Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana - The State of Fair Housing in Indiana Report … · 2020....

Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana - The State of Fair Housing in Indiana Report 2019

Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana - The State of Fair Housing in Indiana Report 2019 2

NO LED N S

This report was adapted from reports created by fellow fair housing organizations, the Fair Housing Center for

Rights & Research in Cleveland, OH and the Fair Housing Project of Legal Aid of North Carolina in Raleigh, NC.

The report format is used with their permission and we thank them for their support and guidance.

Additional appreciation for this project go to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and

the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for providing the data regarding fair housing complaints and/or litigation.

The work that provided the basis for this publication was supported in part by funding under a grant/cooperative

agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development. The substance and findings of this work

are dedicated to the public. The author and publisher are solely responsible for the accuracy of the statements

and interpretations contained in the publication.

This information is not itself legal advice; for legal advice about a particular situation, contact an attorney.

This report is for informational purposes only. Alternative formats for those with disabilities available upon re-

quest.

Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana, Inc.

445 N. Pennsylvania St, Suite 811

Indianapolis, IN 46204

317-644-0673

www.fhcci.org [email protected]

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and YouTube

http://www.fhcci.org


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In April 1968, the federal Fair Housing Act was initially passed. Later amended, it provides protections to

individuals who are discriminated against in rental, sales, lending, insurance, and zoning transactions related to

housing. In Indiana, this means that persons cannot be discriminated in housing or housing related services due

to their race, color, national origin, religion, sex (gender), disability, and/or familial status. Indiana state law also

provides protection for ancestry. Various Indiana localities have additional protected classes as well.

The Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana (FHCCI) opened in January 2012. Since that time, we have not had

concrete data regarding fair housing complaint filing in our state. In 2019, the FHCCI sought this data from the

U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). We publish

this, The State of Fair Housing in Indiana Report, to share the government data, key demographics, and our

analysis with the general public.

During HUD fiscal years 2000-2018, a total of 3,913 fair housing administrative complaints were filed by

Hoosiers with HUD or Indiana equivalent agencies alleging discriminatory practices or incidents. These

complaints contained 4,803 allegations of housing discrimination. Complaints alleging racial discrimination

accounted for 34% of all allegations in the filed complaints, followed by disability at 32.7%, and sex (gender) at

11.4% during this time period. There was an average of 217.39 fair housing complaints filed statewide per year

with an average of 266.83 fair housing allegations per year. In the most recent five years, however, disability

allegations in Indiana accounted for 38.7% of filed complaints and race allegations were 29.4%, reflecting

national trends of disability being the most commonly filed upon protected class. Statewide allegations in the

filed complaints during the most recent five years were also higher with 306.4 allegations per year versus the

overall 266.83 18-year average.

For the 18-year period of this report, the State of Indiana had 72.04 allegations in the filed complaints per

100,000 residents. South Bend (206.34), Fort Wayne metro (186.83), and the Chicagoland area (122.62) had

the highest number of fair housing allegations in the filed complaints per 100,000 residents. Interestingly, the

state’s largest metro area, Indianapolis, had one of the lowest rates of those analyzed at just 61.17 allegations

per 100,000 residents, only slightly above the state’s rural areas.

During this same time period, 3,990 administrative complaints reached some form of closure. As to the

resolution of these filed administrative complaints, No Cause rulings were the most common outcome at 53.89%

followed by conciliation/settlement of 16.58%. Some complaints remained pending at the end of FY 2018. The

FHCCI was able to link the filing information with the outcome information in 3,782 filed complaints to directly

evaluate the protected classes in the complaints and their outcomes. These complaints alleged a total of 4,579

allegations. Complaints involving race or color were substantially more likely to receive a No Cause ruling, while

familial status and disability complaints were less like to result in No Cause rulings. Overall, Indiana’s No Cause

rate of 55.7% in these matched complaints was higher than the national No Cause average of 49.4%.

Private enforcement actions, such as federal or state court action, to address housing discrimination may also

occur. The FHCCI sought information from DOJ for the same time period to determine the number and outcome

of DOJ’s enforcement actions which may have bypassed the HUD administrative process. DOJ identified 11

enforcement actions documenting 15 allegations of discrimination. All these actions resulted in settlements.

During FY 2000-2018, the FHCCI filed 13 court actions which contained 31 allegations of housing discrimination.

Seven of these complaints reached settlement, one reached a favorable judicial ruling, and the others were

pending at the end of FY 2018. Staffing and research limitations prevented the FHCCI from a more thorough

review of private citizen litigation statewide.


CONTENTS

FAIR HOUSING LAWS IN INDIANA .................................................................................................. 5

Federal Fair Housing Act ...................................................................................................................... 5

Indiana Fair Housing Act ...................................................................................................................... 6

Local Fair Housing Enforcement Agencies ............................................................................................. 7

Fair Housing Administrative Complaint Process ...................................................................................... 7

DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE STATE ........................................................................................................ 8

Geographic Scope Covered ................................................................................................................... 8

Total Population ................................................................................................................................... 8

Race of pulation ............................................................................................................................... 9

National Origin ................................................................................................................................... 11

Families with Children ........................................................................................................................ 12

Persons with Disabilities ..................................................................................................................... 12

FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINTS IN INDIANA ..................................................................................... 14

Total Fair Housing Allegations ............................................................................................................ 14

Allegations by Metro Area .................................................................................................................. 17

Issues in Rural Areas ......................................................................................................................... 18

Issues in Metro Areas......................................................................................................................... 18

Allegations Per Population .................................................................................................................. 19

Comparison to Other States ............................................................................................................... 19

COMPLAINT RESOLUTION .............................................................................................................. 20

Complaint Resolution Through HUD or FHAPs ...................................................................................... 20

Complaint Resolution Through DOJ ..................................................................................................... 22

Private Enforcement Action of the Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana ............................................. 23

RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 24

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Data Sources .................................................................................................................. 26

Appendix B: Fair Housing Complaint Data by County ............................................................................ 27

Appendix C: Allegations in Administrative Complaints by County and Protected Class/Basis ................... 28

Appendix D: Methodology for Calculating Fair Housing Complaint Data ................................................. 31

Appendix E: Fair Housing Allegations in Comparison States .................................................................. 32

Appendix F: U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Data ............................................................................ 34

Appendix G: Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana (FHCCI) Court Data .............................................. 36

ABOUT THE FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF CENTRAL INDIANA ........................................................... 37


FAIR HOUSING LAWS IN INDIANA

Fair housing laws have been enacted at the federal, state, and, in some Indiana jurisdictions, at the local level.1

Which law(s) apply in a particular situation generally depends on where the alleged housing discrimination oc-

curred. A brief summary of fair housing laws, federally and in Indiana, as well as the administrative complaint

process, is provided below.

Federal Fair Housing Act

On April 11, 1968, seven days after the assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Congress

passed, and President Lyndon B. Johnson signed, the federal Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3601, et

seq.), Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) was enacted with two

broad mandates: (1) to prohibit discrimination in housing; and (2) to promote integrated housing pat-

terns through a requirement that the federal government administer programs and activities in a manner

that affirmatively furthers fair housing.2

The federal FHA initially prohibited discrimination in housing because of race, color, religion, and nation-

al origin. Congress amended the FHA in 1974 to prohibit discrimination based on sex (gender) and in

1988 to prohibit discrimination based on familial status and disability.3 The FHA covers all housing related

transactions or services including rental, sales, lending, insurance, and zoning, unless specifically exempt-

ed.

The term “familial status” is defined under the FHA to mean the inclusion of one or more individuals less

than 18 years of age living with a parent, legal custodian, or designee of such a parent or legal custodi-

an. This provision also protects individuals who are in the process of securing legal custody of a minor

and/or someone who is pregnant.4

A “disability” is defined under the federal FHA as a physical or mental impairment that substantially lim-

its one or more major life activities, a record of having such an impairment, or being regarded as having

such an impairment.5 Major life activities may include seeing, walking, reaching, lifting, hearing, speak-

ing, caring for one’s self, interacting with others, learning, etc. In rental situations for example, the fed-

eral FHA prohibits discriminatory housing practices because of the disability of an individual buyer or

renter, a person residing in or intending to reside in a dwelling after it is sold o n or of any person

associated with a buyer or renter.6

The FHA can be enforced by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), U.S. De-

partment of Justice (DOJ), substantially equivalent states or localities, and through private enforcement

1 In addition to federal, state, and local fair housing laws discussed herein, several other federal statutes protect individuals from discrimina-

tory housing practices. These statutes include: the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1982), the Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 1201, et seq.), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794), and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

(42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et seq.). 2 See 42 U.S.C. § 3608 (HUD “shall administer their programs and activities relating to housing and urban development … in a manner af-

firmatively to further the purposes of [the Fair Housing Act].”) 3 The federal FHA uses the term “handicap” instead of “disability.” The terms have the same legal meaning. See e.g., Bragdon v. Abbott, 524

U.S. 624, 631 (1998) (noting that the definition of “disability” in the Americans with Disabilities Act is drawn almost verbatim “from the defini-

tion of ‘handicap’ contained in the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988”). This report uses the term “disability,” which is more generally

accepted. 4 42 U.S.C. § 3602(k). 5 42 U.S.C. § 3602(h). 6 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(1)-(f)(2).


actions or lawsuits brought by individuals or organizations that have experienced discrimination. The

FHA makes it unlawful, because of one of the categories protected by the statute, to:

Table 1: Unlawful Actions Under the FHA

Indiana Fair Housing Act

In addition to the protections under the federal FHA, Indiana residents are also protected from housing

discrimination under the Indiana Fair Housing Act (IC 22-9.5, et seq.). Of note, the Indiana Civil Rights

Act includes “national origin or ancestry” which means ancestry would apply to housing transactions as

well. Like at the federal level, the Indiana FHA may also be enforced through private lawsuits brought by

individuals or organizations that have experienced discrimination.

