Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
G
O
This report, issued on the fifth anniversary of the ERC’s report highlighting the
plight of Housing Choice Voucher holders in the District, is dedicated to all those
committed to equal housing opportunity in our nation’s capital.
E
The Equal Rights Center
www.equalrightscenter.org
April 2011
M
B
About the Author 2
Executive Summary 3
A
The Washington D.C. Housing Market
R
Protections Against Source of Income
Project Overview
Project Methodology
G 11
13
Test Results
Conclusion
O 14
16
E
D
About the Author
commodations and government services. With more than 2,200 members in 42 states and the District
A
of Columbia, the ERC uses a comprehensive approach to advance civil rights, including counseling, edu-
cation and outreach, research and investigation, advocacy and enforcement. Working in the District
and across the United States for nearly 30 years, the ERC has developed an expertise in civil rights
R
testing that has been recognized by federal and state governments, civil rights organizations, and the
courts.
G
O
E
D
www.equalrightscenter.org 2
Executive Summary
E
In addition to federal civil rights protections, residents of the District of Columbia benefit from
M
the D.C. Human Rights Act (the “DCHRA”), one of the most expansive human rights acts in the country.
Building upon the seven federally protected classes (race, color, religion, national origin, gender, famili-
B
offers protections to twelve addition-
R
ers are prohibited from discrimi-
O
Currently assisting more than two million American families, the Housing Choice Voucher Pro-
gram (“HCVP”) is the largest federal housing subsidy program. The HCVP allows qualifying families to
E
obtain market-rate housing in locations of their choice. Because HCV’s are “portable,” they promote
diversity with respect to race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, and allow families to move into
D
neighborhoods close to jobs, better schools, and necessary services.
More than five years ago, the ERC began conducting a groundbreaking testing investigation
consisting of more than 100 tests of 75 housing providers to determine compliance with the source of
income protections of the DCHRA, and in 2005 published, In Search of Decent Housing in the D.C. Met-
ropolitan Area: The Affordable Housing Crisis for Section 8 Voucher Holders. This report documented a
staggering 61% rate of discrimination against voucher holders—including a 26% rate of outright re-
fusals of their vouchers and a 35% rate of encountering limitations that would bar most voucher
E
reach and enforcement, the ERC reached more than 20 agreements with D.C. landlords and property
M
In 2010, the ERC undertook a second testing investigation of District housing providers to de-
termine if compliance with source of income protections had improved. The ERC conducted 91 tests
B
consisting of 42 management companies and 38 landlords in all four quadrants of the District. Alt-
hough compliance with DCHRA source of income protections has improved dramatically, the recent
testing found that 45% of people seeking to rent housing with an HCV continue to face discrimina-
A
tion—with 15% being met by outright refusals to accept vouchers, and another 30% faced with some
R
This revisiting of source of income discrimination in the nation’s capital demonstrates that the
plight of HCV holders has, in fact, improved over the last five years. However, much remains to be
G
done. When nearly every other attempt to use a voucher (45%) is met with some type of discriminato-
ry barrier, our fair housing agencies—both governmental and private—are not protecting this vulnera-
O
ble population. We must do more.
E
D
1
This report is available at http://www.equalrightscenter.org/site/DocServer/Report.pdf?docID=154
www.equalrightscenter.org 4
The Washington D.C. Housing Market
E
Between 2000 and 2010, the population of the
M
District of Columbia grew by 5.2 percent to 601,723
B
and a generally high cost of living in the District, has
A
Affordable housing is most often defined as housing
R
household income. In the District, it is reported that
E
December, 2010 was $329,500.4 Due to these high costs, the only alternative for most low-income
families is rental housing. The supply of affordable rental housing in the District, however, is also lim-
D
ited. Since 2000, Washington, D.C. has experienced the 5th highest growth in rent, outpacing cities
such as Los Angeles and New York,5 resulting in raising the average fair market rent for a one bedroom
2
See U.S. Census Bureau, “2010 Data: Population growth.” Available at http://2010.census.gov/2010census/
data/
3
D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, “Nowhere to Go: As D.C. Housing Costs Rise, Residents Are Left with Fewer Affordable
Housing Options,” (February 2010). Available at: http://D.C.fpi.org/nowhere-to-go-as-D.C.-housing-costs-rise-
residents-are-left-with-fewer-affordable-housing-options
4
See National Association of Realtors, “Existing Home Sales for December 2010.” Available at http://
www.realtor.org/research/research/ehsdata
5
D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, “Nowhere to Go: As D.C. Housing Costs Rise, Residents Are Left with Fewer Affordable
Housing Options,” (February 2010). Available at: http://D.C.fpi.org/nowhere-to-go-as-D.C.-housing-costs-rise-
