Since 1986, FHANC has been conducting audit investigations of housing providers in the Bay Area to measure the extent of discrimination in housing against members of protected classes. FHANC uses a variety of methodologies, including using "testers" to pose as home seekers and comparing the treatment of testers with protected characteristics ("protected testers") to those without protected characteristics ("control testers").
A fair housing audit is a systematic way to assess compliance or non-compliance with federal and state fair housing laws. It is a controlled measurement of the difference in quality, quantity, and content of information and services afforded to home seekers by housing providers. FHANC routinely conducts audits as an educational and enforcement tool.
A fair housing audit is a systematic way to assess compliance or non-compliance with federal and state fair housing laws. It is a controlled measurement of the difference in quality, quantity, and content of information and services afforded to home seekers by housing providers. FHANC routinely conducts audits as an educational and enforcement tool.
Audit Report: An Investigation of Race Discrimination in Rental Housing
and the Use of Criminal Records in Tenant Screening
and the Use of Criminal Records in Tenant Screening
Background: While HUD discourages the use of criminal records in determining tenant eligibility, this report shows that most landlords fail to follow that recommendation. Instead, the explosive increase in algorithmic tenant screening products has become a major barrier to housing access for people with criminal conviction records, which in this country is one third of the population. And due to the over policing of communities of color, Black individuals are stopped by police, arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated at rates disproportionate to their share of the general population. As such, Black people, who already experience discrimination at higher rates, are disparately affected by these screening policies.
Methodology: FHANC conducted 120 investigations at 30 large rental properties in Marin, Sonoma, and Solano counties and analyzed the experiences of Black and white “testers” posing as prospective renters with criminal conviction histories to determine whether Black applicants are discriminated against on the basis of race and/ or disproportionately excluded from housing because of their conviction records. Each investigation consisted of four testers – two Black and two white – who contacted landlords to ask whether they conduct a criminal background check, what the landlord’s screening policy is with regards to criminal records, and whether the tester’s application would likely get denied based on the conviction history in the tester’s assigned profile (half had felonies and half had misdemeanors).
Key Findings:
Methodology: FHANC conducted 120 investigations at 30 large rental properties in Marin, Sonoma, and Solano counties and analyzed the experiences of Black and white “testers” posing as prospective renters with criminal conviction histories to determine whether Black applicants are discriminated against on the basis of race and/ or disproportionately excluded from housing because of their conviction records. Each investigation consisted of four testers – two Black and two white – who contacted landlords to ask whether they conduct a criminal background check, what the landlord’s screening policy is with regards to criminal records, and whether the tester’s application would likely get denied based on the conviction history in the tester’s assigned profile (half had felonies and half had misdemeanors).
Key Findings:
- Differential Treatment Based on Race: 47% of investigations revealed evidence that the Black testers were treated less favorably and/or received less information, follow-up, or encouragement compared to white testers with similar conviction records. For example, at one property, a white tester was told that her boyfriend's felony conviction would be overlooked if they applied with a co-signer while the Black tester whose boyfriend had the exact same record was told the conviction would result in an automatic denial and she was advised not to apply.
- Use of Criminal Background Screening Policies: 83% of the properties investigated screen for criminal records, despite HUD's recommendations discouraging this practice because criminal history is not a reliable predictor of tenant success.
- Disparate Impact: None of the landlords investigated that screen for criminal records follow all of HUD’s guidelines on how to avoid fair housing violations, and the vast majority fail to conduct individualized assessments or consider mitigating factors like the age of the individual at the time of the alleged conduct, how long ago the conviction occurred, evidence of good tenant history since the conviction, and/or rehabilitation efforts. All landlords investigated that screen for criminal records use third-party tenant screening services, which utilize algorithms that may contain racial or other prohibited bias in their design and have not been shown to reliably predict risk. This investigation found that most of the landlords that use third-party screeners rely on them to make eligibility decisions, with no opportunity for the applicant to appeal that decision or provide mitigating information.
- Deterrent Effect of Vague Policies: While most criminal record screening policies would likely deter anyone with a more serious criminal record from applying, 18 of the 25 policies described to testers were so vague that even people with less serious records, like someone with a very old conviction or a recent misdemeanor, would likely be deterred from applying because the only way to know whether the conviction would not result in denial is to pay a non-refundable application fee ($20 to $60 per adult household member).
- Widespread Implications: Based on the rate of discrimination found in this report, there are more than 92,000 apartments at large properties (more than 30 units) in Marin, Sonoma, and Solano counties that screen for criminal records and disproportionately exclude Black renters based on their criminal history.
