Final Report. Chicago Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. Fair Housing Testing and Survey Project. For the Chicago Housing Authority

Transcription

1 Final Report Chicago Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. Fair Housing Testing and Survey Project For the Chicago Housing Authority Contract no North LaSalle Street Suite 600 Chicago, Illinois (voice) (fax)

2 2

3 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY II. FAIR HOUSING TESTING A. Process and Methodology B. Results and Data Analysis 1. CHA Senior Properties 2. Housing Choice Voucher Landlords 3. Housing Choice Voucher Opportunity Areas III. RESIDENTS SURVEYS A. Process and Methodology B. Results and Data Analysis APPENDICES 1. Housing Choice Voucher Holders 2. Family Developments Residents 3. Family Developments Residents with Disabilities Reasonable Accommodation/Modification Survey A. List of Project Staff B. City Opportunity Area and Neighborhood Map C. Housing Choice Voucher Write-In Responses D. Family Development Survey Write-In Responses E. Section 504 Disability Rights Survey Write-In Responses F. Housing Choice Voucher Survey G. Family Development Survey H. Section 504 Disability Rights Survey

4 4

5 1 I. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY The Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights (CLC) entered into a contract in August 2010 with the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) to assess fair housing compliance in certain CHA programs. The protected classes included were the federal Fair Housing Act's categories of race, national origin, religion, sex, disability (physical and mental) and familial status, along with sexual orientation and source of income, which are included in other applicable statutes. The testing and non-testing components evaluated three CHA programs: the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program and the CHA s Senior and Family Developments. In fair housing rental testing, trained investigators posing as prospective tenants inquire about housing availability, terms and conditions to assess housing providers compliance with laws prohibiting housing discrimination. The Chicago Lawyers' Committee and subcontractors Access Living, HOPE Fair Housing Center, and South Suburban Housing Center conducted 446 tests, or the equivalent of matched-pair tests of landlords participating in the HCV Program, private landlords in designated Opportunity Areas 1 throughout the City of Chicago and Senior Developments. Because the CHA was not accepting new applications at Family Developments, fair housing testing was not possible there. The project also conducted three surveys of HCV holders and Family Development residents; Metro Chicago Information Center (MCIC) was the subcontractor for this part of the project. A list of all those who staffed this project is attached as Appendix A. This is the Chicago Lawyers' Committee s report on the data gathered and analysis of compliance with fair housing laws. Tests of CHA Senior Properties showed that rental staff had very brief or no contact with applicants; it was not uncommon for non-rental staff or residents to answer testerapplicants questions. Discrimination based on race occurred in 29% of the tests, and inferior customer service was found in 29% of the tests 2. Steering was the most common form of discrimination. The CHA asked CLC to conduct national origin tests at certain buildings due to high concentrations of one ethnicity at specific buildings. Findings for those tests included significant discrimination against Asian testers, a moderate amount for Latino testers, and no discriminatory treatment of Russian testers. With respect to familial status, tenants with children experienced discrimination 3 in 30% of the tests, and differences in customer service 2 in 40% of the tests. The disability tests showed no discrimination or differences in customer service for applicants with mental disabilities, while testers with physical disabilities, especially those with hearing disabilities, experienced significant discrimination. In general, testers with physical disabilities experienced discrimination 1/3 of the time and differences in customer service in 56% of the tests. Most notably, some agents refused to use assistive devices for people with hearing disabilities, and there were issues regarding whether staff appropriately responded to the reasonable accommodation and modification requests of people with mobility disabilities. Lesbian and gay testers experienced discrimination 17% of the time and differences in customer 1 Opportunity Areas are defined by the CHA as areas with less than 23.49% of individuals having income below the poverty level and with no more than 30% of the resident families being African American. 2 As with all categories tested, there were some tests showing both discrimination and customer service issues, so the percentages may overlap and are not composite. 3 See definitions of these terms in Sec. II.B. below.

