ICRC-Indiana Statewide Fair Housing Year End Report

Indiana Statewide Fair
Housing Testing Program
WE ARE ALL HOOSIERS
Statewide Fair Housing Audit Report 2014
Prepared by:
Engaging Solutions, LLC on behalf of
The Indiana Civil Rights Commission
Indianapolis, Indiana
May 2015

Utilizing various sources of funding to implement a statewide fair housing tester program in the
state of Indiana. 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 Indiana State
Government.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Engaging Solutions gratefully acknowledges and thanks Jamal Smith, Executive Director of the
Indiana Civil Rights Commission (“ICRC”) for initially conceiving and commissioning this audit. We
are appreciative of the opportunity to partner and collaborate with ICRC in this important work. In
particular, we appreciate Akia Haynes, Deputy Director and General Counsel of the ICRC for
providing guidance and oversight throughout the project’s design and implementation, and
providing assistance and support throughout the audit, including preparations for this final report.
Our enthusiasm for this project is a direct result of ICRC’s efforts to affirmatively further fair housing
for all throughout the state of Indiana.
The analysis and results presented in this report could not have been produced without the
commitment and hard work of the field implementation team, including testers, test coordinators,
the tester recruitment team and colleagues of Engaging Solutions. With special thanks to Ja’Neane
Minor, William Brown, Mary Jane Glaspy, and Amy Neely, for extending their time and talents,
including administrative assistance, tester briefings and other pertinent tasks necessary for the
successful execution of paired and single-contact tests. We also thank Richard Rowley, Esq.,
Principal of R.L. Rowley and Associates for his assistance in designing the testing methodology,
tester training manual, training materials and other necessary forms utilized; and our subject
matter advisor Stephanie Knapik, Project Director at Housing Rights Center Los Angeles, California,
for providing valuable input to the full research team on testing protocols, analysis and generously
extending her fair housing and testing expertise. We also want to thank the review committee:
Tammy Butler Robinson, Managing Principal of Engaging Solutions, Richard Rowley, Stephanie
Knapik and Yolanda White, all whom have worn many hats throughout this project including, but
not limited to, reviewing, proofreading and editing audit reports as well as providing other research
support.
All views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Indiana Civil Rights
Commission or its Directors.

Indiana Statewide Fair Housing Audit 2014 iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Importance of Testing 2
Scope 3
Organization of Report 4
II. TESTING METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN 6
Sampling 6
Selection and Training of Testers 7
Preparing to Test 8
Conducting Tests 10
III. PAIRED AUDIT RESULTS 12
Details of Race-Based Tests 14
Details of National Origin Tests 16
Measurement Issues 19
IV. SINGLE-CONTACT AUDIT RESULTS 21
Details of Reasonable-Accommodation Tests 24
Details of Reasonable-Modification Tests 25
Details of Disability-Accessibility Tests 26
V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 31
ANNEX
Annex A-Quarter 1 Test Results 32
Annex B-Quarter 2 Test Results 41
Annex C-Quarter 3 Test Results 72
Annex D-Quarter 4 Test Results 110

Executive Summary
Indiana Statewide Fair Housing Audit 2014 v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Housing is one of the basic fundamental rights of mankind1 encompassing much more than four
walls and a roof. Research shows that where people live has consequential effects on all other
connections in their lives such as: availability and quality of employment, cost of goods and services,
access to quality education, access to fresh food, quality of healthcare, and safety. When access to
equal housing is impeded by discrimination, quality of life opportunities are diminished.
Fair housing laws were established to eliminate discriminatory practices in the housing market and
promote housing integration. In 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson called for the enactment of the
first effective federal law against
discrimination.2 In response, Congress
passed the Fair Housing Act of 1968
prohibiting housing discrimination in
regards to sale, rental, and financing
based on race, color, national origin,
religion, gender, (and as amended)
disability, and familial status. Yet, more
than 45 years since the enactment of
the fair housing laws, equal housing opportunity remains a major challenge and the struggle for fair
housing continues.
While the more blatant forms of housing discrimination have declined, it is more common for
housing discrimination to occur based on differences in treatment such as: misrepresenting the
number of units available to the minority homeseeker (or persons of other protected groups);
1 Akintund, Otubu, “Fundamental Right to Property and right to Housing in Nigeria: A Discourse,”Academia.edu, 2015,
http://www.academia.edu/1318351/Fundamental_Right_to_Property_and_Right_to_Housing_in_Nigeria_A_Discourse
2 History.com staff, “Fair Housing Act of 1968,” History.com, 2010, http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/fair-housing-act
Enforcement of anti-discrimination laws is complaint-
driven, largely relying upon individuals to file complaints
when they suspect they have encountered discrimination.
However, as acts of housing discrimination are often subtle,
larger incidences of discrimination remain underreported
and citizens of good will throughout the Region interpret
the lack of dialogue to mean that housing discrimination no
longer occurs within their community.
-Fair Housing Center of Greater Boston

Executive Summary
Indiana Statewide Fair Housing Audit 2014 vi
charging higher deposits or fees; providing less favorable rent terms, incomplete information,
and/or acts of subtle discouragement from applying. This modern-day discrimination is harder to
detect. As such, without the ability to compare experiences, a typical homeseeker would be
unaware they have encountered an act of discrimination and the prohibited treatment would go
unreported. To that end, in an effort to affirmatively further fair housing, the Indiana Civil Rights
Commission (“ICRC”) organized and commissioned the implementation of the nation’s first
statewide fair housing testing program to measure the incidence and forms of discrimination in the
rental market based on the protected classes of race, national origin and disability. By conducting
fair housing market audits, the ICRC can pro-actively target resources and education where they
are needed most. Additionally, where testing shows evidence in violation of the fair housing laws,
the ICRC will carry out further investigation and enforcement when appropriate.
Testing revealed differences in treatment toward minority testers and practices and policies in
violation of the fair housing laws. The most common form of differential treatment involved
housing providers misrepresenting the number of units available to minority testers. Paired tests
showed that in 38% of the cases, minority testers did not receive equal treatment. Additionally, in
80% of cases, housing providers were in violation off fair housing disability-accessibility regulations.
As this report shows, there is much work to be done, and the ICRC is committed to helping Hoosiers
overcome barriers to housing that result from discrimination. The ICRC partnered with Engaging
Solutions, LLC to design and implement the statewide testing program.
Methodology
Testing is an investigative tool that allows an analysis of discriminatory practices and policies taking
place in the housing market. Testing involves one or more trained individuals (known as testers)
who pose as homeseekers for the purpose of gathering information that can be acquired no other
way. For example, in a paired test, two trained testers—one minority and the other white—pose
as otherwise equal homeseekers and contact a housing provider to inquire about the availability of
an advertised housing unit. The matched pair present themselves as well-qualified to rent the unit,

Executive Summary
Indiana Statewide Fair Housing Audit 2014 vii
with the minority tester slightly more qualified than their white counterpart. Utilizing this
methodology, analysts can determine whether or not illegal discrimination has occurred by
observing differences in the testers’ experience, and comparing the quantity, content, and quality
of information provided.
Contrastingly, a single-contact test involves one trained tester contacting a housing provider in-
person or telephonically. Single-contact tests are effective in assessing whether or not a housing
provider has policies or practices which violate fair housing disability requirements that are easily
communicated, such as having a disability-related need for a reasonable accommodation or
modification.
Testing
This report presents findings from 255 audit tests conducted in the rental housing market in all 9
Indiana Regions (see Figure 1) on the protected basis
of race, national origin and disability (specifically in the
areas of reasonable accommodation/modification and
accessibility as barriers to equal housing). The
demographic make-up of the testing field is 81.5%
white, 9.1% black, 6% Latino, and 1.6% Asian (per the
2010 Census). Metropolitan areas with a significant or
growing minority population as well as metropolitan
areas of gentrification or redevelopment were
considered in the selection of the testing sites.
Additional considerations were based upon the ICRC’s
internal reports and guidance.
Testing was conducted on a random sample of multi-family properties consisting of more than four
dwelling units. Local Apartment Guides, newspapers, internet classifieds, and Google maps were
Figure 1

Executive Summary
Indiana Statewide Fair Housing Audit 2014 viii
utilized to identify properties advertising available dwelling units for rent.3 A variety of property
types were then selected for testing, including large student-oriented apartments, and townhomes;
and diverse income levels were represented.4 For paired tests, properties selected for testing were
focused in census tracts and/or neighborhoods having a demographic composition of 75% or more
white population.5
Each tester was provided an assignment prior to making contact with a housing provider.
Assignments included a detailed set of instructions on how to conduct the test and a personal and
financial profile for the tester to assume. Testers were trained to be convincing in the role of an
ordinary homeseeker, obtain as much information as possible from the housing provider, and
report the information obtained and/or provided while conducting the test.
At the completion of each test, test coordinators collected the report forms, marketing materials,
promotional products, gifts and/or notes taken by the testers. All test reports and corresponding
materials were analyzed for individual treatment indicators that reflect important aspects of the
tester’s experience and initial interaction with the housing provider.6
3There was no attempt to test a specific housing provider or housing unit for individual discrimination cases.
4Tests were not conducted at properties solely offering Section 8, or low-income tax credit units.
5Demographic data was obtained from the 2010 Census to identify the racial composition of the various neighborhoods. National
origin testing was also conducted in census tracks and/or neighborhoods having a demographic composition of 84.4% black. In this
instance, the black testers were the control group.
6 Testers viewed units within a short time period of each other, therefore, the information received regarding available dwelling
units, the application process and any special considerations should be the same or similar.
It is important to note that fair housing testing does not
always reveal a violation but can also be used to demonstrate
compliance with the housing laws.

