HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10201998 - C64 C.&
• •. Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
.� Costa
FROM: County
my
Dentus M. Barry, AICD
Director of Community Development
DATE: October 20, 1998
SUBJECT: Contra Costa County Fair Housing Audit Report
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S)& BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECON IAENDATIONS
ACCEPT the Fair Housing Audit Report prepared by the County's fair housing agencies to identify
potential problems of housing discrimination in the Urban County.
FISCAL IMPACT
No General Fund impact. The Fair Housing Audit Report was written using funds provided through the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)-Program.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMN ENDATIONS
In accordance with the regulations of the federally funded CDBG and HOME Programs, Contra Costa
Community Development Department staff in conjunction with local fair housing;agencies has initiated
an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice.
i
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:
I J
.RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR_RECO ATION OF OARD COMM EE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
f
ACTION OF BOARD ON October 20, 1998 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDER X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT_ ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
.AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact. Kara Douglas, 335-1253
cc: County Administrator ATTESTED October 20, 1998
County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD
Auditor—Controller OF SUPERVISORS& COUNTY ADMIIVISTRATO
Community Development
B ,DEPUTY
This analysis is designed to identify problems of, and strategies to alleviate, impediments to fair
housing, including discriminatory housing rental and sales practices, in the Urban County. (The
Urban County consists of all Contra Costa jurisdictions with the exception of Antioch, Concord,
Pittsburg, Richmond, and Walnut Creek. These cities are independent entitlement jurisdictions for
the purposes of the CDBG program and are required to conduct separate housing studies.)
One component of the County's analysis of impediments was to conduct a fair housing audit of
multifamily rental developments in the Urban County to determine if there are problems of
discrimination in rental housing, This study was designed to analyze procedures used by
owners/managers in renting available units to protected minority groups. The audit tests were
conducted using a representative sample of minority groups living in the County(e.g. ethnic
minorities, the physically disabled, families with children, and people with FHV/AIIJS), paired
with"majority" testers to identify any differential treatment of rental applicants. The audit was an
effective tool in determining whether minorities experienced differential treatment; however, it
was not intended as a scientific assessment of the incidence of housing discrimination in the Urban
County.
Attached is the Executive Summary to the Fair Housing Audit Report. The findings indicate that
minorities are not experiencing overt discrimination or outright denial of housing. However, over
half of the minority testers experienced some type of differential treatment(e.g. different
information regarding: unit availability, rent, deposit, and/or credit/income requirements). Under
federal law, differential treatment is as illegal as direct discrimination. Some examples of
differential treatment identified in the audit are:
» In nearly 25 percent of the tests, the ethnic minority tester was advised of a later
availability date for an apartment.
• In nearly 25 percent of the tests, there were no units available to the physically disabled
tester. This did not appear to be due to an unwillingness to rent to a disabled person, but
rather to the lack of accessible units. The study also identified some misunderstanding of
the right of the physically disabled to make accessibility improvements to an available
apartment at their own expense.
» Families with children were sometimes"steered" to certain rental units or area of the
complex, i.e. they were shown only areas of a complex where there were other families
with children or they were encouraged to consider only ground floor units in a multi-story
building.
» In nearly 14 percent of the tests of racial discrimination,the majority tester was quoted a
higher rent which suggests generally inconsistent practices and/or reverse discrimination.
The non-profit agencies involved in the research and writing of the Fair Housing Audit Report
(Contra Costa Legal Services Foundation, Pacific Community Services, Inc., and;Shelter, Inc.)
now plan to host educational workshops throughout the Urban County for owners, managers, and
tenants of rental housing. These workshops will use the audit report findings to introduce
discussion on the legal requirements and potential liability of discriminatory practices. In addition,
the workshops will discuss fair and consistent procedures for renting properties and the
implementation of fair and consistent policies for tenants. The agencies also intend to re-test a
sampling of the original test sites to see if, after the workshops presentations, there are any
changes in management policy.