6 service 21% of the time, primarily due to an apparent lack of understanding of CHA s policy for couples living together. The second category of tests was of landlords with multiple properties throughout the city who were already renting to Housing Choice Voucher holders. African-American and white HCV holders experienced discrimination at the hands of these landlords 59% of the time; they steered voucher holders a substantial 1/3 of the time. Voucher holders experienced inferior customer service in more than one quarter, 28%, of the tests. In addition, testers experienced racial discrimination with HCV landlords 1/3 of the time and inferior customer service 30% of the time. Steering was the most common form of discrimination in the race, national origin, and familial status tests. Asian testers experienced ethnic origin discrimination with HCV landlords 1/3 of the time and inferior customer service 17% of the time. Testers with children experienced familial status discrimination with HCV landlords 25% of the time and inferior customer service 17% of the time. People with physical disabilities encountered discrimination 44% of the time and inferior customer service 24% of the time at the hands of HCV landlords. Those with mobility impairments encountered discrimination the most, in 80% of tests, followed by those with hearing and vision disabilities 31% and 27% of the time respectively. The most common form of discrimination for those with mobility impairments was a lack of accessible units, which occurred half of the time. HCV landlords refused to negotiate 4 with physically disabled applicants 18% of the time. For example, in four separate instances, agents hung up the phone with testers after learning they had hearing disabilities. People with visual disabilities were discriminated against 27% of the time and received less customer service in 27% of the tests. Testers with mental disabilities met with discrimination 17% of the time and poor customer service one third of the time. Finally, HCV landlords discriminated against tenants based on sexual orientation 4% of the time and experienced lesser customer service in 11% of the tests. The third category of tests was of private landlords who did not have Housing Choice Voucher holders as tenants, to assess compliance with the City of Chicago s prohibition against discrimination based on source of income - HCV status. Tests were conducted in opportunity areas, which have relatively fewer residents with low incomes and residents of color. As with the tests of HCV landlords, testing revealed widespread discrimination against voucher holders. White testers with vouchers experienced discrimination based on their HCV status more often than not, in 55% of the tests performed; in 39% of the tests, landlords directly refused to rent to Housing Choice Voucher holders. Northwest side landlords refused to rent to white HCV holders at the highest rate, 64% of the time, followed by north side landlords at 47%. Discrimination was notably less in the south and southwest side opportunity neighborhoods tested, occurring in one third of the tests in Hyde Park and 28% of the tests on the southwest side. To compound this serious problem, landlords discriminated against African-American voucher holders 53% of the time, in all areas of the city tested except the Loop and Hyde Park. 2 4 See the definition of this term in Sec. II.B. below as well.

7 North side landlords who did not refuse to rent to white voucher holders refused to rent to their African-American counterparts one third of the time. The highest frequency of refusal to rent to African-American voucher holders was on the northwest side, where it occurred 58% of the time. This widespread refusal to rent to Housing Choice Voucher holders, particularly African- American HCV holders, and steering them away from opportunity areas, are serious obstacles to fair housing and integration. It is important to note that, because of the breadth of the testing conducted in this project, it was impossible to conduct a sufficiently large number of tests in some categories and subcategories, particularly ethnic origin, religion, and disability, to achieve statistical significance. Future testing is recommended to validate the results. This project also included three surveys to determine fair housing knowledge and customer service among the following types of CHA customers: residents in family developments, residents in family developments who self-identified as having a disability, and Housing Choice Voucher holders. Survey results revealed that the majority of respondents have a limited understanding of their fair housing rights, do not know how to file fair housing complaints, and are interested in receiving further education about fair housing. The majority of respondents were also not aware of reasonable accommodation and modification rights for people with disabilities. Housing choice voucher holders responses indicate opportunities for better marketing and outreach of services related to exploring neighborhoods and finding apartments. Of those who used these services, the majority found the services to be helpful, but at most, only half of respondents reported being offered them. Voucher holders face consistent challenges finding apartments in desired neighborhoods, landlords that will accept vouchers, and units that are in good condition and affordable. For residents in family developments, respondents were interested in policies that offer the option to transfer to an amenity-rich neighborhood if in good standing with the CHA; over half of respondents were interested in listening sessions that would inform them about a wide variety of neighborhoods. In addition, a number of respondents called staff of MCIC, which conducted the surveys, seeking help with a variety of issues relating to their tenancies, indicating that property managers, landlords, and CHA staff were not providing needed assistance. 3 II. FAIR HOUSING TESTING A. Process and Methodology Fair housing testing is a controlled method for measuring and documenting variation in the quantity, quality and content of information and services offered or given to various home seekers by housing and housing service providers. In fair housing testing, two testers trained by a fair housing organization are matched as similarly as possible in their personal characteristics and housing needs so that the only significant difference is their membership or nonmembership in a protected class. The testers pose as home seekers, in this case prospective