The state FHA has also been certified by HUD as being “substantially equivalent” to the federal FHA.

Consequently, the Indiana Civil Rights Commission (ICRC), a state government agency, is certified by

HUD as a “substantially equivalent” agency and is authorized to enforce the federal FHA on HUD’s be-

7 “Blockbusting” generally refers to the practice of encouraging homeowners to sell their homes quickly by creating a fear that members of a

minority group are moving into a particular neighborhood. 8 Although retaliation is not a protected class under the federal, state, or local fair housing laws, this report includes a separate category of

retaliation since the HUD data distinguishes between “retaliation” and other forms of discrimination.

3604(a)

Refuse to sell or rent a dwelling

Refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of a dwelling

Otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling

3604(b) Discriminate in the terms, conditions, or privileges of the sale or rental of a dwelling

Discriminate in the provision of services or facilities in connection with a dwelling

3604(c)

Make, print, or publish discriminatory advertising in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling

Make, print, or publish statements that indicate a discriminatory preference or limitation in connection

with the sale or rental of a dwelling

3604 (d) Misrepresent the availability of a dwelling

State a unit is not available when it is in fact available

3604(e) Engage in blockbusting7

Engage in steering

3604(f)

Refuse to permit a reasonable accommodation for a person with a disability

Refuse to permit a reasonable modification for a person with a disability

Fail to design and/or construct multi-family housing with certain accessibility features

3605 Discriminate in the financing of residential real estate transactions

Discrimination in the provision of brokerage services

3617 Coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with a person exercising his or her FHA rights

Retaliate against an individual for exercising his or her rights under the FHA8

http://iga.in.gov/legislative/laws/2015/ic/titles/022/articles/9.5/


half. The ICRC receives federal funding through HUD’s Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) to inves-

tigate and attempt to resolve fair housing complaints, among other tasks.9

Local Fair Housing Enforcement Agencies

Indiana also has six local government agencies which also participate in HUD’s Fair Housing Assistance

Program (FHAP) because HUD has certified that these communities have local laws which are substan-

tially equivalent to the FHA. Like with the ICRC, these local agencies receive FHAP funds for fair housing

related activities. These Indiana local agencies are: Elkhart Human Relations Commission, City of Evansville

-Vanderburgh County Human Relations Commission, Fort Wayne Metropolitan Human Relations Commis-

sion, Gary Human Relations Commission, Hammond Human Relations Commission, and the South Bend

Human Relations Commission.

Fair Housing Administrative Complaint Process

Under the federal FHA, individuals who have experienced housing discrimination may file an administra-

tive complaint with HUD, a civil suit in court, or both. Because the Indiana FHA and six local fair housing

agencies have been designated by HUD to be substantially equivalent to the federal FHA, almost all ad-

ministrative complaints in Indiana filed with HUD will be referred to the ICRC or to one of the six sub-

stantially equivalent local fair housing enforcement agencies for investigation and potential resolution. In

addition to investigating complaints referred by HUD, the ICRC and the six local substantially equivalent

fair housing agencies accept complaints of housing discrimination filed with them directly that are juris-

dictional.

Once the ICRC or one of the six local government agencies receives a complaint of housing discrimina-

tion, the complaint will be assigned to an investigator. Throughout the investigation, the agency maintains

a neutral position. The investigator may use a variety of investigative tools to determine whether there are

reasonable grounds to believe housing discrimination occurred. These tools could include speaking with the

parties and witnesses, conducting an on-site review, and/or reviewing any available documentation.

The FHAP agencies also attempt to conciliate or mediate fair housing complaints whereby all the parties at-

tempt to find a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matter. If a conciliation or settlement is reached, the

terms of the agreement will dictate final outcomes. If the agency finds there is reasonable grounds to believe

that an unlawful discriminatory housing practice has occurred, the parties have a final chance to attempt to

resolve the matter through the conciliation process. If the complaint cannot be resolved, the agency will typi-

cally issue a conciliation failure letter and then issue its decision on the complaint. If the agency does not find

that a violation of law has occurred, a No Reasonable Cause ruling will be issued and the complaint will typi-

cally end there. If there was Reasonable Cause to believe a violation of law occurred, a Charge of Discrimina-

tion or a Reasonable Cause Ruling will be issued. Either party may then elect for state court where the com-

plaint proceeds under that process to settlement or resolution. If no election occurs, the complaint will pro-

ceed through an Administrative Hearing to settlement or resolution.

The specific procedures for claims filed with the substantially equivalent state and local agencies will vary

depending on the state/local fair housing ordinance. Of note, the state and localities may also investi-

gate any additional protected classes above and beyond federal or state laws designated under their

state or local code. Typically, these additional classes would be investigated through non-FHAP funds

but through a similar process as that outlined above.

9 See 42 U.S.C. § 3610(f); 24 C.F.R. § 115.200


DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE STATE

Our federal, state, and local fair housing laws protect all people from discrimination in a variety of ways

through the protected classes identified under those laws. The intent of these laws, however, focuses on

groups that have historically faced discrimination and/or been excluded from housing, transactions, or services.

This report will focus on characteristics of the population most often discriminated against. Below is an overview

of the demographics of Indiana, with a focus on the major metropolitan areas of Indianapolis (11 counties), Fort

Wayne (3 counties), Chicagoland (2 counties), South Bend, and Evansville (4 counties) for comparison.10 Al-

though the U.S. Census Metropolitan Statistical areas (MSAs) changed slightly for some of these regions within

the years covered in this report, we used the same counties throughout for comparison and consistency.

Geographic Scope Covered

This report covers the State of Indiana with a focus on five major metropolitan areas (21 total counties).

The report further includes aggregate data on the remaining 71 counties, identified as “Balance of

State,” which accounts for approximately 45% (2017) of the population in largely rural parts of Indiana.

Total Population

Indiana is the nation’s 18th most populous state with an estimated 2017 population of 6,666,818, repre-

senting a 9.6% growth from the Census population in 2000. A large portion of that recent growth was

concentrated in metropolitan areas which now account for 55.4% of Indiana’s total population. The In-

dianapolis metro area grew by 22.3% during the time period of this report with nearly one-third

(30.4%) of the state’s population now living in its 11 metro counties. The balance of the state (71 coun-

ties) has grown at less than half the rate of the state during that time.

Table 2: Total Population of Indiana

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census; 2010 Census; 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.

2000 2010 2017

2000-2017

Number

% of

State Pop-ulation

Number

% of

State Pop-ulation

Number

% of

State Pop-ulation

%

Change

State of Indiana 6,080,484 100.0% 6,483,802 100.0% 6,666,818 100.0% + 9.6%

Indianapolis Metro 1,658,462 27.3% 1,887,877 29.1% 2,028,614 30.4% + 22.3%

Fort Wayne Metro 390,156 6.4% 416,257 6.4% 434,617 6.5% + 11.4%

Chicagoland Metro 631,362 10.4% 660,348 10.2% 654,044 9.8% + 3.6%

South Bend Metro 265,559 4.4% 266,931 4.1% 270,434 4.1% + 1.8%

Evansville Metro 283,866 4.7% 298,805 4.6% 303,317 4.5% + 6.9%

Balance of State 2,851,080 46.9% 2,953,584 45.6% 2,975,792 44.6% + 4.4%

10 The Indianapolis metro area includes eleven counties (Boone, Brown, Hamilton, Hancock, Hendricks, Johnson, Madison, Marion, Morgan,

Putnam, and Shelby), Fort Wayne’s metro area is three counties (Allen, Wells, and Whitley), Chicagoland’s metro area in Indiana is two

counties (Lake and Porter), South Bend’s metro area in Indiana is only St. Joseph county, and Evansville’s metro area is four Indiana coun-

ties (Gibson, Posey, Vanderburgh, and Warrick).


Race of Population

The racial makeup of Indiana has become more diverse since 2000. During the timespan examined in this

report, the percent of the population identifying as white has moderately decreased while all non-white groups,

except Native Americans, have modestly increased.

Table 3: Race of Population in 2000 (Percent of area’s total population)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census. See Appendix A for instructions regarding data comparisons.

Table 4: Race of Population in 2010 (Percent of area’s total population)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census. See Appendix A for instructions regarding data comparisons. Table 5: Race of Population in 2017 (Percent of area’s total population)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. See Appendix A for instruc-tions regarding data comparisons.

