Visit Us on Facebook
D.C. Real Estate Classes
D.C. Fair Housing and Predatory Lending
For Real Estate Professionals
Thursday, July 9, 2009
5:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m.
11 Dupont Circle, N.W.
Suite 450
Washington, D.C. 20036
Course fee is $65 per person.
Publications, Studies and Research
No Vacancy: Housing Discrimination Against Survivors of Domestic Violence in the District of Columbia
April 2008
The Equal Rights Center
11 Dupont Circle, N.W.
Suite 450
Washington, D.C. 20036
Executive Summary
In 2006, after working with numerous domestic violence advocacy groups, the D.C. City Council and mayor approved cutting-edge legislation, the Protection From Discriminatory Eviction for Victims of Domestic Violence Amendment Act of 2006, prohibiting discrimination in housing against domestic violence victims. The legislation was designed to reduce discrimination in housing based on a person’s status as a domestic violence victim, and in doing so, prevent victimsfrom being forced down a path toward homelessness. The District has the highest rate of homelessness in the nation, and because domestic violence is the leading cause of homelessness for women in the United States, the new law necessarily addresses both issues.
In order to determine the rate at which housing providers in the District were complying with this new law, the Equal Rights Center began an investigation in January 2008, ultimately testing 93 rental properties. The goal of the study was to determine whether, and to what extent, domestic violence victims in the District were either: (a) being denied housing (both outright and indirectly), or (b) being offered less advantageous terms and conditions in order to obtain housing. The study found that, overall, 65 percent of test applicants seeking housing on behalf of a domestic violence survivor were either denied housing or offered less advantageous terms and conditions than an applicant not associated with domestic violence. Of that overall statistic, 9 percent of test applicants representing domestic violence survivors were denied housing outright or had housing made unavailable to them–something that never happened to test applicants who were not associated with domestic violence. The other 56 percent of test applicants representing domestic violence survivors were subjected to discriminatory treatment in the form of adverse terms and conditions.
This study demonstrates that one full year after implementation of the Act, much remains to be done to ensure that survivors of domestic violence are not illegally discriminated against when they seek housing merely because of the domestic abuse they have already suffered.
Introduction
Washington, D.C., as the nation’s capital, should exemplify our highest ideals. Unfortunately, the District has the highest homelessness rate in the country, with between 12,000 – 16,000 of our residents living on the streets. D.C. has one of the highest poverty rates as well, with nearly four out of 10 District residents living below the poverty line. Approximately half of the District’s homeless population is comprised of women and children. Within this group, the leading cause of homelessness for women is domestic violence—a situation made all the worse by the fact that the District provides only 48 beds in safe and confidential locations for women and children who are domestic violence victims. These figures stand in stark contrast to the marble monuments, expensive restaurants and manicured gardens of the affluent segments of the nation’s capital.
I. Domestic Violence in the District
While exact data do not exist to determine what percentage of homelessness in the District is directly caused by housing discrimination against domestic violence victims, the causal link between domestic violence and homeless females is clearly documented. Discrimination in housing affects domestic violence victims in different ways. Many domestic violence victims and their families are evicted from housing by landlords who mistakenly worry that their abusers will cause disruption or harm to the property or other tenants. Others lose their homes when they attempt to flee from their abuser and are then denied new housing because landlords fear their abusers will follow them to the new property. In these situations, domestic violence victims are victimized again.
In the District, levels of domestic violence are staggering, with the most current data showing an increase in the levels of violence against women. In the District during 2005:
- 4,948 victims were counseled by Domestic Violence Intake Centers, a 3 percent increase over 2004;
- 8,386 domestic violence cases were filed in D.C. Superior Court, an increase of 3.7 percent over 2004.
- 27,401 domestic-related crime calls—11,053 reporting domestic violence crimes and 16,348 reporting family dispute crimes—were received by the District’s Metropolitan Police Department.
These figures are made even more disturbing when considering that domestic violence is one of the most grossly under-reported crimes with only about 25 percent of physical assaults and 20 percent of rapes committed by intimate partners being reported to the police.