Executive Summary
Indiana Statewide Fair Housing Audit 2014 ix
In total, 213 paired tests were conducted in 8 of the 9 Regions: 166 were conducted to assess the
incidence and forms of differential
treatment based on race and 47 were
conducted to assess the incidence and
forms of differential treatment based
on national origin. Additionally, 42
single-contact tests were completed in
2 of the 9 Regions. Thirty-seven (37)
tests were conducted to assess housing
providers’ level of compliance with fair
housing reasonable accommodation and modification requirements and five (5) were conducted
to assess housing providers’ level of compliance with fair housing design and construction
regulations for multi-family housing built for first occupancy after March 13, 1991. While a majority
of the completed tests were in-person site visits (78%), 22% were conducted telephonically.
PAIRED TEST AUDIT RESULTS
Testers play a crucial role in the testing process. Thus, one of the most important aspects of a fair
housing testing program is the identification and recruitment of potential testers. For paired tests,
a diverse group of males and females from a
myriad of racial, ethnic, and age groups are
screened and trained as testers per HUD
guidelines. Individuals determined suitable
for testing are then matched in every
relevant aspect except for the characteristic
that is being tested. For example, a race
paired test is conducted using a black tester
and a white tester matched on their personal
Not every instance of white-favored treatment should
be interpreted as systemic discrimination. In some
tests, random factors may contribute to observed
differences in treatment; additionally, minorities may
experience more favorable treatment than their white
counterparts. Therefore, we report the share of tests
in which the white tester was favored over the
minority tester as well as the tests in which the
minority tester was favored over the white tester.
Paired Tests
Single-Contact
Tests
Total Tests
Completed
Telephonically 10% 83% 22%
In-person 90% 17% 78%
90%
17%
78%
10%
83%
22%
2014 AUDIT TESTS COMPLETED
Figure 2

Executive Summary
Indiana Statewide Fair Housing Audit 2014 x
and rental-seeking characteristics, such as: age, income, and number of bedrooms. The only
significant difference was race.
Testers made contact with the housing provider within hours of each other and inquired about the
availability of the advertised dwelling unit that prompted their visit, or other available units that
might meet their housing needs. Both testers presented themselves equally qualified to rent a unit,
with the tester from the protected class always slightly more qualified than the control. In response
to questions from the housing provider, testers communicated the information from the assigned
profile.
Completed tests were analyzed and compared for differences such as: was the unit inquired about
available; were multiple units described or recommended by the housing provider; were testers
given different rental amounts; were rental incentives offered; were the same number of units
inspected; and were testers offered an application. Differences that could not be explained by other
factors were noted as deficiencies in overall treatment.
The results were placed in the following categories:
1. Difference(s) in the availability of rental housing unit (number of units described or
recommended, other available units described or recommend)
2. Difference(s) in financial requirements (application & deposit fees, monthly rents, and/or
financial incentives, specials or discounts)
3. Difference(s) in overall treatment (number of units available for inspection, similar units
inspected, application provided)
4. Rental encouragement (were testers asked to complete an application, rental brochures,
floor plans, flyers offered)
5. Steering
Analysis revealed that when minority testers inquired about recently advertised dwelling units, they
were just as likely as the control tester to speak with a housing provider and learn about at least

Executive Summary
Indiana Statewide Fair Housing Audit 2014 xi
one available housing unit. However, minority testers were told about and shown fewer available
units than the white testers. Additionally, when disparate treatment occurred, the white testers
were treated more favorably than their minority counterparts.
Analysis of Race-Based Tests
Race-based tests were conducted from February 2014 through December 2014 in Regions 1, 4, 5,
6, 7, 8, and 9. Matched pairs
consisted of one white tester and
one black tester inquiring about
available dwelling units in census
tracts or neighborhoods with a 75%
or more white population per the
2010 Census. Of the 166 tests
completed, 39% or 64 tests showed
differential treatment favoring the white testers. Similar treatment of both the black and white
testers were observed in 68 of the tests or 41%, and 34 tests or 20% showed differential treatment
favoring the black testers. While a majority of the tests or 87% were in-person site visits 13% or 22
tests were conducted telephonically.
Analysis of National Origin Tests
National origin tests were conducted from April of 2014 through September of 2014 in Regions 1
and 3. In Region I, matched pairs consisted of one Latino tester and one white tester inquiring about
available dwelling units in census tracts or neighborhoods with a 75% or more white population.
Additionally, tests were conducted in census tracts or neighborhoods with a racial demographic of
84.8% black, 8.9% white and 5.1% Latino. In this area, testing was conducted with one Latino tester
and one black tester.
55
12
30
20
2
147
21
132
52
4
DIFFERENCE IN NUMBER OF UNITS TOLD AVAILABLE
DIFFERENCE IN FINANCIAL INCENTIVES OFFERED
DIFFERENCE IN OVERALL TREATMENT
DIFFERENCE IN RENTAL ENCOURAGEMENT
TESTER WAS STEERED
Differential Treatment Indicators:
RACE-BASED TESTS
favor black testers favor white testers Figure 3

Executive Summary
Indiana Statewide Fair Housing Audit 2014 xii
In Region III, testing was conducted with Latino and Asian testers. Matched pairs consisted of one
Latino/Asian tester and one white tester inquiring about dwelling units in census tracts or
neighborhoods with a 75% or more white population. A total of 47 paired tests were completed;
16 tests or 34% favored the non-
Latino testers, 18 tests or 38%
showed similar treatment among
both groups, 13 tests or 28% showed
more favorable treatment toward
the minority tester. All national
origin tests were conducted in-
person.
Paired tests revealed inconsistencies in the treatment of and information provided to minority
testers when directly compared to white testers during an initial inquiry into available rental
dwelling units. Overall, differences in treatment were most prevalent with respect to the total
number of units recommended to minority testers-occurring in 73 out of 213 paired tests or 34%.
Additionally, test pairs revealed testers experienced multiple instances of differential treatment
throughout the inquiry process, such as: offering white testers specials and discounts; impromptu
fee waivers for filling out an application; steering white testers away from less desirable areas of
town/apartment complex, and overall services rendered. In total, differential treatment favoring
white testers occurred in 80 paired tests or 38%.
These findings are particularly troubling as the effects of the observed differences in treatment
more often served as a disadvantage for minority testers and an advantage for white testers-
although neither the minority nor the white testers were aware of their (dis)advantages. As such,
the testing process directly reflects reality as differential treatment is not readily recognizable by
the typical minority homeseeker and therefore would likely go unreported.
10
21
5
21
8
37
13
13
DIFFERENC IN RENTAL ENCOURAGEMENT
TESTER WAS STEERED
NATIONAL ORIGIN
favor Latino testers favor control testers favor Asian testers
Figure 4

Executive Summary
Indiana Statewide Fair Housing Audit 2014 xiii
Measurement Issues
By controlling for relevant differences between matched testers, paired testing can be utilized to
measure discrimination attributable to a protected characteristic. However, testing can reveal
outcomes in which testers in the protected class receive more favorable treatment than their
counterparts due to random circumstances of the tester’s visit.
Paired tests can result in three basic outcomes: the share of tests favoring the white (control), the
share of tests favoring the minority testers, and the share of tests where both testers receive similar
treatment. Thus, not every instance of white-favored treatment should be interpreted as systemic
discrimination. Rather, these basic outcomes are used to calculate the gross measure of differential
treatment which is comprised of both discriminatory treatment against an individual of a protected
class and random circumstances. The final results for discriminatory treatment included in this
audit, therefore, may include instances in which discriminatory intent may not have been present.
SINGLE-CONTACT TEST AUDIT RESULTS
Persons with disabilities face great challenges securing adequate accessible housing. Recognizing
these as barriers to equal access, fair housing
disability laws were established. To expand
housing choice for persons with disabilities, the
Fair Housing Act requires housing providers to
grant reasonable accommodation/modification
that will allow persons with disabilities equal
opportunity to occupy and enjoy the full use of a dwelling unit, common areas and amenities in the
same manner as people without disabilities. Additionally, the Act requires multi-family properties
(constructed for first occupancy after March 13, 1991), both private and public, be accessible to
people with physical disabilities or mobility impairments.7 Housing providers are mandated to:
• grant a reasonable accommodation request to reside with a service animal;
7 Fair Housing Accessibility First, http://www.fairhousingfirst.org/index.asp
REQUEST DENIED…the tester identified as
disabled and inquired about installing grab bars in
the bathroom. The housing provider responded
“probably not,” further stating that neither the
bathroom nor the stairway were wide enough for
a wheel chair.