White

African

American

Asian American/

Pacific Islander

Native Ameri-

can/Alaskan

Two or

more races Other

State of Indiana 87.5% 8.4% 1.0% 0.3% 1.2% 1.6%

Indianapolis Metro 82.5% 13.6% 1.2% 0.2% 1.2% 1.2%

Fort Wayne Metro 85.4% 9.6% 1.3% 0.3% 1.6% 1.8%

Chicagoland Metro 73.4% 19.7% 0.9% 0.3% 1.7% 4.1%

South Bend Metro 82.4% 11.5% 1.4% 0.4% 2.0% 2.5%

Evansville Metro 92.4% 5.4% 0.7% 0.2% 1.6% 1.8%

Balance of State 93.8% 2.7% 0.9% 0.3% 1.1% 1.3%

White

African

American

Asian American/

Pacific Islander

Native Ameri-

can/ Alaskan

Two or

more races Other

State of Indiana 84.0% 9.1% 1.6% 0.3% 2.0% 2.7%


Fort Wayne Metro 81.9% 10.0% 2.4% 0.3% 2.7% 2.6%


South Bend Metro 78.7% 12.7% 2.0% 0.4% 2.9% 3.4%


Balance of State 91.8% 3.1% 1.3% 0.3% 1.6% 2.0%

White

African

American

Asian American/

Pacific Islander

Native Ameri-

can/ Alaskan

Two or

more races Other

State of Indiana 84.0% 9.3% 2.1% 0.2% 2.3% 2.2%


Fort Wayne Metro 81.9% 9.9% 3.1% 0.2% 3.2% 1.6%


South Bend Metro 79.0% 13.0% 2.3% 0.4% 3.1% 2.2%


Balance of State 93.0% 2.6% 0.5% 0.4% 1.2% 2.4%


Table 6: Population Change by Race, 2000-2017

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.

Table 6 shows the overall change in census-designated racial groups, separated by metro area. The

percentage of the population that was white decreased from 2000 to 2010, from 87.5% to 84%, but

then remained at 84% through the 2017 ACS survey. The African American/black population grew propor-

tionately by just under 1% (8.4% in 2000 to 9.3% in 2017).

The racial group which grew the most

during the time examined was Asian

Americans and Pacific Islanders, who

doubled their representation in Indi-

ana from 1.0% to 2.1%. One contrib-

uting factor to the large increase in

the Asian American/Pacific Islander

(AAPI) population has been 8,216

refugees relocating from Burma to

Indiana between 2008 and 2014,

representing 14% of the net growth

of AAPI individuals in the state.11 The

Burmese population is currently most

concentrated in Indianapolis and Fort

Wayne due to the presence and ac-

tivities of refugee resettlement agen-

cies in those cities.

It is worth noting that the metro are-

as tend to be more racially diverse

than the average of the state, while

the 71-county balance is far less di-

verse. With 93% white residents in

the balance of the state, the small

population of minorities in rural com-

munities could face an undue burden

of discrimination.

11 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Burmese Refugee Health Profile.” https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/profiles/

burmese/population-movements/index.html (Accessed May 14, 2019).

https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/profiles/burmese/population-movements/index.html

https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/profiles/burmese/population-movements/index.html


National Origin

In addition to growing more diverse racially, Indiana’s ethnic population has also grown, as shown by

the growth in the Hispanic population, as well as persons born abroad. According to the Census Bureau,

“Hispanic” and “Latino” are not racial designations, and individuals may be of any race. Therefore, His-

panic and Latino individuals may have been counted in several different racial categories in the previous

tables.

Table 7: Hispanic or Latino/a Population (as percent of area’s population)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census; 2010 Census; 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.

See Appendix A for instructions regarding data comparisons.

Table 8: Percent of Population that is Foreign Born (as percent of area’s population)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census; 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. See Appendix A

for instructions regarding data comparisons.

Overall, the percent of individuals in the state who identify as Hispanic or Latino/a has almost dou-

bled in the time period of this report. The share of the population which was born outside of the Unit-

ed States has also grown considerably. Similar to racial minorities as shown in the previous section, it

is worth noting that the metro areas tend to be more ethnically diverse than the average of the state,

while the 71-county balance is less diverse.

2000 2010 2017

% Change

2000-2017

State of Indiana 3.5% 6.0% 6.6% + 106.0%

Indianapolis Metro 2.6% 6.0% 6.4% + 197.8%

Fort Wayne Metro 3.7% 5.8% 6.4% + 92.1%

Chicagoland Metro 10.5% 14.6% 16.2% + 60.0%

South Bend Metro 4.7% 7.3% 8.3% + 78.6%

Evansville Metro 0.8% 1.8% 2.1% + 174.7%

Balance of State 2.6% 4.5% 5.0% + 98.5%

2000 2017

% Change

2000-2017

State of Indiana 3.1% 5.0% + 78.9%

Indianapolis Metro 3.3% 6.5% + 141.4%

Fort Wayne Metro 3.6% 5.6% + 75.5%

Chicagoland Metro 4.8% 6.0% + 30.1%

South Bend Metro 4.6% 6.3% + 40.8%

Evansville Metro 1.4% 2.6% + 104.5%

Balance of State 2.5% 3.8% + 57.2%


Families with Children

Familial status was added as a protected class under the FHA in 1988. Familial status is defined under

the FHA as including one or more individuals less than 18 years of age living with a parent, legal custo-

dian, or designee of such a parent or legal custodian. These familial units include members of any and

all racial and ethnic groups, and those in metro areas and rural areas. As such, the data does not show

much variability between the state average, the metro areas, and the balance of the state.

Table 9: Households with Individuals under 18 Years of Age (as percent of total households in area)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2012 and 2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. See Appendix A for

instructions regarding data comparisons.

Note: For the familial status statistics, the FHCCI used the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2012 and 2017 Ameri-

can Community Survey (ACS) estimates due to changes in the wording of questions on the 2000 and

2010 census which make those census estimates not comparable to the more recent estimates. The

rate of households with individuals under 18 has decreased slightly from 2012 to 2017 at the state lev-

el as well as in every metro area. Overall, approximately one-third of Indiana households contain one

or more child(ren).

Persons with Disabilities

Disability status also became a protected class in 1988. It is a particularly important protection since

disabilities cut across all segments of the population and can affect individuals at different ages. The

trends in disability status in Indiana do not follow the same patterns of distribution as any other catego-

ry (i.e. urban or rural divides), and are difficult to compare through time, for reasons described later.

Table 10: Non-Institutionalized Population with a Disability in 2012 and 2017

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 and 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1810, Disa-

bility Characteristics.

2012 2017

State of Indiana 33.6% 31.7%

Indianapolis Metro 35.5% 33.0%

Fort Wayne Metro 34.5% 32.8%

Chicagoland Metro 35.2% 32.6%

South Bend Metro 32.8% 30.6%

Evansville Metro 31.1% 29.7%

Balance of State 31.3% 30.8%

2017

State of Indiana 12.9% 13.9%

Indianapolis Metro 11.7% 12.4%

Fort Wayne Metro 11.5% 12.9%

Chicagoland Metro 13.1% 13.0%

South Bend Metro 12.7% 13.9%

Evansville Metro 11.6% 14.1%

Balance of State 13.9% 15.4%


For the disability tables, the FHCCI used the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2012 and 2017 American Community

Survey (ACS) estimates. There were several reasons we made this choice. First, several of Indiana’s

counties do not meet the population thresholds required to make single year, population estimates

available by county. Thus, the FHCCI decided to use the Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs) for their

geographic boundaries in comparing disability status. Using the ACS estimates in conjunction with PUMA

boundaries limited the years available for comparison to 2012 through 2017.

The data on disability status is complex. The FHCCI initially looked to compare data going back to the

2000 Census. However, the 2000 Census data as it related to disability contained errors that rendered

comparing today’s data with it unfeasible. The data on disability was improved in 2008 with the ACS

estimates, and is generally comparable from 2008 to 2017. Unfortunately, the PUMA boundaries

changed in 2010, making the comparisons using PUMA boundaries difficult. Lastly, the 2010 PUMA

boundaries were not made available in ACS tables until 2012.12 Therefore, due to the limitations of data

available on disability, and changing geographic boundaries, the FHCCI decided to compare the 2012

and 2017 ACS estimates only.

12 Missouri Census Data Center, “All About Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs).” http://mcdc.missouri.edu/geography/PUMAs.html

(Accessed May 15, 2019).

http://mcdc.missouri.edu/geography/PUMAs.html


FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINTS IN INDIANA

The FHCCI sought data from HUD on all Indiana fair housing complaints filed administratively with HUD, or Indiana

substantially equivalent state or local agencies, during HUD fiscal years (FY) 2000 to 2018. A HUD fiscal year

runs October 1-September 30. Information on a total of 3,918 fair housing administrative complaints was re-

ceived and analyzed. (Note: There were five complaints in this total which had no protected classes listed and

were therefore excluded from our analysis. Consequently, a total of 3,913 fair housing complaints that were ad-

ministratively filed in Indiana during FY 2000 to 2018 were evaluated.)

From FY 2000 to 2018, the timeline of this report, fair housing complaints increased by 59.74% from 159 in

2000 to 254 in 2018. There was an average of 217.39 complaints filed per year over this time. In FY 2018, Indi-

ana’s fair housing complaints increased by 5.8% over 2017. The 254 administratively filed fair housing com-

plaints in 2018 marked Indiana’s third highest year of complaint filing, following 2014 (259) and 2010 (257).