II. D.C. Protections for Domestic Violence Victims
Faced with these alarming rates of homelessness and domestic violence in the District, and the undeniable connection between the two, in December 2006, the D.C. City Council approved the Protection From Discriminatory Eviction for Victims of Domestic Violence Amendment Act of 2006, (the “Act”). The Act is a cutting-edge piece of legislation that prohibits housing discrimination based on a person’s status as a domestic violence victim. In effect since March 2007, the Act made three major legislative changes. It:
- amended the D.C. Human Rights Act, D.C. Code §§ 2-1401, et seq., to include status as a “victim of an intra-family offense” in the list of protected classes shielded from discrimination in housing;
- amended the D.C. Rental Housing Act, D.C. Code §§42-3501, et seq., to allow an individual’s status as a domestic violence victim to serve as a defense against eviction in the District’s landlord-tenant courts, provided that the individual is being evicted because of an incident related to domestic violence; and
- amended the D.C. Rental Housing Act to allow a victim of domestic violence to terminate a housing lease early, without financial penalty, in order to flee abuse.
Although past victims of domestic violence have successfully fought back against discrimination in housing using disparate impact claims under the federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq., the Act provides more protections and forms of legal recourse for domestic violence victims in the District than the federal law.
III. Organizational Introduction — The Equal Rights Center
Originally formed in 1983, the Equal Rights Center is a non-profit civil rights organization dedicated to identifying, challenging, and eliminating discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations, and government services. The Equal Rights Center provides a multi-disciplinary program of counseling, education and outreach, diversity training, research, advocacy, and enforcement for both the public and private sectors in the District of Columbia, and throughout the United States. In its 25-year history, the Equal Rights Center has developed an expertise in civil rights testing that has been recognized by federal and state governments, other civil rights organizations, and the courts.
IV. Project Overview
Due to the lack of data as to the existence, frequency, and nature of discrimination in housing that result from a person’s status as a domestic violence victim–an illegal act in the District as of March 2007–the Equal Rights Center began a systemic testing study in January 2008. As part of this study, the Equal Rights Center conducted “matched pair” tests of 93 multi-family rental properties in the District of Columbia to determine whether leasing agents were treating domestic violence victims adversely as compared to other potential tenants who were not associated with domestic violence. The goal of the study was to determine whether, and to what extent, domestic violence victims in the District were either: (a) being denied housing, or (b) being offered less advantageous terms and conditions in order to obtain housing.
Prior to beginning its testing, the Equal Rights Center met with advocates for domestic violence victims from a variety of organizations in the District. These meetings provided much needed insight into how domestic violence advocates would realistically search for housing on behalf of their clients. During these meetings, the Equal Rights Center gathered information to create plausible profiles for testers posing as domestic violence advocates.
The Equal Rights Center selected test sites by ward, in percentages approximating reported domestic violence incidents. This methodology resulted in the following test site dispersion:
Ward |
% of Domestic Violence Cases by Ward (see footnote 10) |
No. of Test Sites |
Percentage of Total |
Ward 1 |
2 % |
6 |
6 % |
Ward 2 |
9 % |
13 |
14 % |
Ward 3 |
2 % |
9 |
10 % |
Ward 4 |
10 % |
12 |
13 % |
Ward 5 |
13 % |
11 |
12 % |
Ward 6 |
2 % |
4 |
4 % |
Ward 7 |
19 % |
10 |
11 % |
Ward 8 |
43 % |
28 |
30 % |
V. Testing Methodology
The testing conducted by the Equal Rights Center consisted of “matched pair” telephone tests. In each test, two testers were used whose testing profiles were similar with respect to all relevant characteristics – age, gender, income, etc. – except for their status relating to domestic violence. In this study, Tester A of each pair posed as an advocate seeking housing on behalf of a client who was a domestic violence victim. Tester B, the control tester, posed as someone with no connection to domestic violence and who was in search of housing for herself. This matched pair methodology enabled the Equal Rights Center to isolate the connection to domestic violence as the sole factor being tested.
In each test, Tester A initiated a telephone call to the site inquiring about housing, and Tester B placed a second telephone call at least 30 minutes later, but within the same day as Tester A’s call. Testers followed uniform instructions and scripts, which directed them to inquire about the same types of apartments, rent ranges, and move-in time frames. Immediately following each telephone call, the testers created written narratives of their conversations with leasing agents. Testers were then debriefed by a project coordinator and all test results were analyzed.