KD C:\DATA\WP60\FAMHOUS\1998\BD-AUDff.WPD
EXECUT11VE S' A04AR.Y— CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
FAIR HOUSING AUDIT REPORT FOR THE URBAN COUNTY
INTRODUCTION
The accompanying report presents the results of a series of fair housing audit tests
conducted in the Urban County' over the past three years to assess the extent to which minority
applicants for rental housing face discriminatory treatment. The testing was designed and
implemented by a working group that included County staff and several local non-profit agencies.
Separate audit tests were conducted to determine the incidence of discriminatory treatment faced
by African Americans, the physically disabled, families with children and people with AIDS/HIV..
The audit is part of an effort, mandated by the United States Department of housing and Urban
Development (HUTS), to conduct an analysis of impediments to housing choice in the Urban
County. This Executive Summary outlines the results of the testing and the recommendations of
the working group.
ABOUT THE AUDIT TESTING
The audit tests were conducted throughout the Urban County by pairs of "testers," one
representing a protected minority group(e.g., African-American or family with children) and one
representing a control or majority group(e.g., Caucasian or a family with no children). Both the
"minority" and the "majority" tester contacted rental agents purporting to be seeking rental
housing. In each case the minority tester met with the rental agent first, and the majority tester
met with the rental agent within an hour or so later. If the two testers were treated differently
(e.g., the minority tester was told no rental units were available, while the majority tester was told
of available rentals), it may be attributable to discriminatory treatment by the rental agent or
property owner.
t The Urban County includes all of Contra Costa with the exception of the cities of Antioch,Concord,Pittsburg,
Richmond and walnut Creek.
1
The purpose of these audit tests was to do a broad assessment of the barriers which minority
applicants face when seeking housing. It is part of the ongoing effort by the County to identify
impediments to fair housing choice and to implement strategies to alleviate those impediments.
The audit testing is not intended to generate or support discrimination complaints against
individual owners. Therefore, the results of the tests will be shared with property owners and
managers in a non-adversarial environment as part of an educational effort aimed at reducing the
incidence of discriminatory conduct.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Race-Based Discrimination
This test sought to determine the incidence of discriminatory treatment faced by African-
American applicants for rental housing. The most significant result was that in nearly 25% (13
out of 57) of the tests, the African American tester was advised of a later availability date for a
rental than was the Caucasian tester who applied to the same apartment complex within an hour
or so of the time that the African American tester applied.' By comparison, the Caucasian
applicant was advised of a later availability date in only 4 out of the 57 tests conducted. This
differential treatment suggests that some rental agents may be attempting to discourage African
American applicants for rental housing by indicating a date of availability later than the actual
availability date. Alternatively, rental agents may be placing African American applicants on a
de facto "waiting list," so that the rental agents can seek first to rent to non-African American
applicants by advising them of an earlier availability date. Whatever the reasons for such
differential treatment, it is clearly unlawful.
It is recommended that the County continue its educational efforts directed at owners and
rental agents, emphasizing the fact that differential treatment which discourages minority
2 See summary of results in Table 1 in the Appendix to this Executive Summary.
3 In most tests,the testers were the same gender. However,in 11 of the tests,a male minority tester was paired with a
female majority tester. Therefore,some instances of differential treatment may be attributable to gender based discrimination,
rather than race-based discrimination.
2
applets is as unlawful as outright refusals to rent. These efforts should highlight the potential
legal liability which owners face when such discriminatory conduct occurs. In addition,
educational efforts should seek to counter the stereotypes regarding racial minorities which may
motivate discriminatory conduct. The County should also continue its education and outreach to
racial minorities to ensure that victims of discrimination are aware of their rights as well as the
resources available to assist them.
DiSaWlity Testing
This audit sought to assess the extent to which physically disabled applicants for housing
faced discriminatory treatment, as well as the extent to which physical inaccessibility of rentals
reduced the availability of rental housing to the physically disabled. In each',test, the minority
tester purported to be seeking a rental unit which was wheelchair accessible. In most cases, the
tester also asked whether the landlord would permit the tester to make physical modifications to
the rental (e.g., installation of ramps or grab bars) to make the unit and/or the complex more
accessible.
sible.
