Unlocking Discrimination

UN LOCKIN G DISCRIMIN ATION
A DC Area Testing Investigation About Racial Discrimination

and Criminal Records Screening Policies in Housing
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .......................... 6

Background ......................... 8
State of the Law ......................... 14
Methodology ............................. 16
Results .............................. 20
Recommendations ............................ 31
www.equal ri ghts c e nte r.o rg
Equal Rights Center | UNLOCKING DISCRIMINATION
ABOUT THE EQUAL RIGHTS CENTER

The Equal Rights Center is a civil rights organization that identifies and seeks to eliminate unlawful and
unfair discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations in its home community
of greater Washington DC and nationwide. The ERCs core strategy for identifying unlawful and unfair
discrimination is civil rights testing. When the ERC identifies discrimination, it seeks to eliminate it
through the use of testing data to educate the public and business community, support policy
advocacy, conduct compliance testing and training, and if necessary, take enforcement action.
The ERC is the only private fair housing organization dedicated to serving the greater Washington DC
region and may be able to assist individuals who believe they have experienced housing discrimination
in greater Washington DC region by:

Conducting civil rights testing

Submitting reasonable accommodation and modification requests
Assisting with filing a housing discrimination complaint
Providing referrals to other local resources
The Equal Rights Center 2016 | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
PROJECT STAFF
Kate Scott, Director of Fair Housing
Camille Brown, Fair Housing Program Coordinator
Brian McKenzie, Fair Housing Education Coordinator
Susie McClannahan, Fair Housing Grant and Intake Coordinator
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work that provided the basis for this publication was supported by funding under a grant with
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The substance and findings of the work
are dedicated to the public. The author and publisher are solely responsible for the accuracy of the
statements and interpretations contained in this publication. Such interpretations do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Federal Government.
The ERC extends sincere gratitude to the testers who participated in this project because without
their insights, dedication, and perseverance, the testing and this report could not have occurred.
Additionally, project staff would like to thank the following individuals and organizations for their
assistance with various facets of this project: Sara Pratt, Relman, Dane & Colfax PLLC; Larisa Kofman,
National Alliance for Safe Housing; Sandra Park, Womens Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties
Union; Anupama Prasad, Crowell & Moring; and Shana griffin.
FOREWORD
I first heard about the Netflix series Orange is the New Black while watching Melissa Harris-Perry
interview actress Laverne Cox. Cox made a compelling case for the series, and I was soon hooked
on the show. As it did for many others, the show humanized for me the hundreds of thousands
of women incarcerated in prisons and jails around the country. It also drove home the point that
racial disparities in the criminal legal system burden women (not just men) of color. Finally, through
its artful storytelling and intricate backstories, it helped me to understand the experiences of many
women prior to incarceration. Since then, Ive encountered research that supports narratives I first
encountered through the show.1
The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that as many as 100 million U.S. adults have some sort of
criminal record. The increase in women in prison far outpaces the rate of increase of men in prison
over the last four decades, and African American women are imprisoned at more than twice the rate
of white women. In the recent years, there has been an increased focus on the ongoing collateral
consequences of interaction with the criminal legal system, whether through arrest, conviction, and/
or incarceration. One oft cited collateral consequence is housing stability.
In undertaking the investigation that yielded this report, we sought to better understand the
experiences of African American women with criminal records attempting to find housing. In order
to get a full picture of these experiences in an era of usually subtle yet still pernicious discrimination,
we started from the premise that it would be informative to compare the experiences of such women
with their white counterparts.
Through this investigation, we measured discrimination against both white and Black female
homeseekers posing as having criminal records. In total, 47% of tests conducted revealed differential
treatment on the part of a housing provider that favored the white female tester. Further, 28% of tests
revealed a criminal records screening policy in place that may have an illegal disparate impact on the
basis of race.
Releasing a report like this one less than a month before a presidential election is a daunting task. As
a small nonprofit, attracting media coverage that reflects the significance of our results is challenging
any time; doing so in the context of unpredictable campaign antics is even more difficult. However,
our task is aided by the relevance of this reports subject matter to topics that have already arisen on
the campaign trail.2 The investigation that yielded this report provides evidence that none of these are
topics that we can put to rest on November 8no matter who wins.
In November 2015, the White House announced a new series of actions it was taking to make our
criminal justice system fairer and more effective and to address the vicious cycle of poverty, criminality,
and incarceration that traps too many Americans and weakens too many communities.3 The White
1
See Hagler, Jamal. 6 Things You Should Know About Women of Color and the Criminal Justice System. Center for American
Progress, 16 Mar. 2016. Web. <www.americanprogress.org/issues/criminal-justice/news/2016/03/16/133438/6-things-you-shouldknow-about-women-of-color-and-the-criminal-justice-system/.>.
2
In 1973, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) accused Republican nominee Donald Trumps real estate company of discriminating
against Black homeseekers, in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Specifically, the DOJ alleged that company agents lied to Black
prospective tenants about the availability of apartments, steered applicants of color to specific buildings, and marked the
applications of Black applicants with a C for colored. The case was settled in 1975. Further, both candidates have addressed
the criminal legal system in an attempt to appeal to voters. Trump describes himself as the law and order candidate. Democratic
nominee Hillary Clinton has called for criminal justice related reforms to promote equality and opportunity during this election cycle,
but her track record is marred in the eyes of many because she has previously used terms like super predators while referring to
young African American men.
3
The White House. Office of the Press Secretary. FACT SHEET: President Obama Announces New Actions to Promote Rehabilitation
and Reintegration for the Formerly-Incarcerated. 2 Nov. 2015. Web. <www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/02/fact-sheetpresident-obama-announces-new-actions-promote-rehabilitation>.
House indicated in its announcement of these actions that many of them stemmed from President
Obamas My Brothers Keeper Task Force, an initiative launched to address the opportunity gaps faced
by boys and young men of color. It is clear, ranging from storytelling through venues like Orange is
the New Black to the investigation that this report is based on, that the policy changes and progress
proposed through the announcement are equally important to African American women and girls.
By publishing this report, we are wholeheartedly embracing the work of ensuring equal opportunity
for women and girls of color. The ERCs core strategy of civil rights testing has allowed us through this
report to shine a light on the housing discrimination that African American women face, and there are
ample opportunities to use testing further in service of this goal. African American women deserve
protection from discrimination, and we hope this report will help shine a light on our experiences so
that efforts to provide such protection are as effective as possible.
Melvina Ford, Executive Director, Equal Rights Center
October 2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Decades of tough on crime policies, including the War on Drugs, have yielded a prison population in
the U.S. that is, by far, the largest in the world. Nearly one-third of the U.S. population has a criminal
record of some sort. Across the board, the burden of involvement with the criminal legal system has
fallen much more heavily on people of color than whites. Nationally, African Americans and Hispanics
are arrested, convicted and incarcerated at rates disproportionate to their share of the general
population. Demographic information about those involved in the criminal legal system in the greater
Washington D.C. region also reflects an extreme degree of racial disproportionality.
Conversations about the racially disproportionate impact of mass criminalization and collateral
consequences often focus on men of color, but it is critical to include the experiences of women of
color in any analysis as well. While men outnumber women in prison, the number of women in prison
has grown at a significantly quicker rate than the overall number of incarcerated men in the last
three decades. African American women are imprisoned at more than twice the rate of white women.
Prior to their involvement with the criminal legal system, women experience an extremely high rate
of trauma due to interpersonal violence, childhood physical and sexual abuse, mental illness, and
poverty, among other factors.
The investigation that served as the basis for this report utilized civil rights
testing to evaluate whether white and African American female testers posing
as having similar criminal backgrounds were treated differently on the basis
of race. Through testing, the ERC was also able to gather information about
certain criminal records screening policies and procedures local housing
providers have in place. All tests conducted through the investigation used
female testers, along with assigned criminal history profiles that reflected
many womens actual experiences with the criminal legal system.
47%
DIFFERENTIAL
T R E A T M E N T
Favors White Tester
In total, 47% of tests conducted revealed differential treatment on the part of a housing provider that
favored the white female tester. Further, 28% of tests revealed a criminal records screening policy in
place that may have an illegal disparate impact on the basis of race.
There were three categories of differential treatment displayed through the testing conducted for this project:
1
Agents provided matched pair testers with different information or quality of service;
Agents reacted differently to the testers disclosure of their criminal record; and
Agents provided speculation about the impact that testers criminal records would have on
their chances of a successful application
Through the testing conducted for this project, the ERC also uncovered evidence of policies it believes
may violate the Fair Housing Act based on a disparate impact method of proof in 14 separate tests, 28%
of the tests conducted. Due to policies like blanket bans on any applicant with a felony conviction on
their record, testing alone documented 4,646 housing units in the greater Washington region that are
unavailable to individuals with any felony conviction from any point in time, and to many individuals
with a misdemeanor conviction. Because of racial disparities in the criminal legal system, such bans by
extension disproportionately limit housing opportunities for African American applicants as compared
to white applicants, in violation of the Fair Housing Act.
As a result of the findings of our investigation, the ERC makes the following recommendations:

Housing providers large and small must evaluate and revise the role that criminal records
screening policies and practices play in their application decisions to ensure that they are serving
a substantial, legitimate, non-discriminatory interest and are not a proxy for racial discrimination.
Housing providers need to communicate transparently with applicants about what their screening
criteria are.
The District should enact legislation locally that would compel local housing providers to adopt the
recommendations above and beyond to ensure that individuals with criminal records are able to
secure safe housing.
A neutral third party, such as a private foundation, should convene various stakeholders and
experts to develop more detailed guidance for private housing providers about how to ensure
that criminal records screening policies and practices comply with the Fair Housing Act.
Congress should increase appropriations to programs like the Fair Housing Initiatives Program, in
addition to ensuring that HUD has adequate resources and staff to respond forcefully to acts of
housing discrimination around the country.
Housing providers must invest in high quality fair housing training at all levels of their organizations,
along with checking to ensure that employees are abiding by their fair housing obligations.
Researchers, policymakers, advocates, and service providers should use an explicitly intersectional
approach in the collection and analysis of data, development and implementation of law and
policy, and delivery of services.
HUD should issue a final rule regarding the implementation of the Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act of 2013 as soon as possible.
Local jurisdictions should seize the opportunity to lead the way nationally when it comes to
ensuring that domestic violence survivors with criminal histories have access to safe housing.
Residents of the greater Washington DC area that are concerned by the findings of this investigation
should consider serving as a tester for the ERC.
BACKGROUND
Racial Disproportionality in the Criminal Legal System
Decades of tough on crime policies, including the War on Drugs, have yielded a prison population in
the U.S. that is, by far, the largest in the world.4 Nearly one-third of the U.S. population has a criminal
record of some sort.5 Across the board, the burden of involvement with the criminal legal system has
fallen much more heavily on people of color than whites. Namely, Across the United States, African
Americans and Hispanics are arrested, convicted and incarcerated at rates disproportionate to their
share of the general population.6
Demographic information about those involved in the criminal legal system in the greater Washington
D.C. region also reflects an extreme degree of racial disproportionality, and a disproportionate
number of persons arrested, convicted, and incarcerated are African American.7 For example, African
Americans currently make up 90% of the inmate population in the District of Columbia, despite making
up just 49% of DCs total population.8 A 2013 report from the
Washington Lawyers Committee report found that 8 out of 10
African American
total arrests and 9 out of 10 drug-related arrests in Washington,
D.C. were of African Americans (even though African Americans women are imprisoned
used illegal drugs at rates similar to whites).9 Further, between at more than twice the
2009-2012, over 90% of persons convicted of crimes in the
rate of white women.
District were African-American, while only about 50% of the
Districts total population was African American in 2010.10 The
same disproportionality exists in both Maryland and Virginia. African Americans make up less than
20% of Virginias overall population, but 61% of its prison population.11 In Maryland, African Americans
make up approximately 30% of the overall population, and about 72% of its prison inmates.12
Women Involved in the Criminal Legal System
Conversations about the racially disproportionate impact of mass incarceration and collateral consequences
often focus on men of color, but it is critical to include the experiences of women of color in any analysis
as well. Further, overall, the rate of growth for female imprisonment in the last thirty-five years far exceeds
the rate of growth for male imprisonment. Even though data in the section above is not disaggregated by
gender, national level data suggests that similar racial disproportionalities exist for criminal legal system
4
Travis, Jeremy, Bruce Western, and Steve Redburn, eds. The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and
Consequences. Washington: National Academies, 2014. National Research Council, Apr. 2014. Web. <www.nap.edu/catalog/18613/
the-growth-of-incarceration-in-the-united-states-exploring-causes>.
Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2012: A Criminal Justice
Information Policy Report. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jan. 2014. Web. <www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/244563.pdf>.
6
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Office of General Counsel Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards
to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real Estate-Related Transactions. 4 Apr. 2016. Web. <portal.hud.gov/
hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=HUD_OGCGuidAppFHAStandCR.pdf>.
7
Alexander v. Edgewood Management Corporation, et. al. 14. United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 1 Sept. 2015.
14. Web. <www.washlaw.org/pdf/alexander_amended_complaint.pdf>.
8
District of Columbia Department of Corrections. DC Department of Corrections Facts and Figures. Jan. 2016. Web. <doc.dc.gov/
sites/default/files/dc/sites/doc/publication/attachments/DC%20Department%20of%20Corrections%20Facts%20and%20Figures%20
January%202016.pdf>.
Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs. Racial Disparities in Arrests in the District of Columbia, 2009-2011:
Implications for Civil Rights and Criminal Justice in the Nations Capital. Rep., July 2013. 2. Web. <www.washlaw.org/pdf/wlc_report_
racial_disparities.pdf>.
10
Alexander v. Edgewood Management Corporation, Et. Al. 14. United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 1 Sept. 2015.
15. Web. <www.washlaw.org/pdf/alexander_amended_complaint.pdf>.
11
Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs. The Collateral Consequences of Arrests and Convictions under
D.C., Maryland, and Virginia Law. Rep., 22 Oct. 2014. 4. Web. <www.washlaw.org/pdf/wlc_collateral_consequences_report.pdf>.
12
Ibid.
UP TO 98%
of incarcerated women
have experienced trauma
prior to incarceration.
involved women. Nationally, while more men are in prison than women, the rate of growth for female
imprisonment has outpaced the rate of growth for male imprisonment by more than 50% between 1980
and 2014, and African American women are imprisoned at more than twice the rate of white women.13, 14
From 1980-2014, the number of incarcerated women increased from 26,378 to 215,332.15 While men still
outnumber women in prison, the number of women in prison has grown at a significantly quicker speed
than the overall number of incarcerated men during this time period.16
The majority of women involved with the criminal legal system
were arrested for non-violent crimes.17 The significant increase in
female incarceration since 1980 is primarily due to the increased
penalties for drug-related crime during this period.18 Approximately
25% of incarcerated women are serving time for drug-related
offenses (compared to approximately 16% for males). Only 3% of
incarcerated women are serving time for violent crimes.19
Only 3% of incarcerated
women are serving time
for violent crimes.
Any discussion of womens involvement in the criminal legal system must be include a gendered lens.
First, it is critical to understand that women involved in the criminal legal system have, on the whole,
experienced circumstances that differ drastically from their male counterparts:

Up to 98% of incarcerated women have experienced trauma such as interpersonal violence and/
or physical/sexual abuse prior to incarceration.20
Reports estimate that half of incarcerated women were homeless in the month prior to their
incarceration.21
13
The ERC was not able to obtain local or state level data disaggregated by race AND gender for the purposes of this section of the
report. However, it should be noted that the April 4th guidance from HUD suggests that while making a discriminatory effects claim
on this basis, national statistics on racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system may be used where, for example, state
or local statistics are not readily available and there is no reason to believe they would differ markedly from the national statistics.
In conducting research for this report, the ERC determined that there was no reason to believe that the racial disproportionality
that characterizes the criminal legal system in the region would vary based on gender. However, the difficulty in obtaining the data
underscores the point made in recommendation 7 of this report.
14
The Sentencing Project. Incarcerated Women and Girls. Nov. 2015. Web. <www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/
uploads/2016/02/Incarcerated-Women-and-Girls.pdf>.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17
National Resource Center on Justice Involved Women. Working with Justice Involved Women. Web. <cjinvolvedwomen.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/Infographic-Final-2-pager.pdf>.
18
American Civil Liberties Union. Facts about the Over-Incarceration of Women in the United States. Web. <www.aclu.org/other/
facts-about-over-incarceration-women-united-states>.
19
Ibid.
20
National Resource Center on Justice Involved Women. Working with Justice Involved Women. Web. <cjinvolvedwomen.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/Infographic-Final-2-pager.pdf>.
21
Ibid.
Approximately 73% of women in prison reported a

mental health problem, compared to 12% of women in
the U.S. population overall.22
Nearly two thirds of women in prison are mothers, and
77% of incarcerated mothers reported daily care for their
child/children prior to incarceration.23
Nearly two
thirds of women
in prison are
mothers
A Best Practice Toolkit for Working with Domestic Violence Survivors with Criminal Histories reports that the
common profile of women involved in the criminal justice system is

