Tag: Root & Rebound

New Jersey puts “fair chance housing” on the national agenda

People with a record frequently experience challenges in obtaining or maintaining housing. For those who have been incarcerated, on supervision, charged, and/or arrested, the background check for rental applications can be a persistent obstacle. Lack of stable housing is a major roadblock to successful reintegration into the community or the pursuit of social and economic opportunities. It is therefore encouraging that states have begun to enact laws limiting record-based disqualifications in housing decisions. On June 18, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed into law the Fair Chance in Housing Act, the most rigorous state legislation to date limiting consideration of criminal records in housing decisions. During a ceremony to commemorate Juneteenth, he described the new law as a step to “level what has been for too long an uneven playing field when it comes to access to housing,” explaining that it will bar landlords from asking about criminal history in most instances. The NAACP New Jersey State Conference, Latino Action Network, Fair Share Housing Center, and New Jersey Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism led organizational advocacy for the measure. Senator Troy Singleton, one of the bill’s primary sponsors, cited the “staggering amount of data on the national level that shows securing housing is one of the key barriers to reducing recidivism,” according to the New York Times. “This measure will allow those who have paid their debt to society to move forward with their lives in a productive manner.” Another sponsor, Assemblyman Benjie Wimberly, noted that “We’re fighting generational poverty, homelessness, and hopelessness through social justice reform measures such as this one.” With New Jersey’s legislation—following on the heels of laws enacted in 2019 in Colorado, Illinois, and New York, legislation in D.C. in 2017, and a slew of local ordinances since 2016— “fair chance housing” has arrived on the national reintegration agenda. While many states have adopted reforms that limit the use of criminal records in employment and occupational licensing, until these recent developments housing does not appear to have been a priority for lawmakers, at least at the state level. In the last five years, a policy movement has emerged in favor of “fair chance housing” policies, which regulate and limit the consideration of criminal records by housing providers. Toolkits have been published by the National Housing Law Project and Root & Rebound, and advocacy campaigns have been led by groups such as Just Cities, Fair Chance Housing Coalition, and many others. In some cases, these policies broadly prohibit the use of criminal history, with limited exceptions for certain serious convictions or recent convictions or pending cases. In others, policies also delay criminal history checks until after a conditional lease is provided, importing the “ban-the-box” approach pioneered in connection with fair employment laws, often with standards for when a conditional lease may be withdrawn based on criminal history, and enforcement mechanisms. Federal regulatory guidance issued in 2016 by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has also played a part. This post summarizes the new housing reforms at the local level, in D.C. and three states, describes in detail the groundbreaking New Jersey legislation, and summarizes relevant federal law. Local Ordinances Since 2016, fair chance housing ordinances have been adopted in several major U.S. cities, with expansive provisions adopted in Oakland, Berkeley, Seattle, and Portland, and more modest provisions in cities such as Richmond (CA), Urbana, Madison (WI), San Francisco, and Newark (NJ), according to the Fair Chance Housing Coalition. For example, Seattle prohibits requiring disclosure of, inquiring into, or taking adverse action based on the criminal history of a prospective tenant or occupant, except if needed to comply with federal or state law, and requires adverse action based on information from the adult sex offender registry have a “legitimate business reason”—with exceptions for certain types of dwellings. Similarly, Oakland prohibits rental housing providers from inquiring about or taking adverse action based on criminal history, except to comply with federal or state law, or to review the lifetime registry to protect a person at risk, again with exceptions for certain types of dwellings. District of Columbia In 2017, D.C. enacted the Fair Criminal Record Screening for Housing Act, which requires housing providers reviewing tenant applications to make a conditional offer before making a criminal history inquiry.  Once inquiry is made, the law prohibits housing providers from considering arrests that did not result in conviction, or from considering convictions or pending accusations other than for 48 listed offenses. Moreover, the conditional offer may be withdrawn only by providing specific reasons in writing for why doing so “achieves a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest.” Other procedural protections apply, and violations may lead to fines via complaints to the Office of Human Rights (OHR). In turn, the OHR must report to the D.C. Council on an annual basis about complaints and investigations and must also provide a public education curriculum. Certain housing is excepted. More details are available in the D.C. profile of our Restoration of Rights Project. State laws In 2019, three states joined the action, adopting laws limiting criminal history inquiries in connection with housing: Colorado enacted the Rental Application Fairness Act, which provides that a landlord considering a rental application may not consider any arrest records or records of convictions that occurred more than five years before the application. However, a landlord may consider any conviction or deferred judgment for specified methamphetamine and amphetamine offenses, offenses