The test results' do not indicate that landlords are refusing to rent to physically disabled
applicants due to hostility or fears regarding the disabled. However, the lack of physical
accessibility of many apartment complexes dramatically reduced the availability of rentals to the
disabled testers. In nearly 25% of all complexes tested, no units were available to the disabled
tester, although units were available to the non-disabled tester. In nearly half of all complexes
tested, there were more rental units available to the non-disabled tester than were available to the
disabled tester. In most cases, this differential availability of units was clearly attributable to the
physical inaccessibility of some or all units in the complex.
At the same time, most rental agents responded favorably to inquiries by the tester as to
whether the landlord would allow physical modifications of the rental unit and/or common area
which are required under federal and state law. .However, a substantial number of rental agents
indicated they were uncertain whether the landlord would permit these modifications and a few
rental agents indicated that the requested modifications would not be permitted.
4 See summary of results in'Cables 2 and 3 in the Appendix to this Executive Summary.
3
The audit results confirm that a major housing access problem faced by the physically
disabled is the lack of a sufficient number of physically accessible rental units. In light of the low
vacancy rate in many parts of the County, this represents a serious impediment to housing choice.
This problem can only be effectively addressed by increasing the supply of accessible rental
housing. In addition, a number of rental agents apparently are confused about their legal duty to
permit reasonable physical modifications of rental housing to enhance accessibility. Therefore,
the County should continue to promote educational efforts with regard to the legal rights of the
disabled and the duties of rental property owners, including the legal duty to permit modifications
of rental units.
Family Status Testing
This test sought to assess the incidence of discrimination against families with children.
In the test, the minority testers indicated they were seeking housing for themselves, their spouses
and a thirteen year old child. The majority/control testers indicated they were seeking housing
for themselves, their spouses and a mother-in-law .
The results5 do not indicate that families with children are being treated significantly
differently in the terms or conditions of rental (e.g., the amount of rent or security deposit). The
results do provide some evidence that some rental agents are seeking to discourage applicants with
children, typically by advising these applicants of a later availability date for rentals than was
given to the applicant with no children.
The strongest indication of differential treatment in the test results is that substantial
numbers of landlords and/or rental agents appear to be advising families with children of the
availability of different units than those shown to families without children. This, in turn,
supports the conclusion that rental agents are "steering" families with children to certain rental
units or areas of an apartment complex. This may be part of an effort to create "adults only" areas
of a complex or may reflect an assumption that certain units are not appropriate for children (e.g.,
upstairs units). Whatever the landlord's motives, such "steering" or segregation of families with
children is prohibited by state and federal fair housing laws.
5 See summary of results in Table 4 in the Appendix to this Executive Summary.
4
Refits to rent to families with children and segregation of families with children reduce
the housing choice available to such families. Education of landlords and rental agents should
focus on increasing awareness that discrimination against families with children is prohibited in
the same manner as is discrimination based on race, gender or disability. Specifically, Landlords
and agents should be made aware that segregation of families with children is generally unlawful.
The County should also continue to promote education of families with children, so that they are
aware of their rights and can access assistance when they believe they have leen the victims of
housing discrimination.
EMAIl S Testing
This test sought to assess the incidence of discrimination against applicants for rental
housing with HIV/AIDS. The minority tester purported to be seeking rental housing for herself
and her spouse with HIV/AIDS. This test presented great problems in making the rental agent
aware of the tester's spouse's HIV status without arousing suspicions on the part of the rental
agent that a housing discrimination test was occurring (i.e., it would be unusual to immediately
advise a prospective landlord that one's spouse is HIV positive). Therefore, in a large number
of cases the tester did not advise the rental agent of the HIV status of his/her spouse until AFICER
the rental agent had shown the tester the available rental units). Thus, the authors of this report
believe that this audit test is of questionable validity in assessing the actual incidence of
discrimination against people with HIWAIDS.
