Every figure we publish rests on a clear standard of evidence. This page explains how we verify advertised screening criteria, how we review participant stories, and why we are careful to distinguish independently verified data from self-reported experience.
Whenever a listing includes a public source URL, our research team opens it and confirms that the advertised screening criteria match what was submitted — rent, minimum credit score, income requirement, reserves, application fee, and cosigner policy. If the link is broken or the details do not match, the entry is not marked Verified.
For listings sourced from the MLS or other professional listing platforms, we confirm the property and its advertised requirements against that source. Professionally listed properties give us a reliable, checkable record of the criteria a landlord or agent advertised.
Before an entry counts toward any statistic, we check for duplicates by source, location, and property details so no property is counted twice. Entries that fall outside California or outside our scope are excluded.
Stories are reviewed to confirm they are genuine, good-faith submissions from real participants — not spam, duplicates, or fabricated entries. We do not, and cannot, verify the factual truth of what happened in any individual experience. A submitted story is a first-hand account, not a finding of fact by the Project.
Only entries marked Verified by a researcher contribute to published aggregate statistics and the Annual Report. Pending, rejected, and archived entries are held separately and never appear in public figures.
This separation between what is independently verified and what is self-reported is central to our credibility. It lets us publish confident, checkable statistics about advertised screening criteria while treating personal experiences with appropriate care and humility.
We verify the criteria a listing advertised. We confirm a story is genuine. We never claim to judge whose account is true.
Made with Emergent