In analyzing test results, the testing coordinator uniformly applied the following criteria:
- Was housing denied? If so, was it denied only to one tester or to both testers?
- If housing was available, were the paired testers treated differently? If so, which tester benefited from the differing treatment?
- What form did the disparate treatment take? Was it substantial?
- Did testers speak to the same agent?
- Did any of the property management companies display any patterns of disparate treatment?
VI. Test Results
The study’s results paint a grim picture of illegal discrimination against domestic violence victims and the advocates seeking rental housing for them in the District of Columbia. This study focuses on what is generally the most common first step in seeking rental housing—a telephone call to a leasing agent to determine the availability of a suitable apartment. The study does not examine instances of discrimination in the scenarios where the initial contact is a “drop in” face-to-face visit with a leasing agent, or where despite being presented with disadvantageous terms and conditions, a domestic violence victim personally visits a property to explore housing further. In these scenarios there are additional opportunities for a person to be denied housing or to be treated disadvantageously.
The study found that, overall, 65 percent of test applicants seeking housing on behalf of a domestic violence survivor were either denied housing or offered less advantageous terms and conditions than an applicant not associated with domestic violence. Of that overall statistic, 9 percent of applicants representing domestic violence survivors were denied housing outright or had housing made unavailable to them –something that never happened to test applicants who were not associated with domestic violence. The other 56 percent of applicants representing domestic violence survivors were subjected to disparate treatment in the form of less advantageous terms and conditions.
A. Housing Denials
One of the most flagrant forms of discrimination, usually undetectable during a standard rental transaction, occurs when an agent effectively denies housing to a person by providing inaccurate information. For example, a leasing agent may misrepresent to one party that housing is unavailable, or that the prospective tenant is not qualified to rent, while telling a second, comparable person shortly thereafter that housing is in fact available, and that that person may rent. In eight of the 93 tests (9 percent) performed in this study, Tester A (associated with a domestic violence victim) was told that there was no available housing, that they were unable to get listings over the phone, or that they were not qualified to rent. However, in each of these instances, Tester B (a comparable party not associated with domestic violence) was told that housing was available. In three of the 93 tests (3 percent), Testers A and B were both told housing was unavailable. In the remaining 82 tests (88 percent), both testers were told housing was available. See Figure 1.
Figure 1. Housing Denials — All Tests
B. Disparate Treatment
During this study, there were numerous instances of disparate treatment in the matched pair tests. In two of the tests in which housing was denied to Tester A but not Tester B, the leasing agent told Tester B that apartments were available and that she was qualified to rent. Tester A, however, was not told that any apartments were available and that she would have to visit the leasing office in person to verify if she qualified to rent before the agent could give her any information. In two other tests, the leasing agent told Tester A that her move-in date was too soon, and that she could not be “approved” in time. However, Tester B, who gave the exact same move-in date, was told about apartment availability and encouraged to apply for housing. In another test, Tester B was given information about available apartments and was offered move-in incentives, but Tester A was told she would be “called back” with information. Tester A had not received the promised “call back” from the leasing agent as much as two months after the test.
Although both Tester A and Tester B were given comparable treatment during some tests, Tester B, who was not associated with domestic violence, was shown favorable treatment a much greater percentage of the time. Forms of favorable treatment included being offered better rental prices, more available apartments, move-in incentives, appointments, return calls or e-mails, and generally being given more and better information about available apartments. Some of the disparate treatment was “less substantial,” such as one tester being offered an appointment when another tester was not. However, in many cases the differences in treatment were substantial. In this study, differences in treatment were considered “substantial” when an agent provided information that gave one tester an economic advantage.
Considering both substantial and less substantial differences in treatment, Tester A was treated disadvantageously during 52 of the 93 tests (56 percent). Both testers were given the same information and treated equally during 20 tests (21 percent), and Tester B received disadvantageous treatment during 13 of the 93 tests (14 percent). The remaining 8 of the 93 tests (9 percent) resulted in housing denials to Tester A, as explained in the section on housing denials. See Figure 2.
Figure 2. Total Disparate Treatment — All Tests
With respect to substantial differences in treatment only, this study found such disparate treatment in 23 of the 93 tests. Of those 23 tests, preferential treatment was given to Tester B in 14 (61 percent) of these instances, and to Tester A in nine tests (39 percent). See Figure 3.
