Analysis of Posts from Landlord Internet Forums Shows that Stronger Enforcement Mechanisms are Needed to Protect Voucher Holders from Source of Income Discrimination

By Sarah Abdelhadi, NLIHC Manager of State and Local Research  

A recent study published in Journal of Urban Affairs, “Can I (still) refuse housing vouchers? Source of income protections and landlord strategies,” explores how landlords participating in online forums perceive the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program and source of income (SOI) discrimination laws, as well as how they talk about strategies for circumventing these laws to avoid renting to voucher holders. In keeping with previous studies, the study finds that landlords’ forum posts expressed an “overwhelmingly negative” view of the HCV program and SOI discrimination laws, with many seeking out ways of legally circumventing the laws. These findings demonstrate the importance of strengthening enforcement mechanisms for tenant protections like SOI discrimination laws, improving public education about the HCV program, and streamlining administrative processes for landlords participating in the program to minimize continued discrimination against voucher-holding tenants.  

While the HCV program gives households more flexibility in “choosing” where they want to live by allowing them to rent from the private market, this arrangement also presents voucher holders with numerous obstacles to signing a lease—often called “leasing up”—within the 60-180 days before the voucher expires and they lose the subsidy. Prior research has demonstrated that landlord discrimination is one of the primary barriers to leasing up faced by voucher holders in many markets. Currently, federal fair housing laws do not cover a tenant’s source of income, leaving voucher holders vulnerable to landlords’ prejudice. For this reason, in recent years dozens of states and localities have passed SOI discrimination laws seeking to protect tenants who receive rental assistance.  

The study’s authors, Joanna Lucio and Seongkyung Cho, sought to better understand landlords’ views of SOI discrimination laws in the context of the HCV program. Earlier studies with a similar focus have used interviews or focus groups with landlords; these methods can produce valuable insights but can also be subject to biases due to the presence of researchers. Instead, Lucio and Cho chose to analyze posts from online landlord forums, where landlords can share their thoughts anonymously and without fear of their views being judged by outsiders. Using the Python coding language, they collected (or “scraped”) 33,041 posts published between 2000 and 2019 on five prominent U.S.-based landlord forums. After filtering for posts focused specifically on the HCV program, they selected a sample of 3,377 posts and assessed them using robust qualitative content analysis methods.  

Lucio and Cho found that the sampled landlord posts largely expressed negative views of the HCV program, much of which was grounded in stereotypes about voucher holders and lower-income renters in general, as well as frustration with the administrative burden of the program on participating landlords. The authors note that although these findings are “limited in terms of generalizability to all low-income landlords,” they are consistent with attitudes uncovered in prior research.  

Further analysis revealed that only 5% (166) of the sampled landlord posts directly referenced SOI discrimination laws. The posts conveyed overwhelmingly negative views of these laws, with many suggesting that they “infringe upon landlords’ rights” and are a form of “reverse discrimination.” Nearly a third of the 166 posts (50) sought information about SOI discrimination laws in general, including questions about whether or not a state had such a law in place and warnings to follow these laws. This implies that participants in the landlord forums tend take these laws seriously and aligns with findings from other researchers that SOI protections can contribute to beneficial outcomes for tenants.  

However, many posts requested or shared strategies for circumventing SOI discrimination laws to avoid renting to voucher holders. Some posts encouraged landlords to simply continue with their normal tenant screening processes, leaning into the stereotypes of voucher holders as “bad tenants” who would be unlikely to pass a background or credit check. Other posts suggested methods for indirectly declining voucher holders, such as claiming that their rental property has not been approved for the HCV program; setting requirements that are technically legal, but difficult for voucher holders to meet (e.g., security deposits, high minimum income requirements); ignoring inquiries from voucher holders; or moving through the leasing process so quickly that the administrative requirements of the HCV program cannot keep up. Some landlords noted that for properties in states without SOI discrimination laws, it is legal to advertise that they do not accept voucher-holding tenants and to directly decline these applicants.  

Lucio and Cho conclude that although SOI discrimination laws can provide some protections for voucher holders, they could be made more effective by reducing the administrative burden on landlords to encourage greater participation in the HCV program. They suggest landlord incentive programs as an option, with additional benefits like property damage reimbursement offered to “loyal landlords” who remain in the program for longer periods. The authors also highlight the importance of increased public education about SOI discrimination laws and the HCV program for dispelling stereotypes, noting that landlord-led training programs could help build trust in the program among skeptical landlords.  

This article can be found here.