Nationally, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) publishes an Annual Fair Housing Trends Report which

evaluates government and private fair housing complaint data. At the end of FY 2018, there were 31,202 report-

ed fair housing complaints nationwide, an increase of 8% over 2017. FY 2018 was also the highest reported

number of fair housing complaints since NFHA began producing its annual Trends Report in 1995.13

Despite Indiana’s increased complaint filing in recent years, our actual incidents of housing discrimination are

likely extremely underreported. Traditionally fair housing complaints across our country have been underreport-

ed for a variety of reasons. As noted in NFHA’s 2013 Trends Report:

“The complaint data reflect only the reported incidence of housing discrimination. A conservative esti-

mate puts the number of violations of fair housing laws at four million every year. Many people do not

report housing discrimination because they don’t know where to go, they believe nothing will be done

about it, or they fear the consequences. Also, landlords, managers, real estate agents, loan officers and

insurance agents who choose to discriminate have become quite sophisticated in their practices. It is

rare for someone in the industry to engage in blatant discrimination; instead, people looking for homes,

loans or homeowners insurance will get the run around.”14

Total Fair Housing Allegations

A person filing a complaint of housing discrimination may indicate more than one protected class or ba-

sis as the reason for the discrimination. A complaint may also be amended if other forms of discrimina-

tion are uncovered as part of the investigation. Of the 3,913 Indiana complaints, 784 contained allega-

tions of discrimination based on two or more protected classes, and are therefore accounted in the fol-

lowing tables and analysis as multiple allegations, for a total of 4,803 protected class allegations and/or

retaliation. Due to HUD only having jurisdiction over federally protected classes, only those allegations

are in our analysis. (Note: In Indiana, ancestry is an additional state protection and several local agen-

cies have additional protected classes under their local law that would not be available through the HUD

data the FHCCI received.)

In Indiana, the data shows that the most frequent allegation of housing discrimination over the re-

viewed 18 year period was race (34.0% of complaints), followed by disability (32.7%), and sex

(11.4%). Table 11 also shows a general increase in total allegations listed per year, starting with 177

13 National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA), “Defending Against Unprecedented Attacks on Fair housing—2019 Fair Housing Trends Report.”

https://nationalfairhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-Trends-Report.pdf 14 National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA), “Modernizing the Fair Housing Act for the 21st Century — 2013 Fair Housing Trends Report.”

https://nationalfairhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2013_trends_report.pdf

https://nationalfairhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-Trends-Report.pdf

https://nationalfairhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2013_trends_report.pdf


Table 11: Listed Allegations in Indiana Fair Housing Complaints, HUD FY 2000-2018

Source: FHCCI analysis of received HUD complaint data.

HUD Fiscal Year

Total Allegations

Race Disabil-

ity Sex

Familial Status

National Origin

Retalia-tion

Religion Color Total Com-

plaints

2000 177 73 45 7 19 22 1 7 3 159

2001 177 77 36 21 18 15 6 1 3 147

2002 164 62 39 21 17 13 9 3 0 138

2003 166 62 42 22 17 12 5 3 3 127

2004 210 74 68 21 19 18 5 3 2 176

2005 247 86 62 27 30 32 5 3 2 214

2006 264 98 85 23 27 16 9 6 0 213

2007 246 87 75 19 33 19 8 3 2 194

2008 263 117 92 17 22 7 3 5 0 225

2009 259 103 59 33 40 13 7 1 3 201

2010 325 103 106 50 36 21 9 0 0 257

2011 291 101 90 35 30 20 10 4 1 224

2012 227 66 83 29 18 10 18 2 1 191

2013 255 73 96 35 14 24 12 1 0 202

2014 319 104 107 43 30 19 10 4 2 259

2015 304 89 113 37 28 18 15 1 3 247

2016 302 91 111 39 24 22 11 3 1 245

2017 293 82 129 31 19 16 13 0 3 240

2018 314 85 134 36 25 14 15 5 0 254

Total 4,803 1,633 1,572 546 466 331 171 55 29 3,913

Average per Year

266.83 90.72 87.33 30.33 25.89 18.39 9.50 3.06 1.61 217.39

Percent of Total

Allegations (Average)

100% 34.0% 32.7% 11.4% 9.7% 6.9% 3.6% 1.1% 0.6%


allegations in FY 2000 and rising to 314 allegations in FY 2018. While allegations based on race are the

most numerous overall, and made up the plurality of cases from 2000-2012, disability allegations be-

came and have remained the plurality since 2012. In the most recent five years, for example, disability

accounted for 38.7% of filed complaints and race accounted for 29.4% reflecting national trends of dis-

ability being the most commonly filed upon protected class in housing. Allegations in the filed com-

plaints were also higher in the most recent five years with 306.4 allegations per year versus the 18-year

266.8 yearly average.

Although retaliation is not an identified protected class under the federal, state, or local fair housing

laws, this report includes a separate category of retaliation since the HUD data distinguishes between

retaliation and other allegations of housing discrimination. Of note, it appears that the instances of retal-

iation have increased over the 18-year timespan this report encompasses.

Figure 1 shows the relative change in the number of allegations over the 18-year timespan, including

the visible switch in 2012 when disability allegations overtook race allegations for the most common

type of protected class listed in administratively filed complaints in Indiana. Together, race and disability

allegations make up approximately 60% of all protected classes in complaints in most years.

Comparing Indiana’s data to nationwide FHAPs, HUD, DOJ, and private Fair Housing Organizations

(FHOs, such as the FHCCI) through data aggregated by the NFHA, Indiana’s trends track with current

Figure 1: Total Indiana Allegations and Type by Year



national trends. In NFHA’s 2019 Fair Housing Trends Report which summarizes data from HUD through

FY 2018, like this report, the most common identified protected class in complaints was disability

(56.33%), followed by race (18.75%), familial status (8.72%), national origin (7.53%), sex (6.27%

each), color (1.91%), and religion (1.3%). An additional 9.59% of the complaints included retaliation or

state and local protections, such as source of income, age, sexual orientation, and/or marital status.15

Allegations by Metro Area

The FHCCI was also able to analyze the administrative complaints based on the county, and therefore

metro area of the complaint. Over the 18-year timespan, we found that the plurality of fair housing alle-

gations were filed in the eleven counties making up the Indianapolis metro area (1,241 of a state total

4,803 allegations) while the second most allegations came from the 71 counties making up the balance

of the state (1,199 allegations).

Figure 2: Allegations by Metro Area (18-year timespan)


To review a breakdown by Indiana county of total administrative complaints for FY 2000-2018, see Ap-

pendix B. An Indiana county by county breakdown of allegations within these filed complaints for FY

2000-2018 can be reviewed at Appendix C.





Table 12: Total Allegations by Metro Area, HUD FY 2000-2018

Source: FHCCI analysis of HUD complaint data.

Issues in Rural Areas

According to 2017 census estimates, 44.6% of Indiana residents lived outside the metro areas we desig-

nated, yet only 24.95% of allegations came from those largely rural counties. This can be interpreted in

opposing ways. Either those areas experience less housing discrimination, so there is less opportunity to

report, or those residents experience higher levels of discrimination than they know or have the capabil-

ity to report. Allegations based on disability are most numerous in the balance of the state, representing

10.28% of the total filed disability allegations over the 18-year timespan.

The rate of race, color, and national origin allegations in the balance of the state is lower than the state

population averages showing the allegations that have been brought forth stem from a smaller part of

the population. Overall, the 2017 Census estimates had roughly 7% of the balance of the state as non-

white, but that small proportion of the population still reported 426 allegations of discrimination due to

race, national origin, or color over the 18-years evaluated.

Issues in Metro Areas

The Indianapolis metro area had the largest share of the state’s population at 30.4% according to 2017

Census estimates. This metro area also had the largest share of fair housing allegations (25.84%) or

1,241 total allegations of the 18 years, closely reaching its population percentage. The Fort Wayne met-

ro area in contrast; however, had an estimated 6.5% of the state’s population, yet 16.91% of the filed

allegations were from their residents. Similarly, South Bend had an estimated 4.1% of the population,

yet 11.62% of the allegations were from their residents.

Metro Area

Percent of Total

Allega-

Race Disa-bility

Sex Famili-al Sta-

tus

Nation-al

Origin

Retali-ation

Reli-gion

Color

Total 100%

(4,803) 34.0% (1,633)

32.7% (1,572)

11.4% (546)

9.7% (466)

6.9% (331)

3.6% (171)

1.1% (55)

0.6% (29)

Indianapo-

lis area

25.84%

(1,241)

9.58%

(460)

8.39%

(403)

2.71%

(130)

2.06%

(99)

2.17%

(104)

0.50%

(24)

0.23%

(11)

0.21%

(10)

Fort Wayne area

16.91% (812)

5.54% (266)

4.79% (230)

2.25% (108)

1.79% (86)

1.25% (60)

1.06% (51)

0.19% (9)

0.04% (2)

Chicago-land area

16.70% (802)

6.10% (293)

4.41% (212)

2.71% (130)

1.71% (82)

0.98% (47)

0.56% (27)

0.10% (5)

0.12% (6)

South Bend 11.62%

(558)

4.16%

(200)

3.56%

(171)

1.44%

(69)

1.17%

(56)

0.67%

(32)

0.44%

(21)

0.19%

(9)

0.00%

(0)

Evansville

area

3.98%

(191)

1.56%

(75)

1.27%

(61)

0.40%

(19)

0.31%

(15)

0.21%

(10)

0.19%

(9)

0.00%

(0)

0.04%

(2)

Balance of

State

24.95%

(1,199)

7.06%

(339)

10.28%

(495)

1.89%

(90)

2.66%

(128)

1.62%

(78)

0.85%

(39)

0.39%

(21)

0.19%

(9)


Allegations Per Population

Another way to analyze the data is to compare the number of allegations in the filed complaints with an

area’s population. Overall, an average of 72.04 fair housing allegations were indicated per 100,000 peo-

ple in Indiana during the time period of FY 2000-2018. The South Bend area topped the list with 206.34

allegations per 100,000 residents, followed by Fort Wayne metro at 186.83, and the Chicagoland area

with 122.62. Of interest is the state’s largest metro area, Indianapolis, with the second lowest number

of allegations per 100,000 residents at 61.17.