- Similar Rates of Discrimination in Each County: While housing providers in Solano County were revealed to be the most discriminatory, with 50% treating Black testers less favorably than white testers and 90% having criminal background screening policies that disproportionately exclude Black applicants, the rate of discrimination was similarly and alarmingly high in all three counties.
Audit Report: An Investigation of Obstacles to Housing Choice
for Survivors of Domestic Violence
Background: This report details the results of an investigation by FHANC of sex/gender discrimination against survivors of domestic violence in Marin, Sonoma, and Solano counties (FHANC’s service area). While federal and state fair housing laws have prohibited housing discrimination on the basis of sex/gender for decades, research and the results of this audit show that domestic violence survivors continue to experience discrimination as a barrier to housing choice.
Methodology: This audit investigated eighteen (18) landlords operating rental properties in FHANC’s service area. Each “test” or investigation of a particular property involved one female tester posing as a renter calling to inquire about a listing and to ask whether the landlord had a policy of evicting tenants for calling police to the property. Each tester was instructed to tell the housing provider that her previous landlord forced her to move out after the police were called to her unit in response to a report of domestic violence in which she was the victim and her ex-partner was the abuser. She was to explain that she was unaware of her previous landlord’s “zero tolerance” policy prior to moving in and thus wanted to get that information in advance this time before moving to a new unit. FHANC analyzed the narratives provided by each tester after each investigation to determine whether there was evidence that the housing provider had a discriminatory policy and/or made statements that could be considered discriminatory on the basis of sex/gender or some other protected class.
Key Findings:
Methodology: This audit investigated eighteen (18) landlords operating rental properties in FHANC’s service area. Each “test” or investigation of a particular property involved one female tester posing as a renter calling to inquire about a listing and to ask whether the landlord had a policy of evicting tenants for calling police to the property. Each tester was instructed to tell the housing provider that her previous landlord forced her to move out after the police were called to her unit in response to a report of domestic violence in which she was the victim and her ex-partner was the abuser. She was to explain that she was unaware of her previous landlord’s “zero tolerance” policy prior to moving in and thus wanted to get that information in advance this time before moving to a new unit. FHANC analyzed the narratives provided by each tester after each investigation to determine whether there was evidence that the housing provider had a discriminatory policy and/or made statements that could be considered discriminatory on the basis of sex/gender or some other protected class.
Key Findings:
- 11% of tests clearly indicated that the housing provider had a policy that would result in the eviction of a domestic violence survivor were she to call the police on her abuser following an incident of violence.
- 2 additional tests showed some or potential evidence of a discriminatory policy or practice based on sex/gender.
- 1 test revealed discrimination based on other protected classes, including marital status, disability, and source of income.
Audit Report: An Investigation to Determine the Extent to which Women Experience Discrimination in the Home Purchase Loan Market Based on Race, National Origin, Gender, and Familial Status
Background: In the last decade, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has seen an increase in complaints alleging gender and familial status discrimination by borrowers on maternity leave. In many of these cases, complainants alleged that lenders denied or delayed loans to working women because they were pregnant or on maternity leave or required women to end their maternity leave and return to work in order to be approved for a home purchase loan. In 2021, FHANC conducted an audit to determine whether lenders would require women (testers) to return to work before closing on a home purchase loan, which is discrimination based on gender and familial status. This audit expanded on that investigation to determine whether lenders are more likely to discriminate against women on maternity leave if they are Black or Latinx.
Methodology: FHANC investigated 10 lenders in Marin, Sonoma, and/or Solano Counties. For each investigation, two match-paired testers – one white and one Black or Latina – called the selected lender posing as a prospective loan applicant. Each tester asked if she could apply for a loan using her full salary given that she was on paid maternity leave but would not be returning to work until after the desired closing date. FHANC then analyzed each test to determine whether the lender stated a policy or made a comment that was discriminatory against mothers on maternity leave, which would constitute evidence of gender and familial status discrimination. FHANC also reviewed each test to determine whether the white tester was treated more favorably than the Black tester or the Latina tester, which would constitute race or national origin discrimination.
Key Findings:
Methodology: FHANC investigated 10 lenders in Marin, Sonoma, and/or Solano Counties. For each investigation, two match-paired testers – one white and one Black or Latina – called the selected lender posing as a prospective loan applicant. Each tester asked if she could apply for a loan using her full salary given that she was on paid maternity leave but would not be returning to work until after the desired closing date. FHANC then analyzed each test to determine whether the lender stated a policy or made a comment that was discriminatory against mothers on maternity leave, which would constitute evidence of gender and familial status discrimination. FHANC also reviewed each test to determine whether the white tester was treated more favorably than the Black tester or the Latina tester, which would constitute race or national origin discrimination.
