Citation
Housing discrimination in the United States during the decade 1990-1999

Material Information

Title:
Housing discrimination in the United States during the decade 1990-1999
Creator:
Whitinger, Lisa Renee
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
131 leaves : illustrations ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
1900 - 1999 ( fast )
Discrimination in housing -- History -- United States -- 20th century ( lcsh )
Discrimination in housing ( fast )
United States ( fast )
Genre:
History. ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
History ( fast )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 126-131).
Thesis:
Sociology
General Note:
Department of Sociology
Statement of Responsibility:
by Lisa Renee Whitinger.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
48713699 ( OCLC )
ocm48713699
Classification:
LD1190.L66 2001m .W44 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
HOUSING DISCRIMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES
DURING THE DECADE 1990-1999
by
Lisa Renee Whitinger
B.A., University of Florida, 1996
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
Sociology
2001


This thesis for the Master of Arts
degree by
Lisa Renee Whitinger
has been approved
by
Rarl H. Flaming
7/ iz!2-Qoi
Date


Whitinger, Lisa Renee (M.A,, Sociology)
Housing Discrimination in the United States During the Decade 1990-1999
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Candan Duran-Aydintug
ABSTRACT
This study discusses different elements of housing discrimination in the U.S.,
including the historical background, fair housing law, theoretical perspectives,
enforcement techniques, and governmental interventions. An exploratory piece
follows Galster (1989) for the 1990s as 22 fair housing audits focusing on race-
based housing discrimination are examined. The audit results illustrate that housing
discrimination, particularly race-based, remains a significant feature of the U.S.
urban housing market. Eight familial status audits illustrate that the presence of
children is a key determinant in locating housing as well. The data is primarily
comprised of rental audits, but also includes sales audits. Black auditors seeking
rentals faced discrimination 30% of the time, Latino auditors seeking rentals faced
discrimination 16% of the time, and black auditors seeking homes for purchase faced
discrimination 25% of the time.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis. I
recommend its publication.
Signed
m


DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis to all individuals and families in the United States and
beyond who suffer housing discrimination as a matter of course in their
everyday lives. It is my sincere hope that through education and policy
reform housing discrimination can be eliminated entirely.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to thank my advisor, Dr. Candan Duran-Aydintug, for her undaunting
patience and courage in assisting me with this thesis since I began in 1999. I
wish to thank Dr. Richard Anderson for his insight into the housing industry.
I also wish to thank the University of Colorado Department of Sociology, and
the Graduate School for their invaluable assistance. Finally, I wish to thank
each Fair Housing Organization, both public and private, who generously
offered me their data, their time, and their work in my quest for scientific
evaluation of housing discrimination.


CONTENTS
Tables..........................................................ix
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION..................................................1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW............................................3
Background on Fair Housing Legislation....................3
Reasons for the Study of Housing Discrimination...........7
Studies on Racism and Housing ...........................14
Historical Discussion on Segregation.....................22
Audit Testing as a Research Tool.........................27
Theoretical Perspectives............................... 32
Federal Policy and Legal Implications....................44
Hypothesis...............................................53
3. METHODS.....................................................55
4. OUTLINE OF FINDINGS.........................................63
Northeast U.S............................................63
Illinois.................................................63
Iowa.....................................................63
Massachusetts ...........................................64
Minnesota................................................64
vi


Ohio......................................................64
Southeast U.S...................................................64
Greater District of Columbia..............................64
Kentucky..................................................65
Virginia..................................................65
Northwest U.S...................................................66
Alaska....................................................66
Montana...................................................66
Southwest U.S...................................................67
California................................................67
Texas.....................................................67
5. FINDINGS...........................................................70
Northeast U.S...................................................70
Illinois..................................................70
Iowa......................................................72
Massachusetts.............................................79
Minnesota.................................................82
Ohio......................................................86
Southeast U.S...................................................90
Greater District of Columbia..............................90
vii


Virginia.......................................99
Northwest U.S......................................108
Alaska........................................108
Montana.......................................109
Southwest U.S......................................115
California ...................................115
Texas.........................................116
6. CONCLUSION............................................119
APPENDIX
A. SAMPLE COVER LETTER SENT BY U.S. AND
ELECTRONIC MAIL.......................................124
BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................126
viii


TABLES
Table
4.1 Incidence of Housing Discrimination by Region of the United States,
1990- 1999....................................................68
5.1 Iowa Civil Rights Commission Housing Tests Comparison,
1995-1999.....................................................77
IX


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Democracy is a vision, as I have written before, which is undaunted by the
chronic imperfectability of humankind (Crouch 1995: 248).
Housing discrimination in the United States exists. Such discrimination defeats
not only democracy but also humankind. As imperfect beings we are challenged
constantly by our fears. At times, we Americans fail to stand up for what we truly
believe in because it is easier, less stressful, or simply not that important to us on a
personal level. The folks involved in the civil rights movement in this country
during the 1960s were not so ambivalent. Risking immense sacrifices both
personally and for their families, brave individuals began moving in next door to
white families who would rather have let hardened criminals into the neighborhood
than black people. The new neighbors were not only unwelcome, they were taunted,
harassed, vandalized, run-out, bumed-out, and scared out of homes and, more
importantly, out of opportunities.
Nearly forty years after the beginning of the civil rights movement an issue
like housing discrimination ought not to be a part of American life. The Civil Rights
Act of 1968 changed the laws in this country but certainly not the national
consciousness. In a decade as prosperous and plentiful as the 1990s, discrimination
1


in housing took place in nearly every region of the country, and not just towards
black people. Hope for eradication of such discrimination lies in our continued
efforts toward implementing the goal of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 to create
within our imperfect country a space where difference is accepted among neighbors
and citizens.
This thesis is intended to outline the presence of housing discrimination in
the United States during the 1990s, and to compare it to the 1980s. The 1980s
were a time when the Federal Fair Housing Act was granted enforcement powers;
hence the 1990s would theoretically have had significantly less housing
discrimination than the decade prior. However, great improvement remains to be
seen as the audit tests reviewed in this study illustrate.
2


CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Background on Fair Housing Legislation
The United States of America is founded on the principles of equity and
fairness to all citizens, giving those citizens the opportunity to create for themselves
and their families a standard of living unparalleled in nearly all industrialized
democratic and socialistic nations. The notion of liberty and justice for all has not
always included members of racial and ethnic minority classification, nor has it
always included women and children. Yet with the passage of the Civil Rights Act
of 1968, lawmakers and citizens of the United States justifiably established the goal
of equity, fairness, liberty and justice for all. The right of a citizen of the U.S. to find
employment, education, and housing opportunities was thus established as a first and
foremost civil rights effort of the U.S. government and people through the provisions
of the Act. Title VIH deals with specifically with fair housing. Senator Mondale
introduced what is now known as the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (Zimmerman 1992).
In response to the Kemer Commission Report that warned that racial segregation was
an underlying cause for numerous urban civil disorders, and just six days after Dr.
Martin Luther King Jr.s assassination, the Congress of the United States quickly
3


passed Title VIII (Zimmerman 1992). Title VIII was passed as a tribute to the great
civil rights leader, as well as a promise to the citizens of this country to ensure
housing for all (Cuomo 1998).
Title VIII, statute 3354, section 804 states that it is unlawful (a) to refuse to
sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale
or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person
because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin; (b) to
discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or
rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection
therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status or national origin; (c)
to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made printed, or published any notice,
statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that
indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion,
sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such
preference, limitation, or discrimination; (d) to represent to any person because of
race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin that any
dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact
so available; (e) for profit, to induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent
any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the
neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex,
handicap, familial status, or national origin. Handicap and familial status were
4


added to Title VIII by the 1988 Amendment. The United States Congress enacted
specific provisions outlawing housing discrimination through the Civil Rights Act
outlining the realistic goal of social equality for all Americans.
The passage of the Title VIII did not in and of itself initiate modem fair
housing law, for it was with the Supreme Court decision in Jones v. Mayer which
gave credence to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to make illegal all racial
discrimination, public and private, in the sale or rental of property (Fairhousing.org,
1999). The implication of Title VIII and the interpretation by the Supreme Court in
1968 allowed for the first time in history the private housing market to be subject to
federal laws prohibiting discrimination (Fairhousing.org, 1999). Also of significant
importance in the history of fair housing was the passage of the Fair Housing Rights
Amendments Act of 1993, the purpose of which was to close a gap in the provisions
of the Nations fair housing laws prohibiting criminal intimidation or interference
with the exercise of fair housing rights through the use of force [42 U.S.C. 3631]
(U.S.C. 1993). The Act of 1993 not only outlawed the use of force to intimidate or
to interfere with the exercise of fair housing rights in certain cases even if no
personal injury to the intended victim results, but also made those individuals or
organizations who engage in such practices to be charged with a felony (U.S.C.
1993).
Yet thel990s, a decade including such immense technological and
economic advances, the likes of which have surpassed each previous decade in the
5


20th century, included discrimination towards ethnic and racial minorities.
Discrimination impedes an individuals opportunity to find employment, become
educated, and locate housing. Discrimination continues in the U.S. despite the
century long critical mass of technology, wealth, and focus on the future of our great
country.
Discrimination can be understood as the action of an individual to withhold
equal treatment from another individual based on personal prejudices, and can be
found in the areas of employment, education, and housing. Affirmative Action, the
policy of requiring businesses and institutes of higher education to allow entry of
members of racial minority status has been effective in bringing to light the various
modes of operation discriminatory individuals and agencies practice. The citizens of
the U.S. have therefore been allowed the opportunity to examine such discriminatory
practices while government intervention assisted in this endeavor. Affirmative
Action, regardless of ones opinion or belief concerning its effectiveness,
nonetheless began a dialogue across the nation about discrimination and the question
of equity and fairness for all citizens. With the network of governmental and civil
rights organizations available to field discrimination complaints in the field of
employment and education, progress has been made towards establishing
accountability for such discrimination acts. Conversely, housing has remained the
last bastion of discriminatory practice in the country.
6


Theorists studying housing discrimination liken the length of time necessary
to eliminate unequal treatment in the area of obtaining housing to the length of time
necessary to entirely alter individuals prejudices and beliefs surrounding racial
categories. This comparative analysis approach is perhaps a lofty goalafter all, an
individual is entitled to his/her prejudices and beliefs. An attempt to study
individuals deepest emotions surrounding racial equality is, undoubtedly, a difficult
if not impossible endeavor. In the meantime, housing discrimination continues,
albeit the passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Fair Housing Amendments
Act of 1988, and the Fair Housing Rights Amendments Act of 1993. Governmental
laws are but one way to combat housing discrimination. Education regarding racial
equality and human rights can also serve to this end. In the end, the individual who
is denied housing based on his/her race, ethnic background, or protected class status
is actually dealing with beliefs and prejudices of his/her fellow U.S. citizens. The
bona fide battle, then, is not against the act of housing discrimination but against the
perpetuation of racial inequity in this country.
Reasons for the Study of Housing Discrimination
Robert G. Schwemm (1990), in his text on law and litigation regarding
housing discrimination, argues that housing in the U.S. continues to be
characterized by extremely high levels of racial segregation and unlawful
discrimination. Thus far, fair housing laws have failed to change these deep-seated
7


patterns in any significant way (2-1). To clarify segregation, John Yinger defines
the term as the physical separation of the residential locations of different racial
groups (1987). According to Schwemms analysis, residential segregation in the
beginning of the 1990s was still at the same levels as 1968, the year the Fair
Housing Act was passed. Clearly housing discrimination encompasses more than
mere governmental intervention can transform. Yet the goals of equity and fairness
for all citizens in the U.S. continue to be seen as obtainable by most citizens. The
freedoms our democracy affords us are at once limiting the equity many individuals
so desire. Housing is the last limit of discrimination, for in our homes we are free to
be ourselves imperfect, judgmental, insecure, ignorant, and oftentimes blatantly
incorrect in our logic.
Housing discrimination cannot be ignored any more than the issue of
employment and educational discrimination. Racial integration will potentially only
occur at the high cost of generating a change in attitude rather than a change in laws.
Milton Kleg (1993) discusses racial or ethnic prejudice as a readiness to act,
stemming from a negative feeling, often predicated upon a fixed over-generalization
or totally false belief and directed toward a group or individual members of that
group (14). Prejudice, then, is not the act of discrimination itself, but the
preparation for the act. Without prejudice, which for the remainder of this work is
considered part of ones attitude, the necessity of discriminatory practices would be
obsolete. Thus, housing discrimination is at no deeper level than dependence upon
8


the perpetuation of prejudice from neighbor to neighbor, parent to child, teacher to
student, and employer to employee. The impact of housing discrimination is never
more apparent than in the absence of potentially rewarding relationships formed
across racial and ethnic boundaries via integrated neighborhoods. Without
integration, housing discrimination will continue, as the totally false belief, namely
prejudice, will not be eradicated (Kleg 1993: 114).
When I first became aware that housing discrimination was a viable factor in
the seemingly endless ghettos of my native Michigan, semi-native Florida, and
current residence in Colorado, the concept bridged the gap between praxis and
action. For years I believed strongly that all individuals who had the opportunity to
engage in gainful employment could hoist themselves and their families from the
desperate economic and social dysfunctions of the ghettos. To me, this removal
from the ghetto would inspire families to become an integrated and productive force
in my middle-class existence of suburban life: safe neighborhoods, as in white collar
crime; decent centers of learning, as in the public schools my parents tax dollars
funded yearly; and mild substance abuse in the form of socially acceptable alcohol
use. In my adolescent years, I lived in Tampa, Florida. Tampa, a city not unlike
many other metropolitan areas in the U.S., is segregated through and through. North
Tampa is significantly white, middle and upper class, and is considered safe. Central
Tampa is significantly minority, working class, and is considered unsafe. South
9


Tampa is a mix of upper class mansions and lower and working class government
housing projects, the former significantly white and the latter significantly minority.
This illustration of life in the city I spent my formative years exploring has
importance to this study for several reasons. As a teenager, I attended a good
school located in North Tampa. Our classes began at 7:20 AM, and ended at 2:45
PM, followed by after school extracurricular activities. This was a typical day for
most suburban youth: leave the house at 6:45am and return home after sports or
other activities by 6pm. Granted, a 12-hour day for a teenager may sound like a long
haul, but there was still a small amount of time for homework and family interaction.
My school was comprised of a majority of suburban youth from North Tampa, and a
minority of youth from the government sponsored housing projects in South Tampa.
The youth from the housing projects were mainly black or Hispanic; the youth from
the suburban areas were mainly white or Asian. The point I am making here is
significant to the following degree: the youth from the projects had to catch a bus at
5:00 AM to arrive at school by 7:00 AM for school breakfast, then left school at 5:45
PM after sports activities or clubs in order to arrive home at 7:45 PM for the evening.
This disparity, a 15-hour day for a youth from South Tampa, versus a 12-hour day
for a youth from North Tampa, didnt seem to phase any teachers or the
administration at my high school. The youth from the projects, who clearly had less
time each day to complete homework, spend time with their families, and rest, were
10


expected to perform as well as the students who lived five miles from the high
school.
Such was the disparity in lifestyles I experienced while a student in a
southern city where desegregation of schools served to extend the opportunity of a
comparable education to minority and lower class students while simultaneously
reinforcing segregation in housing. Sadly, the youth that fell asleep during
homeroom class were the youth whose daily journey to and from their school
demanded a longer time commitment than most full-time adult careers. I often
wondered as I sat next to an acquaintance of mine, a football player whose journey
home required a bus ride to the projects at the end of the school day, if he had three
extra hours to sleep, would he still be so tired in class? Would I, whose life seemed
a luxury to the boy sitting next to me, be able to complete his day throughout the
entire school year? Would I play two sports, be involved in numerous clubs, and
make straight As? Would life make as much sense to me, and would I have the
same desire to strive for greatness? Would I even make it to school every day,
having to get up at 4:30 AM?
These questions haunted me until a few years ago, when I finally made
headway into an area of study that could potentially offer answers to the mysteries of
segregated housing. Housing discrimination, an area of study often overlooked in
the vast myriad of explanations for pathologies humans inflict on themselves and
others, offers the most comprehensive answers to the vast disparities between inner
11


city minority and suburban white living. Housing discrimination cannot be held
accountable for all social ills, nor can it be looked to as a final solution for solving
the deep-rooted issue of racism in the U.S. But housing discrimination opens a
dialogue on such issues, allowing scholars and policy makers alike the opportunity to
explore various what-if statements with regard to segregation. Clearly,
segregation exists in the U.S. today. To what degree both the predominantly -
minority lower and working class sanction segregation and the predominantly white
middle and upper class sanction segregation is the overriding research question when
exploring housing discrimination. Yet the goal of studying housing discrimination is
effective on a limited scaleonce it is determined housing discrimination exists, the
battle for integration and desegregation of neighborhoods has only just begun.
Throughout my journey of educational pursuits via college and graduate
school during the 1990s, I learned of several social issues that I could not ignore -
disparities in education and employment opportunities between classes, the
environmental destruction of our planet, and racism as a national concern. During
my years as an undergraduate, Rodney King was beaten in Los Angeles and the
ensuing riots erupted, the KKK resurgence in the south and elsewhere became
headline news, and Neo-Nazism abounded in my college town as well as in other
areas across the country. During my years as a graduate student, I learned of a
peculiar social issue that seemed to be something left over from the 1960s housing
12


discrimination although with the recent developments of overt racism apparent in
the country its perpetuation did not come as a surprise.
Housing discrimination combines all the covert and oftentimes overt methods
of racism into one encompassing act, the act of denying housing to people based on
their race, color, creed, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, sexual
orientation, lawful source of income, or the presence of children in a family (HOME
Buffalo, NY: 1998). Housing discrimination not only utilizes the feelings of racism
as a determining factor in where people are allowed to live, but it actually denies
them equal access to education and employment, cultural and recreational
opportunities, medical care and municipal services (HOME 1998). Housing
discrimination ties together the entire racist feelings individuals and agencies harbor
towards people who are physically different than they are, and in fact allows those
racist feelings to become an action beyond prejudice racism. As Massey and
Denton (1993) state, racism is the catastrophic collective waste of human time,
energy, and resources (165).
Racism follows its natural course of discrimination, as an action that logically
follows prejudice attitudes based on racist thought. Yinger (1987) defines racial
prejudice as an attitude, and when applied to the housing market it appears as an
aversion toward living with or near members of a certain racial group or groups.
Gordon W. Allport wrote prejudice, if not acted out, if kept to oneself, does no great
13


social harm. It merely stultifies the mind that possesses it (Kleg 1993: 113).
Conversely, discrimination does great social harm.
Studies on Racism and Housing
Joseph Feagin and Heman Vera (1995), two University of Florida
sociologists who study white racism, found in surveys from 1973 through 1990 that
the proportion of white Americans who support a law prohibiting anti-black
discrimination by homeowners selling their homes increased from 34% to 51%, and
that in 1990 a majority of white Americans supported an open housing law. Yet,
44% of these same respondents nationwide did not support the open housing law,
instead favoring a law that would allow white homeowners the right to refuse to sell
their home to a black buyer (Feagin and Vera 1995). Feagin and Vera argue that
many white Americans see no positive benefits of desegregation and integration,
believing that if blacks gain social stature and economic wealth, whites lose (1995).
The authors conducted a case study in Dubuque, Illinois where a diversity plan to
recruit black workers was perceived by whites to create immense job competition,
and thus hate crimes were carried out by fearful whites (1995). Feagin and Vera also
argue that white racism is a centuries-old system intentionally designed to exclude
Americans of color from full participation in the economy, polity, and society and
that racial prejudices and ideologies still under gird and rationalize widespread
white discrimination against people of color (1995: Preface). They further argue
14


that racism is white Americas responsibility as there is no centuries-old system of
racialized subordination and discrimination designed by African Americans to
exclude white Americans from full participation in the rights, privileges and benefits
of this society (Feagin and Vera: 1995: Preface).
Historically, the nationally recognized and sanctioned segregation of
minorities and whites coupled with housing discrimination has caused the creation of
an underclass, specifically a black underclass (Massey & Denton 1993). Massey
and Denton (1993) in their work American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making
of the Underclass argue that during the decades following the civil war and the end
of slavery, black and white Americans lived virtually side by side, as they had during
slavery due to existing economic situations and little systemic exclusion of blacks or
other minorities from white neighborhoods on the basis of skin color. The concept
of the urban ghetto was not formed until the mid 20th century, when industrialization
allowed blacks the option of moving from rural areas into cities, particularly northern
cities, for jobs (Massey & Denton 1993). The migration of blacks arrived with
furious opposition by whites, who felt their job security was to be compromised by
the change in worker composition, and whose subsequent hostility forced blacks to
become spatially isolated in the newly formed urban ghettos (1993).
A ghetto, as defined by Massey & Denton, is a set of neighborhoods that are
exclusively inhabited by members of one group, within which virtually all members
of that group live (1993). By limiting black persons housing options to the ghettos,
15


the creation of a spatial mobility barrier was established (1993). This in turn created
a social mobility barrier that continues to inform the options and choices of black
Americans and other minorities at the end of the 20th century. Differing opinions are
apparent when it comes to spatial mobility, as Stanley Crouch (1995), a social
thinker and intellectual, believes that race and location of ones home is not
significant with regard to what one can accomplish or achieve in ones lifetime. This
difference in opinion begins the crux of an argument that pervades the literature on
housing discrimination. To what degree does housing discrimination affect the
opportunities and subsequent livelihood of those minorities affected by it?
Following the above question, it is necessary to outline the history of housing
segregation in the U.S. as a frame of reference for the remainder of this study.
Turning again to Massey and Dentons study, I found that the authors had provided
an excellent summary of the historical effects governmental policy has had on the
landscape of American housing, and the various historical moments that influenced
the shape of housing segregation in the U.S. in the 1990s. As stated above, Massey
and Denton find the spatial isolation of blacks through the creation of urban ghettos
to be a key turning point in the history of housing segregation. This phenomena
began during the post World-War I era and continues to some degree in the 1990s as
real estate agents and mortgage lenders collaborate with white customers and
residents in implementing various procedures that serve to drive blacks into separate
residential areas. These procedures include blockbusting, redlining, restrictive
16


covenants, bombings of specific homes, and also incentives offered to blacks for
moving out of predominantly white neighborhoods (1993: 31-36). Not all of the
procedures above are employed currently, as the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the
1988 Amendment allowed prosecution to take place when such practices are
encountered.
For readers that may be unaware of the nature of the above practices, I will
clarify. Blockbusting is a practice that real estate agents prior to the 1988 FHA
Amendment readily employed to further segregation of neighborhoods: when it
seemed as though an area was at risk of turning black, or having black residents
move in to a previously white neighborhood, the agents would begin the process of
white flight (Medoff & Sklar 1994: 26). The unreasonable yet unavoidable white
fnght that a neighborhood would turn black allowed the real estate agents to fuel the
fire of the white residents fear by literally going door to door convincing white
people that their homes were dropping in value by the day because blacks were
moving in, and that if they didnt sell at a lower than market value price they would
risk losing an even greater amount of money on their home when the neighborhood
turned black (Medoff & Sklar 1994: 26). Peter Medoff and Holly Sklar explain
this process in detail in the text Streets of Hope, a study of Bostons Roxbury
neighborhood. On blockbusting, the authors explain how an anonymous Realtor
completed blockbusting in the Roxbury neighborhood:
17


I first learned about blockbusting when I decided I wanted to buy and sell
property in Dorchester...
We were told, you get the listings anyway you can. Its pretty easy to do: just
scare the hell out of them! And thats what we did.
Some of the milder things were: property values are going down, youre
going to get a thousand dollars less next month than this. Market values
didnt really decline that much. They did decline slightly, but the thousand
dollars a month, or whatever figure you pickedthat was something you
pulled out of the air.
We werent subtle about it. Youd say, how would you like it if they rape
your daughter, and youve got a mulatto grandchild.. .1 even used it once on a
son, the little boy would get raped. Whatever worked, I would use.
I had direct contact with people who were more blatant than I ever dreamed
of being. There were instances of hbusebreaks that were arranged only to
scare people out.. .1 dont think anybody to this day is aware that anybody
arranged this. Nobody was ever arrested for it, convicted of it, or anything
else...
What we did back then (late 1960s), I dont really consider that bad. We
hurt people who were asking to be hurt.. .it was their idea to run. We fueled
the fire.
In my own defense, I lived in Dorchester and sold the house next door to a
black family, and then I lived there for the next five years. The black family
left, though, after the white kids in the neighborhood got together and stoned
their house night after night. (1994: 26-27)
Clearly, blockbusting incorporated the basic elements of racismprejudice
and irrational fears on the part of white folks that the agents converted to an action
called discrimination. The real estate agents that participated in these practices were
benefiting greatly. By getting the white owners to sell at below market values, they
then turned around and sold the homes to black families at inflated prices (Medoff &
Sklar 1994). The commissions the agents received must have been large enough to
cause the agents to continue behaving as perpetrators of racist ideologies and
immoral business practices at the cost of both white and black families.
18


Redlining, a process the mortgage lending industry employed until Congress
passed the 1975 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the 1976 Equal Credit Opportunity
Act, and the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, served to manipulate the housing
market in a way similar to blockbusting (Medoff & Sklar 1994). Redlining refers to
the practice of mapping a neighborhood as undesirable by the mortgage companies
for funding mortgage loans. Practiced throughout the country, redlining has often
been employed to restrict the sale of homes to blacks and other minorities by
restricting the geographic area that a bank is willing to make loans within. The bank
and its agents, the mortgage lenders, do not make this decision a public one, thus the
individuals affected are unaware that the specific neighborhood they are desiring to
live in is ironically determining the outcome of their loan application. Redlining has
been drastically reduced since the passage of the 1975 Home Mortgage Disclosure
Act, as lending institutions are now required by law to disclose the geographic
distributions of all of their loans from year to year.
Taken from Medoff and Sklars analysis, Representative Joseph Kennedy in a
1993 congressional hearing on mortgage insurance explains the negative effects
insurance redlining has on individuals and families searching for equity through their
housing purchases:
Insurance is the invisible key to economic advancement. The industry has
used it to lock tight the door of economic opportunity for millions of
consumers. The evidence presented to this Subcommittee clearly suggests a
pattern of massive, nationwide discrimination against low-income and
minority Americans...The message that insurance companies are sending to
19


low-income and minority customers is crystal clear: you are irresponsible,
you are dangerous, and you dont deserve insurance. Solely because of the
color of their skin, the size of their paycheck, and the address of their home,
millions of Americans must pay more in premiums for less coverage, take
their chances with shadowy unregulated and under funded companies, or go
without any insurance at all and face financial disaster as a daily fact of life.
(1993:29-30)
William G. Grigsby (1987) and colleagues agreed that insurance redlining
may occur, although Grigsby was unable to assess an economic causal relationship.
Grigsbys studies furthered evidence that redlining affects the housing economy, but
could not confirm whether redlining causes property values to fall, or if falling
property values influence and encourage redlining by the insurance industry.
However, that Grigsby, a highly acclaimed urban scholar not focused intently on
studying housing discrimination specifically found insurance redlining to be present,
whether alongside or as a result of the economic composition of a neighborhood,
gives further support to its role in the historical creation of the ghettos as well as in
the continued existence and perpetuation of housing discrimination. It should be
noted that although Grigsbys (1987) findings do support the existence of insurance
redlining, his own view on housing segregation can be summed up as that of the
natural order of things, in that people as consumers allowed their preferences to
influence the social, government, economic and market actions (1987: 18).
Restrictive covenants, a tool of discrimination utilized in the post World War
I era, came into play after the U.S. Supreme Court declared in 1917 that the practice
20


of discriminatory zoning was unconstitutional (HUD 1999). The use of
discriminatory zoning was thus replaced by restrictive covenants, whose primary
purpose was to keep specific racial, ethnic and religious minorities from occupying
homes in specific neighborhoods (HUD 1999). The use of such covenants continued
to impact housing segregation until the 1948 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Shelly
v. Kramer made it unlawful for any lower state courts to enforce the covenants
(HUD 1999). The history of these overt housing discrimination events and their
subsequent effects on the shape of American housing geography has proven not a
final chapter of U.S. history, but an ever-present, ominous force of perpetuating
segregation in housing.
Bombings, yet another facet of housing discrimination, served and continue
to serve as a tragic reminder that racism is not always contained within the thoughts
of individuals but is often acted out with the malicious intent of harming other
people based on the color of their skin, their religious affiliation, or their nation of
origin, among others. Bombings are cited as one of the acts used in the creation of
the urban ghettos by Massey and Denton in their study, and it is also cited in Milton
Klegs text Hate Prejudice and Racism (1993/1994). The use of bombs in
attempting to threaten, scare, hurt, maim and otherwise destroy families that either
already resided in neighborhoods and were not wanted in those neighborhoods any
longer by the white residents, or that were attempting to integrate predominantly all-
white neighborhoods has a long history of occurrence. Arson has played a similar
21


role throughout U.S. history as well, and continues today. The use of bombs and fire
to rid a neighborhood of its undesired residents is perhaps the most overt form of
housing discrimination, and both acts have been performed by individuals as well as
by real estate agencies and banking institutions for various personal and market-
related reasons. Bombings and arson are now constitutionally protected against; yet
as recent as 1999 incidences of minority homes being vandalized occurred in the
U.S. (Kleg 1993). Discrimination in housing has not yet vanished from the
American landscape; it has merely become less overt.
Historical Discussion on Segregation
From the descriptions above detailing the ways in which housing
discrimination primarily occurred in the U.S. prior to the enactment of the 1968 Fan-
Housing Act, I will now return the discussion to the historical timeline Massey and
Denton outline in their study (1993). As the use of the above measures of housing
discrimination began to alter the location of blacks and whites geographically, the
isolated events began a nationwide trend of segregation. The period from 1940-1970
encompassed overwhelming approval from white residents to exclude blacks and
other minorities from white neighborhoods (Massey and Denton 1993). During this
post World War II period, governmental agencies offered substantial loans to white
Americans in order to push suburbia as an alternative to city living. The opportunity
to live in the new, suburban areas located just outside major cities was undoubtedly
22


an attractive option to many Americans as buying a home in the suburbs became less
expensive than renting an apartment in the cities (Massey and Denton 1993). While
the majority of middle class white Americans were moving to the suburbs, the
remaining low to middle class black Americans were impacted by the creation of
public housing as a result of the Housing Acts of 1949 and 1954 that provided
federal funds for local municipalities to acquire decaying properties and redevelop
them (Massey and Denton 1993). The urban renewal programs that created public
housing projects had a tendency to eliminate more housing than it replaced, thus
creating an ever-tightening market for inner-city properties (Massey and Denton
1993).
A significant turning point in this era occurred in 1954 as Congress passed
the Voluntary Home Mortgage Credit Program which allowed Federal Housing
Administration and Veterans Administration loans available to blacks and other
minorities (HUD 1999). Despite continued housing discrimination, this move by the
government allowed blacks and other minorities the option of reaching for the
American Dream from at least an economic standpoint, while the remaining barriers
of racism would continue to limit the opportunities of blacks and other minorities.
Clearly as one response to the continued discrimination in housing and other areas of
American life, the civil rights movement gained considerable momentum following
the passage of the 1954 Act. The late 1950s and the 1960s are known for the
monumental gains in legislation and the opening of a public discourse on
23


discrimination that became the beginning of a legacy of anti-discrimination laws and
acts. However, the most significant turning points in the area of housing
discrimination did not occur until six days after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was
assassinated the first being the passage of the 1968 Fair Housing Act (HUD 1999).
The second turning point was the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Jones v. Mayer,
which interpreted the 1866 Civil Rights Act to make any and all forms of
discrimination in the sale or rental of property on the public or private market illegal
(HUD 1999). Scholars within the field of housing still debate the effectiveness of
the 1968 Act on reducing discrimination as Congress passed the act without any
tangible means to enforce it. It took another twenty years before the 1988
Amendment, which included enforcement provisions, passed. The Supreme Court
decision complemented the 1968 Act by opening the forum for a continuous stream
of fair housing litigation to occur that continues well into the 1990s with new
precedents and ever-increasing monetary settlements being granted each year (HUD
1999). Nonetheless, the 1968 Act created an attitude of awareness among many
Americans both white and black that the advancement of segregated housing could
not continue to advance at its current rate.
During the 1970s, integration of blacks into white suburban neighborhoods
happened slowly and with resistance by whites (Massey and Denton 1993). Housing
discrimination by residents, Realtors, mortgage lending institutions, and landlords
continued to affect the process of integration. Blacks were not the only group to be
24


discriminated against, yet blacks were and remain in the 1990s 50% more isolated
than Hispanics and 60% more isolated than Asians of like socio-economic class
(Massey and Denton 1993). Massey and Denton argue that the spatial isolation
blacks experience is largely due to housing discrimination, and that continued
existence of the ghettos is largely due to race being the dominant organizing
principle of housing and residential patterns (1993: 109). The authors also argue
that the insistence of ghettos is in part due to the lack of a sustainable retail sector
within such communities, with segregation influencing the low income black
families as their neighborhoods are denied access to goods and services that affluent
areas receive (1993). Although the Massey and Denton study focuses primarily on
black v. white housing segregation, the severity of black segregation in the 1990s
offers a sharp introduction to the perils of housing discrimination for all members of
the protected classes, including discrimination by ethnicity, family status, income,
disability, nation of origin, age, or gender.
In support of Massey and Dentons study is a recent HUD report on home
ownership levels. According to recent US Census Bureau data, in 1997 the nations
homeownership rate hit a record high of 65.7%. However, this rate is divided
unequally in the suburbs and the cities the rate was 72.5% in the suburbs but only
49.9% in the cities, where low-moderate income residents and minorities are
disproportionately concentrated (HUD 1998). Also of significance is the racial
composition of the 1997 homeownership rate: whites, 79%; African Americans,
25