The test resulte indicate minimal instances of outright refusals to rent to applicants with
HIWAIDS. However, in a significant.-number of cases, the minority tester was advised of
minimum income.requirements(generally requiring that the applicant have income equal to at least
three times the rent) while the m2 jority tester was not. This may indicate either stereotypes about
the income status or stability of people with HIV or may be an attempt to discourage the minority
applicant from completing the rental application process.
Sec summary of results in'table 5 in the Appendix to this Executive Summary.
5
In a few instances, the rental agent made inappropriate comments or asked unduly intrusive
questions of the minority tester. These included inquiries whether the tester's spouse was a drug
user, asking how the tester's spouse became HIV positive and, in one instance, asking the tester
how she and her spouse had sex. Such inappropriate comments/inquiries constitute violations of
the civil rights of people with HIV/AIDS. Perhaps more importantly such comments may reflect
stereotypes which large numbers of rental agents share regarding people with HIV/AIDS. While
only a small number of rental agents actually made such comments, many more may share these
beliefs, but may be savvy enough not to verbalize them in the presence of a minority applicant or
his/her family members.
Education and outreach to rental agents and landlords should increase awareness that
people with AIDS/HIV are protected from discriminatory treatment in the same manner as other
minority groups. This includes protections from inappropriate inquiries that other prospective
tenants are not subjected to. Education and outreach should also seek to address stereotypes about
people with AIDS/HIV. In addition, outreach and education should target people with HIV/AIDS
living in Contra Costa County, so that they are aware of their rights and the assistance which is
available when they believe they are facing housing discrimination.
CONCLUSION
The authors of this report again wish to stress that these audits are not intended as a
scientific assessment of the incidence of housing discrimination. The goal of the audits is to get
a general picture of the barriers which minority applicants for housing are facing as an initial step
in developing strategies to improve the housing choice available to all segments of our community.
It is hoped that this report will facilitate a cooperative effort by all segments of the community to
eliminate housing discrimination.
6
APTENDIX
SUMMARY TABLES -- FAIR HOUSING AUDIT REPORT
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT TESTING
INCIDENCE OF DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF
AFRICAN AMERICAN APPLICANTS FOR RENTAL HOUSING
DESCRIPTION NUMBER
NO DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT: 28
o Difference in Information Provided to Minori and Ma'a Testers
DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT: 29
(Minority and Majority Testers Provided with Different Information
NATURE OF DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT
DESCRIPTION NUMBER'
No Unit Available to Majority Tester p
No Unit Available to Minority Tester 1
Different Availability Date 4
!24ajodt
y Told Unit Available Later
Different Availability Date 13
iunori Told Unit Available Later
Rent Different(M#jority Rent Higher) g
Rent Different N*orityRent Higher) 3
Deposit Different I
jority Deposit Hi er
Deposit Different I
(Minority D2posit Hi her
Credit/Minimum Income Different (Requirements Higher for Majority 1
Tester
Credit/Minimum Income Higher (Requirements for Minority Tester U
Higher
'The total of these sub-categories of differential treatment is greater than 29,because there often was more than one way
in which an individual Lester was treated differently by a particular rental agent(e.g.,a minority tester may have been advised
of a later availability date and a higher rent for an apartment).
TABLE 2
SU WARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT TESTING
INCIDENCE OF DITERENTIAL TREATMENT OF
PHYSICALLY DISABLED APPLICANTS FOR RENTAL HOUSING'
DFSCRIPTION NUMBER
NO DIFFERENT AL TREATMENT. 25
o Difference in Information Provided to Minority aM Ma`o ' Testers
DUTERENTIAi.,TREATMENT- 41
Ino " anti M*j2ft Testers Provided with Differt Iafortnation
NATURE OF DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT
DESCRUMON NUMBER'
No Unit Available to Majority Tester 0
No Unit Available to Minority Tester 17
Different Availability Date 2
Majority Told Unit Available Later
Different Availability Date 8
_�Wmority Told Unit Available Later
Fewer Units Available to M*rity Tester 3
Fewer Units Available to Migopr Tester 29
Rent Different 21Ajority hent Hi her 1
Rent Different(Mj!!2!k hent Hi her 0
Deposit Different 0
(�LaLority DEMit Hiter
Deposit Different 1
ig?nD sit Higher)
Credit/Minitnum loomrue Different 0
TeMirements Higher for MaJoAty Tester
CreditlMinirt utu lhoorne Higher 0
irements for Minority Tester Hi her
'The totals of these sub-categories of differential treatment is greater than 41,because there often was more than one way
in which an individual tester was treated differently by a particular rental agent(e_g."a minority tester may have been advised
of both a later availability date and a higher rent for an apartment).