requiring sex offender registration, homicides and related offenses, and stalking offenses. Civil actions may be brought to remedy violations for treble the amount of the application fee, plus court costs and attorney fees. See the Colorado profile for more details. Illinois extended its Human Rights Act to cover “real estate transactions,” prohibiting inquiries about or discrimination based on arrests not leading to a conviction, juvenile records, or records ordered expunged, sealed, or impounded. See the Illinois profile for more details. New York prohibited, in connection with providing housing, asking about or acting adversely based on records from an arrest or case terminated in favor of the individual, certain marijuana offenses, cases terminated as a youthful offender adjudication, and cases that resulted in a sealed conviction, including those sealed under the 2009 Drug Law Reform Act. See the New York profile for more details. New Jersey New Jersey’s Fair Chance in Housing Act is the most extensive state-level regulation of housing to date, applying to all rental housing providers except owner-occupied premises of four units or less. The law prohibits consideration of any criminal record at the initial rental application stage, allows only certain records to be considered after a conditional offer is made, and imposes substantive and procedural standards for withdrawal of a conditional offer. Violations may be sanctioned with up to $10,000 in fines and other compliance measures, civil immunity is provided for landlords from claims based on decisions to rent to individuals with a record, and reporting requirements are included. The following paragraphs summarize the provisions of the bill. Initial rental application: Under the bill, prior to accepting an application fee, a housing provider must disclose in writing whether they review and consider criminal history and state that an applicant may provide evidence demonstrating inaccuracies with the criminal record, evidence of rehabilitation, and other mitigating factors. Housing providers may not inquire into or ask about a rental applicant’s criminal history prior to making a conditional offer, except they may consider whether an applicant has ever been convicted of manufacturing or producing methamphetamine on the premises of federally assisted housing or is subject to a lifetime sex offender registration requirement (both grounds for exclusion from public housing under federal law). Records that may be considered: Even after making a conditional rental offer, housing providers may not consider arrests or charges that have not resulted in conviction, expunged convictions, convictions erased through executive pardon, convictions that have been vacated and otherwise legally nullified, juvenile adjudications, and sealed records. Housing providers also may not require an applicant to submit to a drug or alcohol test, or request consent to obtain information from a drug treatment facility. After a conditional offer, the following records may be considered: convictions for certain listed violent and sex offenses; a pending indictable offense (felony); a conviction for a fourth degree indictable offense if the prison sentence concluded within the previous year; a conviction for a second or third degree indictable offense if the prison sentence concluded within the previous four years; a conviction for a first degree indictable offense if the prison sentence concluded within the previous six years. Withdrawal of conditional offer: A housing provider may withdraw a conditional offer based on criminal history only if they determine “by preponderance of the evidence, that the withdrawal is necessary to fulfill a substantial, legitimate, and nondiscriminatory interest.” The reasons must be provided “with specificity” in writing, with an opportunity to appeal by providing evidence of inaccuracies within the record, rehabilitation, or other mitigation. The housing provider must perform an individualized assessment in light of six factors relating to the offense, the applicant, and rental safety. The applicant may request, within 30 days of notice of a withdrawal, a copy of all information relied on in considering the applicant, which must be provided within 10 days of a request, free of charge. As previously noted, the applicant must be given an opportunity to present evidence of inaccuracies in the record relied upon, and of mitigating factors. Model forms: The Division of Civil Rights is directed to prepare for housing providers model forms for initial disclosures and notice of withdrawal of a conditional offer, in English, Spanish, and any other language deemed appropriate. Advertising: Housing providers may not publish an advertisement that it will not consider an applicant who has been arrested or convicted, except for an applicant convicted of manufacture or production of methamphetamine on the premises of federally assisted housing or is subject to a lifetime sex offender registration requirement. Civil immunity: To encourage landlords to provide housing to formerly incarcerated individuals, landlords subject to the law are immune from civil liability arising for a decision to rent to individuals with a record, except for a person with convictions for specified violent and sex offenses. Enforcement: An applicant or prospective applicant may file a complaint with the Division of Civil Rights of the Department of Law and Public Safety, which shall make an effort to notify the housing provider and provide 14 days to mediate and address the issue. The division itself may also file complaints, without the requirement of mediation, including for retaliations against a complainant. After an investigation, if the complaint is substantiated, the division “shall” issue monetary penalties of $1,000 to $10,000, depending on whether there are previous violations (up to $1,000 may be assigned to the complainant), and the division may issue other non-monetary remedies, including in some circumstances