Let My
People
Rent
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is proposing new rules intended to reduce barriers to public housing for justice-impacted people. These rules would apply to all public housing authorities (PHAs) and owners of Section 8 properties across the country. Learn more and make your voice heard!
Let My
People
Rent
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is proposing new rules intended to reduce barriers to public housing for justice-impacted people. These rules would apply to all public housing authorities (PHAs) and owners of Section 8 properties across the country.
Formerly incarcerated people are 10 times more likely to experience homelessness than the general public.
HUD is asking for public comment on these proposed rules. You can submit a comment online or by mail.
All comments must refer to the docket number and title (Docket No. FR-6362-P-01, Reducing Barriers to HUD-Assisted Housing) and must be received by HUD no later than June 10, 2024, at 11:59 p.m.
Formerly incarcerated people are 10 times more likely to experience homelessness than the general public.
HUD is asking for public comment on these proposed rules. You can submit a comment online or by mail.
All comments must refer to the docket number and title (Docket No. FR-6362-P-01, Reducing Barriers to HUD-Assisted Housing) and must be received by HUD no later than June 10, 2024, at 11:59 p.m.
Our Policy Breakdown
Our Policy Breakdown
What the rule proposes to do and what HUD needs to know and hear from you:
Setting a standard on lookback periods
The rule would set the standard that denying someone admission to public housing for any criminal activity that’s more than 3 years old is presumed to be unreasonable. However, PHAs and HUD-assisted owners could still impose a lookback period of more than 3 years if they conduct an individualized assessment and determine using “empirical evidence” that a longer period of time is necessary “to ensure the health, safety, and peaceful enjoyment of other tenants or property employees.” There would be no limit on how long a lookback period could be if the PHA or owner has this “evidence.”
Tell HUD what you think: In addition to the standard lookback period, why would a maximum lookback period be helpful?
Requiring individualized assessments
PHAs and owners would be required to consider mitigating factors before making admission, termination, and eviction decisions based on criminal history. These would be the factors for admissions:
- The nature and circumstances of past criminal activity, including the seriousness and relevance of the offense and how long ago it took place
- Evidence of rehabilitation, treatment, employment, and/or housing history
- Circumstances related to a medical condition of a household member
- Whether there is reason to believe that the conduct will recur and may affect other tenants’ health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment
- Whether it is a factor that the PHA or owner must provide reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities
Tell HUD what you think: What other mitigating factors should a PHA or HUD-assisted owner be required to consider when looking at an applicant’s criminal history, and why? And should HUD define these factors in greater detail for PHAs and owners?
Reducing denials due to not disclosing a record
PHAs and owners would be prohibited from denying admission to someone because they didn’t disclose a criminal record—unless that criminal record would have been relevant in the decision of whether to admit them. This rule would apply to PHAs and owners who are not relying only on self-disclosure and who plan to run a background check anyway. The proposed rule would still allow applications for public housing to vary in how they ask about criminal history and whether they specifically explain what should be disclosed.
Tell HUD what you think: Why should PHAs and owners not be able to deny someone because they didn’t disclose their record?
Reducing exclusions based on arrest records
PHAs and owners would not be allowed to exclude someone from public housing based on an arrest record alone—but they would be allowed to make admission, termination, and eviction decisions based on conduct leading to or underlying an arrest if they have other evidence that the individual engaged in the conduct. The proposed rule would also still allow PHAs and owners to consider other kinds of “criminal records,” including not only all past misdemeanor and felony convictions but also overturned and wrongful convictions, sealed/expunged records, juvenile records, and infractions. Information on warrants, dismissals or deferrals of prosecution, acquittals or mistrials, terms and violations of supervision, and fines and fees would also be considered as part of someone’s record.
Tell HUD what you think: Why should PHAs and owners not be allowed to look at “conduct underlying an arrest”? What other types of “criminal records” should not be considered, and why?
Applying little to no enforcement
PHAs and owners would be trusted to follow this new rule without any enforcement or oversight. Nothing in the proposed rule creates a way for HUD to check if PHAs and owners are complying with the rule or to impose penalties if they are not complying.
