Social Service Workers’ Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Fair Housing Laws

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to explore social service workers’ awareness, knowledge, and attitudes about fair housing in Utah. Using a fair housing awareness scale, a fair housing knowledge scale, a fair housing attitude scale, and fair housing vignettes, 195 social service workers were surveyed in Utah. Descriptive results demonstrated that although social service workers knew about fair housing laws, they did not know whom to contact for fair housing violations. In addition, while they had a basic knowledge of the Fair Housing Act provisions, they were unsure of the specifics of the Act (e.g., who was protected and how that protection worked). ANOVA results indicated that nonprofit social service workers had higher pro–fair housing opinions than social service workers in government agencies as did social service workers who work directly with clients. These results indicate that further trainings to educate social service workers about fair housing are needed. Drawing on the findings, future research should focus more on the client's perspective of the effectiveness of services received.

KEYWORDS:

• Discrimination
• education
• fair housing
• social service workers

Notes

1. There is no research available that details the number of actual fair housing violations (reported and unreported) or that estimates this number. Therefore, the available research should be read with caution because it grossly underestimates the true nature of the problem.

2. Percentages do not add up to 100%, as complaints can contain multiple bases.

3. Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia include specific anti–housing discriminatory language about sexual orientation: California, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

4. Five respondents did not report their gender, and one respondent reported “other”; these responses were excluded from the gender analysis. Five respondents reported they worked for a private agency, and three respondents reported they were unsure as to the type of agency they worked for; these responses were excluded from the agency analysis.

5. At the time of the data collection, Utah had included sexual orientation and gender identity in the protected classes covered under Utah's Fair Housing Act (1993).

6. At the time of the survey construction, sexual orientation and gender identity was not a protected class.