45.4%; Hispanics, 43.3% (HUD 1998). This is due, in part, to the gap in home
mortgage lending. Statistics collected from the Federal Reserve Board in 1997
showed only 10% of white applicants for loans with incomes between 100% and
120% of the area median are denied conventional mortgages, yet the denial rate for
Hispanics with the same income range is 19.6%, and for African Americans, 22.8%
(HUD 1998).
John Kain (1987) agrees with Massey and Denton as well. Kain writes,
Only systemic racial discrimination, that is, exclusion, can explain the intense,
unprecedented, and persistent residential segregation of black Americans in Chicago
and other U.S. metropolitan areas (1987: 71). Gary Orfield and James. W. Fossett
(1987) also offer agreement with their view that poor and minority households are
paying substantially increased portions of their income for housing that has not
appreciated, or risen in value or quality. Orfield and Fosset argue that the
effectiveness of the private housing market has fallen gravely short of providing
choices for minorities, in particular blacks. Their study in Chicago from 1970-1983
defends the argument that there in fact exists a secondary housing market for blacks
that is effectively isolated from the larger, white-dominated housing market (1987).
Further, Richard Bennett (1995) supports Massey and Denton by pointing out
the benefits of inclusionary housing practices by way of a suburban housing program
that was created as a result of a lawsuit in Chicago: the Gautreaux Assisted Housing
Program. The Gautreaux program relocated more than 4,700 minority families from
26


the city to suburban areas, gave the families advice on finding apartments, and also
provided rent subsidies (Bennett 1995). A ten-year study revealed that the quality of
life for these families was greatly improved based on their relocation to the suburbs.
Bennett states: Adults were able to find jobs easier because of the greater
availability of jobs in the suburbs and the fewer concerns about child care as a result
of increased safety. Children in the program were five times more likely to attend
college. This study suggests, despite the economic argument in favor of segregation
should it occur naturally, that there are economic benefits to be gained by
integration (1995: 137-8).
Audit Testing as a Research Tool
Massey and Denton conclude their study with the empirical evidence of a
sociological methodology for determining housing discrimination: audit testing.
Audit testing has been incorporated by fair housing and civil rights groups since the
1960s, and became the prominent tool for gauging discrimination since the U.S.
Supreme Court in Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 upheld its validity
in 1982. The process of audit testing is well described by the Lexington-Fayette
Urban County Human Rights Commissions report on Housing Discrimination,
1994-1996 Housing Testing Results:
Testing is a controlled method to determine disparate treatment regarding
information and services provided. A test is an authentic simulation of a
housing transaction used to compare the treatment of one apartment seeker to
27


another to determine if there are violations of the fair housing laws. The
testing process involves pairing individuals similar in relevant aspects except
the variable being tested (race, sex, national origin, familial status, and/or
disability). After the conclusion of the test, the experiences of the testers are
then compared to determine whether the subject discriminated against the
person representing the test variable.
Testers undergo a great deal of training in how to present themselves as home
seekers or apartment seekers as well as how to report their experiences. They
are not allowed to communicate with each other after a test so that then-
individual experiences can be recorded without any bias from the other tester.
The purpose is to simulate the conditions of home seeking or apartment
seeking to an actual situation with controlled variables to determine if any
difference in treatment could amount to discrimination.
...Courts have uniformly upheld testing as a legal activity citing it as
legitimate and necessary to ensure fair housing practices. (National
Committee against Discrimination in Housing: Washington, DC).
The process of audit testing is not only applied to actual tests of house or
apartment searching by testers, but also to mortgage lending. The same procedure is
followed, with variation in that the testers are seeking funding for a property rather
than merely attempting to be offered the opportunity to rent or purchase a property.
Yinger (1986) gives credit to Ronald Wienk for his pioneering study in 1979
that utilized audit testing for social science research. Yinger argues that housing
audits are an important contribution for study in the area of housing discrimination,
and actually catch the discriminatory parties in the act (1986: 881). Further,
Yinger states that housing audits provide direct measures of discrimination and an
unprecedented opportunity to study the circumstances under which discrimination
occurs (1986: 881). Yinger (1986) suggests applying the statistical paired
difference-of-means test when quantitatively analyzing audits with regard to social
28


science research. From an analysis of a 1981 study of audits conducted in six Boston
neighborhoods, Yinger (1986) determined that black home seekers were invited to
see 36% fewer homes than white home seekers by utilizing the difference-of-means
test. Yinger applies his findings theoretically to his conclusion that housing agents
illegally promote their economic interests by catering to the racial prejudice of their
current or potential white customers (1986: 892). Yingers theoretical conclusion is
commonly recognized as the practice of racial steering, regardless of to whose
benefit the real estate agents are catering.
Racial steering by real estate agents is a factor to be discussed thoroughly.
George Galster (1990) analyzed six real estate firms in Cincinnati and Memphis
during the 1980s to identify steering by agents in one-half of the audited
transactions. Galster (1990) found that black auditors were shown not fewer homes
than white auditors were, but fewer homes in predominantly white areas, as well as
more homes in racially mixed and predominantly black areas. The white auditors
were rarely shown houses in racially mixed areas unless the auditors themselves
requested as such. Also, once the agents showed the requested home to the white
auditors, the remaining majority of homes shown were in predominantly white areas.
Galster (1990) theorizes only one main hypothesis as to why real estate agents steer:
They steer so as to perpetuate two segregated housing markets buffered by a zone
of racially transitional neighborhoods, thereby maximizing housing turnover and
agents commissions (1990: 39).
29


Harriet B. Newburger (1989) in her article titled Discrimination by a Profit-
Maximizing Real Estate Broker in Response to White Prejudice discusses the role
of the real estate broker in housing transactions and, hence, their subsequent role in
perpetuating discrimination. For reference, Newburger sites that in 1980 real estate
brokers transacted 82% of housing purchases and 85% of housing sales (1989). This
clearly places real estate brokers on both ends of the access spectrum when
individuals are trying to transact housing deals. Newburger utilizes housing scholar
John Yingers model of broker behavior to answer two vital research questions: First,
Do brokers make the same effort to sell houses to black customers as to white
customers? Second, are black customers steered to blacker neighborhoods than white
customers? Working with Yingers model, Newburgers results show that two of the
four scenarios depicting broker behavior give further credence to the hypothesis that
profit by real estate brokers is a driving force in perpetuating discrimination. The
findings are as follows:
1. In a market without prejudice, the broker treats a black customer and a
white customer who come to his office identically. Each receives the same
level of effort and no steering activity occurs.
2. In a market where the only manifestation of white prejudice is a refusal by
whites to buy houses in the black neighborhood, the broker will make a
greater effort with a black customer than a white customer. In other words,
behavior that looks like steering would be expected. This behavior differs,
however, from behavior designed to restrict black customers (or white
customers) access to particular neighborhoods. On the contrary, it arises
because the broker can offer a better set of opportunities to his black
customers than he can offer to his white customers.
3. First Special Case: the loss in profits from selling a house to a black
customer in a white neighborhood is so high that there is never a positive
30


profit associated with doing so. Second Special Case: the broker finds it most
profitable to write-off potential white customers and serves only black
buyers.
4. The broker shows houses to a black customer only in the black
neighborhood, while white customers see houses in both neighborhoods.
Therefore, steering behavior occurs. In addition, the broker spends more
time showing houses to a white customer.
Newburgers third and fourth cases listed above clearly show that profit-
maximization by real estate brokers is a force that continues to influence and shape
the actions associated with blacks and whites being shown the same equality in
housing transactions. The uniqueness of Newburgers study is that it explores the
issue from a theoretical basis, employs a model that explains several series of actions
by real estate brokers, and compares the theoretical framework to housing audit
testing. Thus, Newburger is allowing her readers to see the virtual as well as actual
behaviors of real estate brokers that manifest into housing discrimination. Through
the scope of this study Newburger finds also that brokers may change their approach
of profit maximization depending upon locationfor instance, if a broker were to
believe that a sale of a home to a black customer in a white neighborhood would
cause him/her to lose all further business in that neighborhood, he/she would refrain
from selling the home to the black customer. Conversely, if a broker whose primary
client base is centered in an area where all black clients are an easy substitute for all
white clients, that broker may not discriminate due to the quick shift in profit from
one client base to another. Newburger closes with the suggestion that housing audit
31


testing, the empirical evidence to support her theoretical findings, ought to be relied
on more by government agencies whose goal is to enforce violations of the fair
housing laws.
Theoretical Perspectives
Residential segregation has been called one of the four urban racial
phenomena found in American metropolitan areas (Galster & Keeney 1988).
Beyond residential segregation, prejudice, discrimination, and economic disparities
are considered to be part of the nexus of urban racial determinants by scholars
George Galster and Mark Keeney (1988). Their work describes the process of racial
prejudice acting on housing market discrimination, which in turn acts on racial
residential segregation, which follows to inform interracial economic disparities,
which circles back to influence racial prejudice. The authors findings support their
four hypotheses that 1) housing discrimination causes greater residential
segregation (up to a point); 2) segregation causes greater interracial occupational
disparities (up to a point) and lower relative black income; 3) occupational
disparities cause lower relative black income; and 4) lower relative black income
causes both higher discrimination and segregation (1988:107).
The dependency of housing desegregation upon racial income equality is
clearly shown in the Galster and Keeney study. Their nexus model offers insight
into the interconnected nature of income and household location. They offer policy
32


implications as well, stating that policy makers have to become aware of the
relationship between desegregation and economic opportunity policies. Their
conclusions state reducing interracial economic disparities thus appears not only as
a valid programmatic end in its own right, but also as a potent means for residential
desegregation as well (1988: 108). I find Galster and Keeneys quantitative model
and subsequent computer simulation of what life could be like for blacks if economic
equality were achieved to be ingenious. That Galster and Keeney employ a
computer simulation in combination with their traditional quantitative
methodological findings gives further weight and significance to their study.
Within the Galster and Keeney study I also found of significant importance
the idea that although fair housing legislation and affordable housing contribute to
the cause of housing desegregation, economic opportunity for blacks and other
minorities is not eradicated through these measures. Throughout the review of the
literature on housing discrimination, the debate between the degree of significance to
be placed on economic opportunity and the degree of significance to be placed on
racist actions via housing discrimination is fierce. Galster and Keeney offer insight
into the combination of both economic and discriminatory factors influencing
continued housing segregation, as their argument employs the collaborative approach
to studying and comprehending the plethora of factors influencing the American
geographic residential composition.
33


Reynolds Farley, Charlotte Steeh, Maria Krysan, Tara Jackson and Keith
Reeves (1993/1994) explored the theory of neighborhood preferences while studying
housing discrimination. The preferences theory generally offers that whites, blacks
and other minorities live in separate neighborhoods by choice because whites prefer
predominantly white neighborhoods and minorities prefer predominantly minority
neighborhoods (Turner and Wienk 1993). The National Opinion Research Center
conducted a survey in 1990, which found that over half of white Americans support
an open housing law, but that 86% of black Americans supported the same law
(1993). This NORC survey gives support to Farleys (1993) argument that
individuals preferences are primarily responsible for their geographic distribution,
and he further argues that during the period of time between 1940 and 1990 whites
have become much more supportive of blacks right to live where they wish. Farley
et. al. (1994) studied the nations most segregated urban area, Detroit, Michigan to
ascertain that blacks and whites alike are more supportive of the principle of
integration than the actual implementation of housing integration (1994). The
authors found that stereotypes of blacks as irresponsible with regard to taking care of
their homes, thus not ensuring property values was a commonly held belief by whites
in the Detroit area. Also, whites feared that if blacks integrated an area, not only
would the property value of the neighborhood decrease, the safety of the area would
be threatened as well. Farley et. al. thus argue that white and black preferences for
housing arrangements are not based on concepts of prejudice such as the wish to be
34


around people that are like myself or to live with my own kind, but rather on the
desired maintenance of whites property values and safety of their neighborhood
(1994: 761). This view discounts housing discrimination as a viable reason for
continued segregation of blacks and other minorities within the inner cities of
Americas major metropolitan areas.
W. A. V. Clark (1986/1988) argues that a balanced analysis of the factors
that might explain residential segregation economic status (affordability), social
preferences, urban structure, and discrimination suggests that no one factor can
account for the patterns that have arisen in U.S. metropolitan areas (1986: 95).
Clark focuses on the estimation of 30-70% of racial separation that is attributable to
economic factors that work in association with preferences (1986). He also argues
that survey evidence from national and local studies shows that black households
prefer living in neighborhoods that are mixed with half black and half white
residents, and that white households prefer living in neighborhoods that are
anywhere from all white residents to 30% black residents (1986). Clark offers that
the segregation of black and white neighborhoods can also be explained by
household wealth: the suburban areas are still (largely) made up of owner-occupied
housing: it is therefore difficult for minorities who cannot afford to become owners
to occupy such dwellings and, hence, become suburbanites (1986: 105).
In a lively debate with Clark, Galster (1988; 1989) offers that market forces,
namely economic differences and personal preferences for neighborhood
35


composition, as well as illegal discriminatory acts, should be given at least equal
significance with regard to their impact on the shape of U.S. housing composition.
Galster argues that Clark utilized selective information for his 1986 article
referenced above, and that more recent studies offer strong evidence that housing
discrimination is a definite cause of racial residential housing segregation (1988). Of
interest in Galsters response to Clark is an interpretation of the 1980 U.S. Census
data that highlights that black workers on average have a longer commute than their
white counterparts, as well as a 1986 study by Hughes and Madden that given their
job locations, black workers in three major metropolitan areas are less efficiently
located (in terms of housing affordability and commuting costs) than are white
workers (1988). Galster is pointing out with this response that blacks are
concentrated residentially in central cities much more than their job locations would
dictate (1988: 96). If black residents were basing their housing decisions on
preference, why would they prefer to live further from their jobs than white
residents?
Clark responds to Galsters review (1988) with the statement that private
discrimination as he terms it is only one factor in understanding the patterns that
currently exist in housing segregation (1988: 120). He maintains his view that the
primary forces engaged in segregation are affordability, preferences, job location,
and urban structure. However, Clark does offer that governmental discrimination is
nearly obsoletea point of great contention within the literature (Goering 1986).
36


The Clark-Galster debate continued by way of a battleground of articles through
1989. The lack of a resolution on the scholars fronts brought to light the severity of
segregation that existed at the end of the 1980s and perhaps again at the end of the
1990s. By the end of Clarks final refute to Galster, he does in fact acknowledge
that housing discrimination plays a role in the configuration of housing patterns in
the U.S. The Clark-Galster reviews serve as a reminder that the preferences
argument can, and continues to spark sincere interest in the process of understanding
housing segregation.
Margery Austin Turner and Ron Wienk (1993) offer the preferences
argument as well as three other theoretical perspectives on the perpetuation of
segregation in housing. Turner and Wienk view residential segregation as limiting
the amount of racial and ethnic interaction between individuals, thus potentially
supporting racial and ethnic prejudices. The authors follow Massey and Denton in
their assertion that the segregation of blacks and other minorities strongly influences
residential mobility foremost, but that it acts as a barrier to economic and social
mobility as well. Turner and Wienk propose the following theoretical explanations
for the continuation of segregation in the 1990s: the preferences argument, outlined
in detail above; the housing affordability argument, which states that minorities live
in segregated neighborhoods because they cannot afford the housing in
predominantly white areas; the discrimination argument, which states that minority
individuals and families are prevented from acquiring housing in predominantly
37


white areas due to discrimination by sellers and landlords or their agents (real estate
brokers), and by lenders; and finally the real estate steering argument, which states
that minorities and whites are marketed differently by the real estate industry, thus
whites are shown housing opportunities in predominantly white areas while
minorities are shown housing opportunities in integrated or predominantly minority
areas.
In conclusion of their exploratory study, Turner and Wienk found that
although the preference argument may have some validity, it is insufficient in
explaining the degree to which residential segregation persists. With regard to the
housing affordability argument, they concluded that minorities are underrepresented
in the suburbs, even those suburban areas they can potentially afford. Also, the
severity of racial segregation is not reduced as income and socioeconomic status
increases, that is to say that affluent minority households are just as likely as low-
income minorities to live segregated from white households (Massey and Denton
1990). Clearly Turner and Wienks theoretical exploration of housing affordability
offers support for persistent segregation based on factors other than economic
differences. In response to the discrimination and racial steering argument, the
authors utilize data from the 1989 Housing Discrimination Survey to conclude that
all homebuyers who begin their search by inquiring about the availability of units
advertised in major metropolitan newspapers are likely to be shown and
recommended addresses in predominantly white areas rather than in integrated or
38


predominantly minority areas. Their second finding is that black and Hispanic
homebuyers who are shown and recommended addresses are likely to be steered to
neighborhoods that have a lower percentage of white residents and that are less
affluent than those shown and recommended to comparable white homebuyers. The
evidence supporting housing discrimination in this study is apparent, yet Turner and
Wienk conclude that their analysis of the 1989 HDS data on steering by arguing that
the evidence of steering is not sufficiently severe to fully explain the continued
existence of residential segregation, across socioeconomic strata, in Americas urban
areas. The authors do state that their research suggests that real estate agents may
have significant effects on the flow of information to home seekers, hence
contributing to housing discrimination, yet the information found in their study is
inconclusive as a determinant of residential segregation.
Joe T. Darden (1987) argues that black residential segregation is a result of
past and present discriminatory actions by real estate brokers, homebuilders,
financial institutions, the federal government, and state and local governments.
Darden states that the most effective, subtle, widespread discriminatory behavior is
racial steering, and that it occurs in two ways: real estate brokers advising
customers to purchase homes in particular neighborhoods on the basis of race, and
real estate brokers failing to show or inform potential buyers of homes that meet
their specifications on the basis of race (1987: 21). Jennifer Jolly Ryan (1995) points
39


out some specific examples of the type of conduct that have resulted in a finding of
discrimination on the part of real estate professionals -steering:
Agents neglecting to show available property to a prospective buyer or
renter in a particular area on account of their status;
Implying that persons in one of the protected categories will be less able to
obtain financing in a particular area;
Failing to show property or dissuading prospective non-minority buyers
from looking at property in integrated or minority neighborhoods;
Communicating to any prospective purchaser that he or she would not be
comfortable or compatible with existing residents of a community,
neighborhood, or development because of a protected class status;
Brokers or managers employing agents or sales associates who direct non-
minority prospective buyers to mostly non-minority neighborhoods, or
minority prospective buyers to mostly minority or racially mixed
neighborhoods
Failing to accept or consider a bona fide offer because of a protected class
status;
Imposing different sales prices or rental charges on the sale or rental of
property on any person because of a protected class status; and
Using different qualification criteria on applications. (6-7)
Ryan offers specific examples like the several listed above that pertain to
discrimination in the terms and conditions of the real estate transaction,
discriminatory representation of housing availability, blockbusting, discriminatory
advertising, discriminatory use of words, phrases, symbols, and visual aids in oral
advertising and printed material, selective use of advertising media or content, and in
the publication and display of fair housing policy (1995). Ryans straightforward
approach to outlining specific practices employed by real estate professionals is
critical to understanding the actual acts of discrimination in order to go forward to
examine theoretical framework for explaining such acts.
40


Galster (1987) offers three distinct causes of residential segregation: the class
theory, the self-segregation theory, and the discrimination theory. Galsters
interpretation of class theory attributes segregation to the relative difference in
income as the main reason blacks and other minorities do not live in more affluent,
or white neighborhoods, although he found that only a small portion of evidence to
support this view is available via cross-sectional studies performed by other scholars.
This is to say that if class were held constant, the differences in residential
segregation would not be accounted for. Galsters review of the self-segregation
theory is basically the preferences theory discussed previously by Farley
(1993/1994) and Turner and Wienk (1993), although he adds that previous studies
have found that most whites prefer to live in areas with few, if any, black neighbors,
while most blacks prefer to live in areas with a relatively equal ratio of black to
white neighbors. Galsters take on the discrimination theory argues that a variety of
barriers within the housing market exist to prevent blacks and other minorities from
moving into areas that their socioeconomic class and preferences ought to promote.
Galsters focus in this study is a review of the specific theories of discrimination,
which he defines as actions by an individual housing market agent that treat clients
differently on the basis of race (87).
To begin with, the agent prejudice theory states that the agents of the
housing market, namely landlords and real estate brokers, employ their own personal
prejudices to the point of losing potential profits as their beliefs dictate the options
41


available for black and other minority home seekers (Galster 1987: 87). Also, agents
may engage in price discriminating, a procedure that entails offering a home at an
inflated price to black and other minority home seekers, while maintaining ethical
standards of business with white home seekers (Galster 1987: 87). The agent
prejudice theory in action, then, is dependent entirely upon the degree of the agents
prejudice and not on any other market factors or neighborhood distribution (Galster
1987: 87).
The customer prejudice theory assumes the housing agents are impartial to
prejudice, as the agents main concern is profit maximization, thus the incidences of
discrimination are based entirely on the agents customer prejudice (Galster 1987:
88-89). For example, a landlord does not wish to rent an apartment to a black family
because he or she feels that their white tenants would vacate, he or she will not rent
the apartment to anyone that is non-white. This behavior is similarly executed by
real estate brokers, who may have built a white clientele and fear losing that
clienteles business if they were to integrate blacks into the neighborhood. Galster
concludes that if this theory were correct, the discrimination would occur only in all-
white areas of metropolitan housing markets that the brokers believe the all-white
residents to be prejudiced (1987).
The rip-off theory, as the customer prejudice theory, assumes a profit-
maximizing stance from Realtors in that minority home seekers will settle for less
appealing economic terms of home purchase than whites will, thus increasing the
42


Realtors profit by selling a home to a minority (Galster 1987: 89). Galster notes that
this approach is included in the vast array of actions known as institutional racism, as
the approach clearly offers unethical and discriminatory behavior to members of the
minority groups as a standard operating procedure by some Realtors (1987). Galster
also notes that the conditions necessary for the rip-off theory to occur are that of
neighborhoods with a nontrivial (but not overwhelming) percentage of minorities,
especially where whites fear racial transition, and that in these neighborhoods
whites will most likely purchase homes at a discount but minorities will purchase
homes at market value (1987: 91). Clearly this theory employs the notion that whites
that choose to live in integrated neighborhoods are doing so partially due to the
reduction in home prices. As for its implications for minorities, the theory offers
weight to the idea that minority home seekers wish to live in integrated
neighborhoods as well as mainly minority neighborhoods, otherwise their purchase
price of homes being higher than whites in the same neighborhoods would impact
their decision negatively to purchase homes in the integrated areas. The rip-off
theory, then, offers an alternative to the idea that blacks and other minorities wish to
live in segregated neighborhoods, separate from whites.
Galsters study concluded with the results of an empirical test of the above
three theories, in the form of hypotheses, utilizing a regression analysis of housing
discrimination differentials using the 1980 data from Cleveland, Ohio the most
segregated major SMS A in that year. Ultimately the study yielded strong support for
43


the customer prejudice theory, and for the rip-off theory, while the agent
prejudice theory was perhaps responsible for a share of the housing discrimination
that occurred in Cleveland in 1980. In sum, Galster offered the argument that in lieu
of the information provided by the study, fair housing laws would be most effective
if and only if real estate brokers perceive an economic gain from reducing housing
discrimination. Galster offered also that in his view, more emphasis ought to be
placed on adjudicating housing discriminators and the punitive damage fines ought
to be increased if a truly effective reduction in (then) current housing discrimination
levels were to be sought.
In examining Galsters study above, the question of how minorities are
offered higher prices for homes than whites begs an answer. Galster demonstrated
that when a real estate broker perceives a profit-maximizing endeavor, he or she will
sell a home to a minority, and also to a white. It is clear that discrimination in
housing continually occurs, and in some cases is based on a profit maximizing
strategy for brokers and homeowners alike. The question that remains, however, is
one of defining the degree and significance of racial and ethnic prejudice amongst
the brokers and homeowners as it affects the act of discrimination.
Federal Policy and Legal Implications
John Goering theorizes that one of the main concerns with gauging the
severity of housing discrimination is the lack of minority individuals who file
44


complaints (1986). Goering offers four options for his theory that there are more
incidents of housing discrimination occurring than are complaints filed: 1) There is
increasing subtlety in the practice of discrimination and minorities are thus unaware
that they have been victimized; 2) Minorities are less supportive of fair housing
enforcement programs than they are of the general idea of fair housing; 3) Minorities
may be unaware that there are laws to protect citizens against housing
discrimination; and 4) Government agencies may be perceived by minorities to be
ineffective instruments for obtaining justice. Goering offers that an offensive, rather
than defensive federal policy toward housing discrimination would allow minorities
and the general public as a whole more clarity about the issue, and potentially reduce
housing discrimination.
Assisting Goerings suggestion that a federal policy be proactive is the
interpretation of the quality of life for city dwellers in the U.S. during the late
1980s offered by Gary Orfield:
The differences among communities within any large metropolitan area are
vast. In terms of economics, educational level, community wealth, ethnic
background, and other ways, they are greater, often much greater, than the
difference between the U.S. and some separate countries. (1986: 18)
Goering theorizes that social scientists have indeed helped in assessing the
severity of segregated housing that contributes to the bleak picture of poverty,
educational deficiencies and economic stagnation Orfield described above (1986).
Social scientists have developed and tested a variety of measures of residential
45


segregation that give relatively clear standards for measuring trends and alterations
in housing discrimination, as well as assessments of the reasons underlying the
process of segregation.
This study focuses on the incidences of housing discrimination indicated by
audit testing performed by public and private fair housing organizations. The
difference in gaining information from a purely scientific approach, and that of
gaining information from a practical, application-based framework is definitely a
debate in and of itself. I chose, for the purposes of following Galster (1989), to
incorporate a theoretical, scientific framework from which to conduct my secondary
analysis, but the data I collect is clearly from the public and private sector studies.
The measures utilized by social scientists to identify housing discrimination clearly
work in conjunction with the legal system and the public and private fair housing
organizations in a check and balance system. The theoretical perspective that is the
result of scientific study is applied to the broad spectrum of scholars and praciticians
interested in reducing the incidence; the fair housing organizations then work from
such a perspective, as well as from a complaint-based framework to conduct audit
and other studies to discover the degree of incidence; the legal system is then
incorporated on a local, state, and national level to bring consequences to the
perpetrators of discrimination. Galster advocates a national fair housing policy be
established, rather than rely on the above mentioned system of checks and balances,
for the purpose of establishing what he feels is hue freedom of choice and the
46


achievement of stable racial integration, two necessary and intertwined steps to
eliminate housing discrimination (Galster 1990:138).
Galster offers that such a national policy must clarify principles, establish a
legal framework for deterrence, commit adequate resources for enforcement,
promote stable racial integration, and encourage metropolitan area-wide
coordination (1990: 151-152). Economic scholar Veronica Reed (1991) argues that
the impact of the strengthened enforcement mechanisms of the Fair Housing Act of
1968 on housing market discrimination, and in turn, residential segregation, remains
to be seen (29). As Reed points out, audit testing is a proven method of identifying
housing discrimination, hence a federally sponsored system of fair housing audits
conducted randomly, would undoubtedly serve as an impetus for removing
discriminatory barriers protected classes face when seeking housing (1991). The
argument for a federal policy focusing on enforcement places the Fair Housing Act
of 1968, and its subsequent 1988 and 1993 Amendments in question with regard to
their overall effectiveness.
Ryan (1995) succinctly outlines the current procedure under the Fair Housing
Act to assess penalties for parties found guilty of fair housing violations: an
aggrieved individual files a complaint with the United States department of Housing
and Urban Development, or HUD. If HUD does not reconcile the dispute and,
further, finds reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, HUD will
issue a charge on behalf of the individual. The decision is then made between
47


conducting proceedings before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) or a trial in
federal district court. If an administrative hearing is chosen, which in turn results in
a finding of discriminatory conduct, the ALJ may enter an order for relief including
actual damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief, as well as civil
penalties against the party who has discriminated. The ALJ has the option of
awarding civil penalties up to $10,000 for a first violation, $25,000 for a second
violation, and $50,000 for a third violation.
If the individual chooses to pursue the claim in federal district court, the U.S.
Department of Justice, represented by the Attorney General, will bring the action on
behalf of the victim. In such cases, the court may issue a permanent or temporary
injunction or a restraining order against the defendant(s) in question, as well as
award actual and punitive damages upon completion of the trial. Also to note is the
Fair Housing Act provision that allows an individual filing a complaint to bypass the
administrative legislative options in order to directly file a suit in federal district
court. Criminal penalties are also available in fair housing cases as discussed in the
opening section of this literature review the 1993 Amendment provides that any
intimidation or violence in conjunction with housing discrimination can be charged
to the defendant as a felony. The legal system is clearly a participant in the advocacy
of justice with regard to housing discrimination.
The legal system is often a proponent of fair housing legislation beyond
direct discrimination issues as well, and the landmark Mt. Laurel cases of the New
48


Jersey Supreme Court are such an example (Haar 1996). Beginning in 1975 in Mt.
Laurel, NJ, Judge Hall and his panel began deliberating the issue of whether a
developing municipality could validly enact a land-use regulation making physically
and economically impossible the provision of housing for low-moderate income
families within its borders (Haar 1996). Judge Hall viewed the exclusionary zoning
utilized by the local regulations as discriminatory, and expanded the protected class
of race to economic qualifiers, or class (Haar 1996). Individuals who were low-
moderate income were excluded from living in decent housing by the zoning rules
(Haar 1996). Mt. Laurel I became a case where the underlying motivation for the
zoning rules was unveiled, that of social-class exclusion (Haar 1996). The courts
recognized that such social-class exclusion is one of the main reasons for the
existence of suburbs in general: to isolate middle and upper class citizens from the
concentration of poverty in the urban ghettos of metropolitan areas (Haar 1996).
Charles M. Haar, the author of Suburbs Under Siege outlining the Mt. Laurel cases,
believes that suburban legal barriers such as those enacted by Mt. Laurel, NJ are
deeply implicated in a way of life dominated by privatization, enclaves, and
indifference to the larger general welfare (1996). Institutions have a clear impact on
molding attitudes towards race and protected status, such as the restrictive covenants
enforced by states as outlined in the Mt. Laurel cases (Tobin 1987). The court took
on the role assigned to itadvocating for and protecting the rights of minorities, or
protected classes in cases of government law breaking (Haar 1996).
49