Executive Summary
Indiana Statewide Fair Housing Audit 2014 xiv
• grant a reasonable modification request to install grab bars in the bathroom, or convert one
of the unreserved parking spaces near the unit into a handicap parking space; and
• comply with disability-accessibility design and construction regulations for multi-family
housing constructed for first occupancy after March 13, 1991.
In order to effectively capture the experiences of a typical homeseeker with disabilities during their
search for adequate and accessible housing, a tester with a physical disability was utilized for in-
person accessibility testing. Additionally, white non-disabled testers posed as disabled for the
purpose of conducting reasonable accommodation/modification phone tests.
Analysis of Reasonable Accommodation Requests
Reasonable accommodation tests were conducted between April 2014 through September 2014 in
Region II and Region VIII. Of the 23 tests
completed, ten housing providers or (43%)
revealed violations of one or more
reasonable accommodation requirements.
3 or 30% of the requests were rejected
outright, three or 30% of the requests were
granted with additional fee conditions (pet
deposit and/or monthly pet rent), 3 or 30%
of the requests would be granted if the
tester could provide a service animal certification, and 1 request or 10% was denied and the tester
was steered to other properties that “would be able to accommodate.” All 10 tests or 100% were
conducted telephonically.
Analysis of Reasonable Modification Requests
Reasonable modification tests were conducted from April 2014 through September 2014 in Region
II and Region VIII. Out of the 14 tests completed, only 3 of the housing providers or 21% rejected
30%
10%
30%
Violations of Reasonable
Accommodation Requirements
Request Denied
Charge "Pet Fee"
Steering
Require a Service Animal Certification Figure 5

Executive Summary
Indiana Statewide Fair Housing Audit 2014 xv
or discouraged the request for installing grab bars in the bathroom. Twelve (12) tests or 86% were
conducted telephonically and 2 or (14%) were conducted in-person.
Analysis of Accessibility Design and Construction Compliance
Disability-accessibility tests were conducted from June 2014 through September 2014 in Region II.
Testing consisted of in-person site visits to both new construction properties and properties
advertised as having accessible dwelling units. Multi-family housing is defined as all covered
buildings containing four or more units. If the building has an elevator, all of the units on the floor(s)
served by the elevator must meet the accessibility requirements, whereas buildings without an
elevator must have ground floor units that are accessible.
The following seven accessible features must be incorporated into the design of a multi-family
property (built for first occupancy after March 13, 1991) to ensure basic accessibility of the dwelling
units, common areas and complex amenities:
• Accessible building entrance on an accessible route,
• Accessible and usable public and common use areas,
• Usable doors,
• Accessible routes into and through dwelling units,
• Adequate reach to light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, and environmental
controls, reinforced walls in bathrooms for installation of grab bars, and
• Usable kitchens and bathrooms.

Executive Summary
Indiana Statewide Fair Housing Audit 2014 xvi
The tester was trained to observe the accessible design and measure the accessible features which
primarily impact the fair housing design requirements. Of the 5 tests completed, four properties or
80% revealed violations with one or more of
the accessible features: 4 tests or 25%
showed violations of accessible building
entrance on an accessible route, 3 tests or
19% showed violations of accessible and
usable public and common use areas, 4 tests
or 25% showed violations of usable doors, 1
test or 6% showed violations of accessible
routes into and through the units, 1 test or
6% showed violations in adequate reach to light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, and
environmental controls, and 3 tests or 19% showed violations of usable kitchens and bathrooms. All
5 tests or (100%) were conducted in-person.
The above single-contact tests reveal the difficulties persons with disabilities encounter during their
housing search. Despite legal protections established to expand the range of housing opportunities
to persons with disabilities, housing providers who comply with the fair housing reasonable
accommodation/modification mandates or incorporate minimum accessible features into the
design and construction of dwelling units is insufficient to meet the need.
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS RESEARCH
The U.S. Supreme Court established testing as an important and legitimate means of enforcing fair
housing laws. Although originating as an enforcement tool, fair housing testing has been adapted
for a variety of investigative uses within the housing industry.
Enforcement testing is beneficial in instances when access to housing opportunities are being
restricted in more overt forms. Usually, this type of testing is initiated in response to specific
allegations of discrimination or to target properties or communities where discrimination has been
25%
19%
25%
6%
6%
19%
Accessiblity Design and Construction
Requirements
Accessible building
entrance…
Accessible & usable
public areas…
Usable doors (interior)
Accessible routes
(interior)
Adequate reach to light
switches…
Usable kitchens and
bathrooms
Figure 6

Executive Summary
Indiana Statewide Fair Housing Audit 2014 xvii
detected. Similarly, systemic or research testing can be utilized to uncover and document incidents
and forms of covert discrimination that can be acquired no other way. The goal of research testing
is to measure the prevalence of discrimination across the market as a whole. As such, one of the
most important differences in enforcement testing is that it covers a representative sample of
available apartments, rather than targeting
properties or communities where discrimination is
suspected.8 Results from this testing methodology
allows a pro-active approach to affirmatively
further fair housing through training, education
and workshops. Additionally, research testing can
be utilized for enforcement action.
In spite of the highly effective advantages of fair
housing testing, the methodology has a few
notable limitations. For example, paired testing
does not capture all forms of discriminatory
treatment that minority homeseekers may experience. Test assignments were designed to assess
the initial interaction between the testers and a housing provider during the inquiry phase and
information gathering of a rental transaction. However, incidents of discriminatory practices may
occur in advertising which could limit minority homeseekers or persons with disabilities from
inquiring about the available housing unit.9 Additionally, incidents of adverse treatment may occur
later in the housing transaction when a potential renter submits an application, negotiates lease
terms or signs a lease agreement. As such, this audit does not measure incidence or forms of
discrimination that minority homeseekers may experience prior to or after the initial inquiry phase.
8 http://www.huduser.org/portal/Publications/pdf/HUD-514_HDS2012.pdf
9 http://www.columbiaaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/FH-Testing-Report-for-City-of-Columbia-2014.pdf
In Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman (456 U.S. 363
(1982)), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use
of testers in housing discrimination cases as an
important and legitimate means of enforcing
fair housing laws.
In Richards v. Howard (712 F.2d 319, 321 (7th
Cir. 1983)), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
noted that testing evidence benefited unbiased
landlords by quickly dispelling false claims of
discrimination and served as a major resource in
society’s continuing struggle to eliminate racial
discrimination.

Executive Summary
Indiana Statewide Fair Housing Audit 2014 xviii
Additionally, apartment complexes selected for testing were representative of diverse income
levels with rents ranging from $300 per month to $2,800 per month.10 Tester profiles were designed
to ensure the matched pair presented themselves as financially well-qualified to not only rent the
available dwelling unit sought after but also qualified for other units a housing provider may
recommend. Thus, experiences of more marginally qualified homeseekers were not measured,
therefore, the gross measures reported may understate all forms of discrimination occurring in the
rental housing market.
10Tests were not conducted at properties solely offering Section 8; low-income; tax credit units.

