Skip navigation

Convicted Ppl Mvmnt Evictions and Convictions Report 2013

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Public Housing and Disparate Impact:
A Model Policy
	
  

	
  

	
  
Formerly	
  Incarcerated	
  &	
  Convicted	
  People’s	
  Movement	
  
2013	
  

	
  

Acknowledgments	
  
	
  
	
  
I	
  first	
  encountered	
  this	
  public	
  housing	
  issue	
  over	
  a	
  decade	
  ago	
  while	
  living	
  in	
  Rhode	
  
Island,	
  and	
  finally	
  began	
  legal	
  research	
  while	
  in	
  New	
  York	
  City	
  last	
  summer.	
  	
  It	
  is	
  national	
  
in	
  scope,	
  and	
  much	
  of	
  the	
  relevant	
  law	
  is	
  federal.	
  	
  However,	
  I	
  felt	
  it	
  would	
  be	
  easier	
  to	
  
comprehend	
  if	
  focused	
  on	
  a	
  particular	
  city.	
  	
  I	
  moved	
  to	
  New	
  Orleans	
  in	
  2011	
  and	
  do	
  not	
  
pretend	
  to	
  fully	
  understand	
  the	
  entire	
  socio-­‐political	
  landscape.	
  	
  	
  To	
  the	
  degree	
  that	
  this	
  
report	
  is	
  incomplete,	
  such	
  as	
  detailed	
  data	
  on	
  evictions,	
  I	
  apologize.	
  	
  What	
  follows	
  is	
  meant	
  
to	
  be	
  a	
  starting	
  point	
  on	
  a	
  complex	
  issue,	
  rather	
  than	
  an	
  ending	
  point.	
  	
  I	
  expect	
  others	
  to	
  
capitalize	
  on	
  this	
  consolidation	
  of	
  material	
  and	
  move	
  forward	
  in	
  their	
  own	
  regions	
  or	
  
specialties.	
  
	
  
This	
  report	
  would	
  not	
  be	
  possible	
  without	
  the	
  families	
  of	
  convicted	
  people	
  standing	
  
up	
  and	
  resisting	
  discrimination.	
  	
  In	
  particular,	
  members	
  of	
  Stand	
  with	
  Dignity	
  have	
  been	
  
instrumental	
  in	
  advocating	
  for	
  changes	
  outlined	
  in	
  the	
  report.	
  	
  I	
  thank	
  their	
  organizers,	
  
Toya	
  X	
  and	
  Collette	
  Tippy,	
  for	
  connecting	
  with	
  me.	
  	
  Very	
  little	
  of	
  my	
  work	
  in	
  New	
  Orleans	
  
would	
  be	
  relevant	
  if	
  not	
  for	
  my	
  fellow	
  members	
  of	
  Voice	
  of	
  the	
  Ex-­‐Offender	
  (VOTE)	
  and	
  
Norris	
  Henderson.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Furthermore,	
  I	
  would	
  like	
  to	
  thank	
  the	
  work	
  of	
  Marie-­‐Claire	
  Tran	
  (formerly	
  of	
  
Shriver	
  Center),	
  Michelle	
  Navidad	
  Rodriguez	
  and	
  Maurice	
  Emsellem	
  (National	
  Employment	
  
Law	
  Project)	
  for	
  their	
  work	
  on	
  civil	
  rights	
  law	
  and	
  criminal	
  convictions.	
  	
  Also,	
  Stacy	
  
Seicshnaydre	
  (Tulane	
  University	
  Law	
  School),	
  Mark	
  Ladov	
  (Brennan	
  Center	
  for	
  Justice),	
  
and	
  Tiffany	
  Antioch-­‐Emory	
  (formerly	
  of	
  Rhode	
  Island	
  Legal	
  Services)	
  for	
  their	
  insights	
  and	
  
suggestions.	
  	
  A	
  special	
  thanks	
  goes	
  out	
  to	
  FICPM	
  member	
  Daryl	
  Atkinson,	
  Esq.	
  (Southern	
  
Coalition	
  for	
  Social	
  Justice).	
  	
  He	
  is	
  a	
  strong	
  example	
  of	
  how	
  to	
  be	
  an	
  effective	
  advocate	
  when	
  
also	
  directly	
  impacted	
  by	
  the	
  issue	
  at	
  hand.	
  
	
  
	
  	
  
	
  
Bruce Reilly
Bruce	
  Reilly	
  
Formerly	
  Incarcerated	
  &	
  Convicted	
  People’s	
  Movement	
  
Voice	
  of	
  the	
  Ex-­‐Offender	
  
Tulane	
  University	
  Law	
  School,	
  J.D.	
  Candidate	
  ‘14	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
ii	
  	
  

	
  

A	
  Note	
  From	
  The	
  FICPM:	
  
	
  

	
  
This	
  report	
  represents	
  more	
  than	
  just	
  a	
  legal	
  analysis	
  about	
  the	
  struggles	
  in	
  low-­‐
income	
  communities.	
  	
  For	
  many	
  of	
  us,	
  this	
  is	
  about	
  our	
  homes.	
  	
  This	
  is	
  about	
  where	
  we	
  try	
  
to	
  cook	
  our	
  meals,	
  relax,	
  and	
  raise	
  our	
  families.	
  	
  The	
  stakes	
  are	
  high,	
  inciting	
  passion.	
  	
  Yet	
  
we	
  do	
  not	
  let	
  this	
  passion	
  blind	
  us;	
  instead,	
  we	
  use	
  it	
  to	
  motivate	
  ourselves.	
  	
  We	
  encourage	
  
everyone,	
  regardless	
  of	
  background	
  or	
  circumstance,	
  to	
  join	
  us	
  in	
  taking	
  action	
  upon	
  a	
  most	
  
critical	
  issue.	
  
	
  
We	
  are	
  fortunate	
  to	
  have	
  strong	
  individuals	
  and	
  organizations	
  working	
  towards	
  
change	
  in	
  New	
  Orleans.	
  	
  The	
  city	
  is	
  “ground	
  zero”	
  for	
  incarceration,	
  and	
  a	
  true	
  tragedy	
  
considering	
  the	
  rich	
  history	
  and	
  difficult	
  geographic	
  location	
  at	
  the	
  mouth	
  of	
  the	
  
Mississippi.	
  	
  	
  What	
  we	
  have	
  created	
  is	
  a	
  national	
  model,	
  drawing	
  from	
  the	
  expertise	
  on	
  the	
  
ground	
  and	
  in	
  the	
  legal	
  community,	
  to	
  help	
  our	
  people	
  step	
  up	
  and	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  carnage	
  
created	
  by	
  two	
  generations	
  of	
  the	
  “War	
  on	
  Drugs.”	
  	
  
	
  
The	
  FICPM	
  looks	
  forward	
  to	
  building	
  partnerships	
  with	
  people	
  working	
  on	
  this	
  and	
  
other	
  issues	
  across	
  the	
  nation.	
  
	
  
Sincerely,	
  
	
  
Dorsey Nunn
Dorsey	
  Nunn	
  
Formerly	
  Incarcerated	
  &	
  Convicted	
  People’s	
  Movement	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
iii	
  

	
  

Table	
  of	
  Contents	
  
Executive	
  Summary	
  ..............................................................................................................................	
  1	
  
I.	
  	
  Introduction	
  .......................................................................................................................................	
  5	
  
New	
  Orleans,	
  Louisiana	
  .................................................................................................................................	
  7	
  
Impact	
  on	
  Families	
  ..........................................................................................................................................	
  8	
  
A	
  Grandmother’s	
  Plight	
  ..............................................................................................................................	
  10	
  
Policing	
  Choices	
  Lead	
  to	
  Arrest	
  Disparities	
  ........................................................................................	
  11	
  
II.	
  	
  Background	
  |	
  Housing	
  and	
  Crime	
  Policies	
  ...........................................................................	
  12	
  
Affordable	
  Housing	
  and	
  Highly-­‐Policed	
  Communities	
  ....................................................................	
  12	
  
Housing	
  &	
  Urban	
  Development	
  ...............................................................................................................	
  14	
  
HUD	
  and	
  the	
  War	
  on	
  Drugs	
  .......................................................................................................................	
  15	
  
III.	
  	
  Recent	
  Trends	
  in	
  Rehabilitation	
  and	
  Reentry	
  ..................................................................	
  16	
  
Change	
  |The	
  2012	
  EEOC	
  Policy	
  ................................................................................................................	
  17	
  
IV.	
  	
  Housing	
  Policy	
  |	
  Barring	
  and	
  Evicting	
  Families	
  ................................................................	
  18	
  
Who	
  Is	
  Barred	
  from	
  Public	
  Housing?	
  ....................................................................................................	
  18	
  
U.S.	
  Supreme	
  Court	
  Review	
  .......................................................................................................................	
  20	
  
New	
  Orleans,	
  2013	
  |	
  A	
  New	
  HANO	
  Policy	
  .............................................................................................	
  21	
  
Table	
  A-­‐	
  Comparing	
  HUD,	
  HANO,	
  and	
  Model	
  Policies	
  ......................................................................	
  23	
  
Demilitarizing	
  the	
  Zones?	
  .........................................................................................................................	
  27	
  
National	
  Efforts	
  to	
  Amend	
  Exclusion	
  Policies	
  .....................................................................................	
  27	
  
Table	
  B.	
  	
  Select	
  Cities’	
  Exclusion	
  Policy	
  ................................................................................................	
  28	
  
V.	
  	
  Legal	
  Analysis	
  of	
  Housing	
  Discrimination	
  ...........................................................................	
  30	
  
Fair	
  Housing	
  Act	
  of	
  1968	
  ............................................................................................................................	
  31	
  
Disparate	
  Impact	
  Theory	
  ...........................................................................................................................	
  32	
  
Change	
  |	
  HUD	
  2013	
  Disparate	
  Impact	
  Policy	
  Amendments	
  ..........................................................................................	
  32	
  
Use	
  of	
  Disparate	
  Impact	
  Theory	
  ..............................................................................................................	
  34	
  
Criminal	
  Convictions	
  and	
  Disparate	
  Impact	
  in	
  Employment	
  ........................................................	
  36	
  
VI.	
  Making	
  the	
  Disparate	
  Impact	
  Case	
  ........................................................................................	
  38	
  
VII.	
  	
  Conclusion	
  ...................................................................................................................................	
  44	
  
Proposed	
  HANO	
  Admissions	
  and	
  Continued	
  Occupancy	
  Policy	
  (ACOP)	
  ..........................	
  46	
  
Nationwide	
  Sample	
  ............................................................................................................................	
  53	
  
New	
  York	
  City	
  ....................................................................................................................................................................................	
  53	
  
Providence,	
  RI	
  ....................................................................................................................................................................................	
  55	
  
Durham,	
  NC	
  .........................................................................................................................................................................................	
  56	
  
Oakland,	
  CA	
  .........................................................................................................................................................................................	
  58	
  
San	
  Antonio,	
  TX	
  .................................................................................................................................................................................	
  59	
  
Minneapolis,	
  MN	
  ...............................................................................................................................................................................	
  60	
  
Endnotes-­‐	
  Table	
  A	
  and	
  B	
  ............................................................................................................................	
  61	
  

	
  
iv	
  

	
  

Executive	
  Summary	
  
	
  

This	
  report	
  is	
  broken	
  into	
  five	
  primary	
  pieces,	
  along	
  with	
  an	
  Introduction	
  and	
  

conclusion.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

Section	
  I:	
  Introduction	
  provides	
  a	
  starting	
  point	
  on	
  the	
  topic	
  of	
  public	
  housing	
  and	
  

criminal	
  conviction	
  policies,	
  rooting	
  this	
  issue	
  in	
  one	
  particular	
  city.	
  	
  New	
  Orleans	
  tangles	
  
with	
  the	
  most	
  intense	
  incarceration	
  in	
  America,	
  and	
  thus	
  the	
  world.	
  	
  Seemingly	
  innocent	
  
programs	
  related	
  to	
  criminal	
  convictions,	
  can	
  take	
  on	
  a	
  primary	
  role	
  in	
  a	
  city	
  such	
  as	
  New	
  
Orleans,	
  where	
  one	
  in	
  seven	
  Black	
  men	
  is	
  either	
  in	
  prison,	
  on	
  parole	
  or	
  probation.	
  
	
  

To	
  fully	
  grasp	
  the	
  community	
  impact	
  of	
  affordable	
  housing	
  barriers	
  in	
  this	
  sphere,	
  

one	
  must	
  account	
  for	
  arrest,	
  incarceration,	
  and	
  poverty	
  rates.	
  	
  Particular	
  to	
  civil	
  rights	
  law,	
  
one	
  should	
  factor	
  in	
  the	
  proportionality	
  between	
  recognized	
  ethnic	
  and	
  language	
  groups.	
  	
  It	
  
is	
  no	
  mystery	
  that	
  in	
  New	
  Orleans,	
  policies	
  that	
  affect	
  people	
  impacted	
  by	
  the	
  criminal	
  
justice	
  system	
  (both	
  individuals	
  and	
  families)	
  are	
  disproportionately	
  affecting	
  people	
  of	
  
Color-­‐	
  especially	
  African-­‐Americans.	
  	
  The	
  contrasting	
  affect	
  is	
  most	
  glaring	
  when	
  
comparing	
  the	
  drug	
  enforcement	
  policies	
  of	
  densely	
  populated,	
  overwhelmingly	
  White,	
  
college	
  students.	
  	