8 tenants, and simulate a housing transaction with a housing provider. Under the protocol for this testing project, each tester contacted the housing provider via telephone or conducted an onsite visit within the time period designated by a test coordinator. During the contact with the housing provider, testers inquired about housing availability, terms and conditions, and availability of other related services. In some cases, a single control tester was matched with multiple protected class testers, which produced meaningful information and allowed test coordinators to efficiently test for multiple variables at one location. Following the contact with the housing provider, each tester wrote a detailed and objective record of what occurred during the test, including what was said, offered, prices quoted, and availability. Testers were debriefed by their test coordinator as soon as possible after completing their assignment. During debriefings, the test coordinators reviewed the testers reports, asked the testers questions about their experiences and inquired about any deviations from the original test assignments. Test coordinators used the testers reports to compare treatment based on the protected class. All differences in treatment were noted, whether in favor of the control or protected class testers. Testing is an effective way to uncover discrimination such as denying or misrepresenting the availability of housing, steering, or offering different terms and conditions based on a protected class and to ensure that housing providers are complying with fair housing laws. However, fair housing testing only reveals treatment of applicants, and not treatment during tenancy such as harassment or eviction. This project also included surveys of current residents to ascertain some aspects of their post-application tenancy experiences, discussed in Section III below. This contract did not provide for the filing of enforcement actions when violations were found. It should be noted that, although scientific measures of discrimination levels were not possible due to the breadth of this project, distinct and observable patterns of behavior emerged from the numerous tests conducted. The data collected provide useful information, among and across housing providers and geographic locations, which can be used to modify policies and practices. The CHA can also use this data to conduct future, more targeted testing. The Chicago Lawyers Committee (CLC) test coordinator, in cooperation with subcontractors HOPE, SSHC, and Access Living, recruited testers for this project. HOPE developed written materials for, planned, and conducted three formal tester training sessions in October 2010 and February The CHA Fair Housing Compliance Manager was invited to provide input for the training sessions, attended two of the sessions, where she spoke, and was given the training materials. CLC conducted additional smaller tester training sessions as needed. Each new tester was required to successfully complete a closely supervised practice test. Testers performing race or ethnic origin phone tests submitted to voice panel screening coordinated by HOPE Fair Housing Center to determine whether they had racially or ethnically identifiable voices. The CLC test coordinator maintained and updated tester records. During the start-up period, the CHA held several briefing sessions for CLC and subcontractors regarding its properties, policies and procedures. Some CLC and subcontractor staff attended landlord and HCV participant briefings. CLC and CHA staff consulted extensively both to obtain necessary demographic and landlord information and to determine the breakdown 4

9 of tests to be performed. The Chicago Lawyers Committee worked with the CHA to obtain HCV landlord identity and number and location of units they controlled. To determine the number of tests to be conducted for each protected class, CLC used the Illinois Department of Human Rights 2009 data on the breakdown of housing discrimination charges by basis: race, national origin, disability, familial status, gender, religion, sexual orientation, marital status, age, and military status, and then modified the classes to be tested and the percentages for each in consultation with the CHA. CLC and CHA staff also consulted with Chicago Commission on Human Relations staff regarding the nature and location of its source of income complaints, as this is not a protected class under Illinois law. Along with the other testing subcontractors, CLC s test coordinator developed the testing protocol, prepared and delegated test assignments, and provided testers with instructions, materials and support. As tests were completed, the respective test coordinators debriefed testers, collected test reports, and forwarded copies and their evaluations of the tests to the Chicago Lawyers Committee for further analysis. In April 2011, Chicago Lawyers Committee project staff provided a mid-project analysis of results to the CHA legal staff including the Fair Housing Compliance Manager. They jointly agreed to adjustments in testing plans in light of those results. Chicago Lawyers Committee and its three testing subcontractors South Suburban Housing Center, Access Living, and HOPE Fair Housing Center conducted 446 tests, or the equivalent of matched-pair fair housing tests, from November 2010 through December phone tests and 171 on-site tests were performed for this project. Table A shows the breakdown of tests performed by property type and protected class. Table A. All Tests Performed by Property Type and Protected Class Target sites Protected Classes CHA Senior Properties CHA Senior Properties # of tests HCV Landlords Property Mgt. / Realty Co. in HCV program # of tests African-American, 21 African-American, 30 Race/Color White White Latino, Chinese, Ethnic Origin Korean, Russian Latino, Asian n/a Disability Physical, Mental 23 Physical, Mental 40 n/a Familial Status Children 10 Children 12 n/a Religion Jewish, Muslim 10 n/a 0 n/a HCV Opportunity Areas Property Mgt./ Realty Co. not in HCV Program African-American, White # of tests Sexual Orientation Gay/Lesbian 24 Gay/Lesbian 27 n/a Gender n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a Source of Income n/a 0 HCV 29 HCV 123 Total tests Total Test pairs

