Jay Wilkinson - Housing (In)Equality

2011 FAIR HOUSING AUDIT

Our History of “Restricted” Housing

2011 FAIR HOUSING AUDIT

FOR THE FAIR HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION COUNCIL

By: The Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis Housing Discrimination Law Project

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

At 5 of the 17properties, testers were treated equally (29%). At 12 of 17 properties (71%), testers experienced materially differential treatment. Differential treatment – when testers received different information concerning

the availability of a rental or where the calls of one tester were not returned but

another was invited to view the home.

In 9 of 12 cases, differential treatment favored White testers over African American testers or persons perceived to be immigrants. In 3 cases, the opposite: White testers got worse treatment.

D.T. = Differential Treatment; E.T. = Equal Treatment;

Poor C.S. = Poor Customer Service

Status Tested Number ofTests # D.T. # E.T. # Poor C.S. Incomplete

Race 9 6 3 1 1

National Origin (Somali) 2 2 0 0 0

National Origin (Latino) 5 4 1 1 0

Disability 1 0 1 0 0

SAMPLES OF DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT

Location Status tested

Tester 1

Tester 1Voicemails

Tester 1 Callback?

Tester 2 Tester 2Voicemails

Tester 2Callback?

1. Cottage Grove (may not be subsidized property)

National origin

White 0 N/A (site visited)

Latino 3 Showing canceled.

2(a). Eagan National origin

White 0 N/A (site visited) Told “2 openings.”

Latino 0 N/A (site visited) Told “no openings.”

2(b). Eagan (same)

National origin

White 0 N/A (site visited)

Latino 3 Never

3. Coon Rapids

National origin

White 2 Yes Somali 3 Never

PROPERTIES

1. Cottage Grove Testers: White and Latino Favored: White Differences:1. White tester completed a site visit; was told a unit was

available2. Latino tester left 3 messages; no call back 3. Latino tester called for the 4th time; was given an appointment4. Latino tester was called on the day of appointment to cancel5. Latino tester was told the apartment had been rented

Conclusion: This test shows differential treatment. Tests may have been at an unsubsidized property.

2(a). Eagan Testers: White and Latino Favored: White Differences:1. White tester completed a site visit; told two units

available 2. Latino tester was given an appointment; told one unit

available 3. Latino tester was told in person the unit had been rented

2(b). Another set of tests was completed: 1. White tester completed a site visit; told two units

available 2. Latino tester left 3 messages; no call back

Conclusion: This test shows differential treatment. accent. (Reported as a single finding of differential treatment.)

3. Coon Rapids Testers: White and Somali Favored: White Differences:1. White tester left 2 messages; received a call back2. White tester completed a site visit; told one unit available 3. White tester was told other units available in March4. Somali tester left 3 messages; did not receive call back

Conclusion: This test shows differential treatment.

In Minneapolis

Three properties tested: 1. Test for disability – no differences. 2. Test for race - white tester given

application, African American not given application. 2010 test showed difference by race when AA person’s calls were not returned.

3. Test for national origin - white tester told to call back in a month, Latina told no openings for rest of year.

Testers’ voices

Somali Tester.wav

Latino Tester.wav

African American Tester.wav

White Tester.wav

5 of 17, Equal Treatment

Factors to Note

1. A single instance of different treatment may have been a mistake.

2. These rentals were chosen because the complex had gov’t. money -- most had no openings and could not be tested.

3. The Fair Housing Implementation Council and its member cities and counties are considering actions this fall.

What Would You Do?

SUGGESTED RESPONSES

 More testing and enforcement.

Adopt a comprehensive equal housing opportunity policy. A model policy may be obtained from Legal Aid, a FHIC member organization.

Do an employee performance review concerning fair housing expectations. At a minimum, persons who failed to provide equal treatment to potential renters should be told that such behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

Adopt an affirmative marketing plan which ensures that your business attracts rental applicants from the entire range of populations in the metropolitan area, in particular finding ways to bring in home-seekers who are now least likely to apply. Use the free rental marketing services of HousingLink: http://www.housinglink.org .

Take an inventory of your renters. Do you serve a diverse population? Audit your records of inquiries and applicants to determine whether all persons have gotten good customer service when they inquired about renting from your business. If this review shows short-comings, come up with a remediation plan that addresses those problems.

See that your staff is regularly trained for fair housing. FHIC can recommend experienced trainers.

The Housing Discrimination Law Project

The Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis

James Wilkinson [email protected] 612-746-3784 www.mylegalaid.org www.lawhelpmn.org