I. INTRODUCTION
Indiana Statewide Fair Housing Audit 2014 1
INTRODUCTION
Fair housing laws were established to eliminate discriminatory practices in the housing market and
promote housing integration. In 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson called for the enactment of the
“first effective federal law against discrimination.”11 In response, Congress passed the Fair Housing
Act of 1968 prohibiting housing discrimination in regards to sale, rental, and financing based on
race, color, national origin, religion, gender, (and as amended) disability, and familial status. For
persons with disabilities, fair housing law goes a step further making it illegal for housing providers
to:
 fail to make reasonable accommodation in practices, policies, and services to give a person
with a disability equal opportunity to occupy and enjoy the full use of a housing unit,
 fail to allow reasonable modification to the housing unit, common areas, or amenities if the
modification is necessary to allow a person with a disability full use of the premises, and
 fail to comply with disability-accessibility design and construction regulations for multi-
family housing constructed for first occupancy after March 13, 1991.
Yet, more than 45 years after the law’s enactment, equal housing opportunity remains a major
challenge and the struggle for fair housing continues.
The Indiana Civil Rights Commission (“ICRC”) investigates complaints of discrimination and educates
the public on their rights and responsibilities under the Indiana Civil Rights laws and are committed
to helping Hoosiers overcome barriers to housing that result from discrimination. Adherent to their
mission to affirmatively further fair housing, the ICRC organized and commissioned the
implementation of the nation’s first statewide fair housing testing program to measure the
incidence and forms of discrimination experienced by homeseekers across the state in the rental
market. By conducting audit testing, the ICRC can pro-actively target resources and education
where it is needed most. Additionally, where testing shows evidence in violation of the fair housing
11 History.com staff, “Fair Housing Act of 1968,” History.com, 2010, http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/fair-housing-act

I. INTRODUCTION
laws, the ICRC will carry out further investigation and enforcement when appropriate. The ICRC
partnered with Engaging Solutions, LLC to design and implement the statewide testing program.
The state’s demographic make-up consists of 81.5% white, 9.1% black, 6% Latino, and 1.6% Asian
per the 2010 Census. A total of 255 tests were
conducted in all 9 Regions (as shown in Figure 1)
and 39 metropolitan areas across Indiana. Of these
total tests, 166 paired tests assessed the
differences in treatment based on race and 47
paired tests assessed differences in treatment
based on national origin. Additionally, 42 single-
contact tests were completed: 23 assessed the level
of compliance for reasonable accommodation
requests; 14 assessed the level of compliance for
reasonable modification requests and 5 assessed
the level of compliance of accessible design and
construction.
Importance of Testing
Housing discrimination is a pervasive problem nationwide and takes many forms. Although the
most blatant forms have declined, overt acts of discrimination still exist such as the 2011 case in
Ohio when a “Public Pool, Whites Only” sign was posted
on an apartment complex pool12 and the 2008 case in
California where a disabled rental seeker was denied a
unit because the landlords were concerned about his
weight, stating that the home was not equipped for a
12 Landlord Defends Hanging ‘White Only’ Sign at Duplex Pool, Time, December 17, 2012
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/01/white-only-pool-sign-discriminatory-not-decorative-commission-rules/
The U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) estimates
that more than two million instances of
housing discrimination occur each year,
but less than one percent are reported.
2014 Test Sites
Race
Nat
Origin
Mod.
Accom.
Acces.
Figure 1

I. INTRODUCTION
man of his size.13 It is more common for housing discrimination to occur based on differences in
treatment such as offering a minority homeseeker (or persons of other protected groups) fewer
units, higher deposits or fees, less favorable rent terms, incomplete information and/or subtle
discouragement. Individuals given misleading or inaccurate information regarding the availability
of housing may never know that a difference in treatment occurred, because they have no way of
comparing their treatment to anyone else’s. Frequently, the only way to uncover differences in
treatment is through the use of testing, which offers a uniquely effective tool for directly observing
and comparing treatment experienced by equally qualified homeseekers. Utilizing this
methodology, analysts can measure how often discrimination occurs across housing markets and
what forms it takes.
Additionally, because most homeseekers inquire at more than one location, minorities and persons
with disabilities will likely encounter discrimination multiple times during the course of their search
for rental housing. As a result, these persons will likely have to spend more time and money in
their search to secure adequate housing.14 Furthermore, when people experience illegal housing
discrimination (access to quality housing), access to other quality of life opportunities are
affected such as: quality education, employment opportunities, fresh food, shopping, recreation,
public services and the opportunity to live in an integrated society.15
Scope
The ICRC commissioned a statewide audit to measure discriminatory treatment experienced by
homeseekers in the rental housing market. Testing was conducted on the protected basis of race,
national origin and disability for both research and enforcement purposes. Testing was formatted
13 Family Settles Disability Discrimination Claim, Law Foundation, August 24, 2010
http://www.lawfoundation.org/cases_fhlp.asp
14 Access Denied: A Report on Rental Housing Discrimination in the Denver Metro Area
http://www.nationalfairhousing.org/Portals/33/Rental%20Housing%20Discrimination%20in%20the%20Denver%20Metro%20Area.
pdf
15National fair housing alliance http://www.nationalfairhousing.org/Portals/33/Rental%20Housing

I. INTRODUCTION
for quarterly iterations of testing and reporting, as well as a year-end comprehensive report to
measure the aggregate findings. The quarterly testing and reporting schedule is outlined below:
Quarter 1
2014
Quarter 2
2014
Quarter 3
2014
Quarter 4
2014
Quarter 1
2015
(REGION)
Protected class
tested
(Region VII)
Race
(Region I)
Race
National Origin
(Region II )
Disability-Access
Reasonable
Acc. /Mod.
(Region IV)
Race
(Region III)
National Origin
(Region V)
Race
(Region VIII)
Race
Disability-Reasonable
Acc. /Mod.
(Region IX)
Race
(Region VI)
Race
Tester
Recruitment/Training
/Background Checks
and Selection
Feb April July-Aug Oct-Nov
Live
Testing/Collection
Data
Feb-March May-June Aug-Sep Nov-Dec
Analysis of
Data/Draft Quarterly
Report/Complete
Administrative
Matters
May June-August Sep.-Oct Dec-Jan
Finalize Quarterly
Report
April August September January
Wrap up (Draft Final
Report/Complete
Administrative
Matters)
Jan-
March
Organization of Report
The remainder of this report is organized into five sections. Section II presents the testing
methodology and design, sampling procedure, tester selection and testing protocols. Section III
presents statewide findings of differential treatment experienced by black and Latino testers and
the measures used to estimate the incidence and forms of disparate treatment. Section IV presents
Figure 2

I. INTRODUCTION
statewide findings of the level of compliance with fair housing disability mandates, specifically in
the areas of reasonable accommodation/modification and accessible construction and design
features as barriers to equal housing. Finally, Section V concludes with a series of recommendations
and discusses implications for further investigation.

II. TESTING METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN
SECTION II: TESTING METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN
In order to further fair housing in the state of Indiana in both education and enforcement, it is
necessary to obtain an accurate account of where discrimination is happening, what segments of
the population it affects and how it occurs. Thus, fair housing testing was conducted in 9 Regions
and 39 metropolitan areas and municipalities across the state to assess the treatment experienced
by minority homeseekers and persons of other protected classes in the rental housing market.
Paired tests are designed to control for all relevant differences between matched pairs to ensure
observed adverse treatment, if any, can be attributed to discrimination based on the protected
classes of race and national origin. For example, a race paired test is performed by a black tester
and a white tester matched on age, gender and rental-seeking characteristics so that the only
significant difference is race. Additionally, testers are matched with the same income, employment
qualifications, and credit standing, with the black tester slightly more financially qualified than their
white counterpart. Adhering to this methodology yields reliable measures of differential treatment.
Contrastingly, single-contact testing is effective in assessing whether or not a housing provider has
policies, practices or design inadequacies that impede individuals with disabilities the equal
opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling the same as persons without disabilities. Single-contact
tests were designed to assess a housing provider’s level of compliance with fair housing laws. In
order to attribute observed violations to a provider’s lack of compliance with disability
requirements, white testers, with and without disabilities, were assigned to perform reasonable
accommodation and modification tests in-person and telephonically.
Sampling
To measure the prevalence of discrimination across the market as a whole, a random sample of
apartment complexes with available dwelling units for rent were identified through local Apartment
Guides, newspapers, internet classifieds, and Google maps. A variety of property types consisting
of more than four dwelling units were then selected for testing including large student-oriented

apartments, and townhomes and diverse income levels.16 Over 400 properties with 4 or more units
were identified for testing. Additionally, for paired tests, properties selected for testing were
focused in census tracts and/or neighborhoods having a demographic composition of 75% or more
white population.17 Demographic data was obtained from the 2010 Census to identify the racial
composition of the various neighborhoods.
In some cases, properties were ineligible for testing due to the lack of rental units available,
saturation of a housing provider (i.e., a particular provider who manages multiple properties had
already been contacted by a paired testing team, thus presenting a risk of exposure), and/or
because the property was deemed unsuitable for testing due to information received during an
advance call. When possible, separate site selections were made for race-based, national origin and
disability testing. However, there was some overlap, where testing was conducted for more than
one protected class group in two of the test sites. The target sample size was set at 20 tests per
protected class with an additional 5 tests per protected class for over-sampling.
Selection and Training of Testers
Testers play a crucial role in the testing process. Thus, one of the most important aspects of the fair
housing testing program is to maintain a diverse pool of testers. As such, a diverse group of males
and females from a myriad of racial, ethnic and age groups, with and without disabilities, were
recruited through broad dissemination of fliers, a variety of other outreach activities, word of
mouth, local contacts, as well as service and advocacy groups. Additional recruitment efforts
included advertising on the internet, university campuses, faith-based organizations, cultural
centers, the ICRC and Engaging Solutions websites and personal referrals.
Interested individuals were screened and trained as testers per HUD guidelines. The training
program incorporated a variety of instructional techniques including, lecture, discussion, and role-
16Tests were not conducted at properties solely offering Section 8 or low-income tax credit units.
17Demographic data was obtained from the 2010 Census to identify the racial composition of the various neighborhoods. National
origin testing was also conducted in census tracks and/or neighborhoods having a demographic composition of 84.4% black. In this
instance, the black testers were the control.