Basing the rulings in Mt. Laurel I and II on State Constitutional Law, Judge
Hall prevented his decision from being overturned by the legislature as well as the
federal courts (Haar 1996). Reform in Mt. Laurel based on the rulings of the New
Jersey Supreme Court moved beyond simply refuting the regulatory barriers that
created severe economic consequences, and into the realm of advocating low-
moderate income housing for the state (Haar 1996). Eventually, 13 years after the
initial Mt. Laurel case began, the court moved into the background as the New Jersey
Fair Housing Act, established by the state legislature, began to carry forward
precedents set by the court (Haar 1996). Mt. Laurel I and II can be seen as a victory
for fair housing, as well as a victory for the checks and balances system our
democracy is founded upon.
/
Courts have stepped in to interpret the Fair Housing Act in numerous ways
involving racial segregation. Racially specific advertising in housing has come under
recent question in the case of South Suburban Housing Center v. Greater South
Suburban Board of Realtors in Chicago, IL. The Seventh Circuit federal appellate
court focused on affirmative marketing techniques with respect to promoting
integrated housing (Zimmerman 1992). When used with anti-discrimination and
community enhancement programs, affirmative marketing techniques employed
by private real estate companies, can be effective in getting the word out that
minorities and other protective classes are welcome in targeted areas (Zimmerman
1992: 1272). The case in question involved certain private real estate companies
50


being excluded from the local Multiple Listing Service in the area as the companies
were utilizing affirmative marketing. Mark Zimmerman (1992) states that
specifically, the South Suburban case addressed whether a Realtor association that
disagrees with race-conscious tactics on philosophical grounds may refuse to list
properties marketed that way in its multiple listing service (1273). The Seventh
Circuits decision upheld the use of private marketing techniques based on the
premise of integrating housing. Explicitly, special outreach efforts by private
groups to certain racial groups does not constitute discrimination, and Zimmerman
adds that the lasting impact is that private entities can continue to expand
affirmative marketing efforts without fear of liability (1992: 1366). Zimmerman
also adds that the court filled a void that HUD has neglected, that of establishing
specific regulations regarding private affirmative marketing efforts (1992).
By contrast to the positive move for integration established by South
Suburban Housing Center v. Greater South Suburban Board of Realtors, Katherine
G. Steams (1994) discusses discriminatory advertising. By analyzing the effect of
advertising on the consumer, specifically the housing consumer, Steams (1994)
found that fair housing advocates believe that some real estate advertisements
targeted to a specific segment of buyers use discriminatory tactics to locate such
buyers. The use of human models for advertising purposes is Kearns focus, and she
notes that advertisers create human model advertising so that the target consumer
identifies with the model, hence persuading the consumer to purchase the product.
51


In the case of real estate advertisements that use human models, Kearns states that
models may be used not only to attract a certain target audience as potential buyers
or renters, but also to selectively exclude other audiences. The Advertising
Preference Section of the Fair Housing Act prohibits such discrimination, and
Kearns offers that federal courts are now recognizing violations of the Act by real
estate companies that utilize human models in their advertising.
Galster (1992) is an advocate for further research in the area of housing
discrimination perpetrated by local governments and public agencies. He further
concludes that the main body of empirical social science research on discrimination
in housing markets has been piecemeal, therefore failing in the goal of adequately
measuring the impact of discrimination (Galster 1992: 662). Galster calls for
research into the following areas: effectiveness of different types of enforcement
activities when discrimination is tracked, the incentives that could be provided for
public and/or private agencies that would have the effect of deterring local
governments from discriminating, and to what degree public policy can be expected
to reduce racial prejudice by enhancing positive interracial contacts in a stable
neighborhood context (1992: 672). Clearly the nexus approach Galster utilized in his
earlier work has room for expansion into these and other areas in understanding
housing discrimination in its entirety.
In a comprehensive analysis of the state of housing discrimination by the
Congressional Quarterly Researcher, two significant players in the housing industry
52


give their views on the state of housing integration and the future for this pressing
civil rights issue. The executive vice president of the National Association of
Realtors, William D. North, states in his discussion of housing discrimination that
the bundle of prejudices that seems forever to characterize the human condition is
never more significant, immediate and powerful than in its impact on where and with
whom we live. It is in the home, the neighborhood and the community that the
tolerance of the social, cultural, religious, racial and national differences reaches its
base level. It is in the home that xenophobia is strongest, intolerance creates and the
accommodation of diversity most difficult to achieve (1995: 174). HUD Assistant
Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Roberta Achtenberg argues that
even with most aggressive enforcement, civil rights in housing will be one of the
last rights achieved. Housing means who you live next door to, what you go home
toand its the average persons source of wealth (1995: 188).
Hypothesis
These views are certainly, in sum, representative of the results found by
Galster in his study of the audit studies for the 1980s. Theoretical exploration and
empirical testing in the area of housing discrimination will undoubtedly yield further
evidence to the severity and prevalence of prejudice within the American housing
market. The main foci of this thesis is to examine that depth of prejudice for the
decade 1990-1999, utilizing the variable discrimination as demonstrated by empirical
53


findings completed by rental and sales audit tests conducted in numerous localities
nationwide, and to compare it with the decade 1980-1989. I hypothesize that the
incidence of prejudice will be similar to Galsters 1980s data. Regardless of the
findings, the depth of discrimination will be given a greater voice through the
analysis, thus leading to a more thorough theoretical body of literature in the study of
housing discrimination.
54


CHAPTER 3
METHODS
The methodology I chose to utilize for the research in thesis is secondary, or
meta-research. As a graduate student, I learned that an original, individual study of
housing discrimination could be effective from a local perspective. Yet an
exploratory secondary analysis can be both valid and applicable on a larger scale. In
the literature, I learned the potential benefit of examining housing discrimination
from a nationwide perspective, as few scholars have done such analyses. I therefore
decided to employ a meta-analysis of the research I gathered.
Meta-analysis, or meta-analysis of research, was introduced into the social
sciences as a method in the mid 1970s (Cook et. al. 1992). The tenets of meta-
analysis were formed from the idea that social science had become increasingly less
applicable to public policy implementation or to contributions to substantive theory
as the disagreement amongst social scientists with regard to replicating or even
interpreting results of studies weakened the credibility of said scientists findings
(Cook et. al. 1992). Prior to the introduction and practice of meta-analysis,
experience, good judgment, and a sound understanding of methodological
principles were sufficient to make useful sense of a related set of studies, but with
no guarantee that a similarly experienced analysis would reach a similar
55


conclusion (Wanner in Cook et. al. 1992: Foreword). Meta-analysis goes beyond
the traditional qualitative literature review in which all studies represented in such a
review do not bear the same importance nor have they been carried out in precisely
the same waymeta analysis strives to create a study level indicator to gauge the
similarities and the differences statistically (Cook et. al. 1992). As a quantitative
technique, meta-analysis permits synthesizing results of many types of research,
including opinion surveys, correlational studies, experimental and quasi-
experimental studies, and regression analyses probing causal models (Cook et. al.
1992: 4).
In a meta-analysis, the investigator collects all the studies, in this case
discriminatory housing audit tests, and then utilizes at least one indicator of the
relationship under investigation from each of the studies (Cook et. al. 1992). The
indicator utilized in this thesis is evidence of discriminatory behavior upon searching
for rental housing or housing for sale by members of the protected classes. The
benefits of a meta-analysis for the purposes of this thesis are the utilization of many
different sub-methods of collecting data that can be synthesized across a generalized
population, the United States. Clearly the limitations to a secondary analysis remain.
However, it is far more helpful to utilize housing audit tests from more than one
location for a study aimed at analyzing the state of affairs across the country. As this
study is a secondary analysis of fair housing studies completed by different
organizations across the United States, meta-analysis is an excellent method to
56


employ for analyzing the data collected for this thesis. The discussion turns now to
the actual methods I employed in gathering my data.
The basic method I followed in obtaining the audit reports for this study are
borrowed from George Galster. Taken from his article Racial Discrimination in
Housing Markets during the 1980s: A Review of the Audit Evidence, Galsters
approach to locating housing discrimination audits for the 1980s became my starting
point. First, I met with local housing discrimination expert Kathy Cheever, who at
the time worked for HOME at NEWSED, Housing Opportunities Made Equal.
Cheever suggested utilizing the National Neighbors, Inc. Fair Housing Resource
Directory as a starting point. This had been one of Galsters first steps as well.
Upon careful examination of the Directory, 105 fair housing agencies nationwide
that were listed as conducting housing audit testing were contacted. The first round
of contacts consisted of a personalized mailing to each agency requesting the release
of any audit tests the agency had completed during the 1990s that had been made
public information. The reason I requested data that had been made public is well
known among fair housing advocatesleaking information to the public that a fair
housing audit is underway in a community can have serious adverse affects on the
outcome of the audit.
The response to the letter-writing campaign was somewhat disheartening, as I
quickly realized the staffs of the organizations are rather busy and concerned with
daily duties, not scholarly representation. Initially I received approximately 10
57


replies from the 105 letters I had sent. Approximately 15 letters were returned for
improper addresses, with no future forwarding information. As the National
Neighbors directory had been published in 1994, and I began my study in August
1999, it became clear to me that several organizations had ceased to exist in that five
year time-line, or had joined forces with similar agencies in their respective areas.
As a measure of thorough research, I followed each letter I had written with a call,
even to those organizations who had responded with a letter. The phone calls alone
took approximately one month to complete, as time changes, busy signals,
disconnected numbers, and even absence of an acting director in some organizations
were the rule rather than the exception. Also during this time period, I began to
search the Internet for sources of information, and spent approximately one month
exhausting that avenue as well. Through the Internet I was able to download about
four actual studies from different organizations, as well as contact nearly 100 new
organizations I located via electronic mail, otherwise known as email.
By the end of 1999,1 had successfully obtained 60 reports from fair housing
agencies, 30 pertaining to rental and sales audits, 20 pertaining to mortgage lending
audits, and 10 pertaining to the overall functioning of the specific fair housing
organization and its mission and history. The process of acknowledging the
organizations that offered the information was lengthy as the reports arrived at
various times and through various means. Some responses directed me to other
58


organizations, and in such situations both organizations were acknowledged, either
via telephone, letter, or email.
During the time-period between August and December 1999,1 also focused
on the theoretical perspective of the study through an intense literature review
process. I located some 75 articles and texts on the topic of housing discrimination,
including some press releases from the agencies themselves. I read six texts in their
entirety in order to form a solid theoretical perspective from which to address the
housing discrimination data I was collecting. The information presented in the
Literature Review portion of this thesis outlines the highlights of the texts read
during that critical time-period. The online resources for literature were varied, and I
give significant credit to the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) website
www.hud.gov, as well as www.fairhousing.com. as the most useful in locating online
literature in the form of press releases and reports. Working with Galsters technique,
and altering his procedures to fit my own progress and direction of this secondary
analysis, I finished collecting new reports in January, 2000.
Regardless of ones personal view on the topic, from a social scientists
perspective the lack of easily accessible housing discrimination data is a valid frame
of reference for conducting future research. I found the process of collecting data
arduous and rather frustrating at times, and although there are organizations like
National Neighbors available to assist in ones search, the lack of a centralized
database for public information leads to a timely research process. The 1991
59


Housing Discrimination Study, funded by HUD and conducted in varying locations
nationwide, included reports on the following topics:
Incidence and Severity of Unfavorable Treatment, prepared by John
Yinger;
Incidence of Discrimination and Variations in Discriminatory Behavior,
prepared by John Yinger;
Analyzing Racial and Ethnic Steering, prepared by Margery Austin Turner,
John G. Edwards, and Maris Mikelsons;
Mapping Patterns of Steering for Five Metropolitan Areas, prepared by
Maris Mikelsons and Margery Austin Turner;
Replication of 1977 Study Measures with Current Data, prepared by Amina
Elmi and Maris Mikelsons;
Synthesis, prepared by Margery Austin Turner, Raymond J. Struyk and
John Yinger.
I offer these studies as a reference to future scholars in their pursuit of fair
housing analysis. I chose not to incorporate the HUD studies as the data was
collected in 1989, and my study focuses entirely on audit testing completed in the
1990s. I do think the reports contain a great deal of information with regard to what
has been tested on a national scale, as well as ideas for methodology for future
research.
In discussing future sources for secondary analysis and housing
discrimination in general, at the end of 1998, then HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo
announced the initiation of the most comprehensive and sophisticated nationwide
60


audit ever conducted to test for and evaluate housing discrimination in urban,
suburban and rural communities around the nation (press release HUD no. 98-600,
Monday Nov. 16 1998: www.hud.gov). Undoubtedly the results of some 3000-5000
tests using African Americans, Hispanics, Asian/Pacific Islanders, and Native
Americans to examine and evaluate patterns and trends in housing sales, rentals,
and mortgage lending to minorities will provide an excellent resource for housing
scholars (press release HUD no. 98-600, Monday Nov. 16 1998: www.hud.gov). By
visiting www.hud.gov as of April 2001, it appears the final report has not been made
public yet.
Another point worthy of discussion is the fine line between scholarly research
and applied research. As I made a specific point to gather applied research audit test
results, there exists less of a discrepancy in defining the line within this study.
However, there is validity in questioning the use of application-based research for a
scholarly thesis. The literature on housing discrimination utilizes a mix of purely
scholarly research and what I term motivation-based applied research. I turn to
Michael Fix and Raymond J. Struyks (1992) chapter on the Advantages and Ethics
of Auditing from Clear and Convincing Evidence: Measurement of Discrimination
in America to describe some of the advantages and criticisms of audit testing.
Advantages include the comparative level of confidence audit testing inspire, the
political persuasiveness of those results, the ability to detect subtle forms of
discrimination, and the efficiency of audit testing as an enforcement tool. Criticisms
61


include deception, invasion of privacy, use of human subjects without their
knowledge or consent, tester motives and their implications for reliability, and the
difficulties in interpreting audit tests. The authors also discuss the use of audits for
research and those used for enforcement, as I discussed above. The main difference
lies within how the results are utilized. In research, or scholarly audits,
discriminators do not learn that their practices have been discovered, and there is no
confrontation initiated to influence a change in discriminatory behavior. Contrary to
research audits, enforcement audits are confined to the public realm and are
oftentimes initiated as a reaction to complaints of discrimination.
This study utilizes both kinds of audit reports, as well as several purely
qualitative studies. It is my opinion that within the field of study, there is room for
both scholarly / research audits as well as applied / enforcement audits. Funding for
both can be obtained, and the results of both methods influence public policy and the
scholarly discourse on housing discrimination.
62


CHAPTER 4
OUTLINE OF FINDINGS
Northeast U.S.
Illinois
Chicago Lawyers Committee for Better Housing, Leadership Council for
Metropolitan Open Communities and the Metropolitan Tenant Organization
Rental Audit Familial Status
City of Chicago Commission on Human Relations Legal Report
Disability, Familial Status, Income, Race
Iowa
Iowa Civil Rights Commission Rental Audit
Disability, Familial Status, Race
Iowa Civil Rights Commission Rental Audit
Familial Status, Race
63


Iowa Civil Rights Commission Sales Audit
Familial Status
Massachusetts
University of Massachusetts, HUD Nationwide Data Rental Study
Familial Status, Income, Race
Minnesota
Minnesota Fair Housing Center, Minneapolis Rental Audit
Familial Status, Income, Race
Ohio
City of Dayton, Ohio Rental & Sales Study
Disability, Familial Status, Gender, National Origin, Race
Southeast U.S.
Greater District of Columbia
Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington, DC Rental Audit
National Origin, Race
64


Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington, DC Sales Audit
National Origin, Race
Kentucky
Kentucky Commission on Human RightsRental Audit
Familial Status, Gender, National Origin, Race
Virginia
City of Alexandria, VA, Landlord-Tenants Relations Division of the Office of
Housing Rental Audit
Race
City of Alexandria, VA, Landlord-Tenants Relations Division of the Office of
Housing Rental Audit
Race
City of Alexandria, VA, Landlord-Tenants Relations Division of the Office of
Housing Rental Audit
Familial Status
65


City of Alexandria, VA, Landlord-Tenants Relations Division of the Office of
Housing -Rental Audit
Disability
City of Alexandria, VA, Landlord-Tenants Relations Division of the Office of
Housing Rental Audit
Race, Sexual Orientation
City of Alexandria, VA, Office of Housing Sales Audit
National Origin, Race
Northwest U.S.
Alaska
Alaska State Commission on Human Rights Complaint Report
Race
Montana
Montana Human Rights Commission Rental & Sales Study
Familial Status
66


Southwest U.S.
California
Fair Housing Congress of Southern California Rental Audit
Race
Texas
Texas Commission on Human Rights Rental Audit
Familial Status, Race
67


Table 4.1 Incidence of Housing Discrimination by Region of the U.S. 1990-1999
Housine Redon Audit Date Sector # of Audits Protected Class Incidence
Northeast U.S.
IA 1990 Rental N/A Familial Status 58%
IA 1995-1996 Rental 262 Disability 12%
IA 1995-1996 Rental 402 Familial Status 19%
IA 1995-1996 Rental 245 Race: Black / White 13%
IA 1997-1998 Rental 462 Familial Status 7%
IA 1997-1998 Rental 49 Race: Black / White 18%
IA 1998-1999 Rental 304 Familial Status 6%
MN 1996 Rental 37 Familial Status 19%
MN 1996 Rental 37 Income-Public Assistance 5%
MN 1996 Rental 37 Race: Black / White 50%
MN 1996 Rental 35 Familial Status 3%
MN 1996 Rental 35 Gender 3%
MN 1996 Rental 35 Income-Public Assistance 3%
MN 1996 Rental 35 Race: Black / White 57%
Southeast U.S.
Greater DC 1996 Rental 163 Race: Black / White 44%
Greater DC 1996 Rental 163 Race: Latino / White 37%
Greater DC 1996 Sales 100 Race: Black / White 36%
Greater DC 1996 Sales 100 Race: Latino / White 36%
KY 1994-1996 Rental 62 Familial Status 32%
KY 1994-1996 Rental 31 Gender 45%
KY 1994-1996 Rental 27 Natl. Origin: Asian / White 14%
KY 1994-1996 Rental 81 Race: Black / White 41%
VA 1990 Rental 53 Race: Black / White 21%
VA 1990 Rental 43 Race: Latino / White 19%
VA 1990-1992 Rental 16 Race: Black / White 14%
VA 1990-1992 Rental 8 Race: Latino / White 0%
VA 1991 Rental 93 Familial Status 14%
VA 1992-1993 Rental 291 Disabilities 10%
VA 1996-1997 Rental 20 Race: Black / White 0%
VA 1996-1997 Rental 20 Race: Latino / White 0%
VA 1996-1997 Rental 79 Sexual Orientation 4%
VA 1997-1998 Sales 62 Race: Black / White 13%
68


Table 4,1 (Cont.')
VA Northwest U.S. No Audit Tests 1997-1998 Sales 62 Race: Latino / White 9%
Southwest U.S.
CA 1999 Rental 10 Familial Status 10%
CA 1999 Rental 10 Race: Black / Latino 70%
CA 1999 Rental 11 Race: Black / Latino 0%
CA 1999 Rental 11 Race: Black / Latino 36%
CA 1999 Rental 13 Race: Black/Latino/Korean 46%
TX 1996 Rental 25 Race: Latino / White 24%
69


CHAPTER 5
FINDINGS
Northeast U.S.
Illinois
Lawyers Committee for Better Housing, the Leadership Council for
Metropolitan Open Communities, and the Metropolitan Tenants Organization:
(need year! No Children Allowed: A Report of the Obstacles Faced by Renters with
Children in the Chicago Rental Market. A rental audit study of five neighborhoods
was conducted: Lakeview, Rogers Park, Logan Square, Austin and South Shore. The
focus of the rental audit was designed to measure the extent of discrimination, if
any, families with children experience when seek out rental housing in Chicago.
Results: 58% of the time families with children experience discrimination.
The study used small family size for the tester profilesnever more than two
children.
Conclusions: If the extent of discrimination is high with two children
families, we suspect it is higher for larger families, placing them at an even greater
disadvantage in the rental market. Also, the children in our tester profiles were
70


generally young school aged children. This was done to present the most acceptable
family profile. Families with teenage boys, for example, had so much trouble simply
getting appointments to view apartments that the audit supervisor was forced to
change the ages of the children in the testers profiles.. .familial discrimination is
subtle, that it is based primarily on differences in the terms and conditions that rental
agents offer and that it covers units and buildings of all sizes.
Recommendations: Increase public education about familial discrimination to
renters, property owners and managers of apartment buildings, and to recognize the
weaknesses in the new federal and state law and their enforcement that fair housing
attorneys and advocates should address.
City of Chicago Commission on Human Relations 1997 Adjudication Report,
Discrimination in Chicago: Housing, Employment. Credit. Bonding. Public
Accommodation. There has been no audit testing completed; yet the Commission
has compiled a comprehensive report outlining the action taken to investigate
housing discrimination. The City of Chicago had the most housing complaints filed
in 1997 than in previous years with a total of 217 complaints, or a 31% increase. Of
the 217 cases filed, 154, or 71% were dismissed prior to adjudication (court action),
24, or 11 % had a lack of substantial evidence, 98, or 45% resulted in settlement
agreements, and 24, or 11% had substantial evidence found.
71


The specific categories of complaints are as follows: 1) 60 cases or 22% based
on race; 2) 31 cases or 11.5% based on disability; 3) 28 cases or 10% based on
parental status; and 4) 90 cases or 33% based on source of income.
Small percentages also based on color, sex, age, religion, national origin,
ancestry, sexual orientation, and marital status. The average time it took the City of
Chicago to move from the filing of the complaint to the completion of the
investigation was 5.1 months.
Iowa
Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC ) Housing Tests. February 1995 April
1996. The ICRC conducted 90^ tests, found 136 possible violations of fair housing
laws, and filed 41 commissioner complaints. The ICRC tested landlords and real
estate agents in 51 medium-sized communities (population range: 5,000 25,000), to
determine whether tester-applicants would be refused rental or discouraged from
making application because of familial status, physical disability, or race.
Results: The ICRC conducted 909 tests 402 familial status, 262 disability,
and 245 race. In 19% of the familial status tests, 12% of the disability tests, and 13%
of the race tests, the ICRC found possible violations of fair housing laws.
In the familial status tests, possible violations included (1) outright refusal to
rent to families with children, (2) not allowing families with children on second and
72


third floors, (3) segregating families with children in particular buildings, (4)
advertising that families with children were not welcome by stating in the ad no
children, ideal for singles, and ideal for couples, (5) limiting occupancy to less
than two persons per averaged-sized bedroom, (6) charging a higher deposit for
families with children, and (7) charging a higher rent based on the number of people
in the unit but not based on higher utility costs paid by the landlord.
In the disability tests, the ICRC tested to see if the landlords would allow
tenants to make reasonable modifications of their rental units in order to
accommodate the tenants physical disabilities. Under state and federal fair housing
laws, landlords must allow reasonable modifications at the tenants expense.
Possible violations included (1) outright refusal to make any accommodation and (2)
discouraging statements like I dont think it can be done and Youll have to speak
to the owner about that.
In the race tests, all the possible violations were based on different treatment;
white testers were treated differently than African American testers. Possible
violations included: (1) giving only the white tester an application, (2) telling only
the white tester that the complex had a vacancy, (3) telling only the white tester that
the complex offered a special, this month only, rent-reduction bonus, (4) telling only
the white tester about other available units in other buildings also owned by the
landlord, (5) allowing only the white tester to view / inspect the unit, (6) quoting a
higher rent cost to the African American tester, (7) quoting a higher deposit cost to
73


the African American tester, (8) telling only the African American tester about a
compulsory carpet cleaning charge, (9) telling only the African American tester that
the advertised unit had been pulled from the market, and (10) telling only the African
American tester about extra charges for late rent and returned checks.
Conclusions / Recommendations: The ICRCs purpose in testing is to educate
and reform. Everyone tested is contacted and informed about the test and the test
results. Persons who pass the tests are thanked for following the law and persons
who do not pass are either counseled regarding the law or served with a complaint,
depending on the seriousness of the violation.
Iowa Civil Rights Commission (TCRCf Housing Tests. September 1997 -
August 1998. The ICRC tested 49 race-based and 462 family-status based rental-
housing tests in 12 communities randomly selected in Iowa. The communities
included: Ames, Cedar Falls, Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs, Davenport, Des Moines,
Fort Dodge, Marshalltown, Mason City, Muscatine, Ottumwa, and Waterloo.
The on-site race-based housing test sites of rental property owners/managers
and Realtors were selected from advertisements in local newspapers. During these
tests, matched-pair testers (one African-American and one white) inquired about the
availability of rental property. Minimums of three tests were attempted.
The familial status phone tests were conducted of rental property
owners/managers and Realtors in each of the communities. During these tests,
74


testers inquired about the availability of rental property. The number of tests
conducted in each community varied depending on the availability of rental property.
Minimums of ten phone tests per community were attempted.
Results: Of the 49 race-based rental tests, 9 showed differential treatment. Of
the 462 familial status tests, 34 showed differential treatment.
Recommendations: Based on a total of 589 tests in the area of housing, credit
and employment that the ICRC conducted during this time period, a total of 59, or
10% showed some form of different treatment. In 10 of these cases, the different
treatment was severe enough to lead to the filing of commissioner complaints. In
each of these tests, the Testing Team in reviewing the test result could not see an
apparent, logical reason for the different treatment.
As the date of the publication of these results, the ICRC reported that six of the
commissioner complaints were still under investigation, one was administratively
closed due to the person who was tested providing sufficient explanation to the
testing team for the differential treatment, and three had been settled. Under the
terms of the settlement agreements, the persons tested agreed not to discriminate in
the future, to schedule and attend fair housing training sessions, to include Families
with Children Welcome or Equal Housing Opportunity in their advertising, and to
provide written reports concerning their compliance with the law.
75


Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC) Housing Tests. December 1998- May
1999. The ICRC conducted 304 familial status housing phone tests in 12
communities throughout the state of Iowa during a six month time period. The ICRC
attempted to test communities that had not been tested in the past year. The tested
communities were: Algona, Burlington, Clear Lake, Coralville, Dubuque, Ft.
Madison, Maquoketa, Manchester, Newton, Oskaloosa, Sioux City, and Storm Lake.
Familial status phone tests were conducted of rental property owners/managers and
Realtors in each of the communities listed above. The actual number of tests varied
from community to community based on the availability of rental properties.
Minimums of ten phone tests per community were attempted.
Results: Of the 304 tests 18 showed differential treatment, and three
complaints were filed. Of the total number of tests, 6% showed some form of
different treatment. In three cases, the different treatment was severe enough to lead
to the filing of commissioner complaints. In each of these, the Testing Team in
reviewing the test results could not see an apparent, logical reason for the different
treatment.
Recommendations: The testing team, comprised of the Testing Coordinator,
the Manager of the Housing Investigations Unit, an Assistant Attorney General, an
Investigator, and the Executive Director of the ICRC, determined whether the person
tested passed, whether a re-test was needed in order to draw any reasonable
conclusions, or whether a commissioner complaint should be filed. From this point,
76


the testing team determined if a formal commissioner complaint was to be filed or if
a meeting with the person tested would suffice to communicate the necessary
information to avoid further discriminatory action.
Of particular interest are the comparison results given by the ICRC for the
communities that were previously tested within the past five years. Results are
sorted by community to illustrate the correlation between the recommendations
given by the commission through the formal complaint process, and the apparent
results seen in the communities. In six of the ten communities listed below where a
complaint was filed by the commission as a result of the findings of the 1995/1996
testing program, differential treatment was either reduced or eliminated as measured
by the 1998/1999 testing program. The results are listed below in Table 5.1:
Algona: 1998/1999 Test Results 1995/1996 Test Results
Tests Conducted 13 Tests Conducted 10
Different Treatment 0 Different Treatment 2
Complaints 0 Complaints 2
Clear Lake: 1998/1999 Test Results 1995/1996 Test Results
Tests Conducted 20 Tests Conducted 19
Different Treatment 0 Different Treatment 2
Complaints 0 Complaints 2
77


Table 5.1 (Cont.)
Coralville: 1998/1999 Test Results 1995/1996 Test Results
Tests Conducted 26 Tests Conducted 19
Different Treatment 2 Different Treatment 2
Complaints 0 Complaints 2
Ft. Madison: 1998/1999 Test Results 1995/1996 Test Results
Tests Conducted 10 Tests Conducted 9
Different Treatment 3 Different Treatment 2
Complaints 1 Complaints 2
Maquoketa: 1998/1999 T est Results 1995/1996 Test Results
Tests Conducted 12 Tests Conducted 9
Different Treatment 1 Different Treatment 6
Complaints 0 Complaints 2
Manchester: 1998/1999 Test Results 1995/1996 Test Results
Tests Conducted 7 Tests Conducted 6
Different Treatment 0 Different Treatment 3
Complaints 0 Complaints 2
Newton: 1998/1999 Test Results 1995/1996 Test Results
Tests Conducted 13 Tests Conducted 12
Different Treatment 0 Different Treatment 3
Complaints 0 Complaints 2
78


Table 5.1 (Cont.)
Oskaloosa: 1998/1999 Test Results 1995/1996 Test Results
Tests Conducted 23 Tests Conducted 17
Different Treatment 2 Different Treatment 1
Complaints 1 Complaints 1
Sioux City: 1998/1999 Test Results 1995/1996 Test Results
Tests Conducted 74 Tests Conducted 10
Different Treatment 6 Different Treatment 3
Complaints 0 Complaints 1
Storm Lake: 1998/1999 Test Results 1995/1996 Test Results
Tests Conducted 11 Tests Conducted 10
Different Treatment 1 Different Treatment 2
Complaints 0 Complaints 1
Massachusetts
University of Massachusetts Housing Study, Discrimination, Written by Ellen
Pader, David Winsor and James Palma. The primary sources of information on
housing discrimination in Massachusetts are the federal governments Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and its Fair Housing Assistance Project
(FHAP), as well as the Massachusetts Commission against Discrimination (MCAD)
79


and the housing courts. There are also non-profit organizations, such as the Housing
Discrimination Project, Inc. (HDP) in Western Massachusetts.
The HUD / FHAP data consists of complaint-based reports during the period
1990-1998, 2,171 complaints in all. The complaints include only federally protected
populations. Reports name the protected category of each complainant and the type
of discrimination alleged. The predominant bases for complaints during this time
period were race and color. The 1990 census reported that members of racial and
ethnic minorities represented more than 19% of all renters in the state. Two-thirds of
Massachusettss racial / ethnic minority residents are exclusively dependent on the
residential real estate market for housing.
Results: Data on the rental market reveal a significant amount of
discrimination. HUD/FHAP data for 1997 reported 150 allegations of rental
discrimination in Massachusetts for that year alone, with 1,688 complaints since
1990. Of these, the vast majority (860) were for discrimination, in the terms,
conditions, or privileges, in renting a home; and for discriminatory refusal to rent
(787). These make up more than 75% of all housing discrimination complaints filed
with HUD/FHAP since 1990. The majority were filed by people who felt
discriminated against because of their race and/or color, with familial and handicap
status not far behind.
Data from the Housing Discrimination Project, Inc., in Western
Massachusetts (1992 1997) paints a similar picture, but also includes information
80


on state-protected groups. The state-only categories (source of income, sexual
orientation, age and marital status) account for a large number of the complaints
handled by the organization.
Of approximately 1,375 complaints filed, 409 were based on categories of
people protected by state but not federal laws. The majority of these complaints,
350, were based on source of income, with 188 of those being filed by people who
felt they were refused housing because of their dependence on housing subsidies, a
factor that translates into a form of discrimination against families with children.
When including both federal and state protected categories, the HDP data
show that the highest reported single basis for discrimination was national origin,
with familial status being second. HDP complaints derive primarily from Hamden-
Hampshire counties in Western Massachusetts, where HDPs primary office is
located while HUD complaints originate primarily in the eastern part of the state:
their office is in Boston. Much of the commonwealth is underrepresented.
Conclusion: The findings of the secondary analysis of the University of
Massachusetts authors point to the presence of local fair housing organizations
dissemination of information on the Fair Housing Act as a general practice to
potential home-seekers, as well as landlords, property managers and lenders. In the
absence of such organizations, neither information nor guidance may be readily
available. Hence, housing discrimination continues, despite state and federal