Disproportionately women of color; Thirty years of age with low socioeconomic status; Unemployed
and have not obtained a high school degree; Unmarried/un-partnered and often parenting in
isolation; Most likely convicted of a drug offense; Survivor of childhood physical and/or sexual
abuse; Likely to have mental health and substance abuse issues; and Survivor of domestic and/or
sexual violence.24
Many womens interactions with the criminal legal system are a result of their experiences of domestic
violence. Often, survivors of domestic violence have criminal records.25 Since the 1970s, many
jurisdictions around the country enacted dual arrest policies that encouraged police to arrest both
perpetrator and victim in incidences of intimate partner violence; it is only relatively recently that such
policies have been amended in response to critiques about their damaging impacts on victims.26 It is
also not uncommon for survivors of domestic violence to be arrested and prosecuted for defending
themselves against their abusers. Finally, survivors frequently have criminal histories that may initially
appear unrelated to domestic violencei.e. prostitution, theft, or drug related chargeswhen in reality
such acts were committed as a result of coercion or threats from their abusers. For example, the ERC
recently worked with a client who had an item on her criminal record related to her failure to return
rental furniture. The woman could not return the rental furniture because once she fled her abusive
husband, she was unable to return to the home they shared to retrieve the furniture. However, as a
result of the information on her criminal record, her application for an apartment was denied.
Finally, in order to understand the complex nature of womens involvement in the criminal legal
system, it is necessary to take into account that many of the above factors are interrelated when it
comes to how they play out in any one womans life. Further, their impacts are often compounding.
For example, domestic violence is a leading cause of homelessness for women, and many incarcerated
women have experienced both domestic violence and homelessness. 27 Domestic violence and other
types of abuse lead to mental health issues, another experience that is extremely common for women
22
Hagler, Jamal. 6 Things You Should Know About Women of Color and the Criminal Justice System. Center for American Progress,
16 Mar. 2016. <www.americanprogress.org/issues/criminal-justice/news/2016/03/16/133438/6-things-you-should-know-aboutwomen-of-color-and-the-criminal-justice-system/.>.
23
Womens Prison Association. Quick Facts: Women & Criminal Justice - 2009. Sept. 2009. Web. <www.wpaonline.org/wpaassets/
Quick_Facts_Women_and_CJ_2009_rebrand.pdf>.
24
Kubiak, Sheryl, Cris Sullivan, Lauren Fries, Nkiru Nnawulezi, and Gina Fedock. Best Practice Toolkit for Working with DV Victims
with Criminal Histories. Michigan Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, Dec. 2011.14. Web. <ocadvsa.org/wp-content/
uploads/2014/04/Best-Practice-Toolkit-for-Working-with-DV-Victims-with-Criminal-Histories.pdf>.
25
Bishop, Catherine, Navneet Grewal, and Meliah Schultzman. Housing Access for Domestic Violence Survivors with Criminal
Records. National Housing Law Project, 7 Sept. 2011. Web. <nhlp.org/files/DV%20and%20Criminal%20Records%20Materials.pdf>.
26
Sussman, Erika. Criminal Records and Employment Rights: A Tool for Survivors of Domestic Violence. Center for Survivor
Agency and Justice and National Network to End Domestic Violence, 2013. Web. <nnedv.org/downloads/Thousing/
EmptRightsForSurvivorsWithCriminalRecords.pdf>.
27
National Network to End Domestic Violence. Domestic Violence, Housing, and Homelessness. Web. <nnedv.org/downloads/Policy/
NNEDV_DVHousing__factsheet.pdf>.
10
involved in the criminal legal system. In turn, incarcerated women with a history of trauma and
accompanying mental health concerns are more likely to have difficulties with prison adjustment and
misconduct.28 The interplay and accumulation of all of the above factors, in addition to discrimination,
make re-entry for many women an insurmountable challenge.
Finding Housing with a Criminal Record
According to the American Bar Association, collateral consequences are the penalties, disabilities,
or disadvantages imposed upon a person as a result of a criminal conviction, either automatically
by operation of law or by authorized action of an administrative agency or court on a case by case
basis.29 In broader uses of the term, it may also include less formal penalties or disadvantages that are
related to having any sort of criminal record, including an arrest. Difficulty in securing and maintaining
housing is widely recognized as a collateral consequence
that reverberates profoundly throughout peoples lives.
In its 2014 report on collateral consequences of arrests and
convictions in DC, Maryland, and Virginia, the Washington
Lawyers Committee found that arrest and conviction
history have serious effects on the ability to find public
or private housing and that none of the jurisdictions
studied for the report restrict private landlords from
denying housing based on an individuals criminal history
(Maryland and Virginia specifically authorize it).30
In addition to understanding
that collateral consequences
exist for people with criminal
records across the board, it is
important to understand for
the purposes of this report
that racial or other types of
discrimination may increase
their burden on some people
with criminal records more
than others.
Limiting the impact of collateral consequences is important

for a number of reasons; chief among them is the issue
of basic fairness. Another of the most commonly cited
reasons to limit the impact of collateral consequences
is reducing recidivism. While 60% of women released
from incarceration are re-arrested and nearly a third are returned to prison, these new criminal
justice contacts are largely for technical violations that often stem from unmet survival needs
like difficulty in securing a job or safe housing.31 Further, similar to how womens life circumstances
prior to incarceration are interconnected and in many instances have a cumulative impact, collateral
consequences often exacerbate each other.32
Finally, in addition to understanding that collateral consequences exist for people with criminal records
across the board, it is important to understand for the purposes of this report that racial or other
types of discrimination may increase their burden on some people with criminal records more than
others. This is due both to the disproportionate effect of the criminal legal system on racial minorities,
but also to the kinds of discriminatory practices that this report discusses in the results section.
28
Ney, Becki, Rachelle Ramirez, and Marilyn Van Dieten, eds. Ten Truths That Matter When Working With Justice Involved Women:
Executive Summary. National Resource Center on Justice Involved Women, Apr. 2012. Web. <cjinvolvedwomen.org/wp-content/
uploads/2015/09/Ten_Truths_Brief.pdf>.
29
User Guide Frequently Asked Questions. ABA National Inventory of Collateral Consequences of Conviction. American Bar
Association, 2013. Web. < www.abacollateralconsequences.org/user_guide/>.
30
D.C., Maryland, and Virginia Law. Rep., 22 Oct. 2014. Web. <www.washlaw.org/pdf/wlc_collateral_consequences_report.pdf>.
31
Ney, Becki, Rachelle Ramirez, and Marilyn Van Dieten, eds. Ten Truths That Matter When Working With Justice Involved Women:
Executive Summary. National Resource Center on Justice Involved Women, Apr. 2012. Web. <cjinvolvedwomen.org/wp-content/
uploads/2015/09/Ten_Truths_Brief.pdf>.
32
D.C., Maryland, and Virginia Law. Rep., 22 Oct. 2014. 2. Web. <www.washlaw.org/pdf/wlc_collateral_consequences_report.pdf>.
11
Focusing on Women
The investigation that formed the basis of this report used civil rights testing to probe the existence of
differential treatment on the basis of race between African American and white female homeseekers
posing as having comparable criminal histories. All tests conducted through the investigation used
female testers, along with assigned criminal history profiles that reflected womens experiences with
the criminal legal system. The choices to structure the investigation to take gendered experiences
of the criminal legal system into account and to collect information about racial discrimination in
housing as women experience it were deliberate.
The choices to structure the

investigation to take gendered
experiences of the criminal
legal system into account
and to collect information
about racial discrimination in
housing as women experience
it were deliberate.
Despite the fact that reform of the criminal legal system is

gaining in popularity, women remain largely overlooked
in such efforts. A recent, rare report on women and jails
from the Vera Institute for Justice notes that as interest
in rolling back the misuse and overuse of jail increases,
women frequently remain an afterthought in discussions
about reform.33 This oversight makes it even more
difficult for women to move on with their lives after
incurring a criminal record, as the resources for them to
do so are even more scant than they are for men.
Similarly, women of color are often overlooked in efforts

devoted to racial equity. A recent trend in philanthropy,
for example, has been funding initiatives focused on racial disparities that boys and men of color
experience. Various women of color have raised concerns about the lack of attention paid or
investments made in addressing the disparities that women and girls of color face.34 Such critiques
have been impactful, and last year the White House announced a new funding initiative focused on
women and girls of color.35 However, questions remain about the differences in levels of investment
between initiatives dedicated to men and boys vs. women and girls of color.36
Research, social policy, and even philanthropic efforts have invisiblized and/or criminalized African
American women for decades. In 1965, The Negro Family: The Case for National Action, better known
as the Moynihan Report, pathologized African American women headed households, positing that this
matriarchal family structure would stand as an insurmountable obstacle to Black progress in the United
States. The report has been the subject of Black feminist critique for decades. Recently, prominent public
intellectual Melissa Harris Perry wrote, Moynihans conclusions granted permission to generations of
policymakers to imagine poor black women as domineering household managers whose unfeminine
insistence on control both emasculated their potential male partners and destroyed their childrens
futures. Instead of engaging black women as creative citizens doing the best they could in tough
circumstances, the report labeled them as unrelenting cheats unfairly demanding assistance from the
system.37
33
Vera Institute for Justice. Overlooked: Women and Jails in an Era of Reform. Aug. 2016. Web. <storage.googleapis.com/vera-webassets/downloads/Publications/overlooked-women-and-jails-report/legacy_downloads/overlooked-women-and-jails-fact-sheet.pdf>.
34
For example, see 200 Black Men about My Brothers Keeper. Why We Cant Wait: Women of Color Urge Inclusion in My Brothers
Keeper Letter to President Barack Obama. 17 June 2014. African American Policy Forum, 18 May 2016. Web. <www.aapf.
org/2014/06/woc-letter-mbk>.
35
Prosperity Together. Womens Funding Network, Web. <www.womensfundingnetwork.org/initiatives/prosperity-together/>.
36
Marek, Kierstan. As Women of Color Get Attention from the White House, Weve Got Some Questions. Inside Philanthropy. 3 Dec.
2015. Web. <http://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2015/12/3/as-women-of-color-get-attention-from-the-white-house-weve-go.html>.
37
Harris-Perry, Melissa. The Rest of the Story: Black Women and the War on Drugs.The Undefeated. 15 Sept. 2016. Web. <http://
theundefeated.com/features/the-rest-of-story-black-women-and-the-her-story-of-the-war-on-drugs-jay-z-melissa-harris-perry-nyt/>.
12
Indeed, more than 60 years after the release of the Moynihan Report and four decades after the
promulgation of policies that intensified the criminalization of African American women, the reports
impacts still reverberate. African American women are incarcerated and experience other types of
harmful criminalization at rates that are dramatically disproportionate to their share of the population.
Meanwhile, the reality remains that African American households are disproportionately headed by
women.38
This report focuses on the experiences of women with criminal records in finding housing, but
uses civil rights testing to disaggregate the information by race. Doing so contributes intersectional
information to ongoing conversations about reforming the criminal legal system, providing relief
from collateral consequences, and ending discriminatory policies and practices. When it comes to
fairness and equity, the stakes are already high. However, the head of household status that many
African American women hold mean that the implications of any discrimination uncovered through
the investigation impact minor children and other family members as well.
38
Occupied housing units with a White head of household are 2.29 times more likely to be owned than rented, while occupied
housing units with a Black head of household are 1.32 times more likely to be rented. This racial disparity continues along gender
lines as well. White women as head of household are 1.29 times more likely to own their property, while African American women are
1.76 times more likely to rent. American Community Survey Data 5 Year Summary 2014.
13
STATE OF THE LAW

