A Rental Housing Business Practices Audit

Fair Housing Law Compliance In Vermont

A US Department of HUD Funded Study, 2000

Summary Of Findings & Methodology

RELEASED JUNE, 2000

Completed by the Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity Fair Housing Project.

Background

About the CVOEO Fair Housing Project

The Fair Housing Project (FHP) is a statewide program of the Champlain Office of Economic Opportunity (CVOEO), a non-profit community action agency.  The goal of the FHP is to study the problem of housing discrimination in Vermont and to work, through outreach, education, and enforcement of fair housing laws, to eradicate discrimination. 

The FHP, with grant funding from the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, has conducted a study on discrimination in rental housing.  The FHP worked with Vermont Legal Aid, Vermont Center for Independent Living, and the Women of Color Alliance in completing this study. The findings are consistent with other fair housing studies completed around the country.

About Housing Discrimination

Under federal law prospective tenants or home buyers cannot be treated differently in their search for housing or denied housing on the basis of race, color, sex, the presence of minor children (family status), disability, national origin, and religion. 

Under Vermont law, prospective tenants or home buyers are also protected for their marital status, sexual orientation, age, and receipt of public assistance (which includes any government, medical, or housing assistance).

Methodology Used

The most effective way to study the extent of housing discrimination is to use a method called testing. 

Testing for housing discrimination involves individuals (testers) posing as prospective tenants replicating a housing search.

In our study, testers were paired.  One tester would be in a “protected category” under the Fair Housing Act, such as race or family status, and the other tester would act as a control.  For example, in a family status test one tester would be married with two children, and the other tester would have three adult roommates.

Testers were matched for gender, age, and the number of people in household. They were also assigned similar characteristics, such as income and rental history.

A tester’s income was at least three times the rent of the apartment being tested.

Testers received a classroom-style training and also completed a “practice” test, which is then reviewed.  Testers were instructed to be objective, to dress appropriately, and to be polite and courteous to the housing provider.  

All tests examined the housing search experience up to the point of completing an application; testers did not fill out applications or provide references.  After a tester completed a test they were instructed to report their experiences in writing, which were then reviewed by the FHP. 

What was tested

The housing discrimination study focused on family status and race.

Also, the FHP did a survey of recently constructed multifamily housing units to determine if they were in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act.

All buildings tested were covered under applicable fair housing law. This means that the buildings were not owner occupied duplexes or triplexes (except in Burlington where owner occupied triplexes are covered under a city ordinance). 

The selection of properties to be tested was random with the exception of an effort to test larger housing providers.  Also, the assignment of tests was dependant on the availability of rental property.

Tests were assigned throughout the state, however, most tests took place in Chittenden County.

It is illegal for housing providers to discriminate against prospective tenants because of their race.  The Fair Housing Project conducted a survey of racial discrimination among housing providers.  A total of 14 tests were successfully completed. A successfully completed test required that the property was covered under the fair housing law, and that at least two matched testers contacted the housing provider while the housing was still available.  The tester of color was matched with a white tester of the same gender and of a similar age.  The two testers were given  characteristics that were very similar, such as income and rental history.  In 46% of the tests there was evidence of racial discrimination.

The discrimination took many forms. In 21% of the tests, the housing provider did not inform the tester of color about all available housing.  Also, in 21% of the tests, the tester of color had difficulty in getting an appointment or seeing the apartment. There was one test that showed evidence of different terms for the two testers, and one test that showed a deliberate steering effort on the part of the housing provider.  Most often the tester of color experienced a combination of these different forms of discrimination.  Less favorable treatment of the tester of color was observed in 29% of the tests.  Therefore, in 33% of the tests where there was discrimination, the tester of color was unaware that anything was wrong.  In other words, it was “discrimination with a smile.”

Example of a race test that showed race based discrimination:                                  

The African-American tester had difficulty viewing the apartment and was treated less favorably.