81


regulations forbiddance. The authors find this discrimination based only because of
personal prejudice.
Minnesota
The Minnesota Fair Housing Center. Minneapolis. MR 1996 Study, Housing
Discrimination: A Report on the Rental Practices in Two Minneapolis Communities.
The Minnesota Fair Housing Center conducted a total of 72 tests over a period of six
months. 37 tests were complied in Northeast Minneapolis, and 35 were completed in
Southwest. Eighteen tests were incomplete and unable to be used because only one
tester was able to secure an appointment. Although the tests were set up to monitor
only race-based discrimination, the evidence gathered showed, in addition to racial
discrimination, several instances of discrimination based on familial status and
public assistance status.
Methodology: Strong evidence of less favorable treatment includes: 1)
Statements categorically excluding groups; 2) Showing certain groups inferior units;
3) More requirements for certain groups; and Applications given to white testers and
not others on the same day. Some evidence of less favorable treatment includes a
combination of: 1) More information given to white testers than to others; 2)
Applications given to white testers and not to others when visits were more than one
day apart; and 3) Not showing up for appointments for testers of color. Insufficient
82


evidence of less favorable treatment includes: 1) Testers received essentially the
same treatment, and 2) Not enough information gathered to make a determination.
Results: Northeast: 72.9 % of the cases, 27 out of 37, showed differences in
treatment based on race, familial status, or public assistance status. In 49.9 % of the
cases, 18 out of 37, less favorable treatment was given based on race. In 18.9% of
the cases, seven out of 37, families with children were excluded. In 5.4 % of the
cases, two out of 37, people on public assistance were treated less favorably.
Southwest: 65.7 % of the cases, 23 out of 35, showed differences in treatment
based on race, familial status, public assistance status, or gender. In 57.1% of the
cases, 20 out of 35, less favorable treatment was given based on race. One case
each of discrimination based on family status, public assistance status, or gender
surfaced during the testing process.
Combined Average: In both communities, Northeast and Southwest, a total of
69.4 % of the cases, 50 out of 72, showed difference in treatment based on race,
family status or public assistance status. In 52.8 % of the cases, 38 out of 72, less
favorable treatment was given based on race. In 11.1 % of the cases, eight out of 72,
families with children were excluded. In 4.2 % of the cases, three out of 72, people
on public assistance were treated less favorably.
Conclusions: In Northeast [Minneapolis], where rents are generally lower
than in Southwest, and more affordable to lower income households, the testing
identified practices geared to exclude or burden households receiving public
83


assistance. It is fair to conclude that these practices are much more widespread than
these findings would indicate for the reason that these survey tests were not designed
to uncover discrimination based on public assistance status. The testers in all
instances were assigned jobs and a monthly income at least three times the amount of
the rent.
The same can be said of the treatment of families with children. This study
was not designed to assess discriminatory practices against families with children.
Even so, testing identified many units that categorically excluded households with
children.
One form of race-based discrimination appeared in Southwest [Minneapolis],
where rents are generally high. In four cases, white testers were offered a discount
on the monthly rent; testers of color were offered no such discount. In Northeast
[Minneapolis] no one was offered discounts on rent. Also to note: The racial
composition of Northeast and Southwest is predominately white.
Limitations provided by the authors: This study does not intend to be a
comprehensive description of the practices of housing providers in the rental market.
The study has several limitations. First, very few tests were conducted using Asian
and American Indian testers. It is difficult, therefore, to generalize from the test
results about their experiences in the rental market. Rather, their experiences are
anecdotal.
84


Second, this study was structured to test the rental market only to the point of
filling out an application. Testers were expressly instructed not to fill out
applications. Discriminatory practices, if any, that occur in the process of screening
applications and selecting tenants were not within the scope of this study. Therefore,
this study probably underrates the amount of discrimination in the rental housing
market.
Third, some units were available but could not be tested because testers were
unable to reach the rental contact person. In instances, however, where a white tester
and a tester of color called a rental agent within a few hours of one another, and the
agent returned the call of the white tester and chose not to return the call of the tester
of color, it was presumed that the reason for no call back was race and a conclusion
of less favorable treatment was drawn. In addition if agents showed units to groups
of potential applicants, these units were excluded because the study was intended to
monitor the experience of individual home seekers.
Fourth, this was not a random testing of all units available in the area. Rather,
the effort was made to test all units advertised in the newspaper.
Finally, in most cases, each unit was tested only once and not multiple times.
As a result, in some cases, individual owners or agents can make no determination
about the extent of systematic practices. Instead, this study provides a cross section
of community rental practices a slice of life in Northeast and Southwest.
85


Recommendations: The City of Minneapolis is guided by the fundamental
housing principle that prospective buyers and renters will have greater choice in
where they live (Housing Principle #1, Resolution of the City of Minneapolis, 1995).
The City seeks to meet that goal by increasing the variety of housing types in the
metropolitan area. Such a strategy, without fair housing enforcement and education,
is essentially meaningless for groups burdened by the effects of discrimination.
Survey testing is necessary in order to begin to understand the range and types of
discriminatory practices operating in various communities. Testing needs to be a
priority for other Minneapolis neighborhoods, suburban communities and for St.
Paul. Further, all aspects of the housing market need to be tested. The rental
application process itself is an important area to study. The reference / credit check
may be an area that reveals discriminatory practices. The sales market is another
area for testing real estate agents, lenders, insurers, and appraisers all need
monitoring. Once discriminatory practices are identified and addressed, then
prospective buyers and renters will have meaningful and increased choice about
where they live.
86


Ohio
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing and Housing Choice in Dayton,
Ohio, Prepared for the City of Dayton by Higginbothan, Ishmon, and Strawhun
(HIS) and The McCoy Co. 1997. The City of Dayton contracted with Higginbothan,
Ishmon, and Strawhun (HIS) to conduct its study, and HIS in turn subcontracted with
the McCoy Co. to assist with the project. In addition, the City of Dayton and the
Human Relations Council (DHRC) provided various support and assistance
throughout the analysis.
A range of data, reports, and studies were examined and analyzed for this
project. Numerous individuals and institutions participated in the analysis of
impediments to fair housing and housing choice conducted for the City of Dayton.
This includes over 50 focus group participants, selected interviewees, and City of
Dayton officials and staff. In short, this analysis of impediments to fair housing and
housing choice captured the opinions and views of a wide variety of participants
which included policy makers, service providers, housing consumers, etc.
Methods: HIS utilized three modalities in their analysis: 1) Personal interviews
with housing consumers, providers, advocacy and neighborhood groups, various
associations, civil rights organizations, lenders, and others; 2) A review of relevant
studies and data including the 1995 Consolidated Plan1 Home Mortgage Disclosure
87


Act data, fair housing complaints and cases processed by DHRC, etc.; and 3) Three
focus groups with different audiences.
Results: 1) Discrimination is viewed as the major or most prevalent
impediment to fair housing and housing choice; 2) There is a continuing need for
DHRC to heighten fair housing awareness, and to continue its educational and
enforcement activities aimed at promoting fair housing and housing choice; and 3)
There is a need for more affordable and assisted housing, especially among those
classes protected under the Fair Housing Act.
Evaluation of Daytons Current Fair Housing Legal Status Quantitative
Analysis: The 85 most recent complaints of housing discrimination reported to the
DHRC involved complaints based on race, handicap, sex, familial status, and
national origin. These cases were disposed of in a number of ways. Seven cases
received a probable cause finding. Clearly, the majority of cases resulted in
negotiated settlement agreements or conciliations.
In addition, the City of Dayton recently participated in a landmark
discrimination case involving a City resident whose insurance was canceled. The
case, Beavers v. Nationwide, was litigated for six years and reached the U.S.
Supreme Court.
Assessment of Current Public and Private Fair Housing Programs, Activities,
and Actions in Dayton: The City of Dayton has a history of organizing and carrying
88


out programs, activities, and initiatives aimed at furthering fair housing and housing
choice. Among the City of Daytons more notable accomplishments are:
Forming the Dayton Human Relations Council (DHRC) on May 9, 1962 to protect
the civil rights of those living or working within the city; Passing a Fair Housing
Ordinance on September 10,1967 and continually updating this ordinance;
Receiving and maintaining substantial equivalency status; Developing and
implementing a housing discrimination outreach, education, and advertising
campaign using video, billboards, and displays on local buses to inform residents;
and Commissioning numerous studies and analyses related to fair housing.
Conclusions and Recommendations: The most significant impediment to fair
housing and subsequent recommendation to the focus of this study is as follows:
Impediment #6: Mortgage lending disparities between the African-American and
white communities. Recommendations for the City of Dayton are to: continue to
sponsor analyses of HMD A data and fair lending practices of local financial
institutions, as well as to share these findings with lenders, public officials, and the
general public; continue existing education and outreach activities focused on fair
lending within Dayton; and continue Daytons Community Reinvestment Institute,
which educates interested residents in how to use the Community Reinvestment Act
and work with local lenders.
89


Southeast U.S.
Greater District of Columbia
The Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington. The Fair Housing Index: An
Audit of Race & National Origin Discrimination in the Greater Washineton
Rental Housing Market 1997. The Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington
conducted 163 rental tests in Washington, DC, Maryland and Virginia by full-time
black, white and Latino testers. The use of full-time testers is unique to this study as
in the past the Council used volunteer testers. Full-time testers guarantee a solid
group of reliable and consistent professionals.
The areas tested were: Washington, DC; Prince Georges County, MD;
Montgomery County, MD (including the Cities of Rockville, Gaithersburg and
Takoma Park); Arlington County, VA; Fairfax County, VA (including the cities of
Falls Church and Fairfax); and the City of Alexandria, VA. The test utilized a
random selection process with regard to the locations tested. No particular area or
demographic was targeted.
Methodology: To divide the tests fairly throughout the region, the Council
used the mathematical concept of weight ranking. Variables considered in
proportioning the number of tests were: population and demographic data; total
90


number of rental complexes in each area; housing data; income data; and complaint
data. Between August and October 1996,163 tests were conducted. Once the
number of tests per area was determined, specific sites to be tested were selected at
random. No tests were conducted at sites where the Council had an ongoing
investigation or had recently received a complaint; that is, no test sites were targeted
and sites already suspect of discrimination were avoided. Further, tests were
scattered among all areas of apartment availability within each jurisdiction. Also of
importance to the validity of this study is the fact that the testers conducted their tests
on the same day. This clearly reduces the number of individuals the testers could
possibly encounter at any given test site.
Results: In 1997, African Americans in the Greater Washington area
encountered some form of discrimination in their search for housing 44% of the
time. Latinos encountered some form of discrimination in their search for housing
37% of the time.
The overall results of the rental audit testing are as follows: Washington, DC -
of the 53 tests completed, 15 or 28% showed evidence of discrimination; Maryland -
of the 55 tests completed, 27 or 49% showed evidence of discrimination; Virginia -
of the 55 tests completed, 26 or 47% showed evidence of discrimination; and in the
entire metropolitan area of the 163 tests completed, 68 or 42% showed evidence of
discrimination.
91


Full Text

PAGE 1

HOUSING DISCRIMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES DURING THE DECADE 1990-1999 by Lisa Renee Whitinger B.A., University of Florida, 1996 A thesis submitted to the University of Colorado at Denver in partial fulfillment ofthe requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Sociology 2001

PAGE 2

This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by Lisa Renee Whitinger has been approved by 1 I t3!2-oo1 Date

PAGE 3

Whitinger, Lisa Renee (M.A,, Sociology) Housing Discrimination in the United States During the Decade 1990-1999 Thesis directed by Associate Professor Candan Duran-Aydintug ABSTRACT This study discusses different elements of housing discrimination in the U.S., including the historical background, fair housing law, theoretical perspectives, enforcement techniques, and governmental An exploratory piece follows Galster (1989) for the 1990's as 22 fair housing audits focusing on racebased housing discrimination are examined. The audit results illustrate that housing discrimination, particularly race-based, remains a significant feature of the U.S. urban housing market. Eight familial status audits illustrate that the presence of children is a key determinant in locating housing as well. The data is primarily comprised of rental audits, but also includes sales audits. Black auditors seeking rentals faced discrimination 30% of the time, Latino auditors seeking rentals faced discrimination 16% of the time, and black auditors seeking homes for purchase faced discrimination 25% ofthe time. This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate's thesis. I recommend its publication. Signed Ill

PAGE 4

DEDICATION I dedicate this thesis to all individuals and families in the United States and beyond who suffer housing discrimination as a matter of course in their everyday lives. It is my sincere hope that through education and policy reform housing discrimination can be eliminated entirely.

PAGE 5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish to thank my advisor, Dr. Candan Duran-Aydintug, for her undaunting patience and courage in assisting me with this thesis since I began in 1999. I wish to thank Dr. Richard Anderson for his insight into the housing industry. I also wish to thank the University of Colorado Department of Sociology, and the Graduate School for their invaluable assistance. Finally, I wish to thank each Fair Housing Organization, both public and private, who generously offered me their data, their time, and their work in my quest for scientific evaluation of housing discrimination.

PAGE 6

CONTENTS Tables .................................................................................. .ix CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................... 3 Background on Fair Housing Legislation ................................. .3 Reasons for the Study of Housing Discrimination ...................... 7 Studies on Racism and Housing ........................................... 14 Historical Discussion on Segregation ...................................... 22 Audit Testing as a Research Tool .......................................... 27 Theoretical Perspectives .................................. ................... 32 Federal Policy and Legal Implications .... ................................ .44 Hypothesis ..................................................................... 53 3. METHODS .......................................................................... 55 4. OUTLINE OF FINDINGS ....................................................... 63 Northeast U.S .................................. .............................. .. 63 Illinois .......................................................................... 63 Iowa ......................................... ... .. ... ............................ 63 Massachusetts ............................... . . .. . . ........................ 64 Minnesota ................................... . ................................ 64 Vl

PAGE 7

Ohio ....................................................................... 64 Southeast U.S ......................... ........................................... 64 Greater District of Columbia .......................................... 64 Kentucky ................................................................. 65 Virginia ................................................................... 65 Northwest U.S ................................................................... 66 Alaska .................................................................... 66 Montana .................................................................. 66 Southwest U.S ................................................................... 67 California ................................................................ 67 Texas ..................................................................... 67 5. FINDINGS .... ......................................................................... 70 Northeast U.S ..................................................................... 70 Illinois .................................................................... 70 Iowa ...................................................................... 72 Massachusetts .......................... ................................ 79 Minnesota ................................................................ 82 Ohio ....................................................................... 86 Southeast U.S .................................................................... 90 Greater District of Columbia ......................................... 90 Vll

PAGE 8

VIrginia .................................................................. 99 Northwest U.S .................................. ................................. 1 08 Alaska ................................................................. 108 Montana ............................................................... 1 09 Southwest U.S .................................................................. 115 California ........................ ............................... : ... 115 Texas ............................... .................................... 116 6. CONCLUSION ........................................................................ 119 APPENDIX A. SAMPLE COVER LETTER SENT BY U.S. AND ELECTRONIC MAIL .............................................................. 124 BIBLIOGRAPHY ... .............................................................................. 126 Vlll

PAGE 9

TABLES Table 4.1 Incidence ofHousing Discrimination by Region of the United States, 19901999 ..................................... ..... 68 5.1 Iowa Civil Rights Commission Housing Tests Comparison, 1995-1999 .............................................................................. 77 IX

PAGE 10

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION "Democracy is a vision, as I have written before, which is undaunted by the chronic imperfectability of humankind" (Crouch 1995: 248). Housing discrimination in the United States exists. Such discrimination defeats not only democracy but also humankind. As imperfect beings we are challenged constantly by our fears. At times, we Americans fail to stand up for what we truly believe in because it is easier, less stressful, or simply not that important to us on a personal level. The folks involved in the civil rights movement in this country during the 1960's were not so ambivalent. Risking immense sacrifices both personally and for their families, brave individuals began moving in next door to white families who would rather have let hardened criminals into the neighborhood than black people. The new neighbors were not only unwelcome, they were taunted, harassed, vandalized, run-out, burned-out, and scared out ofhomes and, more importantly, out of opportunities. Nearly forty years after the beginning of the civil rights movement an issue like housing discrimination ought not to be a part of American life The Civil Rights Act of 1968 changed the laws in this country but certainly not the national consciousness. In a decade as prosperous and plentiful as the 1990's, discrimination 1

PAGE 11

in housing took place in nearly every region of the country, and not just towards black people. Hope for eradication of such discrimination lies in our continued efforts toward implementing the goal of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 to create within our imperfect country a space where difference is accepted among neighbors and citizens. This thesis is intended to outline the presence of housing discrimination in the United States during the 1990's, and to compare it to the 1980's. The 1980's were a time when the Federal Fair Housing Act was granted enforcement powers; hence the 1990's would theoretically have had significantly less housing discrimination than the decade prior. However, great improvement remains to be seen as the audit tests reviewed in this study illustrate. 2

PAGE 12

CHAPTER2 LITERATURE REVIEW Background on Fair Housing Legislation The United States of America is founded on the principles of equity and fairness to all citizens, giving those citizens the opportunity to create for themselves and their families a standard of living unparalleled in nearly all industrialized democratic and socialistic nations. The notion of liberty and justice for all has not always included members of racial and ethnic minority classification, nor has it always included women and children. Yet with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, lawmakers and citizens of the United States justifiably established the goal of equity, fairness, liberty and justice for all. The right of a citizen of the U.S. to find employment, education, and housing opportunities was thus established as a first and foremost civil rights effort of the U.S. government and people through the provisions of the Act. Title VIII deals with specifically with fair housing. Senator Mondale introduced what is now known as the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (Zimmerman 1992). In response to the Kerner Commission Report that warned that racial segregation was an underlying cause for numerous urban civil disorders, and just six days after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination, the Congress ofthe United States quickly 3

PAGE 13

passed Title VIII (Zimmerman 1992). Title VIII was passed as a tribute to the great civil rights leader, as well as a promise to the citizens of this country to ensure housing for all (Cuomo 1998). Title VIII, statute 3354, section804 states that it is unlawful (a) to refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin; (b) to discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in cmmection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex,familial status or national origin; (c) to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination; (d) to represent to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin that any dwelling is not available for inspection, sale, or rental when such dwelling is in fact so available; (e) for profit, to induce or attempt to induce any person to sell or rent any dwelling by representations regarding the entry or prospective entry into the neighborhood of a person or persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. Handicap and familial status were 4

PAGE 14

added to Title VIII by the 1988 Amendment. The United States Congress enacted specific provisions outlawing housing discrimination through the Civil Rights Act outlining the realistic goal of social equality for all Americans. The passage of the Title VIII did not in and of itself initiate modem fair housing law, for it was with the Supreme Court decision in Jones v. Mayer which gave credence to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to make illegal all racial discrimination, public and private, in the sale or rental of property (Fairhousing.org, 1999). The implication ofTitle VIII and the interpretation by the Supreme Court in 1968 allowed for the first time in history the private housing market to be subject to federal laws prohibiting discrimination (Fairhousing.org 1999). Also of significant importance in the history of fair housing was the passage of the Fair Housing Rights Amendments Act of 1993, the purpose ofwhich was to "close a gap in the provisions of the Nation's fair housing laws prohibiting criminal intimidation or interference with the exercise of fair housing rights through the use of force [ 42 U.S.C. 3631 ]" (U.S.C. 1993). The Act of 1993 not only outlawed the use of force to "intimidate or to interfere with the exercise of fair housing rights in certain cases even if no personal injury to the intended victim results," but also made those individuals or organizations who engage in such practices to be charged with a felony.(U.S.C. 1993). Yet the1990's, a decade including such immense technological and economic advances, the likes of which have surpassed each previous decade in the 5

PAGE 15

201h century, included discrimination towards ethnic and racial minorities. Discrimination impedes an individual's opportunity to find employment, become educated, and locate housing. Discrimination continues in the U.S. despite the century long critical mass of technology, wealth, and focus on the future of our great country. Discrimination can be understood as the action of an individual to withhold equal treatment from another individual based on personal prejudices, and can be found in the areas of employment, education, and housing. Mfirmative Action, the policy of requiring businesses and institutes ofhigher education to allow entry of members of racial minority status has been effective in bringing to light the various modes of operation discriminatory individuals and agencies practice. The citizens of the U.S. have therefore been allowed the opportunity to examine such discriminatory practices while government intervention assisted in this endeavor. Affirmative Action regardless of one's opinion or belief concerning it's effectiveness, nonetheless began a dialogue across the nation about discrimination and the question of equity and fairness for all citizens. With the network of governmental and civil rights organizations available to field discrimination complaints in the field of employment and education, progress has been made towards establishing accountability for such discrimination acts. Conversely, housing has remained the last bastion of discriminatory practice in the country. 6

PAGE 16

Theorists studying housing discrimination liken the length oftime necessary to eliminate unequal treatment in the area of obtaining housing to the length of time necessary to entirely alter individual's prejudices and beliefs surrounding racial categories. This comparative analysis approach is perhaps a lofty goal-after all, an individual is entitled to his/her prejudices and beliefs An attempt to study individuals' deepest emotions surrounding racial equality is, undoubtedly, a difficult if not impossible endeavor In the meantime, housing discrimination continues albeit the passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, and the Fair Housing Rights Amendments Act of 1993. Governmental laws are but one way to combat housing discrimination. Education regarding racial equality and human rights can also serve to this end. In the end, the individual who is denied housing based on his/her race, ethnic background, or protected class status is actually dealing with beliefs and prejudices of his/her fellow U.S. citizens. The bona fide battle, then, is not against the act ofhousing discrimination but against the perpetuation of racial inequity in this country. Reasons for the Study of Housing Discrimination Robert G. Schwemm (1990), in his text on law and litigation regarding housing discrimination, argues that "housing in the U.S. continues to be characterized by extremely high levels of racial segregation and unlawful discrimination Thus far, fair housing laws have failed to change these deep-seated 7

PAGE 17

patterns in any significant way'' (2-1 ). To clarify segregation, John Yinger defines the term as the physical separation of the residential locations of different racial groups ( 1987). According to Schwemm' s analysis, residential segregation in the beginning of the 1990's was still at the same levels as 1968, the year the Fair Housing Act was passed. Clearly housing discrimination encompasses than mere governmental intervention can transform. Yet the goals of equity and fairness for all citizens in the U.S. continue to be seen as obtainable by most citizens. The freedoms our democracy affords us are at once limiting the equity many individuals so desire. Housing is the last limit of discrimination, for in our homes we are free to be ourselves imperfect, judgmental, insecure, ignorant, and oftentimes blatantly incorrect in our logic. Housing discrimination cannot be ignored any more than the issue of employment and educational discrimination. Racial integration will potentially only occur at the high cost of generating a change in attitude rather than a change in laws. Milton Kleg (1993) discusses racial or ethnic prejudice as "a readiness to act, stemming from a negative feeling, often predicated upon a fixed over-generalization or totally false belief and directed toward a group or individual members of that group" (14). Prejudice, then, is not the act of discrimination itself, but the preparation for the act. Without prejudice, which for the remainder of this work is considered part of one's attitude, the necessity of discriminatory practices would be obsolete. Thus, housing discrimination is at no deeper level than dependence upon 8

PAGE 18

the perpetuation of prejudice from neighbor to neighbor, parent to child, teacher to student, and employer to employee. The impact of housing discrimination is never more apparent than in the absence of potentially rewarding relationships formed across racial and ethnic boundaries via integrated neighborhoods. Without integration, housing discrimination will continue, as the "totally false belief," namely prejudice, will not be eradicated (Kleg 1993: 114). When I first became aware that housing discrimination was a viable factor in the seemingly endless ghettos of my native Michigan, semi-native Florida, and current residence in Colorado, the concept bridged the gap between praxis and action. For years I believed strongly that all individuals who had the opportunity to engage in gainful employment could hoist themselves and their families from the desperate economic and social dysfunction's of the ghettos. To me, this removal from the ghetto would inspire families to become an integrated and productive force in my middle-class existence of suburban life: safe neighborhoods, as in white collar crime; decent centers of! earning, as in the public schools my parents tax dollars funded yearly; and mild substance abuse in the form of socially acceptable alcohol use In my adolescent years, I lived in Tampa, Florida. Tampa, a city not unlike many other metropolitan areas in the U.S., is segregated through and through. North Tampa is significantly white, middle and upper class, and is considered safe. Central Tampa is significantly minority, working class, and is considered unsafe. South 9

PAGE 19

Tampa is a mix of upper class mansions and lower and working class government housing projects, the former significantly white and the latter significantly minority. This illustration oflife in the city I spent my formative years exploring has importance to this study for several reasons. As a teenager, I attended a "good" school located in North Tampa. Our classes began at 7:20AM, and ended at 2:45 PM, followed by after school extracurricular activities. This was a typical day for most suburban youth: leave the house at 6:45am and return home after sports or other activities by 6pm. Granted, a 12-hour day for a teenager may sound like a long haul, but there was still a small amount of time for homework and family interaction. My school was comprised of a majority of suburban youth from North Tampa, and a minority of youth from the government sponsored housing projects in South Tampa. The youth from the housing projects were mainly black or Hispanic; the youth from the suburban areas were mainly white or Asian. The point I am making here is significant to the following degree: the youth from the projects had to catch a bus at 5:00AM to arrive at school by 7:00AM for school breakfast, then left school at 5:45 PM after sports activities or clubs in order to arrive home at 7:45PM for the evening. This disparity, a 15-hour day for a youth from South Tampa, versus a 12-hour day for a youth from North Tampa, didn't seem to phase any teachers or the administration at my high school. The youth from the projects, who clearly had less time each day to complete homework, spend time with their families, and rest, were 10

PAGE 20

expected to perform as well as the students who lived five miles from the high school. Such was the disparity in lifestyles I experienced while a student in a southern city where desegregation of schools served to extend the opportunity of a comparable education to minority and lower class students while simultaneously reinforcing segregation in housing. Sadly, the youth that fell asleep during homeroom class were the youth whose daily journey to and from their school demanded a longer time commitment than most full-time adult careers I often wondered as I sat next to an acquaintance of mine, a football player whose journey home required a bus ride to the projects at the end of the school day, ifhe had three extra hours to sleep, would he still be so tired in class? Would I, whose life seemed a luxury to the boy sitting next to me, be able to complete his day throughout the entire school year? Would I play two sports, be involved in numerous clubs, and make straight A's? Would life make as much sense to me, and would I have the same desire to strive for greatness? Would I even make it to school every day, having to get up at 4:30 AM? These questions haunted me until a few years ago, when I finally made headway into an area of study that could potentially offer answers to the mysteries of segregated housing. Housing discrimination, an area of study often overlooked in the vast myriad of explanations for pathologies humans inflict on themselves and others, offers the most comprehensive answers to the vast disparities between inner 11

PAGE 21

city minority and suburban white living. Housing discrimination cannot be held accountable for all social ills, nor can it be looked to as a final solution for solving the deep-rooted issue of racism in the U.S. But housing discrimination opens a dialogue on such issues, allowing scholars and policy makers alike the opportunity to explore various "what-if' statements with regard to segregation. Clearly, segregation exists in the U.S. today. To what degree both the predominantly minority lower and working class sanction segregation and the predominantlywhite middle and upper class sanction segregation is the overriding research question when exploring housing discrimination. Yet the goal .of studying housing discrimination is effective on a limited scale-once it is determined housing discrimination exists, the battle for integration and desegregation of neighborhoods has only just begun. Throughout my journey of educational pursuits via college and graduate school during the 1990's, I learned of several social issues that I could not ignoredisparities in education and employment opportunities between classes, the environmental destruction of our planet, and racism as a national concern. During my years as an undergraduate, Rodney King was beaten in Los Angeles and the ensuing riots erupted, the KKK resurgence in the south and elsewhere became headline news, and Neo-Nazism abounded in my college town as well as in other areas across the country During my years as a graduate student, I learned of a peculiar social issue that seemed to be something left over from the 1960's-housing 12

PAGE 22

discrimination although with the recent developments of overt racism apparent in the country it's perpetuation did not come as a surprise. Housing discrimination combines all the covert and oftentimes overt methods of racism into one encompassing act, the act of denying housing to people based on their race, color, creed, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, lawful source of income, or the presence of children in a family (HOME Buffalo, NY: 1998). Housing discrimination not only utilizes the feelings of racism as a determining factor in where people are allowed to live, but it actually denies them equal access to education and employment, cultural and recreational opportunities, medical care and municipal services (HOME 1998). Housing discrimination ties together the entire racist feelings individuals and agencies harbor towards people who are physically different than they are, and in fact allows those racist feelings to become an action beyond prejudice-racism. As Massey and Denton (1993) state, racism is the "catastrophic collective waste of human time, energy, and resources" (165). Racism follows its natural course of discrimination, as an action that logically follows prejudice attitudes based on racist thought. Yinger (1987) defines racial prejudice as an attitude, and when applied to the housing market it appears as an aversion toward living with or near members of a certain racial group or groups. Gordon W. Allport wrote "prejudice, if not acted out, ifkept to oneself, does no great 13

PAGE 23

social harm. It merely stultifies the mind that possesses it" (Kleg 1993: 113). Conversely, discrimination does great social harm. Studies on Racism and Housing Joseph Feagin and Heman Vera (1995), two University of Florida sociologists who study white racism, found in surveys from 1973 through 1990 that the proportion of white Americans who support a law prohibiting anti-black discrimination by homeowners selling their homes increased from 34% to 51%, and that in 1990 a majority of white Americans supported an open housing law. Yet, 44% of these same respondents nationwide did not support the open housing law, instead favoring a law that would allow white homeowners the right to refuse to sell their home to a black buyer (Feagin and Vera 1995). Feagin and Vera argue that many white Americans see no positive benefits of desegregation and integration, believing that ifblacks gain social stature and economic wealth, whites lose (1995). The authors conducted a case study in Dubuque, lllinois where a diversity plan to recruit black workers was perceived by whites to create immense job competition, and thus hate crimes were carried out by fearful whites (1995). Feagin and Vera also argue that white racism is a centuries-old system "intentionally designed to exclude Americans of color from full participation in the economy, polity, and society" and that "racial prejudices and ideologies still under gird and rationalize widespread white discrimination against people of color" (1995: Preface). They further argue 14

PAGE 24

that racism is white America's responsibility as there is no centuries-old system of "racialized subordination and discrimination designed by African Americans to exclude white Americans from full participation in the rights, privileges and benefits ofthis society" (Feagin and Vera : 1995: Preface). Historically, the nationally recognized and sanctioned segregation of minorities and whites coupled with housing discrimination has caused the creation of an underclass, specifically a black uriderclass (Massey & Denton 1993). Massey and Denton (1993) in their work American Apartheid : Segregation and the Making of the Underclass argue that during the decades following the civil war and the end of slavery, black and white Americans lived virtually side by side, as they had during slavery due to existing economic situations and little systemic exclusion ofblacks or other minorities from white neighborhoods on the basis of skin color. The concept ofthe urban ghetto was not formed until the mid 201 h century, when industrialization allowed blacks the option of moving from rural areas into cities, particularly northern cities, for jobs (Massey & Denton 1993). The migration ofblacks arrived with furious opposition by whites, who felt their job security was to be compromised by the change in worker composition, and whose subsequent hostility forced blacks to become spatially isolated in the newly formed urban ghettos (1993). A ghetto, as defined by Massey & Denton, is a set of neighborhoods that are exclusively inhabited by members of one group, within which virtually all members of that group live (1993). By limiting black persons housing options to the ghettos, 15

PAGE 25

the creation of a spatial mobility barrier was established (1993). This in tum created a social mobility barrier that continues to inform the options and choices of black Americans and other minorities at the end of the 201h century. Differing opinions are apparent when it comes to spatial mobility, as Stanley Crouch (1995), a social thinker and intellectual, believes that race and location of one's home is not significant with regard to what one can accomplish or achieve in one's lifetime. This difference in opinion begins the crux of an argument that pervades the literature on housing discrimination. To what degree does housing discrimination affect the opportunities and subsequent livelihood of those minorities affected by it? Following the above question, it is necessary to outline the history of housing segregation in the U.S. as a frame of reference for the remainder of this study. Turning again to Massey and Denton's study, I found that the authors had provided an excellent summary of the historical effects governmental policy has had on the landscape of American housing, and the various historical moments that influenced the shape ofhousing segregation in the U.S. in the 1990's. As stated above, Massey and Denton find the spatial isolation ofblacks through the creation of urban ghettos to be a key turning point in the history of housing segregation. This phenomena began during the post World-War I era and continues to some degree in the 1990's as real estate agents and mortgage lenders collaborate with white customers and residents in implementing various procedures that serve to drive blacks into separate residential areas These procedures include blockbusting, redlining, restrictive 16

