbalance

allowing a coder to proceed to the next field or screen until all

device used was a Microsoft Access table, which was created

fields were complete. During the actual testing phase, data were

to randomly select the order in which the control or protected

examined daily and validation was performed on 20 percent

e-mails were sent. Microsoft Access forms were used to schedule

of each test administrator’s work using double-entry coding to

and generate the outgoing e-mails, ensuring consistency in

respondents’ e-mails to verify responses before inclusion in the

timing of outgoing e-mails. Both parts of each pair of e-mails

final datasheet and before being signed off by the test coordi-

were sent to the selected housing provider within a 2-hour

nator. All tests underwent rigorous review by the study team to

window. All outgoing e-mails were saved to a computer server

help ensure high quality, consistency, completeness, accuracy,

and linked to the Access database so that accuracy could be

clarity, and usability.

confirmed.

Test administrators used a sample generation form to compose

Telephone Testing Protocols

e-mails. The scraper tool filled in most of the required fields

of the form. Required fields were checked for accuracy by the

As in the MD exploratory testing of DDS 2005, the telephone

test administrator, and any fields found to be missing were

tests in this study were conducted by people without MD pur-

completed based on the original advertisement. All the samples

portedly calling on behalf of someone with MD. Given the large

for e-mail testing were created within 48 hours of the posting

number of telephone tests to be conducted over a relatively

of the advertisement. After e-mails were generated based on

short period of time and the challenges of recruiting, training,

the sample generation form, test administrators confirmed that

and supporting testers with MD noted in DDS 2005, practical

the e-mail addresses were correct, the e-mail subject lines and

considerations and concern for the burden on the testers with

text were different between the e-mails, the e-mail addresses and

MD led to the decision to use proxy testers who did not have

sender names matched, and the “when to send” fields were logical.

MD for the telephone testing in this study. Therefore, the

telephone testing process involved the recruitment and training

The ordering of paired tests was randomly assigned, and both

of people without disabilities to serve either as the control tester e-mails within a given pair were sent within 2 hours by an

or as the protected tester in the role of a proxy calling on behalf

automatic scheduler. The test coordinator tracked outgoing

of a relative or friend with MI or I/DD.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

10

After the pretesting, it was determined that the telephone test-

short timeframe created an unacceptable risk of detection by

ing would also include a request for a reasonable accommoda-

housing providers, and thus the proxy caller for control testers

tion related to the stated disability on behalf of the person with

was dropped and the control testers called on their own behalf.

MD. The two reasonable accommodation requests used were

The tester calling as the proxy for the person with MD posed as

either (1) a request that the housing provider give the tenant

a friend or family member (and not a mental health professional

a reminder to pay rent or (2) a request that the tenant be

or case manager) of the potential renter. Protected proxies

allowed to have an assistance animal in the unit.17 One of the

expressly stated that they were calling for a person with MD

two accommodation requests was made for each MI or I/DD

(“My friend/sibling has a mental health disability or illness” for

telephone test. One-half of the testers for each group requested

MI or “has a developmental disability” for I/DD).18

one of the two accommodations. Reasonable accommodation

requests were included in all telephone test profiles and tester

As with e-mail tests, the disclosure of the protected tester’s dis-

instructions. Reasonable accommodation requests were to be

ability occurred early in the communication and was designed

made after the information regarding availability and the rental

to be unambiguous. Table 5 includes the text of the telephone

unit was obtained, and thus requests were actually made in

testing scripts used by the proxy tester to disclose disability.

629 of the 668 telephone tests conducted, because in 39 of the

The profiles for both the protected proxy and the control tester

tests, the conversation with the provider ended before reaching

included that neither potential renter was currently living in his

the accommodation request.

or her own rental unit. The proxy caller for the individual with

MD was instructed to state that the person with MD had been

Procedures and Scripts for Tester

living in a psychiatric center for the past year (MI) or had been

Telephone Calls

living in a group home in the community for the past year (I/

DD). The control tester was instructed to state that he or she

The order of telephone calls to the housing provider by the

was returning from school or relocating to the area.

protected tester and the control tester was randomized, and the

call placements occurred no less than 1 hour and no more than

Reveal of Disability

4 hours apart. The timing strategy was designed to increase the

likelihood of speaking with the same housing provider or agent

Although the proxy for the protected tester disclosed the MD to

and to minimize the possibility of an incomplete test because

the housing provider very clearly and early in the conversation,

the unit was rented between the paired calls.

the proxy was instructed not to provide a specific diagnosis (for

example, schizophrenia). Instead, any elaboration if requested

Proxy Relationships

would be provided in the form of information on functional

aspects of the disability using common descriptions provided

The telephone testing protocol originally included the use of

by the focus groups and identified in the literature review

proxies calling on behalf of both the control and protected

(for example, has emotional issues, difficulty remembering or

testers. During the telephone exploratory testing, however, it

organizing, or needs help with taking care of self or managing

was determined that use of a proxy for both testers within the

payments).

Table 5. Telephone Tester Scripts

Control Tester

Protected Tester

My name is <first name> and I’m calling about the apartment. I’ve been I’m <first name>. My <brother/sister> has a <disability identifier>. He/

in school and I’m looking for my first place.

she has been living in <alternate housing identifier> and I’m helping him/her look for an apartment.

I’m <first name>. I just moved to town and I’m looking for my first My name is <first name>. My friend has a <disability identifier> and has apartment.

been living in <alternate housing identifier> and I’m helping him/her look for an apartment.

17 In the pretesting, one of the reasonable requests used was for an additional key for a caregiver, but this request was determined to be too “soft;” that is, no housing provider objected to providing an additional key, and their consideration of the key request seemed unrelated to the issue of MD—anyone who wanted an additional key could get one. This accommodation request was then changed for the pilot testing to a request that the housing provider give the tenant a reminder to pay rent.

18 The decision to have the proxy be a friend or family member, as opposed to a mental health professional or a case manager, was based on previous research that identified a set of concerns or assumptions that might be triggered by a call from a mental health professional or case manager (for example, severity of disability, need for active treatment, or anticipation of need for significant accommodations).

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

11

Examples of functional aspects that were evaluated in the pilot

All candidates were administered a telephone screening by the

test included—

test coordinator. This screening was followed by an in-person

interview during which the candidates’ voices were recorded.

•  Goes to “X” for mental health treatment/services/support

The purpose of the recordings was to identify and screen out

(MI); or receives I/DD services in the community from

candidates with discernible regional accents or other vocal

“X.” Control proxies said nothing about this issue.

idiosyncrasies that might contribute to bias.

•  Requires assistance to cognitively or emotionally manage

A review of testing background and experience level of each

or experiences difficulty with remembering or emotionally

candidate informed the preliminary decision on tester suitabil-

managing; has someone who comes in 2 days a week to

ity. Demographic information, which was used to determine

help take care of him or her and the apartment (MI and I/

tester pairings, was provided by every candidate. The final

DD); only if asked by the landlord, additional details may

decisions on tester pairings—that is, which of the two testers in

include that the person helps with paying bills, managing

a pair would assume the control and the protected-class roles

money, cooking, and laundry. Control proxies said

and who would be paired with whom—were based on the race,

nothing about this issue.

age, gender, and experience levels of each tester and were made

Statements about the functional aspects of the disability did

by the project’s subject matter experts (SMEs) and the test coor-

not request or require any action on the part of the housing

dinator. As a result of these screening efforts, the initial training providers and, more importantly, were designed not to be confused

class consisted entirely of experienced fair housing testers, all of or conflated with a request for a reasonable accommodation.

whom had previously conducted telephone testing.

Reasonable Accommodation Requests

Training for Telephone Testers

Any request for a reasonable accommodation was made at

Classroom and practical training were conducted in late

the end of the telephone call after all other information for

January 2014, over a 2-day period in Philadelphia. The first day

the test had been collected. The intent of the design was to

of training consisted of a classroom orientation that covered a

provide a second level of analysis related to the reasonable

variety of topics, including—

accommodation request. As with the e-mail testing, reasonable

accommodation requests were designed to reflect the types of

•  A history of housing discrimination testing.

accommodations commonly requested by people with MD as

•  Types of discriminatory housing practices.

part of the search for rental housing. Reasonable accommoda-

•  The process of fair housing testing.

tion requests specifically avoided issues of “source of income”

•  The strategic goals of the project.

or poverty that could introduce other variables into the test.

•  The telephone testing data collection process.

The accommodations sought in this test were—

•  Tester instructions and guidelines.

•  Need for an assistance animal and a waiver of any

•  Review of tester forms.

associated fees.

•  Completion of testing assignments.

•  Request for a reminder from the housing provider by

•  Narrative writing.

telephone or in person to the person with the MD that

•  QC practices.

rent was due, as they have difficulty remembering.

Practical training was conducted on the second day of training

in the call center where the telephone testing would be imple-

Telephone Tester Recruitment

mented. Testers were given hands-on instruction on the use of

Recruitment of telephone tester candidates began in late

tester assignment and test report forms and were instructed on

November 2013. Local fair housing advocacy organizations

how to use the data repository computer application to store

and social work departments at universities in the tristate area

test result data. The training also included instruction on call

of Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania were contacted,

center telephone use and inbound voicemail access procedures.

and recommendations for tester candidates were solicited.

Each trainee made practice test calls to SMEs on site and at

The recruitment goal was to have both male and female

remote locations using carefully constructed tester profiles.

African-American and Caucasian matched pairs of testers

Trainees received immediate feedback from the test coordina-

participate in training and testing.

tor, SMEs, or both after each call.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

12

Supplemental and Review Training

Telephone tests were designed so that the proxy was to reveal

the protected potential renter’s MD to the housing provider at

At times during the 9-month exploratory and pilot testing pe-

the beginning of the conversation using a direct reveal of the

riod, additional telephone testers were trained to maintain the

disability and a description of functional needs without provid-

demographic consistency of available testing pairs. Additional

ing an actual diagnosis.20 The type of functional issues identified

Caucasian male and female paired teams were added after data

matched the designated disability group (MI or I/DD).

collection had begun. Supplemental trainings were led by the

test coordinator and included practice telephone tests to offsite

All telephone testers were briefed on the nature of the QC

SMEs and hands-on telephone and computer training.

pro cedures instituted for this study. Some QC processes were

embedded in the selection of rental housing assignments and

At the midpoint of the data collection period, SMEs conducted

test order. For example, the order of the calls within each tele-

a second classroom training session for all testers, during

phone test (control call made first or protected call made first) was which critical testing protocols and QC procedures were re-randomized to address any potential influence on test outcomes.

viewed and emphasized.19 This 1-day mandatory training was

conducted at the training facility for all telephone testers.

Rental housing assignments in the various markets were auto-

matically screened via data-mining tools using criteria such

Conducting Telephone Pilot Testing and

as rent range, market location, and property owner or agent

Quality Control Procedures

uniqueness. The test assignment forms were automatically

populated with information from this data-mining process, then

Telephone tests were not conducted by individuals with MD,

printed and provided to each pair of proxies and testers. Testers

but instead relied on a proxy design. Proxies posed as a friend

reviewed the test assignment forms and made telephone calls

or family member seeking rental housing on behalf of an indi-

based on a randomized order. The second telephone call in

vidual with MD. Control testers contacted the housing provid-

each test was made within 1 to 4 hours after the initial test call

er on their own behalf. Proxies calling on behalf of an individ-

to reduce the chance of detection but to increase the likelihood

ual with MD were provided detailed background information

of speaking to the same property owner or agent.

on the profile of the person on whose behalf they were calling.

Control testers were provided similar background information

QC procedures also were in place at the tester level. Proxies and

for testing purposes. As in all matched-pair testing, the profiles

testers were trained that, after the completion of each telephone

of the individuals whose treatment is to be compared (here,

engagement with a property owner or agent and before the

the people on whose behalf the proxies were calling) were

completion of a test narrative, the tester would be debriefed by

matched to the control tester on all relevant characteristics

the onsite test coordinator and test details would be discussed.

except the variable being tested—the presence of MD. Thus,

Only after this debriefing would the proxy or tester complete

paired potential renters’ profiles were of the same gender and

the test narrative and enter the results from the telephone test

race and assigned personal and financial characteristics that

form into the database.

were as similar as possible, such as approximate move-in

Finally, all test forms and narratives for each paired test were

date, desired rent range, credit score, current employment,

sent to SMEs for review and approval. Only after this approval

and income level. To avoid detection by housing providers as

would a paired test be considered complete.

a result of two testers representing individuals with identical

characteristics, the profiles of potential renters with disabilities showed them to be slightly more qualified for the housing—for

In-Person Testing Protocols

example, having a higher income level or credit score—than

People with MD served exclusively as protected testers for the

the paired potential renter without a disability. In addition,

in-person testing in this study. For in-person tests, which had

to avoid bias caused by the proxies, proxies were of the same

a smaller sample size and a longer execution period than other

gender, race, and approximate age as control testers.

modes of testing, the testers with MD (both MI and I/DD) were

19 Although a variety of issues were covered in this training, the importance of the timing of the protected tester’s identification of disability and the completion of the matched control test were particularly stressed.

20 To compare the results of each paired test, it was essential that the housing provider unambiguously know from the beginning of the call that the protected potential renter had MD. The proxies clearly and directly stated to the housing provider at the start of the conversation that they were calling on behalf of someone with MD (MI or I/DD).

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

13

accompanied by someone without MD posing as a friend. This

Test coordinators created test assignments based on the infor-

protocol of a companion accompanying the protected tester

mation in the rental advertisements and developed profiles for

replicates what was adopted in the DDS 2005 for in - person test assignments that matched the paired control and protected

testing. The protected tester-and-companion team approach

testers on their relevant personal and financial characteristics—

provided support and assistance for the testers with disabilities

for example, gender, race, approximate age, income, credit,

to ensure that test protocols were followed and that reporting

financial resources, employment, household composition, and

was complete and accurate.

housing preferences such as the unit size, rent, and date need-

ed—and included an assigned e-mail address and telephone

Control testers were people without MD and were not accom-

number for each tester (which were monitored by the test

panied. The tests were designed to reveal whether rental hous-

coordinators). Assignment forms for protected testers included

ing providers treated testers differently on the basis of MD. In

instructions on revealing their MD. All testers were seeking

each test, the protected tester’s MD was revealed to the housing

their first apartment and were financially qualified for the units

provider by the protected tester at the beginning of the visit

they sought. The protected testers were either living in the

to the property. In making this disclosure, the protected tester

community (in a group home or with family) or coming out of

used a direct reveal and description of functional needs with-

an institutional setting. Control testers had been living at home

out providing an actual diagnosis. The disability identified was

with family or away at school. To avoid identical characteristics

the same for all testers in each disability group (MI or I/DD).

that might lead to detection, protected testers’ profiles made

As in all matched-pair testing, the paired testers were matched

them slightly more qualified for the housing being sought; for

as to all relevant characteristics except for the variable being

example, having a slightly higher income level or length of

tested—the MD. Paired testers were of the same gender and

employment. Test coordinators reviewed the assignment forms

race and were assigned personal and financial characteristics

with testers before each test.

designed to be as similar as possible, including, as described in

more detail subsequently, unit size needed, potential move - in Protected testers were accompanied on property visits by

date, desired rent range, credit, current employment, and in-

companions who provided support to testers during data col-

come level. To avoid detection by housing providers as a result

lection. For example, when testers forgot to ask a question of a

of two testers having identical characteristics, protected tester

property owner or agent, “got off track,” or “froze,” companion

profiles were slightly more qualified for the housing being

testers were able to naturally prompt the tester or provide a

sought; for example, having a slightly higher income level or

response. Companion testers also reassured testers and helped

length of employment.

them feel less nervous when in a new area of their community.

Companion testers also assisted by taking notes, organizing

Procedures and Scripts for In-Person Tests

and remembering information, helping out when unanticipated

situations arose, and in some cases providing transportation.

Advance calls were made by test coordinators before each

Both testers and companions approved of this model, reporting

in-person visit to confirm that the housing unit remained

that a companion’s presence helped some testers feel less

available, the location, and office hours and to determine

anxious because immediate support was available, that testers

whether an appointment would be needed to see the unit. The

and companion testers complemented one another during data

need for appointments differed in the two cities, with nearly

collection by offering different ideas, and that working as a pair

all Chicago properties requiring appointments but most of

made the experience more enjoyable.21 Testers and companion

the Washington, D.C. properties not (allowing for the testers

testers also noted that the presence of a companion may also

to “walk in” to visit the properties). Appointment contacts, if

have added credibility to the disclosure of a disability by testers.

necessary, were made primarily by telephone calls within 3

days of the publication of the advertisement by the companion

Paired testers attempted to visit an assigned property on the

testers (for MI and I/DD testers) and by the control testers.

same day, but always visited within 24 hours of each other.

Testers’ companions did not reveal that they were looking

The order for whether the control or protected tester visited

for an apartment for someone else, and no disclosure of any

the property first was randomized, as previously described.

disability was made during the call.

21 The study team thought it was important to ask testers in what situations they believed they needed assistance (for example, writing, reading, or having a quiet room in which to complete forms) and to be flexible in responding to testers’ emergent needs. The need for support decreased over time as testers increased their skills and comfort. This support improved project efficiencies by better enabling a smaller group of testers to comfortably conduct multiple tests rather than having a larger pool of testers who might conduct only a single test.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

14

Testers used protocols designed to allow for an assessment of

agents before information about the unit was discussed. To

differential treatment; for example, protected testers revealed

accomplish this reveal, protected testers were instructed to

their MD very early in the conversation, before information on

greet a housing provider or agent, identify themselves by first

the unit was obtained. During site visits, testers inquired about

name, and state either “I have a developmental disability” or “I

the advertised property and gathered information on the avail-

have a mental health disability.” Their companions were then

ability of the advertised unit or other similar units, addresses

introduced as someone who was helping them to find rental

and unit numbers, rental amounts, the application process,

housing and specifically was tasked with remembering what

fees, utilities, other terms and conditions, and amenities.

questions to ask about the unit and helping to take notes about

Testers asked to see the unit advertised and were willing to see

the apartment.22

a model unit or other similar units. Testers were encouraged to

The protected testers were not to name their specific disability

take notes during their visits.

by providing a diagnosis or condition but were to reveal only

Immediately after each test, the testers notified the test

the broad category of “developmental disability” or “mental

coordinator that the test was completed, filled out the test

health disability.” Test assignment forms provided each tester

report form, and wrote a narrative. Protected testers and their

with information about how the disability affected the tester’s

companions completed test reports and narratives together.

daily life (for example, difficulty remembering things or

Testers turned their reports into the test coordinator by mid-

difficulty staying organized). This information was mentioned

night of the day of the test and the narrative within 24 hours.

during the course of the test. See Table 6 for examples.

Test coordinators reviewed the completed test reports and

Test assignment forms also provided information about

narratives and debriefed each tester. Test results were entered

protected testers’ current housing situation (for example, living

into the testing database by the study team, and a weekly

with family or in an institution, such as a nursing home or psy-

report of completed tests was produced to monitor progress.

chiatric facility), which was also revealed at some point during

All documentation from in-person tests was reviewed and

the test. Test assignment forms for control testers also included

approved by a designated member of the testing QC team.

information about their current housing situation. Control

testers were instructed to tell a housing provider or agent that

Tester Profile and Reveal Strategy

this was their first apartment search because they had been

It was critical to the test design that protected testers reveal

living in the housing assigned in their profile (for example, with

their disability at the beginning of the interaction so that the

family or away at school).

presence of their MD was known to the housing providers or

Table 6. Examples of How MD May Affect Functional Aspects of Life and Maintenance of Housing Functional Aspects of MD

MI

I/DD

Affiliation with a

Goes to “X” for mental health treatment/services/support Receives I/DD services in the community from “X”

community service

provider

Needs supports

(1)  Requires assistance to help with organizing and

(1)  Requires assistance to help with organizing and

with housing-related

keeping track of things.

keeping track of things.

management activities

(2)  Has difficulty with remembering.

(2)  Has difficulty with remembering.

(3)  Has someone who comes in 2 days a week to help

(3)  Has someone who comes in 2 days a week to help

take care of him or her and the apartment (both).

take care of him or her and the apartment (both).

Only if asked by the landlord, additional details may

Only if asked by the landlord, additional details may

include that the person helps with paying bills, managing  include that the person helps with paying bills, managing money, cooking, and laundry.

money, cooking, and laundry.

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MD = mental disability. MI = mental illness.

22 Pretesting was used to evaluate the manner in which the MD was conveyed to the housing provider and to highlight any detection issues that might arise either when setting up an appointment to visit a property or during the actual visit.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

15

In-Person Tester Recruitment and

understood his or her role, and the potential tester’s comfort

Training

with pretending to be searching for an apartment and disclosing

his or her disability during the housing search process.

Test coordinators from community-based fair housing testing

organizations in the two metropolitan areas selected for

Test coordinators also noted the importance of identifying can-

in-person testing, Access Living in Chicago and The Equal

didates who would be good companion testers. Strong rapport

Rights Center in Washington, D.C., recruited potential testers

between a tester with disabilities and his or her companion was

from their existing tester pools (particularly for control testers

key to the tester’s comfort and to the quality and efficiency of

with no disability) and from a variety of community groups

testing. This rapport was accomplished by creating opportu-

and organizations in which people with MI and I/DD actively

nities throughout the project—from initial training, to during

participated or from whom they received housing or commu-

practice tests, and through the completion of all test assign-

nity living services. These organizations’ extensive contacts and

ments—for each protected tester and the assigned companion

continual networking with community groups and people with

to get to know and become comfortable with each other. Test

disabilities were essential to this effort and would be difficult

coordinators regularly monitored how these relationships

for organizations not familiar with, and embedded within,

progressed. If one member of a pair was not comfortable, pairs

disability communities to replicate. The use of these communi-

were rematched.

ty-based testing organizations was a critical component of the

Separate training sessions were held for each of the three

project and a key to success in actively supporting people with

groups of testers—MI, I/DD (together with their companions),

I/DD and PD during the in-person testing.

and control testers. Based on initial insights from multiple focus

To establish a pool of testers, test coordinators needed to allo-

groups and discussions with the expert panel at the start of the

cate significant time to the tester recruitment process, initially

project, training approaches were modified for each group to

recruiting about three times the number of testers needed

maximize their learning. For example, testers with I/DD had

and continuing to recruit and train additional testers during

project information broken into smaller units, followed imme-

the actual testing period. For example, in some cases, most

diately by opportunities to practice a small skill, leading up to

notably among potential testers with I/DD, availability and

practicing a full test under controlled circumstances, and finally

reliability were issues (for example, scheduling training, not

moving on to an actual practice test in the field. Testers with

showing up for scheduled training, the availability of reliable

MI received initial information in one sitting and then practiced

transportation, and the need to navigate new transportation

different scenarios.

routes without support). The lack of availability and reliability

The study team maintained flexibility in the tester training

was particularly problematic given the need to coordinate the

protocols, simplifying and limiting the quantity of background

schedules of protected testers with companion testers for initial

information and lecture for the MI and I/DD groups and

training, practice testing, and conducting each in-person test.

focusing on role-play, practice exercises, and open discussions

Because of employment disparities among the populations,

to enable the testers to gain a level of comfort with both the

people with MD were found to be more available to work

testing process and working with a companion.23 For the MI

as testers, but the ability to recruit control testers was more

and I/DD groups, training materials deemphasized complicated

challenging because of their higher employment rate.

text, reduced the number of ideas presented at one time, and

Test coordinators communicated extensively with potential

incorporated graphics, photos, and images to illustrate more

testers to determine whether the tester’s abilities matched the

abstract points such as civil rights.

testing and reporting responsibilities involved in the testing

Frequent breaks were provided during all training sessions to

process, to assess whether candidates could complete the

allow for testers to assimilate new information and experiences.

essential tasks required of a tester. In these interactions, test

coordinators provided potential testers a candid and thorough

The training sessions also helped test coordinators in making

description of the project and their expected role (including an

final determinations about a potential tester’s involvement in

emphasis on the responsibilities of being a tester versus other

the actual in-person tests.

roles within the project), assessing how the potential tester

23 Trainings included opportunities first for testers to observe testing skits performed by test coordinators and project staff, and then for testing pairs to actively engage in several different testing scenarios with role-play (moving from working in pairs with an assigned project staff member to role-play in front of the whole group and getting feedback afterward).