  The	
  excuse	
  of	
  “experimentation”	
  has	
  been	
  reserved	
  for	
  a	
  certain	
  segment	
  
of	
  young	
  drug	
  users.	
  	
  
	
  

Public	
  housing	
  exclusion	
  standards	
  apply	
  to	
  entire	
  families,	
  thus	
  the	
  impact	
  is	
  far	
  

broader	
  than	
  the	
  tens	
  of	
  thousands	
  who	
  are	
  formerly	
  convicted,	
  whether	
  incarcerated	
  or	
  
not.	
  	
  Statistics	
  typically	
  fail	
  to	
  account	
  for	
  those	
  who	
  are	
  no	
  longer	
  serving	
  a	
  punishment,	
  
yet	
  they	
  too	
  have	
  a	
  criminal	
  history	
  that	
  impacts	
  their	
  ability	
  to	
  obtain	
  housing	
  or	
  
employment.	
  	
  Hurricane	
  Katrina	
  exasperated	
  the	
  dilemma	
  of	
  a	
  public	
  housing	
  shortage,	
  and	
  
rebuilding	
  efforts	
  have	
  intentionally	
  been	
  below	
  previous	
  capacity.	
  	
  There	
  are	
  now	
  over	
  
27,000	
  households	
  on	
  the	
  waiting	
  list	
  for	
  affordable	
  housing,	
  putting	
  pressure	
  on	
  other	
  
services	
  to	
  deal	
  with	
  homelessness.	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

In	
  Section	
  II,	
  this	
  report	
  provides	
  a	
  brief	
  overview	
  on	
  housing	
  and	
  policing	
  policies	
  

within	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  The	
  War	
  on	
  Drugs.	
  	
  The	
  primary	
  method	
  of	
  encouraging	
  “drug	
  free”	
  
1	
  	
  

	
  
behavior	
  has	
  been	
  punishment,	
  while	
  the	
  primary	
  mode	
  of	
  enforcement	
  has	
  been	
  to	
  focus	
  
on	
  densely	
  populated	
  low-­‐income	
  communities	
  of	
  Color.	
  	
  The	
  exclusions	
  and	
  evictions	
  from	
  
public	
  housing	
  has	
  been	
  accelerated	
  along	
  with	
  the	
  escalation	
  of	
  the	
  War	
  on	
  Drugs.	
  	
  
Accordingly,	
  it	
  may	
  make	
  sense	
  for	
  a	
  recession	
  of	
  the	
  punitive	
  policies	
  to	
  span	
  all	
  fronts	
  as	
  
widespread	
  de-­‐escalation	
  is	
  afoot	
  in	
  response	
  to	
  the	
  growing	
  sentiment	
  that	
  the	
  War	
  on	
  
Drugs	
  has	
  been	
  a	
  failure.	
  
	
  

The	
  goal	
  of	
  Forced	
  Sobriety	
  has	
  justified	
  highly-­‐policed	
  communities	
  and	
  a	
  massive	
  

construction	
  boom	
  (and	
  employment	
  growth)	
  associated	
  with	
  prison	
  expansion.	
  	
  The	
  
Department	
  of	
  Justice	
  estimates	
  that	
  nearly	
  7%	
  of	
  all	
  people	
  born	
  after	
  2001	
  will	
  serve	
  
time	
  in	
  state	
  or	
  federal	
  prison;	
  this	
  is	
  on	
  top	
  of	
  the	
  65	
  million	
  people	
  who	
  currently	
  have	
  
been	
  convicted	
  of	
  a	
  crime.	
  	
  If	
  current	
  rates	
  continue,	
  about	
  1	
  in	
  17	
  White	
  men,	
  1	
  in	
  6	
  
Hispanic	
  men,	
  and	
  1	
  in	
  3	
  African	
  American	
  men	
  are	
  expected	
  to	
  serve	
  prison	
  time	
  in	
  their	
  
lifetime.	
  	
  It	
  is	
  difficult	
  to	
  imagine	
  anyone	
  in	
  the	
  public	
  sphere	
  being	
  satisfied	
  with	
  these	
  
statistics.	
  
	
  

The	
  history	
  of	
  public	
  housing,	
  and	
  HUD,	
  includes	
  an	
  acknowledged	
  discrimination	
  

over	
  time.	
  	
  The	
  1.1	
  million	
  remaining	
  public	
  housing	
  units,	
  and	
  2.2	
  million	
  households	
  
assisted	
  by	
  vouchers,	
  must	
  be	
  implemented	
  in	
  a	
  manner	
  consistent	
  with	
  HUD’s	
  mission	
  to	
  
support	
  community	
  development.	
  	
  HUD	
  has	
  long	
  been	
  a	
  partner	
  with	
  local	
  policing	
  efforts.	
  	
  
This	
  partnership	
  deserves	
  scrutiny	
  in	
  the	
  same	
  manner	
  as	
  the	
  police,	
  as	
  overly	
  aggressive	
  
tactics	
  have	
  become	
  (in	
  some	
  opinions)	
  more	
  destructive	
  than	
  the	
  harms	
  they	
  purport	
  to	
  
reduce.	
  	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

Section	
  III	
  looks	
  at	
  how	
  government	
  actors	
  are	
  evolving	
  on	
  criminal	
  justice,	
  and	
  

new	
  policies	
  are	
  competing	
  with	
  the	
  “Tough	
  on	
  Crime”	
  reactionary	
  rhetoric.	
  	
  The	
  National	
  
Reentry	
  Council	
  is	
  an	
  interagency	
  approach	
  to	
  confront	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  mass	
  incarceration.	
  	
  
The	
  most	
  active	
  agency	
  among	
  them,	
  the	
  Equal	
  Employment	
  Opportunity	
  Commission,	
  has	
  
been	
  dealing	
  with	
  employment	
  issues	
  for	
  decades,	
  and	
  the	
  agency’s	
  2012	
  policy	
  change	
  
regarding	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  criminal	
  records	
  in	
  hiring	
  is	
  a	
  major	
  breakthrough.	
  	
  	
  
	
  

The	
  EEOC	
  provided	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  most	
  significant	
  advances	
  in	
  recent	
  Civil	
  Rights	
  law,	
  

and	
  they	
  make	
  specific	
  findings	
  regarding	
  national	
  data.	
  	
  Specifically,	
  the	
  EEOC	
  finds	
  that	
  
the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  disproportionately	
  impacts	
  Black	
  and	
  Latino	
  people	
  in	
  America.	
  	
  
2	
  	
  

	
  
This	
  is	
  significant	
  when	
  assessing	
  a	
  neutral	
  policy	
  under	
  Title	
  VII	
  of	
  the	
  Civil	
  Rights	
  Act	
  of	
  
1965,	
  and	
  any	
  blanket	
  policy	
  using	
  criminal	
  history	
  alone	
  to	
  exclude	
  people	
  will	
  run	
  afoul	
  
of	
  Title	
  VII.	
  	
  The	
  EEOC	
  provides	
  a	
  framework	
  to	
  guide	
  policies	
  in	
  both	
  the	
  public	
  and	
  
private	
  sector.	
  	
  Courts	
  have	
  held	
  that	
  the	
  various	
  Civil	
  Rights	
  statutes	
  are	
  intended	
  to	
  work	
  
as	
  a	
  unified	
  framework,	
  thus	
  developments	
  in	
  employment	
  law	
  can	
  be	
  persuasive	
  
regarding	
  similar	
  issues	
  in	
  housing	
  law.	
  
	
  
	
  

Section	
  IV	
  lays	
  out	
  the	
  complex	
  web	
  of	
  laws	
  that	
  serve	
  as	
  Congressional	
  guidance	
  to	
  

local	
  public	
  housing	
  authorities	
  (PHA),	
  regarding	
  the	
  exclusions	
  and	
  evictions	
  from	
  
subsidized	
  programs.	
  	
  Ultimately,	
  HUD	
  allows	
  broad	
  discretion	
  to	
  the	
  local	
  PHA.	
  	
  By	
  
comparing	
  policies	
  to	
  the	
  HUD	
  requirements,	
  and	
  comparing	
  them	
  to	
  each	
  other,	
  it	
  is	
  clear	
  
that	
  overly	
  restrictive,	
  and	
  extremely	
  vague,	
  policies	
  are	
  guiding	
  decisions	
  that	
  have	
  a	
  far-­‐
reaching	
  affect	
  on	
  community	
  housing.	
  	
  When	
  HUD	
  Secretary	
  Shaun	
  Donovan	
  put	
  out	
  a	
  
clear	
  statement,	
  that	
  only	
  two	
  types	
  of	
  crimes	
  are	
  barred	
  from	
  HUD,	
  few	
  local	
  agencies	
  took	
  
any	
  action.	
  	
  
	
  

Only	
  people	
  convicted	
  of	
  sex	
  offenses,	
  and	
  on	
  a	
  Registry	
  for	
  life,	
  along	
  with	
  those	
  

who	
  manufactured	
  methamphetamines	
  on	
  federal	
  property,	
  are	
  barred	
  from	
  public	
  
housing.	
  	
  Congress	
  makes	
  particular	
  exclusions	
  optional	
  beyond	
  that,	
  generally	
  related	
  to	
  
drug	
  use.	
  	
  If	
  someone	
  was	
  previously	
  evicted	
  for	
  a	
  drug	
  related	
  crime,	
  they	
  are	
  faced	
  with	
  a	
  
three-­‐year	
  ban	
  unless	
  the	
  offending	
  family	
  member	
  is	
  in	
  prison,	
  dead,	
  or	
  completed	
  a	
  drug	
  
rehabilitation	
  program.	
  	
  However,	
  community	
  members	
  around	
  the	
  country	
  have	
  been	
  
dealing	
  with	
  policies	
  that	
  don’t	
  provide	
  for	
  those	
  nuances.	
  
	
  

A	
  model	
  admission	
  and	
  eviction	
  policy	
  is	
  included.	
  	
  This	
  policy	
  is	
  currently	
  being	
  

used	
  as	
  a	
  starting	
  point	
  for	
  changes	
  in	
  New	
  Orleans,	
  and	
  has	
  gotten	
  past	
  a	
  public	
  hearing	
  
stage.	
  	
  It	
  addresses	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  the	
  PHA	
  to	
  be	
  part	
  of	
  a	
  system	
  where	
  mentally	
  ill	
  and	
  
addicted	
  people	
  are	
  directed	
  towards	
  help	
  rather	
  than	
  prisons	
  and	
  homelessness.	
  	
  The	
  
phrase	
  “Reasonable	
  Time”	
  is	
  reasonably	
  defined,	
  eliminating	
  the	
  extreme	
  lengths	
  of	
  time	
  
people	
  are	
  facing	
  around	
  the	
  country	
  before	
  eligibility	
  for	
  affordable	
  housing.	
  	
  The	
  Housing	
  
Authority	
  of	
  New	
  Orleans	
  is	
  currently	
  working	
  to	
  develop	
  and	
  finalize	
  a	
  policy	
  in	
  
accordance	
  with	
  these	
  principals.	
  
	
  
3	
  	
  

	
  
	
  

Section	
  V	
  is	
  a	
  detailed	
  assessment	
  of	
  housing	
  discrimination	
  under	
  federal	
  law.	
  	
  It	
  

also	
  includes	
  a	
  proposed	
  change	
  (as	
  of	
  this	
  writing)	
  of	
  HUD’s	
  policy,	
  by	
  finally	
  providing	
  a	
  
federal	
  code	
  regarding	
  disparate	
  impact	
  in	
  housing.	
  	
  Disparate	
  impact	
  is	
  when	
  a	
  neutral	
  
policy	
  becomes	
  discriminatory-­‐	
  such	
  as	
  using	
  drug	
  convictions	
  to	
  exclude	
  people	
  from	
  
public	
  housing.	
  	
  Whereas	
  studies	
  indicate	
  drug	
  use	
  is	
  similar	
  across	
  all	
  identified	
  races,	
  the	
  
chosen	
  policing	
  patterns	
  result	
  in	
  an	
  overwhelming	
  percentage	
  of	
  drug	
  convictions	
  
concentrated	
  in	
  Black	
  and	
  Latino	
  communities.	
  	
  All	
  additional	
  penalties	
  attached,	
  based	
  on	
  
those	
  convictions,	
  will	
  disproportionately	
  impact	
  Black	
  and	
  Latino	
  people.	
  	
  Thus,	
  
“Disparate	
  Impact.”	
  
	
  

Courts	
  have	
  long	
  transferred	
  disparate	
  impact	
  theory	
  between	
  employment	
  and	
  

housing,	
  but	
  at	
  times	
  differed	
  on	
  the	
  proper	
  standards	
  and	
  process.	
  	
  It	
  is	
  important	
  for	
  
advocates	
  to	
  gain	
  a	
  full	
  understanding	
  of	
  disparate	
  impact	
  theory.	
  	
  This	
  is	
  likely	
  to	
  serve	
  as	
  
a	
  legal	
  framework	
  for	
  pushing	
  back	
  against	
  a	
  myriad	
  of	
  criminal	
  justice	
  policies	
  that	
  have	
  
resulted	
  in	
  the	
  systemic	
  loss	
  of	
  economic	
  and	
  political	
  power	
  among	
  Black	
  and	
  Latino	
  
communities.	
  
	
  

The	
  EEOC	
  has	
  found	
  four	
  key	
  factors	
  so	
  that	
  employers	
  may	
  design	
  an	
  acceptable	
  

“targeted	
  screen,”	
  rather	
  than	
  a	
  blanket	
  policy	
  subject	
  to	
  civil	
  rights	
  lawsuits.	
  	
