There are two types of
housing discrimination: exclusionary and non-exclusionary. Exclusionary refers to limiting one's access to housing while one is seeking to rent or buy housing, while non-exclusionary refers to discriminatory treatment within one's current housing. Certain policies that do not explicitly discriminate have also been found to cause housing discrimination in the United States.
Disparate impact is a facially neutral housing policy that negatively impacts minorities or other protected groups of people. The Supreme Court upheld the decades long practice of holding housing providers liable for housing discrimination under a disparate impact theory in 2015. Following the Supreme Court decision, HUD issued an opinion from their Office of General Counsel concluding that blanket prohibitions against tenants with criminal convictions would constitute disparate impact housing discrimination because some people are psychologically more likely to be criminals. Disparate impact remains controversial among industry and business professionals because some feel that their freedom in implementing policies and rules is now limited. Housing discrimination continues to affect African Americans in many ways. Practices such as redlining, in which mortgage lenders historically denied loans to minority neighborhoods, have contributed to residential segregation and limited access to quality schools, healthcare, and employment. African American homeowners often experience lower home appraisals compared with similar homes in white neighborhoods, reducing opportunities for wealth and generational wealth. Segregated neighborhoods are also more likely to face environmental hazards such as industrial spills. The uneven enforcement of policies like “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” has further perpetuated disparities in housing, health, and economic outcomes, illustrating how historical and contemporary policies continue to maintain structural inequality in the United States. [1] reference • Lederer, A., & McCracken, T. (2021, April 28).
The Many Effects of Housing Discrimination on African Americans. National Community Reinvestment Coalition. https://ncrc.org/the-many-effects-of-housing-discrimination-on-african-americans/
John Yinger argued that discriminatory housing practices in the housing market have led to segregation, citing examples such as realtors opting to place
public housing in crowded
inner city minority neighborhoods instead of neighborhoods with an Anglo majority due to "public and political pressure." Other housing phenomena that Yinger argues encourage segregation are those of
sorting and
bidding, in which bidders perceived to be higher-class win out on cheaper per-square-foot, larger homes farther away from inner cities. In a comprehensive study by the HUD in 2000, paired-tests (in which two applicants of different races but the same economic status and credit scores apply to rent or buy a house) were used to determine whether or not statistics about segregation truly pointed to housing discrimination. This study reported that although adverse treatment of racial and ethnic minorities has decreased over time, roughly 25 percent of white applicants were still favored above those who were African-American or Hispanic. About 17 percent of African American applicants and 20 percent of Hispanic applicants were subjected to adverse treatment, including receiving less information about a home or being shown fewer, lower-quality units. A meta-analysis of housing discrimination by race/ethnicity published in 2020 found that discrimination is still prevalent but has declined in recent decades. Sociologists have found that housing discrimination also extends to roommate selection. Contrary to
common misconception, the correlation between racial makeup and house price has risen over the past several decades.
Recent controversies Internet classified platforms have also faced scrutiny under the
Fair Housing Act; in 2008, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in
Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, that Roommates.com had induced housing discrimination by allowing users to specify
roommate preferences on their profiles in pre-determined categories relating to protected classes such as gender. This was ruled to not fall under the
Section 230 safe harbor, which protects interactive computer services from liability for the actions of their users, because Roommates.com was specifically responsible for having provided specific means to engage in conduct illegal under the Fair Housing Act; however, the site was not deemed responsible for information provided in a field that allowed users to type in additional comments. The Roommates.com decision was overturned in 2012, however, with the court ruling that due to the intimacy of this relationship, it would be a violation of their "privacy, autonomy and security" if tenants were unable to seek a roommate that was compatible with their own lifestyle.
Facebook has faced accusations that its
targeted advertising platform facilitates housing discrimination, as it allowed advertisers to target or exclude specific audiences from campaigns, and that its advertising-delivery system is optimized to favor demographics that are the most likely to interact with an ad, even if they are not explicitly specified by the advertiser. After an investigation by
ProPublica, Facebook removed the ability for housing advertisers to target ads based on a user's "affinity" to a specific culture or ethnicity, a behavior that is calculated based on the user's interactions on the service. However, it was found that advertisers could still discriminate based on interests implicating protected classes (such as
Spanish-language television networks), and
redlining ZIP code ranges. After signing a legally binding agreement with the
State of Washington, Facebook announced that it would remove at least 5,000 categories from its exclusion system to prevent "misuse" including those relating to races and religions. On March 19, 2019, to settle a lawsuit with the National Fair Housing Alliance, Facebook agreed to create a separate portal for housing, employment, and credit (HEC) advertising with limited targeting options by September 2019, and to provide a public archive of all HEC advertising. Less than two weeks later, HUD filed a lawsuit against Facebook, formally accusing the company of facilitating housing discrimination.
LGBT housing discrimination or
gender identity.
HUD regulations require all housing providers that receive HUD funding not to discriminate against an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity. Housing discrimination focuses more on race, but recent studies have shown a growing trend toward discrimination in the housing market against those who identify themselves as
gay,
lesbian, or
transgender. Since housing discrimination based on sexual orientation was not explicitly cited in the
Fair Housing Act, as of 2007, it was banned in only 17 states. In all states, same-sex couples are frequently unable to apply to public housing as a family unit, thus decreasing their chances at being accepted into the program. For instance, in a comprehensive study done by the Fair Housing Centers of Michigan in 2007, statistics showed that out of 120 paired-tests, almost 30 percent of same-sex couples were given higher rental rates and less encouragement to rent, both examples of non-exclusionary housing discrimination. An HUD study released in 2011 surveyed of 6,450 transgender and gender non-conforming persons and found that "19 percent reported having been refused a house or an apartment because of gender identity." On January 30, 2012, HUD Secretary
Shaun Donovan announced new regulations that would require all housing providers that receive HUD funding to prevent housing discrimination based on sexual orientation or
gender identity. These regulations went into effect on March 5, 2012.