residents-are-left-with-fewer-affordable-housing-options
E
District. Since 2000, the general rental market has shrunk by 19 percent , and more acutely, there has
M
In addition to these rising costs, poverty continues to rise. The D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute con-
cluded that, in 2010, the District experienced its largest single-year increase in poverty since 1995, esti-
B
mating that the District has 106,500 residents —one sixth of the city’s residents—living at or below the
poverty line ($21,800 for a family of four in 2009).8 This is 11,000 more individuals living in poverty
A
Nowhere is this intersection of poverty and the high cost of decent housing more critical and
R
more painful than among HCV holders. By way of comparison, the median income for a family of four
in the District was reported in 2008 to be more than $94,000,9 yet, according to the D.C. Housing Au-
thority in 2008, nearly all the applicants for housing assistance, including the Housing Choice Voucher
G
Program, had incomes of less than $30,000 for a family of four. 10
O
E
D
6
See National Low Income Housing Coalition, “Out of Reach 2010.” Available at http://www.nlihc.org/oor/
oor2010/
7
See D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute, “Nowhere to Go: As D.C. Housing Costs Rise, Residents Are Left with Fewer
Affordable Housing Options,” (February 2010). Available at http://D.C.fpi.org/nowhere-to-go-as-D.C.-housing-
costs-rise-residents-are-left-with-fewer-affordable-housing-options
8
Id.
9
See Yolanda, Woodlee, Washington Post, “Agency is Updating Housing Aid Wait List.” Available at http://
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011503507_pf.html
10
Id.
www.equalrightscenter.org 6
The Housing Choice Voucher Program
E
One valuable tool used to ameliorate the
“I have had potential land-
M
critical shortage of affordable housing is the Hous-
ing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP).11 Initiated in lords scare my children half
1974, the HCVP is a federal program for assisting
B
to death looking them over
very low-income families, the elderly, and people
with disabilities to afford decent, safe, and sani- as if they were crimi-
A
tary housing in the private market.12 The HCVP is
R
and Urban Development (HUD), and is the largest
O
more than half of their income for rent.14 them or me.” -
D
housing and promotes diversity with respect to
race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status by permitting families to gain access to a wider range of
11
The regulations that govern this program may be found at 24 CFR Part 982.
12
See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing Choice Voucher Fact Sheet. Available at
http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/hcv/about/fact_sheet.cfm
13
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Resident Characteristics Report, at https://pic.hud.gov,
accessed September 29, 2008, shows 2,208,802 voucher units under contract between HUD and program admin-
istrators.
14
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, “Affordable
Housing Needs 2005: Report to Congress,” (2007).
E
have reached without the vouch-
er.15
income
Under
M
the
households
HCVP,
receive
low-
B
voucher through their local public
ute 30 percent of their own monthly income toward rent, with the remainder of the monthly rent paid
D
by the local public housing agency directly to the landlord. Local public housing agencies may also pro-
vide participating families with additional financial assistance to help cover monthly utility expenses.
In 2010, the maximum HCVP payment standards in the District reflected the rapidly rising cost
of housing in the nation’s capital. Although factors such as family size and disability affect the size of
15
Martha M. Galvez, “What Do We Know About Housing Choice Voucher Program Location Outcomes?” (August
2010). Available at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412218-housing-choice-voucher.pdf
See also: Austin Turner, Margery. Popkin, Susan J. Rawlings, Lynette, “Public Housing and the Legacy of Segrega-
tion” at p. 79, ch. 3 – Moving to Neighborhoods of Opportunity: Overcoming Segregation and Discrimination in
Today’s Housing Markets.
www.equalrightscenter.org 8
units for which a voucher holder is eligible, Chart 1 summarizes the increase in maximum rent qualify-
E
ing for the HCVP in the District in 2010 as compared to 2005:
M
Efficiency
1 bedroom
Up to $915
Up to $1045
Up to $1272
Up to $1450
B
2 bedroom
3 bedroom
Up to $1187
Up to $1537
Up to $1643
Up to $2120
Chart 1
A
R
Though HCV holders are not restricted to where they may seek affordable housing within their
jurisdiction, the HCV will expire if not used within a limited period of time.16 If unable to use an HCV
G
within the allotted time, the voucher expires and the family goes to the end of the waiting list to obtain
a new voucher.17 In 2011, information provided by the D.C. Housing Authority confirmed that, in the
District, there were 10,596 families being served by the HCVP and 34,717 on the waitlist. 18
O
E
D
16
Voucher holders in the District have up to 180 days to use vouchers (an initial 60 day period and up to 120 days
in extensions). Data provided by: D.C. Housing Authority’s Dena Michaelson, Director Public Affairs and Commu-
nications, April 2011.