10 One hundred and thirteen (113) tests were done to determine whether Private Property Managers were following appropriate fair housing application policy and procedures within CHA Senior Properties across the city. CLC and its subcontractors tested for six protected classes: ethnic origin (Latino, Chinese, Korean, and Russian), race (African-American and white), disability (physical and mental), familial status, religion (Jewish and Muslim), and sexual orientation (lesbian/gay). The Project used both testers who are seniors (62 or older) and younger testers posing as relatives of prospective senior tenants. With respect to familial status, non-elderly family members are allowed to live with qualified senior residents. However, units in CHA Senior Properties are studios and one-bedrooms, and their occupancy standards allow no more than two residents in a studio or one bedroom unit, so the maximum number of people for almost all of the units is two. Therefore, a senior tenant would not be able to have more than one child living with him/her. The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program is the federal government s major program enabling low-income families to rent housing in the private market. Using funds provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the CHA pays a portion of eligible families rent each month directly to the property owner. Families issued vouchers are responsible for finding their own rental housing in the private market. The City of Chicago prohibits housing providers from refusing to rent and otherwise discriminating based on source of income, including use of Housing Choice Vouchers. 5 The Housing Choice Voucher is an important tool giving tenants with low incomes access to housing in a wide variety of areas, potentially breaking down racial and economic segregation and affirmatively furthering fair housing. One hundred and fifty-five (155) tests (143 matched-pair equivalent) were conducted of landlords participating in the Housing Choice Voucher Program. CLC chose for this testing category housing providers across the city, both landlords and property managers, who control a relatively large numbers of units, based on information provided by the CHA. In addition to testing for fair housing compliance, including for steering based on race, ethnic origin, and housing choice voucher status, the Chicago Lawyers Committee sought to capture customer service issues. Finally, CLC also conducted 178 tests (93.5 matched pair equivalent) of private landlords who did not have Housing Choice Voucher holders as tenants to assess compliance with the City of Chicago s prohibition against discrimination based on source of income - HCV status. CLC and the CHA agreed during the project s start-up period to conduct this category of tests, called HCV - Opportunity Areas. Test coordinators chose landlords and property managers with advertised rental units in Chicago opportunity areas, defined by the CHA as areas with less than 23.49% of individuals having income below the poverty level and with no more than 30% of the resident families being African American 6. The protocol was designed to first determine whether there was discrimination based on voucher status using a white HCV holder as a 6 5 Chicago Fair Housing Ordinance et seq. 6 This definition is based on the Consent Order entered in Gautreaux v. CHA, 304 F.Supp. 736 (N.D.Ill.1969), and the average city poverty rate reflected in the 2000 Census.

11 control. When it was confirmed to the white HCV holder that the unit was available and their voucher would be accepted, an African-American HCV holder would call to confirm the same. When testing for discrimination against voucher holders in opportunity areas, a second matched tester would not perform his/her test if the control tester was rejected. For example, if a landlord told a white tester posing as a voucher holder that he didn t rent to voucher holders, the African- American voucher holder tester would not conduct a test of that landlord. This explains the total number of tests and matched-pair equivalents reported here. 7

12 8 II.B. FAIR HOUSING TESTING - Results and Data Analysis The Chicago Lawyers Committee recorded the results of all of the fair housing tests and analyzed them. Following are the Types of Discrimination identified and used in the analysis: Refusal to Rent Misrepresenting availability of property; denying housing based on protected class status Refusal to Negotiate Not returning the tester s calls after learning of tester s protected class status; not providing a clear answer whether the tester s protected class status was acceptable; having policies/standards that make it impossible or discouraging for a protected class tester to apply or to be considered for housing Steering Restricting choices by suggesting other areas or properties to a tester in addition to the one or ones the tester is inquiring about; stating that tenants with Housing Choice Vouchers are only acceptable in certain buildings; no interpretation of whether steering was meant to be helpful or hurtful, as this does not matter for fair housing purposes Terms & Conditions Providing testers with different information regarding the cost of rent, utilities covered, security deposits, lease terms; making testers complete extra steps to increase their likelihood of eligibility Denial of Reasonable Accommodation or Modification Responding no to a disabled tester s request for an accommodation/modification without giving the request due consideration. The federal Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful for a housing provider to refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford... person(s) [with disabilities] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. In certain circumstances, the Act requires that housing providers allow residents to make reasonable structural modifications to units and public/common areas in a dwelling when those modifications may be necessary for a person with a disability to have full enjoyment of a dwelling. 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(3)(A) and (B). No Accessible Units Telling a disabled tester that there are no accessible units available at a specific property or at any of the housing provider s properties when, in fact, there are available accessible units. The Fair Housing Act requires that multifamily dwellings designed and constructed for first occupancy after March 13, 1991 be accessible. 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(3)C. See requirements.html. These are known as the new construction requirements. The age of the buildings under the control of the management companies tested was beyond the scope of this project, and this project did not test for new construction violations. In most instances when testers were told that there were no accessible units, it was not possible to determine whether the lack of accessibility constituted new construction violations. In addition, this report identifies and analyzes Customer Service Issues, which are actions not rising to the level of discrimination, in which testers were treated differently with

