MEMORANDUM



MEMORANDUM

CITY OF BEAVERTON

TO: Mayor Denny Doyle

FROM: Andrea Lindberg

DATE: 4/6/10

RE: Fair Housing Audits

As a recipient of Community Development Block Grant funds, the City of Beaverton certifies that it will affirmatively further fair housing within our community. In an effort to meet that obligation, the City contracts with the Fair Housing Council of Oregon (FHCO) to provide fair housing trainings and to staff the fair housing hotline for Beaverton residents (as a supporting community, our residents receive priority service when they call in with fair housing questions or have a complaint).

This year, the City also included fair housing site-visit tests in our FHCO contract. This is a method to gather information throughout the community regarding what if any type of discriminatory practices are prevalent so we can better target our education efforts. Approximately half of the City’s 37,000+ residential units are rental units. According to national fair housing advocates and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, the majority of housing discrimination goes unreported. For those cases that are reported, discrimination based on disability is the most common.

Over the years, forms of discrimination have become more subtle; rather than a landlord or seller stating they won’t sell or rent to someone because of their race, national origin or religion, members of the various protected classes are offered units under different terms, must pay higher insurance or interest rates, or may be told units in more desirable parts of a property are not available.

During the last program year, the City contracted with FHCO to perform 47 random property visit to rental properties that were advertised as being available for rent or lease in public papers and on Craigslist. Each visit entailed two different applicants visiting a property to view a listing that was randomly selected from advertisements. Both applicants were alike in their rental history, background and income, but one applicant would represent one of five protected classes that were being tested (our tests looked at familial status, national origin, sexual orientation, disability status and race). The applicant representing one of the protected classes would visit the property first and fill out an application, tour the facility and meet with a leasing agent. Later in the day, an applicant that was similar in rental qualifications, but not representative of the protected class would visit the property and undertake the same activities. After each applicant visits the property, they write a summary of their visit including details such as what units they were told were available, the prices of those units, if there were any rental specials available, what the community amenities were, etc.

Leasing agents are trained to show prospective renters the same information to ensure that all applicants are treated equally as long as they have the income and rental history that would qualify them to rent a unit. When agents don’t follow standard procedures, they are at risk of discriminating against applicants.

After FHCO completed the 47 property visits, they summarized their findings in the attached report, which was provided to the City. This data will provide our staff better direction in determining what types of fair housing training should be provided in the coming year, and also help our City develop better materials to provide to our citizens. Although a small sample, the results of these site visits give us an indication of what types of discrimination may be occurring in our City, so we can address these issues more effectively.

The most recent series of audits found that discriminatory practices based on race were most prevalent. Nine site visits were conducted to test for racial discrimination under the Fair Housing Act. Of those nine visits, seven tested positive for discriminatory practices such as not offering the same specials, not showing the same units and not always giving a tour. While this testing of advertised rentals is not statistically significant, it does illustrate that discrimination in rental housing still exists despite the decades that have passed since the Fair Housing Act was passed.

Staff will work with the Fair Housing Council to host trainings for both residents and landlords to address the practices that were found during the audits. We will also develop new brochures, articles and other sources of information to help our residents better understand their rights and how to get help if they believe they have been discriminated against when trying to secure housing.

|Beaverton Audit Results |  |  |  |

|  |Familial Status |Disability |National Origin |Sexual Orientation |Race |

|Negative |5 |4 |3 |3 |2 |

|Positive |3 |5 |4 |4 |7 |

|Inconclusive |2 |1 |1 |3 |0 |

|Total |10 |10 |8 |10 |9 |

FS- Familial Status

D- Disability

NO- National Origin

SO- Sexual Orientation

R- Race

CT- Comparative Tester

PT- Protected Tester

HP- Housing Provider

Positive Test Results Expanded

A800

FS- PT was not offered the same “November Special” the CT was given which waived the security deposit and the administrative fee. CT was also informed of a more expensive unit that the PT was not offered.

SO- PT was not offered the same “November Special” the CT was given which waived the security deposit and the administrative fee. The PT had a cumulative move-in fee of $1189 versus the CT’s $839.

A802

NO- PT was not provided with a description of the complex or room amenities. HP freely provided CT with a list.

SO- HP did not offer the waived application fee ($40) to the PT. This option was given to the CT.

A804

D- HP told PT they had a weight limit of 25 lbs for animals. Told PT they would call back after speaking with supervisor about 40 lb animal, and never called back. CT’s inquiries all answered.

A806

D- HP told PT he only accepted cats, not dogs. After informing HP of verification letter, HP told PT he would check with HOA and call back. HP never called PT back. CT’s inquiries all answered.

A807

FS- PT steered to different properties than CT through promotion of more yard space and parking space. PT was given an application fee and the CT’s application fee was waived.

D- PT steered to different properties than the CT. HP only mentioned one property to the PT, and three to the CT.

NO- HP did not provide same locations to the PT as she did to the CT. Potential steering.

SO- HP did not provide same locations to the PT as she did to the CT. HP also put PT on phone for four minutes after making protected statement. CT was spoken to right away.

A809

FS- PT was not informed of the $1000 rent credit special the CT was provided. PT also only told about the more expensive 2 bath unit, while CT was told about the 1 bath and 2 bath units.

D- HP did not provide PT with the same $1000 rent credit special the CT was given.

NO- HP did not provide PT the $1000 rent credit special the CT was given.

SO- HP did not provide PT the $1000 rent credit special the CT was given.

A811

D- PT was not told about the first month’s free rent special the CT was given.

NO- PT was told the complex does not allow dogs, while other testers were told dogs allowed. PT also told he MUST sign a 12 month lease, while CT was not given this ultimatum.

A813

R-CT was offered three levels of units for viewing, while PT was only offered one unit (most expensive). CT given three handouts the PT was not given: a list of reasons to live at the complex, a map of the complex, and a list of phone numbers to local amenities.

A816

R-CT was given five more documents detailing the complex than the PT was given. The HP also described the complex in more detail to the CT than the PT. HP offered CT first month’s rent prorated, but did not offer to PT.

A817

R- CT was given a lower rent than the PT. HP contacted the CT two times after appointment through e-mail, while the PT was never contacted after the appointment. CT received two more documents than the PT detailing the complex’s amenities. CT shown units on opposite side of complex than the PT was shown. Rent with Equity Program only discussed with CT, and not the PT.

A818

R-CT and PT shown different units. CT was given no cleaning deposit and a $200 security deposit. PT was given a $150 cleaning deposit and a $400 security deposit.

A819

R- CT given tour of house by HP, while PT was told to show herself around. HP informed CP of other available properties and gave CT a handout detailing properties. PT was not informed of properties and did not receive a handout.

A820

R- CT shown office model, and shown 3 BR model when 2 BR was not available. PT was only shown the office model, and was not given the option of viewing the 3 BR or 2 BR model.

A821

R- CT was told about special to prorate the apartment’s first month’s rent. The PT was not told about this option.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download