17
Baran, Madeleine, The New Standard, “Economic Hardship Causing Drastic Increase in U.S. Homeless-
ness.” (September 12, 2004). Available at http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/978
18
While the D.C. Housing Authority advises that it does not keep information on the average length of time an
individual remains on its waitlist before obtaining a voucher, it has been reported that tenants in our nation’s
capital can wait an average more than six years to receive a voucher. Data Provided by: D.C. Housing Authority’s
Dena Michaelson, Director Public Affairs and Communications.
E
in Washington D.C.
M
Discrimination against HCV holders can have a profoundly adverse effect on the housing choices
that are available to home-seekers, and can perpetuate patterns of racial, ethnic, and economic segre-
19
gation. Far too often, a housing voucher is all that stands between a family and homelessness. While
B
not protected at the federal level, discrimination against a person participating in the HCVP is outlawed
by civil and human rights laws in more than 13 states and in 30 local jurisdictions, including the District
A
of Columbia and several jurisdictions in Maryland.20 In the District, housing discrimination based on a
person’s “source of income,” including HCVs, has been prohibited under the D.C. Human Rights Act, D.C.
R
Code 2-1401.02 (29), since 1977.21
Despite these protections, some landlords and property managers continue to refuse to rent to
G
HCV holders, because of a lack of awareness of their responsibilities under the law, stereotypes about
the households who participate in public assistance programs, or as a proxy for discrimination based on
other protected demographics such as race or familial status.22 According to HUD, nationally, 62% of
O
voucher holders are designated as racial minorities (42% of voucher holders identified as Black, non-
Hispanic), and 48% of voucher holder households are female-headed with children.23 In D.C., these de-
19
E
mographics are even more pronounced with 77.9% of voucher holders designated as racial minorities.24
See Poverty & Race Research Action Council, “Keeping the Promise: Preserving and Enhancing Housing Mobility
D
in the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program.” Available at http://www.prrac.org/pdf/AppendixB-
Feb2010.pdf
20
Center for Policy Alternatives, “Source of Income Discrimination.” Available at http://www.cfpa.org/issues/
issue.cfm/issue/SourceofIncomeDiscrimination.xml.
21
Even in jurisdictions without source of income protections, landlords participating in the federal Low-Income
Housing Tax Credit Program, which provides tax incentives to investors who develop low-income housing, are
prohibited from discriminating against potential tenants because they have HCV’s. See, e.g., 26 CFR § 1.42-5
22
Thabault, Isabelle M. and Platts-Mills, Eliza T., Poverty & Race Research Action Council, “Discrimination Against
Participants in the Housing Choice Voucher Program: An Enforcement Strategy.” Available at http://
www.prrac.org/full_text.php?text_id=1071&item_id=9757&newsletter_id=85&header=Economic+%
2F+Community+Development
23
See Department of Housing and Urban Development, “A Picture of Subsidized Households-2008.” Available at
http://www.huduser.org/portal/picture2008/index.html
24
Housing Choice Voucher Holders by Race/Ethnicity, 2000. Available at http://diversitydata-archive.org/Data/
Rankings/Show.aspx?ind=165
www.equalrightscenter.org 10
Project Overview
E
In 2005, the ERC conducted a large scale testing investigation of 100 D.C. rental properties to
M
determine the existence and extent of discrimination against voucher holders when seeking rental
housing. Trained ERC testers, posing as HCV holders, inquired about the availability of housing and
gathered information about the policies and practices of housing providers with respect to the ac-
B
ceptance of HCV’s. The 2005 ERC report, In Search of Decent Housing in the D.C. Metropolitan Area:
The Affordable Housing Crisis for Section 8 Voucher Holders, detailed its findings—a 61% rate of dis-
A
crimination against HCV holders.25 The ERC followed this study with a similar study in the D.C. sub-
R
of discrimination against HCV holders. 26
G
documenting this discrimination, the ERC has engaged
approach, including:
O
Directly collaborating with the D.C. Office
forcement efforts;
D
The ERC’s 2008 Report:
A Step Away From Homelessness—Housing
Choice Voucher Holders Denied Housing in
Conducting scores of events reaching out Montgomery County, MD
25
The full text of this report is available at, http://www.equalrightscenter.org/site/DocServer/Report.pdf?
docID=154
26
See Equal Rights Center, “A Step Away From Homelessness—Housing Choice Voucher Holders Denied Housing
in Montgomery County, MD” (2008). Available at http://www.equalrightscenter.org/site/DocServer/
Montgomery_County_Section_8.pdf?docID=150
M
citizens every day.