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing related transactions on the basis of race,
color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability. In April 2016, HUDs Office of General
Counsel issued guidance on the application of Fair Housing Act standards to the use of criminal
records by housing providers. The guidance addresses both the discriminatory effects and disparate
treatment methods of proof in Fair Housing Act cases. It states that a Fair Housing Act violation occurs
when a housing provider treats individuals with comparable criminal histories differently because
of race (or some other protected characteristic). The guidance also documents the disproportionate
rates at which African Americans and Hispanics face arrest, conviction, and incarceration in relation
to their share of the general population. Consequently, it clarifies that while having a criminal record
is not a protected characteristic under the Fair Housing Act, criminal history-based restrictions on
housing opportunities violate the Act if, without justification, their burden falls more often on renters
or other housing market participants of one race or national origin over another.39
The guidance goes on to stipulate that criminal background policies based on arrests alone, and
not actual convictions, will not be able to successfully claim that such a policy assists in achieving
the substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest of protecting resident safety and/or property.
Specifically, according to Supreme Court decisions cited by the guidance, an arrest shows nothing
more than that someone probably suspected the person apprehended of an offense.40 Finally, the
document states that a housing provider that imposes a blanket prohibition on any person with any
conviction recordno matter when the conviction occurred, what the underlying conduct entailed, or
what the convicted person has done since then will unlikely be able to prove that such a policy meets
a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest. There is, however, a statutory exemption from
discriminatory effects liability in the Fair Housing Act based on the denial of housing due to a persons
conviction for drug manufacturing and distribution.41
There are numerous additional, in-depth criminal history related restrictions and provisions in relation
to public and other types of federally subsidized housing. Such housing was not tested as part of the
investigation that forms the basis for this report, so these restrictions and provisions are not covered
in detail here.42
In addition to coverage provided by the federal Fair Housing Act, there are also local and state
protections against housing discrimination. The District of Columbia boasts one of the most expansive
human rights ordinances in the country, with protections against housing discrimination on the basis
of the seven federally protected classes, along with marital status, age, personal appearance, sexual
orientation, gender identity or expression, family responsibilities, political affiliation, matriculation,
source of income, place of residence or business, and status as a victim of an intra-family offense. When
it comes to ensuring that people with criminal records have access to safe housing, such protections
may also be helpful and they should be used to the greatest extent possible for that purpose.
Since many survivors of domestic violence may have a criminal record related to the violence
perpetrated against them, further discussion of domestic violence related protections in housing is
39
40
Ibid.
41
The guidance reminds readers that the exemption does not apply to arrests for those crimes, nor to convictions for drug possession.
42
For a summary of criminal history related provisions in relation to federally subsidized housing, see: Washington Lawyers
Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs. The Collateral Consequences of Arrests and Convictions under D.C., Maryland, and
Virginia Law. Rep., 22 Oct. 2014. 4. Web. <www.washlaw.org/pdf/wlc_collateral_consequences_report.pdf>.
14
warranted. There are various housing-related protections available to survivors of domestic violence.
These include the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, local and state fair housing
laws, and the Fair Housing Act itself.
Congress initially enacted the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994 to provide protections
to survivors of domestic violence in federal housing programs. Specifically, survivors of domestic
violence applying to federally subsidized housing can not be denied admission because of the violence
committed against them, and covered providers are not allowed to pursue adverse housing actions
such as eviction due to domestic violence. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013
extended these protections. It also covers additional housing programs beyond previous iterations of
the law, including the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, and extends new protections
to survivors of sexual assault and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) survivors. In relation
to the application process, VAWA provides that a persons status as a victim of domestic violence,
dating violence, or stalking is not an appropriate basis for denial of program assistance.43 VAWA
offers extremely important protections, but those protections do not extend to private housing. It also
lacks a private right of action, which poses challenges for enforcement. In April 2015, HUD published
a proposed rule on implementation of the 2013 VAWA Reauthorization, but it has yet to issue a final
rule.
Additionally, DC has some of the strongest protections for survivors of domestic violence in the
country, as status as a victim of an intra-family offense is a protected class in the DC Human Rights
Act (DCHRA).44 These protections extend to the private housing market. However, even though
the protection was added to the DCHRA effective March 2007, there have not been regulations
promulgated to implement it.
Finally, HUDs 2011 memo Assessing Claims of Housing Discrimination against Victims of Domestic Violence
under the Fair Housing Act (FHAct) and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) states discrimination
against victims of domestic violence is almost always discrimination against women.45 Accordingly, the
prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex in the Fair Housing Act allows for female survivors
of domestic violence who have been discriminated against in housing to bring claims under the Act. The
memo provides guidance on assessing claims of housing discrimination by domestic violence survivors
under the Fair Housing Act.
43
44
Violence Against Women Act of 1994. Pub.L. 103322.

Office of Human Rights. Protected Traits in DC. Government of the District of Columbia. Web. <ohr.dc.gov/protectedtraits>.
45
Department of Housing and Urban Development.Assessing Claims of Housing Discrimination against Victims of Domestic Violence
under the Fair Housing Act (FHAct) and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). By Sara K. Pratt. 9 Feb. 2011. Web. <portal.hud.gov/
hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=FHEODomesticViolGuidEng.pdf>.
15
METHODOLOGY
The investigation that served as the basis for this report utilized civil rights testing to evaluate whether
white and African American female testers posing as having similar criminal backgrounds were treated
differently on the basis of race. Through testing, the ERC was also able to gather information about
certain criminal records screening policies and procedures local housing providers have in place, some
of which likely violate various fair housing protections based on a disparate effects theory of liability.
Over the course of the summer, the ERC conducted 60 matched pair tests using a specialized
methodology developed specifically for this project. In total, 20 matched pair phone tests and 40 in
person tests were conducted at sites in the District of Columbia (45 tests) and Northern Virginia (15
tests).
Test sites were selected from a variety of online sources based on their location, price range, and
size. Though the number of tests conducted was not statistically significant in light of the quantity
of housing stock in the region, the project test coordinator did attempt to select sites throughout
Washington DC (the District) and Northern Virginia.
All Test Sites
16
Washington, D.C. Test Sites

Since the basis of the tests
conducted was race, it was
important to ensure geographic
diversity in test sites, as
racial segregation is deeply
entrenched in the District.
African American Population Washington, D.C.
17
Two profiles, discussed below, were used in this project. Each required a different price range. Finally,
staff selected large multifamily properties for testing.
Each matched pair consisted of one white woman and one African American woman. The race of each
tester was visually and linguistically discernable to a reasonable person. Pairs of testers were matched
by age and other external characteristics to ensure that those additional factors did not affect the
outcome of the tests.
All testers that participated in the project received extensive classroom training and practice in the
field. All testers for the project participated in the ERCs standard rental tester training, along with an
additional, specialized training to familiarize them with the specific requirements of this methodology.
Each tester was assigned a profile at the beginning of each test, which provided her with information
about items that would normally come up in conversation while inquiring about renting an apartment.
For example, testers were assigned an annual income and provided with information about their
employment. They were also provided information about the type of unit they were to express interest
in and their price range.
There were two types of criminal backgrounds utilized in profiles for this investigation (each matched
pair utilized the same type of profile). Both were crafted based on extensive research about womens
interactions with the criminal legal system and in consultation with both local and national issue area
experts.
1. An arrest attributed to youthful indiscretion: This profile utilized a college era felony arrest for
drug possession from at least seven years ago. Testers were instructed to clarify that the matter
was an arrest and that the charges were ultimately dismissed. Testers using this profile were
instructed to attribute the charge to a mistake they made when they were younger. This profile
featured high income, professional level employment information and was utilized when inquiring
about units with a mid-high price point.
2. A conviction related to domestic violence: This profile utilized a larceny conviction from at least
eleven years ago that was related to a long-term abusive relationship the tester ended years ago.
It featured employment information that would be realistic for a woman that recently received
some sort of professional certification and allowed her to obtain an entry-level professional
position. It was used at test sites with a low-moderate rent range.46
Neither criminal history profile was directly related to a testers ability to be a good tenant, meaning
that neither profile utilized information about criminal history that would have reasonably implicated
the safety of other tenants or of the property itself. Profiles presented testers as attractive prospective
applicants that would qualify for the housing they inquired about, aside from the potential issue of
their criminal record.
The information about criminal background that each tester was instructed to provide during a matched
pair test was the same, such that the race of the testers, and not their criminal backgrounds, could be the
only explanation for any difference in treatment.
Each test had dual purposes:
1. Evaluate whether white and African American testers posing as having similar criminal backgrounds
were treated differently on the basis of race, and
46
Including Low Income Housing Tax Credit Units, which are covered by the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013.
18
2. Obtain information about each test sites criminal records screening policies to evaluate whether
local housing providers have screening policies in place that may have a disparate impact on
African American housing applicants.
Each tester was instructed to pose as a single woman looking for a one bedroom or studio apartment
for herself and to disclose that she has a conviction or arrest in her criminal background. Testers were
instructed to disclose on every test at least that they either had a felony level arrest or conviction on
their record, and to ask the agent they were interacting with how it may affect their application. They
were instructed to provide additional information about their criminal record in order to obtain as
much information as possible about a housing providers criminal records screening policy, as the
conversation allowed for it.47
Before each test began, an advanced call was made to gather information about the general
availability of units, leasing office hours and appointment policies, and pricing information. In each
test conducted, the African American tester called or visited first. Approximately two weeks later, the
white tester conducted her test part.
Prior to conducting each test, a tester received an assignment form and verbal instructions from
the project test coordinator. Testers were instructed to provide objective, observational information
about their experiences as homeseekers.
Immediately after the conclusion of each test part, the tester made contact with the test coordinator to
provide initial information about what happened during the test. Finally, testers completed a detailed
test report form and narrative after each test and submitted it to the project test coordinator.
47
There were some instances where it was not possible for the tester to convincingly play the role assigned to them and provide
additional details about their criminal record, like the length of time since an arrest/conviction or the circumstances surrounding the
arrest/conviction. For example, an agent in one test forcefully cut a tester off in the middle of the initial disclosure of her criminal
record; in that instance, it was not appropriate for her to follow up with additional details about it. Testers received extensive
guidance through training and in the test assignment phase about how to interact with agents being tested in this regard.
19
RESULTS
ERC staff conducted analysis of test report forms, narratives, and materials provided to testers
during the test or as follow-up via email or phone call. Analysis was conducted on the basis of both
differential treatment and disparate impact. At least two ERC staff members trained extensively in test
coordination and with long-term experience in test coordination and analysis conducted analysis of
each test. There were separate numbers of inconclusive tests for each form of analysis for a variety
of reasons.
There were 13 inconclusive tests for differential treatment for reasons including the inability on
multiple occasions of one tester in a matched pair to make contact with a housing provider despite
multiple attempts. The unavoidable complexity of the test methodology and the sensitive, socially
ostracized nature of the criminal background related information testers were trained to disclose
to rental agents occasionally yielded tester disclosures that were significantly48 unmatched within
matched pairs; such tests were also deemed inconclusive when it came time to analyze for differential
treatment. Ultimately, the base number of tests used for analyzing differential treatment was 47.
Staff deemed 10 tests inconclusive for the purposes of analyzing for disparate impact, most often due
to vast differences in treatment within a matched pair test that made it impossible to gain any objective
information about a policy. The base number of tests used for analyzing disparate impact was 50.
RESULTS - DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT

Twenty of the forty-seven tests, approximately 42%
of tests, displayed no findings in regard to differential
treatment. No finding means that there was no
significant difference detected between how each
tester in the pair was treated.
DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT
No ndings
42%
47%
In total, twenty-seven of the forty-seven tests displayed

some sort of differential treatment. In five tests,
or approximately 11% of tests, an agent engaged
in differential treatment that favored the African
American tester.
In twenty-two tests, approximately 47% of tests, an
agent engaged in differential treatment that favored
the white tester.
48
11%
Dierential
treatment favors
white tester
Dierential
treatment favors
African American
tester
Differential Treatment
Significantly means that staff believed it may have impacted the treatment of the tester.
20
There were three categories of differential treatment displayed through the testing conducted for this
project:49

Agents provided matched pair testers with different information or quality of service: This category
captures instances of testers being provided different terms and conditions in order to apply for
or rent a housing unit, like different fees.50 It also includes tests where matched pair testers were
provided different information about criminal records screening policies and practices. Finally,
this category includes instances of inequitable professional service.
AGENT
African American
Tester
"Yeah, they won't

approve you."
TESTERS
RENT
"There is a felony conviction

on my record from
15 years ago."
AGENT
"A third party makes that
decision, it depends on the
type of crime and how long
ago it was."
White Tester
Agents reacted differently to the testers disclosure of their criminal record: This category
includes instances of agents providing a more sympathetic reaction to one testers disclosure of
their criminal record than to their matched testers disclosure, agents that made discouraging
comments about the impact of a testers criminal record on their overall life chances, and instances
when agents provided completely different information in reaction to testers disclosures of their
criminal records.
AGENT
African American
Tester
"You should apply to find out

if the charges show up so
you'll know whether to give up
looking for housing."
TESTERS
RENT
"There's an arrest on my
record from a really
long time ago."
AGENT
"It's worth trying."
White Tester
49
Note that in many instances, a test displaying differential treatment fell in multiple categories.
50
The methodology for this project required a substantial temporal gap between test parts to avoid detection. Because of this, staff
conducting analysis avoided coding tests in this category when there was a discussion of a special or incentive that could account for
the difference.
21
Agents provided speculation about the impact that testers criminal records would have on their
chances of a successful application: This category includes instances of agents speculating an
application outcome in favor of the white tester while not providing the same speculation to the
African American tester; speculating an application outcome against the African American tester
while not providing the same speculation to the white tester; speculating an application outcome
in favor of an African American tester while not providing the same speculation to the white
tester; and speculating an application outcome against a white tester while not providing the
same speculation to the African American tester. It also includes instances of agents downplaying
the significance of the disclosed offense and/or details surrounding it in relation to meeting the
housing providers screening guidelines in favor of one tester and not the other.
AGENT
African American
Tester
"Anyone with a felony on their

record will be declined."
TESTERS
RENT
"I have a conviction on my

record from years ago."
AGENT
White Tester
It depends, we can probably

work something out.
1. AGENTS PROVIDED MATCHED PAIR TESTERS WITH DIFFERENT INFORMATION OR QUALITY OF

SERVICE:
Sixteen out of forty-seven tests, approximately 34% of tests, displayed differential treatment in this
category that favored the white tester.
Three out of forty-seven tests, approximately 6% of
tests, displayed this type of differential treatment that
favored the African American tester.
34% Favored
white testers
Example 1: Different information about criminal

records screening policy
The most frequent type of differential treatment
6% Favored
uncovered through testing occurred when matched
African American
Testers
pair testers were provided different information about
criminal records screening policies and practices.
Agents Provided Matched Pair Testers With Different
In one DC test, both testers disclosed to the same
Information Or Quality Of Service
agent that she had a conviction on her record from
approximately 15 years ago related to being in an abusive relationship. After the African American
tester disclosed this information to the agent, he shook his head no, and stated Yeah. They wont
approve you. Anyone with a felony on their record will be declined. After the white tester disclosed
the same information about her criminal record during her test part, the same agent responded that
a third party conducted the background check and made a decision, and that it really depended on
the type of crime and how long ago it had occurred.
22
During this test, the testers received starkly different information about the propertys criminal records
screening policy. The agent told the African American tester that there was a felony ban in place. He
told the white tester that a third party made a decision about how to treat an applicants criminal
record based on the type of crime and how long ago it had occurred.
Example 2: Different terms and conditions to apply
During one test in Alexandria, VA, the white tester was told
that in order to apply for an apartment, she would have
to pay a $50 application fee for each household member
over the age of 18, along with a $500 holding fee that would
be credited to her security deposit should her application
be approved. The African American tester was told that in
order to apply, she would have to pay a $300 administrative
fee to cover the background check, the $50 application fee,
and a $500 deposit. If her application were denied, she was
told only the $500 deposit would be refundable.
The testers received different information about the terms
and conditions necessary to apply. In this example, the
African American tester was told that she would have to
pay $300 more than the white tester just to apply for an
apartment at the property.
The agent told the African

American tester that there
was a felony ban in place.
He told the white tester
that a third party made a
decision about how to treat
an applicants criminal
record based on the type of
crime and how long ago it
had occurred.
Example 3: Inequitable professional service

Both testers encountered the same agent during a test in Southeast DC. Despite having scheduled
an appointment to visit the property in advance of the test, the African American tester waited for
over twenty minutes to meet with the agent once she arrived, on time, for the appointment. When
the white tester arrived for her site visit with the same agent, the agent immediately excused herself
from the conversation she was having with an African American couple (also potential applicants from
what the tester could tell) to assist the tester. At the end of the site visit, the agent attempted to make
an appointment with the white tester to fill out an application, which she did not do with the African
American tester. After the test concluded, the white tester received an additional phone call from the
agent attempting to schedule a time for her to apply for an apartment, while the African American
tester received no such follow up.
The testers experienced inequitable professional service.
During this test, the African American tester waited for
twenty minutes when she arrived on site, while the same
agent immediately excused herself from a conversation
with other applicants as soon as the white tester walked
in the door. The white tester also received two rounds of
follow up from the agent encouraging her to apply, while
the African American tester received no such follow up.
The African American tester

was told that she would
have to pay $300 more
than the white tester just to
apply for an apartment at
the property.
23
2. AGENTS REACTED DIFFERENTLY TO THE TESTERS

DISCLOSURE OF HER CRIMINAL RECORD:
Nine out of forty-seven tests, approximately 19% of
tests, featured differential treatment in this category
that favored the white tester.
19% Favored
white testers
4% Favored
African American
Testers
Two out of forty-seven tests, approximately 4% of