Comparison to Other States

The last area that the FHCCI analyzed in regard to allegations in the filed complaints was to compare

Indiana’s allegations to that of other states/areas. This Indiana report is based upon reports distributed

by two other fair housing organization located in North Carolina and Northeast Ohio. Consequently, their

data for a similar time period was readily available to us although Ohio’s information was limited to

Northeast Ohio.

Amongst these states or areas, the State of Indiana falls second in allegation comparison over the 18-

years of this report with 72.04 allegations per 100,000 over FY 2000-2018, and second with 22.98 alle-

gations per 100,000 when comparing allegations in the most recent five years. Overall, Indiana had

more allegations filed for its population than by residents in the State of North Carolina despite Indiana’s

smaller statewide population.

Table 13: Fair Housing Allegations by Metro Area Per 100,000 Population, FY 2000-2018

Source: FHCCI analysis of HUD complaint data.

Area 2017 Popula-tion Estimate

Total Allega-

tions 2000-2018

Per 100,000 Pop-ulation

State of Indiana 6,666,818 4,803 72.04

Indianapolis Metro 2,028,614 1,241 61.17

Fort Wayne Metro 434,617 812 186.83

Chicagoland Metro 654,044 802 122.62

South Bend Metro 270,434 558 206.34

Evansville Metro 303,317 191 62.97

Balance of State 2,975,792 1,199 40.29

Table 14: Fair Housing Allegations by Metro Area Per 100,000 Population, FY 2000-2018

Source: See Appendix E for North Carolina and Northeast Ohio year by year totals.

State/Area Population Total Allega-tions 2000-

2018

Total Allega-tions 2000-2018

per 100,000

Total Allega-tions 2013-

2018

Allegations 2013-2018 per

100,000

State of Indiana 6,666,818 4,803 72.04 1,532 22.98

State of North

Carolina 10,383,620 3,457 33.29 718 6.91

Northeast Ohio 2,178,737 2,974 136.50 921 42.27


COMPLAINT RESOLUTION

The FHCCI was not only interested in the number of complaints and allegations being filed through the adminis-

trative process within the State of Indiana, but, also, what happened to those complaints after filing. This HUD

data was also sought and analyzed.

Complaint Resolution Through HUD/FHAPs

HUD provided the FHCCI with closure information on 3,990 filed administrative complaints that were

closed during HUD fiscal years (FY) 2000-2018. This data had 20 different resolution outcomes connect-

ed to the closed cases. To analyze these outcomes, we grouped the HUD identified outcomes into six

broader categories as categorized below. We then calculated the total percentage of closure type for the

3,990 closed complaints:

1. Admin/Litigation/FHAP Closing - Complainant’s favor (493 complaints/12.61%)

a. Litigation ended - discrimination found

b. Administrative hearing ended - discrimination found

c. Complaint withdrawn by complainant after resolution

d. FHAP judicial consent order

2. Admin/Litigation/FHAP Closing - Defendant's favor (228 complaints/5.76%)

a. Litigation ended - no discrimination found

b. FHAP judicial dismissal

c. Administrative hearing ended - no discrimination found

d. Complaint withdrawn by complainant without resolution

3. Administrative Closure (446 complaints/10.21%)

a. Complainant failed to cooperate

b. Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

c. Unable to identify respondent

d. Unable to locate complainant

e. Unable to locate respondent

f. Untimely Filed

4. Conciliation/Settlement Successful (640 complaints/16.58%)

5. DOJ/external Closure (38 complaints/0.95%)

a. Closed because trial has begun

b. DOJ dismissal

c. DOJ settlement

d. Election made to go to court

6. No Cause (2,145 complaints/53.89%)

For comparison, according to nationwide resolution data collected by NFHA for FY 2017-2018, the No

Cause rate nationally is 47.4% and the rate of conciliation/settlement is 27.95% (includes closings in

complainant’s and defendant’s favor) vs. Indiana’s 53.89% (No Cause) and 16.58% (Conciliation) over

the years of this report.16

In reviewing the data, the FHCCI observed an increase in the No Cause closure group over time. For

example, in 2000, 47.6% of filed complaints received a No Cause ruling. However, by 2018, that num-

ber had grown to 66.1% of filed complaints.





In addition to the increasing rate of No Cause rulings, Figure 3 shows that fewer complaints are being

closed due to administrative problems, from a high of 24.9% of cases in 2001, to only 7.1% in 2018.

The trend line for successful conciliation/settlement shows a dip in the early 2000s, but an increase

since that year. It has been the second most common outcome of an Indiana filed fair housing com-

plaint since 2010.

Figure 3: Closed Complaints by Closure Group over HUD Fiscal Years


Although the protected class statuses were not listed in the closed complaint information received by

the FHCCI from HUD, the FHCCI was able to link the HUD case number present in the data received of

filed complaints and closed complaints to assign a protected class basis to 3,782 of the 3,990 closed

complaints. These 3,782 complaints contained 4,579 different protected class allegations. Using that

data, we were able to compare what allegation type in the complaints most frequently received what

ruling or resolution (Table 15).


Overall, Indiana’s No Cause rate of 55.7% across protected classes is higher than the national No Cause

average of 49.4% reported by NFHA for FY 2017-2018.17 (Note: These numbers differ slightly from totals

on Page 20 due to a single complaint possibly having more than one protected class (allegation) listed.)

Notable from this table, we see that race and color allegations were substantially more likely to receive

a No Cause ruling, as well as being less likely to end in conciliation or settlement. On the other hand,

familial status and disability complaints were less likely to result in No Cause rulings and more likely to

have an administrative or litigation result favoring the complainant. Familial status and disability cases

often bring to light written discriminatory policies, such as children targeted rules or refusals of accom-

modations or modifications, that may be easier to uncover than more nebulous reports of differential

treatment brought forth in complaints about race or color. Administrative burdens appear to dispropor-

tionately affect those with national origin and familial status allegations, possibly reflecting some extra

difficulties those complainants may face while working through their complaint, including language, cul-

tural barriers, and lack of childcare.

Complaint Resolution Through DOJ

The federal FHA gives the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) the authority to investigate fair housing and

fair lending cases of general public importance and cases which involved a pattern or practice of dis-

crimination. The Fair Housing Amendments Act in 1988 also gave the DOJ authority to litigate com-

plaints charged by HUD in which a party chose to elect to federal court for resolution.

The data that the FHCCI received from HUD contained information on 19 HUD administrative complaints

which were referred to the DOJ for further action. Of these 19 complaints, three were listed as settle-

ments and 16 were listed as DOJ dismissal (which likely means the case settled but the FHCCI could not

confirm). The DOJ does list their filed enforcement actions on their website. Unfortunately, the FHCCI

was unable to link the HUD data to the DOJ enforcement action to determine clear outcomes due to the

Table 15: Complaint Outcome of Assigned Case Numbers by Protected Class/Allegation


Closure Group Overall

Rate Race

Disa-bility

Sex National

Origin Familial Status

Retalia-tion

Reli-gion

Color

Admin/litigation/ FHAP closing - Com-plainant’s favor

12.6% 9.0% 15.0% 12.3% 11.1% 17.4% 17.2% 13.5% 10.7%

Admin/litigation/ FHAP closing - De-fendant's favor

5.6% 5.3% 6.0% 6.0% 4.0% 6.0% 6.7% 3.8% 7.1%

Administrative problems

10.0% 10.3% 7.7% 10.1% 13.6% 16.6% 4.9% 7.7% 17.9%

Conciliation/

settlement suc-cessful

15.1% 13.2% 19.6% 14.4% 13.3% 8.8% 16.0% 11.5% 3.6%

DOJ/external Closure

1.0% 1.1% 0.9% 0.4% 1.2% 1.8% 1.2% 3.8% 0.0%

No Cause 55.7% 61.1% 50.9% 56.8% 56.7% 49.5% 54.0% 59.6% 60.7%





lack of identifying information available to link the complaints. There were 25 identified allegations in

the 19 filed complaints referred to DOJ:

During the 18-year timespan of this report, the DOJ website; however, notes 11 complaints involving

Indiana properties or respondents that were initiated by or proceeded to the DOJ. This may include

complaints which bypassed HUD that were initiated by DOJ alone as well as their most significant filings.

There were 15 identified allegations in the 11 complaints and all resulted in settlements.