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

16

Conducting In-Person Pilot Testing and

collection. Logic and other QC checks are imbedded in the program

Quality Control Procedures

to facilitate a high level of accuracy when recording data. In

addition, e-mail testers were assigned specific markets to facili-

The in-person pilot testing was conducted in Chicago and

tate familiarity with local address formats and to reduce errors.

Washington, D.C., from June to November 2014. Samples of

available rental units were gathered from rental advertisement

Telephone Testing

contact data extracted from online rental advertisements by the

automated scraper tool and weekly random selections of ap-

Telephone testers were paired into teams, and the team config-

proximately 20 to 25 rental property advertisements provided

uration remained the same over the course of the testing, absent

by the study team to the test coordinators in each city.

illness or other uncontrollable events. After the completion of

each test, results were reviewed at least two times, once by the

Overall Data Collection Oversight,

QC supervisor and a second time by senior testing experts. The

reviews validated the tests, ensured protocols were followed,

Management, and Quality Control

and confirmed that the information recorded was complete,

clear, and unambiguous.

For each mode of testing, testers received training and

retraining as needed during the data collection period. During

initial training, testers engaged in role-playing, using the actual

In-Person Testing

testing protocols. This process facilitated learning and was the

In-person tests were reviewed by the test coordinator within

basis for the evaluation of tester capabilities and an assessment

24 hours of test completion. In addition, each paired test was

of whether additional training was needed. This process of

reviewed by senior testing experts to ensure the complex testing

evaluation continued throughout training, exploratory testing,

protocols were followed and to confirm that the information

and actual pilot testing.

recorded was complete, clear, and unambiguous.

In all testing modes, overall, QC was implemented with stringent

E-mail Testing

reviews of protocol and processes throughout the data collec-

The research team used a proprietary Microsoft Access program

tion period.

that was customized for this particular paired testing data

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

17

Sampling Methods

Sampling Frame

markets (population of 2,500,000 or more). As noted, tests

in all markets were equally divided between those focused on

The sampling frame for the paired testing in this project was

individuals with MI and those with I/DD.

designed with the goal of completing 1,000 matched-pair tests:

500 matched-pair tests to assess discrimination against people

To avoid issues of detection, small markets with populations

with MI and 500 matched-pair tests to assess discrimination

less than 500,000 were excluded from all pilot testing. Tele-

against people with I/DD (Table 7). An additional 100 paired

phone and e-mail testing were conducted in all three market

tests were to be conducted by e-mail specifically to assess the

size types, whereas in-person testing was conducted only in the

willingness of housing providers to make reasonable accom-

very large markets.

modations for people with the two identified categories of MD.

Table 8 summarizes the sampling frame for the project and

Allocation of Tests Across Market Size

how the 1,000 matched-pair tests were allocated among the

Test allocation was guided by market and population char-

three selected rental market strata—medium-sized markets

acteristics. As shown in Table 9, the number of test markets

(population of 500,000 to 1,250,000), large-sized markets

selected within each stratum for the pilot testing mirrors the

(population of 1,250,000 to 2,500,000), and very large-sized

distribution of the population across metropolitan statistical

Table 7. Sampling Frame for People With MD, by Test Type

Matched-Pair Test Type

Total

MI

I/DD

E-mail

200

100

100

E-mail + reasonable accommodation

100

50

50

Telephone

600

300

300

In person

100

50

50

Total

1,000

500

500

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MD = mental disability. MI = mental illness.

Table 8. Rental Market Sampling Frame

Market Population Size

Matched-Pair Test Type

Total

Medium

Large

Very Large

(500,000 to 1,250,000)

(1,250,000 to 2,500,000)

(2,500,000 or more)

n = 4

n = 2

n = 2

E-mail

300

20

40

240

Telephone

600

200

200

200

In person

100

0

0

100

Total

1,000

220

240

540

Table 9. Allocation of Tests Across Market Size

Market Population Size

Total

Medium

Large

Very Large

(500,000 to 1,250,000)

(1,250,000 to 2,500,000)

(2,500,000 or more)

U.S. distribution

Percent of population

21

21

58

100

Percent of all markets

56

23

21

100

Pilot testing

Number of markets

4

2

2

8a

Percent of markets

50

25

25

100

Percent of paired tests

20

20

60

100

a Although the plan was to test in four medium-sized markets, possible detection before the completion of data collection in one of the markets, New Haven-Milford, CT, caused the addition of Syracuse, NY. Thus, nine total markets were included in the final analysis.

Source of U.S. population and market distribution: 2010 American Community Survey, SF1, Table P1

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

18

areas (MSA) and micropolitan statistical areas based on 2010

that each selected market contained a typical (within a range)

American Community Survey (ACS) data. The percentage

proportion of people with MD and a sufficient population from

distribution of paired tests across strata similarly mirrors the

which testers for in-person testing could be drawn. These data

population percentage distribution based on 2010 census data.

are summarized in Table 10.

For example, because approximately 20 percent of the U.S.

Markets were also differentiated by whether the state had an

population resides in markets with populations ranging from

Olmstead Plan, any active  Olmstead-related lawsuits, or both26

0.5 to 1.25 million, 20 percent of the total number of paired

and by if the state received Centers for Medicare and Medicaid

tests was implemented across markets of this size.

Services, or CMS, funds to transition people with MD out of

institutions to the community via a Money Follows the Person

Sample of Metropolitan Areas

grant. If the state met either of these conditions, markets were

further differentiated by how many people had transitioned and

Based on the sampling design and sample frame, the selection

whether the state had met its transition goals.27 The presence

of markets and allocation of tests across markets were con-

and strength of state-level efforts to move individuals with

ducted in two stages: (1) identify and characterize the pool of

disabilities from institutional settings to community-based

potential markets for inclusion and (2) select the markets for

settings was presumed to have an effect on rental markets by

testing.

increasing awareness of the rights of people with disabilities

under the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities

Stage 1: Identifying and Characterizing

Act among both housing providers and prospective tenants,

Potential Markets

thus potentially affecting testing.

Using MSA population data, 374 MSAs were divided into four

categories based on size—270 small-sized markets (population

Stage 2: Selecting the Study Markets

less than 500,000), 58 medium-sized markets (population of

This study used a purposive sampling approach to identify

500,000 to 1,250,000), 25 large-sized markets (population

specific markets for testing based on population size and certain

of 1,250,000 to 2,500,000), and 22 very large-sized markets

characteristics, as described previously. A purposive approach

(population of 2,500,000 or more).24

was used for several reasons.

To further differentiate these markets, the proportion of people

•  The selected markets had to reflect a proportion of people

with any disability and proportion of people with cognitive

with MD that was typical (in other words, an unusually

disabilities, based on the 2009–2011 ACS and the 2010

high or low percentage of people with disabilities should

census, were considered.25 These data were included to ensure

not reside in the market).

Table 10. Distribution of Population With Disabilities and Proportion With Cognitive Disabilities, 2009–2011

Proportion of Population With Disabilities

Proportion of Population With Cognitive Disabilities

MSA

Number

(%)

(%)

Size

of MSAs

Median

Average

Minimum

Maximum

Median

Average

Minimum

Maximum

Very large

22

9.6

10.2

7.8

13.6

30.5

31.1

20.8

48.2

Large

25

11.5

11.9

7.7

19.8

22.6

24.9

9.3

53.6

Medium

58

12.2

12.2

7.2

16.4

22.9

23.9

15.0

40.0

MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

Sources: 2009–11 American Community Survey; 2010 census

24 To avoid issues of detection, the 270 small-sized markets were excluded from all pilot testing.

25 The ACS and census count an individual as having a cognitive disability if he or she reported that, due to a physical, mental, or emotional condition, they had

“serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions.” The term “cognitive disabilities” is formally used within census data to be inclusive of the same categories as the term “mental disabilities” as used by HUD. It includes MI and I/DD. As the source of the data in Table 9 is from census data, the term cognitive disabilities is used. For all other purposes of this study, the term “mental disabilities” is used.

26 This grouping includes any plan instituted as a result of a judgment or settlement, or any pending litigation, arising out of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Olmstead v. L.C. , 527 U.S. 581 (1999) (unjustified segregation of people with disabilities constitutes discrimination in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act).

27 Data for these measures were attained from Ng, Wong, and Harrington (2013), on Olmstead Plan and active lawsuits, and from Denny-Brown et al. (2011), on People transitioned as of June 2011 and 2010 Transition Goal achieved.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

19

•  The selected markets for in-person testing had to contain

and the census) as a proportion of all people with disabilities.28

a sufficient population of people with MD from which

Using these data and the previously discussed criteria, the final

testers could be drawn.

market pool contained 17 medium and 7 large MSAs (see Table

11) based on those rates that fell approximately between the

•  The selected markets for in-person testing had to include

25th and 75th percentiles for disability and cognitive disability.

local fair housing and enforcement agencies that had

expertise in working with people with MD.

These markets preliminarily selected were then discussed with

the expert panel regarding any specific factors such as  Olmstead

•  To the extent possible, the research team sought to measure

implementation activities and disability-related fair housing

any effects of  Olmstead on differential treatment of people

litigation that might bias sample selection and results. The

with MD; thus, at least one market in a state that is imple-

panel’s feedback was taken into consideration in making the

menting an  Olmstead Plan was intentionally selected.

final market selections. As a final step, an analysis of secondary

After applying these criteria to produce a pool of potential

data on key characteristics relevant to the testing process of

mar kets, the list was narrowed further by identifying those

each market was conducted, including an assessment of the

markets that represent a typical mix of people with disabilities

percentage of total housing that was available for rent, rental

relative to the rest of the population and specifically a typical

vacancy rates, and craigslist coverage of housing rentals.

mix of people with cognitive disabilities (as defined by ACS

Table 11. Pool of Possible Markets (MSAs) Based on Statistical Criteria for Inclusion State-Level Data

MSA

Has an

Active Disability

People Transitioned

2010 Transition

Olmstead Plan

Lawsuits

as of June 2011

Goal Achieved

Large markets

Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN

Yes

Yes

1,139

Yes

Memphis, TN-MS-AR

No

No

NA

NA

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI

Yes

Yes

145

No

Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN

No

No

NA

NA

Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA

No

No

NA

NA

Sacramento--Arden-Arcade--Roseville, CA

Yes

Yes

537

No

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC

No

No

269

Yes

Medium markets

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY

Yes

Yes

370

Yes

Albuquerque, NM

No

No

NA

NA

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ

No

Yes

719

Yes

Bakersfield-Delano, CA

Yes

Yes

537

No

Baton Rouge, LA

No

No

164

No

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY

Yes

Yes

370

Yes

Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL

No

Yes

NA

NA

Columbia, SC

No

No

NA

NA

Fresno, CA

Yes

Yes

537

No

Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC

No

No

NA

NA

Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA

No

Yes

719

Yes

Jackson, MS

Yes

Yes

NA

NA

New Haven-Milford, CT

Yes

Yes

561

Yes

New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA

No

No

164

No

North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL

No

Yes

NA

NA

Rochester, NY

Yes

Yes

370

Yes

Syracuse, NY

Yes

Yes

370

Yes

MSA = metropolitan statistical area. NA = data not reported or available for that MSA.

Source: Final Research Design & Data Collection Plan, approved September 13, 2013

28 As shown in Table 10, the range of people with disabilities varies across the MSAs (the range is the difference between minimum and maximum values) and is much narrower than ranges observed in the distribution of people with cognitive disabilities within the group with disabilities. The data on cognitive disabilities from the ACS are imputed. The observed higher variability in the percentage of people with cognitive disabilities within the population with disabilities per market may be a result of how the imputation was done, or it may be representative of the true distribution.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

20

The nine MSA markets selected for this project are identified in

Selection of Advertised Units

Table 12.29

Analysis of 2011 American Housing Survey (AHS) data reveals

Table 13 shows the planned sample allocation of paired

that most people who moved into a rental housing unit in the

tests across the selected markets within each size category.

previous year reported they found their current apartment via

Approximately 60 percent of the allocated matched-pair tests

word of mouth (34 percent), followed by a sign outside of a

fall within the very large markets and 20 percent fall in each of

building (11 percent), craigslist (11 percent), and the large

the large- and medium-sized markets.

category of “other.”30 For the purpose of this study, neither

word of mouth nor signs on buildings were effective means for

identifying the large numbers of available units necessary for

paired testing. Housing providers also use multiple outlets to

advertise their available units, however—especially in online

markets, such as craigslist and other sources.

Table 12. Selected Markets by Size and  Olmstead Status

Market (MSA) Size

Olmstead Status

Very Large

Large

Medium

Olmstead Plan or active  Olmstead-

Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI

Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN

Fresno, CA

related settlement

New Haven-Milford, CT

Syracuse, NY

No  Olmstead Plan

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria,

Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--

Albuquerque, NM

DC-VA-MD-WV

Franklin, TN

Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA

MSA = metropolitan statistical area.

Table 13. Sample Allocation Plan Across Communities and Test Types by Market Size Very Large Markets

Large Markets

Medium Markets

(2,500,000 or more)

(1,250,000 to 2,500,000)

(500,000 to 1,250,000)

Matched-

Chicago-

Washington-

Cincinnati-

Pair Test

Joliet-

Arlington-

Nashville-

Middletown,  Albuquerque,

New Haven- Total

Type

Naperville,

Alexandria,

Davidson--

Milford, CT/

IL-IN-WI

DC-VA-MD- Murfreesboro-

OH-KY-IN

NM

Fresno, CA

Harrisburg-

Carlisle, PA Syracuse, NYa

WV

-Franklin, TN

MI

I/DD

MI

I/DD

MI

I/DD

MI

I/DD

MI

I/DD

MI

I/DD

MI

I/DD

MI

I/DD

Matched-pair tests with reasonable accommodation request

E-mail

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

100

Telephone

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

600

Total

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

60

28

28

28

28

27

27

27

27

700

Matched-pair tests without reasonable accommodation request

E-mail

50

50

50

50

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

200

In person

25

25

25

25

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

100

Total

75

75

75

75

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

300

Total matched-pair tests

E-mail

60

60

60

60

10

10

10

10

3

3

3

3

2

2

2

2

300

Telephone

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

50

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

600

In person

25

25

25

25

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

100

Total

135

135

135

135

60

60

60

60

28

28

28

28

28

27

27

27

1,000

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness.

a Possible detection in one of the markets, the New Haven-Milford, CT Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), before the completion of data collection caused the addition of the Syracuse, NY MSA. Thus, nine total markets were included in the final analysis.

29 The MSA selection process placed priority on including markets consistent with the expert panel’s criteria for sufficient Craigslist coverage, including markets with and without  Olmstead provisions, and on accounting for the number of rental units and vacancy rates. The MSA selection process also considered geographic representation. Given the total number of markets included in the sampling frame and the need to delineate by  Olmstead status for markets with sufficient Craigslist coverage, however, those factors took precedence over a perfect regional distribution of study markets.

30 Note that, given the challenges of determining in the AHS if a person has a disability, these data were not further manipulated to produce cross-tabulations by disability. Also, the data include all people with disabilities, which means they include people with both physical disabilities and MD.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

21

Therefore, the sample of units for possible testing was drawn

•  Using software to track and filter out duplicate rental

primarily from craigslist. Print sources were also included as

advertisements within a specified timeframe (for example,

possible sources of rental advertising, particularly in markets

3 weeks).

where craigslist is not sufficient and local newspapers did

•  Ensuring that no housing provider was tested more than

not have an online presence for apartment rental listings to

once for the same type of MD.

generate a sufficient sample.31

•  Lengthening the timeframe between tests if an advertised

Basing their observations on the literature review and focus

unit was selected for both MI and I/DD testing.

group feedback, the study team noted that people with MD

use a variety of outlets to search for available rental housing,

•  Staggering the tests to ensure that the different modes of

including mental health and social service agencies. The study

testing (e-mail, telephone, and in person) were conducted

team intentionally sampled from sources used by all renters,

sequentially—e-mail first, then telephone, then in-person—

excluding any outlets that specifically help people with MD get

with the e-mail and telephone testing in the Chicago and

into subsidized housing, that have access to a pool of landlords

Washington, D.C. markets administered first, before the

with whom the agency has an existing relationship, or both.

in-person testing in those markets began.

These sources were excluded to obtain a neutral market sample

of units that had not been prescreened to accept people with

Sampling of Units

disabilities and that would therefore reflect the rental search

experience in the general market.

Sampling of the advertised rental units within MSAs was

accomplished using two methods—one automated and the

Risk of Detection

other manual.

A key concern when selecting properties to test was detection

Under the automated method, to streamline the sampling of

by housing providers that testing was under way in their mar-

advertised housing units, a data scraper tool was used to select

ket. For example, testing for discrimination against two sub-

and collect data from advertisements on craigslist in each study

groups (MI and I/DD) within the same market could increase

MSA. The tool filtered the advertisements using the preselected

the risk of detection if the same housing provider is contacted

criteria in table 14, excluding advertisements that did not

for each subgroup. Craigslist and local online newspaper apart-

Table 14. Criteria for Inclusion in/Exclusion From Unit

ment rental ads can likewise contain multiple advertisements

Sample

from the same housing provider. For example, in housing

markets where realty agencies list available rental units, such

Criteria for inclusion in unit sample

agencies can post multiple advertisements by multiple agents

1.  Proper unit size (studio, one bedroom, or two bedrooms).a

within the same company. If those agents received inquiries

2.  Rent within specified range.

for different available rental units from testers using the same

3.  Adequate provider contact information available, including—

or similar profiles, they might have detected the testing, which

•  Unit address (for in-person testing).

could have, in turn, affected the results of the study.

•  Telephone number (for telephone and in-person testing).

•  E-mail address (for e-mail testing).

One strategy to minimize the likelihood of detection by a housing

Criteria for exclusion from unit sample

provider during testing would have been to sample housing

providers only once within each MSA. This strategy, however,

1. Housing restricted solely to seniors and/or people with disabilities (for example, single-site housing).

would have resulted in a dramatic reduction in the pool of

2. Rents outside specified range (highest and lowest 10% were

housing providers and testable properties, given that housing

thrown out, to exclude misplaced or misleading listings).

providers may have multiple sites within a market, use a

3. For in-person testing sample, recent (within 30 days) selection for man agement company or leasing agent that represents many

e-mail or telephone testing.

properties, or both. Instead of adopting this strategy, other

a Two-bedroom units, a unit size still credibly sought by an individual, precautions to avoid detection were taken. These precautions

were included because of a limited number of available one-bedroom

included—

units, especially for in-person tests.

31 A multipronged approach to marketing units is encouraged by various resources for rental housing providers. See, for example, Wagner (2008).

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

22

provide the rent or other pertinent information for each testing

data for a housing provider that was already in the database

mode. Table 14 summarizes the criteria for inclusion and

(phone number, address, agent/owner name, e-mail addresses,

exclusion used in this sampling.

and so on), (2) referenced units that had already been included

in the study sample, or (3) included contact information in the

Under the manual sampling method, local newspapers and

advertisement that matched any of the contact information for

other materials featuring rental housing advertisements in the

an advertisement that had been included in the study within

selected markets were sampled, with every 7seventh post se-

the previous 3 weeks. Information on properties ultimately

lected. Filters analogous to those identified for the data scraper

selected for testing were then provided weekly to test coordina-

tool were also applied in the manual sampling process.

tion teams for each MSA for assignment to testers.32

The automatically and manually mined advertisements were

Figure 1 illustrates the data collection process, from the identifi-

loaded daily into a Microsoft Access database. Data entry

cation of sample rental unit advertisements, through the testing,

personnel then reviewed and removed any new advertisement

to the analysis of results.

that met one of the following three conditions: (1) included

Figure 1. Flow of Sample Selection and Testing Process

Sample/Testing Process Flow

E-mail testing

Automated and

Conduct 200

manual aggregation

paired tests

of craigslist local

(0.5–1.25M, 1.25–2.5M,

listing sample

2.5M+ markets)

Conduct 100 paired

tests w/RA request*

(0.5–1.25M, 1.25–2.5M,

2.5M+ markets)

*Protected tester only

Analysis database

Sampling database

Testing data, tester forms,

original housing posts, etc.

Telephone testing

Conduct 600 paired

tests

(0.5–1.25M, 1.25–2.5M,

2.5M+ markets)

Manual aggregation of

other (e.g. newspaper)

local listing sample

In-person testing

Conduct 100 paired

tests

(2.5M+ markets only)

RA = reasonable accommodation.

32 This method of avoiding detection was successful in M. Davis and Company, Inc.’s most recent housing discrimination study (HUD, 2013a).

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

23

Analysis of Testing Findings

Summary of Tests Conducted

Based on the existence, nature, and extent of response from

housing providers, paired testing using an e-mail protocol

During the pilot testing period, 1,128 paired tests were ad-

enables researchers to observe two different levels of differential

ministered. Paired testing was conducted using three different

treatment. The first level of differential treatment that can be

modes of testing protocols: e-mail, telephone, and in-person

observed is the disparity between the number of tests for which

testing. Some subset of both telephone tests and e-mail tests

the control tester received a response from the housing provider

included a request for a reasonable accommodation by the

and the protected tester did not. The lack of a response to the

protected tester. Table 15 summarizes the distribution of tests

protected tester when the control tester received a response is

by test mode.

considered in measuring discrimination.

Table 15. Total Tests Conducted by Test Mode

Figure 2. Response Rate of E-mail Paired Tests

Test Mode

Tests

E-mail

359

(Subset of e-mail tests with a reasonable accommodation

(78)

request)

Total e-mail tests conducted

Telephone

668

n = 359

(Subset of telephone tests with a reasonable accommodation  (629)

request)

In person

101

Total tests

1,128

Some response from provider

No response from provider

n = 187

n = 172

E-mail Testing

Table 16 summarizes the number and distribution of e-mail

Control

Protected

tests administered for people with MI and people with I/DD

tester

tester

across three distinct market sizes. Via e-mail, 359 matched-pair

received a

received a

response

response

tests were administered, with approximately 73.54 percent of

n = 154

n = 124

the tests conducted within the very large markets, 17.5 percent

within the large markets, and the remaining 8.9 percent within

Only

Only control

Both

the medium markets.

protected

tester

testers

tester

received a

received a

received a

Figure 2 represents the response rates of the 359 paired e-mail

response

response

response

n = 91

tests that were conducted during the pilot testing.

n = 63

n = 33

Table 16. E-mail Sample Allocation by Market Size

Market Size

Matched-Pair Test Type

Total

Very Large

Large

Medium

(2,500,000 or More)

(1,250,000 to 2,500,000)

(500,000 to 1,250,000)

Matched-pair tests

MI

120

15

8

143

I/DD

121

10

7

138

Total

241

25

15

281

Matched-pair tests with request for reasonable accommodation

MI

13

19

8

40

I/DD

10

19

9

38

Total

23

38

17

78

Sum total

264

63

32

359

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

24

The second level of differential treatment that can be observed

In-Person Testing

is the difference in how the housing providers interact with the

Table 18 summarizes the number and distribution of in-person

testers by tracking the incidence of positive treatment, such as

matched-pair tests, which were conducted only in the two very

stating whether the unit was available or inviting the potential

large markets. This mode of testing did not include a reasonable

renter to contact the housing provider. To be included in the

accommodation request.

second-level analysis for differential treatment, both members

of the pair needed to receive an e-mail response within a given

Table 18. In-Person Sample Allocation by Location

time period. In this study, in 91 paired e-mail tests, both

testers in the pair received a response from the housing pro-

Matched-Pair

Market

Test Type

Total

vider within the requisite timeframe. The outcomes observed

Chicago

Washington, D.C.