Key Findings:
- 60% of the match-paired tests showed at least some evidence of discrimination based on race, national origin, gender, and/or familial status.
- Of the three counties where investigations took place, lenders in Sonoma County were the most discriminatory. 100% of the three tests in Sonoma County revealed at least some evidence of discrimination.
- 80% of the five investigations conducted in which the protected tester was a Black woman revealed at least some evidence of race discrimination.
Audit Report: An Investigation of Familial Status and National Origin Discrimination in Rental Housing
Background: This report details the results and subsequent recommendations following FHANC’s investigation of discrimination against Latinx parents in Marin, Sonoma, and Solano counties. While federal and state fair housing laws have prohibited housing discrimination on the basis of national origin and familial status for decades, research and the results of this audit show that Latinx households with minor children continue to experience discrimination as a barrier to housing choice.
Methodology: This audit investigated 60 landlords operating rental properties in Marin, Sonoma, and/or Solano County. Each “test” or investigation of a particular property consisted of matched-paired phone or email tests, comparing the experiences of Latinx and white non-Latinx testers posing as mothers with minor children seeking rental housing. FHANC analyzed the tests to determine whether Latina women with children were treated less favorably than white non-Latina women with children and/or whether housing providers had policies or made statements that were discriminatory on the basis of familial status.
Key Findings:
Methodology: This audit investigated 60 landlords operating rental properties in Marin, Sonoma, and/or Solano County. Each “test” or investigation of a particular property consisted of matched-paired phone or email tests, comparing the experiences of Latinx and white non-Latinx testers posing as mothers with minor children seeking rental housing. FHANC analyzed the tests to determine whether Latina women with children were treated less favorably than white non-Latina women with children and/or whether housing providers had policies or made statements that were discriminatory on the basis of familial status.
Key Findings:
- FHANC found that 58.2% of the housing providers investigated discriminated on the basis of familial status (39%) and/or national origin (30.4%) and 14.5% discriminated on the basis of both.
- Many of the tests revealing discrimination showed that housing providers outright refused to rent to families with children or had policies that disproportionately affected families such as overly restrictive occupancy rules. Additionally, some housing providers that discouraged the Latina tester from renting because she had children made no such discouraging comments to the white non-Latinx tester and/or were willing to make exceptions to occupancy rules for the white tester, revealing evidence of discrimination based on both familial status and national origin.
- Housing providers in Marin County were revealed to be the most discriminatory, with 66.7% of tests revealing at least some evidence of discrimination.
- When isolating the two protected classes, tests conducted in Marin County revealed the most evidence of familial status discrimination (52.6%), 70% of which were based on clear evidence, and tests conducted in Sonoma County revealed the most evidence of national origin discrimination (35%), 20% of which were based on clear evidence.
- Housing providers in Solano County were the least discriminatory; with 25% of tests revealing evidence of familial status discrimination and 23.5% revealing evidence of national origin discrimination.
- Familial status discrimination was detected at a higher rate in email tests than phone tests (41.4% versus 36.7%) and national origin discrimination was detected at a significantly higher rate in phone tests than email tests (40.7% versus 20.7%). (The fact that email tests revealed such a high rate of familial status discrimination suggests that discrimination against families with children is so pervasive that housing providers are willing to make discriminatory statements, even in writing.)
- Small and medium sized housing providers were significantly more discriminatory than large providers, particularly as related to familial status discrimination where all discrimination detected occurred at properties with fewer than fifty (50) units. (This indicates that many landlords, particularly small landlords, are unaware of their obligations under fair housing law and need additional training.)
Audit Report: Race and Source of Income Discrimination in Rental Housing
Background: This report details the results of an audit investigation to determine the extent of discrimination against Black Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders in Marin, Sonoma, and Solano counties. While discrimination on the basis of a renter’s source of income has been illegal in California for some time, only recently have these protections been extended to HCV holders, who have historically experienced barriers to housing opportunity based on their voucher status as well as other protected characteristics, such as race.
Methodology: FHANC investigated 69 rental properties in Marin, Sonoma, and Solano counties. All tests consisted of match-paired phone or email tests, comparing the experiences of Black and white testers posing as voucher holders seeking rental housing. Testers contacted housing providers and inquired as to whether the property accepted Section 8 vouchers and, if so, whether voucher holders were required to meet a minimum income threshold in order to qualify for the unit. FHANC then analyzed the tests to determine whether Black testers were treated less favorably than white testers and/or whether housing providers had policies that excluded voucher holders.