If DOJ initiated this federal court action independently of a HUD complaint, it is only identified here be-

cause it would have bypassed the HUD process. Appendix F has a listing of the DOJ complaints the

FHCCI analyzed which includes the counties involved and outcome.

Private Enforcement Action of the FHCCI

Since opening its doors in 2012, the FHCCI has been involved in several enforcement actions to address

violations of fair housing law. Some of these actions have involved HUD or an Indiana FHAP initiated

administrative complaint and are thus counted in the previous sections. However, very often the

FHCCI’s enforcement actions have been initiated in federal court outside of administrative action so are

not accounted for in the complaint data provided by HUD since the complaint(s) bypassed that process.

For example, during FY 2012-2018, the FHCCI filed 13 of these federal actions which contained 31 alle-

gations:

Of these 13 federal actions, the FHCCI reached seven settlements and received one favorable judicial

ruling, while five previously filed actions remained pending at the end of FY 2018. Appendix G provides

additional information on these filed court actions including counties involved and outcome.

Please note that others in Indiana have proceeded and filed fair housing litigation directly in state or

federal court thereby bypassing the HUD/FHAP administrative process. The FHCCI does not have the

capacity at this time to research and evaluate how many of these enforcement actions have occurred,

what was filed upon, and the results.

Total Al-legations Race

Disa-bility Sex

Familial Status

National Origin

Col-or

Reli-gion

Retal-iation

Allegations in HUD

Referrals/DOJ Indiana Enforcement Actions

25 8 10 0 0 4 0 2 0

Total Al-

legations Race

Disa-

bility Sex

Familial

Status

National

Origin

Col-

or

Reli-

gion

Retal-

iation

Allegations in DOJ

Indiana Enforcement Actions

15 5 5 1 2 1 1 0 0

Total Al-

legations Race

Disa-

bility Sex

Familial

Status

National

Origin

Col-

or

Reli-

gion

Retal-

iation

Allegations in FHCCI

Private Enforcement Actions

31 7 7 1 4 6 6 0 0


RECOMMENDATIONS

The struggle for a housing market free of discrimination is ongoing and has tangible effects on people’s lives.

Where someone lives affects the schools their children attend, and their access to transportation, jobs, ameni-

ties, and services. A person’s health, longevity, and economic prospects are inherently intertwined with their

housing and neighborhoods. To ensure everyone has equal access, we must remove arbitrary barriers -- such as

those based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, or disability -- that have and continue to

exclude people from housing transactions or services.

As the population of Indiana becomes more diverse, fair housing and civil rights laws remain important pillars of

our commitment to equality, but additional steps must be taken to affirmatively further fair housing. Outlined

below are several steps that communities and governments can take to help accomplish our national and state

fair housing goals:

Strengthen Fair Housing Laws: The FHCCI supports expansion of federal and state fair housing laws

to better address fair housing barriers for those seeking housing opportunities. The federal FHA has not

been amended since 1988 despite the overwhelming need and various reports showing significant levels

of housing discrimination against several groups not currently protected.

The fight for fair housing is ongoing among various groups, and Indiana’s FHA has not been updated to

meet the current needs. While some cities have enacted further anti-discrimination laws, many margin-

alized groups lack protection statewide. Currently, 23 states provide housing discrimination protection

for sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Twelve states now provide housing discrimination protec-

tion due to the use of forms of source of income or receipt of public assistance, such as Section 8/

housing choice vouchers. Each year, these lists grow. However, Indiana is not on these lists.

The FHCCI supports protections for persons of all ages, LGBTQ+ individuals, military/veteran status, all

marital statuses, due to receipt of public assistance or source of income, as well as being a survivor of

domestic violence. All groups which have also been found to experience higher rates of housing discrim-

ination but do not have fair housing law protections consistently across our nation, or in Indiana.

Address Indiana Legislative Barriers Impacting the Ability to Affirmatively Further Fair

Housing: The Indiana State Legislature has passed several laws which work against the mandate to

affirmatively further fair housing. In 2015, HB 1300 passed, prohibiting counties, municipalities and

townships from adopting an ordinance that requires or would have the effect of requiring a landlord to

participate in: (1) a Section 8 program of the federal Housing Act of 1937; or (2) a similar program con-

cerning housing. In 2017, the passage of SB 558 banned cities from passing ordinances to promote in-

clusionary zoning as it relates to affordable housing and added language for landlord’s use regarding

occupancy limitations in rental housing. Laws have also been passed which have limited the ability of

Hoosier cities to ensure housing habitability, often impacting groups most often experiencing housing

discrimination. These preemptive bans disallow localities from protecting some of their most vulnerable

citizens and should be revisited with a focus on fair and inclusive housing.

The State of Indiana has also drawn national attention due to its number of cities ranked as being high

evicting localities. The Indiana General Assembly needs to ensure better parity in the rights of tenants

and housing providers to ensure Hoosiers have access to safe, affordable, accessible housing free from

discrimination. As it stands currently, Hoosier tenants have few housing rights or options which dramati-

cally impacts housing choice.


In addition, persons with disabilities need more accessible housing options. Kentucky, Illinois, and Ohio

have all passed state laws mandating basic forms of visitability standards. Passage of such a law would

provide cost minimal but important changes to allow persons with disabilities to visit other residents liv-

ing in single family homes. This would also make these homes more adaptable to aging populations.

The FHCCI also continues to be alarmed at the numbers of multi-family housing units which do not

meet federal and state FHA design and construction accessibility requirements. Please visit the FHCCI’s

Public Policy Page for other laws which we have identified as limiting fair housing choice.

Increase Fair Housing Enforcement: Housing discrimination is not always easy to detect. Some-

times the discrimination may be obvious, such as a housing provider making an explicitly discriminatory

statement. However, housing discrimination more often occurs in more subtle and less obvious forms

than before. Strong fair housing laws are critical, but there also needs to be vigorous enforcement to

combat the decades of discriminatory practices and systemic forms of discrimination which may be diffi-

cult for the general consumer to detect.

A vigorous enforcement program ensuring equal housing opportunities for their residents should be en-

couraged statewide, such as implementation of more testing programs to ensure that discrimination is

detected and deterred. A strong referral process for victims of housing discrimination is also imperative within

city governments.

Entitlement jurisdictions also must be diligent in ensuring they are meeting their affirmatively furthering

fair housing requirements. State and local agencies should also pursue strong public interest provisions

when resolving fair housing complaints.

Support Agencies Working to Address Housing Discrimination: The Indiana Civil Rights Com-

mission and Indiana’s six substantially equivalent government agencies need to be supported in their

efforts to investigate and enforce fair housing complaints. This includes maintaining adequate staffing,

training, legal analysis, and financial support. Human rights agencies and commissions which do not

have equivalent laws to work under need adequate support to strengthen their laws or provide their

constituents with the resources and mechanisms for sufficient fair housing remedy.

Likewise, the FHCCI and other nonprofit organizations working to represent victims of housing discrimi-

nation, need the freedom and support to advocate for their clients or to address systemic forms of

housing discrimination often difficult for victims to uncover. What typically sets private, nonprofit fair

housing organizations apart from state and local governments is that they work at the grassroots level,

evaluate and counsel inquiries, and conduct testing and other forms of enforcement activities. HUD

studies have also shown that having the presence of fair housing organizations ensures that complaints

that move forward to enforcement action have strong evidence, thereby easing administrative and court

burdens. Currently, the FHCCI is the only nonprofit fair housing advocacy organization in Indiana de-

spite many states having several groups, including our neighbors Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio. Indiana’s

population warrants more than one fair housing organization to address Indiana’s critical fair housing

needs.

Increase Fair Housing Education: There continues to be a need for more fair housing education or

awareness to confront impediments to fair housing choice. Overall, there is a general lack of fair hous-

ing knowledge statewide on fair housing laws, the need to affirmatively further fair housing, and the

rights and responsibilities associated under these laws. State and city government fair housing offices

should work collaboratively with the FHCCI and other organizations to promote fair housing and engage

in joint fair housing education campaigns.


Appendix A: Data Sources

This report relies on data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau, including the 2000 U.S. Census, the 2010 U.S.

Census, and the 2012 and 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year and 5- year estimates. The Census Bureau

publishes guidelines for comparing different census datasets. While many datasets may be readily compared,

some areas and subjects are to be “compared with caution” or “not compared” at all. Comparability guidelines

are needed due to differences in question wording, reference periods, methodology, and the way in which the

census tabulates data. The following identifies the sources for the tables featured in this report and includes

comparability guidelines obtained from the Census Bureau. Additional information is available

at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/guidance/comparing-acs-data.html

Table 2: Total Population of Indiana. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census Summary File 1 (SF1) 100-

Percent Data, Table P001, Total Population; 2010 Census Summary File 1, Table P1, Total Population; 2017

American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B01003, Total Population.

2017 American Community Survey with 2010 Census (Total Population): Compare

2017 American Community Survey with 2000 Census (Total Population): Compare

Tables 3-6: Race of Population. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census Summary File 1 (SF1) 100-Percent Da-

ta, Table P003, Total Population; 2010 Census Summary File 1, Table P3, Total Population; 2013-2017 American

Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.