  These	
  factors	
  
are	
  (1)	
  Nature	
  of	
  the	
  crime;	
  (2)	
  Time	
  elapsed;	
  (3)	
  Nature	
  of	
  the	
  job;	
  and	
  (4)	
  Individual	
  
assessment.	
  	
  Housing	
  providers,	
  particularly	
  where	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  documented	
  shortage	
  of	
  
affordable	
  housing	
  (i.e.	
  New	
  Orleans),	
  should	
  develop	
  a	
  similar	
  screen	
  suitable	
  to	
  
residential	
  life.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

Section	
  VI	
  focuses	
  on	
  the	
  key	
  elements	
  to	
  make	
  a	
  legal	
  case	
  for	
  dispirate	
  impact	
  in	
  

the	
  courts.	
  	
  Those	
  who	
  are	
  not	
  interested	
  in	
  litigating	
  a	
  claim	
  will	
  nonetheless	
  want	
  to	
  
appropriate	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  standards	
  and	
  justifications	
  that	
  the	
  courts	
  have	
  developed	
  as	
  
consistent	
  with	
  the	
  constitution.	
  	
  One	
  complication	
  in	
  presenting	
  “impact”	
  data	
  is	
  that	
  many	
  
people	
  with	
  criminal	
  records	
  (and	
  their	
  families)	
  do	
  not	
  apply	
  for	
  public	
  housing.	
  	
  Most	
  
people	
  have	
  “heard”	
  you	
  can’t	
  get	
  in	
  with	
  a	
  felony,	
  to	
  some	
  degree	
  of	
  accuracy	
  or	
  another.	
  	
  
Even	
  if	
  they	
  were	
  fully	
  knowledgeable	
  about	
  the	
  waiting	
  periods,	
  it	
  is	
  impossible	
  to	
  know	
  
how	
  many	
  are	
  foreclosed	
  because	
  they	
  would	
  need	
  to	
  not	
  know	
  the	
  policy,	
  apply	
  anyway,	
  
and	
  be	
  denied.	
  	
  	
  Thus,	
  data	
  of	
  this	
  sort	
  may	
  require	
  a	
  study	
  of	
  the	
  potential	
  (rather	
  than	
  
4	
  	
  

	
  
actual)	
  applicants	
  who	
  are	
  deemed	
  ineligible	
  solely	
  due	
  to	
  criminal	
  convictions.	
  	
  If	
  Black	
  
residents	
  have	
  a	
  rate	
  below	
  80%	
  of	
  the	
  White	
  residents’	
  rate,	
  it	
  is	
  likely	
  to	
  be	
  deemed	
  
sufficiently	
  “disparate.”	
  	
  	
  
	
  

Under	
  disparate	
  impact	
  litigation,	
  housing	
  providers	
  would	
  need	
  to	
  present	
  the	
  

court	
  with	
  their	
  substantial,	
  legitimate,	
  nondiscriminatory	
  interests	
  being	
  served	
  by	
  the	
  
exclusion	
  policies.	
  	
  Furthermore,	
  they	
  will	
  be	
  tasked	
  to	
  show	
  that	
  the	
  exclusions	
  actually	
  
serve	
  the	
  goal:	
  Resident	
  safety.	
  	
  This	
  cannot	
  merely	
  be	
  speculation.	
  	
  Finally,	
  reformers	
  can	
  
still	
  prove	
  victorious	
  by	
  showing	
  that	
  the	
  interests	
  (i.e.	
  resident	
  safety)	
  can	
  be	
  achieved	
  in	
  a	
  
less	
  discriminatory	
  manner.	
  	
  PHA’s	
  who	
  understand	
  this	
  civil	
  rights	
  litigation	
  framework	
  
are	
  more	
  likely	
  to	
  recognize	
  that	
  a	
  court	
  may	
  ultimately	
  order	
  them	
  to	
  a	
  negotiating	
  
position	
  exactly	
  like	
  the	
  one	
  being	
  offered	
  at	
  the	
  outset.	
  	
  Delaying	
  the	
  adoption	
  of	
  a	
  new	
  
policy	
  by	
  requiring	
  the	
  court	
  order	
  is	
  the	
  least	
  cost-­‐efficient	
  way	
  forward.	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

This	
  report	
  recognizes	
  that	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  movement	
  to	
  repeal	
  Civil	
  Rights	
  protections	
  

for	
  people	
  of	
  Color	
  in	
  America.	
  	
  Although	
  Justice	
  Antonin	
  Scalia	
  famously	
  referred	
  to	
  the	
  
protection	
  of	
  voting	
  rights	
  as	
  “just	
  another	
  racial	
  entitlement,”	
  the	
  sentiments	
  of	
  state	
  and	
  
federal	
  policymakers	
  suggest	
  that	
  Civil	
  Rights	
  are	
  not	
  going	
  to	
  be	
  eroded.	
  	
  Racial	
  
disproportion	
  is	
  one	
  manner	
  of	
  addressing	
  the	
  problems	
  of	
  discrimination,	
  and	
  is	
  the	
  
primary	
  path	
  outlined	
  in	
  this	
  report.	
  	
  As	
  criminal	
  records	
  impact	
  a	
  larger	
  swath	
  of	
  America,	
  
however,	
  new	
  legal	
  arguments	
  will	
  emerge	
  regarding	
  the	
  rationale	
  to	
  continue,	
  or	
  repeal,	
  
this	
  framework	
  that	
  supports	
  two	
  separate	
  citizenships.	
  
	
  

The	
  Appendix	
  provides	
  the	
  complete	
  proposed	
  policy	
  for	
  the	
  Housing	
  Authority	
  of	
  

New	
  Orleans,	
  and	
  a	
  nationwide	
  sample	
  snapshot	
  of	
  six	
  other	
  cities.	
  	
  

	
  	
  

	
  

I.	
  	
  Introduction	
  	
  
	
  

The	
  focus	
  of	
  this	
  report	
  is	
  to	
  isolate	
  and	
  clarify	
  one	
  element	
  of	
  housing	
  

discrimination:	
  excluding	
  people	
  with	
  criminal	
  records,	
  and	
  their	
  whole	
  families,	
  from	
  
public	
  housing.	
  	
  This	
  issue	
  persists	
  within	
  the	
  challenging	
  contexts	
  of	
  race	
  and	
  poverty,	
  and	
  
is	
  perpetrated	
  by	
  agencies	
  with	
  stated	
  goals	
  to	
  eradicate	
  discrimination.	
  	
  In	
  New	
  Orleans,	
  

5	
  	
  

	
  
affordable	
  housing	
  is	
  a	
  controversial	
  subject,	
  particularly	
  after	
  the	
  post-­‐Katrina	
  demolition	
  
of	
  housing	
  units	
  and	
  a	
  rebuilding	
  process	
  tangling	
  with	
  corruption.1	
  	
  The	
  displaced	
  and	
  
traumatized	
  children	
  of	
  Katrina	
  are	
  now	
  the	
  teenagers	
  and	
  young	
  adults	
  struggling	
  in	
  
schools,	
  seeking	
  employment,	
  and	
  filling	
  prison	
  cells.	
  	
  As	
  many	
  families’	
  support	
  structures	
  
are	
  disbanded	
  across	
  the	
  country,	
  a	
  social	
  crisis	
  is	
  at	
  hand.	
  
This	
  report	
  is	
  designed	
  to	
  make	
  a	
  specific	
  analysis	
  of	
  the	
  current	
  legal	
  standards	
  
guiding	
  tenant	
  selection	
  and	
  eviction.	
  	
  Primarily,	
  the	
  focus	
  is	
  on	
  the	
  federal	
  requirements	
  of	
  
HUD,	
  and	
  the	
  local	
  discretion	
  to	
  impose	
  their	
  own	
  discrimination	
  regimes.	
  	
  It	
  will	
  also	
  
contrast	
  public	
  housing	
  practices	
  with	
  other	
  stated	
  policies	
  that	
  encourage	
  reentry	
  and	
  
rehabilitation	
  for	
  people	
  impacted	
  by	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system.	
  	
  Furthermore,	
  a	
  model	
  
policy	
  is	
  recommended	
  to	
  encourage	
  family	
  unification	
  and	
  overall	
  community	
  health,	
  
particularly	
  where	
  the	
  target	
  areas	
  in	
  America’s	
  “War	
  on	
  Drugs”	
  have	
  been	
  economically	
  
disadvantaged	
  neighborhoods.	
  	
  This	
  policy	
  emerged	
  from	
  the	
  below	
  research,	
  and	
  is	
  now	
  
being	
  advocated	
  in	
  New	
  Orleans.	
  
For	
  advocates	
  and	
  policymakers	
  not	
  entirely	
  familiar	
  with	
  the	
  overall	
  federal	
  
housing	
  structure,	
  consider	
  this	
  chart	
  showing	
  the	
  power	
  flow	
  from	
  Congress	
  to	
  Dept.	
  of	
  
Housing	
  and	
  Urban	
  Development	
  (HUD),	
  to	
  the	
  public	
  housing	
  authorities	
  (PHA):	
  

Congress	
  

Empowerd	
  by	
  the	
  Constitution	
  (Commerce	
  Clause	
  and	
  14th	
  
Amerndment's	
  Equal	
  Protection.)	
  	
  Passed	
  1964	
  Civil	
  Rights	
  Act,	
  and	
  
1968	
  Fair	
  Housing	
  Act.	
  	
  Statutes	
  listed	
  as:	
  42	
  U.S.C.A.	
  _____.	
  
U.S.	
  
Supreme	
  
Court	
  

Final	
  authority	
  on	
  constitutionality	
  of	
  Congress'	
  laws,	
  and	
  
policies	
  created	
  under	
  those	
  laws.	
  e,g,	
  Dept.	
  Hous.	
  &	
  Urban	
  
Dev't	
  v.Rucker	
  (2002);	
  Griggs	
  v.	
  Duke	
  Power	
  (1971).	
  

HUD	
  

Empowered	
  by	
  Congress	
  to	
  create	
  policies	
  and	
  implement	
  
Civil	
  Rights	
  Act	
  (Title	
  VI)	
  and	
  Fair	
  Housing	
  Act	
  (Title	
  VIII).	
  	
  
Policies	
  listed	
  under	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  ____.	
  
PHA	
  

Empowered	
  by	
  HUD	
  to	
  use	
  limited	
  
discretion	
  regarding	
  Admissions	
  and	
  
Eviction	
  practices.	
  

	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

1	
  See	
  generally:“Then	
  And	
  Now-­‐	
  A	
  Progress	
  Report	
  on	
  the	
  Operational	
  Assessment	
  of	
  the	
  Housing	
  Authority	
  

of	
  New	
  Orleans,”	
  presented	
  by	
  Federal	
  Receiver	
  David	
  Gilmore	
  to	
  HUD	
  Sec’y	
  Shaun	
  Donovan	
  (04/12).	
  
2	
  Source:	
  Louisiana	
  DOC.	
  	
  	
  Most	
  experts	
  agree	
  that	
  if	
  someone	
  is	
  out	
  for	
  five	
  years,	
  they	
  have	
  an	
  equal,	
  or	
  

6	
  	
  

	
  

New	
  Orleans,	
  Louisiana	
  
Prison	
  systems	
  built	
  on	
  convict-­‐leasing	
  schemes	
  in	
  the	
  1800’s	
  have	
  evolved	
  into	
  a	
  
vast	
  industry.	
  	
  In	
  the	
  past	
  two	
  decades,	
  Louisiana's	
  prison	
  population	
  doubled,	
  costing	
  
taxpayers	
  billions,	
  having	
  no	
  impact	
  on	
  crime,	
  and	
  New	
  Orleans’	
  homicide	
  rate	
  has	
  been	
  
among	
  the	
  nation’s	
  highest.	
  	
  
v 1	
  in	
  86	
  Louisiana	
  adults	
  is	
  doing	
  time,	
  nearly	
  double	
  the	
  national	
  average.	
  
	
  
v Louisiana	
  releases	
  15,000	
  prisoners	
  per	
  year,	
  who	
  have	
  about	
  a	
  50%	
  chance	
  of	
  
staying	
  out	
  for	
  five	
  years.2	
  	
  
	
  
v Among	
  black	
  men	
  from	
  New	
  Orleans:	
  	
  
♦ One	
  in	
  14	
  is	
  behind	
  bars;	
  	
  
♦ One	
  in	
  seven	
  is	
  either	
  in	
  prison,	
  on	
  parole	
  or	
  on	
  probation.3	
  	
  
	
  
Relatively	
  high	
  crime	
  rates	
  fail	
  to	
  explain	
  the	
  state's	
  No.	
  1	
  ranking,	
  year	
  after	
  year,	
  in	
  
the	
  percentage	
  of	
  incarcerated	
  residents.	
  	
  Severe	
  sentencing,	
  including	
  life	
  sentences	
  for	
  a	
  
third	
  conviction,	
  has	
  created	
  a	
  massive	
  warehousing	
  of	
  48,000	
  people.	
  	
  The	
  lobbying	
  
muscle	
  of	
  the	
  sheriffs,	
  buttressed	
  by	
  a	
  tough-­‐on-­‐crime	
  electorate,	
  keeps	
  these	
  harsh	
  
sentencing	
  schemes	
  firmly	
  in	
  place.4	
  
The	
  Crescent	
  City	
  is	
  the	
  most	
  incarcerated	
  city	
  in	
  the	
  most	
  incarcerated	
  state	
  in	
  the	
  
most	
  incarcerated	
  nation	
  in	
  the	
  world.5	
  	
  The	
  population	
  of	
  360,000	
  is	
  roughly	
  two-­‐thirds	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
2	
  Source:	
  Louisiana	
  DOC.	
  	