plays, to provide testers with the skills necessary to perform qualified fair housing tests. Each
session included information on the rights, obligations, and coverage of fair housing laws,
instruction on fair housing testing protocols, test procedures, and reporting requirements. Training
stressed that testing does not always reveal a violation of the law, further emphasizing a tester’s
obligation to be objective gatherers of information free from any preconceived notions regarding
housing providers and/or test sites. After training, testers performed a sample test (an in-person
site visit) and completed the corresponding reports. The sample test was utilized to evaluate an
individual’s suitability for the program.
Testers selected to perform a specific test had no current or former interest in, relationship to, or
conflict with the test subject or transaction, and agreed to immediately reveal any conflict of
interests to the test coordinator(s).
Additionally, testers certified that
they have no felony or fraud
convictions and agreed to a criminal
background check. Over the course
of testing, 162 individuals applied
for an opportunity to participate in
the tester program.
Although testing is a volunteer
position, testers were reimbursed for mileage and other reasonable test-related expenses.
Additionally, they were paid a small stipend per completed test for their time and efforts while
participating in the testing program regardless of the outcome of the test.
Preparing to Test
Advance calls were made to each property selected for testing by the test coordinator. The test
coordinator anonymously inquired about: the availability of the advertised unit (or other units that
may be available), the time frame the unit is available; if a vacant or model unit was available to
45
115
16
32
21
75
5
4
3
22
MALE APPLICANTS BY
RACE/ETHNICITY
TOTAL MALE APPLICANTS
FEMALE APPLICANTS BY
RACE/ETHNICITY
TOTAL FEMALE APPLICANTS
2014 APPLICANTS
white black Latino Asia Other
Figure 3

view; office hours; and whether an appointment was needed to visit the leasing office to speak with
a housing provider.18 Tester profiles were developed based on information gathered by the test
coordinators during the advance call. Information included but was not limited to:
• reason for moving;
• desired monthly rental amount;
• timeframe for moving;
• monthly and annual income for the tester;
• testers’ occupation;
• name and location of the tester’s employer;
• length of time on the job;
• household composition; and
• service animal information (for disability tests).
In addition to a profile, each tester was provided with a test assignment prior to making contact
with a housing provider. Test assignments consisted of a detailed set of instructions, such as; how
to conduct the test and tips on how to respond to housing providers’ questions. Phone test
instructions included how the tester should handle the use of answering machines, voicemail,
and/or second party screening companies.
After receiving a test assignment, testers contacted the test coordinator to discuss the particulars
of the assignment. During this initial briefing, the test coordinator reviewed information with the
tester and answered any questions regarding the assigned characteristics, instructions, and/or
testing procedures. Briefing testers is extremely important because coordinators can address
anything that is unclear such as: how and when to reveal pertinent information such as a disability
when conducting a disability phone test, or housing composition when conducting a familial status
test, if the housing provider did not inquire.
18If an appointment was needed, test coordinators did not set appointments for the testers.

Conducting Tests
Testers made contact with a housing provider within hours of each other, either in-person or
telephonically, in order to maintain similar conditions. Testers inquired about the availability of the
advertised housing unit that prompted their visit, or other units that might meet their housing
needs and obtained as much information as possible regarding the housing unit from the housing
provider. For single-contact tests, testers were trained to make a reasonable accommodation
requests to reside with a service animal, and reasonable modification requests for handicap parking
or adding grab bars in the bathroom. For disability-accessibility tests, the tester was instructed to
observe and measure the seven fair housing accessible design requirements.
Testers were trained to never “trap” or otherwise cause providers to discriminate, rather they
assumed similar roles and profiles to appear equal to their testing counterpart in every relevant
aspect. Testers were trained to be convincing in the role of an ordinary homeseeker inspecting
vacant or model unit(s) and making return visits or appointments with an agent if necessary.
However, unlike an ordinary homeseeker, testers were instructed to refrain from expressing
preferences for particular amenities or geographic locations, not submit a formal application, nor
agree to a credit check, nor make an offer to rent the available unit.
After the test, testers debriefed with their test coordinator to discuss any concerns about the test
or communicate any deviations he/she may have made from the test profile or testing instructions.
During the debriefing process, testers were reminded to document any future contact from the
housing provider (when the follow-up was received, who initiated it and the nature of the follow-
up) on the provider Follow-up Contact Form and submit the follow-up report to the test
coordinator.
Test Report Forms consist of closed-ended questions and capture information that can be
compared consistently across many tests, while the Test Narrative Form provides a detailed,
chronological account of the tester’s experience. The test coordinator is responsible for ensuring
the Test Report forms are complete and turned in along with any notes, brochures, and rental

applications obtained during the test. The reports and corresponding materials are then analyzed
and compared for individual treatment indicators that reflect important aspects of the tester’s
experience and initial interaction with the housing provider.19 The single-contact test reports were
analyzed for housing providers’ compliance with the fair housing disability mandates.
Testers are not privy to their matched counterpart, their counterpart’s experience, or what the
particular test was designed to ascertain.20 Additionally, testers are not told the results of the audit
except when made public record as part of reports, litigation, or enforcement actions.
19 Testers viewed units within a short time period of each other, therefore, the information received regarding available dwelling
units, the application process and any special considerations should be the same or similar.
20 National Fair Housing Advocate Online, http://fairhousing.com/index.cfm?method=page.display&pagename=January-
February_1995_Page1

III. PAIRED AUDIT RESULTS
SECTION III: PAIRED AUDIT RESULTS
A total of 213 paired tests were conducted in 8 of the 9 Regions, and in 38 metropolitan areas and
municipalities across the state. Of which, 166 paired tests were conducted in Regions 1, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, and 9 to assess the incidence and forms of differential treatment based on race. Forty-seven (47)
paired tests were conducted in Region I and Region III to assess the incidence and forms of
differential treatment based on national origin. While a majority of the tests were in-person site
visits (78%), 57 completed tests or 22% were conducted telephonically.
Completed tests were analyzed and compared for differences in treatment. The results were placed
in the following categories:21
The first category focusses on the extent to which paired testers received comparable information
in response to their inquiries about the availability of the advertised apartment unit and/or other
similar units that would meet their needs. Testers viewed units within a short time period of each
other, therefore, the units available would be expected to be the same or similar:
• Was the unit inquired about available?
• Were similar units available?
• Were tester told of other units available with different number of bedrooms?
• Were similar number of units described/recommended?
• If units were not available for the stated timeframe, were testers told of future availabilities?
The next category focusses on differences in financial costs quoted. Paired testers were instructed
to inquire after the same number of bedrooms, describing similar desired price ranges and similar
desired move-in date, therefore, differences in monthly rents quoted should not occur or be
significant. Additionally, because testers were financially well-qualified to rent a unit (with the
21 In cases where multiple forms of discrimination occurred in the same test, all types of discrimination were recorded.