PAGE 26

covenants, bombings of specific homes, and also incentives offered to blacks for moving out of predominantly white neighborhoods (1993: 31-36). Not all ofthe procedures above are employed currently, as the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the 1988 Amendment allowed prosecution to take place when such practices are encountered. For readers that may be unaware of the nature of the above practices, I will clarify. Blockbusting is a practice that real estate agents prior to the 1988 FHA Amendment readily employed to further segregation of neighborhoods: when it seemed as though an area was at risk of"turning black," or having black residents move in to a previously white neighborhood, the agents would begin the process of "white flight" (Medoff & Sklar 1994: 26). The unreasonable yet unavoidable white fright that a neighborhood would turn black allowed the real estate agents to fuel the fire of the white residents fear by literally going door to door convincing white people that their homes were dropping in value by the day because blacks were moving in, and that if they didn't sell at a lower than market value price they would risk losing an even greater amount of money on their home when the neighborhood "turned black" (Medoff & Sklar 1994: 26). Peter Medoff and Holly Sklar explain this process in detail in the text Streets of Hope, a study of Boston's Roxbury neighborhood. On blockbusting, the authors explain how an anonymous Realtor completed blockbusting in the Roxbury neighborhood: 17

PAGE 27

I first learned about blockbusting when I decided I wanted to buy and sell property in Dorchester ... We were told, you get the listings anyway you can. It's pretty easy to do: just scare the hell out ofthem! And that's what we did. Some of the milder things were: property values are going down, you're going to get a thousand dollars less next month than this. Market values didn't really decline that much. They did decline slightly, but the thousand dollars a month, or whatever figure you picked-that was something you pulled out of the air. We weren't subtle aboutit. You'd say, how would you like it ifthey rape your daughter, and you've got a mulatto grandchild .. .I even used it once on a son, the little boy would get raped. Whatever worked, I would use. I had direct contact with people who were more blatant than I ever dreamed of being. There were instances of housebreaks that were arranged only to scare people out. .. I don't think anybody to this day is aware that anybody arranged this. Nobody was ever arrested for it, convicted of it, or anything else ... What we did back then (late 1960's), I don't really consider that bad. We hurt people who were asking to be hurt .. .it was their idea to run. We fueled the fire. In my own defense, I lived in Dorchester and sold the house next door to a black family, and then I lived there for the next five years. The black family left, though, after the white kids in the neighborhood got together and stoned their house night after night. (1994: 26-27) Clearly, blockbusting incorporated the basic elements of racism-prejudice and irrational fears on the part of white folks that the agents converted to an action called discrimination. The real estate agents that participated in these practices were benefiting greatly. By getting the white owners to sell at below market values, they then turned around and sold the homes to black families at inflated prices (Medoff & Sklar 1994). The commissions the agents received must have been large enough to cause the agents to continue behaving as perpetrators of racist ideologies and immoral business practices at the cost ofboth white and black families. 18

PAGE 28

Redlining, a process the mortgage lending industry employed until Congress passed the 1975 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the 1976 Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, served to manipulate the housing market in a way similar to blockbusting (Medoff & Sklar 1994). Redlining refers to the practice of mapping a neighborhood as undesirable by the mortgage companies for funding mortgage loans. Practiced throughout the country, redlining has often been employed to restrict the sale of homes to blacks and other minorities by restricting the geographic area that a bank is willing to make loans within. The bank and its agents, the lenders, do not make this decision a public one, thus the individuals affected are unaware that the specific neighborhood they are desiring to live in is ironically determining the outcome of their loan application. Redlining has been drastically reduced since the passage of the 1975 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, as lending institutions are now required by law to disclose the geographic distributions of all of their loans from year to year. Taken from Medoff and Sklar's analysis, Representative Joseph Kennedy in a 1993 congressional hearing on mortgage insurance explains the negative effects insurance redlining has on individuals and families searching for equity through their housing purchases: Insurance is the invisible key to economic advancement. The industry has used it to lock tight the door of economic opportunity for millions of consumers. The evidence presented to this Subcommittee clearly suggests a pattern of massive, nationwide discrimination against low-income and minority Americans ... The message that insurance companies are sending to 19

PAGE 29

low-income and minority customers is crystal clear: you are irresponsible, you are dangerous, and you don't deserve insurance. Solely because of the color of their skin, the size of their paycheck, and the address of their home, millions of Americans must pay more in premiums for less coverage, take their chances with shadowy unregulated and under funded companies, or go without any insurance at all and face financial disaster as a daily fact oflife. (1993: 29-30) William G. Grigsby (1987) and colleagues agreed that insurance redlining may occur, although Grigsby was unable to assess an economic causal relationship. Grigsby's studies furthered evidence that redlining affects the housing economy, but could not confirm whether redlining causes property values to fall, or if falling property values influence and encourage redlining by the insurance industry However, that Grigsby, a highly acclaimed urban scholar not focused intently on studying housing discrimination specifically found insurance redlining to be present, whether alongside or as a result ofthe economic composition of a neighborhood, gives further support to it's role in the historical creation of the ghettos as well as in the continued existence and perpetuation of housing discrimination. It should be noted that although Grigsby's (1987) fmdings do support the existence of insurance red lining, his own view on housing segregation can be summed up as that of the "natural order of things," in that people as consumers allowed their preferences to influence the "social, government, economic and market" actions (1987: 18). Restrictive covenants, a tool of discrimination utilized in the post World War I era, came into play after the U.S. Supreme Court declared in 1917 that the practice 20

PAGE 30

of discriminatory zoning was unconstitutional (HUD 1999). The use of discriminatory zoning was thus replaced by restrictive covenants, whose primary purpose was to keep specific racial, ethnic and religious minorities from occupying homes in specific neighborhoods (HUD 1999). The use of such covenants continued to impact housing segregation until the 1948 U .S. Supreme Court decision of Shelly v. Kramer made it unlawful for any lower state courts to enforce the covenants (HUD 1999). The history of these overt housing discrimination events and their subsequent effects on the shape of American housing geography has proven not a final chapter ofU.S. history, but an ever-present, ominous force of perpetuating segregation in housing. Bombings, yet another facet ofhousing discrimination, served and continue to serve as a tragic reminder that racism is not always contained within the thoughts of individuals but is often acted out with the malicious intent of harming other people based on the color of their skin, their religious affiliation, or their nation of origin, among others. Bombings are cited as one of the acts used in the creation of the urban ghettos by Massey and Denton in their study, and it is also cited in Milton Kleg's text Hate Prejudice and Racism (1993/1994). The use ofbombs in attempting to threaten, scare, hurt, maim and otherwise destroy families that either already resided in neighborhoods and were not wanted in those neighborhoods any longer by the white residents, or that were attempting to integrate predominantly all white neighborhoods has a long history of occurrence. Arson has played a similar 21

PAGE 31

role throughout U.S. history as well, and continues today. The use ofbombs and fire to rid a neighborhood of it's undesired residents is perhaps the most overt form of housing discrimination, and both acts have been performed by individuals as well as by real estate agencies and banking institutions for various personal and market related reasons. Bombings and arson are now constitutionally protected against; yet as recent as 1999 incidences of minority homes being vandalized occurred in the U.S. (K.leg 1993). Discrimination in housing has not yet vanished from the American landscape; it has merely become less overt Historical Discussion on Segregation From the descriptions above detailing the ways in which housing discrimination primarily occurred in the U.S. prior to the enactment of the 1968 Fair Housing Act, I will now return the discussion to the historical timeline Massey and Denton outline in their study (1993). As tlie use of the above measures of housing discrimination began to alter the location of blacks and whites geographically, the isolated events began a nationwide trend of segregation. The period from 1940-1970 encompassed overwhelming approval from white residents to exclude blacks and other minorities from white neighborhoods (Massey and Denton 1993). During this post World War II period, governmental agencies offered substantial loans to white Americans in order to push suburbia as an alternative to city living. The opportunity to live in the new, suburban areas located just outside major cities was undoubtedly 22

PAGE 32

an attractive option to many Americans as buying a home in the suburbs became less expensive than renting an apartment.in the cities (Massey and Denton 1993). While the majority of middle class white Americans were moving to the suburbs, the remaining low to middle class black Americans were impacted by the creation of public housing as a result of the Housing Acts of 1949 and 1954 that provided federal funds for local municipalities to acquire decaying properties and redevelop them (Massey and Denton 1993). The urban renewal programs that created public housing projects had a tendency to eliminate more housing than it replaced, thus creating an ever-tightening market for inner-city properties (Massey and Denton 1993). A significant turning point in this era occurred in 1954 as Congress passed the Voluntary Home Mortgage Credit Program which allowed Federal Housing Administration and Veterans Administration loans available to blacks and other minorities (HUD 1999). Despite continued housing discrimination, this move by the government allowed blacks and other minorities the option of reaching for the American Dream from at least an economic standpoint, while the remaining barriers of racism would continue to limit the opportunities ofblacks and other minorities. Clearly as one response to the continued discrimination in housing and other areas of American life, the civil rights movement gained considerable momentum following the passage of the 1954 Act. The late 1950's and the 1960's are known for the monumental gains in legislation and the opening of a public discourse on 23

PAGE 33

discrimination that became the beginning of a legacy of anti-discrimination laws and acts. However, the most significant turning points in the area of housing discrimination did not occur until six days after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated the first being the passage of the 1968 Fair Housing Act (HUD 1999). The second turning point was the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Jones v. Mayer, which interpreted the 1866 Civil Rights Act to make any and all forms of discrimination in the sale or rental of property on the public or private market illegal (HUD 1999). Scholars within the field ofhousing still debate the effectiveness of the 1968 Act on reducing discrimination as Congress passed the act without any tangible means to enforce it. It took another twenty years before the 1988 Amendment, which included enforcement provisions, passed. The Supreme Court decision complemented the 1968 Act by opening the forum for a continuous stream of fair housing litigation to occur that continues well into the 1990's with new precedents and ever-increasing monetary settlements being granted each year (HUD 1999). Nonetheless, the 1968 Act created an attitude of awareness among many Americans both white and black that the advancement of segregated housing could not continue to advance at it's current rate. During the 1970's, integration ofblacks into white suburban neighborhoods happened slowly and with resistance by whites (Massey and Denton 1993). Housing discrimination by residents, Realtors, mortgage lending institutions, and landlords continued to affect the process of integration. Blacks were not the only group to be 24

PAGE 34

discriminated against, yet blacks were and remain in the 1990 s 50% more isolated than Hispanics and 60% more isolated than Asians oflike socio-economic class (Massey and Denton 1993). Massey and Denton argue that the spatial isolation blacks experience is largely due to housing discrimination, and that continued existence of the ghettos is largely due to race being the "dominant organizing principle" ofhousing and residential patterns (1993: 109). The authors also argue that the insistence of ghettos is in part due to the lack of a sustainable retail sector within such communities, with segregation influencing the low income black families as their neighborhoods are denied access to goods and services that affluent areas receive (1993). Although the Massey and Denton study focuses primarily on black v. white housing segregation, the severity of black segregation in the 1990's offers a sharp introduction to the perils of housing discrimination for all members of the protected classes, including discrimination by ethnicity, family status, income, d i sability nation of origin, age, or gender. In support of Massey and Denton's study is a recent HUD report on home ownership levels. According to recent US Census Bureau data, in 1997 the nation's homeownership rate hit a record high of 65.7%. However, this rate is divided unequally in the suburbs and the cities the rate was 72.5% in the suburbs but only 49.9% in the cities, where low-moderate income residents and minorities are disproportionately concentrated (HUD 1998) Also of significance is the racial composition of the 1997 homeownership rate: whites, 79%; African Americans, 25

PAGE 35

45.4%; Hispanics, 43.3% (HUD 1998). This is due, in part, to the gap in home mortgage lending. Statistics collected from the Federal Reserve Board in 1997 showed only 10% of white applicants for loans with incomes between 100% and 120% of the area median are denied conventional mortgages, yet the denial rate for Hispanics with the same income range is 19.6%, and for African Americans, 22.8% (HUD 1998). John Kain (1987) agrees with Massey and Denton as well. Kain writes, "Only systemic racial discrimination, that is, exclusion, can explain the intense, unprecedented, and persistent residential segregation of black Americans in Chicago and other U.S. metropolitan areas" (1987: 71). Gary Orfield and James. W. Fossett (1987) also offer agreement with their view that poor and minority households are paying substantially increased portions of their income for housing that has not appreciated, or risen in value or quality. Orfield and Fosset argue that the effectiveness of the private housing market has fallen gravely short of providing choices for minorities, in particular blacks. Their study in Chicago from 1970-1983 defends the argument that there in fact exists a secondary housing market for blacks that is effectively isolated from the larger, white-dominated housing market (1987). Further, Richard Bennett (1995) supports Massey and Denton by pointing out the benefits of inclusionary housing practices by way of a suburban housing program that was created as a result of a lawsuit in Chicago: the Gautreaux Assisted Housing Program. The Gautreaux program relocated more than 4,700 minority families from 26

PAGE 36

the city to suburban areas, gave the families advice on finding apartments, and also provided rent subsidies (Bennett 1995). A ten-year study revealed that the quality of life for these families was greatly improved based on their relocation to the suburbs. Bennett states: "Adults were able to find jobs easier because of the greater availability of jobs in the suburbs and the fewer concerns about child care as a result of increased safety. Children in the program were five times more likely to attend college. This study suggests, despite the economic argument in favor of segregation should it occur 'naturally,' that there are economic benefits to be gained by integration" (1995: 137-8). Audit Testing as a Research Tool Massey and Denton conclude their study with the empirical evidence of a sociological methodology for determining housing discrimination: audit testing. Audit testing has been incorporated by fair housing and civil rights groups since the 1960's, and became the prominent tool for gauging discrimination since the U.S. Supreme Court in Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 upheld it's validity in 1982. The process of audit testing is well described by the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Conunissions' report on Housing Discrimination, 1994-1996 Housing Testing Results: Testing is a controlled method to determine disparate treatment regarding information and services provided. A test is an authentic simulation of a housing transaction used to compare the treatment of one apartment seeker to 27

PAGE 37

another to determine if there are violations of the fair housing laws. The testing process involves pairing individuals similar in relevant aspects except the variable being tested (race, sex, national origin, familial status, and/or disability). After the conclusion of the test, the experiences of the testers are then compared to determine whether the subject discriminated against the person representing the test variable. Testers undergo a great deal of training in how to present themselves as home seekers or apartment seekers as well as how to report their experiences. They are not allowed to communicate with each other after a test so that their individual experiences can be recorded without any bias from the other tester. The pmpose is to simulate the conditions of home seeking or apartment seeking to an actual situation with controlled variables to determine if any difference in treatment could amount to discrimination . . Courts have uniformly upheld testing as a legal activity citing it as legitimate and necessary to ensure fair housing practices. (National Committee against Discrimination in Housing: Washington, DC). The process of audit testing is not only applied to actual tests of house or apartment searching by testers, but also to mortgage lending. The same procedure is followed, with variation in that the testers are seeking funding for a property rather than merely attempting to be offered the opportunity to rent or purchase a property. Yinger (1986) gives credit to Ronald Wienk for his pioneering study in 1979 that utilized audit testing for social science research. Yinger argues that housing audits are an important contribution for study in the area of housing discrimination, and actually catch the discriminatory parties "in the act" (1986: 881). Further, Yinger states that housing audits provide "direct measures of discrimination and an unprecedented opportunity to study the circumstances under which discrimination occurs" (1986: 881). Yinger (1986) suggests applying the statistical paired difference-of-means test when quantitatively analyzing audits with regard to social 28

PAGE 38

science research. From an analysis of a 1981 study of audits conducted in six Boston neighborhoods, Yinger (1986) determined that black home seekers were invited to see 36% fewer homes than white home seekers by utilizing the difference-of-means test. Yinger applies his findings theoretically to his conclusion that housing agents ) "illegally promote their economic interests by catering to the racial prejudice of their current or potential white customers" (1986: 892). Yinger's theoretical conclusion is commonly recognized as the practice of racial steering, regardless of to whose benefit the real estate agents are catering. Racial steering by real estate agents is a factor to be discussed thoroughly. George Galster (1990) analyzed six real estate firms in Cincinnati and Memphis during the 1980's to identify steering by agents in one-half of the audited transactions. Galster (1990) found that black auditors were shown not fewer homes than white auditors were, but fewer homes in predominantly white areas, as well as more homes in racially mixed and predominantly black areas. The white auditors were rarely shown houses in racially mixed areas unless the auditors themselves requested as such. Also, once the agents' showed the requested home to the white auditors, the remaining majority of homes shown were in predommantly white areas. Galster (1990) theorizes only one main hypothesis as to why real estate agents steer: "They steer so as to perpetuate two segregated housing markets buffered by a zone of racially transitional neighborhoods, thereby maximizing housing turnover and agents' commissions" (1990: 39). 29

PAGE 39

Harriet B. Newburger (1989) in her article titled "Discrimination by a ProfitMaximizing Real Estate Broker in Response to White Prejudice" discusses the role of the real estate broker in housing transactions and, hence, their subsequent role in perpetuating discrimination. For reference, Newburger sites that in 1980 real estate brokers transacted 82% ofhousing purchases and 85% of housing sales (1989). This clearly places real estate brokers on both ends of the access spectrum when individuals are trying to transact housing deals Newburger utilizes housing scholar John Yinger's model ofbroker behavior to answer two vital research questions: First, Do brokers make the same effort to sell houses to black customers as to white customers? Second, are black customers steered to blacker neighborhoods than white customers? Working with Yinger's model, Newburger's results show that two ofthe four scenarios depicting broker behavior give further credence to the hypothesis that profit by real estate brokers is a driving force in perpetuating discrimination. The findings are as follows: 1. In a market without prejudice, the broker treats a black customer and a white customer who come to his office identically. Each receives the same level of effort and no steering activity occurs. 2. In a market where the only manifestation of white prejudice is a refusal by whites to buy houses in the black neighborhood, the broker will make a greater effort with a black customer than a white customer. In other words, behavior that looks like steering would be expected. This behavior differs, however, from behavior designed to restrict black customers (or white customers) access to particular neighborhoods. On the contrary, it arises because the broker can offer a better set of opportunities to his black customers than he can offer to his white customers. 3. First Special Case: the loss in profits from selling a house to a black customer in a white neighborhood is so high that there is never a positive 30

PAGE 40

profit associated with doing so. Second Special Case: the broker finds it most profitable to write-off potential white customers and serves only black buyers. 4. The broker shows houses to a black customer only in the black neighborhood, while white customers see houses in both neighborhoods. Therefore, steering behavior occurs. In addition, the broker spends more time showing houses to a white customer. Newburger's third and fourth cases listed above clearly show that profitmaximization by real estate brokers is a force that continues to influence and shape the actions associated with blacks and whites being shown the same equality in housing transactions. The uniqueness ofNewburger's study is that it explores the issue from a theoretical basis, employs a model that explains several series of actions by real estate brokers, and compares the theoretical framework to housing audit testing. Thus, Newburger is allowing her readers to see the virtual as well as actual behaviors of real estate brokers that manifest into housing discrimination. Through the scope of this study Newburger finds also that brokers may change their approach of profit maximization depending upon location-for instance, if a broker were to believe that a sale of a home to a black customer in a white neighborhood would cause him/her to lose all further business in that neighborhood, he/she would refrain from selling the home to the black customer. Conversely, if a broker whose primary client base is centered in an area where all black clients are an easy substitute for all white clients, that broker may not discriminate due to the quick shift in profit from one client base to another. Newburger closes with the suggestion that housing audit 31

PAGE 41

testing, the empirical evidence to support her theoretical findings, ought to be relied on more by government agencies whose goal is to enforce violations of the fair housing laws. Theoretical Perspectives Residential segregation has been called one of the four urban racial phenomena found in American metropolitan areas (Galster & Keeney 1988). Beyond residential segregation, prejudice, discrimination, and economic disparities are considered to be part ofthe 'nexus' of urban racial determinants by scholars George Galster and Mark Keeney (1988). Their work describes the process of racial prejudice acting on housing market discrimination, which in tum acts on racial residential segregation, which followsto inform interracial economic disparities, which circles back to influence racial prejudice The author's fmdings support their four hypotheses that "1) housing discrimination causes greater residential segregation (up to a point); 2) segregation causes greater interracial occupational disparities (up to a point) and lower relative black income; 3) occupational disparities cause lower relative black income; and 4) lower relative black income causes both higher discrimination and segregation" (1988: 1 07). The dependency of housing desegregation upon racial income equality is clearly shown in the Galster and Keeney study. Their nexus model offers insight into the interconnected nature of income and household location. They offer policy 32

PAGE 42

implications as well, stating that policy makers have to become aware of the relationship between desegregation and economic opportunity policies. Their conclusions state .. reducing interracial economic disparities thus appears not only as a valid programmatic end in its own right, but also as a potent means for residential desegregation as well" (1988: 108). I find Galster and Keeney's quantitative model and subsequent computer simulation of what life could be like for blacks if economic equality were achieved to be ingenious. That Galster and Keeney employ a computer simulation in combination with their traditional quantitative methodological findings gives further weight and significance to their study. Within the Galster and Keeney study I also found of significant importance the idea that although fair housing legislation and affordable housing contribute to the cause of housing desegregation, economic opportunity for blacks and other minorities is not eradicated through these measures. Throughout the review of the literature on housing discrimination, the debate between the degree of significance to be placed on economic opportunity and the degree of significance to be placed on racist actions via housing discrimination is fierce. Galster and Keeney offer insight into the combination ofboth economic and discriminatory factors influencing continued housing segregation, as their argument employs the collaborative approach to studying and comprehending the plethora of factors influencing the American geographic residential composition. 33

PAGE 43

Reynolds Farley, Charlotte Steeb, Maria Krysan, Tara Jackson and Keith Reeves (1993/1994) explored the theory of neighborhood preferences while studying housing discrimination. The preferences theory generally offers that whites, blacks and other minorities live in separate neighborhoods by choice because whites prefer predominantly white neighborhoods and minorities prefer predominantly minority neighborhoods (Turner and Wienk 1993). The National Opinion Research Center conducted a survey in 1990, which found that over half of white Americans support an open housing law, but that 86% of black Americans supported the same law (1993). This NORC survey gives support to Farley's (1993) argument that individual's preferences are primarily responsible for their geographic distribution, and he further argues that during the period of time between 1940 and 1990 whites have become much more supportive of blacks right to live where they wish. Farley et. al. (1994) studied the nation's most segregated urban area, Detroit, Michigan to ascertain that blacks and whites alike are more supportive of the principle of integration than the actual implementation of housing integration (1994). The authors found that stereotypes ofblacks as irresponsible with regard to taking care of their homes, thus not ensuring property values was a commonly held belief by whites in the Detroit area. Also, whites feared that if blacks integrated an area, not only would the property value ofthe neighborhood decrease, the safety of the area would be threatened as well. Farley et. al. thus argue that white and black preferences for housing arrangements are not based on concepts of prejudice such as the wish to "be 34

PAGE 44

around people that are like myself," or to "live with my own kind," but rather on the desired maintenance of white's property values and safety of their neighborhood (1994: 761). This view discounts housing discrimination as a viable reason for continued segregation of blacks and other minorities within the iimer cities of America's major metropolitan areas. W. A. V. Clark (1986/1988) argues that a "balanced analysis ofthe factors that might explain residential segregationeconomic status (affordability), social preferences, urban structure, and discrimination suggests that no one factor can account for the patterns that have arisen in U.S. metropolitan areas" (1986: 95). Clark focuses on the estimation of 30-70% of racial separation that is attributable to economic factors that work in association with preferences (1986). He also argues that survey evidence from national and local studies shows that black households prefer living in neighborhoods that are mixed with halfb1ack and half white residents, and that white households prefer living in neighborhoods that are anywhere from all white residents to 30% black residents (1986). Clark offers that the segregation ofblack and white neighborhoods can also be explained by household wealth: "the suburban areas are still (largely) made up of owner-occupied housing: it is therefore difficult for minorities who cannot afford to become owners to occupy such dwellings and, hence, become suburbanites" (1986: 105). In a lively debate with Clark, Galster (1988; 1989) offers that market forces, namely economic differences and personal preferences for neighborhood 35

PAGE 45

composition, as well as illegal discriminatory acts, should be given at least equal significance with regard to their impact on the shape of U.S. housing composition. Galster argues that Clark utilized selective information for his 1986 article referenced above, and that more recent studies offer strong evidence that housing discrimination is a definite cause of racial residential housing segregation (1988). Of interest in Galster's response-to Clark is an interpretation ofthe 1980 U.S. Census data that highlights that black workers on average have a longer commute than their white counterparts, as well as a 1986 study by Hughes and Madden that given their job locations, black workers in three major metropolitan areas are less efficiently located (in terms ofhousing affordability and commuting costs) than are white workers (1988). Galster is pointing out with this response that blacks are "concentrated residentially in central cities much more than their job locations would dictate" (1988: 96). Ifblack residents were basing their housing decisions on preference, why would they "prefer" to live further from their jobs than white residents? Clark responds to Galster's review (1988) with the statement that "private discrimination" as he terms it is "only one factor in understanding the patterns that currently exist" in housing segregation (1988: 120) He maintains his view that the primary forces engaged in segregation are affordability, preferences, job location, and urban structure. However, Clark does offer that governmental discrimination is nearly obsolete-a point of great contention within the literature (Goering 1986). 36

PAGE 46

The Clark-Galster debate continued by way of a battleground of articles through 1989. The lack of a resolution on the scholar's fronts brought to light the severity of segregation that existed at the end ofthe 1980's and perhaps again at the end ofthe 1990's. By the end of Clark's final refute to Galster, he does in fact acknowledge that housing discrimination plays a role in the configuration of housing patterns in the U.S. The Clark-Galster reviews serve as a reminder that the preferences argument can, and continues to spark sincere interest in the process of understanding housing segregation. Margery Austin Turner and Ron Wienk (1993) offer the preferences argument as well as three other theoretical perspectives on the perpetuation of segregation in housing. Turner and Wienk view residential segregation as limiting the amount of racial and ethnic interaction between individuals, thus potentially supporting racial and ethnic prejudices. The authors follow Massey and Denton in their assertion that the segregation of blacks and other minorities strongly influences residential mobility foremost, but that it acts as a barrier to economic and social mobility as well. Turner and Wienk propose the following theoretical explanations for the continuation of segregation in the 1990's: the preferences argument, outlined in detail above; the housing affordability argument, which states that minorities live in segregated neighborhoods because they cannot afford the housing in predominantly white areas; the discrimination argument, which states that minority individuals and families are prevented from acquiring housing in predominantly 37

PAGE 47

white areas due to discrimination by sellers and landlords or their agents (real estate brokers), and by lenders; and finally the real estate steering argument, which states that minorities and whites are marketed differently by the real estate industry, thus whites are shown housing opportunities in predominantly white areas while minorities are shown housing opportunities in integrated or predominantly minority areas. In conclusion of their exploratory study, Turner and Wienk found that although the preference argument may have some validity, it is insufficient in explaining the degree to which residential segregation persists. With regard to the housing affordability argument, they concluded that minorities are underrepresented in the suburbs, even those suburban areas they can potentially afford. Also, the severity of racial segregation is not reduced as income and socioeconomic status increases, that is to say that affluent minority households are just as likely as low income minorities to live segregated from white households (Massey and Denton 1990). Clearly Turner and Wienk's theoretical exploration of housing affordability offers support for persistent segregation based on factors other than economic differences. In response to the discrimination and racial steering argument, the authors utilize data from the 1989 Housing Discrimination Survey to conclude that all homebuyers who begin their search by inquiring about the availability of units advertised in major metropolitan newspapers are likely to be shown and recommended addresses in predominantly white areas rather than in integrated or 38

PAGE 48

predominantly minority areas. Their second finding is that black and Hispanic homebuyers who are shown and recommended addresses are likely to be steered to neighborhoods that have a lower percentage of white residents and that are less affluent than those shown and recommended to comparable white homebuyers. The evidence supporting housing discrimination in this study is apparent, yet Turner and Wienk conclude that their analysis of the 1989 HDS data on steering by arguing that the evidence of steering is not sufficiently severe to fully explain the continued existence of residential segregation, across socioeconomic strata, in America's urban areas. The authors do state that their research suggests that real estate agents may have significant effects on the flow of information to home seekers, hence contributing to housing discrimination, yet the information found in their study is inconclusive as a determinant of residential segregation. Joe T. Darden (1987) argues that black residential segregation is a result of past and present discriminatory actions by real estate brokers, homebuilders, financial institutions, the federal government, and state and local governments. Darden states that the "most effective, subtle, widespread discriminatory behavior is racial steering," and that it occurs in two ways: real estate brokers advising customers to purchase homes in particular neighborhoods on the basis of race, and real estate brokers failing to show or inform potential buyers ofhomes that meet their specifications on the basis ofrace (1987: 21). Jennifer Jolly Ryan (1995) points 39

PAGE 49

out some specific examples of the type of conduct that have resulted in a finding of discrimination on the part of real estate professionals -steering: --Agents neglecting to show available property to a prospective buyer or renter in a particular area on account of their status; --Implying that persons in one ofthe protected categories will be less able to obtain financing in a particular area; --Failing to show property or dissuading prospective non-minority buyers from looking at property in integrated or minority neighborhoods; --Communicating to any prospective purchaser that he or she would not be comfortable or compatible with existing residents of a community, neighborhood, or development because of a protected class status; --Brokers or managers employing agents or sales associates who direct non minority prospective buyers to mostly non-minority neighborhoods, or minority prospective buyers to mostly minority or racially mixed neighborhoods --Failing to accept or consider a bona fide offer because of a protected class status; --Imposing different sales prices or rental charges on the sale or rental of property on any person because of a protected class status; and --Using different qualification criteria on applications. (6-7) Ryan offers specific examples like the several listed above that pertain to discrimination in the terms and conditions of the real estate transaction, discriminatory representation of housing availability, blockbusting, discriminatory advertising, discriminatory use of words, phrases, symbols, and visual aids in oral advertising and printed material, selective use of advertising media or content, and in the publication and display of fair housing policy (1995). Ryan's straightforward approach to outlining specific practices employed by real estate professionals is critical to understanding the actual acts of discrimination in order to go forward to examine theoretical framework for explaining such acts. 40

PAGE 50

Galster (1987) offers three distinct causes of residential segregation: the class theory, the self-segregation theory, and the discrimination theory. Galster's interpretation of class theory attributes segregation to the relative difference in income as the main reason blacks and other minorities do not live in more affluent, or white neighborhoods, although he found that only a small portion of evidence to support this view is available via cross-sectional studies performed by other scholars. This is to say that if class were held constant, the differences in residential segregation would not be accounted for. Galster's review of the self-segregation theory is basically the preferences theory discussed previously by Farley (1993/1994) and Turner and Wienk (1993), although he adds that previous studies have found that most whites prefer to live in areas with few, if any, black neighbors, while most blacks prefer to live in areas with a relatively equal ratio of black to white neighbors. Galster's take on the discrimination theory argues that a variety of barriers within the housing market exist to prevent blacks and other minorities from moving into areas that their socioeconomic class and preferences ought to promote. Galster's focus in this study is a review of the specific theories of discrimination, which he defines as "actions by an individual housing market agent that treat clients differently on the basis of race" (87). To begin with, the "agent prejudice" theory states that the agents of the housing rriarket, namely landlords and real estate brokers, employ their own personal prejudices to the point of losing potential profits as their beliefs dictate the options 41

PAGE 51

available for black and other minority home seekers (Galster 1987: 87). Also, agents may engage in "price discriminating," a procedure that entails offering a home at an inflated price to black and other minority home seekers, while maintaining ethical standards ofbusiness with white home seekers (Galster 1987: 87) The agent prejudice theory in action, then, is dependent entirely upon the degree of the agent's prejudice and not on any other market factors or neighborhood distribution (Galster 1987: 87). The "customer prejudice" theory assumes the housing agents are impartial to prejudice, as the agent's main concern is profit maximization, thus the incidences of discrimination are based entirely on the agent's customer prejudice (Galster 1987 : 88-89). For example, a landlord does not wish to rent an apartment to a black family because he or she feels that their white tenants would vacate, he or she will not rent the apartment to anyone that is non-white. This behavior is similarly executed by real estate brokers, who may have built a white clientele and fear losing that clientele's business ifthey were to integrate blacks into the neighborhood. Galster concludes that if this theory were correct, the discrimination would occur only in all white areas of metropolitan housing markets that the brokers believe the all-white residents to be prejudiced (1987). The "rip-off' theory, as the "customer prejudice" theory, assumes a profit maximizing stance from Realtors in that minority home seekers will settle for less appealing economic terms ofhome purchase than whites will, thus increasing the 42

