The Urban Institute released a research report, “Protecting Housing Choice Voucher Holders from Discrimination: Lessons from Oregon and Texas,” that includes two case studies detailing how the states implemented laws related to landlord discrimination against Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders. The report outlines shared considerations from these case studies, including the importance of support from landlords and industry groups to pass voucher protections, the ways that public housing agencies can influence HCV program effectiveness, and the role that race and other factors have in driving resistance to HCV protections.
Researchers analyzed publicly available documents and conducted interviews with key stakeholders in both states to document the motivations, outcomes, and impact of these laws. This report is a companion piece to a new legal dataset and accompanying report that detail state and local laws prohibiting discrimination of HCV holders.
Texas and Oregon were chosen as case studies because they enacted sharply contrasting laws concerning HCV protections. Oregon’s state law, passed in 2013, prohibits discrimination against voucher holders statewide. The policy was introduced after an analysis of voucher use found that voucher holders disproportionately found housing in high poverty neighborhoods and Black and Latino voucher holders disproportionately found housing in segregated neighborhoods. In contrast, a Texas law passed in 2015 preempts local governments from adopting voucher holder discrimination protections. This state law was instituted in response to a voucher protection law passed by Austin City Council in late 2014.
Examining divergent outcomes in Texas and Oregon, the researchers highlight lessons for advocates of voucher protection laws. One takeaway is the importance of collaboration between cross-sector stakeholders, though the feasibility of collaboration is highly dependent on the political landscape. In Oregon, housing advocates, landlords, tenants, and housing agencies provided their input on the bill. As a result, a standing advisory committee was designed to provide a fund to improve landlord participation. In Texas, landlords and industry groups actively opposed the Austin voucher protection law and aggressively lobbied for statewide preemption.
Landlords’ concerns regarding administrative burden and lengthy approval timelines in both states illustrated the important role that public housing agencies play in garnering support for the HCV program. In Oregon, PHAs responded to landlord concerns by agreeing to review and revise internal procedures. The PHAs moved to a paperless filing system and implemented procedures to decrease unit inspection time. In Texas, almost all PHA leaders avoided speaking publicly about the possible harms of state preemption.
The researchers also find that stereotypes about voucher holders influence opposition to voucher protections. In Texas, a housing advocate highlighted the racist history of housing across the state and emphasized that prejudice against Black single women, who make up a large portion of voucher holders, influenced opposition to voucher protections. Though Oregon also experienced landlord opposition, anecdotal evidence shows that some landlords who initially held negative perceptions of voucher holders came to appreciate the program.
The report can be found at: https://urbn.is/36t69x8