13 respect to courtesies, offering information, helpfulness, thoroughness, providing business cards/brochures/applications, and showings/tours. 1. CHA Senior Properties One hundred and thirteen (113) tests were done to determine whether Private Property Managers with CHA contractors were following appropriate fair housing application policy and procedures within CHA Senior Properties across the city. CLC and its subcontractors conducted tests at forty CHA buildings for six protected classes: race (African-American and white), national origin (Latino, Chinese, Korean, Russian, and Anglo), familial status, disability (physical and mental), sexual orientation (lesbian and gay), and religion (Jewish and Muslim). The Project used both testers who are seniors (62 or older) and younger testers posing as relatives of prospective senior tenants. Table B below shows the number of tests conducted for each protected class and the results for each. In general, rental staff had very brief or no contact with applicants, and it was not uncommon for security staff, receptionists, and tenant patrol members to answer testerapplicants questions. This is of concern because these staff members and volunteers had little information to offer and were generally unhelpful other than providing application forms. There was little evidence of staff selling their buildings. At one building, the property manager refused to give the tester any information, saying that it didn t matter because there was nothing available. At another building, an agent 7 told one tester that the age requirement was 65, and her counterpart that it was 62. Few testers were shown units or given tours, even when there were vacancies. There was such a lack of customer service at most buildings that it was difficult to measure differences in treatment because staff tried to limit contact with testers, who were posing as potential tenants. Although many testers received poor customer service when visiting CHA senior properties, some had positive and helpful experiences. For example, at a Lincoln Park property, an agent explained the application process in detail, described the units, offered to show testers the building, and gave a tour including the library, exercise room, and gardens, and discussed social activities and meals available. The agent provided both the protected class and control testers a list of other properties available and was courteous in greeting testers. At a second property in Lincoln Park an agent immediately offered to show testers a vacant unit. Afterwards, the agent invited testers into her office, and did a rent calculation estimate for them. An agent at a Lake View property was eating her lunch when a tester arrived without an appointment. The agent immediately got up and met with the tester. The agent offered the tester literature, a listing of CHA senior properties, explained the application and CHA process, offered to show the tester a unit, and pointed out features of the facility like laundry rooms. A different agent at the property displayed positive customer service by offering a tester an application, explaining the application process and the difference between flat fee and income based rent, and volunteering that the building had accessible units. During the tester s visit, the agent made a call to get more information such as how long it would take an applicant to receive a letter with a client number 9 7 The term agent is used when the tester was unable to determine the specific role/position of the respondent.

14 and how long the building s waiting list was. The agent said that she would show the tester a unit, but she had an appointment shortly. She offered the tester her phone number and encouraged her to make an appointment to see a unit. The agent also explained that there was an annual recertification process, housekeeping inspections, as well as an annual CHA inspection. Table B. Overview of CHA Senior Properties Test Results Protected Class Number of Tests Completed Percentage of Tests with Discrimination (Not Including Customer Service) Race 21 29% 29% National Origin % 40% Latino National Origin % 33% Asian National Origin - 4 0% 50% Russian Familial Status 10 30% 40% Disability - Physical 18 33% 56% Disability - Mental 5 0% 0% Sexual Orientation 24 17% 21% Religion Muslim 5 0% 40% Religion - Jewish 5 0% 20% Total Percentage of Tests with Differences in Customer Service 10 Note that in this and other data reported herein, the categories add up to more than 100% because there were multiple violations in some tests. The most common type of discrimination, steering, was experienced by 19% of testers. In one month, agents at north side buildings suggested to several white testers, but not their black and Latino counterparts, that they consider a newly-rehabbed building in Uptown. Starkly, a woman, possibly a resident, at a Chinatown building steered an African-American tester to a building east of there, in a predominantly African-American area, where she said he could get an application and the staff spoke English. The woman said that the Chinatown building had a ten year waiting list and was for all Chinese. When the white (control tester) visited the same property, a maintenance man gave the tester the agent s phone number. When the tester called her, the agent gave the tester detailed information about the application process and invited her to pick up an application. She also told the control tester that the wait was at least five years, not ten, as the African-American tester was told.

15 11 80% 70% Table C. Discrimination Based on Race in CHA Senior Housing* 71% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 19% 10% 5% 5% 5% 0% No Differences Noted Refusal to Rent Refusal to Negotiate Steering Terms & Conditions * Categories add up to more than 100% because there were multiple violations in some tests. With respect to race tests, as Tables B and C show, differences in treatment were noted, either discrimination or customer service, in 29% of the tests. The project tested for and observed both anti-african-american and anti-white treatment. However, the treatment differences African-Americans experienced were primarily discrimination, while the differences whites experienced were primarily customer service issues that did not rise to the level of discrimination. Following are some examples of substandard differential customer service involving African-American and white testers: An agent in a building in a near south side diverse neighborhood offered to show an African-American tester (posing as a daughter of interested seniors) a model unit without the tester having to ask. In contrast, when the white tester asked to see a unit, the agent told her that she could not see a unit until her parents were on the waiting list. An agent in a building in a north side predominantly white neighborhood told an African- American tester that there were no units available at the time but invited the tester to return in two weeks to see a unit. The same agent told the white tester that there was nothing available, and did not invite the tester to return to see a unit. The agent did not give the African-American tester at a building in a mixed north side neighborhood an application and the front desk attendant said twice to the tester, This is not like applying for Section 8. The same agent directed the white tester to the leasing office, where the agent gave her an application and detailed information about the application process. As for national origin tests in CHA senior buildings, Tables B above and D and E below show that significant discrimination was found with Asian testers, a moderate amount was found