            The African-American tester called and asked about available apartments.  The rental agent said she had two apartments, but would need to know if the tester had “good credit” before she could tell her about them. The African-American tester responded that she did have good credit, and she was then told about the apartments.  She also received an appointment.  The African-American tester went to the appointment but the agent was not there.  The tester knocked on a tenant’s door and was informed of where the agent lived (nearby). The tester went to the address given to her by the tenant.  The rental agent answered the door and was informed that tester was there to see the apartment.  The agent did not apologize for not being at the appointment, but rather asked (again), “do you have any credit?” The tester was shown the apartment and was asked where she worked and if she had a car.  The tester said she’d call the agent if interested.

            A white tester called and was told of the same apartments.  The white tester was never asked about credit although she received descriptions of the units. The agent met the white tester at designated time and showed her the apartment.  The white tester was asked who would be living there, whether or not she was a student, and if she wanted to put money down on the apartment that day. At the end of the appointment the white tester was asked about credit. When tester responded that she did have good credit, the agent said, “then there will be no problem.”

It is illegal for housing providers to discriminate against prospective tenants because they have children under the age of 18.  The Fair Housing Project conducted a survey of family status discrimination; 30 family status tests were completed.  A successfully completed test required that the property was covered under fair housing law, that at least two matched testers contacted the housing provider while the housing was still available, and that the family status of each tester was known to the housing provider.

Discrimination against families with children occurred in 30% of the  tests conducted.  Tests were conducted using married couples with children and single parent families.  One, two, and three bedroom units in four counties were tested.

30% of families seeking housing encountered discouraging statements and less favorable treatment. Example statements include: “Are you sure you want to live in Burlington?” and “You should think about whether or not your kids would be happy here.” The second most common barrier for families with children was difficulty in making appointments (17% of the time).  For example, this occurred when housing providers told testers with families that they would call them back when they were showing the apartment, while granting the tester without children an immediate appointment.  There was also one case of a direct refusal to rent an apartment and one case of steering families with children to certain units.

 Example of a family status test that showed discrimination:

The testers with children were denied an appointment.

            There were four testers involved in this test.  Two of the testers had children and two did not. One tester with children was told “So there won’t be anyone helping you with rent? No mom? That’s an awful lot of money to come up with each month.” When this tester mentioned his more than adequate income the landlord said, “I usually rent to students. It’s just too much money for one person...Give me your number and I’ll call you if anything comes up.” The landlord never called. 

            The second tester with kids was told, “It’s likely to be rented [soon] so, why don’t you go by and see if it interests you. My sense is you’re not ready...Are you sure you want to live in Burlington?” The landlord gave the address of the apartment and his phone number.

            The two testers without children were given the phone number of the current tenants and were told to call them to make arrangements to see the apartment.  The testers without children were told the following: “Your [adult] son will love it there because there’s lots of female college students,” “the apartment is in excellent condition,” and “the rent is reasonable.”

The Fair Housing Project completed nine tests examining compliance with Fair Housing Act requirements for accessibility in new multifamily construction.  The federal Fair Housing Act establishes architectural guidelines for buildings constructed for first occupancy after March 13, 1991.  The Fair Housing Project tested buildings covered under this federal law. These guidelines were created to afford people with disabilities greater access to housing.  Buildings of four or more units without an elevator are required to make the ground floor units accessible. The guidelines must be incorporated into the design and construction of all units in new multifamily buildings with four or more units and an elevator.  Two-story townhouse-type units are exempt from the federal law.  Failure to comply with these guidelines is a violation of the Fair Housing Act. 

Fair Housing Act Accessibility Guidelines:

• An accessible building entrance on an accessible route  
• Accessible public and common use areas
• Doors that allow passage by a person in a wheelchair
• An accessible route in and through the unit
• Light switches, thermostats, and other controls in accessible locations
• Reinforcements in bathroom walls for the later installation of grab bars
• Kitchens and bathrooms that allow a wheelchair to maneuver about the space

Of the nine units tested, three were out of compliance, four were in compliance, and two tests were inconclusive.  Violations included:  high thresholds in doorways, narrow doorways, thermostats that were too high, kitchens that were not maneuverable for a person in a wheelchair, and bathrooms that were so small that a person in a wheelchair could not have shut the door.   One test that was inconclusive concerned the land gradient and would have required further testing, and the other unit had been altered by the previous occupant in such a way that it was impossible to determine the original design.

END
Return To The Top Of This Page