PAGE 52

Realtor's profit by selling a home to a minority (Galster 1987: 89). Galster notes that this approach is included in the vast array of actions known as institutional racism, as the approach clearly offet:s unethical and discriminatory behavior to members of the minority groups as a standard operating procedure by some Realtors (1987). Galster also notes that the conditions necessary for the "rip-off' theory to occur are that of neighborhoods with a "nontrivial (but not overwhelming) percentage of minorities, especially where whites fear racial transition," and that in these neighborhoods whites will most likely purchase homes at a discount but minorities will purchase homes at market value (1987: 91). Clearly this theory employs the notion that whites that choose to live in integrated neighborhoods are doing so partially due to the reduction in home prices. As for it's implications for minorities, the theory offers weight to the idea that minority home seekers wish to live in integrated neighborhoods as well as mainly minority neighborhoods, otherwise their purchase price of homes being higher than whites in the same neighborhoods would impact their decision negatively to purchase homes in the integrated areas. The rip-off theory, then, offers an alternative to the idea that blacks and other minorities wish to live in segregated neighborhoods, separate from whites. Galster's study concluded with the results of an empirical test ofthe above three theories, in the form ofhypotheses, utilizing a regression analysis of housing discrimination differentials using the 1980 data from Cleveland, Ohio the most segregated major SMSA in that year Ultimately the study yielded strong support for 43

PAGE 53

the "customer prejudice" theory, and for the "rip-off' theory, while the "agent prejudice" theory was perhaps responsible for a share of the housing discrimination that occurred in Cleveland in 1980. In sum, Galster offered the argument that in lieu of the information provided by the study, fair housing laws would be most effective if and only if real estate brokers perceive an economic gain from reducing housing discrimination. Galster offered also that in his view, more emphasis ought to be placed on adjudicating housing discriminators and the punitive damage fines ought to be increased if a truly effective reduction in (then) current housing discrimination levels were to be sought. In examining Galster's study above, the question of how minorities are offered higher prices for homes than whites begs an answer. Galster demonstrated that when a real estate broker perceives a profit-maximizing endeavor, he or she will sell a home to a minority, and also to a white. It is clear that discrimination in housing continually occurs, and in some cases is based on a profit maximizing strategy for brokers and homeowners alike. The question that remains, however, is one of defining the degree and significance of racial and ethnic prejudice amongst the brokers and homeowners as it affects the act of discrimination. Federal Policy and Legal Implications John Goering theorizes that one ofthe main concerns with gauging the severity of housing discrimination is the lack of minority individuals who file 44

PAGE 54

complaints (1986). Goering offers four options for his theory that there are more incidents ofhousing discrimination occurring than are complaints filed: 1) There is increasing subtlety in the practice of discrimination and minorities are thus unaware that they have been victimized; 2) Minorities are less supportive of fair housing enforcement programs than they are of the general idea of fair housing; 3) Minorities may be unaware that there are laws to protect citizens against housing discrimination; and 4) Government agencies may be perceived by minorities to be ineffective instruments for obtaining justice. Goering offers that an offensive, rather than defensive federal policy toward housing discrimination would allow minorities and the general public as a whole more clarity about the issue, and potentially reduce housing discrimination. Assisting Goering's suggestion that a federal policy be proactive is the interpretation of the quality oflife for city dwellers in the U.S. during the late 1980's offered by Gary Orfield: The differences among communities within any large metropolitan area are vast. In terms of economics, educational level, community wealth, ethnic background, and other ways, they are greater, often much greater, than the difference between the U.S. and some separate countries. (1986: 18) Goering theorizes that social scientists have indeed helped in assessing the severity of segregated housing that contributes to the bleak picture of poverty, educational deficiencies and economic stagnation Orfield described above (1986). Social scientists have developed and tested a variety of measures of residential 45

PAGE 55

segregation that give relatively clear standards for measuring trends and alterations in housing discrimination, as well as assessments of the reasons underlying the process of segregation. This study focuses on the incidences of housing discrimination indicated by audit testing performed by public and private fair housing organizations. The difference in gaining information from a purely scientific approach, and that of gaining information from a practical, application-based framework is defmitely a debate in and of itself. I chose, for the purposes of following Galster (1989), to incorporate a theoretical, scientific framework from which to conduct my secondary analysis, but the data I collect is clearly from the public and private sector studies. The measures utilized by social scientists to identify housing discrimination clearly work in conjunction with the legal system and the public and private fair housing organizations in a check and balance system. The theoretical perspective that is the result of scientific study is applied to the broad spectrum of scholars and praciticians interested in reducing the incidence; the fair housing organizations then work from such a perspective, as well as from a complaint-based framework to conduct audit and other studies to discover the degree of incidence; the legal system is then incorporated on a local, state, and national level to bring consequences to the perpetrators of discrimination. Galster advocates a national fair housing policy be established, rather than rely on the above mentioned system of checks and balances, for the purpose of establishing what he feels is "true freedom of choice" and the 46

PAGE 56

"achievement of stable racial integration," two necessary and intertwined steps to eliminate housing discrimination (Galster 1990: 138). Galster offers that such a national policy must "clarify principles, establish a legal framework for deterrence, commit adequate resources for enforcement, promote stable racial integration, and encourage metropolitan area-wide coordination" (1990: 151-152). Economic scholar Veronica Reed (1991) argues that the impact of the strengthened enforcement mechanisms of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 on "housing market discrimination, and in tum, residential segregation, remains to be seen" (29). As Reed points out, audit testing is a proven method of identifying housing discrimination, hence a federally sponsored system of fair housing audits conducted randomly, would undoubtedly serve as an impetus for removing discriminatory barriers protected classes face when seeking housing (1991). The argument for a federal policy focusing on enforcement places the Fair Housing Act of 1968, and it's subsequent 1988 and 1993 Amendments in question with regard to their overall effectiveness. Ryan (1995) succinctly outlines the current procedure under the Fair Housing Act to assess penalties for parties found guilty of fair housing violations: an aggrieved individual files a complaint with the United States department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD. If HUD does not reconcile the dispute and, further, finds reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, HUD will issue a charge on behalf of the individual. The decision is then made between 47

PAGE 57

conducting proceedings before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) or a trial in federal district court. If an administrative hearing is chosen, which in tum results in a finding of discriminatory conduct, the ALJ may enter an order for relief including actual damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief, as well as civil penalties against the party who has discriminated. The ALJ has the option of awarding civil penalties up to $10,000 for a first violation, $25,000 for a second violation, and $50,000 for a third violation. If the individual chooses to pursue the claim in federal district court, the U.S. Department of Justice, represented by the Attorney General, will bring the action on behalf of the victim. In such cases, the court may issue a permanent or temporary injunction or a restraining order against the defendant( s) in question, as well as award actual and punitive damages upon completion of the trial. Also to note is the Fair Housing Act provision that allows an individual filing a complaint to bypass the administrative legislative options in order to directly file a suit in federal district court. Criminal penalties are also available in fair housing cases -as discussed in the opening section of this literature review the 1993 Amendment provides that any intimidation or violence in conjunction with housing discrimination can be charged to the defendant as a felony. The legal system is clearly a participant in the advocacy of justice with regard to housing discrimination. The legal system is often a proponent of fair housing legislation beyond direct discrimination issues as well, and the landmark Mt. Laurel cases of the New 48

PAGE 58

Jersey Supreme Court are such an example (Haar 1996). Beginning in 1975 in Mt. Laurel, NJ, Judge Hall and his panel began deliberating the issue of whether a developing municipality could validly enact a land-use regulation making physically and economically impossible the provision of housing for low-moderate income families within its borders (Haar 1996). Judge Hall viewed the exclusionary zoning utilized by the local regulations as discriminatory, and expanded the protected class of race to economic qualifiers, or class (Haar 1996). Individuals who were low moderate income were excluded from living in decent housing by the zoning rules (Haar 1996). Mt. Laurel I became a case where the underlying motivation for the zoning rules was unveiled, that of social-class exclusion (Haar 1996). The courts recognized that such social-class exclusion is one of the main reasons for the existence of suburbs in general: to isolate middle and upper class citizens from the concentration of poverty in the urban ghettos of metropolitan areas (Haar 1996). Charles M. Haar, the author of Suburbs Under Siege outlining the Mt. Laurel cases, believes that suburban legal barriers such as those enacted by Mt. Laurel, NJ are deeply implicated in a way of life dominated by privatization, enclaves, and indifference to the larger general welfare (1996). Institutions have a clear impact on molding attitudes towards race and protected status, such as the restrictive covenants enforced by states as outlined in the Mt. Laurel cases (Tobin 1987). The court took on the role assigned to it-advocating for and protecting the rights of minorities, or protected classes in cases of government law breaking (Haar 1996). 49

PAGE 59

Basing the rulings in Mt. Laurel I and II on State Constitutional Law, Judge Hall prevented his decision from being overturned by the legislature as well as the federal courts (Haar 1996). Reform in Mt. Laurel based on the rulings of the New Jersey Supreme Court moved beyond simply refuting the regulatory barriers that created severe economic consequences, and into the realm of advocating low moderate income housing for the state (Haar 1996). Eventually, 13 years after the initial Mt. Laurel case began, the court moved into the background as the New Jersey Fair Housing Act, established by the state legislature, began to carry forward precedents set by the court (Haar 1996). Mt. Laurel I and II can be seen as a victory for fair housing, as well as a victory for the checks and balances system our democracy is founded upon. Courts have stepped in to interpret the Fair Housing Act in numerous ways involving racial segregation Racially specific advertising in housing has come under recent question in the case of South Suburban Housing Center v. Greater South Suburban Board of Realtors in Chicago, IL. The Seventh Circuit federal appellate court focused on affirmative marketing techniques with respect to promoting integrated housing (Zimmerman 1992). When used with anti-discrimination and community "enhancement" programs, affirmative marketing techniques employed by private real estate companies, can be effective in getting the word out that minorities and other protective classes are welcome in targeted areas (Zimmerman 1992: 1272). The case in question involved certain private real estate companies 50

PAGE 60

being excluded from the local Multiple Listing Service in the area as the companies were utilizing affirmative marketing. Mark Zimmerman (1992) states that specifically, the South Suburban case addressed whether "a Realtor association that disagrees with race-conscious tactics on philosophical grounds may refuse to list properties marketed that way in its multiple listing service" (1273). The Seventh Circuit's decision upheld the use of private marketing techniques based on the premise of integrating housing. Explicitly, "special outreach efforts by private groups to certain racial groups does not constitute discrimination," and Zimmerman adds that the "lasting impact is that private entities can continue to expand affirmative marketing efforts without fear of liability'' (1992: 1366). Zimmerman also adds that the court filled a void that HUD has neglected, that of establishing specific regulations regarding private affirmative marketing efforts (1992). By contrast to the positive move for integration established by South Suburban Housing Center v. Greater South Suburban Board of Realtors, Katherine G. Stearns (1994) discusses discriminatory advertising. By analyzing the effect of advertising on the consumer, specifically the housing consumer, Steams (1994) found that fair housing advocates believe that some real estate advertisements targeted to a specific segment of buyers use discriminatory tactics to locate such buyers. The use of human models for advertising purposes is Kearns' focus, and she notes that advertisers create human model advertising so that the target consumer identifies with the model, hence persuading the consumer to purchase the product. 51

PAGE 61

In the case of real estate advertisements that use human models, Keams states that models may be used not only to attract a certain target audience as potential buyers or renters, but also to selectively exclude other audiences. The Advertising Preference Section of the Fair Housing Act prohibits such discrimination, and Keams offers that federal courts are now recognizing violations of the Act by real estate companies that utilize human models in their advertising. Galster (1992) is an advocate for further research in the area of housing discrimination perpetrated by local governments and public agencies. He further concludes that the main body of empirical social science research on discrimination in housing markets has been "piecemeal," therefore failing in the goal of adequately measuring the impact of discrimination (Galster 1992: 662). Galster calls for research into the following areas: effectiveness of different types of enforcement activities when discrimination is tracked, the incentives that could be provided for public and/or private agencies that would have the effect of deterring local governments from discriminating, and to what degree public policy can be expected to reduce racial prejudice by enhancing positive interracial contacts in a stable neighborhood context (1992: 672). Clearly the nexus approach Galster utilized in his earlier work has room forexpansion into these and other areas in understanding housing discrimination in its entirety. In a comprehensive analysis of the state of housing discrimination by the Congressional Quarterly Researcher, two significant players in the housing industry 52

PAGE 62

give their views on the state of housing integration and the future for this pressing civil rights issue. The executive vice president of the National Association of Realtors, William D. North, states in his discussion of housing discrimination that "the bundle of prejudices that seems forever to characterize the human condition is never more significant, immediate and powerful than in its impact on where and with whom we live. It is in the home, the neighborhood and the community that the tolerance of the social, cultural, religious, racial and national differences reaches its base level. It is in the home that xenophobia is strongest, intolerance creates and the accommodation of diversity most difficult to achieve" (1995: 174). HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Roberta Achtenberg argues that "even with most aggressive enforcement, civil rights in housing will be one of the last rights achieved. Housing means who you live next door to, what you go home to-and it's the average person's source of wealth" (1995: 188). Hypothesis These views are certainly, in sum, representative of the results found by Galsterin his study of the audit studies for the 1980's. Theoretical exploration and empirical testing in the area of housing discrimination will undoubtedly yield further evidence to the severity and prevalence of prejudice within the American housing market. The main foci of this thesis is to examine that depth of prejudice for the decade 1990-1999, utilizing the variable discrimination as demonstrated by empirical 53

PAGE 63

findings completed by rental and sales audit tests conducted in numerous localities nationwide, and to compare it with the decade 1980-1989. I hypothesize that the incidence of prejudice will be similar to Galster's 1980's data. Regardless of the findings, the depth of discrimination will be given a greater voice through the analysis, thus leading to a more thorough theoretical body of literature in the study of housing discrimination. 54

PAGE 64

CHAPTER3 METHODS The methodology I chose to utilize for the research in thesis is secondary, or meta-research. As a graduate student, I learned that an original, individual study of housing discrimination could be effective from a local perspective. Yet an exploratory secondary analysis can be both valid and applicable on a larger scale. In the literature, I learned the potential benefit of examining housing discrimination from a nationwide perspective, as few scholars have done such analyses. I therefore decided to employ a meta-analysis of the research I gathered. Meta-analysis, or meta-analysis of research, was introduced into the social sciences as a method in the mid 1970's (Cook et. al. 1992). The tenets of meta analysis were formed from the idea that social science had become increasingly less applicable to public policy implementation or to contributions to substantive theory as the disagreement amongst social scientists with regard to replicating or even interpreting results of studies weakened the credibility of said scientists findings (Cook et. al. 1992). Prior to the introduction and practice of meta-analysis, "experience, good judgment, and a sound understanding of methodological principles" were sufficient to make useful sense of a related set of studies, but with "no guarantee that a similarly experienced analysis would reach a similar 55

PAGE 65

conclusion" (Wanner in Cook et. al. 1992: Foreword). Meta-analysis goes beyond the traditional qualitative literature review in which all studies represented in such a review do not bear the same importance nor have they been carried out in precisely the same way-meta analysis strives to create a study level indicator to gauge the similarities and the differences statistically (Cook et. al. 1992). As a quantitative technique, meta-analysis permits "synthesizing results of many types of research, including opinion surveys, correlational studies, experimental and quasi experimental studies, and regression analyses probing causal models" (Cook et. al. 1992: 4). In a meta-analysis, the investigator collects all the studies, in this case discriminatory housing audit tests, and then utilizes at least one indicator of the relationship under investigation from each of the studies (Cook et. al. 1992). The indicator utilized in this thesis is evidence of discriminatory behavior upon searching for rental housing or housing for sale by members of the protected classes. The benefits of a meta-analysis for the purposes ofthis thesis are the utilization of many different sub-methods of collecting data that can be synthesized across a generalized population, the United States. Clearly the limitations to a secondary analysis remain. However, it is far more helpful to utilize housing audit tests from more than one location for a study aimed at analyzing the state of affairs across the country. As this study is a secondary analysis of fair housing studies completed by different organizations across the United States, meta-analysis is an excellent method to 56

PAGE 66

employ for analyzing the data collected for this thesis. The discussion turns now to the actual methods I employed in gathering my data. The basic method I followed in obtaining the audit reports for this study are borrowed from George Galster. Taken from his article "Racial Discrimination in Housing Markets during the 1980's: A Review of the Audit Evidence," Galster's approach to locating housing discrimination audits for the 1980's became my starting point. First, I met with local housing discrimination expert Kathy Cheever, who at the time worked for HOME at NEWSED, Housing Opportunities Made Equal. Cheever suggested utilizing the National Neighbors, Inc. Fair Housing Resource Directory as a starting point. This had been one of Galster's first steps as well. Upon careful examination of the Directory, 105 fair housing agencies nationwide that were listed as conducting housing audit testing were contacted. The first round of contacts consisted of a personalized mailing to each agency requesting the release of any audit tests the agency had completed during the 1990's that had been made public information. The reason I requested data that had been made public is well known among fair housing advocates-leaking information to the public that a fair housing audit is underway in a community can have serious adverse affects on the outcome ofthe audit. The response to the letter-writing campaign was somewhat disheartening, as I quickly realized the staffs of the organizations are rather busy and concerned with daily duties, not scholarly representation. Initially I received approximately 10 57

PAGE 67

replies from the 1 05 letters I had sent. Approximately 15 letters were returned for improper addresses, with no future forwarding information. As the National Neighbor's directory had been published in 1994, and I began my study in August 1999, it became clear to me that several organizations had ceased to exist in that five year time-line, or had joined forces with similar agencies in their respective areas. As a measure of thorough research, I followed each letter I had written with a call, even to those organizations who had responded with a letter. The phone calls alone took approximately one month to complete, as time changes, busy signals, disconnected numbers, and even absence of an acting director in some organizations were the rule rather than the exception. Also during this time period, I began to search the Internet for sources of information, and spent approximately one month exhausting that avenue as well. Through the Internet I was able to download about four actual studies from different organizations, as well as contact nearly 100 new organizations I located via electronic mail, otherwise known as email. By the end of 1999, I had successfully obtained 60 reports from fair housing agencies, 30 pertaining to rental and sales audits, 20 pertaining to mortgage lending audits, and 10 pertaining to the overall functioning ofthe specific fair housing organization and it's mission and history. The process of acknowledging the organizations that offered the information was lengthy as the reports arrived at various times and through various means. Some responses directed me to other 58

PAGE 68

organizations, and in such situations both organizations were acknowledged, either via telephone, letter, or email. During the time-period between August and December 1999, I also focused on the theoretical perspective of the study through an intense literature review process. I located some 75 articles and texts on the topic of housing discrimination, including some press releases from the agencies themselves. I read six texts in their entirety in order to form a solid theoretical perspective from which to address the housing discrimination data I was collecting. The information presented in the Literature Review portion of this thesis outlines the highlights of the texts read during that critical time-period. The online resources for literature were varied, and I give significant credit to the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) website www.hud.gov, as well as www.fairhousing.com, as the most useful in locating online literature in the form of press releases and reports. Working with Galster's technique, and altering his procedures to fit my own progress and direction of this secondary analysis, I finished collecting new reports in January, 2000. Regardless of one's personal view on the topic, from a social scientist's perspective the lack of easily accessible housing discrimination data is a valid frame of reference for conducting future research. I found the process of collecting data arduous and rather frustrating at times, and although there are organizations like National Neighbor's available to assist in one's search, the lack of a centralized database for public information leads to a timely research process. The 1991 59

PAGE 69

Housing Discrimination Study funded by HUD and conducted in varying locations nationwide, included reports on the following topics: "Incidence and Severity of Unfavorable Treatment," prepared by John Yinger; "Incidence of Discrimination and Variations in Discriminatory Behavior, "prepared by John Yinger; "Analyzing Racial and Ethnic Steering," prepared by Margery Austin Turner, John G. Edwards, and Maris Mikelsons; "Mapping Patterns of Steering for Five Metropolitan Areas," prepared by Maris Mikelsons and Margery Austin Turner; "Replication of 1977 Study Measures with Current Data," prepared by Amina Elmi and Maris Mikelsons; "Synthesis," prepared by Margery Austin Turner, Raymond J Struyk and John Yinger. I offer these studies as a reference to future scholars in their pursuit of fair housing analysis. I chose not to incorporate the HUD studies as the data was collected in 1989, and my study focuses entirely on audit testing completed in the 1990's. I do think the reports contain a great deal of information with regard to what has been tested on a national scale, as well as ideas for methodology for future research. In discussing future sources for secondary analysis and housing discrimination in general, at the end of 1998, then HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo announced the initiation of "the most comprehensive and sophisticated nationwide 60

PAGE 70

audit ever conducted to test for and evaluate housing discrimination in urban, suburban and rural communities around the nation" (press release HUD no. 98-600, Monday Nov. 16 1998: www.hud.gov). Undoubtedly the results of some 3000-5000 tests using African Americans, Hispanics, Asian/Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans to "examine and evaluate patterns and trends in housing sales, rentals, and mortgage lending to minorities" will provide an excellent resource for housing scholars (press release HUD no. 98-600, Monday Nov. 16 1998: www.hud.gov). By visiting www.hud.gov as of April2001, it appears the final report has not been made public yet. Another point worthy of discussion is the fine line between scholarly research and applied research. As I made a specific point to gather applied research audit test results, there exists less of a discrepancy in defining the line within this study. However, there is validity in questioning the use of application-based research for a scholarly thesis. The literature on housing discrimination utilizes a mix of purely scholarly research and what I term "motivation-based" applied research. I turn to Michael Fix and Raymond J. Struyk's (1992) chapter on the "Advantages and Ethics of Auditing" from Clear and Convincing Evidence: Measurement of Discrimination in America to describe some ofthe advantages and criticisms of audit testing. Advantages include the comparative level of confidence audit testing inspire, the political persuasiveness of those results, the ability to detect subtle forms of discrimination, and the efficiency of audit testing as an enforcement tool. Criticisms 61

PAGE 71

include deception, invasion of privacy, use ofhuman subjects without their knowledge or consent, tester motives and their implications for reliability, and the difficulties in interpreting audit tests. The authors also discuss the use of audits for research and those used for enforcement, as I discussed above. The main difference lies within how the results are utilized. In research, or scholarly audits, discriminators do not learn that their practices have been discovered, and there is no confrontation initiated to influence a change in discriminatory behavior Contrary to research audits, enforcement audits are confined to the public realm and are oftentimes initiated as a reaction to complaints of discrimination. This study utilizes both kinds of audit reports, as well as several purely qualitative studies. It is my opinion that within the field of study, there is room for both scholarly I research audits as well as applied I enforcement audits. Funding for both can be obtained, and the results of both methods influence public policy and the scholarly discourse on housing discrimination. 62

PAGE 72

Illinois CHAPTER4 OUTLINE OF FINDINGS Northeast U.S. Chicago Lawyer's Committee for Better Housing, Leadership Council for Metropolitan Open Communities and the Metropolitan Tenant Organization Rental Audit Familial Status City of Chicago Commission on Human Relations-Legal Report Disability, Familial Status, Income, Race Iowa Iowa Civil Rights Commission-Rental Audit Disability, Familial Status, Race Iowa Civil Rights Commission-Rental Audit Familial Status, Race 63

PAGE 73

Iowa Civil Rights CommissionSales Audit Familial Status Massachusetts University of Massachusetts, HUD Nationwide Data-Rental Study Familial Status, Income, Race Minnesota Minnesota Fair Housing Center, Minneapolis-Rental Audit Familial Status, Income, Race Ohio City of Dayton, OhioRental & Sales Study Disability, Familial Status, Gender, National Origin, Race Southeast U.S. Greater District of Columbia Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington, DCRental Audit National Origin, Race 64

PAGE 74

Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington, DC-Sales Audit National Origin, Race Kentucky Kentucky Commission on Human Rights-Rental Audit Familial Status, Gender, National Origin, Race Virginia City of Alexandria, VA, Landlord-Tenants Relations Division of the Office of Housing-Rental Audit Race City of Alexandria, VA, LandlordTenants Relations Division of the Office of Housing-Rental Audit Race City of Alexandria, VA, Landlord-Tenants Relations Division of the Office of Housing-Rental Audit Familial Status 65

PAGE 75

City of Alexandria, VA, Landlord-Tenants Relations Division of the Office of Housing -Rental Audit Disability City of Alexandria, VA, Landlord-Tenants Relations Division ofthe Office of Housing-Rental Audit Race, Sexual Orientation City of Alexandria, VA, Office of Housing-Sales Audit National Origin, Race Northwest U.S. Alaska Alaska State Commission on Human Rights Complaint Report Race Montana Montana Human Rights Commission-Rental & Sales Study Familial Status 66

PAGE 76

Southwest U .S. California Fair Housing Congress of Southern California-Rental Audit Race Texas Texas Commission on Human Rights-Rental Audit Familial Status, Race 67

PAGE 77

Table 4.1 Incidence of Housing Discrimination by Region of the U.S 1990-1999 Housing Region Audit Date Sector #of Audits Protected Class Incidence Northeast U.S. IA 1990 Rental NIA Familial Status 58% lA 1995-1996 Rental 262 Disability 12% lA 1995-1996 Rental 402 Familial Status 19% IA 1995-1996 Rental 245 Race: Black I White 13% lA 1997-1998 Rental 462 Familial Status 7% lA 1997-1998 Rental 49 Race: Black I White 18% IA 1998-1999 Rental 304 Familial Status 6% MN 1996 Rental 37 Familial Status 19% MN 1996 Rental 37 Income-Public Assistance 5% MN 1996 Rental 37 Race: Black I White 50% MN 1996 Rental 35 Familial Status 3% MN 1996 Rental 35 Gender 3% MN 1996 Rental 35 Income-Public Assistance 3% MN 1996 Rental 35 Race: Black I White 57% Southeast U.S Greater DC 1996 Rental 163 Race: Black I White 44% Greater DC 1996 Rental 163 Race: Latino I White 37% Greater DC 1996 Sales 100 Race: Black I White 36% Greater DC 1996 Sales 100 Race: Latino I White 36% KY 1994-1996 Rental 62 Familial Status 32% KY 1994-1996 Rental 31 Gender 45% KY 1994-1996 Rental 27 Natl. Origin: Asian I White 14% KY 1994-1996 Rental 81 Race: Black I White 41% VA 1990 Rental 53 Race: Black I White 21% VA 1990 Rental 43 Race: Latino I White 19% VA 1990-1992 Rental 16 Race: Black I White 14% VA 1990-1992 Rental 8 Race: Latino I White 0% VA 1991 Rental 93 Familial Status 14% VA 1992-1993 Rental 291 Disabilities 10% VA 1996-1997 Rental 20 Race : Black I White 0% VA 1996-1997 Rental 20 Race: Latino I White 0% VA 1996-1997 Rental 79 Sexual Orientation 4% VA 1997-1998 Sales 62 Race : Black I White 13% 68

PAGE 78

Table 4.1 (Cont.) VA 1997-1998 Sales 62 Race: Latino I White 9% Northwest U.S. No Audit Tests Southwest U.S. CA 1999 Rental 10 Familial Status 10% CA 1999 Rental 10 Race: Black I Latino 70% CA 1999 Rental 11 Race: Black I Latino 0% CA 1999 Rental 11 Race: Black I Latino 36% CA 1999 Rental 13 Race: Black/LatinofKorean 46% TX 1996 Rental 25 Race: Latino I White 24% 69

PAGE 79

Illinois CHAPTERS FINDINGS Northeast U.S. Lawyer's Committee for Better Housing, the Leadership Council for Metropolitan' Open Communities, and the Metropolitan Tenants Organization: (need year) No Children Allowed: A Report of the Obstacles Faced by Renters with Children in the Chicago Rental Market. A rental audit study of five neighborhoods was conducted: Lakeview, Rogers Park, Logan Square, Austin and South Shore The focus of the rental audit was designed to measure "the extent of discrimination, if any, families with children experience when seek out rental housing in Chicago." Results: 58% of the time families with children experience discrimination. The study used small family size for the tester profiles-never more than two children. Conclusions: "If the extent of discrimination is high with two children families, we suspect it is higher for larger families, placing them at an even greater disadvantage in the rental market. Also, the children in our tester profiles were 70

PAGE 80

generally young school aged children. This was done to present the most acceptable family profile. Families with teenage boys, for example, had so much trouble simply getting appointments to view apartments that the audit supervisor was forced to change the ages of the children in the tester's profiles .. familial discrimination is subtle, that it is based primarily on differences in the terms and conditions that rental agents offer and that it covers units and buildings of all sizes." Recommendations: Increase public education about familial discrimination to renters, property owners and managers of apartment buildings, and to recognize the "weaknesses in the new federal and state law and their enforcement that fair housing attorneys and advocates should address." City of Chicago Commission on Human Relations 1997 Adjudication Report, Discrimination in Chicago: Housing, Employment, Credit. Bonding. Public Accommodation. There has been no audit testing completed; yet the Commission has compiled a comprehensive report outlining the action taken to investigate housing discrimination. The City of Chicago had the most housing complaints filed in 1997 than in previous years with a total of 217 complaints, or a 31% increase. Of the 217 cases filed, 154, or 71% were dismissed prior to adjudication (court action), 24, or 11% had a lack of substantial evidence, 98, or 45% resulted in settlement agreements, and 24, or 11% had substantial evidence found. 71

PAGE 81

The specific categories of complaints are as follows: 1) 60 cases or 22% based on race; 2) 31 cases or 11.5% based on disability; 3) 28 cases or 10% based on parental status; and 4) 90 cases or 33% based on source of income. Small percentages also based on color, sex, age, religion, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, and marital status. The average time it took the City of Chicago to move from the filing of the complaint to the completion of the investigation was 5.1 months. Iowa Civil Rights Commission ( ICRC) Housing Tests, February 1995-April 1996. The ICRC conducted 909tests, found 136 possible violations of fair housing laws, and filed 41 commissioner complaints. The ICRC tested landlords and real estate agents in 51 medium-sized communities (population range: 5,000-25,000), to determine whether tester-applicants would be refused rental or discouraged from making application because of familial status, physical disability, or race. Results: The ICRC conducted 909 tests402 familial status, 262 disability, and 245 race. In 19% of the familial status tests, 12% of the disability tests, and 13% of the race tests, the ICRC found possible violations of fair housing laws. "In the familial status tests, possible violations included (1) outright refusal to rent to families with children, (2) not allowing families with children on second and 72

PAGE 82

third floors, (3) segregating families with children in particular buildings, (4) advertising that families with children were not welcome by stating in the ad "no children," "ideal for singles," and "ideal for couples," (5) limiting occupancy to less than two persons per averaged-sized bedroom, (6) charging a higher deposit for families with children, and (7) charging a higher rent based on the number of people in the unit but not based on higher utility costs paid by the landlord." "In the disability tests, the ICRC tested to see if the landlords would allow tenants to make reasonable modifications of their rental units in order to accommodate the tenants' physical disabilities. Under state and federal fair housing laws, landlords must allow reasonable modifications at the tenants' expense. Possible violations included (1) outright refusal to make any accommodation and (2) discouraging statements like 'I don't think it can be done' and 'You'll have to speak to the owner about that'." "In the race tests, all the possible violations were based on different treatment; white testers were treated differently than African American testers. Possible violations included: (1) giving only the white tester an application, (2) telling only the white tester that the complex had a vacancy, (3) telling only the white tester that the complex offered a special, this month only, rent-reduction bonus, (4) telling only the white tester about other available units in other buildings also owned by the landlord, (5) allowing only the white tester to view I inspect the unit, (6) quoting a higher rent cost to the African American tester, (7) quoting a higher deposit cost to 73