Figure 3. Substantial Disparate Treatment
C. “Same Agent” Data
In addition to calculating the rates of both housing denials and disparate treatment for all 93 tests, the study also analyzed a specific subset of tests in which paired testers were able to speak to the same leasing agent. This subset provides an even more accurate depiction of the levels of discrimination in that one more variable – the leasing agent – is controlled. The data in this section applies to tests in which either disparate treatment or housing denials occurred.
Of the 56 tests in which testers were able to speak to the same leasing agent, the agent showed preferential treatment (substantial and less substantial) to Tester B during 38 tests (68 percent), and Tester A received preferential treatment during six tests (11 percent). The testers received equal treatment during 12 of the 56 tests (21 percent). See Figure 4.
Figure 4. Preferential Treatment — “Same Agent”
The ERC determined that substantial preferential treatment – that is, significant disparate conduct toward one tester or a housing denial to one tester – occurred during 18 of the 56 tests in which both testers spoke to the same agent. Tester B was shown substantial preferential treatment in 14 of the 18 tests (78 percent), while Tester A was shown substantial preferential treatment or denied housing altogether in four of the 18 tests (22 percent). See Figure 5.
Figure 5. Substantial Preferential Treatment — “Same Agent”
- Nature of Disparate Treatment
In this study, the Equal Rights Center identified four categories of disparate treatment: 1) appointment offers, 2) information about available apartment listings, 3) incentive offers, and 4) call back opportunities.
1. Appointments
By far the most frequent form of disparate treatment to the disadvantage of Tester A was the lack of an offer of an appointment by the leasing agent to view apartments. Agents often not only offered Tester B an appointment, but encouraged Tester B to come into the office by giving the tester the office hours and offering an appointment twice or more during the conversation. In the 93 tests conducted in this study, appointments were offered by the leasing agent to at least one tester in 49 tests. In 36 of these 49 instances (74 percent), Tester B was offered an appointment, while Tester A was not. To the contrary, Tester A was offered an appointment, while Tester B was not, in only four tests (8 percent). Both testers were offered an appointment in nine tests (18 percent). See Figure 6.
Figure 6. Disparate Treatment — Appointments
2. Listings
Listings refer to instances in which one tester was told about more available apartment listings than the other tester. More available apartments were identified for Tester B during 20 of the 93 study tests (22 percent), while more listings were given to Tester A in only two of the tests (2 percent). Both Tester A and Tester B received information about an equal number of apartment listings during the remaining 71 tests (76 percent). See Figure 7.
Figure 7. Disparate Treatment — Available Apartments
3. Incentives
Incentives consist of different forms of financial encouragement designed to spur a prospective renter to sign an application. In this study, any type of fee waiver, rent free period, reduction in rental rate, or other move-in “special” was considered an incentive. There was an insignificant amount of disparate treatment found in the form of offering different incentives, or offering incentives to only one tester and not the other. Testers were only offered incentives in 28 tests (30 percent), and Tester A was offered almost as many incentives as Tester B. See Figure 8.
Figure 8. Disparate Treatment — Incentives
4. Call Backs
The final form of disparate treatment encountered in this study was found in call back opportunities. Call back opportunities refer to instances in which either the agent offered to call a tester back or invited a tester to call the agent back. Agents offered call back opportunities to at least one tester during 30 of the 93 tests. During 25 of these 30 instances (84 percent), the agent offered call back opportunities to Tester B, but not Tester A. In one test (3 percent), the agent offered a call back opportunity to Tester A, but not Tester B. In four tests (13 percent), agents offered call back opportunities to both testers. See Figure 9.
Figure 9. Disparate Treatment — Call Backs
E. Anecdotal Data
Some of the most disturbing evidence of discrimination observed comes from anecdotal experiences of Tester A during the study. The following anecdotes are from tests in which both testers spoke to the same agent:
In a test conducted in Ward 2, the leasing agent spoke to both testers in a similar manner, seemingly friendly and eager to rent out an apartment. However, Tester A was told that a credit check and criminal background check were performed on every applicant. Tester B was not told of such requirements. Tester B was also offered an appointment and was invited to call back, but neither of these offers was extended to Tester A.
