For some poor Mainers, a voice on the other end of the phone saying, “Sorry, that apartment was just rented,” is not just bad news. It’s a lie.

A two-year testing initiative by low-income advocate Pine Tree Legal Assistance concluded that up to 20 percent of landlords discriminated against prospective tenants.

Those discriminated against in their bid for rental housing included people receiving public assistance, those with children, people with disabilities, and members of a minority race or nationality.

Those getting housing aid and those with children were most often victims, according to Rachelle Parise, Pine Tree Legal’s testing coordinator.

Parise oversaw 144 tests from October 2004 to September 2006. Testers were paired, so one person calling about a rental would reveal that he or she received federal housing assistance vouchers, while the second caller would indicate he or she would pay the rent from wages or other sources.

She said discrimination was found in about 20 percent of the total number of tests.

In 29 percent of the cases involving public assistance there was strong evidence of discrimination, Parise said, with the first caller told the rental was not available, and the second being invited to see the housing.

“There’s a bias against poor people that’s pretty strong,” she said.

Landlords in owner-occupied duplexes are exempt from the law, but Parise said many who own two or more rental housing units are unaware that those receiving public assistance are in a protected class, according to Maine’s Human Rights Act. Many other states do not grant this status, nor does federal anti-discrimination law.

“Landlords have no idea that it is a protected status,” she said.

And because of that ignorance, many landlords bluntly tell prospective tenants they are not welcome. The refrain among landlords about recipients of housing assistance, Parise said, is “they’re going to trash the apartment.”

Nine cases in which discrimination was witnessed in the testing led to complaints filed with the Maine Human Rights Commission or the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Along with those receiving public assistance, would-be renters with children were also frequent victims of discrimination in the testing, Parise said.

A tester would call about a one-bedroom apartment and reveal that she was a single mother with one child. A second caller would ask about the rental, and say he or she had an adult partner.

In 29 percent of the tests, the second caller was invited to see the apartment, while the first caller either did not receive a return call or was told the rental was no longer available.

Landlords tend to think a mother and child could not share a one-bedroom apartment, Parise said, but that assumption is not legal.

“Parents can sleep on the couch, and lots do,” she said.

With either an adult couple or a parent and child, “it’s two people each time, but with the parent and child, one of the people is smaller,” Parise said.

Landlords can legally turn down families with many children if the occupancy would make for unsafe living conditions. In Portland, codes limit occupancy to one person per 50 square feet.

“But they need to be flexible,” she said, to avoid discriminating.

“I think people have a definite bias against children,” Parise said. Some landlords view their properties as an investment, and think “children could hurt my investment” by damaging it, she said.

While some of the bias is malevolent, sometimes it is more paternalistic, she suggested, with landlords telling a prospective renter that a house is not appropriate for children because of the presence of lead-based paint.

A federal court case that pitted a fair housing advocate against a landlord who would not rent to families with children because a dangerous cliff was nearby resulted in a ruling that supported all renters. Parents should be able to decide whether the environment is safe, according to the court, Parise said, not the landlord.

Even newspapers that print classified ads for rentals reading “no kids” can be found in violation of discrimination laws, she said.

Though Maine is often described as one of the “whitest” states in the U.S., national origin also was a source of discrimination, testing revealed.

In Presque Isle, Parise said, an Hispanic migrant worker called about an advertisement listing three rental units, but was shown just one – a decrepit trailer with broken windows. A non-Hispanic tester calling later was offered the three housing options.

In the Portland area, where Parise works, testers with foreign accents were often not called back while their native counterparts were invited to view rental housing.

“It takes the person with an accent five or six extra calls to get a call back,” she said.

A Sudanese tester was offered a lease, but had to produce first and last month’s rent, security deposit, and a $25 application fee, while the control tester, a white local person, had to provide just the $25 fee, Parise said.

“The white person doesn’t get the telephone grilling,” she said, in many cases.

While some might see the testing as entrapment, Parise said it helps keep landlords honest and supports state and federal law. It is also an important enforcement tool, because victims may never suspect they were discriminated against without testing.

A grant from HUD paid for the two-year testing program, along with other housing assistance efforts by Pine Tree Legal.

“Something fishy is going on if there’s not testing,” Parise said. “The reason we do these tests is to help people who don’t have a lot of choices.”