tests, featured differential treatment in this category
that favored the African American tester.
Example 4: More sympathetic reaction to a disclosure
Agents Reacted Differently To The Testers
During one test in Virginia, both testers disclosed
Disclosure Of Their Criminal Record
that she had a conviction on her record related to an
abusive relationship. An agent told the African American tester that usually felony convictions are a
denial and that she did not have further information. When the white tester disclosed information
about her criminal background, an agent responded by apologizing to the tester because she wouldnt
be approved due to the propertys ban on applicants with felony convictions. The agent then searched
for housing that may have been available to the tester at other sites and then suggested private
owners are usually more liberal with the background check, and then I hate to say it but Craigslist, but
I know that can be a little scary sometimes, but that might be an option for you.
The white tester received a much more sympathetic reaction to the disclosure of her criminal record
than did the African American tester. The agent that the white tester interacted with apologized for
the impact the propertys felony ban would have on the tester and even attempted to assist her with
locating a home. She also provided advice about how to proceed with her housing search.
Example 5: Discouraging comments about the impact of a record
Both testers encountered the same agent at a property in DC and posed as having an arrest on her
record from some years ago, clarifying that the charges were dismissed. The African American tester
specified that the arrest was from 15 years ago. The agent told the African American tester that if
the charges showed up on her record, she would be
automatically denied because that was the company
policy. She went on to suggest that the tester should The agent in this test went so
apply, if only to find out if charges that old would far as to suggest to the African
show up, and so she wouldnt waste time applying American tester that she should
for apartments if her record would be a problem.
applyif only to find out if she
When the African American tester asked later in
the conversation if there was any way the housing should give up her housing
provider would be able to work with her in regards search altogether due to the
to the issue of the arrest record, the agent replied
complication that her 15 year old
no, that in the past she recalled an applicant who
had 20 year old charges that were dismissed, but arrest would provide.
they showed up on the application, so the applicant
was denied. When the white tester interacted with the same agent and asked if her arrest record
would lead to her application being denied, the agent explained that if it were a felony conviction, her
application would be denied. She went on to suggest that it was worth trying to apply because if she
were denied, only her application fee, and not the $500 deposit/holding fee, would be nonrefundable.
24
In addition to providing different information to the testers about the how the companys criminal
records screening policies would treat their arrest records, the agent in this test went so far as to
suggest to the African American tester that she should applyif only to find out if she should give up
her housing search altogether due to the complication that her 15 year old arrest would provide. The
agent went beyond making discouraging comments to the tester about the impact of her criminal
record on her application at the specific property tested, suggesting it may prevent her from being able
to find any housing at all.
Example 6: Different information in reaction to criminal record disclosures
During one test in DC, an agent aggressively cut the African American tester off while she attempted
to disclose her criminal record and said that a third party processes all of the applications. He then
immediately explained that there would also be a qualification for the apartment that would go along
with the application process, which is that each applicant would have to make $59,800 annually to
qualify to rent at the property. The same agent did not cut the white tester off when she disclosed that
she had a felony conviction related to an abusive relationship from several years ago on her record. He
responded that he wasnt sure how the third party application screener would treat the information
and that to know, the tester would just have to apply. He followed this up with information about lease
specials available at the property. The agent told the white tester that the property had an income
requirement earlier on in their conversation, but the amount of the income requirement,$55,000, was
lower than what he told the African American tester.
In this instance, the agent provided very different information to testers in response to the information
each tester provided51 (or asked about) regarding the propertys criminal records screening policies:
the agent told the African American tester about an income requirement that was almost $5,000
higher than what he told the white tester it was at a different point in their conversation and he told
the white tester about lease specials available at the property.
3. AGENTS PROVIDED SPECULATION ABOUT THE
IMPACT THAT TESTERS CRIMINAL RECORDS WOULD
HAVE ON THEIR CHANCES OF A SUCCESSFUL
APPLICATION:
Seven out of forty-seven tests, approximately 15% of
tests, displayed differential treatment that fell in this
category and was favorable to the white tester.
Four out of forty-seven tests, approximately 8% of
tests, displayed differential treatment that fell in this
category and was favorable to the African American
tester.52
51
15% Favored
white testers
8% Favored
African American
Testers
Agents provided speculation about the impact

that testers criminal records would have on their
chances of a successful application
In addition to providing different terms and conditions to rent.
52
This was the most common category of differential treatment that favored an African American tester, so a description of
instances in which it occurred is as follows: On two occasions, an agent speculated to the African American tester that he or she
didnt believe the testers criminal record as disclosed would yield an application denial and the white tester in both tests received no
such favorable speculation from an agent. In one instance, an agent told the white tester after consulting with her manager that if
the testers disclosed felony conviction showed up on the background check she would likely be denied. The African American tester in
that test did not receive negative speculation from the agent she spoke with. Finally, in one test, an agent interacted with the African
American tester by speculating that the criminal records screening policy probably addressed more serious crimes, like murder or
rape but the agent the white tester interacted with did not engage in the same level of interpretation.
25
Example 7: Speculation in favor of the white tester

During a test in Alexandria, VA, an agent told the African American tester that she could not provide
her with any information about the propertys criminal records screening policy beyond the fact that
each case is looked at individually. An agent told the white tester, I really dont think you will have
an issue with that because it was so long ago. The agent went on to state to the white tester my
recommendation is that you probably wont have a problem and go ahead and pay the application
fee and run it.
During this test, the housing providers agent provided reassuring information to the white tester
by speculating that she didnt think the testers criminal record would pose a problem after initially
stating that the housing provider has no involvement in that part of the application process. The
African American tester was provided with no such reassuring speculation.
Example 8: Speculation in favor of white tester and against
African American tester
During a test in DC, an agent advised the African American
tester that anyone with a felony on their record will
declined, indicating that her application would not be
successful based on the information she provided about
her criminal record. The same agent, while interacting with
the white tester, said that a third party made application
decisions related to criminal backgrounds, and that it
really depended on the type of crime and how ago it had
occurred. He then went on to tell the white tester that
they could probably work with her, and that they might
be able to work something out.
He then went on to tell the

white tester that they could
probably work with her, and
that they might be able to
work something out."
The differential treatment in this test is so stark that it was actually impossible to tell what the housing
providers criminal records screening policy was. The agent both speculated the application outcome
in favor of the white tester and against the African American tester.
Example 9: Downplaying the significance of a criminal record
During a test in DC, an agent told the African American tester that he had no idea if her arrest record
would be a reason to deny her application because a third party provider conducts the background
check. The same agent told the white tester anything that wasnt very serious should not be an issue
in response to a question about the impact her arrest record could have on her applications success.
The agent downplayed the significance of the housing providers criminal records screening policy to
the white tester, but not to the African American tester.
26
RESULTS - DISPARATE IMPACT

AND THE SUBSTANTIAL
ADDED BURDEN OF HAVING A
CRIMINAL RECORD
4,646
HOUSING UNITS
UNAVAILABLE
to individuals with felony

& some misdemeanor
convictions
Criminal Records Screening Policies that Have a

Disparate Impact on African American Applicants
The term disparate impact as it relates to the
Fair Housing Act has a precise meaning. In its
2015 decision Texas Department of Housing
and Community Affairs et al. v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., et al. upholding a disparate impact
theory of liability as cognizable under the Fair Housing Act, the Supreme Court emphasized the
necessity of identifying a specific policy or practice responsible for a disparate impact on a protected
class in order to successfully formulate such arguments. The April 4, 2016 guidance from HUDs Office
of General Counsel clarifies that while having a criminal record is not a protected characteristic under
the Fair Housing Act, criminal history-based restrictions on housing opportunities violate the Act if,
without justification, their burden falls more often on renters or other housing market participants of
one race or national origin over another.53 Demographic information about the criminal legal system
in the greater Washington region mirrors national trends cited in the HUD guidance. Specifically, as
discussed previously in this report, African Americans in DC, Maryland, and Virginia experience arrest,
conviction, and incarceration at rates vastly disproportionate to their share of the overall population.
In such circumstances, the HUD guidance suggests that a housing provider that imposes a blanket
prohibition on any person with any conviction recordno matter when the conviction occurred, what
the underlying conduct entailed, or what the convicted person has done since then will be unable to
prove that such a policy meets the substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest required by the
burden shifting framework provided in HUDs final rule on implementation of the Fair Housing Acts
Discriminatory Effects Standard.54
Through the testing conducted for this project, the ERC
uncovered evidence of policies it believes may violate
the Fair Housing Act based on a disparate impact
method of proof in fourteen separate tests, 28% of the
tests conducted. Due to policies like blanket bans on
any applicants with a felony conviction on their record,
testing alone documented 4,646 housing units in the
greater Washington region unavailable to individuals
with any felony conviction from any point in time, and
to many individuals with a misdemeanor conviction.
Since this investigation only included 60 test sites, it
is highly probable that there are tens of thousands of
additional units made unavailable for similar reasons in the region. Because of racial disparities in
the criminal legal system, such bans by extension disproportionately limit housing opportunities for
African American applicants as compared to white applicants, in violation of the Fair Housing Act.
Through the testing conducted

for this project, the ERC
uncovered evidence of policies
it believes may violate the
Fair Housing Act based on a
disparate impact method of
proof in fourteen separate tests,
28% of the tests conducted.
53
54
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.
Implementation of the Fair Housing Acts Discriminatory Effects Standard. Federal Register, 15 Feb. 2013. Web. <portal.hud.gov/
hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=discriminatoryeffectrule.pdf>.
27
Examples of criminal records screening policies that may have an illegal,

We do not allow
disparate impact
One housing provider states in writing on its website, We do not allow renters with felony
renters with felony convictions to live at our community. Another convictions to live
provider specifies in the application materials it seems to provide
at our community.
all prospective applicants that in addition to rejecting an application
because an applicant has a felony conviction on his or her record, it will also reject applicants with any
illegal drug related conviction (this presumably includes misdemeanor possession), a misdemeanor
conviction involving crime against person or property, and any prostitution related conviction. Neither
policy example cited above includes any look back periodmore evidence of the lifetime of collateral
consequences that even relatively minor interactions with the criminal legal system can yield. It is
impossible to understand how such broad bans could possibly achieve a substantial, legitimate,
nondiscriminatory interest, and relatively easy to formulate less discriminatory alternatives.
THE SUBSTANTIAL ADDED BURDENS OF HAVING ANY CRIMINAL