  	
  Most	
  experts	
  agree	
  that	
  if	
  someone	
  is	
  out	
  for	
  five	
  years,	
  they	
  have	
  an	
  equal,	
  or	
  

lesser,	
  chance	
  of	
  going	
  to	
  prison	
  than	
  the	
  normal	
  population.	
  	
  	
  
3	
  At	
  any	
  given	
  time,	
  about	
  6600	
  people	
  living	
  in	
  New	
  Orleans	
  are	
  on	
  probation	
  or	
  parole.	
  
4	
  Cindy	
  Chang,	
  “Louisiana	
  Is	
  The	
  World’s	
  Prison	
  Capital,”	
  The	
  Times	
  Picayune,	
  (May	
  11,	
  2012)	
  available	
  at:	
  
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/05/louisiana_is_the_worlds_prison.html.	
  
5	
  U.S.	
  leads	
  in	
  rate	
  of	
  incarceration	
  742	
  per	
  100,000,	
  followed	
  by	
  Rwanda	
  (595)	
  and	
  Russia	
  (568).	
  	
  The	
  U.S.	
  
leads	
  in	
  total	
  numbers	
  of	
  imprisoned	
  people	
  (2.29m),	
  followed	
  by	
  China	
  (1.65m)	
  and	
  Russia	
  (.81m).	
  	
  China	
  
approaches	
  American	
  total	
  numbers	
  when	
  including	
  “Detention	
  Centers.”	
  	
  See:	
  International	
  Center	
  for	
  Prison	
  
Studies,	
  “World	
  Prison	
  Population	
  List,	
  9th	
  Ed.”(2012):	
  Available	
  at:	
  http://www.idcr.org.uk/wp-­‐
content/uploads/2010/09/WPPL-­‐9-­‐22.pdf.	
  	
  	
  
LA	
  has	
  865	
  sentenced	
  prisoners	
  per	
  100,000,	
  including	
  1,662	
  males,	
  followed	
  by	
  MS	
  (690)	
  and	
  AL	
  (650).	
  	
  See:	
  
Bureau	
  of	
  Justice	
  Statistics,	
  Prisoners	
  in	
  2011	
  (12/2012),	
  Appendix	
  Table	
  3,	
  at	
  23.	
  	
  Available	
  at:	
  
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p11.pdf.	
  
13.7%	
  of	
  all	
  LA	
  prisoners	
  are	
  from	
  Orleans	
  Parish	
  (New	
  Orleans).	
  	
  See:	
  LA	
  Dept.	
  Public	
  Safety	
  and	
  Corrections	
  	
  
Fact	
  Sheet	
  (6/30/12),	
  available	
  at	
  http://doc.la.gov/wp-­‐content/uploads/stats/2a.pdf.	
  	
  The	
  1	
  in	
  14	
  Black	
  
men	
  in	
  New	
  Orleans	
  serving	
  state	
  prison	
  time	
  represents	
  an	
  incarceration	
  rate	
  of	
  7,142	
  per	
  100,000,	
  roughly	
  
ten	
  times	
  the	
  national	
  rate.	
  	
  See	
  also:	
  Chang,	
  (Supra).	
  

7	
  	
  

	
  
African-­‐American,	
  whereas	
  the	
  state	
  of	
  Louisiana	
  is	
  two-­‐thirds	
  White.6	
  	
  	
  Racial	
  tensions	
  
date	
  back	
  to	
  slavery	
  and	
  Reconstruction,	
  along	
  with	
  a	
  notorious	
  history	
  of	
  violence	
  and	
  
repression	
  of	
  voting	
  rights.7	
  	
  Southern	
  Louisiana	
  has	
  served	
  as	
  an	
  important	
  location	
  in	
  
several	
  landmark	
  decisions	
  of	
  the	
  Supreme	
  Court.8	
  	
  There	
  are	
  likely	
  more	
  than	
  20,000	
  
people	
  living	
  in	
  New	
  Orleans	
  who	
  have	
  been	
  incarcerated,9	
  and	
  far	
  more	
  with	
  a	
  criminal	
  
record.10	
  	
  The	
  growing	
  tally	
  of	
  people	
  who	
  have	
  finished	
  sentences,	
  yet	
  still	
  facing	
  
consequences,	
  are	
  never	
  accounted	
  for	
  among	
  those	
  presently	
  serving	
  out	
  their	
  
punishments.	
  	
  	
  

Impact	
  on	
  Families	
  
	
  

Nearly	
  2	
  million	
  children	
  in	
  America	
  have	
  a	
  parent	
  currently	
  incarcerated.11	
  	
  Studies	
  

reflect	
  that	
  generally	
  half	
  of	
  prisoners	
  have	
  two	
  children,	
  so	
  roughly	
  5000	
  children	
  in	
  New	
  
Orleans	
  have	
  a	
  parent	
  in	
  prison.	
  	
  Policies	
  that	
  negatively	
  impact	
  families	
  of	
  convicted	
  
people	
  will	
  add	
  further	
  layers	
  of	
  systemic	
  poverty	
  upon	
  the	
  community.	
  	
  The	
  metropolitan	
  
area	
  already	
  has	
  the	
  8th	
  highest	
  rate	
  of	
  food	
  hardship	
  for	
  families	
  with	
  children.12	
  	
  Over	
  
13,000	
  children	
  (21%)	
  in	
  Orleans	
  Parish	
  are	
  at	
  risk	
  of	
  hunger;	
  90%	
  are	
  income-­‐eligible	
  for	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
6	
  U.S.	
  Census	
  Bureau,	
  Quick	
  Facts,	
  New	
  Orleans	
  (2011).	
  	
  This	
  is	
  a	
  29%	
  overall	
  decline	
  since	
  2000.	
  

7	
  Judge	
  Henry	
  Minor	
  Wisdom	
  summarizes	
  the	
  racial	
  political	
  history,	
  and	
  then	
  states	
  the	
  events	
  are	
  “all	
  
related	
  members	
  of	
  a	
  series,	
  all	
  reactions	
  to	
  the	
  same	
  dynamics	
  that	
  produced	
  the	
  interpretation	
  test	
  and	
  
speak	
  eloquently	
  of	
  its	
  purpose.	
  In	
  sum,	
  the	
  interpretation	
  test	
  is	
  another	
  grandfather	
  clause.	
  Its	
  purpose	
  is	
  
rooted	
  in	
  the	
  same	
  history.	
  It	
  has	
  the	
  same	
  objective	
  the	
  delegates	
  to	
  the	
  Constitutional	
  Convention	
  of	
  1898	
  
envisaged	
  for	
  the	
  grandfather	
  clause.	
  It	
  is	
  capable	
  of	
  producing	
  the	
  same	
  effective	
  disfranchisement	
  of	
  
Negroes	
  today	
  that	
  the	
  grandfather	
  clause	
  produced	
  sixty-­‐five	
  years	
  ago.”	
  United	
  States	
  v.	
  State	
  of	
  La.,	
  225	
  F.	
  
Supp.	
  353,	
  380-­‐81	
  (E.D.	
  La.	
  1963)	
  aff'd	
  sub	
  nom.	
  Louisiana	
  v.	
  United	
  States,	
  380	
  U.S.	
  145	
  (1965).	
  
8	
  Snyder	
  v	
  Louisiana,	
  552	
  U.S.	
  472	
  (2008)	
  (prosecutor’s	
  peremptory	
  challenge	
  was	
  pretext	
  for	
  racial	
  
discrimination);	
  Louisiana	
  v	
  U.S.,	
  380	
  U.S.	
  145	
  (1965)	
  (Cannot	
  exclude	
  Blacks	
  from	
  voting;	
  under	
  10%	
  of	
  
Blacks	
  were	
  registered	
  to	
  vote	
  due	
  to	
  various	
  tactics	
  since	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  Reconstruction);	
  United	
  States	
  v.	
  Hays,	
  
515	
  U.S.	
  737	
  (1995)	
  (revisiting	
  a	
  racial	
  gerrymandering	
  issue	
  in	
  place	
  since	
  before	
  the	
  VRA).,	
  et.	
  al.	
  
9	
  Over	
  the	
  past	
  20	
  years,	
  the	
  LADOC	
  has	
  released	
  approximately	
  300,000	
  people,	
  with	
  a	
  50%	
  likelihood	
  of	
  
staying	
  out	
  of	
  prison	
  at	
  least	
  5	
  years.	
  	
  New	
  Orleans	
  has	
  been	
  the	
  source	
  of	
  about	
  15%	
  of	
  all	
  prisoners,	
  and	
  
even	
  more	
  return	
  there	
  with	
  the	
  prospects	
  of	
  employment,	
  housing,	
  and	
  services	
  only	
  available	
  in	
  cities.	
  	
  
Mortality	
  and	
  emigration	
  would	
  reduce	
  the	
  figure,	
  while	
  former	
  prisoners	
  of	
  the	
  1970’s	
  and	
  1980’s,	
  along	
  
with	
  immigration,	
  would	
  increase	
  the	
  figure.	
  
10	
  Louisiana	
  has	
  41,916	
  probationers	
  and	
  27,640	
  parolees.	
  	
  Many	
  on	
  probation	
  were	
  never	
  sentenced	
  to	
  
incarceration.	
  	
  Nationally,	
  two-­‐thirds	
  of	
  people	
  complete	
  probation	
  without	
  incarceration.	
  	
  In	
  2011,	
  15,694	
  
people	
  exited	
  probation.	
  	
  See:	
  BJS	
  Statistics,	
  “Probation	
  and	
  Parole	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States,	
  2011,”	
  (11/2012).	
  	
  
11	
  BJS,	
  “Parents	
  in	
  Prison	
  and	
  Their	
  Minor	
  Children,”	
  (Rev.	
  3/30/10).	
  	
  In	
  2007,	
  an	
  estimated	
  809,000	
  parents	
  
in	
  prison	
  had	
  1.7m	
  children	
  under	
  age	
  18.	
  	
  In	
  1991,	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  children	
  was	
  under	
  1m.	
  
12	
  Food	
  Research	
  and	
  Action	
  Center,	
  “Food	
  Hardship	
  in	
  America	
  2010,”	
  (08/11).	
  	
  38%	
  of	
  the	
  2 nd	
  LA	
  
Congressional	
  District	
  struggles	
  with	
  food	
  hardship.	
  	
  

8	
  	
  

	
  
federal	
  nutrition	
  programs	
  (185%	
  of	
  poverty	
  level).13	
  	
  	
  
	
  

Despite	
  clear	
  indications	
  of	
  needing	
  public	
  programs	
  to	
  stem	
  the	
  tide	
  and	
  create	
  

stability,	
  the	
  Housing	
  Authority	
  of	
  New	
  Orleans	
  (HANO)	
  did	
  not	
  always	
  reflect	
  a	
  city	
  in	
  need	
  
of	
  affordable	
  housing.	
  	
  Prior	
  to	
  Katrina,	
  only	
  9000	
  people	
  were	
  receiving	
  housing	
  
vouchers.14	
  	
  According	
  to	
  HANO	
  staff,	
  the	
  pre-­‐Katrina	
  waiting	
  lists	
  were	
  comprised	
  of	
  
approximately	
  14,000	
  individuals,	
  with	
  approximately	
  9,000	
  unduplicated	
  names	
  (there	
  
were	
  separate	
  waiting	
  lists	
  for	
  public	
  housing	
  and	
  housing	
  vouchers,	
  and	
  people	
  were	
  
encouraged	
  to	
  sign	
  up	
  for	
  both).	
  The	
  waiting	
  list	
  had	
  since	
  been	
  purged	
  and	
  closed.15	
  
In	
  2005,	
  Hurricane	
  Katrina	
  created	
  the	
  greatest	
  housing	
  disaster	
  in	
  American	
  
history,	
  including	
  the	
  loss	
  of	
  2000	
  affordable	
  public	
  housing	
  units.16	
  	
  There	
  were	
  773	
  
scattered	
  public	
  housing	
  units,	
  but	
  much	
  of	
  it	
  was	
  damaged	
  by	
  the	
  storm	
  and	
  demolished	
  
(rather	
  than	
  repaired)	
  by	
  HANO.	
  	
  By	
  2009,	
  only	
  144	
  of	
  the	
  sites	
  had	
  been	
  reoccupied.17	
  	
  
Today,	
  the	
  Housing	
  Authority	
  of	
  New	
  Orleans	
  (HANO)	
  only	
  has	
  2,389	
  households	
  in	
  public	
  
housing,	
  although	
  17,081	
  households	
  receive	
  housing	
  vouchers.18	
  	
  This	
  is	
  14%	
  of	
  the	
  
134,342	
  households	
  in	
  the	
  city.19	
  	
  It	
  is	
  difficult	
  to	
  say	
  precisely	
  how	
  many	
  eligible	
  people	
  in	
  
the	
  city	
  are	
  unable	
  to	
  access	
  assistance,	
  but	
  the	
  median	
  household	
  income	
  is	
  $37,000,	
  and	
  
26%	
  are	
  below	
  the	
  poverty	
  level.	
  	
  Furthermore,	
  future	
  HANO	
  plans	
  are	
  concentrated	
  as	
  
much	
  on	
  market-­‐rate	
  housing	
  as	
  affordable	
  housing.20	
  	
  	
  
There	
  are	
  now	
  3,939	
  households	
  on	
  the	
  public	
  housing	
  waiting	
  list,	
  99%	
  are	
  
African-­‐American.	
  	