minority tester being slightly more qualified), application fees, security deposits, quoted incentives
and/or specials should be the same or similar:
• Did housing providers quote different rental amounts?
• Were rental incentives offered?
• Was an application fee required?
• Did agents quote different security deposit amounts?
• Was the application fee or security deposit waved or discounted?
Difference in overall treatment is the focus for category three. All relevant differences were
controlled so that matched testers were similar in regards to housing needs, family composition,
finances, and credit rating in order to make them equally qualified to rent the advertised unit.
Therefore, the expected overall treatment and rental encouragement should be the same or
similar:
• Was the advertised unit available for inspection?
• Were similar units inspected?
• Were the same number of units inspected?
• Was a rental application offered?
Rental discouragement is a subtle form of discrimination in which inquiring renters are provided
different information or documentation in the facilitation of the application process:
• Were testers asked to complete an application?
• Were arrangements for future correspondence made?
• Were testers told they qualified to rent?
• Were brochures, price sheets, business cards, and flyers offered to the paired testers?
• Were testers told a criminal background check was needed?
The final category is steering. Steering is a form of housing discrimination that involves maneuvering
a homeseeker away from or towards a particular complex, neighborhood, certain areas of a city, or

side of town. However, steering can also refer to a practice of housing providers only showing
certain groups properties in specific buildings and/or units on specific floors:
• Were testers referred other properties?
• Did a protected class impact where complex units were shown (i.e. white tester shown
remodeled unit in front of complex, black tester was only shown unit in the back of the
complex near the dumpster)?
• Were testers steered to certain buildings or floors (happens most often in familial status
tests where those with children may only be offered first floor units)?
• Were comments made regarding a neighborhood/different property/side of town?
Differences that could not be explained by other factors were noted as deficiencies in overall
treatment.
DETAILS OF RACE-BASED TESTS
Race-based tests were conducted from February 2014 through December 2014. Of the 166 tests
completed, 39% or 64 tests showed
differences in treatment that favored
the white testers. Sixty-eight (68) tests
or 41% showed similar treatment of
the black and white testers and 20% or
34 tests showed differences in
treatment that favored the black
testers.
While differential treatment was most prevalent with respect to the total number of units
recommended to black testers (39%), black testers experienced differential treatment in two or
more treatment indicator categories. A few examples from actual testers’ experiences follows:22
22 These are a few synopses of differential treatment analyzed. The full account of differential treatment can be found in the annex
under each Region tested.
55
12
30
20
2
147
21
132
52
4
Difference in number of units told available
Difference in financial incentives offered
Difference in overall treatment
Difference in rental encouragement
Tester was steered
RACE-BASED TESTS
favor black testers favor white testers Figure 4

Synopses of differential treatment
Both testers visited the property on the same day and inquired about the availability of a two-
bedroom unit.
• The black tester was told two (2) two-bedroom units were available. The tester was provided
an application and was told a brochure would be emailed. The tester never received the email.
• The white tester was given the current specials for a two-bedroom unit and a one-bedroom unit.
Additionally, the tester was informed of “issues” on the south side of the complex. The housing
provider commented that “being a single white female,” she wanted to put tester in a unit on
the north side of the complex. The tester was given handouts with the available units’ address,
floor plan, monthly rent, deposit/holding fee amount and what was needed to apply.
bedroom unit.
• The black tester was told two (2) two-bedroom units were vacant but there were applications
pending for both. The tester was shown a unit and was informed that she would be contacted
if the pending applications fell through.
• The white tester was told of three (3) available units as well as the monthly rates for each. The
tester was shown 2 units and was informed that safety improvements were being made to the
units. The tester was given an application.
Both testers visited the property on the same day and inquired about the availability of a one or
two-bedroom unit.
• The black tester was informed of four (4) available units. The tester was given floor plans, price
list and a brochure. After each unit was described, the housing provider inquired as to the
tester’s income.
• The housing provider immediately asked the white tester’s income. The tester gave the income
instructed on the tester profile and was informed the complex was for low income renters.

two-bedroom unit.
• The black tester was informed of two (2) available units. The tester was told to go online to fill
out an application.
• The white tester was informed of four (4) available units. The tester was shown a model unit
and given a tour of the fitness room and pool. The tester was given an application.
two-bedroom unit.
• The black tester was informed that there were no showings after 5 p.m. The housing provider
then stated there were no two-bedroom units available. The tester asked if there were any units
available. The housing provider then stated there was a recent cancellation and a two-bedroom
unit was back on the market, but the unit wasn’t ready for showing.
• The white tester was informed of a one-bedroom unit available immediately with a ‘couple’
more becoming available by the end of July. The tester was shown the vacant one-bedroom unit
and was shown the floor plans and pricing for two (2) units that were coming available at the
end of July.
bedroom unit.
• The black tester was informed of three (3) available units.
• The white tester was given information on upgraded units in newly-constructed buildings. The
tester was informed of five (5) available units.
DETAILS OF NATIONAL ORIGIN TESTS
National origin tests were conducted from April 2014 through September 2014 in Regions 1 and 3.
In Region I, matched pairs consisted of one white tester and one Latino tester inquiring about
available dwelling units in census tracts or neighborhoods with a 75% or more white population.

Additionally, tests were conducted in census tracts or neighborhoods with an 84.4% or more black
population.
In Region III matched pairs consisted of
one white tester and one Latino or one
white tester and one Asian tester
inquiring about available dwelling units
in census tracts or neighborhoods with
a 75% or more white population. A total
of 47 paired tests were completed: 34%
of tests (16) favored the non-Latino
testers; 38% or 18 tests showed similar
treatment among both groups; and 28% or 13 tests showed more favorable treatment toward the
minority tester. Both tests conducted with the Asian tester showed the Asian tester received more
favorable treatment than the white tester.
Differential treatment was most prevalent with respect to the total number of units recommended
to the Latino testers. The adverse treatment occurred in 16 out of 47 tests or 34%. A few examples
from actual testers’ experiences follows:23
Synopses of differential treatment
Both testers visited the property on the same day.
• The Latino tester was told units were available but was not given a specific amount. In addition
to viewing the model unit the tester was shown the carports and garages.
• The white tester was told 3 different floor plans were available. The tester was given a tour of
the complex. The housing provider advised the tester to stay away from properties on the
southeast side of town because “it doesn’t attract the best people.” The tester was given an
23 These are a few synopsis of differential treatment analyzed. The full account of differential treatment can be found in the annex
under each Region tested.
10
21
5
21
8
37
13
13
DIFFERENC IN RENTAL ENCOURAGEMENT
TESTER WAS STEERED
NATIONAL ORIGIN
favor Latino testers favor control testers favor Asian testers
Figure 5

additional folder containing an Apartment Guide with the recommended apartments, coupons,
and other offers.
Both testers visited the property on the same day and spoke with the same housing provider.
• The Latino tester was told the monthly rent for a two-bedroom townhouse.
• The white tester was told monthly rents for a one-bedroom apartment, a two-bedroom
apartment, and a two-bedroom townhouse.
• The Latino tester was not given information regarding the 3% discount for signing a 12-month
lease.
• The white tester was told of a 3%discount off of the monthly rent for signing a 12-month lease.
• The Latino tester was not told about the monthly special
• The white tester was told of the monthly special - a 5% discount for signing a 12-month lease.
Both testers visited the property on the same day.
• The Latino tester was told a one-bedroom was available now and two-bedroom units would be
available in November. Tester was not given an application.
• The white tester was told 2 units were available.The housing provider told the tester that her
best bet would be to stay on the north or west side of town because it was the safest. The
tester was referred to a few sister properties by name. Tester was given an application.
• The Latino tester inquired about the availability of a one or two-bedroom unit. The tester was
given a price sheet and information on lease requirements. The tester was not told if units were
available, was not shown a model unit and was not told about the specials.

• The black tester was informed of an available unit. The tester was told about the specials and
viewed the available unit.
Paired tests revealed inconsistencies in the treatment of and information provided to minority
testers when directly compared to white testers during an initial inquiry into available rental
dwelling units. Although differential treatment percentages for national origin tests were slightly
lower (34%) than those for the race-based tests (39%), analysis revealed that when disparate
treatment occurred, white testers were treated more favorably than their minority counterparts.
Difference in treatment was most prevalent with respect to the total number of units
recommended to the minority testers. It occurred in 73 out of 213 paired tests or 34%. Additionally,
the analysis shows that minority testers experienced difference in treatment with regards to being
informed of specials and discounts, impromptu fee waivers and inferior service.
In total, differential treatment favoring white testers occurred in 80 paired tests or 38%. These
results are particularly impactful because this form of differential treatment is not readily
recognizable by a typical minority homeseeker and, therefore, would likely go unreported.
Measurement Issues
By controlling for relevant differences between matched testers, paired testing can be utilized to
measure discrimination attributable to a protected characteristic. However, testing can reveal
outcomes in which testers in the protected class receive more favorable treatment than their
counterparts due to random circumstances of the tester’s visit.
Paired tests can result in three basic outcomes: the share of tests favoring the white (control), the
share of tests favoring the minority testers, and the share of tests where both testers receive similar
treatment. Thus, not every instance of white-favored treatment should be interpreted as systemic
discrimination. Rather these basic outcomes are used to calculate the gross measure of differential
treatment which is comprised of both discriminatory treatment against an individual of a protected

class and random circumstances. The final results for discriminatory treatment included in this
audit, therefore, may include instances in which discriminatory intent may not have been present.