MI

26

24

50

in these pairs were used to measure different dimensions of

I/DD

26

25

51

discrimination against people with MD.

Total

52

49

101

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness.

Telephone Testing

Table 17 summarizes the number and distribution of tele-

The 101 tests completed exceeded the target goal. The distribu-

phone tests conducted for people with MI and I/DD across

tion across disability types was virtually equal, with one extra

three market sizes. Data are differentiated into three sets of

test in the I/DD sample. The pairs were matched so that both

tests: (1) the total number of all matched-pair tests with and

testers within a pair had the same race and gender; however,

without an accompanying reasonable accommodation request,

the total tester pool was not evenly split across race or gender.

(2) the number of matched-pair tests with an accompanying

Overall, the sample had more women than men for the MI tests

reasonable accommodation request, and (3) the number of

and more men than women for the I/DD tests. MI testing pairs

matched-pair test without a reasonable accommodation request.

were also more likely to be African-American, and I/DD testing

pairs were more likely to be Caucasian.

Of the 668 telephone tests conducted, the protected tester made

a reasonable accommodation request in 629 (94.2 percent).

Measuring Differential Treatment

Approximately 30.4 percent of the tests were conducted in the

very large markets, 39.4 percent in the large markets, and the

Results from the e-mail, telephone, and in-person tests were

rest in the medium markets.

analyzed to determine whether the protected tester with MD

was treated unfavorably relative to the control tester. This

determination was based on information received by the testers

during their interactions with the housing provider, which

were characterized by the research team as either favorable or

unfavorable. Previous studies of housing discrimination have

Table 17. Telephone Testing Allocation by Market Size

Market Size

Matched-Pair Test Type

Total

Very Large

Large

Medium

(2,500,000 or More)

(1,250,000 to 2,500,000)

(500,000 to 1,250,000)

Total matched-pair tests

MI

110

142

105

357

I/DD

92

121

98

311

Total

202

263

203

668

Matched-pair tests with reasonable accommodation requests

MI

106

128

105

339

I/DD

88

108

94

290

Total

194

236

199

629

Matched-pair tests without reasonable accommodation requests

MI

4

15

0

19

I/DD

4

12

4

20

Total

8

27

4

39

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

25

shown that housing providers can respond in various favorable

•  If testers were given the same information on rents,

or unfavorable manners to an applicant. In this study, the

security deposits, application fees, or other fees.

following indicators of favorable or unfavorable responses that

•  If testers were given the same information on specials or

testers could receive included—

incentives to rent.

•  Whether testers received a response to their inquiry, for

•  If testers were given the same information on amenities

the first level of unfavorable treatment testing (e-mail

and services available.

testing mode).

•  Whether testers were encouraged to look at a different unit

•  If testers were told the advertised unit or similar unit in

owned by the same landlord (that is, “This unit actually isn’t

the same building or development was available.

available, but I have another unit in the same building you

•  How many available units testers were told about.

might be interested in”).

•  If testers were invited to inspect the unit.

•

Whether testers were referred to a different complex altogether.

•  If testers were advised to call the housing provider (e-mail

•  Whether the housing provider was willing to grant a

only).

reasonable accommodation (only when applicable).

•  Whether testers were asked to provide additional informa-

Table 19 summarizes a treatment indicator matrix, showing the

tion regarding their qualifications as an applicant (that is,

behavior observed in the testing that was assessed to determine

their credit score/income/employment).

how the outcomes data from all tests were analyzed by testing

•  Whether testers were reminded about qualifications they

mode—e-mail, telephone, and in person. Although some indi-

must possess to rent the unit.

cators are shared by all three modes, each also has indicators

unique to that mode. The data were broken out into four categories:

•  Whether the unit was available and, if not, whether testers

(1) contact with housing providers, (2) availability, (3) tester

were given a reason for the unit not being available.

engagement, and (4) reasonable accommodation, each of which

are described in detail in Table 19.

Table 19. Differential Treatment Indicator Matrix (1 of 2)

Outcome

Outcome

Test Modality

Category

Subcategory

E-mail

Telephone

In Person

Contact with

Initial contact

Housing provider/agent

Able to speak to housing

Able to meet with housing provider/agent

housing provider

responded

provider/agent

Number of responses

Meeting with housing provider/agent in group

or as individual

Housing provider/agent

Housing provider/agent

Housing provider/agent requests contact

requests contact information

requests contact information

information

Timing

Amount of time between

Amount of time between arrival and first

housing inquiry and first

greeting by housing provider/agent/staff

response

Amount of time between arrival and meeting

with housing provider/agent

Duration of in-person test

Availability of

Original unit(s)

Advertised unit(s) available

Advertised unit(s) available

Advertised unit(s) available

housing unit

Unit(s) within “desired housing request”

available

Number of units

Number of units

Number of units within “desired housing

request”

Other units

Additional available unit(s)

Additional available unit(s)

Unit(s) outside “desired housing request”

available

Number of units?

Number of units?

Number of units outside “desired housing

request”

Total units

Total number of available

Total number of available

Total number of available units

units

units

Waiting list

Offered to be placed on

Offered to be placed on

Offered to be placed on waiting list

waiting list

waiting list

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

26

Table 19.  Differential Treatment Indicator Matrix (2 of 2)

Outcome

Outcome

Test Modality

Category

Subcategory

E-mail

Telephone

In Person

Tester

Unit selection

Method(s) for selection of unit(s) to view

engagement

method

Agent or tester selects unit(s) to view

Details of

Address

Address

Address

discussed unit(s) Apt. number

Apt. number

Apt. number

Type

Type

Type

Number of bedrooms

Number of bedrooms

Number of bedrooms

Rent

Rent

Rent

Security deposit

Security deposit

Security deposit

Date of availability

Date of availability

Date of availability

Fees

Fees

Fees

Apartment shown

Apartment condition ready for move in

(assessed only for vacant units)

Total number of shown apartments that meet

tester needs

Information

Application mentioned

Application mentioned

Application mentioned

disclosed by

agent/housing

Application offered

Application offered

Application offered

provider

Duration of application

Duration of application

Duration of application process

process

process

Co-signer mentioned?

Co-signer mentioned?

Co-signer mentioned?

Security deposit?

Security deposit?

Security deposit?

Other fees

Other fees

Other fees

Amenities

Amenities

Amenities

Incentives

Incentives

Incentives

Encouraging/discouraging

Encouraging/discouraging

Encouraging/discouraging remarks

remarks

remarks

Disability comments

Disability comments

Disability comments

Referred to alternative

Referred to alternative

Referred to alternative residence type

residence type

residence type

Comments/questions

Comments/questions

Comments/questions on race, color, national

on race, color, national

on race, color, national

origin, religion, sex, disability, children, age,

origin, religion, sex, disability,  origin, religion, sex, disability,  marital status, source of income, or sexual children, age, marital status,  children, age, marital status,  orientation source of income, or sexual

source of income, or sexual

orientation

orientation

Future contact

Future contact

Future contact

Unit location comments

Unit location comments

Unit location comments

Other

Escorted to apts

qualifications

Proof of citizenship prior to showing

Require personal ID

Require personal ID

Require personal ID

Housing provider/agent

Housing provider/agent

Housing provider/agent indicated applicant is

indicated applicant is “not

indicated applicant is “not

“not qualified”

qualified”

qualified”

References

References

References

Credit check (as part of

Credit check (as part of

Credit check (as part of application)

application)

application)

Criminal background check

Criminal background check

Criminal background check

Reasonable

Housing provider/agent

Housing provider/agent

accommodation

responded to request?

responded to request?

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

27

Data Analysis

Discrimination is assumed when the proportion of tests that

favors control testers is greater than the proportion that favors

Analysis of the responses of housing providers observed during

protected testers. The difference in the percentages between

the testing followed the approach used in the 2000 Housing

outcomes 3 and 4 represents the net difference in outcomes.

Discrimination Study (HUD, 2002) and DDS 2005 studies,

The value of the net difference is what is assessed in the

which assessed the extent to which one tester is consistently

hypothesis test. The hypothesis is declared formally in the

favored over the other in the treatment received from housing

following equations.

providers based on their inquiries. For example, tests are clas-

sified as “control tester favored” if the control tester received

H : % = %  or % – %  = 0.

0

3

4

3

4

favorable treatment on at least one indicator of interest and the

H : % > % or % – %  > 0.

protected tester received no favorable treatment on the same

A

3

4

3

4

indicator(s).Tests are conversely classified as “protected tester

favored” if the protected tester received favorable treatment on

Measuring Discrimination

at least one indicator of interest and the control tester received

In this study, discrimination was estimated separately by test

no favorable treatment on the same indicator(s).

mode (e-mail, telephone, and in person) for each disability

Typical treatment indicators that have been tracked in past

group. The measure of discrimination is expressed as—

housing discrimination studies, including HUD (2013a), a

D =  p  –  p .

paired e-mail testing study, include whether each tester (1)

10

01

received a response, (2) in a pair received a response, (3) was

In this expression,  p   is the proportion of pairs in which

10

told the unit was available, (4) was told to contact the provid-

the control applicant receives a favorable outcome and the

er, and (5) was invited to inspect the unit. In addition to track-

applicant with disabilities receives an unfavorable outcome,

ing these five indicators, this study explored other indicators

and  p  is the proportion of pairs in which the control applicant 01

related to quality of applicant, costs, and encouragement using

receives a negative outcome and the applicant with disabilities

a validated qualitative approach to analyze e-mail data (see

receives a positive outcome. The standard error of  D is—

Appendix A, Qualitative Analyses and Findings on Overt and

n

p  – p

10 +  n 01

p  –

10

10 +  n 01

01

SE (D) =

=

,

Subtle Discrimination Against People With Mental Disabilities

SE (D) =

n

=

n

n

by Different Testing Modes).

p  – p

where

SE (D) n  n

= is the total number of pairs. Given that

10 +  n 01

10

01

=

D is approx-

n

n

imately normally distributed, we may compute confidence

The testing conducted in this study estimates the incidence

intervals using—

of discrimination by studying favorable and unfavorable out-

comes for each test dimension. A favorable outcome represents

n

p  – p

10 +  n 01

p  –

10

10 +  n 01

01

D ±  Z

,

c

=  D ±  Zc

Z

a response in which the tester received an affirmative value on

n

n

n

p  – p

10 +  n 01

10

01

the test dimension, and an unfavorable outcome represents a

where

D ±  Z Z  is the appropriate critical value of the standard normal c

=  D ±  Z

c

n

c

n

response in which the tester received a negative value on the

distribution.

2

test dimension. Each test had four possible combinations of

2

(n

n

2

(n 10 –

10

01 )

01

X =

The test statistic for McNemar’s Test is—

1

outcomes: (1) both the control and protected testers received

n 10

n  +

10

n 01

n  2

2

(n

favorable outcomes, (2) both testers received unfavorable

10 –  n 01 )

X =

.

1

n 10 +  n 01

outcomes, (3) only the control tester received a favorable

2

In this expression,  n  is the number of pairs in which the con-2

( | n  –  n | – 1 )

outcome, or (4) only the protected tester received a favorable

2

( | n10 –

10

n 01| – 1 10

X =

1

n

n

trol tester receives a favorable outcome and the protected tester

outcome. The relationships among the four combinations are

10 +

10

01

2

2

( | n10 –  n 01| – 1 )

=

receives an unfavorable outcome, and  n  is the number of pairs summarized in Table 20.

X1

n

01

10 +  n 01

in which the control tester receives an unfavorable outcome and

the protected tester receives a favorable outcome. Under the null

Table 20. Possible Outcomes Matrix

hypothesis of no discrimination, with a sufficiently large number

Protected

Possible Outcomes

of discordant samples ( n  and  n ), the test statistic has an 10

01

Favorable

Unfavorable

asymptotic chi-squared distribution with one degree of freedom.

Control

Favorable

(1) Both

(3) Control favored

If either  n  or  n  is small ( n

n < 25), then an exact  binomial

Unfavorable (4) MI or I/DD favored (2) Both

10

01

10 +  01

test can be used where  n  is compared to the binomial distribution I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness.

10

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

n

p  – p

SE (D) =

10 +  n 01

10

01

n

=

n

n

p  – p

10 +  n 01

10

01

D ±  Z

=  D ±  Z

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINA

c

n

c

TION ON THE BASIS OF MENT

n

AL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

28

2

with size parameter

2

(n 10 –  n 01 )

=

n = n  +  n  and probability 0.5.

X

The test statistic has an asymptotic chi-squared distribution

1

10

01

n

The

binomial exact

10 +  n 01  p-value can be approximated with the following with one degree of freedom. In this study, a one-tailed version

continuity-corrected version of McNemar’s Test.

of this test was done by dividing the two-tailed  p-value from the 2

chi-squared or exact binomial test by 2. The estimates of inci-

2

( | n10 –  n 01| – 1 )

X =

.

1

n

dences of discrimination are provided at 99-, 95-, and 90-percent

10 +  n 01

levels of significance by protected subclass (MI or I/DD).

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

29

Findings of Incidence of Discrimination

This section presents the data generated by the three testing

•  Was the unit available and, if not, were both testers

modes (e-mail, telephone, and in person) and summarizes

given a reason for the unit not being available (favor-

findings from the tests using the dimensions described in the

able)?

previous section to determine the incidence of discrimination

•  Were both testers advised to call the housing provider

identified in each mode.

(favorable)?

Data Reliability and Limitations

•  Were protected testers asked to provide additional

information regarding their qualifications as an appli-

Each mode of testing is examined by different dimensions of

cant (not favorable)?

discrimination. In cases for which the matched-pair sample

•  Were protected testers reminded about qualifications

size was sufficient, data were further cross-tabulated by (1)

they must possess to rent the unit (not favorable)?

market size, (2)  Olmstead status (that is, whether the pair was in a state with an  Olmstead Plan or  Olmstead-related litigation),

•  Were protected testers encouraged to look at a differ-

(3) type of disability (MI or I/DD), (4) gender, and (5) race.33

ent unit owned by the same landlord instead of the

unit advertised (not favorable)?

E-mail Testing Findings

The first step in the statistical analysis was to determine whether

testers from the control group were more likely to receive a

The analysis of the e-mail tests focused on the differences in

response to the initial inquiry than their matched protected

the responses of housing providers to people with MD (MI and

testers. Figure 2 summarizes the number and distribution of

I/DD samples combined = protected class) compared with peo-

e-mail responses versus nonresponses to the initial rental inqui-

ple without disabilities (control) across the following indicators

ries from testers both with and without MD. Of the 359 tests

on two different levels.

administered, only 91 tests (25 percent) resulted in responses

1.  Level 1 (applicable to administered tests in which both

to both testers in the pair, and, in 172 tests (48 percent), neither testers sent an e-mail in inquiry; n = 359).

tester received a response. Thus, in 73 percent of the e-mail

tests, the control and protected group received equal treatment.

•  Did each tester receive a response to his or her

inquiry (favorable)?

Table 21 presents the results of this first level of analysis. As

shown, people with MD (MI and I/DD combined) were signifi-

2.  Level 2 (applicable only to completed tests in which both

cantly less likely to receive any response back to their rental

testers received a response; n = 91).

inquiry via e-mail (17.55 percent of tests favored the control

•  Were both testers told the advertised unit is available

class compared with 9.19 percent that favored the protected

(favorable)?

class). The difference in these two percentages captures the  net measure of preferential treatment given to the control testers

•

Were both testers invited to inspect the unit (favorable)?

Table 21. Differential Treatment in Response Received for Renters With MD (I/DD+MI) Found in E-mail Testing Both

Neither

Control  Protected

Sample

Test Dimension

Testers

Tester

Tester

Tester

Net

Size

(%)

(%)

Only

Only

Measure

p-Value

(%)

(%)

(n)

Which tester(s) received a response to their e-mail?

25.35

47.91

17.55

9.19

8.36***

0.0011

359

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MD = mental disability. MI = mental illness.

*** Significant at the .01 level.

33 Throughout the Findings of Incidence of Discrimination section, in the event the sample size or matched-pair data available were not sufficient to yield conclusive statistical results, this limitation is documented and indicates the need for additional testing with larger sample sizes in the future.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

30

(8.36 percent).34 This positive net measure (8.36 percent)

Figure 3. Response Rates of E-mail Paired Tests for

suggests that people with MD (MI and I/DD combined) were

Protected Testers Identifying as a Person With MI

significantly less likely to receive a response back to their rental inquiry and that a greater percentage of people in the control

group were favored. Moreover, the resulting  p-value indicates Total MI tests conducted

that the difference in treatment between control and protected

n = 183

classes is significant.

A second level of analysis considers several dimensions of the

response to the different testers, and thus only those tests in

Some response from provider

No response from provider

n = 90

n = 93

which both testers within a pair received a response (n = 91,

or 25 percent of the administered tests) can be included in the

analysis. Table 22 demonstrates that of the 91 tests in which

both the control tester and the paired protected tester received

Control

Protected

tester

tester

a reply, protected testers identifying as having MD were less

received a

received a

likely to be forwarded to a housing provider to make an ap-

response

response

n = 79

n = 53

pointment or to see the unit (7.69 percent favored the control

class compared with 0.00 percent that favored the protected class).

Only control

Both

Only

protected

As described in the Sampling Methods section, the protected

tester

tester

tester

received a

received a

tester identified himself or herself as an individual with either

received a

response

response

response

MI or I/DD. Figure 3 represents the response rates of the 183

n = 37

n = 42

n = 11

paired e-mail tests that were conducted by protected testers

MI = mental illness.

identifying as a person with MI.

Table 23 documents the results of the first level analysis to

Thus, in 74 percent of the e-mail tests for which the tester

determine whether testers from the control group were more

revealed MI, the control and protected groups received similar

likely to receive a response to the initial inquiry than their

treatment. If the responses were different within test pairs,

matched protected tester. Of the 183 paired tests completed in

however, control testers were favored at a rate of 20.22 percent

which the protected testers revealed that they were people with

compared with only 6.01 percent for the protected testers. The

MI (as opposed to I/DD), only 42 (22.95 percent) of the tests

resulting net measure of 14.21 percent and  p-value of 0.0001

resulted in responses to both testers in the pair, and 93 (50.82

demonstrate that these differences are statistically significant.

percent) of the tests resulted in no response to either tester.

Table 22. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MD (I/DD+MI) Found in E-mail Testing Both

Neither

Control  Protected

Sample

Test Dimension

Testers

Tester

Tester

Tester

Net

Size

(%)

(%)

Only

Only

Measure

p-Value

(%)

(%)

(n)

Unit available

28.57

56.04

8.79

6.59

2.20

0.3953

91

Invited to inspect

72.94

11.76

7.06

8.24

– 1.18

0.5000

85a

Given reason for unit not available

28.57

53.85

8.79

8.79

0.00

0.5000

91

Contact housing provider

41.76

50.55

7.69

0.00

7.69***

0.0078

91

Asked for additional qualification information

96.70

2.20

1.10

0.00

1.10

0.5000

91

Reminded about qualifications to rent

95.60

3.30

1.10

0.00

1.10

0.5000

91

Encouraged to look at different unit than one advertised

6.59

93.41

0.00

0.00

0.00

NA

91

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MD = mental disability. MI = mental illness. NA = test statistics cannot be produced due to no observations in both discordant pairs.

*** Significant at the .01 level.

a The sample size of 85 is due to the lack of response data for one of the pairs involved for this particular test dimension. The set of pairs without comparable responses cannot be used in the analysis.

34 A positive net difference (control – protected net difference) means a greater percentage of people in the control class were favored, whereas a negative net difference would have meant a greater percentage of people in the protected class were favored. The p-value shows whether differences noted were significant and, if so, at what level.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

31

Table 23. Differential Treatment in Response Received for Renters With MI Found in E-mail Testing Both

Neither

Control  Protected

Sample

Test Dimension

Testers

Tester

Tester  (MI) Tester

Net

Size

(%)

(%)

Only

Only

Measure

p-Value

(%)

(%)

(n)

Which tester(s) received a response to their e-mail?

22.95

50.82

20.22

6.01

14.21***

0.0001

183

MI = mental illness.

*** Significant at the .01 level.

Because only 42 completed tests received responses from the

significance for men (significant at the .001 level for men

housing provider to both the control and the protected (MI)

compared with the .017 level for women). To the contrary,

testers, subsequent indicators of favorable or unfavorable treat-

treatment differences based on gender were not found for

ment could be analyzed using only these 42 tests. The results

testers identifying as having an I/DD.

summarized in Table 24 of the second level analysis show that

•  Current living situation (whether the person was living

people with MI, when compared with the control tester, were

in a community or institutional setting before the

less likely to be referred to the housing provider to actually see

rental request)—Overall, protected testers with MD were

the unit or to make an appointment to do so.

less likely to receive a reply to their e-mail inquiries than

When these same analyses were conducted on the set of com-

were control testers. Between the two different scenarios

pleted tests in which protected testers identified themselves as

presented by the protected testers—either moving from

people with I/DD rather than people with MI, no significant

an institutional setting ( Olmstead) or moving from a family

differences were observed between the treatment of the

home or other community setting (non- Olmstead)—protected

protected and control testers. This finding suggests potentially

testers who indicated they were moving from an institutional

different treatment of people by diagnosis or type of MD.

setting were even less likely to receive a response to their

request (significant at the .004 level for  Olmstead versus the Differences in treatment were also noted based on other

.090 level for non- Olmstead).

factors. Despite small sample sizes, notable trends were shown

in the following areas.

Reasonable Accommodation Requests

•  Size of market—In the very large markets, people with

via E-mail

MD were less likely to receive a reply to their inquiries

and less likely to be forwarded to a housing provider to set

Within the total pool of 359 attempted e-mail tests, 78 paired

up an appointment to see the advertised unit than in other

tests included a specific request from the protected tester for a

size markets. This lower level of response in Chicago and

reasonable accommodation (the control tester in the pair did

Washington, D.C., was noted particularly with respect to

not make a reasonable accommodation request). These rea-

people with MI.

sonable accommodation requests, such as use of an assistance

•  Gender—Both men and women with MI were less likely

animal or the need for verbal reminders to pay rent at a certain

to receive a reply to their inquiries relative to paired

time, were designed to relate directly to people with MD. Of

control testers, but unfavorable findings were higher in

the 78 housing providers who received e-mail inquiries that

Table 24. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MI Found in E-mail Testing Both

Neither

Control  Protected

Sample

Test Dimension

Testers

Tester

Tester

(MI) Tester

Net

Size

(%)

(%)

Only

Only

Measure

p-Value

(%)

(%)

(n)

Unit available

21.43

61.90

9.52

7.14

2.38

0.5000

42

Invited to inspect

70.00

5.00

12.50

12.50

0.00

0.5000

40

Given reason for unit not available

21.43

59.52

9.52

9.52

0.00

0.5000

42

Contact housing provider

45.24

45.24

9.52

0.00

9.52*

0.0625

42

Asked for additional qualification information

100.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

NA

42

Reminded about qualifications to rent

95.24

4.76

0.00

0.00

0.00

NA

42

Encouraged to look at different unit than one advertised

4.76

95.24

0.00

0.00

0.00

NA

42

MI = mental illness. NA = test statistics cannot be produced due to no observations in both discordant pairs.

