Page 20

lation for these smaller areas to provide information about potential differences in the incidence of discrimination across advertisement sources.

Some participants were unclear on the appropriate weight that should be applied to the results, but noted that it should reflect the universe of available housing stock. Weighting audit results by housing unit size may not be particularly relevant, but weights should incorporate the various sources of information on housing availability, including major metropolitan newspapers, community newspapers, Internet-related databases, the Realtors® database (or MultiList), and other sources. Participants discussed the implications of accessing a fairly comprehensive database for available sales housing, such as the MultiList available to real estate agents. Perhaps such a list would serve as a base against which researchers could sample units and create approximate weights. Although participants did not know of the feasibility of this option, one stated it is more appropriate to obtain approximate weights for the right population than precise equal probability weights for the wrong population. Each specification has associated tradeoffs that should be considered before results are reported.

Front Matter (R1-R10)

1 Introduction (1-6)

2 Overview of the 2000 Housing Discrimination Study (7-14)

3 Defining the Population of Interest (15-20)

4 Defining Housing Discrimination (21-24)

5 Developing a Model of Housing Discrimination (25-37)

6 Auditing Discrimination in Underserved Communities (38-47)

References (48-48)

Appendix A: Paired Testing and the 2000 Housing Discrimination Survey (49-66)

Appendix B: Audit Studies and the Assessment of Discrimination (67-72)

Appendix C: Workshop Materials (73-78)