IV. SINGLE-CONTACT AUDIT RESULTS
SECTION IV: SINGLE-CONTACT AUDIT RESULTS
In 1988, The Fair Housing Act was amended to include disability as a protected class. The
requirements are intended to ensure persons with disabilities equal opportunity to occupy and
enjoy the full use of a dwelling unit, common areas and amenities the same as persons without
disabilities. However, in spite of regulatory requirements, persons with mobility disabilities
continue to face major barriers to adequate accessible housing. While few studies have been
conducted to determine levels of disability discrimination in housing, the State of Indiana Analysis
of Impediments to Fair Housing Choices reported that many stakeholders commented on the lack
of affordable, accessible housing for persons with disabilities as being a major barrier to housing
choice in the state.24 As a result, focus on housing discrimination against persons with disabilities
has become an increasingly important issue in fair housing research and enforcement in Indiana,
specifically in the areas of reasonable accommodation/modification, and accessible construction
and design features as barriers to equal housing.
Given consideration to the increase number of disability-based complaints filed with the ICRC, the
protected class of disability was selected
for single-contact audit testing. In total,
42 single-contact tests were completed to
measure the multi-family rental housing
market’s level of compliance with fair
housing disability mandates.
Reasonable accommodation and modification tests were conducted from April 2014 through
September 2014. Reasonable accommodations is defined as changes to rules, policies, procedures,
and practices or changes in the way services are provided to persons with disabilities.25 The ability
24 State of Indiana Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, BBC Research and Consulting, 2010-2014
http://www.in.gov/ocra/files/Indiana_AI_2010-2014.pdf
25 Fair Housing Accessibility First http://www.fairhousingfirst.org/faq/view_all.html
REQUEST DENIED…The tester identified as having a
disability related need for a service animal making a
request for a reasonable accommodation. The housing
provider denied the request stating “dogs were not
allowed” due to the barking and the lack of separate
outside entrances for taking the dog out for walks.

to reside with a service animal is the leading reasonable accommodation request made by or on
behalf of persons with disabilities. The Fair Housing Act recognizes that a service animal aids
individuals with the limitations imposed by their disability and, therefore, are necessary for persons
with disabilities who use them. As such, service animals are not considered pets under the Act,
making it illegal to: deny a reasonable service animal request; enforce ‘no-pet’ policies; or subject
the renter to pet fees, breed, and species or size restrictions. Additionally, fair housing laws do not
make a distinction among certified service animals,26 non-certified animals, or animals that provide
psychological support.
Reasonable modifications are physical changes or alterations to a housing unit, common use areas
or complex amenities. Fair housing laws require persons with disabilities be permitted to make
reasonable modifications to dwelling units of any age. However, housing providers can require the
resident to cover the costs associated with the modification.
Thirty-seven (37) tests assessed housing providers’ policies and practices to grant a request for
reasonable accommodation or modification when a disability need was observed or conveyed. Test
reports where violations occurred were placed in the following categories:27
The first categories focusses on the outright refusal of reasonable accommodation or modification
request:
• Was the request for a service animal denied?
• Was the request for adding grab bars in the bathroom denied?
• Was the request for handicap parking denied?
The following three sub-categories focus on regulations pertaining to service animals. A service
animal is not considered a pet. It is an animal that works, provides assistance, or performs tasks for
the benefit of a person with a disability. Additionally, fair housing laws do not make a distinction
26Special tags, equipment, certification, registration or special identification of service animals cannot be required of persons with a
disability provided need can be shown.
27In cases where multiple forms of discrimination occurred in the same test, all types of discrimination were recorded.

among certified service animals, non-certified service animals, and service animals that provide
psychological support. As such, service animals are cannot be subjected to “pet” policies, fees or
special certifications:
• Was the request granted but “pet” fees were imposed (deposit, monthly rent, specific
insurance)?
• Was the request granted with a condition to provide special tags, identification, equipment,
certification (including ADA certification) or service animal registration?
• Was the request granted with a condition that the service animal’s size, weight, or breed
was in compliance with the provider’s “pet policy”?
There are instances where apartment complexes are affiliated with or know of other properties
that are “pet friendly,” thus the next category focusses on housing providers steering persons with
disabilities to properties that can “accommodate their needs.” Additionally, steering can refer to a
housing provider limiting the homeseeker to a specific building or floor level.
Rental discouragement is a subtle form of denying or avoiding a reasonable accommodation or
modification request, by requiring extensive information or verification regarding a homeseeker’s
or tenant’s disability or disability-related need for the accommodation/modification. Per fair
housing laws, if the disability is not apparent, a housing provider can request verification that the
tenant has a disability-related need for an accommodation or modification. However, requiring: 1)
additional medical information, 2) excessive verification requirements, or 3) detailed information
on the specifics of the disability, is in violation of fair housing laws. Additionally, when inquiring
about or verifying the disability-related need for an accommodation/modification request, the
housing provider must not ask or obtain information that will reveal an individual’s diagnosis or
prognosis.

DETAILS OF REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION TESTS
Of the 23 tests completed, ten housings providers or (43%) revealed violations of one or more
reasonable accommodation requirements. Three (3) or 30% of the requests were rejected outright,
three or 30% of the requests were granted with
additional fee conditions (pet deposit and/or
monthly pet rent), 3 or 30% of the requests
would be granted if the tester could provide a
service animal certification, and 1 request or
10% was denied and the tester was steered to
other properties that “would be able to
accommodate.”
Synopses of reasonable accommodation requests
• The tester was informed that their “office follows the ADA on that sort of thing.”
• The tester was informed no ‘pets’ were allowed. The tester then asked, “how about service
animals?” The agent replied that she was not allowed to say anything about service animals
and that she would need to talk to the owners.
• The tester was informed that service animals were ok, but the $200 ‘pet’ deposit may still
be required.
• The tester was informed no dogs were allowed due to the barking. The housing provider
asked if the tester was in a wheelchair. The tester answered no. The provider informed the
tester that she would text the property manager to verify the no dog policy. The property
manager confirmed the no dog policy and further explained that the policy was due to the
design of the apartments, potential barking, and the lack of separate outside entrances to
allow dogs to go walking.
After the tester identifying as having a disability need for a service animal, the housing provider
informed the tester that they usually don’t allow dogs because it would be a disturbance to the
30%
10%
30%
Violations of Reasonable
Accommodation Requirements
Denied Request
Charge "Pet Fee"
Steering
Require a Service Animal Certification Figure 6

downstairs tenants. The tester was told of other properties that would “be able to meet her needs.”
The housing provider further stated one property “had a nice view of the river and was a perfect
place to walk animals,” adding that she walks her dog there.
During an in-person disability-accessibility test, the tester was informed that service animals are
exempt from the pet fees, however, they require a certification of the animal in order to be
considered a service animal rather than a pet.
The tester was informed that service animals were acceptable. He further stated that there is a
$300 non-refundable fee and an extra charge $40 per month.
DETAILS OF REASONABLE MODIFICATION TESTS
Out of the 14 tests completed, only 3 of the housing providers or 21% rejected or discouraged the
request for installing grab bars in the bathroom. While 12 tests or 86% were conducted
telephonically, 2 or (14%) were conducted in-person
Synopses of reasonable modification requests
• The tester was told that it wasn’t likely (“probably not”) grab bars could be installed in the
bathroom. The housing provider further stated that the bathroom and stairway were not
wide enough for a wheelchair, although the tester did not convey that she utilized a
wheelchair, neither did the provider ask.
• The tester was told “the units really aren’t handicapped safe,” but the agent never stated if
the tester would be allowed to install grab bars. The agent informed the tester that the
apartments are old fashioned (built in 1910).
• The tester was told “dwelling units were not handicap-accessible” due to the fact that the
bathrooms are “upstairs” and “there are stairs leading up to the porch to get in the front
door.” The agent further stated that handrails could not be installed in the bathroom and
again stressed that the bathrooms were on the second level.