* Significant at the .10 level.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

32

included a reasonable accommodation request, only 39 (50

Additional qualitative analyses of e-mail replies to accommoda-

percent) sent e-mail responses back to the protected testers. Of

tion requests are provided in Appendix A, Qualitative Analyses

those housing providers who did respond, roughly 15 percent

and Findings on Overt and Subtle Discrimination Against

were willing to grant the requested accommodation.

People With Mental Disabilities by Different Testing Modes.

Table 25 summarizes the results of the tests requesting a

reasonable accommodation. Only 6 of the 39 housing pro-

Telephone Testing Findings

viders who responded (15.384 percent) responded favorably

to the reasonable accommodation request.35 An additional 3

This section summarizes findings from the telephone testing to

housing providers (7.69 percent) responded to the request for

measure discrimination against people with MD as they seek

a reasonable accommodation but in an unfavorable manner,

rental housing. Responses to tester inquiries were analyzed by

either by stating that they were not willing to provide the

assessing the following responses to testers.

requested accommodation or by giving a more ambiguous

•  Were both testers told the advertised unit is available

reply that left the impression that the request for a reasonable

(favorable)?

accommodation was not likely to be approved. The remaining

30 responding housing providers simply did not address the

•  Were both testers invited to inspect the unit (favorable)?

request for a reasonable accommodation.  These housing pro-

•  Was the unit available and, if not, were both testers given a

viders’ avoidance of addressing the reasonable accommodation

reason for the unit not being available (favorable)?

request was considered to be unfavorable treatment.

•  Were protected testers asked to provide additional

Table 25. Summary of Reasonable Accommodation

information regarding their qualifications as an applicant

Requests by Testers With MD Found in E-mail Testing

(not favorable)?

Reasonable Accommodation Requests

Type of

•  Were protected testers reminded about qualifications they

Disability

Response

Willing To

Willing To

must possess to rent the unit (not favorable)?

Received

Provide (n)

Provide (%)

MI

21

3

14.29

•  Were protected testers encouraged to look at a different

I/DD

18

3

16.67

unit owned by the same landlord than the unit advertised

Total

39

6

15.384

(not favorable)?

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MD = mental disability.

MI = mental illness.

Analyses focus on differences in treatment between people with

MD (MI and I/DD) and control testers without disabilities. As

Overall, the vast majority of people with MD making an e-mail

shown in Table 26, no significant difference was identified with

request for a reasonable accommodation (84.6 percent) were

respect to whether potential renters with or without MD are told

denied their request outright or were left, on their own, to

whether an advertised unit is available, although the trend sug-

determine how to pursue their request or to appeal a housing

gests that people with MD are less likely to be told an advertised

provider’s denial.

Table 26. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MD Found in Telephone Testing Control

Protected

Test Dimension

Tester Only

Tester Only

Net

(%)

(%)

Measure

p-Value

Sample Size

(n)

Unit available

6.59

4.94

1.65

0.1050

668

Invited to inspect

21.26

16.47

4.79**

0.0219

668

Given reason for unit not available

5.39

5.39

0.00

0.5000

668

NOT asked for additional qualification information

19.71

20.99

– 1.28

0.33085

629

NOT reminded about qualifications to rent

16.18

24.76

– 8.58

0.0004a

618

NOT encouraged to look at different unit than one advertised

7.78

4.79

2.99**

0.0188

668

MD = mental disability.

** Significant at the .05 level.

a The null hypothesis is not rejected as test statistics indicate significance in the other direction.

35 The testing demonstrated slightly higher levels of willingness to provide accommodations for people with I/DD (16.7 percent) versus people with MI (14.3 percent).

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

33

unit is available than people without disabilities ( p = .105).

•  Significantly  less likely to be invited to inspect an advertised People with MD (both I/DD and MI), however, were treated

unit and significantly  more likely to be forwarded to a

significantly less favorably in two ways.

different unit than the one advertised, even when the

advertised unit was said to be available.36

1.  Protected testers were  less likely to be invited to inspect an advertised unit.

•  Significantly  more likely to be asked to provide additional information about their qualifications.

2.  Protected testers were  more likely to be steered to a

different unit than the one advertised, even when the

•  Significantly  more likely to be sent ambiguous signs of

advertised unit was available.

rentals not being available.37

Additional instances of significant differences in treatment

Analysis of the tests conducted for people with I/DD (n = 311),

were found during telephone testing when the tests were ana-

revealed a significant unfavorable difference in that people with

lyzed based on the type of disability revealed by the protected

I/DD were  more likely to be forwarded to a different unit than tester. As shown in Table 27, when specifically looking at the

the one advertised, even when the advertised unit was said to

sample of testers with MI (n = 357), testers with MI were—

be available (Table 28). This finding suggests that people with

I/DD are being steered toward a specific building, wing, or area

•  Significantly  less likely to be told an advertised unit was within a property.

available than the control tester.

Table 27. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MI Found in Telephone Testing Control

Protected (MI)

Test Dimension

Tester Only

Tester Only

Net

(%)

(%)

Measure

p-Value

Sample Size

(n)

Unit available

7.56

4.48

3.08**

0.0467

357

Invited to inspect

19.61

14.01

5.60**

0.0339

357

Given reason for unit not available

5.60

5.04

0.56

0.3728

357

NOT asked for additional qualification information

22.87

17.68

5.19*

0.0702

328

NOT reminded about qualifications to rent

15.63

25.00

– 9.37

0.0043a

320

Sent ambiguous sign of availability

7.56

5.04

2.52*

0.0899

357

NOT encouraged to look at different unit than one advertised

7.28

4.20

3.08**

0.0429

357

MI = mental illness.

* Significant at the .10 level. ** Significant at the .05 level.

a The null hypothesis is not rejected as test statistics indicate significance in the other direction.

Table 28. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With I/DD Found in Telephone Testing Control

Protected (I/DD)

Test Dimension

Tester Only

Tester Only

Net

(%)

(%)

Measure

p-Value

Sample Size

(n)

Unit available

5.47

5.47

0.00

0.5000

311

Invited to inspect

23.15

19.29

3.86

0.1481

311

Given reason for unit not available

5.14

5.79

– 0.65

0.3658

311

NOT asked for additional qualification information

16.28

24.58

– 8.30

0.0121

301

NOT reminded about qualifications to rent

16.78

24.50

– 7.72

0.0190

298

Sent ambiguous sign of availability

5.47

5.47

0.00

0.5000

311

NOT encouraged to look at different unit than one advertised

8.36

5.47

2.89*

0.0850

311

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability.

* Significant at the .10 level.

36 This finding suggests that people with MI are being steered toward a different building or a specific wing or area within a building.

37 See Appendix A: Qualitative Analyses and Findings on Overt and Subtle Discrimination Against People With Mental Disabilities by Different Testing Modes, for examples of this subtle discrimination.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

34

Telephone testing revealed that people with MI and I/DD

Reasonable Accommodation Requests

were  less likely to be reminded about qualifications or asked to via Telephone

provide additional information about their qualifications than

people without disabilities.38 Further testing and qualitative

During telephone testing, if protected testers were invited to see

debriefing of housing providers would be needed to determine

a unit, a request for a reasonable accommodation was made. A

whether this indicator is favorable or unfavorable.

total of 629 telephone tests included a request for a reasonable

accommodation from the protected tester. Table 29 summarizes

The following differences by size of market, gender, and previous

the results of the responses to these requests.

living status were also observed as trends in telephone testing.

•  Size of market—People with both MI and I/DD were

Table 29. Summary of Reasonable Accommodation

treated less favorably in large- and medium-sized markets,

Requests by Testers With MD Found in Telephone

as compared with very large markets, in several areas,

Testing

including (1) they were less likely to be told an advertised

Reasonable Accommodation Requests

Type of

unit is available, (2) they were less likely to be invited to

Disability

Response

Willing To

Willing To

inspect that unit, and (3) they were encouraged more to

Received

Provide (n)

Provide (%)

look at a different unit than the one advertised.

MI

339

187

55.16

I/DD

290

185

63.79

•  Gender—By contrast with e-mail findings, in telephone

Total

629

372

59.14

testing, women with MI were (1) less likely to be invited in

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MD = mental disability.

MI = mental illness.

to view the unit (22.70 percent of tests favored control-group

women compared with 6.38 percent that favored women

By contrast with findings from the e-mail tests (in which only

with MI;  p = .0002), (2) less likely to be asked to provide

15.384 percent of housing providers expressed willingness

additional information regarding their qualifications as an

to provide a reasonable accommodation when asked), 59.14

applicant (32.14 percent favored control-group women

percent of the housing providers who were asked to provide

compared with 11.43 percent that favored women with

reasonable accommodations during telephone testing stated

MI;  p = .0001), and (3) more likely to be encouraged

that they would be willing to make the accommodation or

to look at a different unit owned by the same landlord

would view the request favorably given disclosure of the

(14.18 percent favored control-group women compared

disability. This finding may indicate that housing providers

with 7.09 percent that favored in women with MI;  p = .034).

are more likely to engage in a conversation and openly discuss

Men with MI were less likely to be asked about qualifica-

accommodations on the telephone than in an e-mail. Telephone

tions or any additional information than women with MI.

testing still showed a significant percentage of accommodation

Significant gender differences were not found for people

requests that were not accepted (40.86 percent), however. The

with I/DD.

remaining housing providers either stated outright that they

were not willing to provide the accommodation or gave more

•  Current living situation—Protected testers who indicat-

ambiguous replies that more subtly pointed toward a negative

ed to the housing provider that they had been living in an

decision.39 Thus, a large percentage of people with MD (40.86

institutional setting before renting ( Olmstead) were (1) less percent) were denied their request for a reasonable accommo-likely to receive a reply to their inquiries, (2) less likely

dation or left to figure out how to pursue that request on their

to be invited to inspect a unit, and (3) more encouraged

own given negative input in response to their request.

to look at a different unit than the one advertised, when

compared with the protected testers who reported to

In addition, reasonable accommodation response rates differed

providers that they were living in a family home or

by type of disability (see Table 29), revealing that a higher

community-based settings before renting (non- Olmstead).

percentage of housing providers were willing to provide

38 This finding may suggest a favorable finding that housing providers know not to ask these types of questions, or it may suggest unfavorable treatment in that housing providers may be less likely to ask for any detailed rental information from applicants with MI and I/DD after having already shown less chance of inviting them to see or inspect a unit.

39 For example, many housing providers or their agents stated that they did not think the owner would allow the requested accommodation or that it was unlikely the request would be considered, and they said that the applicant would need to find and call a representative at the housing provider to verify this information but did not give any contact information to do so.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

35

accommodations to people with I/DD (63.79 percent) than

different- sized markets tested. Given small sample sizes tested,

to people with MI (55.16 percent). Requests for a reasonable

particularly in smaller city markets, results are limited to show-

accommodation were also more likely to be considered and

ing only potential trends. This limit demonstrates the need for

granted in large markets (65.7 percent) and medium markets

larger-scale testing to determine significant differences between

(66.7 percent) than in very large markets (47.4 percent) or

metropolitan statistical areas based on market size.

small markets (41.9 percent). This analysis again produced

Additional qualitative analyses of telephone responses to

a higher acceptance rate for people with I/DD than with MI,

requests for reasonable accommodations are provided in

regardless of market size.

Appendix A, Qualitative Analyses and Findings on Overt and

Table 30 summarizes the varying levels of affirmative

Subtle Discrimination Against People With Mental Disabilities

responses to requests for reasonable accommodations within

by Different Testing Modes.

Table 30. Summary of Reasonable Accommodation Request Responses by Specific Markets Counts

99% C.I.

95% C.I.

90% C.I.

Type of

Willing To

Disability

Accommodate

Total

Willing To

Lower

Upper

Lower

Upper

Lower

Upper

(%)

Requested Accommodate

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI

MI

55

18

32.7

16.4

49.0

20.3

45.1

22.3

43.1

I/DD

46

21

45.7

26.7

64.6

31.3

60.0

33.6

57.7

MI+ I/DD

101

39

38.6

26.1

51.1

29.1

48.1

30.6

46.6

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV

MI

51

24

47.1

29.1

65.1

33.4

60.8

35.6

58.6

I/DD

42

29

69.0

50.7

87.4

55.1

83.0

57.3

80.8

MI+ I/DD

93

53

57.0

43.8

70.2

46.9

67.1

48.5

65.4

Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN

MI

53

35

66.0

49.3

82.8

53.3

78.8

55.3

76.7

I/DD

53

37

69.8

53.6

86.1

57.5

82.2

59.4

80.2

MI+ I/DD

106

72

67.9

56.2

79.6

59.0

76.8

60.5

75.4

Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN

MI

75

48

64.0

49.7

78.3

53.1

74.9

54.9

73.1

I/DD

55

35

63.6

46.9

80.3

50.9

76.3

53.0

74.3

MI+ I/DD

130

83

63.8

53.0

74.7

55.6

72.1

56.9

70.8

Albuquerque, NM

MI

26

19

73.1

50.7

95.5

56.0

90.1

58.8

87.4

I/DD

23

18

78.3

56.1

100.0

61.4

95.1

64.1

92.4

MI+ I/DD

49

37

75.5

59.7

91.3

63.5

87.6

65.4

85.6

Fresno, CA

MI

27

17

63.0

39.0

86.9

44.7

81.2

47.7

78.2

I/DD

24

21

87.5

61.3

98.5

67.6

97.3

70.8

96.5

MI+ I/DD

51

38

74.5

58.8

90.2

62.5

86.5

64.5

84.5

Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA

MI

28

14

50.0

25.7

74.3

31.5

68.5

34.5

65.5

I/DD

25

14

56.0

30.4

81.6

36.5

75.5

39.7

72.3

MI+ I/DD

53

28

52.8

35.2

70.5

39.4

66.3

41.6

64.1

New Haven-Milford, CT

MI

10

6

60.0

19.1

92.3

26.2

87.8

30.4

85.0

I/DD

5

3

60.0

8.3

97.7

14.7

94.7

18.9

92.4

MI+ I/DD

15

9

60.0

27.4

92.6

35.2

84.8

39.2

80.8

Syracuse, NYa

MI

17

7

41.2

10.4

71.9

17.8

64.6

21.5

60.8

I/DD

14

6

42.9

8.8

76.9

16.9

68.8

21.1

64.6

MI+ I/DD

31

13

41.9

19.1

64.8

24.6

59.3

27.4

56.5

C.I. = confidence interval. I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness.

a Added after a potential detection issue was discovered in New Haven-Milford, CT.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

36

In-Person Testing Findings

the control tester compared with 0.00 percent favoring the

protected tester). No other significant differences in treatment

This section summarizes findings from in-person testing to

were identified during the in-person testing.

measure discrimination against people with and without MD

as they seek rental housing. Key questions that form the basis

The sample size varies if data were missing or not available for

for analysis include—

one of the matched pairs; only balanced matched-pair data

were analyzed.

•  Were both testers told the advertised unit is available

(favorable)?

As in the other modes of testing, when additional characteristics

of testers were considered in the analysis, evidence of differ-

•  Was the unit available and, if not, were both testers given

ential treatment based on disability type, current living status,

a reason for the unit not being available (favorable)?

region, and gender were observed.

•  Were protected testers asked to provide additional

As shown in Table 32, people with MI were less likely to be

information regarding their qualifications as an applicant

told that an advertised unit is available (8 percent of tests

(not favorable)?

favored the control group compared with 0 percent that favored

•  Were protected testers reminded about qualifications they

the MI group) during in-person testing.

must possess to rent the unit (not favorable)?

No significant differences in treatment were found between tes-

•  Were protected testers encouraged to look at a different

ters with I/DD and control testers without MD (see Table 33).

unit owned by the same landlord than the unit advertised

The following additional differences by gender, race, and living

(not favorable)?

situation were also found to be significant in in-person testing.

The first analysis focuses on differences between testers with

•  Gender—Women with MI were less likely to be told

MD (MI and I/DD samples combined) and testers without

an advertised unit was available (11.43 percent of tests

disabilities. As shown in Table 31, people with MD were sig-

favored women without disabilities compared with 0

nificantly less likely than people without disabilities to be told

percent that favored women with MI;  p = .06) and more

that the advertised unit was available (5.94 percent favoring

likely to be encouraged to look at a different unit than

the control tester compared with 0.99 percent favoring the

the one available (20 percent favored women without

protected tester) and were less likely to be given a valid reason

disabilities compared with 5.71 percent that favored in

for why the unit was not available (3.96 percent favoring

women with MI;  p = .09) during the in-person testing.

Table 31. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MD Found in In-Person Testing Control

Protected

Test Dimension

Tester Only

Tester Only

Net

(%)

(%)

Measure

p-Value

Sample Size

(n)

Unit available

5.94

0.99

4.95*

0.0625

101

Given reason for unit not available

3.96

0.00

3.96*

0.0625

101

NOT asked for additional qualification information

16.49

21.65

– 5.16

0.2055

97

NOT reminded about qualifications to rent

18.75

19.79

– 1.04

0.4347

96

NOT encouraged to look at different unit than one advertised

12.87

12.87

0.00

0.5000

101

MD = mental disability.

* Significant at the .10 level.

Table 32. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MI Found in In-Person Testing Control

Protected (MI)

Test Dimension

Tester Only

Tester Only

Net

(%)

(%)

Measure

p-Value

Sample Size

(n)

Unit available

8.00

0.00

8.00*

0.0625*

50

Given reason for unit not available

4.00

0.00

4.00

0.2500

50

NOT asked for additional qualification information

17.02

25.53

– 8.51

0.2517

47

NOT reminded about qualifications to rent

18.75

20.83

– 2.08

0.5000

48

NOT encouraged to look at different unit than one advertised

16.00

6.00

10.00

0.1133

50

MI = mental illness.

* Significant at the .10 level.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

37

Table 33. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With I/DD Found in In-Person Testing

% Tester Favored

Test Dimension

Control

Protected (MI)

Tester Only

Tester Only

Net

(%)

(%)

Measure

p-Value

Sample Size

(n)

Unit available

3.92

1.96

1.96

0.5000

51

Given reason for unit not available

3.92

0.00

3.92

NA

51

NOT asked for additional qualification information

16.00

18.00

– 2.00

0.5000

50

NOT reminded about qualifications to rent

18.75

18.75

0.00

0.5000

48

NOT encouraged to look at different unit than one advertised

9.80

19.61

– 9.81

0.1509

51

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. NA = test statistics cannot be produced due to no observations in control, protected, or both groups.

Such observations were not made for men (for additional

unit (23.33 percent favored people without disabilities

qualitative analyses of the content of these responses, see

compared with 6.67 percent that favored people with MI

appendix A).

living in nursing homes;  p = .09). No significant findings

were observed in test results for applicants with I/DD who

•  Race—Although sample sizes and matched-pair data were

identified as living in large group homes versus with family

too small to be conclusive to analyze most differences,

before renting.

African-Americans with MI were less likely to be told

an advertised unit was available (9.76 percent favored

In addition to the analysis of these quantitative findings, all

African-Americans without disabilities compared with

qualitative field notes and examples from in-person testing

0.00 percent that favored African-Americans with MI;

were analyzed for additional overt and subtle indications of

p = .06) than African-American control testers.

discrimination. An innovative mixed-methods approach was

used for analyzing these qualitative data, which yielded rich

•  Current living situation—Testers with MI who identified

descriptive findings on additional areas of potential discrimina-

as living in a nursing home or institution before renting

tion that were not measured in the quantitative analyses. These

( Olmstead group) were less likely to be told an advertised

qualitative methods and findings are summarized separately in

unit was available (13.33 percent favored people without

appendix A, Qualitative Analyses and Findings on Overt and

disabilities compared with 0.00 percent that favored peo-

Subtle Discrimination Against People With Mental Disabilities

ple with MI living in nursing homes;  p = .06) and trending

by Different Testing Modes.

toward more likely to be encouraged to look at a different

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

38

Findings From the Evaluation of Different Testing Modes

Two primary objectives of this study were to (1) develop

period of time with the need to contain costs. This balance

and implement different testing methods and approaches for

imposed practical limitations on methodologies, but it also

measuring housing discrimination on the basis of MD and

supported the consideration of different approaches, both for

(2) evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each approach,

the benefit of the testers with MD and for the efficient execution

to establish a set of protocols for conducting paired testing

of the study.

to measure the degree to which people with MD experience

The final research design included pilot testing that employed

discrimination in the search for rental housing. This section

people with and without MD as testers. People with MD

of the report evaluates the three testing methods implemented

served exclusively as protected testers for the in-person testing,

over the course of this research effort, focusing on the unique

completing each test accompanied by a companion without

aspects of implementing paired testing with, and on behalf of,

MD, who was another trained tester posing as friend helping

people with MD.

in the search process. This testing design was based on the

DDS 2005 explored the development of methodologies to test

recommendation of the expert panel, was confirmed by focus

for housing discrimination on the basis of MD and served as

groups that included people with MD as a reasonable strategy,40

a starting point for developing the research approach for this

and replicated the approach of the 2005 DDS.

study. The final report from DDS 2005 provided the study team

The conclusion reached by the study team, as discussed

with a set of considerations when employing people with MD

subsequently, was that producing reliable fair housing test

as testers and also provided some insights on how to reveal

results while working with individuals with MD—both MI and

disability and how to construct parallel stories for paired testing.

I/DD—is feasible.

This information was supplemented with a review of current

research on testing, insights from focus groups that included

people with MD, and guidance from the study’s expert panel to

Tester Profile: How Do You Isolate

develop the testing protocols implemented in this project.

and Reveal Disability?

People With Disabilities As Testers: Is

A key challenge to conducting matched-pair testing for housing

discrimination on the basis of MD is ensuring that the tester

It Feasible?

can convincingly and unambiguously reveal the presence of

MD to a housing provider. Based on a review of the literature,

HUD, the study team, the expert panel, and focus groups

findings from focus groups, and discussions with the expert

strongly supported the participation of people with MD

panel, the following recommendations were made regarding (1)

throughout the project, both as advisors and as testers.

the severity of a tester’s disability, (2) the disclosure-and-reveal Although the recommendations of DDS 2005 indicated such

sequence, and (3) the profile of the tester.

an approach was feasible for in-person testing, the report also

noted the potential difficulty of recruiting a sufficient number

of testers with MD and the concern that the effectiveness of the

Severity of Disability

testers might decline if too many tests were conducted within

After reviewing existing research on testing with this popula-

a given time period. With these concerns in mind, people with

tion, and keeping in the spirit of the goals of the Fair Housing

MD were engaged early in the planning process to help design

Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, the study team

the testing protocols and to participate in the testing process.

determined not to restrict the type or severity of MD for testers,

The study team sought to balance the equally important

other than being confident that the person with MD was able

practical need to produce credible results in a reasonably short

to complete the assigned test. To make this determination, a

40 Focus groups noted that people with MD who brought along another person for support when searching for housing reported feeling safer and more comfortable in the housing search process. Focus group respondents also noted that even when a companion was present, people with MD still experienced potential discrimination by landlords. The expert panel, which also included people with MD, agreed that this approach would likely yield good data by having two people to observe and record each test. The concern that the presence of a companion might affect or bias a test was discussed with the expert panel, and it was ultimately determined that the effect of a companion accompanying the protected tester would likely be minimal.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

39

verification process was used that was equivalent to seeking

typical experience of many people with MD during the housing

informed consent when enrolling a research subject. For

search process, different strategies were developed across the

this project, tester candidates were required to be their own

three test modes to isolate the variable of interest in this project.

guardian and be capable of giving the equivalent of informed

Because data are limited on testing for housing discrimination

consent, recognizing that this restriction would likely reduce

against people with MD, the study team turned to recent

the pool of potential MI and I/DD testers. The research team

research on discrimination during the search for employment

then ensured that the candidate understood what was expected

for additional guidance for its disclosure strategies. Revealing

of him or her and could repeat the requirements back to

disability41 during a job interview has parallels to the housing

research team member. The ultimate goal was to ensure that

search process; that is, some individuals may reveal the pres-

all testers were able to fully execute the test, including the

ence of a disability right at the start of the housing search pro-

reporting requirements after the test, not only at the time of

cess, and others may hide their disability and continue to do so

recruitment but also on the day of each scheduled test. To

after moving into a unit. The timing of disclosure of disability

this end, the recruitment, interview, and training process was

during matched-pair testing was studied by Dalgin and Bellini

critical for successful testing involving people with MD.