requiring the provision of the rental unit to the complainant. Final decisions on an investigation may be appealed by the housing provider or complainant. Reporting: The law also requires the Division of Civil Rights to collect data on complaints and investigations and to report annually on its website information about substantiated complaints that have resulted in monetary penalties. Federal law In addition, federal regulatory guidance issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in 2016 limits the use of criminal records by housing providers and realtors pursuant to the federal Fair Housing Act. The HUD guidance provides that: where a policy or practice that restricts access to housing on the basis of criminal history has a disparate impact on individuals of a particular race, national origin, or other protected class, such policy or practice is unlawful under the Fair Housing Act if it is not necessary to serve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest of the housing provider. The guidance indicates that because “[n]ationally, racial and ethnic minorities face disproportionately high rates of arrest and incarceration,” use of criminal history is likely to trigger the “non-discriminatory interest” requirement. The guidance further suggests that arrest records should not used as a basis for exclusion, that the nature, severity, and recency of a conviction must be considered, and that “ensuring resident safety and protecting property” are the only interests that can justify criminal history exclusions. Finally, federal law imposes mandatory and discretionary bars on residency in public and federally-assisted housing. Mandatory exclusions apply to people who are subject to a lifetime sex offender registration requirement or have been convicted of producing methamphetamine on the premises of federally-assisted housing. A variety of discretionary grounds are provided for denial of public and federally-assisted housing based on criminal records or engagement in criminal activity, including for drug activity or activity that would adversely affect other tenants.  Such adverse actions may also result in eviction of other members of a person’s household. For more information on federal exclusions, see National Housing Law Project, An Affordable Home on Re-entry: Federally Assisted Housing and Previously Incarcerated Individuals (2018). (The introduction to this document is an instructive reminder of how HUD guidance has evolved where criminal records are concerned, from the focus on avoiding violent crimes in the 1970s, to the draconian “one strike and you’re out” rules applied in the 1990s, to today’s comparatively more nuanced policies.) *** Note: With four states having enacted laws limiting consideration of criminal records in housing, we are expanding our 50-state Restoration of Rights Project to cover housing in addition to employment and licensing (along with restoration of civil rights and record relief). Read more

Organizations call on Congress to remove record-related barriers to small business relief

A bipartisan group of civil rights, advocacy, and business organizations, including CCRC, are calling on Congress to take immediate action to remove barriers based on arrest or conviction history for small business owners seeking COVID-19 federal relief.  This is an issue we have been covering in depth in recent posts.  This call to action—available in PDF and reprinted below—is issued by the following organizations (with additional sign-ons welcome; contact us here): American Civil Liberties Union Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Collateral Consequences Resource Center College & Community Fellowship Community Legal Services of Philadelphia #cut50 Drug Policy Alliance FreedomWorks Georgia Justice Project Interfaith Action for Human Rights Jewish Council for Public Affairs Justice & Accountability Center of Louisiana Justice Action Network Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Main Street Alliance National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers National Employment Law Project Out For Justice Public Interest Law Center Reproductive Justice Inside Root & Rebound Safer Foundation Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs Women Against Registry *Note: the letter was originally issued on April 10 and was last updated on April 17. April 17, 2020 Congress Must Act Now to Remove Barriers Based on Arrest or Conviction History for Small Business Owners Seeking COVID-19 Federal Relief We oppose the restrictions based on arrest or conviction placed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) on the two small business programs authorized and funded by the CARES Act (see Appendix). With one in three Americans having some sort of record, and people with records experiencing an unemployment rate five times higher than the average rate, these restrictions will have a significant and detrimental impact on individuals, families, and communities across the United States. The restrictions will have a particularly harsh effect on minority business owners and employees who are disproportionately affected by the criminal legal system as a result of institutional discrimination. Specifically, these restrictions are: • Unnecessary and confusing: There are no statutes requiring SBA to categorically disqualify individuals from its loan programs based on an arrest or conviction record; the authority to perform a background check does not translate into authority to exclude. SBA’s Interim Final Rule and policy guidance for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) are far more exclusionary than its own existing regulations on record restrictions for small business loans, which only exclude those with active cases. The new restrictions constitute unnecessary overreach that interferes with the ability of small businesses to operate and pay their employees. The PPP interim rule and policy guidance, including its application form, are confusing and likely to have a