16 for Latino testers, and no discriminatory treatment was found with Russian testers. 8 By far, the most common type of discrimination involving Latinos and Asians was steering, 67% for Asians and 27% for Latinos. For example, an agent at a north side building in a predominantly white area gave a white tester a list of buildings with vacancies around the city, while the Latino tester was given a narrowed down list of three recommended buildings and one the agent did not recommend. At two other buildings in predominantly white north side areas where there were no vacancies, agents told a white tester about two other north side buildings, a new green building and another really nice property. They did not share this information with the Latino tester. A receptionist at one of those buildings asked a Latino tester whether her parents were Russian, and an agent there told a white tester that the building is very diverse, but there are lots of Koreans. Differential treatment was observed when either the white or protected class ethnic origin tester received inferior treatment. Incidents in which white testers received inferior treatment were the exception and were limited to customer service differences % Table D. Discrimination Based on Asian National Origin in CHA Senior Housing 67% 60% 50% 40% 30% 33% 20% 10% 0% No Differences Noted Refusal to Rent Refusal to Negotiate Steering Terms & Conditions 8 Note that because of the small number of tests involving Russian and Asian testers, these patterns are not conclusive; further testing is recommended.

17 13 80% 70% Table E. Discrimination Based on Latino National Origin in CHA Senior Housing 73% 60% 50% 40% 30% 27% 20% 10% 0% No Differences Noted Refusal to Rent Refusal to Negotiate Steering Terms & Conditions 7% With respect to familial status, non-elderly family members are allowed to live with qualified senior residents. However, units in CHA Senior Properties are studios and onebedrooms, and their occupancy standards allow no more than two residents in a studio or one bedroom unit, so the maximum number of people for almost all of the units is two. Therefore, a senior tenant would be able to have one child living with him/her. As Tables B and F show, tenants with children experienced discrimination in 30% of the tests, and differences in customer service in 40% of the tests. In a south side building in a predominantly African-American neighborhood, when the tester told the agent that her nine-year-old granddaughter would be living with her, the agent said, Why would you want your granddaughter around seniors? We don t allow children in here. In a north side building, in response to a tester s question about having a grandchild live with her, an agent said that they do not allow children but they can visit any time. An agent at another north side property plainly said that they do not take children.

18 14 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 70% Table F. Discrimination Based on Familial Status in CHA Senior Housing 30% 0% No Differences Noted Refusal to Rent Refusal to Negotiate Steering Terms & Conditions The disability tests showed no discrimination or differences in customer service for applicants with mental disabilities 9, while testers with physical disabilities, especially those with hearing disabilities, experienced significant discrimination, as demonstrated in Tables B, G, H, I, and J. In general, testers with physical disabilities experienced discrimination 1/3 of the time and differences in customer service in 56% of the tests. With respect to applicants with hearing disabilities, one tester called an office using a telephone relay system, an operator service that allows people with hearing disabilities to place calls to standard telephone users via a keyboard or assistive device. The agent who answered put her on hold and then hung up. Another time the agent said no, thank you and hung up, and a third time an agent said, No, no, no, we don t do those calls. In one site test, an agent refused to communicate by writing notes back and forth on paper with a tester with a hearing disability. In another such test, the agent told the tester without disabilities that there were units available and instructed her to send in an application, while she told the tester with a disability on the phone and during the visit that there were no available units. One major area of concern in tests for people with mobility disabilities was the denial of reasonable accommodation and modification requests. In one situation, a tester in a wheelchair asked if a sliding door could be installed for the bathtub. The maintenance person immediately said no; the manager said she would have to check with the CHA. The manager s response was appropriate, agreeing to open a dialog about the request. Another tester in a wheelchair asked if a portion of a wall could be removed to make a turn in the kitchen easier for him, and asked if an accessible parking place could be reserved for him. The agent replied no to both 9 Testers with mental disabilities disclosed to the agent that they had a disability when requesting a reasonable accommodation.