(2008)using a tester profile that contained a 9-month gap in

employment. In that study, the control testers with no disability

Revealing Disability

offered that they were taking care of their mother who had a

Several challenges were identified as being inherent in testing

serious illness during that time. The testers with disabilities

for housing discrimination on the basis of MD.

disclosed that they had been ill and needed to take some time

off to deal with their own health concerns. Disclosure of the

•  Unlike other housing discrimination research studies,

specific nature of the health concern (that is, disability) then

which have focused on externally recognizable character-

occurred later when voluntarily shared by the candidate either

istics, such as race and ethnicity, most MD is not visible or

in a short or long response (that is, more or less detail). This

immediately recognizable (Corrigan and Penn, 1999) and

study determined that extensive information on disability does

therefore must be revealed during testing.

not change the outcome, because no difference was evident in

•  Although many people with MD in the real world may

response to the shorter version of disclosure. This approach

be reluctant or unwilling to reveal their disability, for the

assured that the employer knew the applicant had MD early in

purpose of these tests, the MD must be clearly, credibly,

the interview process and then later received some additional

and consistently disclosed to the housing provider or agent.

information about that disability.

•  Many people with MD have multiple or co-occurring

The DDS 2005 exploratory testing grappled with how the

mental or physical disabilities; however, the testing design

protected tester could reveal the presence of a disability to a

can focus on only the single issue of the presence of MD.

housing provider. For this project, it was generally agreed that,

although most people in this group would not typically disclose

•  Although people with MD may disproportionately have

their disability outright to a housing provider, it would be

low incomes, profiles for both control and protected

credible to do so if the each tester disclosed while explaining

testers had to depict them as income qualified for the

why they had no recent rental history. As a result, in all tests,

units they were seeking in order to avoid introducing

protected testers disclosed that their lack of rental history was

another variable into the tests.

due to being in a mental health treatment facility (for people

Recognizing that the necessarily narrow design of the testing

with MI) or in a group home (for people with I/DD). Paired

implemented for the purposes of this research effort does not

control testers disclosed that they had either been a student

represent the multiple and complex factors that affect the

living in a dorm, had lived with family, or had lived abroad.

41 MacDonald-Wilson, et al. (2011:192) defined disclosure as “revealing information about one’s diagnostic label, mental health condition, or psychiatric disability”

and identify seven different types or reasons for disclosure.

1.  Full disclosure—no one excluded from knowing.

2.  Selective disclosure—to people whom the person trusts.

3.  Strategically timed—after building trust over time; may or may not be full disclosure.

4.  Targeted—condition of employment.

5.  Nondisclosure—hide it from all.

6.  Inadvertent—reveal instead of being “found out.”

7.  Forced—something came up that required it (e.g., hospitalization).

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

40

Another approach to revealing disability in testing is with a

Using the testing protocols described in previous sections, pro-

request for a reasonable accommodation. Common accommoda-

tected class testers were trained to reveal their disability in such tions requested can include assistance animals, variance of the

a way that it was unambiguous and could not be discredited

rent due date to accommodate the date of receipt of disability-

even if the protected tester did not “manifest symptoms.” The

related income, request for a live-in aid, waiver of minimum

approach taken in this study was, thus, full disclosure of MD in

income or credit requirements, acceptance of rent from a

all test modes by the individual acknowledging the presence of

third- party payer, or agreement to communicate through a

a disability (1) directly (for example, “I have a mental disability”) case worker or family member.42 Kaye (2012: 16) suggested

and (2) indirectly (for example, rental history). In some cases,

that “disclosure of a PD [psychiatric disability] through a

disability was also revealed by asking for a reasonable accom-

written accommodation request accompanying an application

modation; however, such a request was made only after the first

can cause a housing applicant to be negatively stereotyped as

two disclosure methods were completed and all information

less capable than an applicant without a PD, despite similar

required for the test to be considered complete was attained.

qualifications” and can increase likelihood of discrimination.

In all cases, the functional aspects of disability, rather than the

type of disability, were provided when disclosing any details.

Establishing a Suitable Profile

Tester profiles were matched for consistency between the

A key concern in this project was to make the testing situation

protected tester and control tester. Similar backgrounds were

as realistic as possible. This goal meant that the tester profiles

used to establish a similarity in rental history. The guidance for

were required to align with the reality experienced by people

testers with disabilities during in-person testing and proxies

with MD but also to not trigger suspicion by the housing

during the telephone testing, and the exact language used in

provider or generate bias. The following was recommended.

e-mail testing, are presented subsequently.

•  Type of disability—The specific type of disability was not stated during a test. Instead, protected testers gave the

E-mail Testing: Strengths and Weak-

broad category of having either MI or I/DD and then revealed

nesses

more about functional aspects of the disability during the

interview (telephone or in-person) or in the e-mail.

E-mail testing is important given the growing use of this medi-

um for communication in the rental housing search process. As

•  Visible characteristics—Race, gender, and age of test

a testing mode, it has several strengths when focusing on indi-

pairs were driven by actual tester demographics but were

viduals with disabilities. It also has some limitations, including

matched across pairs for all test types.

the inability to interpret a nonresponse from a housing provider

•  Income—The income of each tester was established by

and the effect such a nonresponse has on the overall set of

the study team and was in the range needed to afford the

paired test results. One strategy for addressing this concern is

unit being sought. Furthermore, testers did not claim SSDI or

to enlarge the sample, or to  oversample. This approach, too, can any other disability-related income, nor did they indicate

also have drawbacks, however, especially in smaller markets

that they were using a Housing Choice Voucher or any other

where increasing the sample size can also increase the risk of

form of housing assistance. This condition was to eliminate

test detection.

any potential bias based on source of income, which is a

A key strength of e-mail testing is the elimination of potential

protected class in some jurisdictions but not others.

fatigue among testers, which was a particular concern raised in

•  Employment—It was agreed that testers should be

the discussion of working with people with MD as testers. With

working to eliminate concerns that unemployment might

the e-mail as the “tester,” this mode also reduces human error

be a source of bias for some housing providers. Being

in reporting because it provides verbatim statements on both

employed, however, does not ensure sufficient income to

sides of the transaction—each member of the tester pair and

afford many apartments (using the “30 percent of income”

the housing provider. This design allows for the message and

rule), therefore, control and protected testers’ profiles were

initial contact of the tester to be controlled, including when and

designed to include employment that realistically paid

how the disability is revealed, thus ensuring consistency across

enough to cover the rent at the property being tested.

42 Kaye (2012: 31) suggested an additional reasonable accommodation request to reveal a PD by having “two applicants requesting that they can break lease with no penalty, but one is asking in case of psychiatric hospitalization and the other is asking in case of military deployment.”

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

41

all tests, which in turn can produce reliable and unambiguous

evidence of (1) subtle discrimination against the protected

quantitative measures to determine if clear patterns of discrim-

tester and (2) more overt differences in treatment that could

ination exist against people with MD.

be categorized as discrimination (Hanson, Hawley, and Taylor

(2011). See Appendix A, Qualitative Analyses and Findings on

E-mail testing also provides data that allow for a more systematic

Overt and Subtle Discrimination Against People With Mental

and specific analysis to find evidence of subtle discrimination.

Disabilities by Different Testing Modes for a more extensive

Since passage of the FHA, researchers involved in paired

discussion of this topic.

testing studies have observed that it is rare to find a “smoking

gun” of proof (Hanson, Hawley, and Taylor, 2011). E-mail

This analysis also highlighted issues relating to the timing of

testing provides written data directly from a housing provider

e-mails in testing, and particularly when the initial housing

that can then be used to more accurately assess the subtle nature

inquiry e-mail was received and responded to. In this testing, it

and extent of discrimination (Hanson, Hawley, and Taylor,

could only be assumed from the e-mail time stamp that the order in

2011; HDLP, 2012).

which an e-mail response was received by the testing team was

also the order in which it was read by the housing provider.

Subtle discrimination may be used to discourage someone in

a protected class from pursuing a particular housing option.

Although a new frontier in testing, this project confirms that

It can also include more favorable treatment of the protected

e-mail testing research can generate reliable results that, based

class. For example, recent testing in Vermont involving in-person

on statistical analysis of quantitative data, can be used to deter-

testing of people with disabilities, including MD, found that

mine discrimination. These same data can be coded for both

27 percent of the control testers were positively favored, but

quantitative and qualitative analysis to look systematically for

neither protected nor control testers experienced outright dis-

evidence of subtle forms of discrimination, which may be of use

crimination.43 The e-mail data produced for this project were

in future testing efforts. Table 34 summarizes the pros and cons

coded and analyzed using qualitative methods, which found

of the e-mail method of testing.

Table 34. Pros and Cons of E-mail Testing

Pros

Cons

Cost effective for a large number of tests.

Captures only first point-of-contact step of housing search process.

Automated system generates predetermined script.

No live interaction with housing provider.

Logistically straightforward.

Many larger housing providers use canned, scripted replies regardless of initial request—unclear whether provider is responding to the

disability component.

Test administrators, but no testers—eliminates tester fatigue and error.

Potential for low response rate requires larger sample size.

Less time consuming than other modes (e-mail is the data so no report Data are limited to the e-mail returned.

forms or debriefing required).

Provides exact language used by housing provider for analysis.

Difficult to interpret nonresponses.

Telephone Testing: Strengths and

•  Testers have no face-to-face interaction with housing

Weaknesses

providers, so interpreting responses to questions is based

solely on what people say over a telephone, which may be

The number of telephone tests that were completed,

different than if the conversation occurred in person.

including those tests that included a request for a reasonable

•  Compared with e-mail testing, telephone testing produces

accommodation, exceeded the goals for this test mode. This

detailed field notes to use in subsequent analysis. Although

result demonstrates that telephone testing can produce a high

a positive, it is also a negative because it requires additional

volume of tests for analysis in a relatively short period of time

time for testers to produce their reports.

and can be used successfully to produce useful data.

•  The particular test design here, which used proxies, is not

The telephone mode of testing also has its limitations, howev-

the equivalent of actually speaking with a person with MI

er, including—

or I/DD. The results, although valid and useful, may not be

as socially valid as using a person with MD to do the testing.

43 Housing Discrimination Law Project of Vermont Legal Aid (2012).

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

42

Based on the successful use of testers with MD for in-person

is in place. As noted previously, the social validity of this testing testing as part of this project, the study team believes that it

is likely to increase if people with disabilities are used in the

would be feasible to conduct telephone testing that employs

testing process to make telephone calls.

people with MD to serve as protected testers, making calls and

Table 35 summarizes the observed pros and cons of telephone

requesting information about the apartment for themselves,

testing. As with e-mail testing, most of the issues are not unique

assuming that a strong commitment to training and oversight

to testing for discrimination against people with MD.

Table 35. Pros and Cons of Telephone Testing

Pros

Cons

Live interaction w/housing provider.

No face-to-face interaction.

Use of proxy without a disability as friend or family member to conduct Not the equivalent of actually speaking to people with MI or I/DD.

test allows for more flexibility in recruiting, training, and scheduling testers.

Can be conducted from anywhere in the United States (one centralized Requires being in a location with sufficient MD community to recruit location or group of remote locations).

from if using population to test.

Testers have script in front of them during test and record results in real Although detailed field notes a positive, they require time for testers time.

to produce, unlike e-mail, for which returned e-mail response alone is used.

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MD = mental disability. MI = mental illness.

In-Person Testing: Strengths and

key participants and stakeholders were conducted, including

Weaknesses As Evaluated by Testers

(1) project leaders, (2) testers with I/DD, (3) testers with MI,

With MD and Companion Testers

and (4) companion testers.

Additional earlier focus groups, primarily consisting of testers,

In-person testing is a labor-intensive process for any protected

were held in the weeks immediately after the completion of

class, given the recruitment and retention strategies needed to

in-person testing and data collection so participants could reflect

ensure that the required number of paired tests is executed. In

on their testing experiences. The detailed approach and results

this study, one significant concern was that people with MD

of the focus groups, which includes quotes from participants,

would require more time between tests to reduce potential for

can be found in one of the short papers associated with this

fatigue, and that therefore completing the planned number

project,  Accessible & Participatory Methods for Involving People of tests within a reasonable timeframe would necessitate the

with Mental Disabilities In Housing Discrimination Testing.

recruitment of a larger number of testers, which can have sig-

nificant cost implications. In addition, the use of a companion

Strategies for Tester Recruitment, Selection,

tester raised concerns regarding both increased costs and a

possible delay in testing as a result of having to coordinate

Retention, and Matching

multiple schedules for each test.

Test coordinators from the two participating fair housing testing

organizations broadly recruited potential testers by contacting

The initial literature review and focus groups, input from the

a variety of community groups and organizations with which

expert panel, and a small set of in-person pretests served as

people with MI and I/DD had active contact, such as programs

preparatory steps to working with in-person testers with MI

that provide housing or community living services. Because

and I/DD. These efforts were designed to provide key insight

of widespread employment disparities among this population,

into housing discrimination experienced by this population

some people with MI and I/DD were found to be more available

and ideas for how to involve community members as in-person

to work as testers; however, the availability of testers who were

fair housing testers, including the recruitment, selection, and

currently unemployed may also have restricted the recruitment

training of testers and the data collection process.

of testers with full-time jobs or busy schedules.

The in-person testing had a smaller sample size and a longer

Test coordinators also implemented extended interactions with

execution time, and it was conducted in only two, very large

potential testers to allow for the evaluation of the “fit” between

housing markets. To evaluate the inclusion and active partic-

the tester and the testing responsibilities involved (that is,

ipation of people with MD as testers, four focus groups with

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

43

discerning if the candidate could complete the essential job

independently, and early in the partnership, to ensure that the

duties). During these interactions, test coordinators provided

pair was a good match. This assessment of the match began

potential testers a candid and thorough description of the

during the initial training, when the team purposively built in

project and their expected role, including an emphasis on

many opportunities for pairs to get to know each other and

the responsibilities of being a tester versus other roles in the

become comfortable with each other during practice tests. Test

project, assessing how the potential tester understood his or

coordinators and testers agreed that a tester’s choice of his or

her role, and the potential tester’s comfort with pretending to

her companion was very important to the comfort and fidelity

be searching for an apartment and disclosing their disability

of the tester and data collection and agreed that pairs should be

during the housing search process. All these issues were

rematched if one of the members was not comfortable.

proactively addressed during the initial tester training. For

some, initial training helped test coordinators make a final

Preparing and Supporting Testers: Initial

determination about a potential tester’s involvement in the

Training

actual in-person tests.

Project leaders worked to design tester training to effectively

In addition, the study team learned how best to deliver train-

engage testers with both MI and I/DD and to actively support

ing to potential testers with MD, by simplifying and limiting

their learning. For both groups, training materials deempha-

background information and lecture and instead focusing on

sized complicated text, reduced the number of ideas presented

short practice exercises, open discussion of any questions, and

at one time, and incorporated graphics, photos, and images

other modifications that enable testers to gain comfort carrying

to illustrate more abstract points such as civil rights. The

out a test and working with a companion tester.

trainings also included opportunities to observe testing skits

Test coordinators also noted that they needed to allocate

performed by test coordinators and project staff first, and then

significant time to the recruitment process, needing initially

for testing pairs to actively engage in several different testing

to recruit about three times the number of testers needed. For

scenarios by role-plays (moving from working in pairs with an

example, in some cases, most notably among potential testers

assigned project staff to role-playing in front of the whole group

with I/DD, availability and reliability were issues (for example,

and getting feedback thereafter), and they included frequent

getting training scheduled, not showing up for scheduled

breaks to take in information learned. Basing their approach

training, the availability of reliable transportation, and the

on initial insights from stakeholder focus groups and expert

need to navigate a new transportation route without support).

panel meetings conducted at the start of the project, project

Finding available testers was especially difficult given the need

leaders delivered the training differently for each group to

to coordinate I/DD testers with companion testers for initial

maximize their learning. For example, testers with I/DD had the

training, practice testing, and each in-person test.

information broken into smaller units followed immediately by

opportunities to practice a small skill first and then build up

Despite these challenges, test coordinators from the two

to practicing a full test and then onto an actual practice test in

participating testing organizations were able to recruit the

the field, and testers with MI received initial information in one

required number of testers due to their extensive contacts and

sitting and then practiced different scenarios.

continual networking with community groups and people with

disabilities. These established connections with community

Testers reported that these experiences—particularly the oppor-

groups and people with disabilities were essential to this effort

tunity to practice and receive individualized feedback—helped

and would be difficult for organizations not familiar with and

them learn their responsibilities and feel prepared for their role.

embedded within disability communities to replicate. The use

Some testers noted that when the time between training and testing

of these community-based testing organizations was a critical

in the field was significant, it was beneficial to have opportuni-

component of the project and a key to success in actively

ties to brush up on their skills and review the testing protocol.

supporting people with MD during the in-person testing effort.

Project leaders observed that ensuring that the training had a

good deal of time devoted to hands on learning was essential.

Test coordinators also noted that it was important to identify

people who would be good companion testers, and they noted

Preparing and Supporting Testers:

that ensuring a strong rapport between a tester with disabilities

and his or her companion tester was key to the protected

Ongoing Support During In-Person Testing

testers’ comfort and to the quality and efficiency of testing. Test

The in-person paired testing was also designed to support

coordinators also noted that it was especially important that

testers during data collection in ways that testers and compan-they consult with both the protected tester and the companion

ion testers found helpful. Project leaders provided scripts and

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

44

checklists to help testers remember the personal information

a pair made the experience more enjoyable. Protected testers

they would need to provide during testing. They also provided

and companion testers noted that the support provided by

reminders via e-mail, telephone, or both (cell phone communi-

companion testers during data collection may have also added

cations were used frequently before, during, and after testing)

credibility to the disclosure of a disability by testers. On the

and were readily available to respond to questions and assist

other hand, some companion testers wondered whether their

with unanticipated problems.

presence tempered potential opportunities for differential

treatment by landlords.

Many project leaders and testers agreed that being able to debrief

with test coordinators immediately after each test (either by

Most thought that companion testers were most effective when

telephone or in person) was very helpful. The testing protocols

they saw their relationship with the tester as a partnership;

required debriefing within 48 hours of the actual test and, in

that is, when companions understood that they were there to

many cases, testers completed debriefing immediately after the

support testers, not to be testers. To achieve this understanding,

test or within 24 hours. For some testers, being able to complete

companion testers needed to be flexible to their paired tester’s

the forms at the testing coordination agency allowed them

needs and preferences. The dynamic of successful relationships

access to onsite computers and to test coordinators in case any

was evident when testers and companion testers had discussed

questions arose. These factors were reported to have helped

and agreed on each individual’s role and responsibility, had

the testers submit completed forms quickly and accurately.

good communication before and after data collection, and both

contributed to the completion and approval of reporting forms.

Whether for training or data collection, project leaders thought

Mentoring, training, and role-playing may be required to help

it was important to ask testers what they needed assistance

companion testers excel in these supporting roles. The need

with (for example, writing, reading, or a quiet room to

for training on how to be a good companion tester may have

complete forms in) and to be flexible in responding to testers’

been particularly relevant for companion testers who had been

emergent needs. Many noted that the level of support needed

testers in other fair housing testing situations. Although their

decreased over time as testers increased their skills and level

previous experience provided great knowledge and insight, they

of comfort. Although some testers initially felt nervous, they

also had to transition to playing a supporting role, rather than

reported becoming increasingly comfortable as they gained

the primary role, during a test.

experience. Thus, it was important to support a key group of

testers so they could do many tests and feel comfortable in

When directly asked whether companion testers were needed,

doing so, rather than trying to have a large pool of testers who

the study team agreed that most testers with I/DD would need

completed only one or two tests each.

a companion tester to complete data collection. The study team

also believes, however, that most testers with MI, and perhaps

Preparing and Supporting Testers: Use of

some testers with I/DD, could initially benefit from a compan-

Companion Testers As Ongoing Supports

ion but could potentially conduct testing on their own as they

gained experience.

Companion testers also provided support to protected testers

during data collection. For example, when testers forgot to ask

Documenting Differential Treatment and

a question of a landlord, “got off track,” or “froze,” companion

testers were able to naturally prompt the tester or provide a

the Role of the Companion Tester

response. Companion testers also reassured testers and helped

Some protected testers reported that they thought they

them feel less nervous during data collection or when in a new

experienced negative treatment by housing providers or agents

area of their community. Companion testers were also able to

and that the companion tester helped to document and handle

provide assistance by taking notes, organizing and remember-

that treatment. For example, one tester was asked repeatedly

ing information, helping out when unanticipated situations

whether he had a criminal background, what his income was,

arose, and in some cases with transportation.

and whether he could afford the unit. Another thought the

housing provider was suggesting she may not be intelligent

Many testers with MD and companion testers thought that

enough to live in the building, and another was told that the

the presence of the companion testers may have helped the

landlord would “pray for her.” Others reported landlords acting

protected tester feel less stressed, because immediate support

distracted (talking on the telephone or looking at their watch),

was available. It was also noted that protected testers and

being abrupt in interactions, refusing to provide an application

their companion testers complemented one another during

(likely because an application had been received earlier in the

data collection by offering different ideas and that working as

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

45

day), or simply “giving attitude.” Companion testers had the

•  Agreed that experienced testers with I/DD and MI, and

sense that testers appreciated having someone with them to

companion testers, might be well-equipped to train future

witness and validate this treatment.

testers, and their role as peer mentors and trainers should

be considered in future studies.

Recommendations for Expanded Testing

•  Emphasized the value of building in time for mentoring

in the Future

and one-on-one training.

Although they understood the scientific value of the current

Testers with MI and I/DD and their companion testers also

testing approach and its focus on one specific disability group,

made valuable suggestions, including—

many testers stated that they wished the project could be

•  Agreeing on the benefits of making sure that everyone has

broadened to better reflect the actual experiences of individuals

an opportunity to role-play and complete a practice test

with MD, especially because many people with MD experience

with feedback.

more than one functional limitation. For example, some

people with I/DD also were anticipating some future physical

•  Noting that having all testers engage in more than one

accessibility issues and wanted to be able to document those as

practice test might be advantageous.

well. They also thought it would be illuminating to study the

•  Suggesting that, although each person is unique, trainings

qualities of accessible housing, particularly what that means

should include some general information about MI and I/DD

and looks like for people with MD.

at the start of tester interaction that, in a respectful way,

In considering the expansion of matched-pair testing to

acknowledges the considerable heterogeneity of people

study housing discrimination on the basis of MD to a larger

with MD.

geographic scale, project leaders, testers, and companions had

•  Recommending that they receive a checklist detailing

many recommendations. For example, project leaders—

everything they should do before a test (including practical

•  Thought that having an experienced, centralized oversight

information, such as use the restroom).

team would be important to ensuring that the data

•  Expressing a desire that they do tests in areas where their

collection protocols are being administered similarly

personal characteristics match those of the local communi-

across sites (including for training), to facilitate ongoing

ty and in areas that “feel safe.”

communications among sites, and to provide ongoing

•  Noting that it would be helpful to attempt to make sure

support and accommodations, as needed.

that apartment-viewing appointments were with leasing

•  Confirmed the importance of some strategies that were

agents and not with maintenance personnel.

used in this project, such as the need for housing organiza-

•  Suggesting that they should also be involved in making

tions to partner closely with organizations run by people

calls to arrange apartment-viewing appointments, because

with disabilities within testing regions to succeed in this

some profile information is requested at that point of contact.

work.