Key Findings:
Methodology: FHANC investigated 69 rental properties in Marin, Sonoma, and Solano counties. All tests consisted of match-paired phone or email tests, comparing the experiences of Black and white testers posing as voucher holders seeking rental housing. Testers contacted housing providers and inquired as to whether the property accepted Section 8 vouchers and, if so, whether voucher holders were required to meet a minimum income threshold in order to qualify for the unit. FHANC then analyzed the tests to determine whether Black testers were treated less favorably than white testers and/or whether housing providers had policies that excluded voucher holders.
Key Findings:
- 70.83% of the housing providers tested discriminated on the basis of race (41.51%) and/or source of income (61.82%).
- Tests conducted in Sonoma County revealed the most evidence of race discrimination (62.5%) and source of income discrimination (87.50%); with 92.31% revealing at least some evidence of either or both.
- Housing providers in Solano County were the least discriminatory; with 31.58% of tests revealing evidence of race discrimination and 44.44% revealing evidence of source of income discrimination.
- Tests at large properties showed significantly less evidence of source of income discrimination (36.36%) than tests conducted at small and medium sized properties (67.86% and 68.75% respectively).
- Email tests uncovered evidence of source of income discrimination at almost the exact same rate as phone tests (61.54% v. 61.90%).
Audit Report: An Investigation of Disability Discrimination in Rental Housing
Background: This report details the results following a large-scale systemic audit conducted to assess barriers to housing opportunities for people with disabilities. The investigation focused on the ability of prospective renters with disabilities to access reasonable accommodations – specifically permission to have an emotional support animal – in the initial stages of the home seeking process.
Methodology: FHANC investigated 111 rental properties in Marin, Sonoma and Solano counties for disability discrimination. FHANC chose properties with stated policies in their rental listings prohibiting or limiting animals on the property, such as “no pet” policies or policies restricting the type, breed or size of animals permitted. Testers posing as renters with disabilities called or emailed housing providers in response to such rental listings and asked if the provider would be willing to make an exception to their animal policy in order to accommodate an applicant who requires an emotional support animal because of a verified disability.
Key Findings:
Methodology: FHANC investigated 111 rental properties in Marin, Sonoma and Solano counties for disability discrimination. FHANC chose properties with stated policies in their rental listings prohibiting or limiting animals on the property, such as “no pet” policies or policies restricting the type, breed or size of animals permitted. Testers posing as renters with disabilities called or emailed housing providers in response to such rental listings and asked if the provider would be willing to make an exception to their animal policy in order to accommodate an applicant who requires an emotional support animal because of a verified disability.
Key Findings:
- FHANC found evidence of discrimination at more than half (55%) of the 111 properties investigated.
- Of the 32 investigations conducted in Marin County, 59% revealed evidence of a discriminatory policy or less favorable treatment toward persons with disabilities. Similarly, in Sonoma County, 60% of the 40 investigations conducted revealed evidence of discrimination.
- Tests in Solano County uncovered the least evidence of discrimination, however, 46% of the 39 investigations conducted still showed some evidence of unequal treatment and/or discrimination toward people with disabilities.
- One of the most significant findings revealed by the audit was the extremely high rate of discrimination uncovered at properties with less than 11 units (73%) versus the relatively low rate of discrimination at properties with more than 50 units (20%). This points to a clear need for increased education and outreach to “mom and pop” landlords regarding their obligation to provide reasonable accommodations under fair housing laws. Conversely, the fact that larger housing providers seem to be aware of their obligations is encouraging because larger properties represent a significantly greater portion of the units tested in this audit (4,413 total units at large properties versus 161 total units at small properties).
- FHANC also compared rates of discrimination in urban areas versus rural areas. While the differences were not very significant, the data shows that people with disabilities tend to face slightly more barriers to equal housing opportunities in urban areas than rural areas (58% versus 54%), which may be explained, at least in part, by the fact that housing markets tend to be tighter in urban areas.
- While both phone and email tests revealed high rates of discrimination, more evidence of discrimination was uncovered in email tests than in phone tests (62% and 51% respectively), indicating that at least some housing providers are likely unaware of their obligations under the law – given their willingness to discriminate in writing – and that there is a significant need for increased education and outreach to housing providers regarding reasonable accommodations and their obligations under the law.
Audit Report: National Origin and Source of Income Discrimination in Rental Housing
Background: While discrimination on the basis of a renter’s source of income has been illegal in California for some time, until only recently have these protections extended to HCV holders, who have historically experienced a number of barriers to housing choice, including refusal of landlords to rent to people with vouchers. Additionally, voucher holders are more likely to be members of other protected classes and therefore experience compounded discrimination. This audit examined the extent to which Latinx voucher holders experience discrimination based on source of income and/or national origin.