RECORD WHILE SEARCHING FOR HOUSING
Many Housing Providers are Not Prepared to Provide Information About Their Criminal Records Screening
Policies:
206
Average Cash
Required To
A P P L Y
The most prevalent response testers received to their inquiries

concerning criminal background policies was near total ignorance of
the background policy itself. In twenty-six tests, or 52% of the time,
testers were told that they would have to apply to find out how their
criminal history would affect their application. In many instances, agents
claimed that the housing provider itself had no say in criminal records
based application decisions, claiming that the company outsourced
such decisions to a third party provider.
Housing providers inability (or refusal) to provide objective information about their criminal records
screening policies likely yields a substantial financial burden on individuals with criminal records. The
cost to apply varied widely at the test sites that fell into this category.
Fees to apply, including application fees, administrative fees, and holding fees for sites tested that fell
in this category ranged from $0-850.55 The average amount of cash required up front to apply was
$206.
Also, all test sites in this category conduct a credit check, though it was generally not possible to tell
whether housing providers ran a hard or soft inquiry. 56 According to myFICO, the consumer division
of FICO, only hard inquiries have an effect on an individuals credit score.57 Hard inquiries remain
on a credit report for two years, and FICO scores consider inquiries from the last 12 months.58 It
is difficult to tell how many points a persons FICO score is reduced by because of a hard inquiry,
55
Some housing providers only required a non-refundable application fee, but many required other types of fees to apply that would
be refunded should an application be denied. However the fact that the money would be refunded after a denial does not mitigate
the amount of money required upfront to apply.
56
In a handful of tests, an agent specified to a tester that there would be a hard pull of their credit as part of the application
process.
57
Credit Report Q&A. MyFICO. Fair Isaac Corporation, 2016. Web. <www.myfico.com/crediteducation/questions/inquiry-creditscore.aspx>.
58
Inquiries. MyFICO. Fair Isaac Corporation, 15 Mar. 2012. Web. <myfico.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/200>.
28
but it could be as many as five points,59 On its website,

myFICO claims that it can recognize when people
are rate shopping and will treat all hard inquiries
within a 45 day period as a single inquiry. It claims
that inquiries from apartment complexes would be
treated in the same way, and advises you can avoid
lowering your FICO Score by doing your apartment
hunting within a short period.60 Such advice may ring
hollow to individuals with criminal records who cannot
obtain information about housing providers criminal
records screening policies in advance of submitting an
application. Multiple denials due to a criminal history
could extend the application period for people in this
situation. Further, the hard costs of submitting multiple
applications may require individuals with criminal
records to extend the length of their housing searches
longer.
The overall lack of

transparency from housing
providers in the greater
Washington region about
their criminal records
screening policies does have
a disproportionate effect on
people with criminal records
and by extension, African
American housing applicants.
It is not accurate to classify the concerns that this finding raises as disparate impact in the legal
sense of the term because the disproportionate effect that the cumulative inability (or refusal) of
housing providers to communicate objective standards for how they use criminal records to screen
applicants cannot be traced back to a specific policy or practice implemented by any entity in particular.
However, the overall lack of transparency from housing providers in the greater Washington region
about their criminal records screening policies does have a disproportionate effect on people with
criminal records and by extension, African American housing applicants. Such a disproportionate
effect represents an injustice that should be addressed.
Finally, the lack of transparent standards fosters the introduction of bias, even implicit bias, into the
application process, which may yield fair housing violations. 61 The high rate of differential treatment
that this investigation uncovered underscores this point.
Different Requirements for Individuals with Arrest Records
Present an Additional Burden
Finally, in three tests during which testers posed as having
an arrest record where the charge was dismissed years
ago, agents told testers that they would have to provide
proof that the charge was actually dismissed in order to
apply successfully. Such a requirement would provide an
additional unfair burden on individuals with arrest records
as it is often difficult to obtain such proof in the instance
of a dropped charge.
The lack of transparent

standards fosters the
introduction of bias, even
implicit bias, into the
application process, which
may yield fair housing
violations.
59
Credit Report Q&A. MyFICO. Fair Isaac Corporation, 2016. Web. <www.myfico.com/crediteducation/questions/inquiry-creditscore.aspx>.
60
Ibid.
61
Not only in relation to criminal records screening, but also when it comes to items like credit and rental history.
29
NO FINDINGS
Seven tests indicated no findings in regards to disparate
impact or the disproportionate effects that criminal records
screening policies have on African American applicants. No
findings in this instance means that a housing provider
either didnt conduct a criminal background check as
part of its application process, or described a policy that
clearly allowed for an individualized assessment of an
applicants criminal record as it related to their ability to be
a good tenant. It bears noting that there are large housing
providers in the greater Washington region who do not
use criminal records screening policies when making
application decisions.
It bears noting that there

are large housing providers
in the greater Washington
region who do not use
criminal records screening
policies when making
application decisions.
A NOTE ABOUT HOUSING PROTECTIONS FOR SURVIVORS OF

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
The basis of tests conducted through this investigation was race; therefore, the test methodology did
not allow staff to comprehensively collect data and analyze it regarding housing providers compliance
with various local and federal housing protections for survivors of domestic violence. However, the
investigation did include test sites that would be covered by VAWA as reauthorized in 2013 and/or the
status as a victim of an intra-family offense protection included in the DC Human Rights Act. In housing
covered by either law, it would be illegal to deny housing to a survivor because she has experienced
domestic violence. Some tests at these sites featured a disclosure of a criminal background that
resulted from domestic violence.
Testing did uncover bans in place that would yield an automatic application denial for a survivor with
a criminal record related to domestic violence. Such a denial may violate VAWA, and in DC, the DCHRA.
Further, testing results in combination with anecdotal evidence gathered from ERC intakes and other
local service providers indicate a strong need for housing providers covered by both laws to better
educate their agents about their requirements.
30
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. In light of the disproportionate effect that the criminal legal system has on African Americans,
housing providers large and small must evaluate and revise the role that criminal records
screening policies and practices play in their application decisions to ensure that they are
serving a substantial, legitimate, non-discriminatory interest and not as a proxy for racial
discrimination. The April 2016 guidance from HUDs Office of General Counsel on the subject
should have prompted this action. The results of this investigation underscore the need for it.
Taking this step is necessary to ensure compliance with the Fair Housing Act, but also makes good
business sense, since as many as 100 million U.S. adults have some sort of criminal record.62 Many
of the criminal records screening policies that this investigation uncovered appear to be based
on the type of bald assertions based on generalizations or stereotypes that any individual with
an arrest or conviction record poses a greater risk than any
individual without such a record, which the HUD guidance
Housing providers may
clearly states do not assist in protecting resident safety and/
consider removing
or property. Such stereotypes are themselves rooted in the
criminal records screening racism and sexism (and confluence of the two) that yielded
requirements from their
mass criminalization. The nuance63 required to meet the
application criteria
altogether, especially
those that do not have the
resources or infrastructure
to meet this burden.
burden of a substantial, legitimate, non-discriminatory