PAGE 83

the African American tester, (8) telling only the African American tester about a compulsory carpet cleaning charge, (9) telling only the African American tester that the advertised unit had been pulled from the market, and (10) telling only the African American tester about extra charges for late rent and returned checks." Conclusions I Recommendations: "The ICRC's purpose in testing is to educate and reform. Everyone tested is contacted and informed about the test and the test results. Persons who pass the tests are thanked for following the law and persons who do not pass are either counseled regarding the law or served with a complaint, depending on the seriousness of the violation." Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC) Housing Tests, September 1997-August 1998. The ICRC tested 49 race-based and 462 family-status based rental housing tests in 12 communities randomly selected in Iowa. The communities included: Ames, Cedar Falls, Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs, Davenport, Des Moines, Fort Dodge, Marshalltown, Mason City, Muscatine, Ottumwa, and Waterloo. The on-site race-based housing test sites of rental property owners/managers and Realtors were selected from advertisements in local newspapers. During these tests, matched-pair testers (one African-American and one white) inquired about the availability of rental property. Minimums of three tests were attempted. "The familial status phone tests were conducted of rental property owners/managers and Realtors in each of the communities. During these tests, 74

PAGE 84

testers inquired about the availability of rental property. The number of tests conducted in each community varied depending on the availability of rental property. Minimums often phone tests per community were attempted." Results: Of the 49 race-based rental tests, 9 showed differential treatment. Of the 462 familial status tests, 34 showed differential treatment. Recommendations : Based on a total of 589 tests in the area of housing, credit and employment that the ICRC conducted during this time period, a total of 59, or 10% showed some form of different treatment. "In 10 of these cases, the different treatment was severe enough to lead to the filing of commissioner complaints. In each ofthese tests, the Testing Team-in reviewing the test result-could not see an apparent, logical reason for the different treatment." As the date ofthe publication ofthese results, the ICRC reported that six of the commissioner complaints were still under investigation, one was administratively closed due to the person who was tested providing sufficient explanation to the testing team for the differential treatment, and three had been settled. "Under the terms of the settlement agreements the persons tested agreed not to discriminate in the future, to schedule and attend fair housing training sessions, to include 'Families with Children Welcome' or Equal Housing Opportunity in their advertising, and to provide written reports concerning their compliance with the law." 75

PAGE 85

Iowa Civil Rights Commission ( ICRC) Housing Tests, December 1998-May 1999. The ICRC conducted 304 familial status housing phone tests in 12 communities throughout the state oflowa during a six month time period. The ICRC attempted to test communities that had not been tested in the past year. The tested communities were: Algona, Burlington, Clear Lake, Coralville, Dubuque, Ft. Madison, Maquoketa, Manchester, Newton, Oskaloosa, Sioux City, and Storm Lake Familial status phone tests were conducted of rental property owners/managers and Realtors in each of the communities listed above. The actual number of tests varied from community to community based on the availability of rental properties. Minimums of ten phone tests per community were attempted. Results: Ofthe 304 tests 18 showed differential treatment, and three complaints were filed. "Of the total number of tests, 6% showed some form of different treatment. In three cases, the different treatment was severe enough to lead to the filing of commissioner complaints. In each of these, the Testing Team-in reviewing the test results could not see an apparent, logical reason for the different treatment." Recommendations: The testing team, comprised of the Testing Coordinator, the Manager of the Housing Investigations Unit, an Assistant Attorney General, an Investigator, and the Executive Director of the ICRC, determined whether the person tested "passed," whether a re-test was needed in order to draw any reasonable conclusions, or whether a commissioner complaint should be filed. From this point, 76

PAGE 86

the testing team determined if a formal commissioner complaint was to be filed or if a meeting with the person tested would suffice to communicate the necessary information to avoid further discriminatory action. Of particular interest are the comparison results given by the ICRC for the communities that were previously tested within the past five years. Results are sorted by community to illustrate the correlation between the recommendations given by the commission through the formal complaint process, and the apparent results seen in the communities. In six of the ten communities listed below where a complaint was filed by the commission as a result of the findings of the 199511996 testing program, differential treatment was either reduced or eliminated as measured by the 1998/1999 testing program. The results are listed below in Table 5.1: Algona: 1998/1999 Test Results 1995/1996 Test Results Tests Conducted 13 Tests Conducted 10 Different Treatment 0 Different Treatment 2 Complaints 0 Complaints 2 Clear Lake : 1998/1999 Test Results 1995/1996 Test Results Tests Conducted 20 Tests Conducted 19 Different Treatment 0 Different Treatment 2 Complaints 0 Complaints 2 77

PAGE 87

Table 5.1 (Cont.) Coralville: 199811999 Test Results 1995/1996 Test Results Tests Conducted 26 Tests Conducted 19 Different Treatment 2 Different Treatment 2 Complaints 0 Complaints 2 Ft. Madison: 1998/1999 Test Results 199511996 Test Results Tests Conducted 10 Tests Conducted 9 Different Treatment 3 Different Treatment 2 Complaints 1 Complaints 2 Maquoketa: 1998/1999 Test Results 1995/1996 Test Results Tests Conducted 12 Tests Conducted 9 Different Treatment 1 Different Treatment 6 Complaints 0 Complaints 2 "I Manchester: 1998/1999 Test Results 1995/1996 Test Results Tests Conducted 7 Tests Conducted 6 Different Treatment 0 Different Treatment 3 Complaints 0 Complaints 2 Newton: 1998/1999 Test Results 1995/1996 Test Results Tests Conducted 13 Tests Conducted 12 Different Treatment 0 Different Treatment 3 Complaints 0 Complaints 2 78

PAGE 88

Table 5 1 (Cont.) Oskaloosa: 1998/1999 Test Results 1995/1996 Test Results Tests Conducted 23 Tests Conducted 17 Different Treatment 2 Different Treatment 1 Complaints 1 Complaints 1 Sioux City: 1998/1999 Test Results 1995/1996 Test Results Tests Conducted 74 Tests Conducted 10 Different Treatment 6 Different Treatment 3 Complaints 0 Complaints 1 Storm Lake: 1998/1999 Test Results 1995/1996 Test Results Tests Conducted 11 Tests Conducted 10 Different Treatment 1 Different Treatment 2 Complaints 0 Complaints 1 Massachusetts University of Massachusetts Housing Study, Discrimination, Written by Ellen Pader, David Winsor and James Palma. The primary sources of information on housing discrimination in Massachusetts are the federal government's Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and it's Fair Housing Assistance Project (FHAP), as well as the Massachusetts Commission against Discrimination (MCAD) 79

PAGE 89

and the housing courts. There are also non-profit organizations, such as the Housing Discrimination Project, Inc. (HDP) in Western Massachusetts The HUD I FHAP data consists of complaint-based reports during the period 1990-1998, 2,171 complaints in all. The complaints include only federally protected populations. Reports name the protected category of each complainant and the type of discrimination alleged. The predominant bases for complaints during this time period were race and color. The 1990 census reported that members of racial and ethnic minorities represented more than 19% of all renters in the state. Two-thirds of Massachusetts's racial I ethnic minority residents are exclusively dependent on the residential real estate market for housing. Results: "Data on the rental market reveal a significant amount of discrimination. HUD/FHAP data for 1997 reported 150 allegations of rental discrimination in Massachusetts for that year alone, with 1,688 complaints since 1990. Of these, the vast majority (860) were for discrimination, in the terms, conditions, or privileges, in renting a home; and for discriminatory refusal to rent (787). These make up more than 75% of all housing discrimination complaints filed with HUD/FHAP since 1990. The majority were filed by people who felt discriminated against because of their race and/or color, with familial and handicap status not far behind." "Data from the Housing Discrimination Project, Inc., in Western Massachusetts (1992 1997) paints a similar picture, but also includes information 80

PAGE 90

on state-protected groups. The state-only categories (source of income, sexual orientation, age and marital status) account for a large number ofthe complaints handled by the organization." "Of approximately 1 ,3 7 5 complaints filed, 409 were based on categories of people protected by state but not federal laws. The majority of these complaints, 350, were based on source ofincome, with 188 ofthose being filed by people who felt they were refused housing because of their dependence on housing subsidies, a factor that translates into a form of discrimination against families with children." "When including both federal and state protected categories, the HDP data show that the highest reported single basis for discrimination was national origin, with familial status being second. HDP complaints derive primarily from Hamden Hampshire counties in Western Massachusetts, where HDP's primary office is located while HUD complaints originate primarily in the eastern part ofthe state: their office is in Boston. Much of the commonwealth is underrepresented." Conclusion: The findings of the secondary analysis of the University of Massachusetts authors point to the presence oflocal fair housing organizations' dissemination of information on the Fair Housing Act as a general practice to "potential home-seekers, as well as landlords, property managers and lenders. In the absence of such organizations, neither information nor guidance may be readily available." Hence, housing discrimination continues, despite state and federal 81

PAGE 91

regulation's forbiddance. The authors find this discrimination based "only because of personal prejudice." Minnesota The Minnesota Fair Housing Center, Minneapolis, MN, 1996 Study, Housing Discrimination: A Reoort on the Rental Practices in Two Minneapolis Communities. The Minnesota Fair Housing Center conducted a total of72 tests over a period of six months. 37 tests were complied in Northeast Minneapolis, and 35 were completed in Southwest. Eighteen tests were incomplete and unable to be used because only one tester was able to secure an appointment. Although the tests were set up to monitor only race-based discrimination, the evidence gathered showed, in addition to racial discrimination, several instances of discrimination based on familial status and public assistance status. Methodology: Strong evidence of less favorable treatment includes: 1) Statements categorically excluding groups; 2) Showing certain groups inferior units; 3) More requirements for certain groups; and Applications given to white testers and not others on the same day. Some evidence ofless favorable treatment includes a combination of: 1) More information given to white testers than to others; 2) Applications given to white testers and not to others when visits were more than one day apart; and 3) Not showing up for appointments for testers of color. Insufficient 82

PAGE 92

evidence ofless favorable treatment includes: 1) Testers received essentially the same treatment, and 2) Not enough information gathered to make a determination. Results: Northeast: 72.9% of the cases, 27 out of37, showed differences in treatment based on race, familial status, or public assistance status. In 49.9% of the cases, 18 out of37, less favorable treatment was given based on race. In 18.9% of the cases, seven out of37, families with children were excluded. In 5.4% ofthe cases, two out of37, people on public assistance were treated less favorably. Southwest: 65.7% of the cases, 23 out of35, showed differences in treatment based on race, familial status, public assistance status, or gender. In 57.1% ofthe cases, 20 out of35, less favorable treatment was given based on race. One case each of discrimination based on family status, public assistance status, or gender surfaced during the testing process. Combined Average: In both communities, Northeast and Southwest, a total of 69.4% of the cases, 50 out of72, showed difference in treatment based on race, family status or public assistance status. In 52.8% of the cases, 38 out of72, less favorable treatment was given based on race. In 11.1 % ofthe cases, eight out of72, families with children were excluded. In 4.2 % of the cases, three out of 72, people on public assistance were treated less favorably. Conclusions: "In Northeast [Minneapolis}, where rents are generally lower than in Southwest, and more affordable to lower income households, the testing identified practices geared to exclude or burden households receiving public 83

PAGE 93

assistance. It is fair to conclude that these practices are much more widespread than these findings would indicate for the reason that these survey tests were not designed to uncover discrimination based on public assistance status. The testers in all instances were assigned jobs and a monthly income at least three times the amount of the rent." "The same can be said of the treatment of families with children. This study was not designed to assess discriminatory practices against families with children. Even so, testing identified many units that categorically excluded households with children." "One form of race-based discrimination appeared in Southwest [Minneapolis], where rents are generally high. In four cases, white testers were offered a discount on the monthly rent; testers of color were offered no such discount. In Northeast [Minneapolis] no one was offered discounts on rent." Also to note: "The racial composition of Northeast and Southwest is predominately white." Limitations provided by the authors: "This study does not intend to be a comprehensive description of the practices ofhousing providers in the rental market. The study has several limitations. First, very few tests were conducted using Asian and American Indian testers. It is difficult, therefore, to generalize from the test results about their experiences in the rental market. Rather, their experiences are anecdotal." 84

PAGE 94

"Second, this study was structured to test the rental market only to the point of filling out an application. Testers were expressly instructed not to fill out applications. Discriminatory practices, if any, that occur in the process of screening applications and selecting tenants were not within the scope of this study. Therefore, this study probably underrates the amount of discrimination in the rental housing market." "Third, some units were available but could not be tested because testers were unable to reach the rental contact person. In instances, however, where a white tester and a tester of color called a rental agent within a few hours of one another, and the agent returned the call of the white tester and chose not to return the call of the tester of color, it was presumed that the reason for no call back was race and a conclusion ofless favorable treatment was drawn. In addition if agents showed units to groups of potential applicants, these units were excluded because the study was intended to monitor the experience of individual home seekers "Fourth, this was not a random testing of all units available in the area Rather, the effort was made to test all units advertised in the newspaper." "Finally, in most cases, each unit was tested only once and not multiple times. As a result, in some cases, individual owners or agents can make no determination about the extent of systematic practices. Instead, this study provides a cross section of community rental practices-a slice oflife in Northeast and Southwest." 85

PAGE 95

Recommendations: "The City of Minneapolis is guided by the fundamental housing principle that prospective buyers and renters will have greater choice in where they live (Housing Principle #1, Resolution of the City ofMinneapolis, 1995). The City seeks to meet that goal by increasing the variety of housing types in the metropolitan area. Such a strategy, without fair housing enforcement and education, is essentially meaningless for groups burdened by the effects of discrimination. Survey testing is necessary in order to begin to understand the range and types of discriminatory practices operating in various communities. Testing needs to be a priority for other Minneapolis neighborhoods, suburban communities and for St. Paul. Further, all aspects ofthe housing market need to be tested. The rental application process itself is an important area to study. The reference I credit check may be an area that reveals discriminatory practices. The sales market is another area for testing real estate agents, lenders, insurers, and appraisers all need monitoring. Once discriminatory practices are identified and addressed, then prospective buyers and renters will have meaningful and increased choice about where they live." 86

PAGE 96

Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing and Housing Choice in Dayton, Ohio, Prepared for the City of Dayton by Higginbothan, Ishmon, and Strawhun (HIS) and The McCoy Co. 1997. The City ofDayton contracted with Higginbothan, Ishmon, and Strawhun (HIS) to conduct its study, and HIS in tum subcontracted with the McCoy Co to assist with the project. In addition, the City of Dayton and the Human Relations Council (DHRC) provided various support and assistance throughout the analysis. "A range of data, reports, and studies were examined and analyzed for this project. Numerous individuals and institutions participated in the analysis of impediments to fair housing and housing choice conducted for the City of Dayton. This includes over 50 focus group participants, selected interviewees, and City of Dayton officials and staff. In short, this analysis of impediments to fair housing and housing choice captured the opinions and views of a wide variety of participants which included policy makers, service providers housing consumers etc." Methods: HIS utilized three modalities in their analysis : 1) Personal interviews with housing consumers, providers, advocacy and neighborhood groups, various associations, civil rights organizations, lenders, and others; 2) A review of relevant studies and data including the 1995 Consolidated Plan .. Home Mortgage Disclosure 87

PAGE 97

Act data, fair housing complaints and cases processed by DHRC, etc.; and 3) Three focus groups with different audiences. Results: "1) Discrimination is viewed as the major or most prevalent impediment to fair housing and housing choice; 2) There is a continuing need for DHRC to heighten fair housing awareness, and to continue its educational and enforcement activities aimed at promoting fair housing and housing choice; and 3) There is a need for more affordable and assisted housing, especially among those classes protected under the Fair Housing Act." Evaluation of Dayton's Current Fair Housing Legal Status-Quantitative Analysis: The 85 most recent complaints of housing discrimination reported to the DHRC involved complaints based on race, handicap, sex, familial status, and national origin. "These cases were disposed of in a number of ways. Seven cases received a 'probable cause' finding. Clearly, the majority of cases resulted in 'negotiated settlement agreements' or 'conciliation's'." In addition, the City of Dayton recently participated in a landmark discrimination case involving a City resident whose insurance was canceled. The case, Beavers v. Nationwide, was litigated for six years and reached the U.S. Supreme Court." Assessment of Current Public and Private Fair Housing Programs, Activities, and Actions in Dayton: "The City of Dayton has a history of organizing and carrying 88

PAGE 98

out programs, activities, and initiatives aimed at furthering fair housing and housing choice. Among the City ofDayton's more notable accomplishments are: Forming the Dayton Human Relations Council (DHRC) on May 9, 1962 to protect the civil rights of those living or working within the city; Passing a Fair Housing Ordinance on September 10, 1967 and continually updating this ordinance; Receiving and maintaining 'substantial equivalency' status; Developing and implementing a housing discrimination outreach, education, and advertising campaign using video, billboards, and displays on local buses to inform residents; and Commissioning numerous studies and analyses related to fair housing. Conclusions and Recommendations: The most significant impediment to fair housing and subsequent recommendation to the focus of this study is as follows: "Impediment #6: Mortgage lending disparities between the African-American and white communities. Recommendations for the City of Dayton are to: continue to sponsor analyses ofHMDA data and fair lending practices oflocal financial institutions, as well as to share these findings with lenders, public officials, and the general public; continue existing education and outreach activities focused on fair lending within Dayton; and continue Dayton's Community Reinvestment Institute, which educates interested residents in how to use the Community Reinvestment Act and work with local lenders." 89

PAGE 99

Southeast U.S. Greater District of Columbia The Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington, The Fair Housing fudex: An Audit o(Race & National Origin Discrimination in the Greater Washington Rental Housing Market 1997 The Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington conducted 163 rental tests in Washington, DC, Maryland and Virginia by full-time black, white and Latino testers. The use of full-time testers is unique to this study as in the past the Council used volunteer testers. Full-time testers "guarantee a solid group of reliable and consistent professionals." The areas tested were: Washington, DC; Prince George's County, MD; Montgomery County, MD (including the Cities of Rockville, Gaithersburg and Takoma Park); Arlington County, VA; Fairfax County, VA (including the cities of. Falls Church and Fairfax); and the City of Alexandria, VA. The test utilized a random selection process with regard to the locations tested. No particular area or demographic was targeted. Methodology: "To divide the tests fairly throughout the region, the Council used the mathematical concept of weight ranking. Variables considered in proportioning the number of tests were: population and demographic data; total 90

PAGE 100

number of rental complexes in each area; housing data; income data; and complaint data. Between August and October 1996, 163 tests were conducted. Once the number of tests per area was determined, specific sites to be tested were selected at random. No tests were conducted at sites where the Council had an ongoing investigation or had recently received a complaint; that is, no test sites were targeted and sites already suspect of discrimination were avoided. Further, tests were scattered among all areas of apartment availability within each jurisdiction." Also of importance to the validity of this study is the fact that the testers conducted their tests on the same day. This clearly reduces the number of individuals the testers could possibly encounter at any given test site. Results: In 1997, African Americans in the Greater Washington area encountered some form of discrimination in their search for housing 44% of the time. Latinos encountered some form of discrimination in their search for housing 37% of the time. The overall results ofthe rental audit testing are as follows: Washington, DCof the 53 tests completed, 15 or 28% showed evidence of discrimination; Marylandof the 55 tests completed, 27 or 49% showed evidence of discrimination; Virginiaofthe 55 tests completed, 26 or 47% showed evidence of discrimination; and in the entire metropolitan area-of the 163 tests completed, 68 or 42% showed evidence of discrimination. 91

PAGE 101

Results ofTesting Based on Race are as follows: Washington, DC-of the 39 tests completed, 10 or 26% showed evidence of discrimination; Maryland-ofthe 37 tests completed, 19 or 51% showed evidence of discrimination; Virginia-of the 36 test completed, 20 or 56% showed evidence of discrimination; and in the entire metropolitan area-ofthe 112 tests completed, 49 or 44% showed evidence of discrimination. Results of testing based on national origin are as follows: Washington, DC-of the 14 tests completed, five or 36% showed evidence of discrimination; Marylandof the 18 tests completed, eight or 44% showed evidence of discrimination; Virginia -of the 19 tests completed, six or 32% showed evidence of discrimination; and in the entire metropolitan area-ofthe 51 tests completed, 19, or 37% showed evidence of discrimination. Recommendations: "The Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington recommends the following actions be taken to address the moral urgency and social bankruptcy ofhousing discrimination in Washington Metropolitan area: 1. All recommendations found in the Regional and Local Analyses of Impediments to Fair Housing should be immediately implemented by entitlement jurisdictions through comprehensive regional fair housing planning. 2. Local entitlement jurisdictions should increase their funding allocations for significant fair housing enforcement, education and outreach, research, advocacy, and planning. Such allocations should be considered in the context of cost-efficient, 92

PAGE 102

effective local private-public partnerships for the furtherance of civil rights and equal housing opportunities. 3. Federal, state, and local civil rights authorities must educate the general public about the extent ofhousing discrimination and about available administrative and civil recourse. The housing industry should proactively seek to achieve universal fair housing compliance by working with private and public fair housing organizations to educate agents, owners, and managers of apartment complexes about fair housing and by engaging in self-testing. 4. Religious, educational, and civic groups should integrate their missions with the goal of promoting fair housing through education and outreach in our community. Fair Housing advocates should work in concert with them to make all sectors ofthe community aware of the links between fair housing and other issues, ranging from community development to educational opportunities and the environment. 5. Real estate, financial and insurance professionals, along with publishers, advertisers, and other private sector leaders, should work with fair housing advocates to formalize their commitments to affirmatively furthering fair housing through their business policies, client protocol, and public relations/advertising efforts." The Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington, The Fair Housing Index: An Audit o(Race & National Origin Discrimination in the Greater Washington Real 93

PAGE 103

Estate Sales Market-1997. The Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington conducted 100 tests in Washington, DC, Maryland and Virginia by full-time black, white and Latino testers The use of full-time testers is unique to this study as in the past the Council used volunteer testers. Full-time testers "guarantee a solid group of reliable and consistent professionals." The areas tested were: Washington, DC; Prince George's County, MD; Montgomery County, MD (including the Cities of Rockville, Gaithersburg and Takoma Park); Arlington County, VA; Fairfax County, VA (including the cities of Falls Church and Fairfax); and the City of Alexandria, VA. The test utilized a random selection process with regard to the locations tested. No particular area or demographic was targeted. Methodology: "To divide the tests fairly throughout the region, the Council used the mathematical concept of weight ranking. Variables considered in proportioning the number oftests were: demographic data, housing data, home values, number of units for sale, number of homes sold in 1995, and complaint data. For this audit, specific sites to be tested were selected at random. No tests based on race or national origin were conducted at offices where the Council had an ongoing investigation or had recently received a complaint; that is, no test sites were targeted and sites already suspected of discrimination were avoided. A total of 100 tests were conducted between September and November 1996 Tests were scattered among all areas of apartment availability within each jurisdiction." 94

PAGE 104

Results: "Blacks and Hispanics face discrimination more than 36% ofthe time when they try to purchase a home in the Greater Washington area. In Northern Virginia, Latinos encounter discrimination in one out of every two visits to a real estate office, while in Suburban Maryland, African Americans encounter discrimination 50% of the time. Notably, Latinos are more frequently discriminated against than their black or white neighbors in this region are. Discriminatory practices documented included steering, misrepresentation of the availability of homes, the use of mortgage pre-qualification as a pretext for race and/or national origin discrimination, and unsolicited remarks or information that violate the United States Fair Housing Act." "Though this study uses distinct methodology, the results are similar to the national liDS, in which misrepresentation of availability of units occurred on average 37% of the time, steering 21% of the time, and unfavorable treatment 40% of the time. The overall national rate of sales discrimination was 50%." The overall results of the sales audit testing are as follows: Washington, DC -of the 18 tests completed, five or 28% showed evidence of discrimination; Maryland -of the 36 tests completed, 16 or 44% showed evidence of discrimination; Virginia-of the 46 tests completed, 15 or 33% showed evidence of discrimination; and in the entire metropolitan area-of the 100 tests completed, 36 or 36% showed evidence of discrimination. 95

PAGE 105

Results of testing based on race are as follows: Washington, DCof the 10 tests completed, two or 20% showed evidence of discrimination; Maryland -of the 24 tests completed, 12 or 50% showed evidence of discrimination; Virginia-ofthe 30 test completed, seven or 23% showed evidence of discrimination; and in the entire metropolitan area-of the 64 tests completed, 21 or 33% showed evidence of discrimination. Results oftesting based on national origin are as follows: Washington, DC -of the eight tests completed, three or 38% showed evidence of discrimination; Maryland-of the 12 tests completed, four or 33% showed evidence of discrimination; Virginia-of the 16 tests completed, eight or 50% showed evidence of discrimination; and in the entire metropolitan area -of the 36 tests completed, 15 or 42% showed evidence of discrimination. Recommendations: "The Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington recommends the following actions be taken to address the moral urgency and social bankruptcy ofhousing discrimination in Washington Metropolitan area: 1. All recommendations found in the Regional and Local Analyses of Impediments to Fair Housing should be immediately implemented by entitlement jurisdictions through comprehensive regional fair housing planning. 2. Local Association of Realtors should negotiate Partnership Agreements with the Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington, human rights commissions, and other private and public sector organizations interested in fair housing, modeled 96

PAGE 106

upon the December 51h, 1996 Fair Housing Partnership Agreement between the National Association of Realtors Fair Housing and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Partnership initiatives should employ fair housing experts to expand voluntary compliance, education, and outreach programs, and include testing as a voluntary compliance tool. 3. Local entitlement jurisdictions should increase their funding allocations for significant fair housing enforcement, education and outreach, research, advocacy, and planning. Such allocations should be considered in the context of cost-efficient, effective local private-public partnerships for the furtherance of civil rights and equal housing opportunities. 4. Federal, state, and local civil rights authorities must educate the general public about the extent of housing discrimination and about available administrative and civil recourse. The housing industry should proactively seek to achieve universal fair housing compliance by working with private and public fair housing organizations to educate agents, owners, and managers of apartment complexes about fair housing and by engaging in self-testing. 5. Neighborhood diversity should be celebrated through coordinated integration maintenance initiatives (such as the Oak Park, Illinois model), sponsored by government agencies, professional and civic association, and advocacy groups. 6. Religious, educational, and civic groups should integrate their missions with the goal of promoting fair housing through education and outreach in our 97

PAGE 107

community. Fair Housing advocates should work in concert with them to make all sectors of the community aware of the links between fair housing and other issues, ranging from community development to educational opportunities and the environment. 7. Real estate, financial and insurance professionals, along with publishers, advertisers, and other private sector leaders, should work with fair housing advocates to formalize their commitments to affirmatively furthering fair housing through their business policies, client protocol, and public relations/advertising efforts." Kentucky Commission on Human Rights and the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission, October 1, 1994-June 30, 1996, Rental Audit Study. 201 tests were conducted covering 82 apartment complexes in the Lexington Area. The apartment complexes were tested for potential discriminatory practices based on the variables race, sex, national origin, and familial status. Not every complex was tested on every variable. Results: Familial Status: Children I No Children and same gender, race and national origin; 62 tests, or 32% found positive indicators of discrimination; and no past tests conducted so no future indicators based on a trend. Gender: Male I Female and same race and national origin; 31 tests, or 45% found positive indicators of discrimination; and no past tests conducted so no future indicators based on a trend. National Origin: Asian I Caucasian and same gender; 27 tests, or 14% found positive 98

PAGE 108

indicators of discrimination; and no past tests conducted so no future indicators based on a trend. Race: Black I white with most being male pairs, few being female pairs; 81 tests, or 41% found positive indicators of discrimination; and two past tests in were conducted. Initially the incidence of discrimination increased from roughly 38% 1991 to 48% in 1992, but in 1996 the incidence decreased to 41%. Conclusions: Out ofthe 201 tests completed, race was the largest factor in discrimination at 16%, familial status second at 10% and national origin and sex tied at third with 7% of the tests being discriminatory. Although 40% of the tests found discriminatory practices, 60% did not. The authors of the study are hopeful that through education the prevalence of discriminatory practices will decrease. Virginia LandlordTenant Relations Division ofthe Office of Housing, City of Alexandria, Virginia, January-May 1990, Race-Based Housing Discrimination Rental Audit Study. 96 tests were conducted at 79 major apartment complexes, utilizing nine different testers. Pairs were Hispanic I white and black I white. Results: Overa1113 apartment complexes showed disparate treatment. 12 complexes, or 15.9% showed white testers receiving better treatment and one complex showed Hispanic testers receiving better treatment. Black I white: 11 out of 99

PAGE 109

53 tests, or 20.75% showed white testers receiving better treatment. Hispanic I white: eight out of 43 tests, or 18 6% showed white testers receiving better treatment. Previous tests showed higher percentages of problem tests, but a much smaller sample of apartment buildings were tested. Recommendations: One test resulted in a complaint filed against the complex. The City of Alexandria worked with the other 12 complexes in order to educate employees and owners in various fair housing compliance measures. Landlord-Tenant Relations Division ofthe Office ofHousing, City of Alexandria, Virginia, December 1990-January 1992, Testing ofReal Estate Companies for Discrimination Against Black and Hispanic Persons. 10 testers comprised of three blacks two Hispanics and five whites tested 21 major real estate companies in the city of Alexandria. Paid testers conducted 24 tests total including the retests. 16 black l white tests, eight Hispanic I white tests completed. The goal of this audit was to determine if white testers would be treated differently than black I Hispanic testers. Results: Disparate treatment between black I white testers was found at three ofthe 21 or 14.3% of the real estate companies tested. No disparate treatment between Hispanic I white testers was found. Examples of the issues encountered are as follows : 1) Insisting that black testers make appointments while allowing white testers to see rental agents without appointments, and in one case, falsely denying 100

PAGE 110

that a black tester had made an appointment; 2) Providing a list of available units to a white tester, but not to a black one; 3) Offering a larger number of available units to a white tester than to a black one; 4) Providing black testers with information on poorer quality units than units about which white testers were given information; and 5) Providing a white tester with information on units at the requested location, while providing a black tester with information on units in a different part ofthe city. Recommendations: The City Attorney did not file a formal complaint, but instead staff met with the owners of the three companies to educate with the purpose of alleviating such issues of discrimination in the future, as well as to inform the owners ofthe legal requirements surrounding renting property in the City of Alexandria. Landlord-Tenant Relations Division ofthe Office ofHousing, City of Alexandria, Virginia, Testing ofMajor Apartment Complexes for, Discrimination against Families with Children, 1991. 14 Testers comprised of six blacks, four Hispanics and four whites visited 71 major apartment complexes in the City with 20 units or more. 93 tests were completed. Each pair oftesters consisted of persons of the same race who presented themselves as having different family compositions. Results: 10 ofthe 71 complexes, or 14.1% demonstrated treatment that adversely affected families with children. Examples ofthe disparate treatment are as follows: 101

PAGE 111

1) The rental agent stated that a tester purporting to be a single parent with three children could not rent a two-bedroom unit, but offered a two-bedroom unit to a tester requiring a unit for four adults. 2) Testers were told that company policy allowed only four or five persons in a three-bedroom unit, when the City's occupancy code would allow six persons. This example was applied to both testers with and without children, yet company occupancy standards, which are more restrictive than official building code requirements, may limit housing opportunities for families with children Recommendations: The City Attorney (at the time of the report) had filed a formal complaint against one ofthe 10 complexes, but did not see sufficient reason to file formal complaints against the remaining nine, of which the examples of disparate treatment are listed above. Education and reiteration of fair housing law by city staff were offered to the complexes. Landlord-Tenant Relations Division of the Office ofHousing, City of Alexandria, Virginia, June 1992-October 1993, Testing for Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities. I) Testing for Discrimination against Persons with AIDS: Four testers, including testers with AIDS and testers without the disease, conducted 39 tests, including retests, in 36 apartment complexes. 102

PAGE 112

2) Testing for Discrimination against Persons with Past History of Alcoholism: Two testers, including one with a past history of alcoholism, conducted 36 tests of 35 apartment complexes (one complex was retested). 3) Testing for Discrimination against Persons with Past Drug Problems : Pairs of testers, including one recovering drug addict, conducted 35 tests, including retests, in 32 apartment complexes. 4) Testing for Discrimination against Persons with Hearing Impairment: 37 tests, including retests, were conducted in 33 apartment complexes by two teams of hearing impaired testers and non-hearing impaired testers. 5) Testing for Discrimination against Persons with Mental Illness: Pairs of testers conducted 40 tests, including retests, in 38 apartment complexes. Each pair consisted of a tester with a history of mental illness and a tester without a history of mental illness. 6) Testing for Discrimination against Persons with Mobility Impairment: 56 tests, including retests, were conducted in 45 apartment complexes for discrimination against persons with mobility impairments. Results: The results will be listed in summary form, as a percentage and as an actual number of discriminatory problems experienced by the testers. 1) AIDS: Of 36 tests, 8.3%, or three tests, encountered discrimination; 2) Substance Abuse I Alcohol: Of35 tests, 2.9%, or one test, encountered discrimination; 3) Drug Abuse: Of32 tests, 9.4%, or three tests, encountered discrimination; 4) Hearing Impairment: 103

