Persons living with mental illness, intellectual or other developmental disabilities continue to face significant housing discrimination in the rental housing market, according to a new pilot study released by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
The study – “Rental Housing Discrimination on the Basis of Mental Disabilities: Results of Pilot Testing” – found that when compared with people without mental disabilities (MD), people living with mental disabilities receive fewer responses to their rental inquiries, are informed of fewer available units and are less likely to be invited to contact the housing provider.
It also was found that people living with mental disabilities are less likely to be invited to tour an available unit, are more likely to be steered to a different unit than the one advertised and are treated differently depending on their type of disability.
The study examined what happens when a person with a mental disability makes a request for a reasonable accommodation.
According to the report’s introduction: “This study represents the first comprehensive examination of discrimination in the rental housing market against people with MD, specifically focusing on people with mental illness (MI) and those with intellectual or developmental disability (I/DD).”
The testing conducted in the study documented significant levels of adverse differential treatment toward individuals with MI and I/DD when compared with individuals who did not have MD.
It was found that individuals with MI and I/DD were:
- Less likely to receive a response to their inquiry (17.55 percent of people without disabilities received a response compared with 9.19 percent of people with MI and I/DD in email testing).
- Less likely to be told an advertised unit was available (5.94 percent of people without disabilities were told that the advertised unit was available compared with 0.99 percent of people with MI and I/DD in in-person testing).
- Less likely to be invited to contact the housing provider (7.69 percent of people without disabilities were invited to contact the housing provider to see the unit compared with 0.00 percent of people with MI and I/DD in email testing).
- Less likely to be invited to inspect the available unit (21.26 percent of people without disabilities were invited to inspect the unit compared with 16.47 percent of people with MI and I/DD in telephone testing).
- More likely to be encouraged to look at a different unit than the one advertised in telephone testing, a potential indicator of steering people with MI and I/DD toward specific buildings or areas within rental complexes, resulting in segregated living patterns.
- Treated adversely at disparate rates depending on disability type, with higher rates of adverse treatment found for individuals with MI than for individuals with I/DD. This finding may indicate that individuals with MI face more negative stereotypes and stigma from rental housing providers.
In both email and telephone testing, a significant percentage of individuals with MI and I/DD also experienced adverse treatment with respect to requests for a reasonable accommodation.
“The willingness of a housing provider to grant a request for an accommodation varied by mode of testing, with the rate of granting a request for a reasonable accommodation being significantly higher when the request was made by telephone (59.14 percent willing to accommodate; 40.86 percent not willing to accommodate) than by email (15.38 percent willing to accommodate; 84.62 percent not willing to accommodate),” the report stated.
Research also found that many housing providers simply did not respond to housing inquiries but that the probability of a response increased based on the interpersonal nature of the interaction.
The authors of the report provided several recommendations.
For instance, it was recommended that a broad-based education initiative be created to educate housing providers, including owners and their agents, about fair housing rights and obligations, including appropriate policies and practices when dealing with individuals with MI, I/DD, and other mental disabilities.
It was stated that public and private housing, disability, and civil rights organizations should redouble efforts to engage and educate the community of people with MI and I/DD about their rights under federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws, how to recognize potential discrimination, and what actions to take when faced with discrimination.
It was argued that additional research was necessary to better understand the scope and severity of the discriminatory barriers encountered by individuals with MI and I/DD as they seek, obtain and retain accessible rental housing.