chilling effect that will discourage many eligible applicants. The EIDL guidance and application form are similarly confusing and are likely to have the same effect. • Inconsistent with Congress’ intent: The intention of the emergency relief programs authorized by the CARES Act is to sustain small businesses that are trying to save the economy by keeping people employed. Eligibility requirements should be relaxed in these circumstances, not heightened as SBA proposes. SBA’s proposed new restrictions on eligibility for its loan programs, which already operate to exclude many people with a record, contravene the intent of the CARES Act, and are inconsistent with SBA’s more general mandate of encouraging entrepreneurship and expanding access to employment. A significant number of people with arrest or conviction history have established their own small businesses, since it is frequently difficult for them to secure employment with others. Moreover, these businesses also tend to be more willing to hire employees with a record. Driving them out of business will result in a severe impact on employment of a population that already is disadvantaged in the workplace. A large percentage of small businesses are owned by single owners or a limited number of co-owners, so that any disqualification affecting 20%+ equity owners will have a significant impact on small business owners generally. A policy that excludes from loan eligibility small businesses that are owned in whole or in part by people with arrest or conviction history is not only inconsistent with the CARES Act and the mandate of SBA’s own authorizing statutes, it also frustrates federal and state efforts to encourage the reintegration of individuals involved in the criminal legal system. • Overbroad and unfair: The PPP’s categorical bar based on certain arrest or conviction records means that there is no opportunity for an individual determination that considers factors such as rehabilitation, the circumstances of the conviction/disposition, or whether the nature of the underlying crime might adversely affect the ability to properly utilize the loan. The EIDL program restrictions go even further by asking about any involvement with the criminal legal system at any time, and potentially exclude most applicants with any arrest or conviction record from the EIDL (the SBA has not provided guidance on this). The PPP and EIDL restrictions extend to individuals that the criminal legal system has specifically determined should not be convicted of a crime, including those that participate in diversionary programs or obtain deferred adjudications – the very kinds of dispositions that are supposed to help protect people involved in the criminal legal system from harsh economic collateral consequences. The SBA’s requirement that people disclose sealed and expunged records circumvents protections in state law for these cleared records and is contrary to the intent and purpose of those laws. • Racially discriminatory: The SBA’s restrictions will have a disparate impact on minority business owners and employees, who are disproportionately affected by the criminal legal system as a result of institutional discrimination. People with a record are already subject to a myriad of disadvantages in seeking to reintegrate into society, notably in bank lending policies but also in housing, employment, licensing, education, voting, and other areas. Congress must act now to: Direct the SBA to eliminate new record restrictions introduced by the PPP interim rule and application form, and clarify the record-related eligibility policy for EIDL applicants. Direct the SBA to relax the record restrictions that are applied to Section 7(a) and 7(b) loans under existing rules and policies. Direct the SBA to ensure that the application forms for SBA financial assistance accurately reflect the eligibility requirements. As the COVID-19 crisis continues to devastate communities across this country, federal relief must be made equitably accessible to all who need it. Sincerely, American Civil Liberties Union Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Collateral Consequences Resource Center College & Community Fellowship Community Legal Services of Philadelphia #cut50 Drug Policy Alliance FreedomWorks Georgia Justice Project Interfaith Action for Human Rights Jewish Council for Public Affairs Justice & Accountability Center of Louisiana Justice Action Network Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights Main Street Alliance National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers National Employment Law Project Out For Justice Public Interest Law Center Reproductive Justice Inside Root & Rebound Safer Foundation Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs Women Against Registry APPENDIX: PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS (Prepared by CCRC) Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) The CARES Act authorizes the PPP, which provides small business loans under the SBA’s 7(a) loan program, with provisions for expanded eligibility, allowable uses, and forgiveness.[i] Barriers based on arrest or conviction for 7(a) loans in general: By statute: The SBA “may verify the applicant’s criminal background, or lack thereof,” prior to approval, including through an FBI background check.[ii] By regulation: “Businesses with an Associate who is incarcerated, on probation, on parole, or has been indicted for a felony or a crime of moral turpitude” are ineligible.[iii] By policy statement: SBA interprets its regulation to also make ineligible an Associate under deferred prosecution, conditional discharge, order of protection, or a sex offender registry, or currently facing any charges in any jurisdiction.