Ethnic and racial minority housing discrimination Ethnic and racial minorities are impacted the most by housing discrimination. Exclusionary discrimination against African Americans most often occurs in rental markets and sales markets. Families are vulnerable to exclusion, but African American women are especially overrepresented as victims, especially single African American mothers. This discriminatory exclusion is because of stereotypes concerning race and single women. The presence of children in a minority family at times is what warrants the discrimination. African Americans are also the victims in most non-exclusionary cases, with African American women still overrepresented. Non-exclusionary forms of discrimination such as racial slurs and intimidation affect many minority victims. Some racial minorities suffer the purposeful neglect of service needs, such as a landlord fixing a white tenant's bathtub quickly but delaying to fix the bathtub of the minority tenant. Data obtained by Ohio Civil Rights Commission studied housing discrimination cases between 1988 and 2003, and of the 2,176 cases filed, 1,741 were filed by African Americans. A 2011 article by HUD asserts that one out of five times, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders receive less favorable treatment than others when they seek housing. Some cases brought to the Department of Justice show that municipalities and other local government entities violated the Fair Housing Act of 1968 when they denied African Americans housing, permits, and zoning changes, or steered them toward neighborhoods with a predominantly minority population. The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) report titled “Racial Discrimination and Housing Outcomes in the United States Rental Market” reveals that African-American and Hispanic renters experience significant housing discrimination that adversely affects their housing situations across the 50 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S. However, the extent of this discrimination varies by region and specific metropolitan area. The authors—Peter Christensen, Christopher Timmins, and Ignacio Sarmiento-Barbieri—found that higher levels of discrimination, particularly against African Americans, are linked to increased residential segregation and economic mobility disparities. To investigate discriminatory practices, the researchers developed a bot that interacted with online property listings from 8,476 property managers in these metropolitan areas. The bot utilized 18 different fictitious identities to represent potential renters of African American, Hispanic, or white backgrounds. This methodology allowed the researchers to assess response rates from property managers based on varying racial and ethnic identities. They then matched response data from listings with the racial and ethnic identities of the actual renter households that occupied those units, enabling a thorough analysis of the connection between discriminatory behavior and real housing outcomes. The findings Indicated that inquiries from white renters received responses 60% of the time, while those from African American and Hispanic renters had lower average response rates of 54.4% and 57.2%, respectively. The results showed regional and metropolitan variations. In comparison to inquiries from white renters, African American inquiries received 12% fewer responses in the Midwest and Northeast, 7.9% fewer in the West, and 7.6% fewer in the South. Hispanic inquiries faced response rates that were 8.1% lower in the Northeast, 5.2% lower in the South, 3.6% lower in the Midwest, and 2.6% lower in the West compared to white inquiries. The most significant discrimination against African Americans was observed in Chicago, IL; Los Angeles, CA; and Louisville, KY, while Hispanics experienced the highest levels of discrimination in Louisville, KY; Houston, TX; and Providence, RI. Latinos are underrepresented in government-assisted housing. One report concludes that Hispanics were underrepresented in the HUD assisted housing stock in 71% of counties. Among the top quartile of counties for Hispanic underrepresentation in HUD housing assistance programs, Hispanics made up 29% of the poverty population, but only 5% of HUD assisted households on average. These high disparity counties tended to include traditional Hispanic communities where Hispanic populations are larger, such as in California, Texas, and East Coast population centers. A higher Hispanic share of the county’s population, higher Hispanic poverty rate, a larger share of foreign-born Hispanics, and a greater share of the foreign-born Hispanics who were noncitizens were all associated with a county being in the top quartile of counties for underrepresentation in HUD assistance programs. Native Americans also experience ongoing discrimination. According to Npr.org, the most recent study from the Department of Housing and Urban Development shows that one in four Native Americans has experienced housing discrimination, but few get around to filing formal complaints.
Disability housing discrimination The Fair Housing Act forbids discrimination based on disability status. That means a landlord cannot reject someone for housing for being disabled, and a resident with a disability is entitled to
reasonable accommodations. It defines a person with a disability as "Any person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; has a record of such impairment; or is regarded as having such an impairment." The
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 also forbids discrimination against people with disabilities by public entities or programs, such as
public housing. Research has shown that there is discrimination against those who use wheelchairs and those who are deaf in the rental housing market. This study found that many landlords and housing providers are not fully aware of their obligations to provide accessible housing or of the accessibility of their properties. A 2010 HUD study found evidence of housing discrimination against those with mental disabilities. The researchers of these studies emphasized the need for increase paired testing for discrimination in the housing market.
Gender discrimination Research on discrimination in the rental housing market has uncovered gender biases. A meta-analysis of 25 separate correspondence studies done by the Journal of Housing Economics found that applicants with minority and male-sounding names are discriminated against in the rental housing market even under the same circumstances and with all else equal. Additionally women face unequal cost burdens for housing. According to The Gender Equity Policy Institute, "a sizable majority of women renters (53%) spend over 30 percent of their income on housing. By comparison, fewer than half of men renters (47%) do. Moreover, nearly three in ten women renters (27%) spend over 50 percent of their income on housing. Among those in owned homes, 28 percent of women are cost burdened, compared to 26 percent of men." ==Effects of housing discrimination==