PAGE 113

Of 33 tests, 12.1 %, or four tests, encountered discrimination; 5) Mental Impairment: Of 3 8 tests, 5.3 %, or two tests, encountered discrimination; and 6) Visual Impairment: Of 44 tests, 9.1 %, or four tests, encountered discrimination. There were 291 total tests, and the percentage of problems to overall complexes tested was 9.6%. Conclusions: The City of Alexandria, VA, upon receiving the conclusions of the fair housing tests, will meet with the 23 complexes where there was evidence of disparate treatment involving persons with disabilities to explain the federal and City laws. The City will also ask the owners of the complexes to provide their employees with fair housing training, and the complexes will be monitored for compliance. Landlord-Tenant Relations Division of the Office ofHousing, City of Alexandria, Virginia, March 1996 January 1997, Testing for Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Testing for Discrimination Based on Race: Blacks and Hispanics. Testing for Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation: 75 complexes, out of 88 in the City of Alexandria with 20 or more units were tested for discrimination based on sexual orientation. Two teams visited each complex, one consisting of an openly gay or lesbian couple, and one consisting of a male/female couple who presented themselves as an engaged couple. In each test, both tester couples were ofthe same race. Nine tester couples (including five openly gay or lesbian couples) consisting of five (56%) black couples (three ofwhom were gay), 104

PAGE 114

two (22%) Hispanic couples (one of whom was gay) and two (22%) white couples (one of whom was gay). Black testers, 15% by Hispanic testers, and 13% visited 71% of the complexes by white testers. "The predominance ofblack testers and the disproportionate share of tests conducted by black testers was due to difficulty in recruiting and retaining white and Hispanic gay testers for the duration of the testing." A total of79 tests, including retests, were carried out in the 75 major apartment complexes . Testing for Discrimination Based on Race: 20 tests were conducted, 12 random tests and 8 targeted tests, in 20 apartment complexes. The 12 randomly selected complexes represent 15% of the City's complexes with 20 or more units. Three paired tester teams (two consisting of one black and one white tester, and one consisting of one Hispanic and one white tester) conducted this category of tests. Results: Sexual Orientation Tests: Out of 75 tests, 4.0%, or four tests, encountered discrimination. Race Based Tests: Out of 20 tests, 0%, or zero tests, encountered discrimination. Conclusions: FollQwing suit with the previous recommendations by the City of Alexandria, the complexes that showed discriminatory behavior will meet with City Housing staff to discuss the problems found during the testing, and recommend appropriate measures to be taken to correct these problems. Also to be recommended is fair housing training to all their employees, as well as retesting in the future for compliance 105

PAGE 115

Office of Housing Fair Housing Testing Program, City of Alexandria, Virginia, September 1997 and May 1998, Testing for Race-based and National Origin Housing Sales Discrimination. A total of 62 tests, including retests, were conducted, and were divided as follows: 23 tests for single family sales, 19 for town homes, and 20 for condominium sales. A total of 22 testers, consisting of 11 whites, seven African-Americans, and four Hispanics were selected. Three teams were created, each team consisting of a pair of white and African American or white and Hispanic testers. Hispanic and white teams conducted a total of30% of the initial tests, and African-American and white teams conducted 70% of the initial tests (The division of the tests between Hispanic and African-American testers mirrors their distribution within the City's minority population. According to the 1990 Census, the ratio of African-Americans to Hispanics in Alexandria is 70/30.) Results: "Both the percentage of firms with problems and the percentage of problem tests are higher for real estate sales than for any previous category oftesting under the Fair Housing Testing Program. For the real estate sales tests, problems consisted primarily of differential treatment in the following areas: (1) the mortgage loan amount for which the tester is advised that he or she can qualify; (2) the number of listings of available properties given to the tester; (3) the ease or difficulty in being able to see an agent; and (4) the provision of information other than real estate 106

PAGE 116

listings. Of the 16 firms tested, nine (56.3%) evidenced problems in the initial tests. Of these, 12 (19%) problems occurred at the initial tests and two (3%) during retests. The highest incidence of problems was found in single-family sales (six of23 tests, or 26.1 %) followed by condominium tests (five of20 tests, or 25%), with townhouse tests showing the lowest incidence of problems (three of 19 tests, or 15.8%). Ofthe 14 problem tests (including retests) eight problems (57%) occurred in tests involving African-American/white tester teams, and six problems (43%) occurred in tests involving Hispanic/white testers. Retests were conducted for each ofthe 12 initial tests where differential treatment was found. These 12 tests involved nine firms. Problems were encountered on two retests involving two firms, bringing the number of problem tests to 14." Conclusions: Based on the results of the housing sales tests, the City of Alexandria filed complaints against three firms based on the results of the real estate sales tests. In two of the three firms where complaints were recommended, there were problems on at least one retest. One firm did not evidence differential treatment on retests, but the initial test showed such egregious discrimination that a complaint was warranted. The City also realized the need for training for the housing sales professionals on a citywide basis, also including apartment managers, not specific to test findings. A local real estate firm actually requested the citywide training. 107

PAGE 117

Northwest U.S. Alaska Per Phone Conversation with Helen Sharrett. Alaska State Commission on Human Rights. Statistics from 1995-1999 Total Complaints filed with the Alaska State Commission on Human Rights. Total complaints filed during the time period 1995-1999 are as follows : 1995,31, or 5% were housing complaints, 21 ofwhich were race-based tenancy issues; 1996, 27, or 5% were housing complaints, 21 of which were race-based tenancy issues; 1997, 14, or 3% were housing complaints, 10 of which were race-based tenancy issues; 1998, 12, or 3% were housing complaints based on race tenancy issues; and 1999, 12, or 3% were housing complaints based on race tenancy issues. Helen Sharrett believed race is the main component of the housing complaints, and that there should actually be higher numbers of race-based housing complaints due to the large number of low-income and minority seasoQ.al workers who are Hispanic & Filipino that work in the cannery industry. The Alaska State Commission on Human Rights is planning on being a part of the Year 2000 HUD grant for research into housing discrimination. 108

PAGE 118

Montana Montana Human Rights Commission, Fair Housing Enforcement Project (FHIP) Final Report, June 30, 1997. "In 1995, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) awarded a Fair Housing Initiatives Project (FHIP) grant to the state of Montana Human Rights Commission (HRC or Commission). The HUD grant enabled the commission to conduct research, investigation, enforcement and education activities in support of the equal housing rights of families with children, focusing on four high-growth areas -the Bitterroot, Flathead, Gallatin, and Helena Valley housing markets." "The original project design for the HRC Fair Housing Enforcement Project assumed that evidence of discriminatory patterns would be difficult to obtain in most of the target areas without extended title research identifying restrictive covenants, fair housing testing, or the use of other sophisticated investigative techniques. The assumption was wrong. High cost or labor-intensive title searches were not necessary. Testing was not used. There was no need for statistical models." Clearly the Montana HRC did not conduct fair housing testing, but their findings via analysis of the four areas under study are significant to this study with regard to housing discrimination. Listed are the techniques the Montana HRC employed in gathering their research in this area, and their fmdings: "Evidence of patterns of illegal discrimination in the four identified housing markets was open, 109

PAGE 119

obvious, and routine. A major investigative technique during the project was to read the classified housing ads in the newspapers, the weekly advertising publications, and even the yellow pages of the phone directories. Another successful technique needing no sophistication was to visit a housing development. The billboard advertising 'adult living' or the rules and regulations specifying where an 'adults only' section started were hard to ignore." "In researching the sources of information about available housing in the four selected housing markets, the project staff reviewed classified housing ads from several dozen local publications. In nearly half, the research found unambiguous messages expressing preferences against children The 'no children,' 'adults only,' '50 or over,' 'adult court,' 'adult section,' 'perfect for seniors,' 'currently elderly clientele,' and senior preferred' phrases were hard to miss. The number of ads and variety of publications indicated that exclusion or discrimination against families was an accepted way of doing business and relatively unimportant." "The lack of subtlety in many of the patterns of familial status discrimination noted during the project can be illustrated by a few examples. In 1995, anyone approaching one of Flathead County's major subdivisions or its close-by golf course passed a conspicuous billboard giving directions to the 'adult living' community. The developers had imposed restrictive covenants on the properties excluding any minor residents. The County Commission approved those covenants or their equivalents as the subdivision grew by several phases." 110

PAGE 120

"The original presentation for county approval was made by an experienced and prominent attorney from the area. In his presentation, he explained that the developments warranted approval precisely because of the 'adults only rule' because that was what residents wanted, and it made the amenities, like sidewalks and schools, unnecessary." "The marketing director and exclusive sales agent for the development who promoted this arrangement was a licensed real estate broker and a member of the local, state, and national association of Realtors and is currently a member ofthe state legislature. Properties at the subdivision were routinely marketed in the Flathead Valley multiple listing service highlighting the adult only restrictions. The local board of Realtors owned and operated the service and centralized the practice of steering families with children away from the housing." "Until advised by the Human Rights Commission staff that the segregated subdivision likely violated state and federal laws, none of the principals noticed the message sent to families with children or the illegal barriers imposed on their equal housing rights The developers offered a post hoc claim that the subdivision was exempt as 'housing for older persons.' The project conducted a thorough investigation finding that there was no legal or factual basis for the exemption. The matter was settled with admissions by both the developers and the marketing director that their practices had limited the housing choices of families with children and violated the fair housing laws as well as substantial affirmative relief." 111

PAGE 121

The Montana HRC has provided several specific examples of the blatant instances of discrimination against families with children in their final report. The one listed above is interesting and unfortunately, not that unique, in that many key players in the real estate industry as well as the local government are involved in the process of discrimination. I say process because of the steps involved in creating an environment of discrimination and that of perpetuating the behaviors. The Montana HRC ran into a great many obstacles in their pursuit of the completion of their fair housing study. I will provide their explanation of what occurred that caused their study, the housing discrimination piece included, to be discontinued prior to it's planned completion phase. "According to the criteria provided in the grant contract, the Fair Housing Enforcement Project increased the fair housing protections for families with children by every objective measure. The HRC project made advances in understanding patterns of discrimination, in developing enforcement techniques and investigative strategies, and in producing and distributing information about the equal housing rights of families in forums historically unavailable to the Commission." "Outside the activities ofthe project and the established procedures of the HRC, fair housing enforcement suffered significant erosion. Directed by the lobbying efforts of the Montana Association ofRealtors and the state Chamber of Commerce, the 1997 session of the state legislature produced a complete reworking 112

PAGE 122

of the enforcement design of the Montana Human Rights Act. Those amendments were signed by the Governor and went into the effect on July 1, 1997." "The 1997 amendments to the Human Rights Act did not affect the substantive protections of the state civil rights law. However, the legislature radically changed the means of enforcing the rights protected by those laws. The legislature eliminated the political independence of the HRC and transferred the entire HRC staff to different bureaus in the Department of Labor and Industry. The amendments abolished the Commission's intake, investigation and hearing functions, leaving the HRC as an administrative appeals board only with respect to cases filed after June 30, 1997. The legislature also reduced funding for state civil rights enforcement by nearly one-quarter and placed limits on obtaining any additional funding through any other source for the next two years." "Specific procedural changes in the Human Rights Act adopted by the 1997 legislature included a 50% reduction in the time for filing housing discrimination complaints to 180 days, significant restrictions on the rights of parties to file complaints from recovering damages, additional limits on agency subpoena powers, increased proof requirements beyond any other Montana civil action for purposes of recovering punitive damages, other limitations on the recovery of damages and civil penalties, increased proof requirements to establish a claimant's right to proceed to an administrative hearing, a one-year limit on the duration of affirmative reliefto 113

PAGE 123

minimize the likelihood of future violations or correct past discrimination, and increased barriers to administrative jurisdiction over discrimination complaints." "On June 27, 1997, the HUD office oflnvestigations and Enforcement notified the State of Montana that the amended provisions of the state's fair housing laws were no longer substantially equivalent to the federal Fair Housing Act. Overall, the recent amendments to the Human Rights Act served to diminish the protection of state civil rights generally and fair housing rights in particular. In light of those legislative actions, the success ofthe project may be isolated and temporary with little long-term impact on eliminating or preventing the significant incidence of illegal housing discrimination in the state of Montana." After speculating on the complicated and intricate workings of the key players in the housing industry that propelled the Montana legislature to drastically reduce the fair housing rights in that state, I felt it absolutely necessary to include the Montana HRC's report in this thesis. Housing discrimination is by and large an American problem, and clearly in rather remote locations such as Montana it exists on levels similar to those in other larger and more centralized metropolitan areas. Yet the concept is simple housing discrimination affects entire communities, cities, and states. The Montana HRC's title page reads: "Denying Housing to Children is Against the Law." Perhaps the Montana legislature can revisit this pertinent issue with clarity upon the publication ofthe Montana HRC's final report. 114

PAGE 124

Southwest U.S. California Fair Housing Congress of Southern California,"New and Changing Trends in Housing Discrimination in the City of Los Angeles," by the City of Los Angeles, March 1999. The Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley studied Panorama City and North Hills in the San Fernando Valley. The trend is from a Caucasian neighborhood to a predominately Latino population; outward signs of ethnic change are evident with reports of racial discrimination in the area. Ofthe 10 sites tested, seven showed evidence of illegal housing discrimination based on race, while one of familial status surfaced as well. The tests were comparing African Americans and Latino testers; the African-Americans were discriminated against. The Westside Fair Housing Council studied the Venice and Mar Vista areas in western Los Angeles. There is a possibility of Latinos replacing African-Americans and Caucasians in this area. Of the 11 sites tested, none showed conclusive evidence of discrimination against African-Americans or in favor of Latinos at the expense of other groups. The Fair Housing Foundation studied one area of south central Los Angeles and an area in and near Koreatown. 115

PAGE 125

The south-central area is proposed to be shifting from greater concentrations of African-Americans and other groups to a Latino concentration. Ofthe 11 sites tested, four showed evidence of discrimination against African-Americans in favor of Latinos. The Koreatown area is proposed to have a mixed population but was studied due to numerous complaints of discrimination. Also to note, the Koreatown area had been going through commercialization of properties and an increase in Latino population. Of the 13 sites tested, six showed evidence of discrimination in favor of Latino or Korean renters. Conclusions: Due to recent large numbers of immigrants, the authors of the study feel it is the role of the City of Los Angeles to educate and train the perpetrators of housing discrimination in order to reach the goal of equal housing opportunity for all. They state specifically that "preferences or prejudices that might have been legal or even appropriate elsewhere must be replaced by concepts of equality. Where education and offers of training do not suffice, we will consider litigation to enforce the fair housing laws we advocate every day." Final Report, Fair Housing Initiatives Grant #FH100G95-00017 South Texas Project, Texas Commission on Human Rights, December 1996. The basis for the 116

PAGE 126

South Texas Project began with a concern that Mexican-American families were being denied access to certain mobile home parks designed for "older Americans" by proposed interpretation of the fair housing law. The mobile home parks or residents "create associates that dictate occupancy mix through restrictive covenants." The Commission recognized the need for further investigation due to the fact that of the 91% of residents of Cameron, Hidalgo and Starr counties are Mexican American. A significant portion of those individuals resides in substandard "colonias" without electricity, water, and proper sewage. By contrast, entry into the covenant restrictive mobile home parks would allow said citizens' access to "improved and otherwise affordable equal housing opportunities." The response the Texas Commission chose to adopt was tri-fold: education through training manuals on fair housing, education through a major fair housing seminar in south Texas, and an investigation ofhousing discrimination by the mobile home parks. Results: "Of the total mobile home park residential population including permanent and temporary residents only 5% are Mexican-Americans. All mobile home parks that deny housing opportunities to families with children justify such a policy based on the older citizen exemption under current federal fair housing law." On a selected random sample of mobile home parks that did not allow children, 25 parks were tested. The tests identified "subtle but definitive differences in treatment of Mexican-Americans versus Anglos on the part of six mobile home 117

PAGE 127

parks." Thus an adverse impact on housing opportunities for Mexican-Americans is an unintentional consequence of the "liberalized exemption for older citizens." Recommendations: mobile home parks in the area should initiate an affirmative marketing plan aimed at housing opportunities for Mexican-Americans, the commission should promote education, the commission should consider initiating complaints against housing providers, the government should increase its assistance to families living in colonias, a certain number of units should be set aside in the mobile home parks for families with children, and finally that the local, state and federal government should aggressively solve the substandard housing conditions for the Mexican-Americans living in the Rio Grande Valley. 118

PAGE 128

CHAPTER6 CONCLUSION I hypothesized that the findings of discrimination found in rental and sales audit testing for the decade 1990 1999 would be similar to the findings of discrimination found in the same testing areas for the decade 1980-1989 for race based discrimination. Basing my thesis on Galster's (1989) review of the evidence from 71 sales and rental audits, I was able to gather evidence from 22 rental and sales audits based solely on race as a discriminatory factor. I also gathered 17 rental and sales audits based on several other protected class statuses --disability, familial status, gender, income, national origin, and sexual orientation. Clearly I did not gather as many directly comparable audits based on race alone as Galster for his 1980's study. One of the main limitations ofthis study, as was previously discussed briefly in Chapter 2, is the small number of audit tests based entirely on raced I did obtain. However, I believe strength of this study is that I did obtain significant information for less explored areas of analysis as well To compare my audit results with Galster's, I will first summarize his 1980's findings Galster found that Blacks faced discrimination in rental housing 50% of the time, Hispanics faced discrimination in rental housing 33% ofthe time, and .. Blacks faced discrimination in home purchasing 20% of the time (1989). These 119

PAGE 129

results were based on 19 different organizations audit tests conducted for the Black rentals, five different organizations audit tests conducted for the Hispanic rentals, and five different organizations audit tests conducted for the Black home sales (Galster 1989). When following this model of analysis for the 1990's, Black auditors seeking rental housing faced discrimination 30% of the time, Latino auditors seeking rental housing faced discrimination 16% of the time, and Black auditors seeking homes for purchase faced discrimination 25% of the time. Also, I found that Black auditors seeking rental housing faced discrimination against Latino renters 38% of the time in a specific region of California, and that Latino auditors seeking homes for purchase faced discrimination 23% ofthe time. These results were based on 8 different organizations audit tests conducted for the Black rentals, five different organizations audit tests conducted for the Latino rentals, two different organizations audit tests conducted for the Black home sales, five different organizations audit tests for the Black I Latino rentals, and two different organizations audit tests for the Latino home sales. Upon comparing Galster's 1980's data with this study's 1990's data, Black rental discrimination declined from 50% to 30%, Latino rental discrimination declined from 33% to 16%, and Black sales discrimination increased from 20% to 25%. The ratio oftests for Galster's study and this study are as follows: for Black rentals, 19:8, for Latino rentals, 5:5, and for Black sales, 5:2. These ratios clearly 120

PAGE 130

show Galster's data for Black rental and sales tests, and Latirio rental tests, to be twice as comprehensive than the data found in this study. However, I found the geographic location of Galster's findings to be similar to those of this study. For instance, Galster's Black rental audits were located in California, Greater DC, Indiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. This study's rental audits were located in Greater DC, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Virginia. Galster's Latino rental audits were located in California and Massachusetts; this study's were located in Greater DC, Virginia, and Texas. A difference lies in Galster's Black home sales audits, located in the Northeastern U.S., namely Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio; this study's were located in the Southeastern U.S., including Greater DC and Virginia. Since the focus of this study is racial discrimination in housing, I did not expect to collect audit reports based on disability, gender, familial status, income, and sexual orientation. Yet the findings from one of these categories, that of familial status, are significant enough to be representative of this nationwide analysis. Families with one or more children experienced discrimination 17% ofthe time, based on eight different audit studies completed in California, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Virginia. This represents the Northeastern, Southeastern, and Southwestern regions of the U.S. The Northwestern region ofthe U.S., specifically Montana, provided an excellent report on familial housing discrimination that is summarized in Chapter 2 as well. 121

PAGE 131

I find the lack of data from several regions with large populations proportionate to the rest ofthe country disheartening. For instance, California, Florida, Texas and New York are significantly misrepresented by the lack of data I was able to obtain. I do not think this study should be discounted due to the lack of representation from such a large portion of the United States, but I do however suggest readers exercise discretion when forming their opinions on the thoroughness of this study. I found it extremely difficult to obtain audit data from these four states, as well as many other smaller states, and clearly want to emphasize that as a limitation. I hope the before-mentioned limitations to this study do not hinder its success as a contribution to the field of housing discrimination. I feel my study was as comprehensive as possible given the capabilities of one graduate student. The results of this study do offer yet another opportunity to view housing discrimination in it's context of a nationwide social occurrence, not specific to one region, or one type of location, be it rural, suburban or urban. Several individuals at the organizations I spoke with in gathering this data expressed concern that their location would perhaps be looked upon poorly by those who read this study; although I could not allay their fears entirely, it is clear from the results of this study that no specific region is without housing discrimination. It is my sincere desire that individuals who read this study find a common theme among this work and other works on housing discrimination: housing 122

PAGE 132

discrimination exists in the United States to varying degrees, and it is clearly an area that demands further study and attention. My recommendations for further study include areas not covered in detail in this study, particularly disability, gender, income I public assistance, and sexual orientation Although the focus ofthis study clearly focused on Black and Latino race-based discrimination, I am perplexed and concerned by the multitude of conditions that trigger differential treatment in housing. It is with great satisfaction and hope I conclude this study knowing that housing discrimination has, at the very least, been somewhat reduced since the decade 1980-1989. 123

PAGE 133

APPENDIX A Sample Cover Letter sent by U.S Mail and Electronic Mail December 7, 1999 To the Mobile Fair Housing Center Director : Hello, my name is Lisa Whitinger and I am a sociology graduate student at the University of Colorado at Denver. Aside from being a concerned citizen and student, I am in the process of writing my Master's Thesis on housing discrimination by race and national origin, and located your organization's name through the National Fair Housing Advocate online directory. I am conducting a secondary analysis of public and private fair housing organizations systemic audits conducted by testers in the areas of rental and home sales for the 1990 s I am only interested in systemic audits that have already been made public record. I am writing to you in order to learn if your organization has produced any such research. If so, could you please have a member of your staff e-mail me in order that I may learn which studies your organization has conducted in this decade. Thank you so much for your time, and thank you for your continued efforts in the fair housing field. Your organization and the work you do are greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Lisa Whitinger University of Colorado Graduate Student 2805 Otis Ct. Wheat Ridge, CO 80214 E-mail: lisawhitinger@hotmail.com Phone: 303-238-0499 124

PAGE 134

Thesis Advisor: Dr. Candan Duran-Aydintug University of Colorado at Denver Department of Sociology Campus Box 1 OS Denver,CO 80217-3364 E-mail: cduranaydint@castle.cudenver.edu Phone: 303-556-8306 125

PAGE 135

BIBLIOGRAPHY Allport, GordonW. (1935). "Attitudes." In Carl Murchinson (Ed.), A Handbook of Social Psychology, (pp. 798-844). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press. Bennett, Richard H. (1995). Going Public: Implications for the Question of Minimizing Discrimination in the Residential Real Estate Industry. Real Estate Law Journal, 24 (2), 122-145. Clark, Charles S. (1995). Housing Discrimination. Congressional Quarterly Researcher, 5 (8), 169-192. Clark, W.A.V. (1986). Residential Segregation in American Cities: A Review and Interpretation. Population Research and Policy Review, 5, 95-127. Clark, W.A.V. (1988). Understanding Residential Segregation in American Cities: Interpreting the Evidence: A Reply to Galster. Population Research and Policy Review, 7, 113-121. Clark, W.A.V. (1989). Residential Segregation in American Cities: Common Ground and Differences in Interpretation. Population Research and Policy Review, 8, 193-197. Cook, Thomas D., Cooper, Harris, Cordray, David S., Hartmann, Heidi, Hedges, Larry V., Light, Richard J., Louis, Thomas A., and Mosteller, Frederick. (1992). Meta-Analysis for Explanation: A Casebook, (pp. vii-6). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Crouch, Stanley (1995). The All American Skin Game, or, the Decoy of Race. New York: Vintage Books. Cuomo, Andrew (1998). Cuomo Says HUD will Review Report by Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington as Part of Lending Discrimination Study. HUD Press Release. http://www .hud.gov/pressrel/pr-98-128.html Cuomo, Andrew. (1998). Cuomo Announces Record $2.1 Billion Lending Discrimination Settlement and Commemorates 301 h Anniversary of Fair Housing 126

PAGE 136

Act. HUD Press Release. http://www.hud.gov/pressrellpr-98-600.html (29 Nov. 1999). Cuomo, Andrew. (1998). Cuomo Announces Groundbreaking Nationwide Audit of Housing Discrimination Around Nation. HUD Press Release. http://www.hud.gov/pressrellpr-98-600.html (29 Nov. 1999). Darden, Joe T. (1987) In Gary A. Tobin, (Ed.) Divided Neighborhoods: Changing Patterns ofRacial Segregation, (pp. 17-35). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Fair Housing. (1999). Fair Housing Currents. http://www.fairhousing org/Currents/currents.html (30 Nov. 1999). Farley, Reynolds, Charlotte Steeb, Maria Krysan Tara Jackson and Keith Reeves (1994). Stereotypes and Segregation: Neighborhoods in the Detroit Area. American Journal of Sociology, 100 (3), 750-80. Farley, Reynolds. (1993) Neighborhood Preferences and Aspirations among Blacks and Whites. In G. Thomas Kingsley and Margery Austin Turner (Eds ), Housing Markets and Residential Mobility (pp. 161-191). Lanham, MD: The Urban Institute Press. Feagin, Joe and Heman Vera. (1995). White Racism: The Basics. New York: Routledge. Fix Michael and Raymond J. Struyk (1993). Clear and Convincing Evidence: Measurement ofDiscrimination in America. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press. Fossett, James W. and Gary Orfield (1987) Market Failure and Federal Policy: Low-Income Housing in Chicago 1970-1983 In Gary A. Tobin (Ed.) Divided Neighborhoods: Changing Patterns of Racial Segregation. (p. 159) Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Galster, George C. (1987). The Ecology of Racial Discrimination in Housing: An Exploratory Model. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 23 ( 1), 84-107. Galster, George C. (.1988). Residential Segregation in American Cities: A Contrary Review. Population Research and Policy Review, 7, 93-112 127

PAGE 137

Galster, George C. (1989). Residential Segregation in American Cities: A Further Response to Clark. Population Research and Policy Review, 8, 181-192. Galster, George C. (1989). Racial Discrimination in Housing Markets during the 1980's: A Review of the Audit Evidence. Journal ofPlanning Education and Research, 9 (3), 165-175. Galster, George C. and W. Mark Keeney (1988). Race, Residence, Discrimination, and Economic Opportunity: Modeling the Nexus of Urban Racial Phenomena. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 24 (1 ). 87-117. Galster, George C. (1990). Federal Fair Housing Policy: The Great Misapprehension. In Building Foundations: Housing and Federal Policy, edited by D. Dipasquale and L. Keyes. (137-155). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Galster, George C. (1991). Racial Steering by Real Estate Agents: Mechanisms and Motives. The Review of Black Political Economy, 19, (1), 39-63. Galster, George C. (1992). Research on Discrimination in Housing and Mortgage Markets: Assessments and Future Directions. Housing Policy Debate, 3, (2), 639673. Goering, John M. (1986). Introduction, Section II: Segregation and Discrimination in Housing. In John M. Goering (Ed.), Housing Desegregation and Federal Policy (pp. 77-82). Chapel Hill, NC: University ofNorth Carolina Press. Goering, John M. (1986). In Jamshid A. Momeni (Ed.), Race, Ethnicitv. and Minority Housing in the US, (pp. 195-215). New York: Greenwood Press. Grigsby, W., Baratz, M., Galster, G. and Maclennan, D. (1987). The Dvnamics of Neighborhood Change and Decline. Oxford: Pergamon. Haar, Charles M. (1996). Suburbs Under Siege: Race, Space, and Audacious Judges. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. HOME ofBuffalo, NY. (1998). "Housing Opportunities Made Equal." Buffalo, NY: HOME. 128

PAGE 138

Kain, John F. (1987). Housing Market Discrimination and Black Suburbanization in the 1980's, In Gary A Tobin, (Ed.) Divided Neighborhoods: Changing Patterns of Racial Segregation, (p. 71). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Kleg, Milton. (1993) Hate Prejudice and Racism. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Massey, DouglasS. and Nancy A Denton (1988). Suburbanization and Segregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas. American Journal of Sociology, 94 (3), 592-626. Massey, DouglasS. and Nancy A. Denton (1993). American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Medoff, and Sklar (1994). Streets ofHope: The Fall and Rise of an Urban Neighborhood. Cambridge, MA: South End Press. Megbolugbe, Issac F., Marja C. Hoek-Smit and Peter D. Linneman (1996). Understanding Neighborhood Dynamics: A Review of the Contributions of William G. Grigsby. Urban Studies, 3 (1 0), 1779-1795. National Fair Housing Advocate Online. (1999). Friday December 3. www .fairhousing.com/resources/finder. National Neighbors, Inc. (1994). Fair Housing Resource Directory. Washington, DC: National Neighbors, Inc. Newburger, Harriet B. (1989). Discrimination by a Profit-Maximizing Real Estate Broker in Response to White Prejudice. Journal ofUrban Economics. 26, 1-19. Ondrich, Jan, Alex Stricker and John Yinger. (1998). Do Real Estate Brokers Choose to Discriminate? Evidence from the 1989 Housing Discrimination Study. Southern Economic Journal, 64, (4), 880-901. Orfield, Gary. (1986). The Movement for Housing Integration. In John M. Goering (Ed.), Housing Desegregation and Federal Policy (pp. 18-30). Chapel Hill, NC: University ofNorth Carolina Press. Ryan, Jennifer J ally ( 1995). A voiding Housing Discrimination by Real Estate Professionals. The Real Estate Finance Journal, 5-11. 129

PAGE 139

Reed, Veronica M. (1991 ) Civil Rights Legislation and the Housing Status of Black Americans : Evidence from Fair Housing Audits and Segregation Indices. The Review of Black Political Economy, 19 (3-4), 29-42. Schwemm, Robert G (1990). Housing Discrimination: Law and Litigation. New York, N.Y.: C. Boardman. Steams, Katherine G. (1994). Countering Implicit Discrimination in Real Estate Advertisements : A Call for the Issuance of Human Model Injunctions. Northwestern University Law Review, 88 (3), 1200-1238. Tobin, Gary A., Ed. (1987). Divided Neighborhoods: Changing Patterns ofRacial Segregation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Turner, Margery Austin and Ron Wienk (1993). The Persistence of Segregation in Urban Areas: Contributing Causes. In G. Thomas Kingsley and Margery Austin Turner (Eds.), Housing Markets and Residential Mobility (pp. 193-216). Lanham, MD: The Urban Institute Press. United States, Congress, House, Committee on the Judiciary. (1968). Civil Rights Act of 1968: Title VIII-Fair Housing. 42nd Congress: 90-284. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. United States, Congress, House, Committee on the Judiciary. (1988) Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988: Report Together with Additional and Dissenting Views (to accompany H.R. 115 8). Report I 1 ooth Congress, 2nd Session, House of Representatives; 100-711. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. United States, Congress House, Committee on the Judiciary. (1993) Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1993 : Report (to accompany S 668). Report I 103rd Congress, 1 s t Session, Senate; 103-149. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Yinger, John (1986) Measuring Racial Discrimination with Fair Housing Audits: Caught in the Act. The American Economic Review, 76, (5}, 881-893. Yinger, John (1987). The Racial Dimension ofUrban Housing Markets in the 1980's. In Gary A. Tobin, (Ed.) Divided Neighborhoods: Changing Patterns of Racial Segregation, (pp. 44-64). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 130

PAGE 140

Zimmerman, Mark W. (1992). Opening the Door to Race-Based Real Estate Marketing: Suburban Housing Center v. Greater South Suburban Board of Realtors. De Paul Law Review, 41 (4), 1271-1367. 131