  Another	
  22,118	
  are	
  on	
  the	
  Section	
  8	
  voucher	
  waiting	
  list,	
  94%	
  are	
  
African-­‐American.	
  	
  The	
  Section	
  8	
  list	
  has	
  been	
  closed	
  since	
  2009.21	
  	
  	
  When	
  a	
  family	
  gets	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

13	
  See:	
  Feeding	
  America,	
  Map	
  the	
  Meal	
  Project,	
  online	
  at	
  http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-­‐in-­‐

america/hunger-­‐studies/map-­‐the-­‐meal-­‐gap.aspx.	
  	
  200%	
  of	
  the	
  2012	
  poverty	
  line	
  for	
  a	
  mother	
  and	
  two	
  
children	
  is	
  $38,	
  180,	
  or	
  roughly	
  $20/hour.	
  
14	
  “HUD	
  Katrina	
  Accomplishments	
  –	
  One	
  Year	
  Later.”	
  	
  Available	
  on	
  HUD’s	
  website:	
  
http://www.hud.gov/news/katrina05response.cfm.	
  
15	
  HANO,	
  “Then	
  And	
  Now-­‐	
  A	
  Progress	
  Report	
  on	
  the	
  Operational	
  Assessment	
  of	
  the	
  Housing	
  Authority	
  of	
  New	
  
Orleans,”	
  presented	
  by	
  Federal	
  Receiver	
  David	
  Gilmore	
  to	
  HUD	
  Sec’y	
  Shaun	
  Donovan	
  (April,	
  2012),	
  at	
  47.	
  
16	
  Id.,	
  at	
  38.	
  
17	
  Id.,	
  at	
  44.	
  
18	
  Id.,	
  at	
  23.	
  	
  The	
  public	
  housing	
  has	
  drastically	
  shrunk,	
  while	
  the	
  vouchers	
  have	
  nearly	
  doubled.	
  	
  The	
  latter,	
  
however,	
  should	
  be	
  seen	
  in	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  program	
  administration	
  rather	
  than	
  reflecting	
  need.	
  
19	
  Census,	
  id.	
  	
  	
  
20	
  “Then	
  and	
  Now,”	
  id.	
  	
  The	
  goal	
  of	
  7,652	
  units	
  is	
  similar	
  to	
  the	
  pre-­‐Katrina	
  number,	
  except	
  (a)	
  1001	
  of	
  the	
  
pre-­‐Katrina	
  number	
  were	
  already	
  scheduled	
  for	
  demolition,	
  and	
  (b)	
  the	
  final	
  percentage	
  of	
  affordable	
  units	
  is	
  
still	
  unknown.	
  
21	
  HANO	
  FY2013	
  Full	
  Draft	
  Annual	
  Plan,	
  at	
  7-­‐8.	
  

9	
  	
  

	
  
within	
  ten	
  places	
  of	
  assistance,	
  a	
  criminal	
  history	
  eligibility	
  assessment	
  will	
  be	
  done.22	
  	
  It	
  is	
  
not	
  uncommon	
  for	
  someone	
  to	
  be	
  on	
  the	
  waiting	
  list	
  for	
  years,	
  only	
  to	
  be	
  told	
  that	
  they	
  are	
  
not	
  eligible	
  when	
  they	
  finally	
  get	
  within	
  the	
  finish	
  line.	
  
	
  

A	
  Grandmother’s	
  Plight	
  
	
  

When	
  Terry	
  Sylvester	
  came	
  to	
  her	
  door	
  in	
  the	
  Iberville	
  housing	
  
development	
  she	
  confronted	
  a	
  young	
  woman	
  who	
  had	
  an	
  ongoing	
  dispute	
  
with	
  her	
  daughter.	
  	
  When	
  Ms.	
  Sylvester	
  attempted	
  to	
  retrieve	
  and	
  protect	
  her	
  
grandchildren,	
  they	
  were	
  all	
  maced	
  by	
  the	
  young	
  woman.	
  	
  Ms.	
  Sylvester	
  
struck	
  the	
  young	
  woman	
  before	
  going	
  to	
  the	
  hospital	
  for	
  treatment.	
  	
  At	
  the	
  
hospital	
  she	
  was	
  given	
  a	
  $500	
  citation	
  that	
  was	
  later	
  dismissed	
  at	
  court.23	
  
HANO	
  immediately	
  moved	
  to	
  evict	
  Ms.	
  Sylvester	
  and	
  her	
  children.	
  	
  
The	
  trial	
  court	
  ruled	
  that,	
  although	
  Ms.	
  Sylvester	
  immediately	
  notified	
  the	
  
site	
  manager,	
  she	
  did	
  not	
  say	
  she	
  was	
  “arrested.”	
  	
  The	
  court	
  would	
  not	
  review	
  
the	
  videotape,	
  was	
  unconcerned	
  about	
  self-­‐defense,	
  nor	
  the	
  technical	
  
definition	
  of	
  “arrest.”	
  	
  It	
  only	
  considered	
  strict	
  interpretation	
  of	
  the	
  lease,	
  
that	
  a	
  tenant	
  should	
  immediately	
  notify	
  the	
  site	
  manager	
  after	
  being	
  
arrested.	
  	
  The	
  court	
  gave	
  her	
  a	
  few	
  weeks	
  to	
  move.24	
  
On	
  appeal,	
  the	
  court	
  found	
  differently,	
  particularly	
  finding	
  “nothing	
  in	
  
state	
  or	
  federal	
  jurisprudence”	
  that	
  supports	
  finding	
  that	
  a	
  police	
  record	
  
creates	
  a	
  presumption	
  of	
  criminal	
  activity	
  for	
  purposes	
  of	
  evictions.25	
  	
  This	
  is	
  
a	
  crucial	
  ruling,	
  considering	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  evictions	
  based	
  on	
  no	
  more	
  than	
  
an	
  arrest,	
  with	
  often	
  no	
  more	
  than	
  a	
  police	
  report	
  in	
  evidence.	
  	
  Public	
  
housing	
  tenants	
  have	
  a	
  constitutionally	
  protect	
  interest	
  in	
  maintaining	
  their	
  
occupancy,	
  and	
  are	
  entitled	
  to	
  due	
  process	
  in	
  any	
  eviction.26	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
22	
  Id.,	
  at	
  11.	
  
23	
  Housing	
  Authority	
  of	
  New	
  Orleans	
  v.	
  Terry	
  Sylvester,	
  Case	
  No.	
  2012-­‐20048,	
  First	
  City	
  Court,	
  Orleans	
  Parish	
  
(6/14/12),	
  J.	
  M.	
  Morial.	
  
24	
  Id.	
  
25	
  Housing	
  Authority	
  of	
  New	
  Orleans	
  v.	
  Terry	
  Sylvester,	
  2012-­‐CA-­‐1102,	
  La.	
  Ct.	
  App.	
  4th,	
  (2/27/13).	
  
26	
  Thorpe	
  v	
  Housing	
  Authority	
  of	
  the	
  City	
  of	
  Durham,	
  393	
  U.S.	
  268	
  (1969).	
  

	
  
10	
  

	
  

Policing	
  Choices	
  Lead	
  to	
  Arrest	
  Disparities	
  
	
  

To	
  illustrate	
  the	
  contrast	
  in	
  how	
  police	
  tactics	
  can	
  alter	
  lifetime	
  punishments,	
  

consider	
  the	
  criminal	
  behavior	
  of	
  the	
  city’s	
  most	
  White	
  and	
  affluent	
  neighborhood:	
  
Uptown,	
  also	
  home	
  of	
  Tulane	
  and	
  Loyola	
  universities.	
  	
  One	
  poll	
  among	
  students	
  shows	
  that	
  
80%	
  of	
  students	
  believe	
  illegal	
  drug	
  use	
  is	
  noticeable,	
  with	
  nearly	
  half	
  claiming	
  it	
  is	
  “pretty”	
  
or	
  “very”	
  noticeable.	
  	
  Also,	
  whereas	
  “most”	
  or	
  “many”	
  students	
  take	
  part	
  in	
  the	
  drinking	
  
scene,	
  over	
  90%	
  find	
  underage	
  students	
  have	
  abundant	
  to	
  unlimited	
  access	
  to	
  alcohol.27	
  	
  
	
  

Loyola	
  and	
  Tulane’s	
  police	
  have	
  made	
  zero	
  arrests	
  over	
  the	
  past	
  three	
  years	
  for	
  

liquor	
  law	
  violations,	
  while	
  an	
  average	
  of	
  386	
  have	
  been	
  referred	
  to	
  discipline	
  hearings.	
  	
  
The	
  campus	
  police	
  have	
  averaged	
  35	
  drug	
  arrests	
  per	
  year,	
  and	
  referred	
  an	
  average	
  of	
  37	
  
to	
  discipline	
  hearings.28	
  	
  This	
  is	
  among	
  an	
  influx	
  of	
  over	
  18,000	
  students,	
  who	
  have	
  1/10th	
  
of	
  1%	
  chance	
  of	
  being	
  arrested	
  for	
  drugs	
  (some	
  of	
  whom,	
  presumably,	
  will	
  have	
  charges	
  
dismissed,	
  or	
  be	
  found	
  not	
  guilty).	
  
	
  

While	
  the	
  spirit	
  of	
  resident	
  protection	
  is	
  in	
  the	
  air	
  for	
  the	
  young	
  adults	
  in	
  Uptown,	
  

the	
  rest	
  of	
  New	
  Orleans	
  has	
  a	
  different	
  relationship	
  to	
  their	
  police.	
  	
  Roughly	
  5000	
  Black	
  
men	
  (or	
  1	
  in	
  14)	
  from	
  New	
  Orleans	
  are	
  serving	
  state	
  prison	
  time,	
  along	
  with	
  about	
  400	
  
local	
  White	
  men	
  (or	
  1	
  in	
  141).29	
  	
  Clearly,	
  the	
  overt	
  and	
  concentrated	
  illegal	
  drug	
  use	
  is	
  not	
  
being	
  pursued	
  in	
  an	
  overwhelmingly	
  White	
  area,	
  while	
  a	
  similar	
  age	
  group	
  is	
  being	
  
targeted	
  elsewhere.	
  	
  Accordingly,	
  Governor	
  Jindal	
  and	
  the	
  legislature	
  recently	
  empowered	
  
the	
  26-­‐member	
  HANO	
  “peace	
  officers”	
  to	
  become	
  police	
  officers,	
  and	
  their	
  statistics	
  are	
  not	
  
likely	
  to	
  mirror	
  those	
  of	
  the	
  campus	
  police	
  forces.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
27	
  College	
  Prowler,	
  http://collegeprowler.com/tulane-­‐university/drug-­‐safety/student-­‐polls/,	
  Tulane	
  received	
  
a	
  C-­‐	
  grade	
  for	
  Drug	
  Safety.	
  	
  There	
  are	
  over	
  5,000	
  undergraduate	
  students,	
  56%	
  of	
  whom	
  are	
  under	
  21,	
  9%	
  are	
  
African-­‐American	
  and	
  nearly	
  80%	
  are	
  White.	
  
28	
  Campus	
  crime	
  statistics	
  available	
  at:	
  http://finance.loyno.edu/police/campus-­‐crime-­‐report,	
  and	
  
http://tulane.edu/publicsafety/training/upload/annual-­‐security-­‐report.pdf	
  
29	
  Chang,	
  id.	
  

	
  
11	
  

	
  

II.	
  	
  Background	
  |	
  Housing	
  and	
  Crime	
  Policies	
  
	
  

It	
  is	
  essential	
  to	
  understand	
  that	
  criminal	
  justice	
  policy,	
  including	
  punishments	
  and	
  

exclusions,	
  has	
  been	
  integrated	
  across	
  all	
  aspects	
  of	
  our	
  lives.	
  	
  Housing	
  providers	
  are	
  
typically	
  not	
  criminal	
  justice	
  experts,	
  and	
  vice	
  versa.	
  	
  Decades	
  later,	
  it	
  is	
  essential	
  to	
  
question	
  whether	
  the	
  mission	
  of	
  sustainable	
  communities	
  is	
  compatible	
  with	
  lifetime	
  
punishments	
  that	
  effect	
  a	
  large	
  segment	
  of	
  that	
  community.	
  

Affordable	
  Housing	
  and	
  Highly-­‐Policed	
  Communities	
  
The	
  U.S.	
  Department	
  of	
  Housing	
  and	
  Urban	
  Development	
  (HUD)	
  was	
  formed	
  to	
  
“utilize	
  housing	
  as	
  a	
  platform	
  for	
  improving	
  quality	
  of	
  life”	
  and	
  build	
  “inclusive	
  and	
  
sustainable	
  communities	
  free	
  from	
  discrimination.”30	
  	
  For	
  the	
  past	
  several	
  decades	
  this	
  
mission	
  has	
  been	
  questioned,	
  as	
  discrimination	
  against	
  families	
  with	
  criminally	
  convicted	
  
members	
  is	
  pervasive	
  among	
  low-­‐income	
  communities	
  of	
  Color.	
  
The	
  exponential	
  expansion	
  of	
  convicting	
  Americans	
  has	
  created	
  a	
  growing	
  
underclass	
  that	
  needs	
  to	
  be	
  factored	
  into	
  pre-­‐existing	
  laws	
  and	
  policies.	
  	