.__~---------_~~_-- ......
LANDLORD RESPONSE TO REQUEST BY PHYSICALLY DISABLED APPLICANT'S
FOR MODIFICATIONS OF UNITICON[PLEX
LANDLORD RESPONSE NUM�MBER
ACCEPTABLE 28
(LANDLORD/AGENT INDICATED THAT REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS WERE
ACCEPTABLE TO LANDLORD
UNCERTAIN 11
(LANDLORD/AGENT INDICATED DID NOT KNOW WHETHER REQUESTED
MODIFICATIONS WERE ACCEPTABfn.
UNACCEPTABLE 3
(LANDLORD/AGENT INDICATED REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS WERE NOT
~^
r�
`
'
,
'
�
�
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AUDIT TESTING
INCIDENCE OF DIFFERENTMAL TREATMENT OF
FAMILIES VVrW CHILDREN APPLYING FOR RENTAL HOUSING
D13SCRIMON NUMBER
NO DLI FERENTLAL TREATMENT: 25
o Difference in Information Provided to h222!ity h222!' and Ma
jqr#y Testers
DFERENT AL TREATMENT: 29
Ina', and 'o , Testers Provided with Different Iztfortnatian
NATURE OF DIFFERENTLAL TREATMENT
DESCRIPTION NUMBER'
No Unit Available to Majority Tester 0
No Unit Available to Minority Tester 1
Different Availability Date 4
a"or:ty Told Unit Available Later
Different Availability Date 7
(Minority Told Unit Available Later
Fewer Units Available to Maority Tester 3
Fewer Units Available to Minority Tester 10
Different Units Available 10
IMinority and Majqo�y Tester were Advised of or Shown Different Units
Rent Different Oki2ft Rent Ht,her) 3
Rent Different(MinorityRent Hi her 4
Deposit Different I
(Maig-rity Nposit
Deposit Different I
(Mjq�ority Deposit H`
Credit/Minimum Income Different 0
Eesce'rements Hi her for Mao ' Tester
Credit/Minimtun Income Higher 2
irernents Iii for Minority Tester
'The total of these sub-categories of differential treatment is greater than 29,because there often was mom than on*way
in which an individual tester was treated differently by a particular rental agent(e.g.,a minority tester may have been advised
of both a later availability date and a higher rent for an apartment).
b
TABLES
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AUDI"TESTING
INCIDENCE OF DE FERENTIAL TREATMENT OF
PEOPLE WITII HIV/AIDS APPLYING FOR RENTAL HOUSING
DESCRIPTION NUMBER
NO DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT: 34
a Difference in Information Provided to Minority and MajorityTesters
DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT; 26
Win rity and LAjaority Testers Provided with Different Information
NATURE OF DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT
DESCRIPTION NUMBER
No Unit Available to Majority Tester 0
No Unit Available to Minority Tester I
Different Availability Date 3
a"ori Told Unit Available Later
Different Availability Date 3
inori Told Unit Available Later
Fewer Units Available to Majority Tester I
Fewer Units Available to Minojq Tester 0
Different Units Available 4
2Lmo4ty and MajorityTester Advised of or Shown Different Units
Rent Different Ajority Rent Higher) I
Rent Different inori Rent Higher) 3
Deposit Different 0
(Majority Deposit Higher)
Deposit Different 0
(Minority Deposit Higher)
Credit/Minimum Income Different 0
irernents Higher for Majority Tester
Credit/Minimum Income Higher 6
(Requirements Higher for Minority Tester
Inappropriate Questions or Comments to 7
Minority Tester Re. HN/AIDS status