19 inquiries. An appropriate response if the agent didn t know would be that he/she didn t know, but would check % 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 67% Table G. Discrimination Based on Physical Disability in CHA Senior Housing* 6% 17% 6% 6% 6% *Note that categories add up to more than 100% because in some cases there were multiple violations in a single test. Table H. Overview of CHA Senior Housing Physical Disability Tests* Type of Physical Disability Number of Tests Completed Percentage of Tests with Discrimination (Not Including Customer Service) Mobility disability 5 40% 60% Visual disability 6 0% 100% Hearing disability 7 57% 29% Total Percentage of Tests with Differences in Customer Service *Note that categories add up to more than 100% because in some cases there were multiple violations in a single test.

20 16 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 43% Table I. Discrimination Based on Hearing Disability in CHA Senior Housing 14% 43% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 60% Table J. Discrimination Based on Mobility Disability in CHA Senior Housing* 20% 40% As shown in Tables B and K, lesbian and gay testers experienced discrimination 17% of the time and differences in customer service 21% of the time. In two tests, agents told gay testers that they and their partners would have to apply separately and both would have to be approved, which is not what CHA rules require. In a third test, the agent gave the straight tester

21 more housing information and told him about a free rent incentive that the agent didn t mention to the gay tester. An agent at a north side property told a lesbian tester that she and her female partner would need to be married in order to share an apartment. After the tester questioned further, the agent put the tester on hold and upon returning to the call, stated that her manager said that a lesbian couple could live there and that both names must be on the application % 80% 83% Table K. Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation in CHA Senior Housing 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 4% 13% 0% No Differences Noted Refusal to Rent Refusal to Negotiate Steering Terms & Conditions Finally, CLC did a small number of religion tests involving Jewish and Muslim testers. As demonstrated in Table B, while the protected class testers did not experience discrimination, they did encounter some differences in customer service. For example, a security officer simply told a Muslim tester that there were not any units available and did not invite her to speak with the property manager. However, the guard directed the white tester to the office and the property manager confirmed to her in person that there were no units available. 2. Housing Choice Voucher Landlords One hundred and fifty-five (155) tests (143 matched-pair equivalent) were conducted of landlords participating in the Housing Choice Voucher Program. CLC chose for this testing category housing providers across the city, both landlords and property managers, who control relatively large numbers of units, based on information that the CHA provided. The category is sometimes referred to in this report as HCV Landlords. In addition to testing for fair housing compliance including steering based on race, ethnic origin, and Housing Choice Voucher status, the Chicago Lawyers Committee sought to capture any unique difficulties experienced by voucher holders and customer service issues. Test coordinators instructed testers to either contact the housing providers via telephone or in person at their main office to inquire about

22 available units. Testers did not request a specific unit or neighborhood. Their only criteria were a particular size unit and price range as determined by the test coordinator. If the housing provider required testers to narrow their search before proceeding, test coordinators selected a region or unit that both testers would express interest in. The test coordinators controlled for all variables except the protected class under investigation. As Tables L and M show, landlords who were already renting to HCV holders discriminated against African-American and white Housing Choice Voucher holders frequently, 59% of the time. These landlords steered both races of voucher holders fully 1/3 of the time. Examples of steering encountered include: agents providing information only for certain properties they say are approved for Section 8 ; and agents retracting lists of available units when they learn of applicants HCV status, sometimes stating that owners have a list of properties where voucher holders are acceptable and another list for which owners are not willing to make necessary changes to pass inspections. Agents tended to steer voucher holders to the more diverse neighborhoods of Albany Park and Rogers Park and away from the more affluent and less diverse Lincoln Park neighborhood on the north side. For example, when a tester with a HCV inquired about a unit in Lincoln Park, the agent asked why she wanted to live there. After a tester with a HCV expressed interest in the north side, the agent told the tester that there were no voucher holders living in the north side properties; another agent told a tester with a HCV that the company managed more buildings that were already approved by the CHA on the south side. In another test, an agent gave the non-hcv tester a list of six properties with available units, but told the voucher holder counterpart that the company only had one building for which it accepted Section 8 tenants. In yet another test, the agent steered the HCV holder to buildings below the indicated rent range. 18 Table L. Overview of HCV Landlord Test Results Protected Class Number of Tests Completed Percentage of Tests with Discrimination (Not Including Customer Service) HCV 29 59% 28% Race 30 33% 30% National Origin - Latino 11 9% 64% National Origin - Asian 6 33% 17% Familial Status 12 25% 17% Disability - Physical 34 44% 24% Disability - Mental 6 17% 33% Sexual Orientation 27 4% 11% Total Percentage of Tests with Differences in Customer Service