  In	
  1991,	
  only	
  1.8%	
  
of	
  the	
  American	
  adult	
  population	
  had	
  served	
  time	
  in	
  prison.	
  	
  By	
  2001,	
  this	
  number	
  had	
  
risen	
  to	
  2.7%.	
  	
  The	
  numbers	
  continue	
  to	
  rise	
  and,	
  according	
  to	
  the	
  Department	
  of	
  Justice,	
  
nearly	
  7%	
  of	
  all	
  persons	
  born	
  after	
  2001	
  will	
  serve	
  time	
  in	
  state	
  or	
  federal	
  prison	
  during	
  
their	
  lifetimes.31	
  	
  One	
  study	
  suggests	
  65	
  million	
  people	
  in	
  America	
  have	
  a	
  criminal	
  record,	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
30	
  http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/about/mission	
  
31	
  EEOC	
  Report,	
  at	
  3;	
  citing	
  See	
  THOMAS	
  P.	
  BONCZAR,	
  BUREAU	
  OF	
  JUSTICE	
  STATISTICS,	
  U.S.	
  DEP’T	
  OF	
  

JUSTICE,	
  PREVALENCE	
  OF	
  IMPRISONMENT	
  IN	
  THE	
  U.S.	
  POPULATION,	
  1974–2001,	
  at	
  3	
  (2003),	
  
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/piusp01.pdf	
  [hereinafter	
  PREVALENCE	
  OF	
  IMPRISONMENT]	
  
(“Between	
  1974	
  and	
  2001	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  former	
  prisoners	
  living	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  more	
  than	
  doubled,	
  
from	
  1,603,000	
  to	
  4,299,000.”);	
  SEAN	
  ROSENMERKEL	
  ET	
  AL.,	
  BUREAU	
  OF	
  JUSTICE	
  STATISTICS,	
  U.S.	
  DEP’T	
  
OF	
  JUSTICE,	
  FELONY	
  SENTENCES	
  IN	
  STATE	
  COURTS,	
  2006	
  –	
  STATISTICAL	
  TABLES	
  1	
  (2009),	
  
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fssc06st.pdf	
  (reporting	
  that	
  between	
  1990	
  and	
  2006,	
  there	
  has	
  
been	
  a	
  37%	
  increase	
  in	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  felony	
  offenders	
  sentenced	
  in	
  state	
  courts);	
  see	
  also	
  PEW	
  CTR.	
  ON	
  THE	
  
STATES,	
  ONE	
  IN	
  31:	
  THE	
  LONG	
  REACH	
  OF	
  AMERICAN	
  CORRECTIONS	
  4	
  (2009),	
  
http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/PSPP_1in31_report_FINAL_WEB_3-­‐26-­‐	
  09.pdf	
  
[hereinafter	
  ONE	
  IN	
  31]	
  (“During	
  the	
  past	
  quarter-­‐century,	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  prison	
  and	
  jail	
  inmates	
  has	
  grown	
  
by	
  274	
  percent	
  .	
  .	
  .	
  .[bringing]	
  the	
  total	
  population	
  in	
  custody	
  to	
  2.3	
  million.	
  During	
  the	
  same	
  period,	
  the	
  
number	
  under	
  community	
  supervision	
  grew	
  by	
  a	
  staggering	
  3,535,660	
  to	
  a	
  total	
  of	
  5.1	
  million.”);	
  PEW	
  CTR.	
  
ON	
  THE	
  STATES,	
  ONE	
  IN	
  100:	
  BEHIND	
  BARS	
  IN	
  AMERICA	
  2008,	
  at	
  3	
  (2008),	
  
http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/8015PCTS_Prison08_FINAL_2-­‐1-­‐	
  1_FORWEB.pdf	
  
(“[M]ore	
  than	
  one	
  in	
  every	
  100	
  adults	
  is	
  now	
  confined	
  in	
  an	
  American	
  jail	
  or	
  prison.”);	
  Robert	
  Brame,	
  Michael	
  
G.	
  Turner,	
  Raymond	
  Paternoster,	
  &	
  Shawn	
  D.	
  Bushway,	
  Cumulative	
  Prevalence	
  of	
  Arrest	
  From	
  Ages	
  8	
  to	
  23	
  in	
  a	
  
National	
  Sample,	
  129	
  PEDIATRICS	
  21,	
  25,	
  26	
  (2012)	
  (finding	
  that	
  approximately	
  1	
  out	
  of	
  3	
  of	
  all	
  American	
  

	
  
12	
  

	
  
any	
  one	
  of	
  which	
  has	
  the	
  potential	
  of	
  impacting	
  an	
  entire	
  household	
  for	
  life.32	
  
	
  	
  

Arrest	
  and	
  incarceration	
  rates	
  are	
  particularly	
  high	
  for	
  African	
  American	
  and	
  
	
  	
  
	
  
Hispanic	
  men.33 African	
  American	
  and	
  Hispanic	
  people34 are	
  arrested	
  at	
  a	
  rate	
  that	
  is	
  2	
  to	
  3	
  
	
  	
  
times	
  their	
  proportion	
  of	
  the	
  general	
  population.35 Assuming	
  that	
  current	
  incarceration	
  
rates	
  remain	
  unchanged,	
  about	
  1	
  in	
  17	
  White	
  men	
  are	
  expected	
  to	
  serve	
  time	
  in	
  prison	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
youth	
  will	
  experience	
  at	
  least	
  1	
  arrest	
  for	
  a	
  nontraffic	
  offense	
  by	
  the	
  age	
  of	
  23).	
  
32	
  Michelle	
  Natvidad	
  Rodriguez	
  &	
  Maurice	
  Emsellem,	
  The	
  National	
  Employment	
  Law	
  Project,	
  65	
  Million	
  “Need	
  
Not	
  Apply”:	
  The	
  Case	
  For	
  Reforming	
  Criminal	
  Background	
  Checks	
  in	
  Employment,	
  27	
  n.2	
  (Mar.	
  2011),	
  
http://www.nelp.org/page/-­‐/65_million_need_not_apply.pdf?nocdn=1.	
  	
  Note,	
  this	
  is	
  not	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  
people	
  who	
  have	
  served	
  time	
  in	
  prison,	
  it	
  is	
  the	
  number	
  convicted	
  of	
  a	
  criminal	
  offense.	
  
33	
  d.	
  at	
  5,	
  Table	
  5;	
  cf.	
  PEW	
  CTR.	
  ON	
  THE	
  STATES,	
  COLLATERAL	
  COSTS:	
  INCARCERATION’S	
  EFFECT	
  ON	
  
ECONOMIC	
  MOBILITY	
  6	
  (2010),	
  
http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Collateral_Costs.pdf?n=8653	
  (“Simply	
  stated,	
  
incarceration	
  in	
  America	
  is	
  concentrated	
  among	
  African	
  American	
  men.	
  While	
  1	
  in	
  every	
  87	
  white	
  males	
  ages	
  
18	
  to	
  64	
  is	
  incarcerated	
  and	
  the	
  number	
  for	
  similarly-­‐aged	
  Hispanic	
  males	
  is	
  1	
  in	
  36,	
  for	
  black	
  men	
  it	
  is	
  1	
  in	
  
12.”).	
  Incarceration	
  rates	
  are	
  even	
  starker	
  for	
  20-­‐to-­‐34-­‐year-­‐old	
  men	
  without	
  a	
  high	
  school	
  diploma	
  or	
  GED:	
  1	
  
in	
  8	
  White	
  males	
  in	
  this	
  demographic	
  group	
  is	
  incarcerated,	
  compared	
  to	
  1	
  in	
  14	
  Hispanic	
  males,	
  and	
  1	
  in	
  3	
  
Black	
  males.	
  PEW	
  CTR.	
  ON	
  THE	
  STATES,	
  supra,	
  at	
  8,	
  Figure	
  2.	
  
34	
  This	
  report	
  acknowledges	
  and	
  respects	
  that	
  people	
  have	
  a	
  right	
  to	
  refer	
  to	
  themselves,	
  however	
  they	
  
prefer,	
  regardless	
  of	
  how	
  HUD,	
  the	
  Census	
  Bureau,	
  or	
  Department	
  of	
  Corrections	
  may	
  categorize	
  people.	
  	
  
Where	
  cited,	
  the	
  terms	
  are	
  those	
  used	
  in	
  the	
  original	
  report.	
  	
  The	
  terms	
  “African	
  American”	
  or	
  “Black”	
  are	
  
meant	
  to	
  be	
  interchangeable,	
  as	
  is	
  “Hispanic”	
  or	
  “Latino,”	
  and	
  “White”	
  or	
  “Caucasian.”	
  	
  Collectively,	
  Black	
  and	
  
Latino	
  are	
  also	
  referred	
  to	
  as	
  “People	
  of	
  Color.”	
  
35	
  UNIF.	
  CRIME	
  REPORTING	
  PROGRAM,	
  FED.	
  BUREAU	
  OF	
  INVESTIGATION,	
  CRIME	
  IN	
  THE	
  U.S.	
  the-­‐u.s.-­‐
2010/tables/table-­‐43/10tbl43a.xls.	
  
U.S.	
  CENSUS	
  BUREAU,	
  THE	
  BLACK	
  POPULATION:	
  2010,	
  at	
  3	
  (2011),	
  
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-­‐06.pdf	
  (reporting	
  that	
  in	
  2010,	
  “14	
  percent	
  of	
  all	
  
people	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  identified	
  as	
  Black,	
  either	
  alone,	
  or	
  in	
  combination	
  with	
  one	
  or	
  more	
  races”).	
  
Accurate	
  data	
  on	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  Hispanics	
  arrested	
  and	
  convicted	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  is	
  limited.	
  See	
  NANCY	
  E.	
  
WALKER	
  ET	
  AL.,	
  NAT’L	
  COUNCIL	
  OF	
  LA	
  RAZA,	
  LOST	
  OPPORTUNITIES:	
  THE	
  REALITY	
  OF	
  LATINOS	
  IN	
  THE	
  U.S.	
  
CRIMINAL	
  JUSTICE	
  SYSTEM	
  17–18	
  (2004),	
  
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/20279.pdf	
  (explaining	
  why	
  “[i]t	
  is	
  very	
  difficult	
  to	
  
find	
  any	
  information	
  –	
  let	
  alone	
  accurate	
  information	
  –	
  on	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  Latinos	
  arrested	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  
States”).	
  The	
  Department	
  of	
  Justice’s	
  Bureau	
  of	
  Justice	
  Statistics’	
  (BJS)	
  Sourcebook	
  of	
  Criminal	
  Justice	
  Statistics	
  
and	
  the	
  FBI’s	
  Crime	
  Information	
  Services	
  Division	
  do	
  not	
  provide	
  data	
  for	
  arrests	
  by	
  ethnicity.	
  Id.	
  at	
  17.	
  
However,	
  the	
  U.S.	
  Drug	
  Enforcement	
  Administration	
  (DEA)	
  disaggregates	
  data	
  by	
  Hispanic	
  and	
  non-­‐Hispanic	
  
ethnicity.	
  Id.	
  at	
  18.	
  According	
  to	
  DOJ/BJS,	
  from	
  October	
  1,	
  2008	
  to	
  September	
  30,	
  2009,	
  45.5%	
  of	
  drug	
  arrests	
  
made	
  by	
  the	
  DEA	
  were	
  of	
  Hispanics	
  or	
  Latinos.	
  MARK	
  MOTIVANS,	
  BUREAU	
  OF	
  JUSTICE	
  STATISTICS,	
  U.S.	
  
DEP’T	
  OF	
  JUSTICE,	
  FEDERAL	
  JUSTICE	
  STATISTICS,	
  2009	
  –	
  STATISTICAL	
  TABLES,	
  at	
  6,	
  Table	
  1.4	
  (2011),	
  
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fjs09.pdf.	
  	
  Accordingly,	
  Hispanics	
  were	
  arrested	
  for	
  drug	
  offenses	
  
by	
  the	
  DEA	
  at	
  a	
  rate	
  of	
  three	
  times	
  their	
  numbers	
  in	
  the	
  general	
  population.	
  See	
  U.S.	
  CENSUS	
  BUREAU,	
  
OVERVIEW	
  OF	
  RACE	
  AND	
  HISPANIC	
  ORIGIN:	
  2010,	
  at	
  3	
  (2011),	
  
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-­‐02.pdf	
  (reporting	
  that	
  in	
  2010,	
  “there	
  were	
  50.5	
  
million	
  Hispanics	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States,	
  composing	
  16	
  percent	
  of	
  the	
  total	
  population”).	
  However,	
  national	
  
statistics	
  indicate	
  that	
  Hispanics	
  have	
  similar	
  or	
  lower	
  drug	
  usage	
  rates	
  compared	
  to	
  Whites.	
  See,	
  e.g.,	
  
SUBSTANCE	
  ABUSE	
  &	
  MENTAL	
  HEALTH	
  SERVS.	
  ADMIN.,	
  U.S.	
  DEP’T	
  OF	
  HEALTH	
  &	
  HUMAN	
  SERVS.,	
  RESULTS	
  
FROM	
  THE	
  2010	
  NATIONAL	
  SURVEY	
  ON	
  DRUG	
  USE	
  AND	
  HEALTH:	
  SUMMARY	
  OF	
  NATIONAL	
  FINDINGS	
  21,	
  
Figure	
  2.10	
  (2011),	
  http://oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k10NSDUH/2k10Results.pdf	
  (reporting,	
  for	
  example,	
  
that	
  the	
  usage	
  rate	
  for	
  Hispanics	
  in	
  2009	
  was	
  7.9%	
  compared	
  to	
  8.8%	
  for	
  Whites).	
  

