Rollouts of COVID-19 vaccines in the USA were opportunities to redress disparities that surfaced during the pandemic. Initial eligibility criteria, however, neglected geographic, racial/ethnic, and socioeconomic considerations. Marginalized populations may have faced barriers to then-scarce vaccines, reinforcing disparities. Inequalities may have subsided as eligibility expanded. Using spatial modeling, we investigate how strongly local vaccination levels were associated with socioeconomic and racial/ethnic composition as authorities first extended vaccine eligibility to all adults. We harmonize administrative, demographic, and geospatial data across postal codes in eight large US cities over 3 weeks in Spring 2021. We find that, although vaccines were free regardless of health insurance coverage, local vaccination levels in March and April were negatively associated with poverty, enrollment in means-tested public health insurance (e.g., Medicaid), and the uninsured population. By April, vaccination levels in Black and Hispanic communities were only beginning to reach those of Asian and White communities in March. Increases in vaccination were smaller in socioeconomically disadvantaged Black and Hispanic communities than in more affluent, Asian, and White communities. Our findings suggest vaccine rollouts contributed to cumulative disadvantage. Populations that were left most vulnerable to COVID-19 benefited least from early expansions in vaccine availability in large US cities.

Since the 1960s, social scientists, fair housing agencies, and the federal government have conducted hundreds of in-person and correspondence housing audits. Researchers use these covert experiments to make strong causal claims about difficult-to-detect behavior, such as racial, gender, and other types of discrimination. These studies have consistently uncovered discrimination in multiple stages and contexts of the housing exchange process. The housing audit literature is broad and robust, and a number of in-depth reviews already exist. In this chapter, we build on those reviews by focusing attention on emerging areas of inquiry and suggest new avenues of research pursuits. We begin by briefly reviewing the long history of housing audits including in-person HUD audits and correspondence audits of home sales and housing rentals. Next, we discuss three emerging areas of housing audit research – housing choice vouchers, short-term rentals, and roommate searches – and highlight important findings, new innovations, and areas of weakness. Finally, we conclude with a discussion about future directions of housing audits including using experiments to test for ways to reduce discrimination, using additional data to examine the mechanisms of housing discrimination, and designing modified audits to explore discrimination in other stages of housing exchange.

No abstract

Since the 1960s, social scientists, fair housing agencies, and the federal government have conducted hundreds of in-person and correspondence housing audits. Researchers use these covert experiments to make strong causal claims about difficult-to-detect behavior, such as racial, gender, and other types of discrimination. These studies have consistently uncovered discrimination in multiple stages and contexts of the housing exchange process. The housing audit literature is broad and robust, and a number of in-depth reviews already exist. In this chapter, we build on those reviews by focusing attention on emerging areas of inquiry and suggest new avenues of research pursuits. We begin by briefly reviewing the long history of housing audits including in-person HUD audits and correspondence audits of home sales and housing rentals. Next, we discuss three emerging areas of housing audit research -housing choice vouchers, short-term rentals, and roommate searches -and highlight important findings, new innovations, and areas of weakness. Finally, we conclude with a discussion about future directions of housing audits including using experiments to test for ways to reduce discrimination, using additional data to examine the mechanisms of housing discrimination, and designing modified audits to explore discrimination in other stages of housing exchange.

Rollouts of COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S. were opportunities to redress disparities that surfaced during the pandemic. Initial eligibility criteria, however, neglected geographic, racial/ethnic, and socioeconomic considerations. Marginalized populations may have faced barriers to then-scarce vaccines, reinforcing disparities. Inequalities may have subsided as eligibility expanded. Using spatial modeling, we investigate how strongly local vaccination levels were associated with socioeconomic and racial/ethnic composition as authorities first extended vaccine eligibility to all adults. We harmonize administrative, demographic, and geospatial data across postal codes in eight large U.S. cities over three weeks in Spring 2021. We find that, although vaccines were free regardless of health insurance coverage, local vaccination levels in March and April were negatively associated with poverty, enrollment in means-tested public health insurance (e.g., Medicaid), and the uninsured population. By April, vaccination levels in Black and Hispanic communities were only beginning to reach those of Asian and White communities in March. Increases in vaccination were smaller in socioeconomically disadvantaged Black and Hispanic communities than in more affluent, Asian, and White communities. Our findings suggest vaccine rollouts contributed to cumulative disadvantage. Populations that were left most vulnerable to COVID-19 benefited least from early expansions in vaccine availability in large U.S. cities.