[iv] SBA also states that various principals of a business “must be of good character,” which is determined through a character evaluation, requiring disclosure of any: 1) current charges; 2) arrests in the past 6 months; and 3) time the person has been convicted, pled guilty or no contest, or been placed on pretrial diversion or any form of parole or probation—other than for a minor vehicle violation. Expunged and sealed records must be disclosed, with no exceptions. A person will generally be approved if they provide documentation that they have satisfied all sentencing conditions (presumably including payment of costs and restitution) and do not have a felony conviction, misdemeanor conviction for a crime against a minor, recent misdemeanor conviction, or recent charges. Otherwise, they are subject to a fingerprint-based FBI background check and an opaque individual determination by the SBA.[v] Barriers based on arrest or conviction specific to PPP loans: By statute: The CARES Act does not specifically authorize much less require barriers based on arrest or conviction for PPP loans. To be consistent with its purposes, the CARES Act should at the least be read to say that new barriers based on arrest or conviction should not be applied to PPP assistance.[vi] By regulation: SBA Interim Final Rule (Apr. 15): “You are ineligible for a PPP loan if….iii. An owner of 20 percent or more of the equity of the applicant is incarcerated, on probation, on parole; presently subject to an indictment, criminal information, arraignment, or other means by which formal criminal charges are brought in any jurisdiction; or has been convicted of a felony within the last five years.” By application form: Borrower Application (Apr. 3): asks two questions; a “yes” to either is disqualifying: 1) “Is the Applicant (if an individual) or any individual owning 20% or more of the equity of the Applicant subject to an indictment, criminal information, arraignment, or other means by which formal criminal charges are brought in any jurisdiction, or presently incarcerated, or on probation or parole?” 2) “Within the last 5 years, for any felony, has the Applicant (if an individual) or any owner of the Applicant 1) been convicted; 2) pleaded guilty; 3) pleaded nolo contendere; 4) been placed on pretrial diversion; or 5) been placed on any form of parole or probation (including probation before judgment)?” (Note: this is far broader than the Interim Final Rule: the second question includes “any owner” and covers dispositions other than conviction.) Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) EIDL loans are authorized under the SBA’s existing 7(b) disaster loan program. The Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act (Phase 1) appropriated additional funds and deemed coronavirus a disaster.[vii] Pursuant to the CARES Act, SBA is also allowing business owners in all states, D.C., and territories to apply for an EIDL advance of up to $10,000, which “will be made available within days of a successful application, and this loan advance will not have to be repaid.”[viii] Barriers based on arrest or conviction for EIDL: By statute and regulation: Individuals convicted during the past year of a felony during and in connection with a riot or civil disorder or other declared disaster are ineligible.[ix] By policy statement: The SBA policy statement provides: “It is not in the public interest…to extend financial assistance to persons who are not of good character. If any adverse information develops concerning the character or background of a disaster loan applicant or principal owner [on forms], SBA must make a determination as to the applicant’s character before a loan can be approved.”[x]  Thus, the SBA will not approve a loan “if the applicant or principal owner is presently on parole or probation following conviction of a serious criminal offense. However, [it] will consider approving an application submitted by partnerships, corporations, and LLEs, where the apparent bar to eligibility was committed independently of any official act for the business and the individual will divest all direct and indirect interest in the business.” By application form: Forms, including the COVID-19 EIDL portal, include the usual EIDL three-part question, which requires a “yes” or “no” to the entire question: “a. Are you presently subject to an indictment, criminal information, arraignment, or other means by which formal criminal charges are brought in any jurisdiction? b. Have you been arrested in the past six months for any criminal offense? c. For any criminal offense – other than a minor vehicle violation – have you ever been convicted, plead guilty, plead nolo contendere, been placed on pretrial diversion, or been placed on any form of parole or probation (including probation before judgment)?” Under pre-existing policy, if this question is answered “yes,” the SBA requires the applicant to provide a Form 912 with an explanation of the offense(s), and in some cases a fingerprint sample, before the SBA will make a character determination.[xi] The SBA has not provided guidance on whether applicants who answer “yes” to this question can obtain an EIDL advance, or whether they will be subject to the usual character evaluation. [i] CARES Act (H.R. 748), secs. 1102-1105; 15 U.S.C. 636(a). [ii] 15 U.S.C. 636(a)(1)(B). [iii] 13 C.F.R. § 120.110(n). An “Associate” includes officers, directors, owners of 20% or more of the equity, key employees, and other specified entities. See 13 C.F.R. § 120.10. [iv] See SBA Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) 50 10 5(K)(B)(2)(III)(A)(13) (eff. April 1, 2019). [v] The good character requirement applies to every proprietor, general partner, officer, director, managing member of an LLC, owner of 20% or more of the equity, trustor, or person who runs day-to-day operations.” See id. [vi] See CARES Act (H.R. 748), sec. 1102. [vii] Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 6074), tit. 2. [viii] CARES Act (H.R. 748), sec. 1110; https://www.sba.gov/funding-programs/loans/coronavirus-relief-options/economic-injury-disaster-loan-emergency-advance. [ix] See P. L. 90 448, 1106(e), HUD Act of l968, and 13 CFR §§ 123.301, 123.101.   [x] SBA SOP 50 30 9(3.6) (effective May 31, 2018) at p. 32. [xi] Id. Read more