	
  
13	
  

	
  
	
  
during	
  their	
  lifetime;36 by	
  contrast,	
  this	
  rate	
  climbs	
  to	
  1	
  in	
  6	
  for	
  Hispanic	
  men;	
  and	
  to	
  1	
  in	
  3	
  
for	
  African	
  American	
  men.37	
  	
  Admissions	
  and	
  eviction	
  policies,	
  regarding	
  public	
  housing	
  
and	
  criminal	
  histories,	
  generally	
  discriminate	
  against	
  and	
  exclude	
  not	
  only	
  the	
  arrested	
  
individual,	
  but	
  their	
  entire	
  family.	
  

Housing	
  &	
  Urban	
  Development	
  
	
  

Public	
  housing	
  was	
  not	
  originally	
  built	
  to	
  house	
  the	
  ‘poorest	
  of	
  the	
  poor,’	
  but	
  was	
  

intended	
  for	
  select	
  segments	
  of	
  the	
  working	
  class.	
  	
  Specifically,	
  it	
  was	
  designed	
  to	
  serve	
  the	
  
needs	
  of	
  the	
  ‘submerged	
  middle	
  class,’	
  who	
  were	
  temporarily	
  outside	
  of	
  the	
  labor	
  market	
  
during	
  the	
  Depression.	
  	
  After	
  World	
  War	
  II,	
  many	
  working	
  class	
  people	
  were	
  able	
  to	
  buy	
  
their	
  own	
  homes	
  using	
  low-­‐interest	
  mortgages	
  through	
  the	
  VA	
  and	
  FHA.	
  	
  These	
  benefits	
  
were	
  targeted	
  to	
  White	
  families	
  and	
  helped	
  move	
  them	
  to	
  suburbs,	
  but	
  kept	
  Black	
  families	
  
concentrated	
  in	
  cities	
  and	
  inner	
  suburbs	
  (especially	
  in	
  the	
  northeastern	
  and	
  mid-­‐western	
  
states).	
  	
  The	
  distribution	
  of	
  federal	
  benefits	
  made	
  it	
  possible	
  for	
  mostly	
  White	
  working-­‐
class	
  people	
  to	
  move	
  out	
  of	
  public	
  housing,	
  and	
  contributed	
  to	
  a	
  downward	
  income	
  shift	
  in	
  
the	
  public	
  housing	
  population	
  after	
  the	
  1940’s.	
  	
  The	
  discriminatory	
  nature	
  of	
  these	
  
practices	
  has	
  been	
  well	
  documented	
  by	
  social	
  scientists,	
  and	
  HUD	
  itself.38	
  
	
  

Today,	
  the	
  HUD	
  Office	
  of	
  Public	
  and	
  Indian	
  Housing	
  comprises	
  57%	
  of	
  the	
  overall	
  

HUD	
  fiscal	
  budget.39	
  	
  The	
  Housing	
  Choice	
  Voucher	
  Program	
  (HCVP)	
  provides	
  housing	
  
subsidies	
  to	
  approximately	
  2.2	
  million	
  low-­‐income,	
  elderly,	
  and	
  disabled	
  families.40	
  	
  The	
  
Public	
  Housing	
  Program	
  provides	
  a	
  subsidy	
  to	
  over	
  1.1	
  million	
  units	
  to	
  assist	
  vulnerable	
  
low-­‐income	
  families,	
  of	
  which	
  nearly	
  half	
  are	
  either	
  elderly,	
  disabled,	
  or	
  both.41	
  	
  Native	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

36	
  PREVALENCE	
  OF	
  IMPRISONMENT,	
  supra	
  note	
  4,	
  at	
  1.	
  
37	
  Id.	
  at	
  8.	
  
38	
  “Brief	
  History	
  of	
  Public	
  Housing,”	
  at	
  1-­‐2.	
  	
  

http://reengageinc.org/research/brief_history_public_housing.pdf	
  
39	
  HUD	
  Fiscal	
  Report,	
  at	
  10.	
  	
  It	
  is	
  the	
  second	
  largest	
  in	
  size,	
  behind	
  the	
  mortgage	
  insurance	
  program	
  Ginnie	
  
Mae.	
  	
  Fannie	
  Mae	
  and	
  Freddie	
  Mac	
  are	
  in	
  receivership	
  following	
  the	
  still-­‐unfolding	
  scandals	
  of	
  the	
  subprime	
  
mortgage	
  lending	
  crisis.	
  
40	
  Id.	
  	
  A	
  family	
  who	
  is	
  issued	
  a	
  housing	
  voucher	
  is	
  responsible	
  for	
  finding	
  a	
  suitable	
  housing	
  unit	
  of	
  the	
  
family's	
  choice,	
  the	
  owner	
  of	
  which	
  agrees	
  to	
  rent	
  under	
  the	
  program	
  and	
  follow	
  certain	
  conditions	
  of	
  HUD.	
  	
  
Thus	
  the	
  owners	
  can	
  be	
  held	
  accountable	
  to	
  standards	
  and	
  goals	
  of	
  HUD,	
  or	
  they	
  can	
  opt	
  to	
  rent	
  their	
  
properties	
  on	
  the	
  open	
  housing	
  market.	
  
41	
  Id.	
  	
  Public	
  Housing	
  Agencies	
  (PHAs)	
  receive	
  two	
  separate	
  funding	
  streams,	
  the	
  Capital	
  Fund	
  and	
  the	
  
Operating	
  Fund,	
  which	
  were	
  established	
  in	
  1998	
  by	
  the	
  Quality	
  Housing	
  and	
  Work	
  Responsibility	
  Act	
  
(QWHRA).	
  The	
  Capital	
  Fund	
  was	
  established	
  to	
  support	
  the	
  development,	
  financing,	
  and	
  modernization	
  of	
  

	
  
14	
  

	
  
American	
  Programs	
  (ONAP)	
  provide	
  a	
  coordinated	
  and	
  comprehensive	
  response	
  to	
  Indian	
  
Country’s	
  housing	
  and	
  community	
  development	
  needs	
  through	
  work	
  with	
  tribal,	
  state,	
  and	
  
local	
  governments,	
  federal	
  agencies,	
  community	
  organizations,	
  and	
  the	
  private	
  sector.42	
  	
  

	
  HUD	
  and	
  the	
  War	
  on	
  Drugs	
  
There	
  is	
  no	
  dispute	
  that	
  substance	
  abuse	
  and	
  addiction	
  threatens	
  to	
  destroy	
  families	
  
from	
  the	
  inside.	
  	
  It	
  drains	
  the	
  finances	
  from	
  breadwinners,	
  turns	
  people	
  to	
  unreliable	
  
employees,	
  consuming	
  their	
  time,	
  energy	
  and	
  spirit.	
  	
  The	
  parent,	
  spouse,	
  or	
  child	
  of	
  an	
  
addicted	
  person	
  also	
  expends	
  a	
  great	
  deal	
  of	
  energy	
  trying	
  to	
  manage	
  the	
  situation	
  and	
  
seek	
  help.	
  	
  Finally,	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  interventions	
  do	
  all	
  of	
  those	
  things	
  and	
  more,	
  
considering	
  the	
  lifetime	
  consequences	
  of	
  a	
  conviction.	
  	
  It	
  is	
  a	
  fallacy,	
  however,	
  that	
  all	
  drug	
  
use	
  qualifies	
  as	
  abuse	
  or	
  addiction.	
  	
  Many	
  highly	
  functional	
  people	
  recreationally	
  use	
  drugs,	
  
with	
  no	
  serious	
  ramifications.	
  
HUD	
  has	
  attempted	
  to	
  combat	
  substance	
  abuse	
  using	
  the	
  most	
  obvious	
  tactic	
  
available:	
  screening	
  families	
  for	
  any	
  criminal	
  activity	
  as	
  renters,	
  evicting	
  them,	
  and	
  barring	
  
them	
  for	
  years.	
  	
  Since	
  the	
  1980’s,	
  public	
  housing	
  has	
  been	
  a	
  primary	
  site	
  for	
  police	
  buying	
  
drugs	
  and	
  arresting	
  people.43	
  	
  Because	
  of	
  its	
  design,	
  public	
  housing	
  is	
  the	
  most	
  efficient	
  and	
  
accessible	
  location	
  for	
  law	
  enforcement	
  to	
  target	
  people,	
  and	
  some	
  housing	
  authorities	
  
even	
  have	
  their	
  own	
  police	
  forces.	
  	
  Unfortunately,	
  other	
  models	
  of	
  intervention,	
  such	
  as	
  
declaring	
  addiction	
  a	
  public	
  health	
  issue	
  in	
  the	
  vein	
  of	
  polio	
  or	
  HIV,	
  have	
  not	
  been	
  nearly	
  as	
  
well	
  funded.	
  	
  The	
  law	
  enforcement	
  strategy,	
  including	
  prisons,	
  represents	
  a	
  trillion	
  dollars	
  
invested	
  over	
  the	
  past	
  forty	
  years	
  with	
  a	
  purported	
  goal	
  of	
  improving	
  the	
  lives	
  of	
  these	
  
community	
  residents.	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
public	
  housing	
  developments,	
  while	
  the	
  Operating	
  Fund	
  provides	
  for	
  the	
  operation	
  and	
  management	
  of	
  public	
  
housing.	
  
42	
  Id.	
  	
  More	
  than	
  550	
  American	
  Indian	
  tribal	
  governments	
  and	
  Alaska	
  Native	
  Villages	
  receive	
  an	
  annual	
  Indian	
  
Housing	
  Block	
  Grant	
  to	
  provide	
  safe,	
  decent,	
  and	
  affordable	
  housing	
  to	
  low-­‐income	
  residents	
  of	
  Indian	
  areas.	
  
The	
  loan	
  guarantee	
  programs	
  for	
  American	
  Indians,	
  Alaska	
  Natives,	
  native	
  Hawaiians,	
  and	
  tribal	
  governments	
  
ensure	
  market-­‐rate	
  financing	
  for	
  housing	
  is	
  available	
  in	
  traditional	
  native	
  areas.	
  	
  The	
  study	
  of	
  Native	
  
American	
  policies	
  in	
  the	
  arena	
  of	
  criminal	
  convictions	
  may	
  serve	
  as	
  an	
  interesting	
  comparison	
  to	
  non-­‐Native	
  
American	
  programs.	
  	
  There	
  may	
  or	
  may	
  not	
  be	
  an	
  alternative	
  approach,	
  considering	
  the	
  tragic	
  history	
  of	
  
government	
  actions	
  towards	
  aboriginal	
  peoples,	
  and	
  more	
  recent	
  attempts	
  at	
  reparations.	
  
43	
  See:	
  “HUD	
  Programs	
  to	
  Combat	
  Drug	
  Abuse	
  in	
  Public	
  Housing:	
  Hearings	
  Before	
  the	
  Subcomm.	
  On	
  
Employment	
  and	
  Housing	
  of	
  the	
  House	
  Comm.	
  On	
  Government	
  Operations,”	
  100th	
  Cong.,	
  2d	
  Sess.	
  22	
  (1988).	
  

	
  
15	
  

	
  
Since	
  the	
  1990’s,	
  Congress	
  has	
  clearly	
  stated	
  their	
  desire	
  to	
  fund	
  public	
  housing	
  that	
  
is	
  devoid	
  of	
  drug	
  users	
  and	
  alcohol	
  abusers.	
  	
  This	
  has	
  resulted	
  in	
  a	
  series	
  of	
  code	
  
amendments	
  and	
  a	
  wealth	
  of	
  civil	
  cases,	
  particularly	
  in	
  regards	
  to	
  evictions.	
  	
  In	
  2002,	
  HUD	
  
issued	
  a	
  Notice	
  outlining	
  five	
  mandatory	
  categories	
  of	
  exclusion,	
  and	
  four	
  discretionary	
  
categories.44	
  	
  The	
  Notice	
  stated	
  public	
  housing	
  authorities	
  (PHAs)	
  must	
  change	
  their	
  
selection	
  and	
  eviction	
  policies	
  to	
  reflect	
  the	
  new	
  rules	
  under	
  the	
  Quality	
  Housing	
  and	
  Work	
  
Responsibility	
  Act.45	
  	
  These	
  original	
  categories	
  have	
  since	
  been	
  amended	
  and	
  encoded	
  in	
  
Title	
  24,	
  Section	
  5	
  (or	
  “Part	
  Five”).46	
  	
  It	
  requires	
  all	
  PHAs,	
  who	
  maintain	
  considerable	
  
discretion,	
  to	
  develop	
  standards	
  in	
  accordance	
  with	
  their	
  guidelines.47	
  
	
  
	
  

III.	
  	
  Recent	
  Trends	
  in	
  Rehabilitation	
  and	
  Reentry	
  
	
  

Federal	
  and	
  state	
  government	
  officials	
  have	
  had	
  to	
  confront	
  the	
  results	
  of	
  over-­‐

criminalizing	
  drugs	
  during	
  the	
  past	
  two	
  generations.	
  	
  “Tough	
  on	
  Crime”	
  and	
  “Zero	
  
Tolerance”	
  slogans	
  resulted	
  in	
  the	
  creation	
  of	
  more	
  laws,	
  increased	
  maximum	
  penalties,	
  
mandatory	
  minimum	
  sentences,	
  a	
  prison	
  construction	
  boom,	
  police	
  in	
  schools,	
  massive	
  
payroll	
  expansion	
  in	
  law	
  enforcement,	
  and	
  a	
  drastic	
  increase	
  of	
  incarcerated	
  men,	
  women,	
  
and	
  children.	
  	