Tell HUD what you think: Why does HUD need to provide a way for this rule to be enforced?
Setting a standard on lookback periods
The rule would set the standard that denying someone admission to public housing for any criminal activity that’s more than 3 years old is presumed to be unreasonable. However, PHAs and HUD-assisted owners could still impose a lookback period of more than 3 years if they conduct an individualized assessment and determine using “empirical evidence” that a longer period of time is necessary “to ensure the health, safety, and peaceful enjoyment of other tenants or property employees.” There would be no limit on how long a lookback period could be if the PHA or owner has this “evidence.”
Tell HUD what you think: In addition to the standard lookback period, why would a maximum lookback period be helpful?
Requiring individualized assessments
PHAs and owners would be required to consider mitigating factors before making admission, termination, and eviction decisions based on criminal history. These would be the factors for admissions:
- The nature and circumstances of past criminal activity, including the seriousness and relevance of the offense and how long ago it took place
- Evidence of rehabilitation, treatment, employment, and/or housing history
- Circumstances related to a medical condition of a household member
- Whether there is reason to believe that the conduct will recur and may affect other tenants’ health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment
- Whether it is a factor that the PHA or owner must provide reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities
Tell HUD what you think: What other mitigating factors should a PHA or HUD-assisted owner be required to consider when looking at an applicant’s criminal history, and why? And should HUD define these factors in greater detail for PHAs and owners?
Reducing denials due to not disclosing a record
PHAs and owners would be prohibited from denying admission to someone because they didn’t disclose a criminal record—unless that criminal record would have been relevant in the decision of whether to admit them. This rule would apply to PHAs and owners who are not relying only on self-disclosure and who plan to run a background check anyway. The proposed rule would still allow applications for public housing to vary in how they ask about criminal history and whether they specifically explain what should be disclosed.
Tell HUD what you think: Why should PHAs and owners not be able to deny someone because they didn’t disclose their record?
Reducing exclusions based on arrest records
PHAs and owners would not be allowed to exclude someone from public housing based on an arrest record alone—but they would be allowed to make admission, termination, and eviction decisions based on conduct leading to or underlying an arrest if they have other evidence that the individual engaged in the conduct. The proposed rule would also still allow PHAs and owners to consider other kinds of “criminal records,” including not only all past misdemeanor and felony convictions but also overturned and wrongful convictions, sealed/expunged records, juvenile records, and infractions. Information on warrants, dismissals or deferrals of prosecution, acquittals or mistrials, terms and violations of supervision, and fines and fees would also be considered as part of someone’s record.
Tell HUD what you think: Why should PHAs and owners not be allowed to look at “conduct underlying an arrest”? What other types of “criminal records” should not be considered, and why?
Applying little to no enforcement
PHAs and owners would be trusted to follow this new rule without any enforcement or oversight. Nothing in the proposed rule creates a way for HUD to check if PHAs and owners are complying with the rule or to impose penalties if they are not complying.
Tell HUD what you think: Why does HUD need to provide a way for this rule to be enforced?
Tips on submitting your public comment
Tips on submitting your public comment
- You can choose to submit anonymously. Before you submit your comment, select “Anonymous” in the “Tell us about yourself!” section at the bottom of the page.
- You don’t have to talk about every part of the rule. Address the parts of the proposed rule that matter the most, and talk about your experience with these issues and how you will be impacted.
- Remember that the comment process is not a vote; HUD will finalize the rule based on people’s reasoning and evidence rather than a majority of votes. A single comment where you support your position well, with facts and in your own words, may matter more than a thousand copies of the same letter.
- Keep a copy of your comment in a separate file so you won’t lose your comment if you have a problem submitting it using the web form.
Stay Up To Date
FRRC is developing a multi-year campaign to reduce barriers to housing across Florida. Sign up here to stay in the know and get involved in your part of the state.
We love and appreciate your support. Help us end the disenfranchisement against people with convictions.
We love and appreciate your support. Help us continue our work.