•  Raising the issue of how to ensure that testers receive

•  Stressed the importance of allowing adequate time for

support for any emotional reactions they may have during

the recruitment, training, and ongoing support of testers

data collection.

with MD, with some suggesting the initial recruitment of

approximately three times as many testers as originally

•  Encouraging testers and companion testers to return to the

needed.

testing coordination agency after each test to debrief and

complete reporting forms, and after testing would also be

•  Believed that holding training in places that are familiar

a potential time to support them emotionally, give them

to potential testers, such as at disability and community

additional resources if needed, or both.

organizations, could help attract testers with MD because

they are more likely to trust these sites.

•  Urging that test assignment and report forms be as clear as

possible so that testers and companions would have fewer

•  Emphasized that, in preparing testers and companion

questions for test coordinators.

testers for data collection, the research team and com-

panion testers should not make assumptions about what

•  Raising the possibility of alternative payment options

testers can and cannot do.

so that those who receive disability benefits could more

fully participate without having their subsidized disability

income being at risk.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

46

Finally, several testers suggested that all testers should have the

The pros and cons of in-person testing are summarized in Table 36.

chance to reflect and debrief at the end of the project, similar

In-person testing yields richer data than the other modes, but it

to what was done in debriefing focus groups with a small

costs more and takes more time to complete the tests. Although

sample of testers and staff in this study. Testers expressed

that is true for any protected class, the pros and cons are ampli-

that the focus groups enabled them to validate their feelings,

fied when using people with disabilities as testers. Depending

revisit their experiences and make sense of them, reconnect

on the objective, the added time and costs associated need to be

with other testers and companion testers, and validate their

weighed against the data produced.

contributions and role in the overall project.

Table 36. Pros and Cons of In-Person Testing

Pros

Cons

Face-to-face interaction with a housing provider captures richest, most Logistically complex; scheduling of two testers and companion for

realistic interaction information, including verbal and nonverbal responses. protected tester to conduct tests and debrief.

Test reaches deeper into rental transaction.

Tester recruitment, training, support, and retention are challenging.

Involves people with MI and I/DD in conducting research, which increases  Potential for tester fatigue and emotional reactions need to be consid-social validity of findings.

ered in training and debriefing support.

Use of companion without disability provides additional attention to Requires longer time in the field for testing to coordinate tests.

detailed observations and field notes for improved rigor of analysis of findings.

Upfront screening and training reduces attrition, and people with MD

Requires more preparation, time, and resources, especially collaboration were found to be effective testers.

and involvement of disability and community organizations that understand how to provide accommodations to testers with MI and  I/DD.

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MD = mental disability. MI = mental illness.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

47

Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

The pilot testing effort documented in this report represents

Rates of adverse treatment also varied between disability types,

the largest and most comprehensive effort to date to validate with higher rates of adverse treatment noted for individuals

methods of testing for housing discrimination against people

with MI than for individuals with I/DD. This finding may indicate

with mental disabilities. The pilot testing also represents the

that individuals with MI face more negative stereotypes and

first time that people with MI and I/DD have been enlisted to

stigma from housing providers and their agents.44 This study,

serve as in-person testers in a housing discrimination study of

however, was not large enough to yield conclusive evidence

this size and therefore contributes significantly to the knowl-

about what motivation might be underlying the observed dif-

edge about disability-related housing discrimination and the

ferential treatment between people with MI as compared with

design of research methodologies that are accessible, inclusive,

people with I/DD, nor was the study designed to examine dif-

and participatory to people with MI and I/DD.

ferential discrimination based on type of MD. Future larger-scale

research should explore these questions and might include

The testing conducted in this study documented significant

additional focus groups with housing providers to discuss study

levels of adverse differential treatment toward individuals with

findings and to seek housing providers’ reactions and responses

MD when compared with the treatment of a control group of

to the results of fair housing testing.

individuals who did not have MD. Such adverse differential

treatment included observations that individuals with MI or I/

In both e-mail and telephone testing, a significant percentage

DD were—

of individuals with MI and I/DD also experienced adverse treat-

ment with respect to requests for a reasonable accommodation.

•

Less likely to receive a response to their inquiry (17.55 percent The reasonable accommodations requested were identified as

of tests favored the control group of people without dis-

specific to the protected tester’s functional needs. The willing-

abilities compared with 9.19 percent that favored people

ness of a housing provider to grant a request for a reasonable

with MI and I/DD in e-mail testing).

accommodation varied by mode of testing, with requests for

•

Less likely to be told an advertised unit was available (5.94

a reasonable accommodation made by telephone receiving

percent favored people without disabilities compared with

significantly more favorable responses than requests made by

0.99 percent that favored people with MI and I/DD in

e-mail.45 This finding may reflect the fact that housing providers

in-person testing).

were able to have a more personal or indepth conversation with

the tester with MD via telephone, resulting in more favorable

•

Less likely to be invited to contact the housing provider to see responses to these requests. On the contrary, in e-mail testing,

the unit (7.69 percent favored people without disabilities

replies were often more formal and very limited in scope. These

compared with 0.00 percent that favored people with MI

experiences may advise the use of telephone over e-mail testing

and I/DD in e-mail testing).

in future large-scale discrimination testing.

•

Less likely to be invited to inspect the unit (21.26 percent Negative responses to testers’ requests for a reasonable accom-favored people without disabilities compared with 16.47

modation ranged from outright denials to more subtle barriers,

percent that favored people with MI and I/DD in telephone

such as indications that the individual with MD would be

testing).

responsible for actively seeking out and appealing the denial

•

More likely to be encouraged to look at a different unit than the of their request with higher-level managers whose name and

one advertised, a potential indicator of steering people with contact information were then not provided.46 These findings

MI and I/DD toward specific buildings or areas within

on responses to requests for reasonable accommodations

rental complexes, resulting in segregated living patterns.

further add to potential discrimination against people with

44 This observation was supported in the qualitative data obtained from focus groups of people with MI that were conducted both before and after the testing to reflect on their experiences.

45 In-person testing protocols did not include a request by the protected tester for a reasonable accommodation.

46 In addition, testing results varied by rental market, with the rate of granting a reasonable accommodation request lowest in Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI (38.6 percent) and highest in Albuquerque, NM (75.5 percent).

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

48

MD, and it is recommended that reasonable accommodation

rights organizations to coordinate and debrief testers is a highly

requests be included in in-person testing in the future, using

effective design for testing focused on disability and was a

a test design similar to that used in telephone testing in this

critical component of the successful completion of in-person

project, wherein requests for a reasonable accommodation are

testing in the given timeframe in this study.

not made unless the tester is invited to inspect the unit.

The use of companion testers, although adding cost and

This study also yielded significant findings on how to imple-

coordinating time, resulted in several important benefits to the

ment fully inclusive fair housing testing employing people with

project, including—

MD. All three modes of testing that were carried out (e-mail,

•  Providing valuable cognitive and emotional assistance to

telephone, and in person) showed promise for bringing testing

testers with MD before, during, and after each test.

for housing discrimination on the basis of MD to a national

scale. Each produced a different form of testing data that not

•  Providing a natural way to reveal the MD via a friend in

only yielded evidence of discrimination but also provided

conversation while viewing a unit.

insights on opportunities for future testing.

•  Providing a means to confirm what had been heard and to

Because online housing searches and e-mail communications

clarify what was observed during each test, thus providing

with housing providers during these searches is anticipated

richer data and field note observations.

to increase, efforts to use e-mail testing in this project should

inform future e-mail testing. Observations include—

•  For testers who used public transit, companions often

(although they were not expected to) provided transit

•  E-mail testing is a relatively cost-effective method of

assistance or went along on public transportation with the

tracking changes over time in discrimination in initial

tester with MD, ensuring that both testers would get to

contacts people with MD have with housing providers

appointments in a timely fashion.

(that is, trying to get in the door).

Findings from this project, although important in documenting

•  Longitudinal data showing a change in the rates of differ-

how housing discrimination may occur against people with

ential treatment of people with MD could be efficiently

MI and I/DD as they seek rental housing, are limited given the

collected by subsequent e-mail testing of the same sample

small sample sizes, particularly when attempting analyses on

of housing providers.

variations of treatment between subcategories of paired tests,

such as gender, race, type of disability, and geography. Future

•  E-mail could also be useful for monitoring how housing

research, done on a larger scale, could examine other important

providers are responding to reasonable accommodation

issues, for example—

requests, if a followup e-mail is added to further interact

on the reasonable accommodation request. This technique

•  Are people with different types of MD, or different requests

could also ensure that the housing provider is responding

for other types of reasonable accommodations, met with

directly to the request as opposed to sending a scripted or

less favorable responses or more discrimination?

form reply.

•  How do factors such as age, gender, race, and previous

The in-person testing in this study that specifically involved

living status contribute to or interact with MD to affect

testers with MD demonstrates that people with MI and I/DD

rental housing access?

can serve as effective testers when the proper training and

supports are provided.

•  How does income or economic status interact with MD to

affect housing access and choice?

As the first large-scale in-person testing that had people with

MD as testers, this project demonstrated the importance of

•  How does the use of rent subsidies (for example, Housing

disability-focused and directed training. The entire process of

Choice Vouchers) and other government-supported

engagement with testers, from recruitment to training, testing,

sources of income for housing affect housing access and

and debriefing, was grounded in constant feedback from

choice for people with MD?

the people with MD and members of the expert panel. The

Finally, efforts to find protocols to study and test for housing

evidence from the in-person testing in this project suggests

discrimination after initial contact with a housing provider (for

strongly that both populations can also conduct telephone

example, application results, before move in, after move in,

testing if the same approach to training and debriefing is used.

changes in response to requests for reasonable accommodations

This project demonstrates that the training and use of disability

over time, and criteria for lease termination) should continue.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

49

Based on the results of the study, the authors make the follow-

Recruitment and Selection of Testers

ing recommendations.

•  Reinforce responsibilities and expectations of participation

•

A broad-based education initiative should be created to ed-

with potential testers to encourage increased reliability and

ucate housing providers, including owners and landlords

validity of findings.

and their agents, about fair housing rights and obligations

and about appropriate policies and practices when dealing

•  Provide sufficient time, resources, and expertise to recruit,

with individuals with MI, I/DD, and other MD.

select, and support team members with MD.

•  Public and private housing, disability, and civil rights

•  Have a sustained selection process for testers and compan-

organizations should  redouble efforts to engage and educate

ion testers that allows for time to build relationships and

the community of people with MI, I/DD, and other MD about

develop a fit between test pairs.

their rights under federal, state, and local antidiscrimina-

•  Involve experienced testers with MD in tester recruitment

tion laws, how to recognize potential discrimination, and

and selection as they also have key contacts and networks

what actions to take when faced with discrimination.

throughout protected communities.

•

Additional research is necessary to better understand the

scope and severity of the discriminatory barriers en-

Training and Data Collection

countered by individuals with MI and I/DD as they seek,

obtain, and retain accessible rental housing.

•  Be proactive and flexible in accommodating team members

with MD in training and data collection, including specific

•

Individuals with MI and I/DD can and should be an integral

attention to strategies to make participation more accessi-

part of future housing research and testing, housing dis-

ble and inclusive to this community.

crimination education initiatives, and efforts to strengthen

housing policy to promote equal housing opportunity.

•  Have a choice and range of supports and accommodations

available to testers, and match emotional support to

In addition, protected and companion testers involved in the

individual needs, adjusting the supports as needed as

in-person testing for this project offered the following summary

testers gain experience.

recommendations for including people with MD in future

•  Provide testers with choice throughout the process,

housing discrimination research.

including a choice of whether to stay with a companion

tester or to choose another that is a better fit.

Project Leadership and Design

•  Ensure that all testers have time to role-play, practice, and

•  Project leadership is deeply important to people with

receive individualized feedback during trainings.

MD. Having test coordinator sites embedded within local

•  Train companion testers to provide positive, effective support

disability and housing rights organizations was especially

to testers with MD in a respectful, person-directed way.

valuable in supporting testers with disabilities.

•  Assess the value of companion testers—between the added

•  Testing sites and all project members should actively foster

credibility and validity added to the capture of testing data

commitment to, and belief in, the inclusion of people with

versus the potentially unanticipated effect that their pres-

MD at all stages of research projects.

ence may actually decrease or buffer differential treatment.

•  An inclusive project should foster coleadership, in which

•  Design all materials, illustrations, role-plays, and videos

the research team and the protected community colead

in all training and data collection instructions and forms

and collaborate to design and conduct discrimination

using clear, concise, and plain language.

research with a goal of bringing housing discrimination

experts together with people with personal experience

•  Use technology to enable people with MD to take on

with disability to fully and accurately understand the

increasingly independent roles in testing, such as the use

actual experiences people have when seeking housing.

of voice-operated smartphones or tablets during data

collection and reporting.

•  Future testing should use experienced testers with MD

(such as those from this project) and their experiences in

•  Discuss in initial trainings the attitudes that may be

protocol development and training as peer trainers and

encountered during tests and how to capture attitudes and

mentors in a train-the-trainer model.

treatment in more detail in reporting.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

50

Appendix A: Qualitative Analyses and Findings on Overt

and Subtle Discrimination Against People With Mental

Disabilities by Different Testing Modes

The purpose of this additional indepth qualitative study was

ways: (1) disclosing having lived in a psychiatric facility or

to provide detailed qualitative analyses of the overt and subtle

nursing home for the past year, (2) directly identifying himself

discrimination experienced by people with mental disability

or herself as a person with I/DD or MI, and (3) requesting a rea-

(MD)—that is, people with mental illness (MI) and people with

sonable accommodation (that is, using an assistance animal or

intellectual or developmental disability (I/DD)—as gathered

requesting a verbal rental payment reminder). The other tester

from multiple sources including e-mail, telephone, and in-person

in the pair (control tester) did not identify as having a disability testing, field notes, and tester debriefing reports. The following

and instead identified as someone who recently graduated from

research questions were used to guide the qualitative analyses.

college or who had been living with his or her parents to show

a matched previous rental history. Both testers in a pair were

•  Is there evidence of  subtle discrimination on the basis of also given matching profiles that included similar income and

mental disability in the e-mail, telephone, and in-person

job histories, at a level adequate to pay for a one-bedroom rent-

tests conducted during this study, and what does it look like?

al unit in that market, and other similar personal demographics

•  Is there evidence of  overt discrimination on the basis of other than disability status.

mental disability in the telephone and in-person tests

conducted during this study, and what does it look like?

E-mail Testing

As reflected in the larger discrimination study, 359 e-mail pairs

Qualitative Analysis Methodology

were sent out, including 176 pairs with testers with I/DD and

183 pairs with testers with MI. Out of those 359, 187 pairs

The structure and process for the analyses was guided by

received at least one response from an agent or landlord. To

Ahmed and Hammarstedt (2008), who examined subtle

qualitatively compare the e-mails in this particular phase of

discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the rental

the study, we selected only e-mail pairs that both received

housing market using e-mail testing, and by Hanson, Hawley,

responses (n = 91 pairs). Of those 91 pairs, 9 were not codable

and Taylor (2011), who proposed a methodology for qualita-

for the following reasons: (1) different agent responded, (2) agent

tively analyzing e-mail contents for subtle discrimination. As

noticed the testing and test was not used, or (3) lack of quali-

in these previous studies, this study used matched-pair tests in

tative data to code. Therefore, 82 pairs were codable, including

that each pair was matched in key demographics (for example,

45 pairs with a tester with I/DD and 37 pairs with a tester with

age, gender, and race or ethnicity) except for MD status, with

MI. Out of the 82 e-mail pairs, 25 e-mail tests also included a

one tester having an identified MD and one tester not having MD.

reasonable accommodation request that could be analyzed (see

The tester with MD (protected tester) specifically disclosed

Figure A-1).

having either MI or I/DD. This reveal occurred in multiple

Figure A-1. E-mail Testing Responses

E-mail pairs

not codable

(n = 9)

E-mail pairs with

E-mail pairs sent out

at least

E-mail pairs with

I/DD testers

With RA request

(n = 359)

one response

responses to both

(n = 45)

(n = 10)

(n = 187)

(n = 91)

E-mail pairs

coded

(n = 82)

MI testers

With RA request

(n = 37)

(n = 15)

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness. RA = reasonable accommodation.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

51

Telephone and In-Person Testing

E-mail Testing Only: Quantitative

A total of 668 pairs participated in telephone tests of ran-

Coding of Keywords Indicating Subtle

domly selected available apartment ads across nine different

Discrimination

metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). In-person testing

The housing discrimination study by Hanson, Hawley, and Tay-

involved a visit to view the apartment by 101 pairs in the

lor (2011) provided significant guidance for the interpretation

Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI, and the Washington-Ar-

of the results of e-mail testing, especially because e-mail testing

lington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV MSAs, 83 of which had

yields an explicit and defined text-based inquiry and response

valid qualitative data to additionally code. See Table A-1.

that can be analyzed verbatim.

Table A-1. Samples of Telephone and In-Person

Hanson, Hawley, and Taylor describe several dimensions of

Testing

coding favorable and unfavorable treatment in landlord-tenant

Type of Disability

correspondence. They describe favorable treatment as including

Type

Sample

Total

I/DD

MI

examples “if landlords describe the unit in a positive way, if

Telephone

Valid pairs

300

352

652

they mentioned other available units, if they invited further

Missinga

11

5

16

contact, and if they used generally friendly language” (Hanson,

Total

311

357

668

In person

Valid pairs

48

35

83

Hawley, and Taylor, 2011: 281) and unfavorable treatment as

Missinga

3

15

18

asking the tenant for more information about their employment

Total

51

50

101

or background or also as using more discouraging language,

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness.

such as emphasizing additional fees and building rules. In

a Qualitative data were not available to code.

addition to the keyword list Hanson, Hawley, and Taylor cre-

ated, the analysis here added more unfavorable and favorable

Data Analysis

treatment dimensions specific to MD (for example, asking for

further disability-related information or disclosure) that were

A mixed-methods approach was used to analyze data, beginning

identified after a round of pilot coding.

with qualitative analyses, followed by quantitative frequency

counts and analyses of summary themes, to answer the re-

Using the subtle discrimination keywords listed in Table A-2, two

search questions and fully understand discrimination practiced

members of the study team coded the frequency of positive and

by housing providers. Each type of testing used different data

negative languages used in e-mails. These counts were com-

analysis methods, as described in the following section.

pared between the protected and control groups and divided

into four categories: (1) present in neither, (2) present in both,

(3) control group only, and (4) protected group only. Evidence

of subtle discrimination was coded if positive language was

shown more frequently in the control tester only or if negative

language was more frequently present in the protected tester only.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

52

Table A-2. Subtle Discrimination Indicator Keyword Groups

Category

Keywords

Positive language categories

Positive descriptive  New

Clean

Quiet

Nice

Good

Beautifula

Othera

(for example,

wonderful)

View unit

Tour

Stop

Visit

See

Appointmenta

Othera

Show

Come

Meet

View

Look

Tour time  offered

Specific time

Range of time

Prompts

Quick

Todaya

Call

Application

Look forward toa

Other (for example, Let me

Hurry

Tomorrowa

know, questions)

Fast

Greetings

Hi

Dear

Good morning/

Othersa

Hello

afternoon

Hey

Polite

Thank you

Sincerely

Regards

Please

Love toa

Othera

Thanks

Best

Happy toa

Other units

Second

Several

Other

Negative language categories

Fees

Application fee

Deposit fee

$

Fee starting

Othera (for example,., pet policy, move-in fee)

Employment

Employment

Employer

Income

Paystub

Credit

Othera

(for example, source of rent)

Background

Criminal

Background

Verification

Othera

Verify

Discouraging

Already rented

No longer

Not available

Best wishesa

Good lucka

Othera

History

Rental history

Eviction

Othera

Negative descriptive Old

Needs work

Othera

Disabilitya

Disability

Medication

Treatment

Accommodation Service dog

Other (for example, mentally

Handicap

Hospitalization

Treated

competent, caregiver)

Diagnosis

a Indicates keywords that were added in this study.

Qualitative Interpretation and Grounded

these qualitative data, the findings were aggregated into themes.

Theory Analysis: E-mail, Telephone, and

These themes then were used as criteria for determining subtle

or overt discrimination.

In-Person Testing

Because additional qualitative data were available and new,

Converting Qualitative Findings to

given the focus on testers with MD in this study, a grounded

Summary Frequency Counts: E-mail,

theory qualitative approach was used to generate a framework

to analyze and code both overt discrimination (as defined

Telephone, and In-Person Testing

within the Fair Housing Act) and more subtle, potential

Qualitative data were assigned a quantitative descriptive

discrimination. After coding the keywords, the two coders

frequency count—if subtle, overt, or no discrimination was

also qualitatively described their overall impression of each

indicated—an assessment of whether the response showed

pair of e-mails, concerning subtle or overt discrimination (or

or did not show an openness for further communication with

both) against one tester. Each decision was associated with a

the landlord. All quantitative data were entered into an SPSS

description of evidence for subtle or overt discrimination or

17.0. Descriptive analysis and cross-tabulation analysis were

no subtle or overt discrimination, as identified by coders. If

conducted to examine the frequency and proportion of different

consensus on the discrimination status could not be reached

categories indicating subtle discrimination. McNemar’s Test

between the two coders, a third, blinded member coded the

was used to analyze the difference in treatment between the

e-mail to resolve the difference. By constant comparison of

control and protected groups (McNemar, 1947), with a  p-value of less than .05 used to indicate significantly different treatment

between control and protected testers.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

53

Results

unfavorable treatment to people with MD by using at least

one of the seven negative language categories. Combined, 37

E-mail Testing

e-mails (45.1 percent) showed at least one category of subtle

discrimination present.

Quantitative Analysis of Keywords Related to

Subtle Discrimination

Qualitative Themes and Descriptive Frequency

Counts on Subtle Discrimination

Quantitative analysis of keywords for positive and negative

language shows significantly different treatment in several

During e-mail testing, seven themes emerged related to subtle

areas. The control group was more frequently given a specific

discrimination against the protected testers with MD. These

or range of time to view an available housing unit or to meet

themes were (1) more encouraging to control tester or more

the landlord ( p < .05) when compared with protected testers discouraging to protected tester; (2) more friendly, informal,

with MD. E-mail responses to testers with MD showed a

or personalized with control tester or more formal or less

significantly higher use of discouraging words ( p < .05). A personalized with protected tester; (3) more urgency, priority,

trend also emerged of using positive language more often with

or prompting of further action for control tester to view the

control group only and negative language more often with

unit; (4) agent made him or herself more available to control

the protected group only; however, the difference was not

tester; (5) agent requested more effort or information from

statistically significant in some cases. See Table A-3.

protected tester before moving forward; (6) agent (potentially

inadvertently) discriminated against protected tester by asking

As shown in Table A-4, an analysis of positive and negative

about disability or discussing disability in a discouraging way;

language used in e-mail responses showed that 34.1 percent

and (7) agent did not agree to or acknowledge reasonable

of landlords practiced favorable treatment to people without

accommodation requests related to MD. Each of the seven

disabilities by using at least one of the seven positive language

themes that emerged from the data is outlined in the following

categories. A total of 17.0 percent of landlords practiced

sections, followed by examples from field notes that epitomize

Table A-3. Response Difference in E-mail Content

Response

Present in Neither

Present in Both

Control Group Only Protected Group Only McNemar  p-Value Positive language

Positive descriptive

45 (77.6%)

8 (13.8%)

2 (3.4%)

3 (5.2%)

1.000

View unit

14 (24.1%)

31 (53.4%)

8 (13.8%)

5 (8.6%)

0.581

Tour time offered

26 (44.8%)

18 (31.0%)

12 (20.7%)

2 (3.4%)

0.013*

Prompts

14 (24.1%)

37 (63.8%)

3 (5.2%)

4 (6.9%)

0.227

Greeting

12 (20.7%)

34 (58.6%)

7 (12.1%)

5 (8.6%)

0.774

Polite

8 (13.8%)

44 (75.9%)

4 (6.9%)

2 (3.4%)

0.687

Other units

56 (96.6%)

1 (1.7%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (1.7%)

1.000

Negative language

Disability

52 (89.7%)

1 (1.7%)

0 (0.0%)

5 (8.6%)

0.063

Discouraging

49 (84.5%)

3 (5.2%)

0 (0.0%)

6 (10.3%)

0.031*

Background

57 (98.3%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (1.7%)

NA

Employment

54 (93.1%)

3 (5.2%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (1.7%)

1.000

Fees

47 (81.0%)

5 (8.6%)

2 (3.4%)

4 (6.9%)

0.687

Negative descriptive

58 (100.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

NA

History

58 (100.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

0 (0.0%)

NA

NA = not applicable.

