Summary

Housing is a fundamental necessity to effectively integrate formerly incarcerated individuals with their families and communities. Lacking stable housing negatively affects mental and physical health, employment, income, access to healthcare services, family unity, and recidivism. Research and analysis reveal that historical policies have created racial inequities in housing and health outcomes, and that public housing admissions screening policies play an important role in creating the conditions for successful reentry. More than half of those released from jail or prison have unstable or nonexistent housing.

This report assesses the health and equity impacts of public housing admissions screening policies that exclude people with a criminal history from public housing, using the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) in Oakland, California as a case study.Having housing improves health directly and indirectly, decreases recidivism, improves the chance of becoming employed and having more income, and helps with family reunification. These factors, known in public health as the “social determinants of health”, create opportunities to succeed and are known to be important for health and wellbeing.

The outcomes stemming from having stable and affordable housing are clear: research shows that lack of stable and affordable housing forces families to frequently move and live in unhealthy and crowded environments, increases stress and depression, and can lead to houselessness. Houselessness brings higher rates of infectious diseases; substance use and mental health disorders; exposure to violence; overexposure to cold and rain; and suicide. Studies show that between 25% - 50% of people who are homeless have a history of involvement with the criminal justice system. Those who have been involved with the criminal justice system are disproportionately people of color, low income, and mentally ill and, due to the intersection of these factors, are at high risk for housing instability and negative health outcomes.

A series of federal laws enacted in the 1990’s led to decreased access to public housing for people with a criminal history. In 2002, for example, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld PHAs’ authority to evict an entire household based on the criminal activity of one member or guest without specific proof that the tenant had any knowledge of the activity.Statistics and historical policies like these have resulted in the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) releasing guidance on April 4, 2016 explicitly stating 4 their goal of increasing access to safe, secure, and affordable housing for formerly incarcerated people. The 2016 guidance states that, due to the extreme overrepresentation of people of color in the criminal justice system, the consideration of criminal histories in screening procedures used by housing providers, including Public Housing Authorities, may lead to violations of the Fair Housing Act.

This report examines the Oakland Housing Authority as a case study. We consider OHA’s screening policies and practices and specifically how they consider the presentation of “mitigating circumstances” for people with a criminal history during the application process. In Alameda County in 2014, there were almost 4,800 people returning from state prison, 3,200 people were in county jail on any give day, and 1 out 4 people have a criminal record. We estimate that at least 20,000 people are currently at risk of residential instability because of their criminal history. Because they are vastly overrepresented in the criminal justice system, this places an inequitable burden on Blacks.

If PHAs allowed mitigating circumstances to be presented in the initial application, we predict it would result in fewer applications denied because of a criminal history and a better-streamlined process. Considering the stark disproportionality of people of color with a criminal history, we suspect the presentation of mitigating evidence would decrease racial disparities. We also predict that presenting mitigating circumstances upfront would likely result in more people with a criminal history being housed, getting jobs, and reuniting with family, as well as decreased recidivism. Ultimately a change in this policy would lead to better physical and mental health outcomes.

Recommendations

• PHAs, including OHA, should allow mitigating circumstances to be presented as part of the initial application for public housing. In implementing this, PHAs should:
  • Provide explicit language on the types of examples of mitigating circumstances accepted and the importance of providing supporting evidence.
  • Educate potential applicants about applicable mitigating circumstances and how to incorporate them into the application process.

• OHA should assess its implementation of policies that allow individuals with criminal history to join their family in public housing. Federal policies impose lifetime bans on admission to public housing programs for only two categories of crimes. PHAs must enforce a ban on 1) individuals who “have manufactured or produced methamphetamine on the premises of federally assisted housing and 2) sex offenders subject to a lifetime registration requirement under a State sex offender registration program.” If an OHA assessment finds that other categories of people with criminal histories are being excluded, OHA should eliminate practices of evicting existing residents from public housing for allowing a family member returning from prison or jail or denying admission if there is no valid reason for doing so.
• HUD should require that PHAs collect, track, and publicly report the race and ethnicity of applicants and those screened out due to their criminal history to examine the potential impact of PHA screening policies on people of color with a criminal history.