8/26 - 8/27
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued new guidance on April 4th, 2016 that is going to require all single-family and multifamily rental professionals to revisit their policies.
In a decision that is aimed at protecting the rights of “returning citizens”, HUD is limiting the use of arrest records in tenant screening nationwide for both public and private housing. While they are not discouraging the use of criminal records in the background screening process, they are requiring a conviction be reported for the record to be considered in the decision. Using an arrest record without a conviction is being viewed as discriminating against a consumer who has not been found guilty of having done anything illegal.
Per the new guidance:
Exclusions Because of Prior Arrest
A housing provider with a policy or practice of excluding individuals because of one or more prior arrests (without any conviction) cannot satisfy its burden of showing that such policy or practice is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest. 25 As the Supreme Court has recognized, “[t]he mere fact that a man has been arrested has very little, if any, probative value in showing that he has engaged in any misconduct. An arrest shows nothing more than that someone probably suspected the person apprehended of an offense.”26 Because arrest records do not constitute proof of past unlawful conduct and are often incomplete (e.g., by failing to indicate whether the individual was prosecuted, convicted, or acquitted), 27 the fact of an arrest is not a reliable basis upon which to assess the potential risk to resident safety or property posed by a particular individual. For that reason, a housing provider who denies housing to persons on the basis of arrests not resulting in conviction cannot prove that the exclusion actually assists in protecting resident safety and/or property.
What does this mean?
In your rental policy there should be clearly defined requirements for an applicant to be approved to live in your property. For example: income must be xx times the monthly rent. Likewise there should be criteria that will disqualify applicants despite them meeting other requirements. This is the section where your policy clarifies your stance on criminal records that appear during the applicant’s background check. Our recommendation is that you specify that the use of a criminal record must be the result of a conviction, and denial should be limited to specific crimes such as:
When updating your written rental policy, you should review the content so it answers these 3 questions:
Along with each of these questions you should consider whether your requirement is appropriate for the type of housing you offer, and the community it is in (i.e. family community, senior community, individual home, etc…).
The new guidance does not go so far as to make criminals a protected class so you are still completely within your right to deny applicants that violate the criteria above. However, more than ever before, you have a burden of proof requirement. In order to safely depend upon making a decision involving prior convictions, you as the housing provider, must be able to prove that your policy clearly excludes individuals with only certain types of convictions. This proof in your policy is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest. The use of ambiguous language or blanket statements such as, “a felony is an automatic denial” will get you into trouble.
The new guidance clarifies this requirement as:
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.
HUD’s new requirements may seem like a big change at first, but it can be followed very easily by following these steps:
We have already taken the steps necessary to filter our criminal background checks to exclude arrest records in order to mitigate our clients from Fair Housing enforcements and civil litigation.
For more information about the ruling read the complete HUD document
When you subscribe to the blog, we will send you an e-mail when there are new updates on the site so you wouldn't miss them.
Comments 6
So a wholesale pattern of being arrested doesnt matter? Well HUD! at least give current & other future,the generally law-abiding, residents, some protection. Not to mention your company's site staff. I know, management is caught between lots of rocks & lots of hard places. But maybe a few lawsuits by residents to right a few bona fide failures by management to properly screen future residents resulting in danger to lives, property & relative security will get everyone's attention!
They should be allowed to sue HUD, since HUD forces this down everyone's throats!
ONLY the article.
Thanks for the information. Looking at our Rental Policies right now to make sure we are in compliance. Although it does sound like we have no rights whatsoever, we are taking a positive approach to this news by updating our criteria and proper training. Thanks again!
Maybe HUD ought to provide damage insurance for ANY & ALL RESIDENTS & PROPERTIES to pay for THESE 'GRAY' TENANTS' DAMAGE. But that does nothing for injuries or deaths brought to a property by an individual with a history of being associated with criminal activity. HUD is SO trusting of individuals--like self-certifying their income!
I agree that the guidance is frustrating, but this specific change is not necessarily a bad one. It's a reasonable assumption that someone with multiple arrests will end up with one or more convictions on their record. In these cases you will still see the record and be alerted to whether an applicant may not be a safe fit for your property. In cases where an applicant may have one or two arrest records with no convictions there could be any number of reasons for what happened that won't affect their quality as a tenant. Since they were never convicted they have technically never been found guilty of committing a crime, and really may be a perfectly suitable option for approval.
Still, limiting objective data used in determining applicants is a slippery slope so we should all remain vigilant in monitoring proposed legislation that may push things too far. This change is manageable, but there are plenty of others that would have clearly negative ramifications, and for those we will continue to be active in protecting the best interests of property owners.