It means that it is Fair Housing Month! This month the Department of Housing and Urban Development issued guidelines for handling convicts under Fair Housing laws. The lengthy titled;
“Office of General Counsel Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real Estate-Related Transactions” spells out how convicts should be treated when considering them as tenants or participation in a real estate contract.
In part, the guidelines address a disparity in the treatment of certain classes of convicts: “Across the United States, African Americans and Hispanics are arrested, convicted and incarcerated at rates disproportionate to their share of the general population. Consequently, criminal records-based barriers to housing are likely to have a disproportionate impact on minority home seekers. While having a criminal record is not a protected characteristic under the Fair Housing Act, criminal history-based restrictions on housing opportunities violate the Act if, without justification, their burden falls more often on renters or other housing market participants of one race or national origin over another (i.e., discriminatory effects liability). Additionally, intentional discrimination in violation of the Act occurs if a housing provider treats individuals with comparable criminal history differently because of their race, national origin or other protected characteristic (i.e., disparate treatment liability).” says the document.
While historically many landlords have been aware of the pitfalls of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin some refused to rent to convicted felons. Now that practice is being scrutinized by HUD as possibly discriminatory. In this document HUD defines a three step process which, like many things governmental is too wordy to reprint in this limited space. Here are the abbreviated three steps: “In the first step of the analysis, a plaintiff (or HUD in an administrative adjudication) must prove that the criminal history policy has a discriminatory effect, that is, that the policy results in a disparate impact on a group of persons because of their race or national origin. This burden is satisfied by presenting evidence proving that the challenged practice actually or predictably results in a disparate impact.”
In the second step of the discriminatory effects analysis, the burden shifts to the housing provider to prove that the challenged policy or practice is justified – that is, that it is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest of the provider. The interest proffered by the housing provider may not be hypothetical or speculative, meaning the housing provider must be able to provide evidence proving both that the housing provider has a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest supporting the challenged policy and that the challenged policy actually achieves that interest.”
The third step of the discriminatory effects analysis is applicable only if a housing provider successfully proves that its criminal history policy or practice is necessary to achieve its substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest. In the third step, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff or HUD to prove that such interest could be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect.”
For the complete text of the governments new stance on housing discrimination for convicts go to hud.gov and look for “In Focus”.