Notes: n = 58 pairs.  p-value < 0.05 indicates significantly different treatment between the two groups. Identical e-mail replies (n = 24) were not coded with this criterion. n = 9 did not have qualitative data available to code.

Table A-4. Subtle Discrimination Responses in Multiple Categories

Number of Categories

Response

0

1

2

3

4

5

Positive language to control class only

54 (65.9%)

21 (25.6%)

6 (7.3%)

—

1 (1.2%)

—

Negative language to protected class only

68 (83.0%)

11 (13.4%)

2 (2.4%)

1 (1.2%)

—

—

Negative and positive language against protected class only

45 (54.9%)

26 (31.7%)

8 (9.8%)

2 (2.4%)

—

1 (1.2%)

Notes: n = 82 pairs. n = 9 did not have qualitative data available to code.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

54

it. In many cases, quotations were taken directly from landlord

Theme 5: Agent requested more effort or information from

responses. In some cases, the researcher’s analysis is summa-

protected tester before moving forward.

rized given the data supporting subtle discrimination, such as

Researcher analysis: “PC asked the agent to suggest available

in the form of tone throughout or timing of the e-mail.

hours, but the agent did not give PC these hours; instead,

Theme 1: More encouraging to control tester or more

she told PC to call (extra step/effort that PC now needs to

discouraging to protected tester.

take).” (12133)

Researcher analysis: “Agent used more encouraging

Researcher analysis: “Agent offered tour to C immediately,

language with Control tester (C) (‘your future home,’

but for PC the invite was conditional (‘Please introduce

‘your new home’). Agent included list of amenities and

yourself a little bit more before make an appointment’). The

photos of rental community with C [control tester] but

landlord asked several questions about the tester’s request

not PC [protected tester]. C received two emails, while

for an assistance animal accommodation, income, and move

PC got one. The additional email C received had more

in date and how many people would be renting.” (11914)

information with the range of rates for 1BR and 2BR and

Theme 6: Agent (potentially inadvertently) discriminated

included an easy link to schedule a visit.” (12885)

against protected tester by asking about disability or

Theme 2: More friendly, informal, or personalized with

discussing disability in a discouraging way.

control tester or more formal or less personalized with

Researcher analysis: “Very subtle discrimination. Agent

protected tester.

seems to be trying to be helpful with the parking situation,

Researcher analysis: “Both were invited for a visit. How-

but says ‘do you still want to see it?’ as if this may have

ever, the agent introduced herself (‘my name is Wendy

deterred PC. Never actually says to PC that unit is still

the property manager’), asked for a contact number,

available, but does to C.” (12491)

and showed more willingness (e.g., ‘I look forward to

Researcher analysis: “Well-meaning agent, but asks questions

working with you in the very near future in obtaining an

about disability and mentions needing to qualify based on

apartment!’) to assist C and not to Protected Tester (P).”

the application to PC but not to C. The agent is polite to

(12959)

PC (offers to give reminder calls for rent, says would love

Theme 3: More urgency, priority, or prompting of further

to have as part of community, etc.), but still mentions the

action for control tester to view the unit.

need for a formal application for PC but not C.” (12946)

Researcher analysis: “P [protected tester] emailed agent

Theme 7: Agent did not agree to or acknowledge reasonable

first, but agent responded to C first and C was given an

accommodation requests related to MD.

earlier time slot to visit.” (9668)

Researcher analysis: “PC asked about having an assistance

Researcher analysis: “No invitation to contact the landlord

dog as reasonable accommodation, but the agent respond-

for P, while C was given the landlord’s phone number.”

ed with the building’s pet policy and that certain breeds

(12877)

are not allowed in the building regardless of the disability

accommodation request.” (13249)

Theme 4: Agent made him or herself more available to

control tester.

Researcher analysis: “Agent did not acknowledge the tes-

ter’s reasonable accommodation request. PC email request:

Researcher analysis: “Landlord made himself only

‘…My dog is my assistance animal and I want to make sure

available during the working day to PC, but offered more

she can stay with me in this apartment.’ No response from

availability to C.” (11565)

landlord to this request.” (12719)

To protected tester: “I can meet you at the building daily

Using these themes, each e-mail pair was coded as containing

10am-2pm. The unit is currently occupied till June 1.”

subtle discrimination or not (see Table A-5). This analysis

To control tester: “I’m by the building every day, 9am-

showed that about 42.7 percent of the protected testers experi-

3:00pm. What’s a good day/time for you?” (12140)

enced some type of subtle discrimination against them, whereas

only 2.4 percent of the control group did.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

55

Table A-5. Subtle Discrimination in E-mail Testing

had slightly more closed-door episodes, significantly different

Subtle Discrimination Against

Count

treatment was not shown between the two groups in e-mail

the Protected Class

(Percentage)

testing (Table A-7).

Yes

35 (42.7%)

No

41 (50.0%)

Unclear

6 (7.3%)

Table A-7. Open Door/Closed Door in E-mail Testing

Subtle discrimination against the control group

2 (2.4%)

Response

Control

Protected

McNemar’s

Notes: n = 82 pairs. n = 9 did not have qualitative data available to code.

Group

Group

p-Value

Open door

53 (91.4%)

50 (86.2%)

0.223

Closed door

2 (3.4%)

4 (6.9%)

Quantitative Analysis of Reasonable

Unclear

3 (5.2%)

4 (6.9%)

—

Accommodation Requests

Notes: n = 58 pairs. Identical e-mail replies (n = 24) were not coded with this criterion. n = 9 did not have qualitative data to code.

Of the 82 paired e-mail tests, 25 protected testers included a

reasonable accommodation request in their initial inquiry (that

is, asking for either a rent reminder or to have an assistance

Telephone Testing Findings

animal in the apartment). Of those inquiries, 23 e-mail pairs

could be coded, of which the housing provider did not re-

Qualitative Themes With Quantitative Analysis of

spond to or acknowledge the request in 16 cases and approved

Subtle Discrimination

the request in 3 instances. In the remaining 4 instances, the

During telephone testing, six themes emerged related to subtle

landlord did not agree to the request. In other words, they

discrimination against the protected tester. These themes were

responded negatively, such as “dogs are not allowed,” or

(1) more urgency, priority, or prompting of further action

inappropriately, such as asking about the size of the assistance

for control tester to view the unit; (2) more encouraging to

animal before deciding whether they would accept the request.

control tester or more discouraging to protected tester; (3) more

Both of these examples represent discriminatory practices. A

friendly, informal, or personalized with control tester or more

subanalysis was conducted to explore which disability group

formal or less personalized with protected tester; (4) agent re-

or which type of reasonable accommodations were more or

quested more effort or information from protected tester before

less likely to receive negative responses. See Table A-6.

moving forward; (5) agent made him or herself more available

to control tester; and (6) agent (potentially inadvertently)

Quantitative Analysis of the Status of Further

discriminated against protected tester by asking about disability

Communication

or discussing disability in a discouraging way. The themes that

emerged are summarized in the following section, followed by

The status and overall tone of further communication with the

examples and quotations that epitomize them.

landlord was also coded to examine whether they left an open

door (positive to view unit) or a closed door (negative to view

Unlike e-mail testing, telephone testing did not yield rental

unit). Although findings show that that the protected group

agent quotations. Instead, quotations represent field note

excerpts or the tester’s own words describing the interaction

with the agent.

Table A-6. Housing Provider Responses to RA Requests in E-mail Testing Responses

Group

Type of RA Request

Number of RA Requests

Total

Positive

Negative

None

I/DD

Rent reminder

3

0

1

2

3

Assistance animal

7

2

2

3

7

MI

Rent reminder

8

1

0

7

8

Assistance animal

5

0

1

4

5

Totals

23

3

4

16

23

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness. RA = reasonable accommodation.

Notes: n = 23 pairs. n = 2 did not have qualitative data to code.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

56

Theme 1: More urgency, priority, or prompting of further

it. It’s not just about you.’ I said fair enough. … He asked

action for control tester to view the unit.

if I was moving with someone else. I said no. He said that’s

beautiful.”

•  Subtheme A: More prompting or urgency for control

tester to view the unit, complete an application, or follow

Researcher analysis: “Agent was friendlier/joking with con-

up.

trol tester and did not say anything like this to protected

Quotation (to protected tester): “[The agent said] I do not

class tester. Also, agent cut off protected class tester when

give any information over the phone. Good bye.”

they were trying to justify their need for a reasonable

accommodation.” (12115)

Quotation (to control tester): “The agent said would you

like to come in today and see the apartment?”

Theme 4: Agent requested more effort or information from

protected tester before moving forward.

Researcher analysis: “No information about apartment was

given to PC, while C was given several details and invited

Quotation (to protected tester): “[Agent said tester’s

to view the unit.” (16484)

granddaughter with a developmental disability must call

to set up an appointment] “if she is really interested in an

•  Subtheme B: Agent shows priority to control tester by

apartment.”

re quest ing more information from him or her during the call.

Researcher analysis: “Agent asked for C’s last name, phone

Researcher analysis: “The agent would not accept the pro-

number and email address to contact them, but did not

tected class tester calling for her granddaughter. Instead,

ask PC for this.” (12420)

they required that the granddaughter call to set up the

appointment herself, which requires extra effort and may

Theme 2: More encouraging to control tester or more

not be possible for PC to do by self.” (15058)

discouraging to protected tester.

Researcher analysis: “Agent asked for two pay stubs and/

•  Subtheme A: More units or lease options offered to

or proof of income from the protected class tester but not

control tester.

from the control tester.” (6696)

Researcher analysis: “C offered more apartment options

Theme 5: Agent made him or herself more available to

(with rents ranging between $980 and $1040) and differ-

control tester.

ent lengths of leases (3-13 months). PC offered one only

($1010) and length of lease wasn’t discussed.” (12420)

Quotation (to control tester): “He said that he is available

today until 6pm and tomorrow from 9am-5pm to show me

•  Subtheme B: More positive information given about the

the unit if I was interested. … He said I could give him a

unit, community, or rental process to control tester or

call on his line; he said the number is different than what I

more negative information given to protected tester.

called. He gave me his personal line.”

Quotation (to protected tester): “Deborah [landlord] also

explained that Susan [renter] would need to make 3x the

Researcher analysis: “The control tester was told about the

rent and have a credit score of 650 or better.”

agent’s availability and office hours, whereas the protected

class tester was not. Also, the control tester was given the

Researcher analysis: “Agent mentioned income/credit

agent’s personal/direct line, whereas the protected class

requirement to PC tester only.” (12437)

tester was not.” (11955)

Researcher analysis: “Agent told C about six amenities and

Theme 6: Agent (potentially inadvertently) discriminated

did not tell PC about any. Also, PC was told the applica-

against protected tester by asking about disability or

tion process would take 7-10 days, while C was told it

discussing disability in a discouraging way.

would only take 3-5 business days.” (16235)

•  Subtheme A: Agent questions protected tester’s competence.

Theme 3: More friendly, informal, or personalized with

control tester or more formal or less personalized with

Quotation (to protected tester): “[The agent] was concerned

protected tester.

that Susan (PC tester) would not be able to care for herself

and may leave on the gas. I assured her that the counselors

Quotation (to control tester): “I asked if I would just

would not allow her to go on her own if they felt she would

come in and see the place and if I like it, I can rent it. He

endanger herself.” (12250)

laughed and said, ‘if we like each other, then you can rent

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

57

Quotation (to protected tester): “Is Denise (PC tester) able

Qualitative Themes With Quantitative Analysis:

to care for the dog independently and clean up behind the

Overt Discrimination

animal?” (10980)

Three themes emerged related to overt discrimination that

Quotation (to protected tester): [The protected tester

would be covered explicitly under the FHA. These themes were

asked for a rent reminder as a reasonable accommodation.

(1) only the protected tester received a negative response about

The agent] “said he was willing to do that but he would

availability of the unit, (2) fees or rent rates quoted were higher

hold me [family member calling] responsible. I explained

for only the protected testers, (3) the agent made overt com-

that this would be her responsibility; she would just need

ments related to disability, and (4) the agent denied reasonable

the reminder when it was close to the time. He said that I

accommodation requests.

told him that Denise had a ‘problem’ and she was autistic.

Theme 1: Only the protected tester received a negative

He said that if he gave her the apt he would be willing to

response about the availability of the unit.

do what I asked. However, because she had a ‘problem’

ultimately I would have to be responsible because he

Researcher’s analysis: “Initially said unit available then

couldn’t babysit her up there in that apt.” (12115)

changed the answer after disability disclosure, saying “‘call

back next week.’” (15339)

•  Subtheme B: Agent makes other assumptions about

protected tester due to their disability.

Researcher’s analysis: “To PC, agent said that ‘the apartment

would be rented by the end of the week’ because they have

Quotation (to protected tester): [Immediately after disability

enough applicants whereas to C, the one bedroom was avail-

disclosure], “the agent asked if she [the tester’s sister with

able and information was given on how to view.” (12698)

a developmental disability was on Section 8 or SSI.” (16593)

Theme 2: Fees or rent rates quoted were higher for only the

Quotation (to protected tester): “[The agent said], ‘you

protected testers.

mentioned your brother needs to stay calm.’ She said ‘he

isn’t violent?’ I said ‘no he isn’t.’ She said ‘we are going to

Researcher’s analysis: “PC tester was told rent for apartment

do a credit/criminal background.’ [Agent] said ‘he doesn’t

was $1,325. Control tester was told and got from ad that

have anything on his record?’ I said, ‘no not a thing.’”

rent was $1,005 for the same apartment.” (12165)

Researcher analysis: “The agent appears to be linking

Researcher’s analysis: “Agent required 1 month security

mental illness to violence and a criminal record, therefore

deposit from PC tester, none for C.” (6728)

insisting on the need for a background check. This appears

Researcher’s analysis: “Security deposit for Protected Class

to be evidence of stigma and stereotyping.” (11927)

tester is $99 to one month’s rent ($1005), for Control

Basing their analysis on these themes, coders summarized

tester is $99 to $300.” (7528)

whether subtle discrimination was present (Table A-8).

Theme 3: The agent made overt comments related to disability.

The results revealed that 63 percent of the protected testers

experienced subtle discrimination, with a higher percentage

Quotation: [To a question about the process for applica-

(65.7 percent) among testers with I/DD.

tion], “I have no process, I’m pretty busy I have no more

time to talk” and “if she needs rent reminder she needs to

Table A-8. Subtle Discrimination in Telephone Testing

stay in the group home and I have no more time to talk to

Disability

Yes

No

Unclear

Total n

you. Good bye.” (14442)

I/DD

197 (65.7%)

83 (27.7%)

13 (4.3%)

293

MI

214 (60.8%)

126 (35.8%)

9 (2.6%)

349

Quotation: “We need to keep the crazies out” regarding

Totals

411 (63.0%)

209 (32.1%)

22 (3.4%)

642

criminal and credit background check. (14532)

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness.

Notes: n = 642 pairs. 10 pairs were not coded because disability was Quotation: “Do you think that she should consider renting

not disclosed during testing. 16 pairs did not have qualitative data to an apartment if someone needs to remind her to pay the

code.

rent?” (15342)

Quotation: “She said no, we are not the type of property

that deals with people with, mental cases. I don’t really

know how to say it, but yeah, mental cases.” (11619)

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

58

Theme 4: The agent denied reasonable accommodation

Overt discrimination was determined based on these themes,

requests.

with results showing that approximately 57 percent of the

protected testers experienced overt discrimination (see Table

•  Subtheme A: Agent denies the request directly and

A-9). No significant difference was found by type of MD (MI or

unequivocally.

I/DD).

Quotation: “Absolutely No! That’s up to the family to

Table A-10 summarizes differences in responses between type

handle if you want her to rent an apartment here.” (8768)

of requests and between different disability testers.

Quotation: “She told me they don’t allow pets under any

circumstances.” (13433)

Table A-9. Overt Discrimination in Telephone Testing

Disability

Yes

No

Unclear

Total n

•  Subtheme B: Agents not knowing the legal rights of

I/DD

168 (57.3%)

122 (41.6%)

3 (1.0%)

293

people with disabilities and needing to ask their managers

MI

202 (57.9%)

141 (40.1%)

6 (1.4%)

349

or consult with others (for example, homeowners’

Totals

370 (57.6%)

263 (41.0%)

9 (1.4%)

642

association) to provide the testers with the answer.

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness.

Notes: n = 642 pairs. 10 pairs were not coded because disability was Quotation: Agent said, “she is not sure about the rent re-not disclosed during testing. 16 pairs did not have qualitative data available to code.

minder but she would inquire with the main office about

it and would get back to me.” (12462)

Table A-10. Housing Provider Responses to RA

Researcher analysis: “Landlord was unsure about assis-

Requests in Telephone Testing

tance animal and stated that he ‘needs to ask the home

Responses

Group Type of RA

Number of

owner’s association.’” (14472)

Request

RA Requests

Positive

Negative

I/DD

Rent reminder

147

79 (53.7%)

68 (46.3%)

•  Subtheme C: Verbal rent reminder request not accepted,

Service animal

131

70 (53.4%)

61 (46.6%)

but alternative methods (for example, e-mail reminder,

MI

Rent reminder

182

76 (41.8%)

106 (58.2%)

written reminder, auto payment plan) offered.

Service animal

155

90 (58.1%)

65 (41.9%)

Quotation: “When asked about the rent reminder I was

Totals

615

315 (51.2%) 300 (48.8%)

informed that they only provide a five day written notice

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness. RA =

reasonable accommodation.

for those who are in jeopardy of being late.” (12108)

Notes: n = 615 pairs. 37 protected testers were not included in the

analysis because they did not request RA during their testing.

•  Subtheme D: Assistance animal request was often denied

based on general no pet policy or weight or size policy, or

accepted but with additional pet fee charges.

Quantitative Analysis of Status of Further

Communication

Quotation: Agent said “she is sorry but no pets are al-

lowed. I said my brother has his doctor’s documentation.

Coding of the status of further communication with the land-

She said she is sorry but they have a no pet policy.”

lord revealed that the protected testers experienced significantly

(12968)

more closed-door or negative communications, whereas control

testers experienced more open-door, positive communications.

Quotation: “I asked if the fees could be waived and she

Table A-11 summarizes the disposition of closed-door versus

[agent] explained that they could not be waived because

open-door responses among the control group testers and

they would have to do it for everyone.” (13345)

protected class testers.

Researcher analysis: Agent said that “pet over 25lbs is usu-

Table A-11. Open Door/Closed Door in Telephone

ally not allowed but it would be ok with documentation.

Testing

However, pet fee cannot be waived.” (21474)

Response

Control

Protected

McNemar’s

Group

Group

p-Value

•  Subtheme E: Agent not acknowledging the need of an

Open door

571 (88%)

311 (47.7%)

assistance animal for a person with MD.

0.000

Closed door

46 (6.4%)

205 (31.4%)

Unclear

35 (5.4%)

136 (20.9%)

—

Quotation: “Support animal is not permissible unless the

Note: n = 652 pairs.

resident was blind.” (10985)

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

59

In-Person Testing Findings

Theme 2: More encouraging to control tester or more dis-

couraging to protected tester.

Qualitative Themes With Quantitative Analysis:

Subtle Discrimination

•  Subtheme A: More units or amenities shown, more options

offered, or both to control tester.

During in-person testing, six themes emerged related to subtle

discrimination against the protected tester. These themes were

Researcher analysis: “The control tester’s tour included two

(1) more urgency, priority, or prompting of further action for

apartments, the business center, mailroom, and gym area

control tester to submit an application, follow up, or continue

while the protected class tester’s tour only included one

the rental process; (2) more encouraging to control tester or

apartment. Second, the protected class tester was offered

more discouraging to protected tester; (3) more friendly, infor-

one apartment while the control tester was offered three

mal, or personalized with control tester or more formal or less

apartments.” (14082)

personalized with protected tester; (4) agent requested more

•  Subtheme B: More positive information given about the

effort or information from protected tester before moving for-

unit, community, or rental process to control tester or more

ward; (5) agent made him or herself more available to control

negative information given to protected tester.

tester; and (6) agent (potentially inadvertently) discriminated

against protected tester by asking about disability or discussing

Researcher analysis: “The control tester was given notes on

disability in a discouraging way.

floor plans and the protected class tester received verbal

information only. Also, the control tester was told about more

The themes and accompanying subthemes that emerged from

amenities (parking, business center, dry cleaning service,

the data are outlined in the following list and are followed by

package receiving service, storage facilities, security deposit,

quotations that epitomize them. Similar to telephone testing

close to everything including grocery store), while the

data, in-person testing data were taken from tester field notes

protected class tester was told about fewer amenities (close

that testers wrote on completion of the test. The quotations

to metro, gym) and was also given extra discouraging infor-

that follow each theme are field note excerpts, or the tester’s

mation (that utilities are not included in the rent).” (14082)

own words describing the interaction with the agent. Research-

er analyses are interpretations or summaries of the tester field

Researcher analysis: “The protected class tester was told

note excerpts.

about more income/fee requirements. Additionally, they

were told that the application process would take 4-7 days,

Theme 1: More urgency, priority, or prompting of further

while the control tester was told it would take only 3-4 days.

action for control tester to submit an application, follow

Finally, the agent told the protected class tester that there

up, or continue the rental process.

was crime in the building/on the property and did not say

•  Subtheme A: More prompting or urgency for control

this to the control tester.” (13939)

tester to continue the rental process.

Theme 3: More friendly, informal, or personalized with

Researcher analysis: “The agent told the control tester to

control tester or more formal or less personalized with

please give him a call when they make the decision, that

protected tester.

they won’t find a better unit, and that the unit may go fast.

Quotation (to control tester): “[The agent] introduced me to

The agent did not say these things to the protected class

[another staff member] and said that her name was ‘Shirley.’

tester.” (16213)

… We returned to the Leasing Office and Shirley asked me

•  Subtheme B: Agent shows priority to control tester by

if I had seen anything that I liked. I said that I had. Lindsay

requesting more contact information from them.

mentioned to her that I was looking for my first apartment.”