In a test conducted in Ward 4, the leasing agent gave very different information to each of the testers: Tester B was offered an economic incentive that Tester A was not (the agent offered to waive Tester B’s application fee); the agent offered to call Tester B back, offered Tester B an appointment and was invited to call back, while Tester A was not.
Finally, in a test conducted in Ward 8, the leasing agent simply offered Tester B a significantly lower rental and deposit amount for the same apartment than was offered to Tester A.
Although the numerical data quantifies the number of instances where obstacles are placed before domestic violence victims when trying to find housing in the District, these anecdotes give important qualitative information about what those obstacles look like and how they are imposed.
Conclusion
The Equal Rights Center’s study on discrimination against domestic violence victims marks the one-year anniversary since the groundbreaking Protection from Discriminatory Eviction for Victims of Domestic Violence Amendment Act of 2006, became effective in the District. The passage of this Act has not, however, ensured that landlords are complying with its terms. As this study demonstrates, victims of domestic violence are in many instances also victims of discrimination when they seek housing in the District of Columbia.
The study found that, overall, 65 percent of test applicants seeking housing on behalf of a domestic violence survivor were either denied housing or offered less advantageous terms and conditions than an applicant not associated with domestic violence. Of that overall statistic, 9 percent of applicants representing domestic violence survivors were denied housing outright or had housing made unavailable to them, and 56 percent were subjected to disparately adverse treatment in terms and conditions.
The Act stands to play an essential role in reducing homelessness in the District by preventing illegal denials of housing and evictions due to status as a domestic violence victim. However, it can only do so if the Act’s requirements are known and understood by domestic violence victims, landlords and property managers alike. Moreover, private enforcement against those who engage in illegal discrimination is required in those instances where a landlord’s behavior is not appropriately modified. The Equal Rights Center hopes that this study will serve as an initial platform for educating domestic violence victims, their advocates, landlords, and the general public about this aspect of civil rights in the District of Columbia.
Footnotes
The Washington Legal Clinic for the Homelessness, Homelessness in D.C., http://www.legalclinic.org/homelessness/overview.cfm; Help The Homeless, Who Are The Homeless and Is There a Solution?, http://www.helpthehomelessdc.org/site/c.plI4IcNWJyE/b.2699651/k.3837/Who_ Are_The_Homeless_and_Is_There_a_Solution.htm
2 District Alliance for Safe Housing (DASH) Report 2007 A Call for Safe Housing, www.dashdc.org
3 Although the term “domestic violence survivor” is the preferred term when referring to individuals who have suffered domestic abuse, the District’s statute, The Protection from Discriminatory Eviction for Victims of Domestic Violence Amendment Act of 2006, speaks in terms of domestic violence victims. Therefore, that statutory terminology will be used throughout this study.
4 National Law Center on Poverty & Homelessness, Some Fast Facts on Homelessness, Housing, and Violence Against Women,
http://www.nlchp.org/content/pubs/Some%20Facts%20on%20Homeless%20and%20DV.pdf
D.C. Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Domestic Violence Statistics, www.dccadv.org
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Topic Specific Fact Sheets, http://www.ncadv.org/unsorted/topicspecificfactsheets_231.html
A special thanks is due to the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty and D.C. Coalition Against Domestic Violence for their assistance, input, and expertise in aid of this study.
These percentages represent only those cases reported to domestic violence intake centers, and of those reported cases, only those in which survivors indicated their residency.
Housing discrimination against domestic violence victims also manifests itself in the form of eviction by a landlord in response to a domestic violence incident. This study does not address this additional issue of discrimination. Thus, this study provides only a glimpse of the full scope of discrimination that domestic violence victims face in the housing market every day.
It may be argued that a failure to offer an appointment to see available apartments is tantamount to an outright denial of housing. If this position were adopted, the incidence of “Substantial Disparate Treatment” observed in this study would increase dramatically.
The Equal Rights Center chose to separate housing denials from disparate treatment because it is the most egregious form of discrimination. For more information on housing denials see page 10-11 of this report.
Due to limitations placed on the study by the methodology used, the ERC was not able to ensure that the two paired testers calling a site would speak to the same agent. In 93 tests the ERC conducted, the paired testers were able to speak to the same agent in 56 tests (60 percent).