23 19 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Table M. Discrimination Based on Housing Choice Voucher Status by HCV Landlords* 41% No Differences Noted 10% Refusal to Rent 14% Refusal to Negotiate 34% Steering 10% Terms & Conditions *Note that categories add up to more than 100% because in some cases there were multiple violations in a single test. Keeping in mind that these tests involved housing providers who were already renting to HCV holders in some properties, agents also refused to negotiate with voucher holders 14% of the time and refused to rent to them 10% of the time. Refusal to negotiate occurred when agents stopped returning phone calls after they learned of the applicants HCV status, or agents did not say no to the voucher, but said that they would not make changes that CHA requires. For example, an agent promptly followed up with and returned calls of a non-hcv tester, yet never followed up with or returned the calls of a HCV tester, even though the HCV tester initiated contact before the non-hcv tester. Refusals to rent to voucher holders most often occurred when agents or receptionists told testers that they didn t have any approved units or did not manage any CHA approved properties. In some cases agents said that they did not accept vouchers. In one test, after learning that the tester had a voucher, the agent retracted a Lakeview property as an option, saying that the owner would not want to fill out the CHA paperwork. In more subtle situations, they did not call back after applicants said that they had vouchers. As Table L indicates, voucher holders experienced inferior customer service in more than one quarter, 28%, of the tests. Agents provided little information or did not offer to show units, and did not provide clear answers to testers questions regarding acceptance of vouchers. Testers had to call multiple times to get information. In one test, an agent informed the nonvoucher holder about six different available units and offered showings; in contrast, the agent directed the voucher holder to the website to find units. Further, several testers described the agents as looking disturbed, annoyed, or replying curtly when they mentioned they had a voucher.

24 As Tables L (above) and N (below) show, testers experienced racial discrimination with HCV landlords 1/3 of the time and inferior customer service 30% of the time. Steering was again the most common form of discrimination, occurring 17% of the time, most commonly when agents or receptionists steered voucher holders to particular neighborhoods based on race. In one case, an agent asked a white voucher holder if she knew a particular building was in a predominantly African-American area and suggested that the white HCV holder drive around the area to make sure that she knew what she was getting into. In another test, an agent provided two white testers with four or five listings in Uptown and Lincoln Square, while he provided a single listing in Rogers Park to the African-American tester and stated there were not many vacancies. The agent in this test also stated a different term, a security deposit of a full month s rent, to the African-American tester yet told the white testers that there was no security deposit, just a $300 move-in fee. Race-based refusals to rent and to negotiate occurred 7% of the time each. In one blatant refusal to rent test, a rental agent told a white voucher holder tester that the management company in Uptown had many units available immediately at that building, offered to show that tester several units, and said they had lots of other properties with available units. However, when the African-American tester met with the same agent two days later, the agent told the tester that all of their units were rented and suggested that the tester try again in three months. One example of a race-based refusal to negotiate occurred when an agent promised to call back the African-American tester, but did not. When the tester called the agent a second time, she was told the agent was not available, and although she called back a third time, the agent never called back. The same agent made repeated follow-up calls to the white tester % 70% Table N. Discrimination Based on Race by HCV Landlords* 67% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 7% 7% 17% 13% 0% No Differences Noted Refusal to Rent Refusal to Negotiate Steering Terms & Conditions *Note that categories add up to more than 100% because in some cases there were multiple violations in a single test.

25 As Tables L and O show, Asian testers experienced ethnic origin discrimination with HCV landlords 1/3 of the time and inferior customer service 17% of the time. Steering and different terms and conditions were the most common forms of discrimination, each occurring 17% of the time. In one test, an agent from a management company only showed an Asian tester two units, and they were $235 and $335 above her quoted price range. An agent from the same management company mentioned nine units to the white tester, all within her price range; following protocol, both testers asked for the same price range. In another test, an agent informed an Asian tester of a higher parking rate, neglected to discuss rent specials that would save the tester at least $500, and offered less flexibility in lease length as compared to the white tester % 70% Table O. Discrimination Based on Asian National Origin by HCV Landlords* 67% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 17% 17% 10% 0% No Differences Noted Refusal to Rent Refusal to Negotiate Steering Terms & Conditions *Note that categories add up to more than 100% because in some cases there were multiple violations in a single test. As Tables L and P indicate, testers with children experienced familial status discrimination with HCV landlords 25% of the time and inferior customer service 17% of the time. Steering was the most common form of discrimination, occurring 17% of the time. In one case, an agent told a tester with children that there was one unit available that met her criteria. The next day, an agent from the same management company disclosed that there were three units in Lake View and up to five units in Lincoln Square that met the criteria of the tester without children. In a different test, the owner of a management company told an African-American female tester with children that he had two properties but one was going to be viewed the following day and would surely be gone, and the other was a disaster that he did not want to show her. He asked her where she lived and when the tester answered him, he replied that she lived in a nice area and questioned why she wanted to move. The owner also asked the tester if she had Section 8; she replied no. The owner asked her to follow up with him later and hung up quickly. When the owner spoke to an African-American female tester without children, he disclosed that both properties had vacancies.