DETAILS OF DISABILITY-ACCESSIBILITY TESTS
Disability-accessibility tests were conducted from June 2014 through September 2014. Testing
consisted of in-person site visits to both new construction properties and properties offering
disability-accessible dwelling units for rent. Per fair housing regulations, there are seven required
features28 which must be incorporated into the design of a multi-family housing property, built for
first occupancy after March 13, 1991, to ensure basic accessibility of the dwelling units, common
areas and complex amenities. The following features are necessary to ensure equal access for
persons with a disability.
The first requirement focuses on the extent to which a person with a mobility impairment or
physical disability can get from parking to the building entrance:
• Was the property equipped with an accessible entrance on an accessible route?
• Was the property equipped with curb ramps and access aisles in the parking lot?
The next requirement ensures persons with mobility impairments or physical disabilities have the
ability to enjoy all the properties amenities.
• Were public and common areas such as leasing offices, clubhouses, play areas, trash
facilities, mailboxes, swimming pools etc. accessible and on accessible routes?
• Was the property equipped with accessible parking at site facilities?
The third requirement refers to the accessibility of usable doors. Due to the width, many
wheelchairs, scooters and walkers cannot comfortably pass through doors with a less than 32” clear
opening.
• Were all doors intended for passage accessible?
Requirement 4 ensures accessible routes into and through the dwelling unit.
28 Fair Housing Accessibility First, http://www.fairhousingfirst.org/fairhousing/requirements.html

• Was the clearance for hallways 36” wide?
• Were thresholds beveled 1:2 or less?
• Were level changes 1/2” between the finished floor of the unit and the exterior entry
landing?
Additionally, requirement 5 refers to the placement of light switches, electrical outlets and
environment controls should be placed where tenants with limited reach can access them.
• Were electrical outlets raised at least 15” above the finished floor?
• Were light switches and environment controls placed at 48” above the finished floor?
Requirement 6 ensures that during the construction of disability accessible units, walls around the
tubs, toilets and showers are reinforced for the installation of grab bars, if needed.
Requirement 7 focuses on usable kitchens and bathrooms.
• Was the dwelling unit equipped with a kitchen floor space of 30” X 48”?
• Was the dwelling unit equipped with an accessible route to and in the bathroom?
• Was it possible to enter the bathroom, close and reopen the door, and exit utilizing a
wheelchair?
The tester assigned to conduct accessibility testing is physically disabled and uses a wheelchair for
mobility. The tester was trained to observe the
properties’ accessible features which primarily
impact the fair housing design requirements as
well as measure the accessible features, if and
when possible.
Of the 5 tests completed, 4 properties or 80%
revealed violations in one or more of the
required accessibility features: 4 tests or 25%
showed violations of accessible building entrance on an accessible route; 3 tests or 19% showed
25%
19%
25%
6%
6%
19%
Accessiblity Design and
Construction Requirements
Accessible building
entrance…
Accessible & usable
public areas…
Usable doors
(interior)
Accessible routes
(interior)
Adequate reach to
light switches…
Usable kitchens and
bathrooms
Figure 7

violations of accessible and usable public and common use areas; 4 tests or 25% showed violations
of usable doors; 1 test or 6% showed violations of accessible routes into and through the units, 1
test or 6% showed violations in adequate reach to light switches, electrical outlets, thermostats, and
environmental controls; and 3 tests or 19% showed violations of usable kitchens and bathrooms. All
5 tests or (100%) were conducted in-person.
Synopses of tests showing disability-accessibility violations
The property was built in 1994 and advertised in the Apartment Guide as having disability accessible
units.
• The tester noted a “rather daunting” set of stairs leading to the front door of the leasing
office. Upon further inspection, the tester found a system of ramps attached to the laundry
facility in the back of the leasing office. Once in the laundry room, the door leading to the
office was locked. Upon being opened, boxes and a desk obstructed full entrance into the
leasing office.
• The tester was informed that “all two-bedroom and three bedroom apartments are
accessible to anyone who could climb a flight of stairs” (bedrooms were located on the
second floor of the dwelling unit).
• The tester was informed a “wheelchair user could use a one-bedroom unit if he could get
over the stoop leading into the apartment.”
• The tester was informed that all units had 32” doorways except for the closets.
The property is new construction (2014), nearly 100% complete. The property was advertised in the
Apartment Guide as having disability-accessible units.
• The tester noted a number of handicapped parking signs near the leasing office, however,
the spaces were not lined and the tester was not able to evaluate the presence of proper
access ways between each space.
• The tester noted that all usable doors were 30” wide and the light switches and electrical
sockets were not properly positioned.

The property was constructed in 2009 and advertised in the Apartment Guide as having disability-
accessible units. The housing provider informed the tester that all the units were disability-
accessible.
• The tester noted all usable doors were 30” wide.
• The tester could not maneuver in either bathroom easily in his wheelchair and noted that
transferring from the chair to the toilet would be difficult.
The property was constructed in 1991 and advertised in the Apartment Guide as having disability
accessible units.
• The tester noted that the usable doors were 30” wide.
The property was constructed in 1988 and advertised in the Apartment Guide as having disability-
accessible units. The tester was informed that there were two accessible units available.
• The tester visited the property and noted a lack of handicapped parking near the leasing
office.
• The housing provider notified the tester that there were steps leading to all of the buildings
in the complex.
• The tester lifted himself out of his wheelchair and crawled up the stairs to gain entry into
the dwelling unit.
• Once inside the unit, the tester had a difficult time maneuvering around. The tester noted
that the wheel chair touched the walls in the hallway on both sides. The chair also touched
the door jams going into the bathroom on both sides.
• The tester was unable to close the bathroom door and transferring from the chair to the
toilet was not possible.
• The larger unit proved to be only slightly better. The wheelchair did not touch on both sides,
just on one side.
The above single-contact tests reveal the difficulties persons with disabilities encounter during their
search for adequate accessible housing. In fact, testing revealed that violations to fully comply with

fair housing accessibility requirements are higher (80%) than the gross measures of differential
treatment on the basis of race and ethnicity (38%). Additionally, despite legal protection, individuals
who rely on the aid of a service animal or require the use of a safety device such as a grab bar are
frequently denied the necessary accommodation or modification. These results are particularly
impactful as non-compliance with fair housing regulations and requirements can limit individuals’
ability to enjoy and use dwelling units as would people without disabilities or exclude him/her from
the property altogether.

V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION V: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The goal of this audit was to identify potential illegal discrimination on the basis of race, national
origin, and disability in the rental housing market. This audit delivers a point in time perspective
of the experiences of a typical renter in a particular housing transaction.29 While the most blatant
forms of discrimination were not experienced; the results revealed important information on the
incidence and forms of differences in treatment racial minorities and disabled homeseekers
continue to experience. Although subtle, these differences can prevent or discourage minority
homeseekers from obtaining equal access to fair housing.
The results presented in this report can provide a framework for prioritizing Regional issues,
developing and expanding targeted outreach efforts, and determining where enforcement
actions may be needed. The following are a few recommendations that can be taken to ensure
all Hoosiers have access to equal housing:
• The fair housing audit testing presented in this report is the first statewide audit
conducted. Continued testing of this type is needed to uncover instances of systemic
discrimination in the rental housing market. Additionally, to affirmatively further fair
housing, the results show that testing should be expanded to cover the additional
protected classes.
• The subtle differences in treatment revealed by the audit reinforces the need for
comprehensive training, education and outreach to ensure that housing providers are
aware of their obligations under the fair housing laws. Additionally, subtle differences of
treatment may very well be the result of implicit bias.30 Thus, basic fair housing training,
while a necessity, will do little to change some of the more subtle adverse treatment
29 Rigel Oliveri, Fair Housing Testing Project: A Report for the City of Colombia, MO, June 20, 2014,
http://www.columbiaaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/FH-Testing-Report-for-City-of-Columbia-2014.pdf
30 iBid

V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
identified in this audit. Therefore, training should introduce the concept of implicit bias
and include techniques to encourage housing providers to examine their own pre-
conceived assumptions about applicants and tenants belonging to a protected class.
• The lack of compliance in the area of accessible design of multi-family housing properties
demonstrates the need for extensive outreach and education for architects, builders, and
developers offered on a regular basis.
• The audit revealed the need for housing providers to adopt clear policies and procedures
that address reasonable accommodation and reasonable modification requests.
Additionally, housing providers should ensure that their staff are aware and follow the
policies set forth by incorporating them into every new hire onboarding, as well as,
professional development training to keep current on the applicable fair housing laws.
In conclusion, government agencies must ensure the issue of housing discrimination is a focus of
discussion by training housing providers on their responsibilities under the fair housing laws and
providing homeseekers information of their rights under the fair housing laws and the resources
available to secure those rights. Additionally, the various existing enforcement agencies - Federal,
state, non-profits and grassroots organizations - must continue collaboration for education,
training, and outreach programs and expand partnerships where needed.

ICRC-Indiana Statewide Fair Housing Year End Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ICRC-Indiana Statewide Fair Housing Year End Report

Similar to ICRC-Indiana Statewide Fair Housing Year End Report (20)

ICRC-Indiana Statewide Fair Housing Year End Report