Researcher analysis: “The control tester was asked to provide Researcher analysis: “The agent introduced the control tester

their ID, phone number, and email before the tour while

to another staff member and initiated conversation between

the protected class tester was only asked to provide their

them, which is evidence of being friendly and personalized

ID. This is evidence of being more interested in following

with this tester. The agent did not introduce the protected

up with or giving priority to the control tester.” (14056)

class tester to any other staff members. Also, the agent

offered the control tester several decorating tips on what to

do with the space and pointed out the track lighting, which

she did not do with the protected class tester, thus showing

friendliness and personalization once again.” (14082)

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

60

Theme 4: Agent requested more effort or information from

subtle discrimination during their visit to the apartment, with

protected tester before moving forward.

a higher percentage of subtle discrimination (62.9 percent)

experienced by testers with MI.

Researcher analysis: “The agent told the protected class

tester that no flyers were available and asked the tester to

Qualitative Themes With Quantitative Analysis:

check the website for them. Conversely, when meeting

Overt Discrimination

with the control tester, ‘went over to a file and retrieved

a flyer which listed information about the apartments,

In in-person testing, similar themes to those in telephone testing

including their features, rental rates, fees, and what was

emerged related to overt discrimination; however, reasonable

needed to apply.’” (14619)

accommodation requests were not done during the in-person

testing.

Theme 5: Agent made himself or herself more available to

control tester.

Theme 1: Only the protected tester received a negative

response about the availability of the unit.

Researcher analysis: “The agent opened the unit door

and left the protected class testers to look around the

Researcher analysis: “Units were not available for PC to

(smelly, uncleaned) unit by themselves. The control tester

view. The agent went to make copies of PC’s ID before

was accompanied by the agent when viewing the unit.

showing the units, talked to another staff for 3-4 mins, and

Additionally, the agent provided the control tester with

came back out saying that contractors are working in both

her name, phone number, and office hours, but only

units thus units so not available for viewing. No further

provided the protected class testers with her name and

invite was offered to come back to see the units after the

phone number but no office hours.” (14619)

work is done. C was able to view units.” (14284)

Theme 6: Agent (potentially inadvertently) discriminated

Theme 2: Fees or rent rates quoted were higher for only the

against protected tester by asking about disability or

protected testers.

discussing disability in a discouraging way.

Researcher analysis: “To C agent said that there is no security

•  Subtheme A: Agent questions protected tester’s competence.

deposit and now they do non-refundable move-in fee

of $200. PC was told that there is a one month security

Researcher analysis: “The agent addressed the protected

deposit ($1005).” (14283)

class companion tester when asking/answering questions,

rather than speaking with the tester with a disability, who

Theme 3: The agent made overt comments related to disability.

was the one actually seeking to rent the unit.” (15082)

Researcher analysis: “Agent inquired about nature and

•  Subtheme B: Agent makes other assumptions about

severity of disability. Agent asked what kind of disability

protected tester due to their disability.

PC has.” (16521)

Researcher analysis: “The agent mentioned Section 8 housing

Table A-13 shows the analysis of occasions of overt discrimi-

to the protected testers, who replied by saying they were

nation. Far less overt discrimination occurred in the in-person

actually looking for market rental housing, not Section 8

testing than in the telephone testing. Out of 83 testers, 11 pro-

housing. Even after the testers made this clarification, the

tected testers (13.3 percent) experienced overt discrimination.

agent still mentioned Section 8 housing a second time.”

The discrimination rate was higher with testers with MI.

(13783)

Table A-13. Overt Discrimination in In-Person Testing

Based on these themes, subtle discrimination was coded (Table

Disability

Yes

No

Unclear

Total

A-12). In all, 45 protected testers (54.2 percent) experienced

I/DD

4 (2.1%)

43 (89.6%)

1 (2.1%)

48 (100%)

MI

7 (20.0%)

28 (80.0%)

0 (0.0%)

35 (100%)

Table A-12. Subtle Discrimination in In-Person Testing

Totals

11 (13.3%)

71 (85.5%)

1 (1.2%)

83 (100%)

Notes: n = 83 pairs. 18 pairs did not have qualitative data to code.

Disability

Yes

No

Unclear

Total

I/DD

23 (47.9%)

24 (50.1%)

1 (2.0%)

48

MI

22 (62.9%)

13 (37.1%)

0 (0.0%)

35

Totals

45 (54.2%)

37 (44.6%)

1 (1.2%)

83

I/DD = intellectual or developmental disability. MI = mental illness.

Notes: n = 83 pairs. 18 pairs did not have qualitative data to code.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

61

Quantitative Analysis of Status of Further

before providing the protected tester with an answer. In a

Communication

few cases, however, the agents asked the manager while on

Coding of the status of further communication with the

the call and then approved the reasonable accommodation

landlord shows that the protected group had slightly more

request. This finding shows that, although many agents

occasions when further communication was closed, but the

are still not trained in fair housing requirements, some are

differences were not significant (Table A-14).

making the effort to ensure they are giving the prospective

tenant the correct answer. Also, the managers in these

Table A-14. Open Door/Closed Door in In-Person

cases are knowledgeable about the FHA and reasonable

Testing

accommodations, which demonstrates the positive effect

Count (Percent)

the law has had in recent years.

Response

Control

Protected

McNemar’s

•  For protected testers who asked for an assistance animal

Group

Group

p-Value

Open door

81 (97.6%)

78 (94.0%)

reasonable accommodation, some agents would ask

0.250

Closed door

2 (2.4%)

5 (6.0%)

questions related to the building’s pet policy. For example,

Notes: n = 83 pairs. 18 pairs did not have qualitative data to code.

some agents asked the breed or size of the animal, and,

although the agents ended up approving the reasonable

Discussion and Conclusions

accommodation request because the tester’s animal fit

the pet policy parameters, this request would likely have

This mixed-methods approach to qualitatively analyzing data,

been denied if the tester had a different assistance animal

followed by summarizing findings quantitatively to examine

that did not fit general requirements. This practice shows

differences between people with and without MD in market

potential discriminatory behavior, but it did not play out

rental searches, produces new and significant findings that

in these particular cases due to the tester’s scenario rather

further document specific examples and frequencies of both

than the agent’s decision or behavior.

subtle and overt housing discrimination against people with MI

and I/DD. These findings, including implications for education

Both Telephone and In-Person Testing

and training of housing providers on the FHA and specifically

on reasonable accommodations based on MD within rental

•  Protected testers were often told that an application fee

housing, are summarized in this section.

would be charged for each adult applicant, whereas control

testers were told about this extra fee less often. Even when

protected testers clarified that only the person with a

Telephone Testing

disability would be applying for and renting the unit, some

•  Some agents specifically cited the FHA but misinterpreted

agents still felt the need to reiterate this additional fee.

it. They said that they follow the FHA and, therefore, they

cannot give anyone special treatment—they need to treat

Differences Detected

everyone the same. This finding seems to show progress in

that they are aware of the FHA and are trying to follow it,

•  Overt discrimination practice was found to be much more

but more education about disability reasonable accommo-

likely in telephone testing (57 percent) than in in-person

dations is needed.

testing (13 percent). One potential explanation of the

lower overt discrimination rate in in-person testing is

•  A trend that emerged was that, with some protected testers

that, in in- person testing, the testers had already made an

with I/DD, the agent appeared excited about renting the

appointment in advance and knew the unit was ready to

unit to the tester and would cite positive safety amenities

be viewed. In telephone testing, however, many protected

of the unit and building (for example, gated community)

testers were told that units were not available compared

but would later ask for extra eligibility requirements,

with control testers who were given information about

fees, or verification. This practice seems to show intent to

available units. Open door/closed door analysis supports

initially appear fair, encouraging, and open to the tester

that a significant difference in unit availability exists

but to later subtly discriminate by making it more difficult

between control and protected testers.

for protected testers to rent.

•  Subtle discrimination occurred to more than one-half of

•  Some agents did not know about their ability to approve

the protected testers in both telephone (63 percent) and

a reasonable accommodation and had to ask a manager

in-person testing (54 percent). During in-person testing,

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

62

agents could not overtly discriminate because the testers

and overt discrimination, whereas during telephone testing

were already there to view the unit, but the agents still

discrimination rates against testers with MI and I/DD

practiced subtle discrimination with the intention of

were similar. Given the fact that the in-person tests were

discouraging the protected tester from taking the next step

conducted by persons with MI and I/DD, as opposed to

or as a result of asking about MD.

the telephone tests, which were conducted by proxies, this

observation adds weight to the notion that persons with

•  During in-person testing, testers with MI showed higher

MI experience higher rates of housing discrimination when

discrimination rates than testers with I/DD in both subtle

compared with persons with I/DD.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

63

Appendix B: References

Ahmed, Ali M., and Mats Hammarstedt. 2008. “Discrimination

Kaye, Kimberly E. 2012. “Public Stigma Toward Housing

in the Rental Housing Market: A Field Experiment on the

Applicants With Psychiatric Disabilities.” Master’s thesis,

Internet,”  Journal of Urban Economics  64 (2): 362–372.

Department of Psychology, San Diego State University.

American Psychiatric Association (APA). 2000.  Diagnostic and

MacDonald-Wilson, Kim L., Zlatka Russinova, E. Sally Rogers,

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. Arlington, VA: Chia Huei Lin, Terri Ferguson, Shengli Dong, S., and Megan

American Psychiatric Association Publishing.

Kash MacDonald. 2011. “Disclosure of Mental Health Disabilities

in the Workplace.” In  Work Accommodation and Retention in

Braddock, David, Richard Hemp, Mary C. Rizzolo,

Mental Health, edited by Izabela Z. Schultz and E. Sally Rogers.

Laura Haffer, Emily Shea Tanis, and Jiang Wu. 2011.

New York: Springer: 191–217.

The State of the States in Developmental Disabilities 2011.

Boulder, CO: Coleman Institute for Cognitive Disabilities

McNemar, Q. 1947. “Note on the Sampling Error of the Difference

University of Colorado. https://www.researchgate.net/

Between Correlated Proportions or Percentages,”  Psychometrika

profile/ Richard_Hemp/ publication/8377686_The_State_

12 (2): 153–157.

of_the_States_in_ Developmental_Disabilities_2011/

National Council on Disability (NCD). 2001.  Reconstructing Fair

links/55df7d4808ae6abe6e86538a.pdf.

Housing. Washington, DC: National Council on Disability.

Brault, Matthew W. 2012. “Americans with Disabilities: 2010.”

National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA). 2015.  Where You Live

Current Populations Report #P70-131. Washington, DC: U.S.

Matters: 2015 Fair Housing Trends Report.  Washington, DC:

Census Bureau.

National Fair Housing Alliance. http://www.nationalfairhousing.

Corrigan, P.W., and D.L. Penn. 1999. “Lessons From Social

org/FairHousingResourceCenter/ReportsandResearch/

Psychology on Discrediting Psychiatric Stigma,”  American

tabid/3917/Default.aspx.

Psychologist 54 (9): 765–776.

Ng, Terence, Alice Wong, and Charlene Harrington. 2013.

Dalgin, Rebecca Spirito, and James Bellini. 2008. “Invisible

“Home and Community-Based Services: Introduction to Olm-

Disability Disclosure in an Employment Interview: Impact

stead Lawsuits and Olmstead Plans.” San Francisco: University

on Employers’ Hiring Decisions and Views of Employability.”

of California, San Francisco, National Center for Personal Assis-

Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 52 (1): 6–15.

tance Services. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/

events/homelessness_poverty/2013_Annual_Meeting_Medicaid/

Denny-Brown, Noelle, Debra Lipson, Matthew Kehn, Bailey

intro_to_olmstead_lawsuits_and_plans.authcheckdam.pdf.

Orshan, and Christal Stone Valenzano. 2011. “Money Follows

the Person Demonstration: Overview of State Grantee Progress,

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

January to June 2011.”  Prepared for the Centers for Medicare 2002.  Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: National

& Medicaid Services, Division of Community Services

Results From Phase I HDS 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-

Transformation, Disabled and Elderly Health Programs Group.

ment of Housing and Urban Development.

Cambridge, MA: Mathematica Policy Research.

———. 2005.  Discrimination Against Persons With Disabilities:

Hanson, Andrew, Zackary Hawley, and Aryn Taylor. 2011.

Barriers at Every Step. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

“Subtle Discrimination in the Rental Housing Market: Evidence

Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development

From E-mail Correspondence With Landlords,”  Journal of

and Research. http://www.urban.org/research/publication/

Housing Economics 20 (4): 276–284.

discrimination-against-persons-disabilities/view/full_report.

Housing Discrimination Law Project of Vermont Legal Aid,

———. n.d.  Live Free: Annual Report on Fair Housing,

Inc. (HDLP). 2012.  Rental Discrimination Audit Report: Housing

FY 2010.  http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/

Discrimination in Vermont Rental Markets. Burlington, VT:

huddoc?id=ANNUALREPORT2010.PDF.

Vermont Legal Aid.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: RESULTS OF PILOT TESTING

64

———. 2013a.  An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against

———. 2014b. “Fair Housing Enforcement Organizations Use

Same-Sex Couples. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Hous-

Testing To Expose Discrimination.”  Evidence Matters, Spring/

ing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development

Summer 2014. http://www.huduser.org/portal/periodicals/em/

and Research. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/

spring14/highlight3.html.

fairhsg/discrim_samesex.html.

———. 2015.  Discrimination in the Rental Housing Market Against

———. 2013b. “Service Animals and Assistance Animals

People Who Are Deaf and People Who Use Wheelchairs: National

for People With Disabilities in Housing and HUD-Funded

Study Findings.  Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing

Programs.” Press release. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and

of Housing and Urban Development.  http://portal.hud.

Research. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/

gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releases_media_

pdf/housing_discrimination_disability.pdf.

advisories/2013/HUDNo.13-060A.

Wagner, Karen L. 2008. “Tools of the Online Trade,”  Journal of

———. 2014a.  Annual Report on Fair Housing: FY 2012–2013.

Property Management. 73 (4): 32–37.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development.

STUDY OF RENTAL HOUSING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF MENTAL DISABILITIES: FINAL REPORT

Document Outline

- Executive Summary

- Introduction

- Summary of Findings

- Recommendations

- Study Overview

- Purpose and Goals of the Study

- Background and Previous Research on Housing Discrimination Against People With MD

- Overview of Testing Focused on Individuals With MD

- Paired Testing Protocols and Field Management

- Overview of Testing for Housing Discrimination

- Strengths and Limitations of Paired Testing in Different Testing Methods

- Overview of the Paired Testing Design and Process

- Pretesting

- E-mail Testing Protocols

- Telephone Testing Protocols

- In-Person Testing Protocols

- Overall Data Collection Oversight, Management, and Quality Control

- Sampling Methods

- Sampling Frame

- Allocation of Tests Across Market Size

- Sample of Metropolitan Areas

- Selection of Advertised Units

- Risk of Detection

- Sampling of Units

- Analysis of Testing Findings

- Summary of Tests Conducted

- Measuring Differential Treatment

- Data Analysis

- Measuring Discrimination

- Findings of Incidence of Discrimination

- Data Reliability and Limitations

- E-mail Testing Findings

- Reasonable Accommodation Requests via E-mail

- Telephone Testing Findings

- Reasonable Accommodation Requests via Telephone

- In-Person Testing Findings

- Findings From the Evaluation of Different Testing Modes

- People With Disabilities As Testers: Is It Feasible?

- Tester Profile: How Do You Isolate and Reveal Disability?

- E-mail Testing: Strengths and Weaknesses

- Telephone Testing: Strengths and Weaknesses

- In-Person Testing: Strengths and Weaknesses As Evaluated by Testers With MD and Companion Testers

- Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

- Project Leadership and Design

- Recruitment and Selection of Testers

- Training and Data Collection

- Appendix A: Qualitative Analyses and Findings on Overt and Subtle Discrimination Against People With Mental Disabilities by Different Testing Modes

- Qualitative Analysis Methodology

- Data Analysis

- Results

- Discussion and Conclusions

- Appendix B: References

- Table 1. Testing Timeline

- Table 2. Subject Lines Assigned Randomly for All E-mail Tests

- Table 3. E-mail Tester Scripts

- Table 4. Reasonable Accommodation Request by Type of Disability

- Table 5. Telephone Tester Scripts

- Table 6. Examples of How MD May Affect Functional Aspects of Life and Maintenance of Housing

- Table 7. Sampling Frame for People With MD, by Test Type

- Table 8. Rental Market Sampling Frame

- Table 9. Allocation of Tests Across Market Size

- Table 10. Distribution of Population With Disabilities and Proportion With Cognitive Disabilities, 2009–2011

- Table 11. Pool of Possible Markets (MSAs) Based on Statistical Criteria for Inclusion

- Table 12. Selected Markets by Size and Olmstead Status

- Table 13. Sample Allocation Plan Across Communities and Test Types by Market Size

- Table 14. Criteria for Inclusion in/Exclusion From Unit Sample

- Table 15. Total Tests Conducted by Test Mode

- Table 16. E-mail Sample Allocation by Market Size

- Table 17. Telephone Testing Allocation by Market Size

- Table 18. In-Person Sample Allocation by Location

- Table 19. Differential Treatment Indicator Matrix (1 of 2)

- Table 20. Possible Outcomes Matrix

- Table 21. Differential Treatment in Response Received for Renters With MD (I/DD+MI) Found in E-mail Testing

- Table 22. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MD (I/DD+MI) Found in E-mail Testing

- Table 23. Differential Treatment in Response Received for Renters With MI Found in E-mail Testing

- Table 24. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MI Found in E-mail Testing

- Table 25. Summary of Reasonable Accommodation Requests by Testers With MD Found in E-mail Testing

- Table 26. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MD Found in Telephone Testing

- Table 27. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MI Found in Telephone Testing

- Table 28. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With I/DD Found in Telephone Testing

- Table 29. Summary of Reasonable Accommodation Requests by Testers With MD Found in Telephone Testing

- Table 30. Summary of Reasonable Accommodation Request Responses by Specific Markets

- Table 31. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters with MD Found in In-Person Testing

- Table 32. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MI Found in In-Person Testing

- Table 33. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With I/DD Found in In-Person Testing

- Table 34. Pros and Cons of E-mail Testing

- Table 35. Pros and Cons of Telephone Testing

- Table 36. Pros and Cons of In-Person Testing

- Table A-1. Samples of Telephone and In-Person Testing

- Table A-2. Subtle Discrimination Indicator Keyword Groups

- Table A-3. Response Difference in E-mail Content

- Table A-4. Subtle Discrimination Responses in Multiple Categories

- Table A-5. Subtle Discrimination in E-mail Testing

- Table A-6. Housing Provider Responses to Reasonable Accommodation Requests in E-mail Testing

- Table A-7. Open Door/Closed Door in E-mail Testing

- Table A-8. Subtle Discrimination in Telephone Testing

- Table A-9. Overt Discrimination in Telephone Testing

- Table A-10. Landlord Responses to RA Requests in Telephone Testing

- Table A-11. Open Door/Closed Door in Telephone Testing

- Table A-12. Subtle Discrimination in In-Person Testing

- Table A-13. Overt Discrimination in In-Person Testing

- Table A-14. Open Door/Closed Door in In-Person Testing

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Introduction

Summary of Findings

Recommendations

Study Overview

Purpose and Goals of the Study

Background and Previous Research on Housing Discrimination Against People With MD

Overview of Testing Focused on Individuals With MD

Paired Testing Protocols and Field Management

Overview of Testing for Housing Discrimination

Strengths and Limitations of Paired Testing in Different Testing Methods

Overview of the Paired Testing Design and Process

Pretesting

E-mail Testing Protocols

Telephone Testing Protocols

In-Person Testing Protocols

Overall Data Collection Oversight, Management, and Quality Control

Sampling Methods

Sampling Frame

Allocation of Tests Across Market Size

Sample of Metropolitan Areas

Selection of Advertised Units

Risk of Detection

Sampling of Units

Analysis of Testing Findings

Summary of Tests Conducted

Measuring Differential Treatment

Data Analysis

Measuring Discrimination

Findings of Incidence of Discrimination

Data Reliability and Limitations

E-mail Testing Findings

Reasonable Accommodation Requests via E-mail

Telephone Testing Findings

Reasonable Accommodation Requests via Telephone

In-Person Testing Findings

Findings From the Evaluation of Different Testing Modes

People With Disabilities As Testers: Is It Feasible?

Tester Profile: How Do You Isolate and Reveal Disability?

E-mail Testing: Strengths and Weaknesses

Telephone Testing: Strengths and Weaknesses

In-Person Testing: Strengths and Weaknesses As Evaluated by Testers With MD and Companion Testers

Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Project Leadership and Design

Recruitment and Selection of Testers

Training and Data Collection

Appendix A: Qualitative Analyses and Findings on Overt and Subtle Discrimination Against People With Mental Disabilities by Different Testing Modes

Qualitative Analysis Methodology

Data Analysis

Results

Discussion and Conclusions

Appendix B: References

Table 1. Testing Timeline

Table 2. Subject Lines Assigned Randomly for All E-mail Tests

Table 3. E-mail Tester Scripts

Table 4. Reasonable Accommodation Request by Type of Disability

Table 5. Telephone Tester Scripts

Table 6. Examples of How MD May Affect Functional Aspects of Life and Maintenance of Housing

Table 7. Sampling Frame for People With MD, by Test Type

Table 8. Rental Market Sampling Frame

Table 9. Allocation of Tests Across Market Size

Table 10. Distribution of Population With Disabilities and Proportion With Cognitive Disabilities, 2009–2011

Table 11. Pool of Possible Markets (MSAs) Based on Statistical Criteria for Inclusion

Table 12. Selected Markets by Size and Olmstead Status

Table 13. Sample Allocation Plan Across Communities and Test Types by Market Size

Table 14. Criteria for Inclusion in/Exclusion From Unit Sample

Table 15. Total Tests Conducted by Test Mode

Table 16. E-mail Sample Allocation by Market Size

Table 17. Telephone Testing Allocation by Market Size

Table 18. In-Person Sample Allocation by Location

Table 19. Differential Treatment Indicator Matrix (1 of 2)

Table 20. Possible Outcomes Matrix

Table 21. Differential Treatment in Response Received for Renters With MD (I/DD+MI) Found in E-mail Testing

Table 22. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MD (I/DD+MI) Found in E-mail Testing

Table 23. Differential Treatment in Response Received for Renters With MI Found in E-mail Testing

Table 24. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MI Found in E-mail Testing

Table 25. Summary of Reasonable Accommodation Requests by Testers With MD Found in E-mail Testing

Table 26. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MD Found in Telephone Testing

Table 27. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MI Found in Telephone Testing

Table 28. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With I/DD Found in Telephone Testing

Table 29. Summary of Reasonable Accommodation Requests by Testers With MD Found in Telephone Testing

Table 30. Summary of Reasonable Accommodation Request Responses by Specific Markets

Table 31. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters with MD Found in In-Person Testing

Table 32. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With MI Found in In-Person Testing

Table 33. Summary of Differential Treatment of Renters With I/DD Found in In-Person Testing

Table 34. Pros and Cons of E-mail Testing

Table 35. Pros and Cons of Telephone Testing

Table 36. Pros and Cons of In-Person Testing

Table A-1. Samples of Telephone and In-Person Testing

Table A-2. Subtle Discrimination Indicator Keyword Groups

Table A-3. Response Difference in E-mail Content

Table A-4. Subtle Discrimination Responses in Multiple Categories

Table A-5. Subtle Discrimination in E-mail Testing

Table A-6. Housing Provider Responses to Reasonable Accommodation Requests in E-mail Testing

Table A-7. Open Door/Closed Door in E-mail Testing

Table A-8. Subtle Discrimination in Telephone Testing

Table A-9. Overt Discrimination in Telephone Testing

Table A-10. Landlord Responses to RA Requests in Telephone Testing

Table A-11. Open Door/Closed Door in Telephone Testing

Table A-12. Subtle Discrimination in In-Person Testing

Table A-13. Overt Discrimination in In-Person Testing

Table A-14. Open Door/Closed Door in In-Person Testing