1 / 0

Racial Disparities in the Cleveland Suburban Home Sales Market 2008-2012

Racial Disparities in the Cleveland Suburban Home Sales Market 2008-2012. Heights Community Congress Cleveland Heights, Ohio www.heightscongress.org November 2013. Sources. 2008-2012 audits by Heights Community Congress (130)

hosea
Download Presentation

Racial Disparities in the Cleveland Suburban Home Sales Market 2008-2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Racial Disparities in the Cleveland SuburbanHome Sales Market2008-2012

    Heights Community Congress Cleveland Heights, Ohio www.heightscongress.org November 2013
  2. Sources 2008-2012 audits by Heights Community Congress (130) 2012 HUD study: Discrimination against minorities in 28 metropolitan areas 1972 St. Ann's Audit of Cleveland eastern suburbs
  3. About the HCC audit data Each audit is a paired test: one black, one white (130 pairs). Dataset is not a scientific random sample of Cleveland suburbs. Predominantly white suburbs are underrepresented.
  4. Objectives Is there discrimination against blacks in the Cleveland suburban home sales market? If so, what forms of discrimination are most likely to occur?
  5. Differential treatment of blacks occurs: When accessing the market Denial of service Number of phone calls Number of homes shown During initial financial qualifying Asked if pre-approved for loan Asked amount of down payment
  6. Accessing the market Black testers were 3.1% more likely to be denied service than white testers. (HUD nationally 2.4%) 8 times white tester got service, black did not 4 times black tester got service, white did not 4 = Net discrimination = 3.1% (4 / 130)
  7. Accessing the market, cont. Black testers made 5.1% more phone calls than white testers. (HUD did not measure this) Historically: 88% more phone calls (1972 St. Ann’s Audit)
  8. Example: Repeated phone calls by black tester
  9. Accessing the market, cont. Black testers shown 16.5% fewer homes than whites (HUD nationally 13.4%) Historically: 58% fewer homes (1972 St. Ann’s Audit)
  10. Initial financial qualifying Black testers 11.5% more likely to be asked if pre-approved than white testers. (HUD nationally 5.7%) Historically: 11.8% (1972 St. Ann's Audit. Two black testers were asked financial questions.)
  11. Initial financial qualifying, cont. Black testers 6.3% more likely to be asked amount of down payment than white testers. (HUD did not track this) Rarely asked. 9 times black tester asked, white not 2 times white tester asked, black not 7 = Net discrimination = 6.3% (7 / 111)
  12. Is the price negotiable? Results suggest whites are 7.3% more likely to be told this. Caution: Needs further study. 15 times white tester told, black not 7 times black tester told, white not 8 = Net discrimination = 7.3% (8 / 110)
  13. Treatments favoring black testers Agents 11.9% more likely to follow up with black testers by phone or email. (HUD nationally favors whites, but not statistically significant.) Agents 24.1% more likely to be on time for black testers than white testers. (HUD did not track this.)
  14. Conclusions Measurable progress over 40 years,compared to 1972 St. Ann’s Audit. Yet disparities persist.
  15. Recommendations Real estate industry:Renew commitment to fair housing Continue auditing Increase auditing in white suburbs
  16. Why fair housingis (still) important
More Related