2017 American Community Survey with 2010 Census (Race): Compare

2017 American Community Survey with 2000 Census (Race): Compare with Caution

Table 7: Hispanic or Latino/a Population. Source: Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census Summary File 1,

Table QT-P3, Race and Hispanic or Latino; 2010 Census Summary File 1, Table P4, Hispanic or Latino Origin;

2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B03003, Hispanic or Latino Origin.

2017 ACS with 2010 Census (Hispanic or Latino Origin): Compare

2017 ACS with Census 2000 (Hispanic or Latino Origin): Compare with Caution

Table 8: Percent of Population that is Foreign Born. U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3, Table DP

-2, Selected Social Characteristics; 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B05012,

Nativity in the United States.

2017 ACS with 2000 Census (Nativity): Compare with caution

Note: This question was not asked on the 2010 census

Table 9: Households with Individuals Under 18 Years of Age. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2012 American

Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B11005, Households by Presence of People Under 18 Years by

Household Type; 2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table B11005, Households by Pres-

ence of People Under 18 Years by Household Type.

2017 ACS with 2012 ACS (Household Characteristics): Compare

Table 10: Non-Institutionalized Population with a Disability. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Commu-

nity Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1810, Disability Characteristics; U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 American Com-

munity Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table S1810, Disability Characteristics.

2017 ACS with 2012 ACS (Disability Characteristics): Compare

Tables 11-17 & 20: Fair Housing Complaints/Allegations: Source: Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana Analysis

of data provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (Covering HUD fiscal years 2000-

2018), provided March 2019.

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/guidance/comparing-acs-data.html


Appendix B: Fair Housing Complaint Data by County

Table 16: Total Fair Housing Administrative Complaints Filed and Closed by County, FY 2000-2018.

A total of 3,913 filed administrative complaints (1,230+1,791+892) with a total of 3,990 closings (1,247+1,860+883).

Note: 5 complaints excluded from analysis due to lack of a listed protected class.

County Filed Com-

plaints

Closed Com-

plaints County

Filed Com-

plaints

Closed Com-

plaints County

Filed Com-

plaints

Closed Com-

plaints

Adams 6 8 Hendricks 34 34 Pike 9 5

Allen 634 629 Henry 11 13 Porter 62 65

Bartholo-mew 37 38 Howard 25 26 Posey 3 3

Benton 2 2 Huntington 5 6 Pulaski 4 4

Blackford 3 2 Jackson 13 15 Putnam 6 5

Boone 10 9 Jasper 6 6 Randolph 6 8

Brown 4 5 Jay 1 1 Ripley 9 8

Carroll 4 5 Jefferson 13 11 Rush 2 2

Cass 10 10 Jennings 9 10 Scott 3 3

Clark 60 62 Johnson 47 48 Shelby 9 9

Clay 7 7 Knox 8 8 Spencer 1 1

Clinton 1 3 Kosciusko 22 23 St. Joseph 433 433

Crawford 2 3 LaGrange 5 5 Starke 7 7

Davies 5 5 Lake 550 576 Steuben 7 5

De Kalb 12 8 LaPorte 32 34 Sullivan 3 3

Dearborn 19 11 Lawrence 15 15 Switzer-land 3 3

Decatur 7 20 Madison 47 51 Tippecanoe 82 78

Delaware 62 66 Marion 785 811 Tipton 1 1

Dubois 8 7 Marshall 13 13 Union 5 4

Elkhart 163 171 Martin 7 7 Vander-burgh 146 141

Fayette 7 7 Miami 13 13 Vermillion 2 2

Floyd 29 31 Monroe 69 71 Vigo 31 31

Fountain 6 6 Montgom-ery 12 13 Wabash 2 2

Franklin 3 3 Morgan 11 11 Warren 3 3

Fulton 8 8 Newton 4 4 Warrick 8 8

Gibson 5 6 Noble 17 17 Washing-ton 5 5

Grant 14 16 Ohio 1 1 Wayne 24 27

Greene 9 9 Orange 3 3 Wells 7 7

Hamilton 73 69 Owen 5 5 White 2 2

Hancock 11 11 Parke 4 5 Whitley 5 6

Harrison 9 10 Perry 4 4 Unknown 2 2

TOTALS 1,230 1,247 1,791 1,860 892 883


Appendix C: Allegations in Administrative Complaints by County and Protected Class/Basis

Table 17: Number and Type of Allegations in the Filed Complaints by County

County

Total Allega-tions Race Disability Sex

Familial Status

National Origin

Retalia-tion

Reli-gion Color

Adams 7 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 0

Allen 795 263 222 107 83 58 51 9 2

Bartholo-mew 43 9 13 0 6 13 1 1 0

Benton 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

Blackford 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Boone 11 1 6 1 0 1 2 0 0

Brown 4 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Carroll 7 1 2 1 1 0 2 0 0

Cass 11 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 0

Clark 70 25 26 2 3 6 4 3 1

Clay 8 1 5 2 0 0 0 0 0

Clinton 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Crawford 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Daviess 5 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0

De Kalb 13 1 7 0 2 2 1 0 0

Dearborn 27 6 14 2 3 0 2 0 0

Decatur 7 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0

Delaware 65 25 29 4 1 2 3 1 0

Dubois 10 4 2 1 3 0 0 0 0

Elkhart 206 75 70 15 23 13 4 2 4

Fayette 7 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 0

Floyd 34 9 13 4 4 2 0 1 1

Fountain 6 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 0

Franklin 4 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0

Fulton 8 4 3 0 0 1 0 0 0

Gibson 6 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0

Grant 18 5 7 3 1 1 0 0 1

Greene 9 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hamilton 85 27 31 2 9 14 1 0 1

Hancock 13 5 4 0 3 1 0 0 0

Harrison 11 2 7 0 0 0 1 1 0

Hendricks 42 12 10 5 9 4 0 1 1

Henry 12 2 8 1 0 0 1 0 0

Howard 28 9 14 3 1 0 1 0 0

Huntington 7 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0

Jackson 14 5 3 1 0 4 1 0 0

Jasper 6 0 3 0 1 2 0 0 0



Table 17: Number and Type of Allegations in the Filed Complaints by County (continued)

County


Familial Status

National Origin

Retalia-tion

Reli-gion Color

Jay 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Jefferson 13 1 8 0 3 0 1 0 0

Jennings 11 2 6 0 1 1 0 1 0

Johnson 56 14 27 4 2 6 2 0 1

Knox 10 3 4 1 1 0 1 0 0

Kosciusko 26 9 7 1 5 4 0 0 0

LaGrange 6 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0

Lake 723 268 187 121 71 41 27 3 5

LaPorte 37 11 15 3 3 3 0 1 1

Lawrence 16 2 11 2 1 0 0 0 0

Madison 56 19 22 6 4 5 0 0 0

Marion 946 374 289 107 69 72 19 10 6

Marshall 13 1 7 0 5 0 0 0 0

Martin 7 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0

Miami 22 6 7 4 1 2 0 2 0

Monroe 79 19 34 6 12 4 2 2 0

Montgomery 17 3 7 4 0 0 3 0 0

Morgan 11 1 5 2 3 0 0 0 0

Newton 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

Noble 19 2 11 0 1 2 2 1 0

Ohio 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Orange 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

Owen 6 1 3 0 1 1 0 0 0

Parke 5 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0

Perry 4 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0

Pike 10 1 5 1 0 3 0 0 0

Porter 79 25 25 9 11 6 0 2 1

Posey 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pulaski 4 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Putnam 7 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0

Randolph 7 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ripley 9 2 5 0 2 0 0 0 0

Rush 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

Scott 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0

Shelby 10 1 7 0 0 1 0 0 1

Spencer 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

St. Joseph 558 200 171 69 56 32 21 9 0

Starke 8 3 1 1 2 0 1 0 0

Steuben 8 0 5 0 1 2 0 0 0

Sullivan 5 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 1



Table 17: Number and Type of Allegations in the Filed Complaints by County (continued)

Source: FHCCI analysis of received HUD complaint data. Note: 5 complaints excluded from analysis due to lack of a listed protected class in received HUD data.

County


Familial Status

National Origin

Retalia-tion

Reli-gion Color

Switzerland 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0

Tippecanoe 96 38 33 7 14 3 0 1 0

Tipton 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Union 7 1 4 0 0 1 1 0 0

Unknown 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Vanderburgh 172 67 55 17 12 10 9 0 2

Vermillion 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vigo 33 6 17 5 1 1 3 0 0

Wabash 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Warren 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

Warrick 10 3 3 2 2 0 0 0 0

Washington 8 1 3 2 2 0 0 0 0

Wayne 31 12 9 3 3 0 2 2 0

Wells 12 3 5 1 2 1 0 0 0

White 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Whitley 5 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 0

TOTALS 4,803 1,633 1,572 546 466 331 171 55 29


Appendix D: Methodology for Calculating Fair Housing Complaint Data

Data for this publication was attained in March 2019 via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request fulfilled

by the U. S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Regional Field Office in Chicago, IL. The

FHCCI received the following information:

For fair housing complaints filed within HUD’s fiscal years 2000-2018, the FHCCI received an excel

spreadsheet with a line of data for each complaint received, including a unique HUD case number,

the violation county, filing date, and bases of discrimination.