Sometimes I wonder if there
them their responsibilities under the civil
rights laws;
B
are any landlords out there
that will treat us equally.”
Commencing more than 20 enforcement
A
property managers to comply with the
-ERC member and voucher holder DCHRA;
G
Negotiating agreements with no less than 20 landlords to make more than 15,000
O
The ERC’s 2010 testing investigation, consistent in methodology and scope to its 2005 investi-
gation, tested 91 rental properties, consisting of 42 management companies and 38 landlords in all
E
four quadrants of Washington D.C. As in 2005, the 2010 study defined “discriminatory treatment” as:
(1) the refusal to accept housing vouchers, (2) limiting the use of vouchers, (3) providing different
terms and conditions for voucher holders than for non-voucher holder applicants, or (4) imposing re-
D
quirements that would effectively bar most voucher holders looking for rental housing.
www.equalrightscenter.org 12
Project Methodology
E
Using the pay-
M
ment standards set by the
B
testable properties com-
ly re-evaluated and updated this list to ensure geographic diversity and to protect against repeat
G
testing of housing providers. As home seekers’ reliance on the Internet as a resource for housing
listings has increased, the ERC’s search for testable properties placed an emphasis on online advertis-
E
“advance call” was placed to ensure that the property (or units within the property) was available and
priced as advertised. In each test, trained ERC testers were provided with a detailed profile including
D
specific personal and financial characteristics—income, household size, and rental history—designed to
realistically reflect a HCV holder in Washington, D.C. Each test assignment also contained a list of ques-
tions for the tester to ask the housing provider in order for the ERC to determine the treatment of po-
E
The ERC’s 2010 testing investigation re-
M
vealed that 45% of the time (41 out of 91 tests)
B
accept vouchers, limiting the use of the voucher,
A
holders, or imposing limitations that would effec-
R
While the most common notion of discrimination is
Outright Refusals: In 15% of the tests (14 out of 91), landlords or property managers re-
E
fused outright to accept vouchers. In one blatant example, the housing provider immedi-
ately hung up the phone when the tester asked if he or she could use a HCV to pay rent. In
D
another instance, the ERC tester posing as an HCV holder was told that the landlord “did
not believe in vouchers.” Another housing provider refused to accept an HCV because he
was unwilling to “make any changes to his leasing process” that would give HCV holders
Differing Terms and Conditions: In 9% of the tests (8 out of 91), the ERC’s investigation
showed differential (and adverse) treatment of voucher holders. In two instances, testers
were told, although vouchers were accepted at the building, they were only accepted for
www.equalrightscenter.org 14
unit sizes other than those currently advertised as available. In three instances, testers
E
were told, contrary to voucher guidelines, the voucher must cover the entire rental
amount. In one instance, a tester was told the apartment building had reached its “quota”
M
of voucher holders, and would not accept any more. Finally, one property manager re-
peatedly emphasized the “thorough” review he would do with the tester’s previous land-
lord, citing his belief that voucher holders have a propensity to “tear up the property.”
B
Income Limits: In 21% of the tests (19 of 91) the tester was informed of an income or
credit requirement which would effectively bar any and all voucher holders from renting
A
the advertised unit. In one extreme case, one landlord renting a one bedroom apartment
for $1,300 a month (well within the HCV rental payment standard of $1,450 per month)
R
imposed a $64,000 income requirement on potential tenants—in effect, creating an abso-
lute bar to all HCV holders (whose average income is only $30,000).
G
O
E
D
Chart 2
Overall, 45% of the test calls resulted in at least one form of discriminatory treatment.
Testers were told 15% of the time that vouchers were not accepted as a form of rent payment under any
circumstances. In 30% of the test calls, housing providers noted limitations that would bar most voucher
holders from renting available units.
E
“We may be in a home
that is way too small, but Housing Choice Voucher holders represent
M
a particularly vulnerable community. Living at the
the voucher moved my
intersection of poverty, race, ethnicity, disability,
family into a different and ever-rising housing costs, in many instances
B
area. It is much more im- being able to actually use a voucher, free from dis-
G
type of discrimination. However, much more re-
for them.” mains to be done. Equal housing opportunity can
-ERC member and voucher holder only be achieved through the continued vigilance of
O
housing and civil rights activists and government
authorities. With this report, the ERC hopes to demonstrate the persistence of source of income dis-
E
crimination, and to inspire more advocates to work with the ERC in order to completely eradicate this
www.equalrightscenter.org 16
E
M
B
A
R
G
O
E
D