interest in this context is challenging to define and achieve on
a practical basis. In addition to the need to consider various
mitigating factors laid out in the HUD guidance, such as the
nature, severity, and time passed since a conviction, criminal
law is also state specific. It is beyond the scope of this report
to provide detailed advice about how housing providers
can meet this requirement; however, the responsibility to do so remains. Housing providers
may consider removing criminal records screening requirements from their application criteria
altogether, especially those that do not have the resources or infrastructure to meet this burden. 64
This investigation did reveal two housing providers in Northwest DC that do not consider criminal
records information in their application decisions at all.
2. To avoid using seemingly neutral screening requirements based on items like criminal
background and credit as proxies for race and other types of illegal discrimination, housing
providers need to communicate transparently with applicants about what their screening
criteria are. When an application is rejected, a housing provider should communicate, with
specificity and in relation to the objective screening requirements, why the rejection occurred.
During many of the tests conducted as part of this investigation, agents communicated to testers
that they simply send an applicants information to a third party, without any individualized
review. The third party then performs a credit and criminal background check on each applicant,
62
63
However, nuance is not required for all policies. For example, housing providers should not use arrest records alone to take
adverse housing actions.
64
However, this would not be permissible for many federally subsidized housing providers to do. For example, public housing
authorities must establish a lifetime ban from public housing or the Housing Choice Voucher program on applicants that are subject
to a lifetime sex offender registration requirement (24 CFR 960.204, 24 CFR 982.553), or who have been convicted of manufacturing
methamphetamines on public housing property (24 CFR 960.204,24 CFR 982.553). The vast majority of rental housing in the country
is, however, not federally subsidized.
31
and informs the housing provider whether to grant or deny tenancy to the applicant. If this is
indeed the practice, it is problematic on a number of levels, and should be addressed by any
housing providers that engage in this practice. By simply outsourcing the decision of whether to
accept a housing applicant to a third party, there is no guarantee that all applicants are considered
equally or that decisions are made in a fair and consistent manner. In following such a practice
or policy, a housing provider may face a serious issue of liability as to who is responsible for any
discrimination. Housing providers may use third parties to perform credit and background checks,
but should have their own uniform, tailored policies and procedures in place for accepting housing
applicants. These uniform, tailored policies and procedures should not only be communicated to
the third parties that will be aiding the housing providers in connection with running credit and
background checks, but to agents of the housing provider that are responsible for interacting with
prospective tenants.
3. The District in particular is in an excellent position to enact legislation locally that would
compel local housing providers to adopt the recommendations above and beyond to ensure
that individuals with criminal records are able to secure safe housing. Currently, the Fair
Criminal Record Screening for Housing Act of 2016 is pending before the DC Council, co-sponsored
by Councilmembers McDuffie and Bonds. The District has led the way for decades in adopting
progressive legislation at the local level to protect civil and human rights. Doing so in relation to the
area of housing protections for individuals with criminal
histories would demonstrate the Districts commitment
The ultimate goal of any
to ensuring that its civil and human rights protections are
such legislation should be
as timely and effective as possible. In addition to passing
legislation, District leaders should ensure that others
to ensure that individuals
items necessary for implementation of the legislation,
with criminal records are
such as adequate budgetary resources, are secured. For
able to secure safe, quality
example, should the Office of Human Rights be tasked
housing that meets their
with enforcement responsibilities, Councilmembers must
ensure that it has adequate resources available to do so
needs; inserting a private
in a meaningful manner.65 The bill as currently drafted
right of action or provisions
contains no private right of action for complainants who
for limited injunctive relief
allege that a housing provider is not in compliance. The
ultimate goal of any such legislation should be to ensure
such as holding a unit
that individuals with criminal records are able to secure
open for the duration of
safe, quality housing that meets their needs; inserting a
an investigation may be
private right of action or provisions for limited injunctive
necessary to meet this goal.
relief such as holding a unit open for the duration of an
investigation may be necessary to meet this goal.
4. A neutral third party, such as a private foundation, should convene various stakeholders
and experts to develop more detailed guidance for private housing providers about how to
ensure that criminal records screening policies and practices comply with the Fair Housing
Act. Any such effort must include housing providers, individuals with criminal records, various
advocates, and experts in the areas of housing, re-entry and the criminal legal system. Earlier
this year, the Housing Authority of New Orleans adopted a new criminal records screening policy
65
A June 2016 study from Office of the District of Columbia Auditor states that the Districts recently implemented employment Ban
the Box law increased OHRs caseload by 114%, and suggests that the increase has slowed the agencys ability to investigate and
address complaints.
Office of the District of Columbia Auditor. The Impact of Ban the Box in the District of Columbia. 10 June 2016. Web. <www.
dcauditor.org/sites/default/files/FCRSA%20-%20Ban%20the%20Box%20Report_0.pdf>.
32
based on a similar model of utilizing public input and expert advice from the Vera Institute of
Justice. This is a successful example on a small scale that should be replicated on a much larger
level for the private housing industry.
5. Congress should increase appropriations to programs like the Fair Housing Initiatives
Program, in addition to ensuring that HUD has adequate resources and staff to respond
forcefully to acts of housing discrimination around the country. Just last month, HUD awarded
$38 million to private fair housing groups around the country to confront discriminatory housing
practices through education and outreach, testing and other types of investigations, enforcement,
and other types of activities.66 This investigation itself was made possible through such funding.
However, the quantity and type of discrimination uncovered through this investigation indicate
the need for additional resources to be devoted to such activities. In addition, housing segregation
plays out at the local level, and multiple stakeholders including local governments, foundations,
professional organizations and even the private bar must invest in dismantling discriminatory
practices in their own communities.
6. Housing providers must invest in high quality fair housing training at all levels of their
organizations, along with checking to ensure that employees are abiding by their fair
housing obligations.67 The obligation to abide by fair housing laws must permeate the culture
of any organization dedicated to providing housingwhether for profit or non-profit. Should a
housing provider choose to use a criminal records screening policy in order to make application
decisions, this investigation revealed extensive evidence that agents need further education
about how the criminal legal system works, what information various records are able to convey,
and how both comport with housing provider policies on the matter. Providing this training will
bring housing providers into compliance with fair housing laws, but it also makes a good deal
of business sense, since estimates are that nearly
one-third of the U.S. population has a criminal Future research, policies,
record of some sort.68 Finally, housing providers
and interventions to end
need to educate themselves and their agents about
how various protections available at the federal discrimination must consider
and local levels may apply to applicants who have the impact of multiple
criminal histories related to their status as a victim
identities throughout their
of domestic violence. Such protections are complex
and will require consultation with experts, but development to ensure they
compliance with VAWA, the Fair Housing Act, and are meaningful and effective.
the DCHRA (for providers operating in DC) is critical.
7. Researchers, policymakers, advocates, and service providers should use an explicitly
intersectional approach in the collection and analysis of data, development and
implementation of law and policy, and delivery of services. The term intersectionality, first
coined by Kimberl Williams Crenshaw in 1989,69 refers to the unique reality a person experiences
based upon the interplay of ones identities. This investigation examined the prevalence of racial
66
Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD Awards $38 Million To Fight Discrimination. 30 Sept. 2016. Web. <portal.
hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/press_releases_media_advisories/2016/HUDNo_16-150>.
67
Through compliance testing, for example.
68
69
Crenshaw, Kimberle. Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine,
Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum 8th ser. 1 (1989): 139-67. Web. <chicagounbound.
uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=uclf>.
33
discrimination in housing against Black and white women posing as having criminal records.
A similar investigation that utilized only male testers, or testers of different races, would likely
yield different results. It would also need to be conducted differently, as project staff began by
acknowledging then studying womens experiences with the criminal legal system in order to create
the tester profiles that were used. It is difficult to locate publicly available data disaggregated by
both race and gender, which made this task especially challenging. Future research, policies, and
interventions to end discrimination must consider the impact of multiple identities throughout
their development to ensure they are meaningful and effective. 70
8. HUD should issue a final rule regarding the implementation of the Violence Against
Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 as soon as possible. A coalition of advocates submitted
comments to the proposed rule after it was released in April 2015, encouraging HUD to clarify how
VAWA protections extend to survivors of domestic violence with criminal histories related to the
violence they experienced.71 Issuing a final rule should spur covered housing providers that have
been awaiting guidance from HUD to take more meaningful steps to implement current VAWA
protections.
9. Local jurisdictions should seize the opportunity to lead the way nationally when it comes
to ensuring that domestic violence survivors with criminal histories have access to safe
housing. The District deserves applause for including status as a victim of an intra-family offense in
its local human rights ordinance years ago; other local jurisdictions should follow suit. Since it has
not already issued regulations implementing the protection, DCs Office of Human Rights should
do so now, and include guidance in such regulations about how private landlords should protect
the rights of survivors with domestic violence related criminal histories. Based on the results of
tests conducted through this investigation, the ERC recommends that DCHRA regulations include
language specific to protecting a domestic violence survivor from housing discrimination, if the
survivor chooses to disclose that her/his criminal background resulted from domestic violence.
10. Residents of the greater Washington DC area that are concerned by the findings of this
investigation should consider serving as a tester for the ERC. Testing (similar to secret
shopping) is an investigative tool designed to gather objective information in order to assess an
entitys business practices or compliance with civil rights laws. Testers are individuals who pose as
persons seeking certain services, accommodations, or opportunities (e.g. housing, employment,
accessibility, goods or services, etc.) for the purpose of collecting information. The information
testers collect is subsequently analyzed and may be used to determine an entitys compliance with
applicable standards for equal treatment. ERC has a robust testing program, and is always in need
of diverse, detail oriented people willing to participate as testers and help further ERCs mission.
Interested parties can visit ERCs Become a Tester page in order to get more information about
the application process.
70
Including levels of funding from both public and private sources.
71
McLaughlin, Monica. Re: Docket No.FR 5720P02 Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013: Implementation in HUD
Housing Programs; Proposed Rule. Letter to Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1 June 2015. 2 June 2015. Web. <www.
regulations.gov/document?D=HUD-2015-0028-0061>.
34

Unlocking Discrimination

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unlocking Discrimination

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unlocking Discrimination

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UN LOCKIN G DISCRIMIN ATION

A DC Area Testing Investigation About Racial Discrimination

Executive Summary .......................... 6

www.equal ri ghts c e nte r.o rg

Equal Rights Center | UNLOCKING DISCRIMINATION

ABOUT THE EQUAL RIGHTS CENTER

Conducting civil rights testing

The Equal Rights Center 2016 | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

www.equal ri ghts c e nte r.o rg

Equal Rights Center | UNLOCKING DISCRIMINATION

www.equal ri ghts c e nte r.o rg

Equal Rights Center | UNLOCKING DISCRIMINATION

www.equal ri ghts c e nte r.o rg

Equal Rights Center | UNLOCKING DISCRIMINATION

Favors White Tester

www.equal ri ghts c e nte r.o rg

Equal Rights Center | UNLOCKING DISCRIMINATION

www.equal ri ghts c e nte r.o rg

Equal Rights Center | UNLOCKING DISCRIMINATION

www.equal ri ghts c e nte r.o rg

Equal Rights Center | UNLOCKING DISCRIMINATION

www.equal ri ghts c e nte r.o rg

Equal Rights Center | UNLOCKING DISCRIMINATION

Approximately 73% of women in prison reported a

www.equal ri ghts c e nte r.o rg

Equal Rights Center | UNLOCKING DISCRIMINATION

Limiting the impact of collateral consequences is important

www.equal ri ghts c e nte r.o rg

Equal Rights Center | UNLOCKING DISCRIMINATION

The choices to structure the

Despite the fact that reform of the criminal legal system is

Similarly, women of color are often overlooked in efforts

Prosperity Together. Womens Funding Network, Web. <www.womensfundingnetwork.org/initiatives/prosperity-together/>.

www.equal ri ghts c e nte r.o rg

Equal Rights Center | UNLOCKING DISCRIMINATION

www.equal ri ghts c e nte r.o rg

Equal Rights Center | UNLOCKING DISCRIMINATION

STATE OF THE LAW

www.equal ri ghts c e nte r.o rg

Equal Rights Center | UNLOCKING DISCRIMINATION

Violence Against Women Act of 1994. Pub.L. 103322.

www.equal ri ghts c e nte r.o rg

Equal Rights Center | UNLOCKING DISCRIMINATION

All Test Sites

www.equal ri ghts c e nte r.o rg

Equal Rights Center | UNLOCKING DISCRIMINATION

Washington, D.C. Test Sites

African American Population Washington, D.C.

www.equal ri ghts c e nte r.o rg

Equal Rights Center | UNLOCKING DISCRIMINATION

www.equal ri ghts c e nte r.o rg

Equal Rights Center | UNLOCKING DISCRIMINATION

www.equal ri ghts c e nte r.o rg

Equal Rights Center | UNLOCKING DISCRIMINATION

RESULTS - DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT

In total, twenty-seven of the forty-seven tests displayed

www.equal ri ghts c e nte r.o rg

Equal Rights Center | UNLOCKING DISCRIMINATION

"Yeah, they won't