For fair housing complaints closed within HUD’s fiscal years 2000-2018, the FHCCI received an excel

spreadsheet with a line of data for each complaint closed, including a unique HUD case number, the

violation county, completion date, cause date (when applicable) and the HUD closure reason (ie, No

Cause, Cause, Settlement, Withdrawn, etc).

A HUD fiscal year is October 1-September 30.

Once obtained, the FHCCI staff analyzed the data using Microsoft Excel (2013) and Microsoft Access (2013).

From this data, the FHCCI identified 3,918 administrative complaints filed with HUD during FY 2000-2018. Due

to the lack of a protected class in five of these complaints, the FHCCI analyzed 3,913 filed complaints and 3,990

resolved complaints. Using complaint numbers, 3,782 filed complaints were connected with their resolved com-

plaint. Since some complaints closed during the years of interest were filed before this time period, 208 closed

complaints were unmatched with a filed complaint (61 from 2000, 75 in 2001, 65 in 2002, and 7 in 2003). On

the other hand, some filed complaints have yet to be resolved. The FHCCI calculated 131 filed complaints that

were unmatched with a resolution (92 in 2018, 15 from 2017, 10 from 2016, 8 from 2015, 1 each from 2007,

2003, and 2002, and 3 from 2000).

Of the 3,913 filed complaints, 784 contained allegations of discrimination based on two or more protected clas-

ses (i.e. the complainant alleged discrimination based on their race and their disability). To fully assess the pro-

portions of discrimination of protected classes, each allegation was counted separately, making for a total of

4,803 allegations of discrimination and/or retaliation in the 3,913 filed complaints.


Appendix E: Fair Housing Allegations in Comparison States

Table 18: State of North Carolina Fair Housing Allegations in Filed Administrative Complaints, FY 2000-2018

Source: “The State of Fair Housing in 2019,” Fair Housing Project of Legal Aid North Carolina, 2019, https://

www.fairhousingnc.org/2019/disability-race-discrimination-continue-to-top-claims-of-housing-discrimination-in-

north-carolina/

https://www.fairhousingnc.org/2019/disability-race-discrimination-continue-to-top-claims-of-housing-discrimination-in-north-carolina/




Appendix E: Fair Housing Allegations in Comparison States

Table 19: Northeast Ohio Fair Housing Allegations in Filed Administrative Complaints, FY 2000-2018

Source: “The State of Fair Housing in Northeast Ohio,” Fair Housing Center for Rights & Research, 2019, http://

www.thehousingcenter.org/publications/research-and-reports/state-of-fair-housing/

Note: Northeast Ohio is defined in this report as the counties of Ashtabula, Cuyahoga, Geauga, Lake, Lorain,

and Medina.

http://www.thehousingcenter.org/publications/research-and-reports/state-of-fair-housing/

http://www.thehousingcenter.org/publications/research-and-reports/state-of-fair-housing/


Appendix F: U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Data

Table 20: HUD Complaints/DOJ Referral, FY 2000-2018


HUD Closure Reason

HUD Complaint Number

Completion Date County Protected Basis

DOJ dismissal 05-01-0061-8 11/29/2001 St. Joseph Race

DOJ dismissal 05-00-0304-8 5/20/2002 Lake National Origin, Disability



DOJ dismissal 05-02-0144-8 2/5/2004 Brown Race

DOJ dismissal 05-02-0429-8 7/15/2005 Ripley Race

DOJ dismissal 05-05-1613-8 3/8/2006 Lake Race




DOJ dismissal 05-06-0639-8 7/17/2006 Lake Disability

DOJ dismissal 05-05-1082-8 4/7/2008 Jackson National Origin

DOJ settlement 05-06-0105-8 3/18/2009 Dearborn Disability

DOJ settlement 05-05-1045-8 6/17/2010 Bartholomew Disability

DOJ settlement 05-08-1074-8 6/17/2010 Bartholomew Disability

DOJ dismissal 05-01-0688-8 6/6/2012 Lake Disability

DOJ dismissal 05-00-1285-8 6/6/2012 Marion Religion

DOJ dismissal 05-00-1137-8 6/6/2012 Monroe Religion, Disability

DOJ dismissal 05-12-0656-8 2/19/2015 St. Joseph Race, Disability, Retaliation


Appendix F: U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Data

Table 21: DOJ Enforcement Actions in Indiana, FY 2000-2018

Source: U.S. Department of Justice Housing & Civil Rights Enforcement, https://www.justice.gov/crt/housing-

and-civil-enforcement-section-cases-1 (Accessed March 2019).

Case Number Filing Date County Protected Basis Closure Reason Closure Date

2:98-CV-478 RL 8/26/1998 Lake Race Settlement 3/26/2001

3:01cv0040AS 8/31/2002 Various Disability Settlement 9/30/2005

2:04-CV-415RL 10/4/2004 Lake Race Settlement 5/25/2007

2:06-CV-344 10/13/2006 Lake Race, National

Origin Settlement 10/16/2006

2:07-CV-00330 9/21/2007 Lake Disability Settlement 3/18/2009

2:08-CV-208 7/14/2008 Lake Race, Familial Sta-

tus Settlement 10/27/2010

3:08-cv-00174 11/7/2008 Vanderburgh Disability Settlement 8/19/2009

1:09-cv-01225 9/30/2009 Bartholomew Disability Settlement 6/17/2010

2:15-cv-00199 5/18/2015 Lake Familial Status Settlement 5/18/2016

1:16-cv-01172 12/28/2016 Marion Race, Color Settlement 1/3/2017

1:17-cv-03263 9/14/2017 Madison Disability, Sex Settlement 9/14/2017

https://www.justice.gov/crt/housing-and-civil-enforcement-section-cases-1

https://www.justice.gov/crt/housing-and-civil-enforcement-section-cases-1


Appendix G: Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana (FHCCI) Court Data

Table 22: FHCCI Private Enforcement Actions in Indiana, FY 2000-2018

Source: Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana Advocacy Page, https://www.fhcci.org/programs/advocacy/

(Accessed March 2019).

Case Number Filing Date

County of

Issue Protected Class

Resolution

Date

Resolution

Type

1:12-cv-01793 12/7/2012 Boone, Hamil-

ton Disability 11/21/2014 Settlement

4:14-cv-00058 7/10/2014 Tippecanoe Disability 5/5/2016 Settlement

1:15-cv-00817 5/22/2015 Marion Race, Color, National Origin, Fa-

milial Status, Disability 8/5/2017 Settlement

1:16-cv-00300 2/15/2016 Marion Disability, Familial Status 9/7/2017 Settlement

1:16-cv-00339 2/18/2016 Marion Disability 2/16/2017 Settlement

1:16-cv-785 4/11/2016 Madison Race, Color, Sex, Disability 9/26/2017 Settlement

1:16-cv-00880 4/19/2016 Marion Disability, Familial Status 7/3/2018

Judicial Ruling

(favorable to complainants)

4:16-cv-00195 11/2/2016 Clark Familial Status 8/31/2017 Settlement

4:16-cv-06969 12/5/2016 Marion, Lake Race, Color, National Origin Pending

1:17-cv-01782 5/30/2017 Marion Race, Color, National Origin Pending

1:18-cv-00839 2/1/2018 Marion, Lake Race, Color, National Origin Pending

1:18-cv-1098 4/10/2018 Marion Race, Color, National Origin Pending

1:18-cv-01919-C 6/26/2018 Marion, Lake Race, Color, National Origin Pending

https://www.fhcci.org/programs/advocacy/


ABOUT THE FAIR HOUSING CENTER OF CENTRAL INDIANA

The Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana (FHCCI) offers an array of programs and activities to ensure that

discrimination does not impact a Hoosier’s choice of housing. We were incorporated in August 2011 by a small

group of dedicated fair housing advocates. The FHCCI began operations in January 2012 and is a 501(c)(3)

nonprofit organization.

Mission: The mission of the FHCCI is to ensure equal housing opportunities by eliminating housing

discrimination through advocacy, enforcement, education and outreach.

Vision: The FHCCI recognizes the importance of “home” and envisions a country free of housing

discrimination where every individual, group and community enjoys equal housing opportunity and access in

a bias-free and open housing market. We envision a country where integrated neighborhoods are the norm,

and private and public sectors guarantee civil rights in an open and barrier-free community committed to

healing the history of discrimination in America.

Programs: The FHCCI offers four main programs to fight housing discrimination and promote equal

housing opportunity: Advocacy, Education, Inclusive Communities, and Public Policy.

Service Area: The FHCCI primarily serves 24 counties in Central Indiana: Bartholomew, Boone, Brown,

Clinton, Decatur, Delaware, Fayette, Franklin, Hamilton, Hancock, Hendricks, Henry, Johnson, Madison,

Marion, Monroe, Morgan, Putnam, Randolph, Rush, Shelby, Tipton, Union, and Wayne. We are available to

assist other Indiana counties as staff resources and budgets allow. We are the only nonprofit organization in

all of Indiana, at this time, focusing exclusively on fair housing.

www.fhcci.org

Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana, Inc.

445 N. Pennsylvania St, Suite 811

Indianapolis, IN 46204

317-644-0673

www.fhcci.org [email protected]

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and YouTube



Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana - The State of Fair Housing in Indiana Report … · 2020....

Documents

Transcript of Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana - The State of Fair Housing in Indiana Report … · 2020....