Methodology: FHANC investigated 63 landlords in Marin, Sonoma and Solano counties. All tests consisted of match-paired site, phone, or email tests, comparing the experiences of Latinx and white testers posing as voucher holders seeking rental housing. Testers contacted housing providers and inquired as to whether the property accepted Section 8 vouchers and, if so, whether voucher holders were required to meet a minimum income threshold in order to qualify for the unit. FHANC then analyzed the tests to determine whether Latinx testers were treated less favorably than white testers and/or whether housing providers had policies that excluded voucher holders.
Key Findings:
Methodology: FHANC investigated 63 landlords in Marin, Sonoma and Solano counties. All tests consisted of match-paired site, phone, or email tests, comparing the experiences of Latinx and white testers posing as voucher holders seeking rental housing. Testers contacted housing providers and inquired as to whether the property accepted Section 8 vouchers and, if so, whether voucher holders were required to meet a minimum income threshold in order to qualify for the unit. FHANC then analyzed the tests to determine whether Latinx testers were treated less favorably than white testers and/or whether housing providers had policies that excluded voucher holders.
Key Findings:
- FHANC found that housing providers discriminated on the basis of national origin and/or source of income 83% of the time, either demonstrating an outright refusal to rent to HCV holders or requiring an improper application of the minimum income requirement (which effectively prohibits voucher holders from accessing housing) and/or providing inferior terms/conditions and general treatment to Latinx voucher holders as compared to non-Latinx White voucher holders.
- Of the 83% of investigations revealing discrimination, 69% were based on source of income, 17% were based on both source of income and national origin, and 13% were based on national origin.
- Even in the investigations that did not reveal any significant difference indicating discrimination, some housing providers still demonstrated reticence to engage in the voucher program, noting that they were only willing to do so because they were required to consider voucher holders following the passage of the new law.
- Marin and Solano Counties showed the lowest levels of discrimination of the tri-county area; however, they were still strikingly high at 81%, particularly considering the local source of income ordinances in place in Marin County (since 2016) and various towns/cities in Marin County since (2018).
- Sonoma County showed the most discrimination at approximately 86%.
- Solano County showed the highest levels of national origin discrimination with 29% of landlords discriminating either on the basis of national origin or both national origin and source of income. However, Marin and Solano Counties were not far behind at 24%.
- The highest level of source of income discrimination was in Sonoma County with 62% of landlords discriminating against HCV holders; followed by Marin County at 57% and Solano County at 52%.
Audit Report: Race and Source of Income Discrimination in Rental Housing
in Marin, Sonoma, and Solano Counties
in Marin, Sonoma, and Solano Counties
Background: Discrimination in rental housing on the basis of race is illegal under state and federal law. In addition, in the state of California – as well as fifteen other states – it is unlawful to discriminate based upon source of income. The purpose of this audit was to assess the extent to which African American Housing Choice Voucher recipients experienced discrimination or differential treatment in the initial stages of home seeking process, based on their race.
Methodology: FHANC investigated 62 landlords in Marin, Sonoma and Solano counties. All tests consisted of match-paired site, phone, or email tests, comparing the experiences of Black and white testers posing as voucher holders seeking rental housing. Testers contacted housing providers and inquired as to whether the property accepted Section 8 vouchers. FHANC then analyzed the tests to determine whether Black testers were treated less favorably than white testers and/or whether housing providers were using refusal to rent to voucher holders as a proxy for race discrimination.
Key Findings:
Methodology: FHANC investigated 62 landlords in Marin, Sonoma and Solano counties. All tests consisted of match-paired site, phone, or email tests, comparing the experiences of Black and white testers posing as voucher holders seeking rental housing. Testers contacted housing providers and inquired as to whether the property accepted Section 8 vouchers. FHANC then analyzed the tests to determine whether Black testers were treated less favorably than white testers and/or whether housing providers were using refusal to rent to voucher holders as a proxy for race discrimination.
Key Findings:
- 57% of tests showed clear differential treatment on the basis of race, source of income, and/or familial status.
- 55% of tests showed evidence of clear differential treatment favoring the white tester and/or disfavoring testers using HCVs, which is often a pre-text for race discrimination.
- 15% of tests showed some differences in treatment favoring the white tester and/or disfavoring testers using HCVs in jurisdictions with local ordinances in place.
- 33% of tests resulted in no differential treatment or an inconclusive outcome.
Audit Report: Race Discrimination in Rental Housing in Marin and Solano Counties
Audit Report: Discrimination Against Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing in Rental Housing in Solano County
