Topic: Here it is--What Are You Changing When Qualifying Convicted Criminals

Now that HUD has issued their new guidelines on using Criminal Background Checks when qualifying applicants, I've been working on criteria for applicants with criminal convictions. Currently, no felonies and no misdemeanors for the past 10 years (except minor traffic violations). Now, this won't cut it at all!

The issue I keep running into is we don't get enough information from our reports (Appfolio) to get a true picture of their past. I can't find in the 10-page report from HUD, if their 6-7 year recommendation starts at the time of conviction in court or after they serve time in prison. It appears to be after time served.

Do we add a question to our application "If convicted of a crime, what was the date you were released?

I have had 2 incidents at my current property in the past 6 years where a person with a criminal background moved in without a background check and within 3 months committed 1. Arson & theft onsite to 3 apartments; 2. Attempted murder onsite of the tenant (his fiance). I believe this would satisfy my criteria to deny applicants with criminal backgrounds.

Anyone want to share their new criteria?

Hi Sandy,

I thought the new regulations just state you cannot deny "blanket-wise" those with a criminal background, such as ANYONE with a criminal background will not be accepted at XYZ Property. Is that not your understanding? In addition, I thought you can still decline an applicant who has presented themselves to be a risk of harm to property, person, etc. as long as the policy is applied equally. So, in my mind, someone who was convicted of arson, rape, murder would be declined unless the crime occurred several years in the past, while someone with a DUI in the last 5 or so years with no other record of repeated DUI could be accepted. Am I misinformed?

I read it very thoroughly. It is my understanding, just as you said. However, if you deny someone based on their criminal background and they file a complaint of discrimination this is what the April 4th Guidelines states: "A housing provider must, however, be able to prove through reliable evidence that its policy or
practice of making housing decisions based on criminal history actually assists in protecting
resident safety and/or property. Bald assertions based on generalizations or stereotypes that any
individual with an arrest or conviction record poses a greater risk than any individual without
such a record are not sufficient to satisfy this burden."

In the past, we have looked at the criminal background first and denied applicants based on this. Now, if they pass credit and rental history, we will only look at the criminal background.

Also: "A housing provider with a more tailored policy or practice that excludes individuals with
only certain types of convictions must still prove that its policy is necessary to serve a
“substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest.” To do this, a housing provider must show
that its policy accurately distinguishes between criminal conduct that indicates a demonstrable
risk to resident safety and/or property and criminal conduct that does not."

This is the statement where we decided to not request photo ID with the application, but verify their identity after they have been approved, or at lease signing:

"By delaying consideration of
criminal history until after an individual’s financial and other qualifications are verified, a
housing provider may be able to minimize any additional costs that such individualized
assessment might add to the applicant screening process."

Sandy,
Good topic and relevant quotes! You've done your research!
Question: I'm not sure why you couldn't require photo ID at the time of application to verify the person who applies is who they say they are. Of course, I'm from NC where we require photo ID to vote in an election! ;)
Also, our company policy is to require photo ID prior to showing an apartment home, for everyone's safety.
Am I misunderstanding your comments?
PS: I'm glad to share our interim policies. We think they'll be changing as more information becomes available. Right now we are running the credit and criminal reports as we were, but not screening based on arrests without convictions, and focusing on convictions for the illegal manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance, specifically mentioned in the HUD information. We are still working through how to craft a policy for other convictions that could be justified as being a threat to the community or residents, because as you point out, it's hard to quantify...until the arson, theft, etc. happen, as it did in your community! Thanks for bringing up a big topic!

The reason for not copying the photo ID and to change my policy to require it only upon approval is the information mentioned in the HUD guidelines to have a "faceless"application to help win in court. It would help support our case if there were a complaint of discrimination based on race or color. Of course, that's up to us. I would rather have a complete description of their vehicle with the license plate number than their photo ID, anyway. We have fewer and fewer walk-ins due to high occupancy and nothing to show. Our applications are completed online. I don't meet most of my applicants until after they are approved and bring in the reservation fee. I'm just south of Charlotte, across the border in SC, but I am also very familiar with NC practices, where I used to be licensed, as well. We mainly changing the following: No blanket denial of felony convictions; misdemeanors case by case; approval of credit, rental history, income, etc. before considering the background check information we get with the report. Their approval is contingent upon verification of a picture ID. We get a copy of their Social Security card at application. I am working on the felony classifications, but I am also requiring any conviction within the past 7 years needs one year rental history and 6 months employment for approval. That might get me back in trouble, but we are looking for stability after the conviction.

Please read Nadine Green's new blog on this subject she recently posted.

Wow, the changes are just mind boggling and scary! Here in Oregon it's even worse. We cannot give notice of a rent increase until After a resident has been in a unit for over a year, and must give at least 90 days notice of an increase, and we cannot send a letter of increase for at least 6 months after a resident submits any maintenance request. So all a resident has to do to avoid a rent increase forever is submit a maintenance request every six months. It's so crazy I left the industry. I don't envy you at all!

What!? You can't increase rent if a service request has been submitted in the prior six months? So... does that mean the only folks paying market rate are those who have moved in over the last 12 months? Yikes. Sounds to me like someone's apartment association needs to work on their legislative agenda a bit.