  State	
  budgets	
  have	
  been	
  gutted,	
  as	
  prison	
  costs	
  have	
  equaled	
  (and	
  
surpassed)	
  education	
  expenditures.48	
  	
  	
  
	
  

While	
  some	
  officials	
  have	
  called	
  for	
  more	
  of	
  the	
  same,	
  various	
  individuals	
  and	
  

authoritative	
  bodies	
  have	
  taken	
  a	
  different	
  course.	
  	
  Marijuana	
  is	
  increasingly	
  accepted	
  as	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

44	
  John	
  Weicher,	
  Asst.	
  Sec’y	
  for	
  Housing,	
  Screening	
  and	
  Eviction	
  for	
  Drug	
  Abuse	
  and	
  Other	
  Criminal	
  Activity	
  -­‐	
  

Final	
  Rule,	
  NOTICE	
  H	
  2002-­‐	
  22	
  (HUD).	
  10/29/02.	
  	
  The	
  Notice	
  was	
  sent	
  to:	
  All	
  Regional	
  Directors,	
  All	
  
Multifamily	
  Hub	
  Directors,	
  All	
  Multifamily	
  Program	
  Center	
  Directors,	
  All	
  Project	
  Managers,	
  All	
  Owners	
  and	
  
Management	
  Agents	
  of	
  Multifamily	
  Properties,	
  All	
  Section	
  8	
  Contract	
  Administrators,	
  All	
  State	
  Housing	
  
Finance	
  Agencies,	
  	
  Regional	
  Counsel,	
  Chief	
  Counsel,	
  and	
  Chief	
  Attorneys.	
  
45	
  Id.,	
  at	
  4.	
  
46	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.850,	
  et.	
  seq.	
  	
  	
  
47	
  These	
  are	
  known	
  as	
  an	
  Admission	
  and	
  Continued	
  Occupancy	
  Policy	
  (ACOP).	
  	
  The	
  code	
  frequently	
  states,	
  
“you	
  must	
  establish	
  standards”	
  regarding	
  each	
  section.	
  
48	
  Louisiana	
  spends	
  about	
  $663m	
  per	
  year	
  on	
  40,000	
  prisoners.	
  	
  Chang,	
  id.,	
  see:	
  
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/05/louisiana_is_the_worlds_prison.html.	
  	
  See	
  also:	
  Les	
  Leopold,	
  
“Crazy	
  Country:	
  6	
  Reasons	
  America	
  Spends	
  More	
  On	
  Prisons	
  Than	
  Higher	
  Education,”	
  AlterNet	
  (8/27/2012)	
  
http://www.alternet.org/education/crazy-­‐country-­‐6-­‐reasons-­‐america-­‐spends-­‐more-­‐prisons-­‐higher-­‐
education?page=0%2C0	
  

	
  
16	
  

	
  
medicine	
  and/or	
  non-­‐criminal	
  behavior.	
  	
  Prisoners	
  are	
  often	
  assessed	
  regarding	
  mental	
  
health	
  and/or	
  substance	
  abuse	
  treatment,	
  even	
  where	
  that	
  treatment	
  may	
  not	
  exist.	
  	
  
Agencies	
  are	
  attempting	
  to	
  coordinate	
  services,	
  including	
  housing	
  and	
  employment,	
  in	
  
recognition	
  that	
  a	
  massive	
  barrier	
  has	
  been	
  built	
  in	
  the	
  way	
  of	
  second	
  chances.	
  	
  In	
  lieu	
  of	
  
establishing	
  oneself	
  with	
  employment	
  and	
  housing,	
  someone	
  caught	
  in	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  
system	
  (and	
  their	
  children)	
  are	
  likely	
  to	
  become	
  wards	
  of	
  the	
  state	
  for	
  life-­‐	
  at	
  roughly	
  
$50,000	
  per	
  year,	
  plus	
  services	
  for	
  their	
  dependents.	
  

Change	
  |The	
  2012	
  EEOC	
  Policy	
  	
  
	
  

The	
  U.S.	
  Equal	
  Employment	
  Opportunity	
  Commission	
  (EEOC)	
  issued	
  new	
  guidance	
  

in	
  2012,	
  regarding	
  criminal	
  convictions	
  and	
  employment.49	
  	
  After	
  an	
  extensive	
  
investigation	
  and	
  hearing	
  process,	
  they	
  ruled	
  that	
  blanket	
  bans	
  against	
  hiring	
  all	
  who	
  have	
  
been	
  convicted	
  of	
  crimes	
  will	
  likely	
  violate	
  Title	
  VII	
  in	
  the	
  Civil	
  Rights	
  Act	
  of	
  1964.50	
  	
  This	
  is	
  
because	
  evidence	
  is	
  clear	
  that	
  Black	
  and	
  Latino	
  Americans	
  are	
  disparately	
  impacted	
  by	
  the	
  
criminal	
  justice	
  system.51	
  	
  This	
  rationale	
  is	
  not	
  unique	
  to	
  employment,	
  as	
  barriers	
  erected	
  
around	
  criminal	
  histories	
  are	
  prevalent	
  in	
  our	
  society.	
  	
  	
  
Housing	
  and	
  policing	
  patterns,	
  especially	
  regarding	
  urban	
  Black	
  and	
  Latino	
  
Americans,	
  coincide	
  with	
  documented	
  degrees	
  of	
  racial	
  discrimination	
  throughout	
  every	
  
level	
  of	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  system	
  (arrest,	
  conviction,	
  sentencing,	
  parole,	
  and	
  post-­‐
incarceration	
  discrimination).52	
  	
  This	
  ultimately	
  leads	
  criminal	
  convictions	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  non-­‐
neutral,	
  non-­‐“merit	
  based”	
  tool	
  to	
  judge	
  people’s	
  fitness	
  for	
  equal	
  treatment	
  under	
  the	
  law.	
  
EEOC	
  is	
  on	
  the	
  National	
  Reentry	
  Council	
  with	
  several	
  other	
  federal	
  agencies,	
  
including	
  HUD.53	
  	
  HUD	
  is	
  responsible	
  for	
  ensuring	
  that	
  housing	
  discrimination	
  does	
  not	
  
exist	
  in	
  public	
  programs,	
  under	
  Title	
  VI	
  of	
  the	
  Civil	
  Rights	
  Act	
  of	
  1964,	
  and	
  among	
  private	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
49	
  “Consideration	
  of	
  Arrest	
  and	
  Conviction	
  Records	
  in	
  Employment	
  Decisions	
  Under	
  Title	
  VII	
  of	
  the	
  Civil	
  

Rights	
  Act	
  of	
  1964”	
  (April	
  25,	
  2012).	
  	
  http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm	
  
50	
  	
  Id.	
  At	
  I.	
  Summary:	
  	
  A	
  violation	
  may	
  occur	
  when	
  an	
  employer	
  treats	
  criminal	
  history	
  information	
  differently	
  
for	
  different	
  applicants	
  or	
  employees,	
  based	
  on	
  their	
  race	
  or	
  national	
  origin	
  (disparate	
  treatment	
  liability).	
  
An	
  employer’s	
  neutral	
  policy	
  (e.g.,	
  excluding	
  applicants	
  from	
  employment	
  based	
  on	
  certain	
  criminal	
  conduct)	
  
may	
  disproportionately	
  impact	
  some	
  individuals	
  protected	
  under	
  Title	
  VII,	
  and	
  may	
  violate	
  the	
  law	
  if	
  not	
  job	
  
related	
  and	
  consistent	
  with	
  business	
  necessity	
  (disparate	
  impact	
  liability).	
  
51	
  Id.,	
  at	
  Part	
  II,	
  Introduction.	
  
52	
  See:	
  The	
  Sentencing	
  Project,	
  “Reducing	
  Racial	
  Disparity	
  in	
  the	
  Criminal	
  Justice	
  System:	
  A	
  Manual	
  for	
  
Practitioners	
  and	
  Policymakers”	
  (2d	
  Ed.	
  2008).	
  	
  
http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_reducingracialdisparity.pdf.	
  
53	
  Available	
  online	
  at:	
  http://www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/reentry-­‐council.	
  

	
  
17	
  

	
  
housing	
  under	
  Title	
  VIII	
  of	
  the	
  Fair	
  Housing	
  Act	
  of	
  1968.	
  	
  Whereas	
  the	
  EEOC	
  guidelines	
  
recommend	
  that	
  only	
  convictions	
  with	
  a	
  relationship	
  to	
  the	
  job	
  being	
  sought	
  should	
  be	
  
considered	
  legal	
  barriers	
  to	
  employment,	
  HUD	
  should	
  consider	
  a	
  similar	
  mandate	
  be	
  issued	
  
to	
  the	
  local	
  public	
  housing	
  authorities:	
  Only	
  criminal	
  convictions	
  with	
  a	
  relationship	
  to	
  
jeopardizing	
  the	
  safety	
  of	
  the	
  property,	
  or	
  of	
  the	
  particular	
  residents,	
  can	
  be	
  used	
  as	
  
barriers	
  to	
  subsidized	
  housing.	
  
HUD	
  Secretary	
  Shaun	
  Donovan	
  has	
  made	
  recent	
  moves	
  indicating	
  the	
  agency	
  is	
  
moving	
  in	
  this	
  direction.54	
  	
  However,	
  a	
  concerted	
  effort	
  by	
  legislators	
  and	
  advocates	
  will	
  be	
  
required	
  to	
  overturn	
  the	
  overt	
  discriminatory	
  policies	
  that	
  lead	
  to,	
  for	
  example,	
  entire	
  
families	
  being	
  barred	
  from	
  housing	
  due	
  to	
  a	
  misdemeanor,	
  or	
  evicted	
  due	
  to	
  a	
  child’s	
  
indiscretions.	
  	
  The	
  law	
  is	
  presently	
  inconsistent,	
  and	
  the	
  retreat	
  from	
  flawed	
  Zero	
  
Tolerance	
  standards	
  has	
  been	
  haphazard	
  and	
  gone	
  unnoticed.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

IV.	
  	
  Housing	
  Policy	
  |	
  Barring	
  and	
  Evicting	
  Families	
  	
  
Who	
  Is	
  Barred	
  from	
  Public	
  Housing?55	
  
Mandatory	
  Exclusions	
  
	
  

The	
  only	
  mandatory	
  waiting	
  period	
  applies	
  to	
  those	
  who	
  have	
  been	
  previously	
  

evicted	
  for	
  drug-­‐related	
  criminal	
  activity.	
  	
  This	
  three-­‐year	
  bar	
  does	
  not	
  apply	
  to	
  those	
  
applying	
  for	
  the	
  first	
  time,	
  or	
  those	
  evicted	
  for	
  other	
  reasons.56	
  	
  Furthermore,	
  the	
  bar	
  may	
  
be	
  overcome	
  if	
  the	
  household	
  member	
  completes	
  a	
  drug	
  rehabilitation	
  program,	
  dies,	
  or	
  is	
  
in	
  prison.57	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
54	
  See	
  below.	
  

55	
  See:	
  Table	
  A	
  (below),	
  illustrating	
  the	
  key	
  provisions	
  of	
  barring	
  admission,	
  local	
  policy,	
  and	
  a	
  model	
  policy.	
  
56	
  Id.	
  §	
  5.854(a).	
  
57	
  Id.	
  

	
  
18	
  

	
  
HUD’s	
  Three	
  Mandatory	
  Bans	
  

Previous	
  Eviction	
  
-­‐	
  Drug	
  Related	
  

Lifetime	
  Registration	
  
-­‐	
  Sex	
  Offender	
  

• 3	
  Year	
  Ban;	
  Unless	
  Family	
  
Member	
  is	
  dead,	
  in	
  
prison,	
  or	
  completes	
  drug	
  
rehab	
  program	
  

• Barred	
  for	
  Life	
  

Manufacturing	
  
Methamphetamine	
  

• Barred	
  for	
  Life	
  

	
  
Discretionary	
  Exclusions	
  
	
  

Under	
  federal	
  law,	
  a	
  PHA	
  may	
  prohibit	
  (although	
  not	
  required	
  to	
  prohibit)	
  

admission	
  if	
  the	
  PHA	
  determines	
  a	
  household	
  member	
  is:	
  
	
  

Currently	
  engaging	
  in,58	
  or	
  

	
  

Has	
  engaged	
  during	
  a	
  reasonable	
  time	
  prior	
  to	
  the	
  decision:	
  
(1) Drug-­‐related	
  criminal	
  activity;	
  
(2) Violent	
  criminal	
  activity;	
  
(3) Other	
  criminal	
  activity	
  that	
  would	
  affect	
  residents;	
  or	
  
(4) Other	
  criminal	
  activity	
  that	
  would	
  affect	
  PHA	
  staff.59	
  

	
  

The	
  local	
  PHA	
  may	
  define	
  “reasonable	
  time,”	
  “engaged,”	
  and	
  “current,”	
  regarding	
  

prior	
  criminal	
  activity.60	
  	
  However,	
  most	
  leave	
  these	
  terms	
  vaguely	
  open	
  to	
  a	
  panel,	
  or	
  
single	
  reviewing	
  officer,	
  to	
  determine.	
  
	
  

If	
  the	
  PHA	
  denies	
  admission	
  for	
  any	
  of	
  the	
  above	
  reasons,	
  a	
  household	
  may	
  be	
  

reconsidered	
  by	
  submitting	
  certification	
  that	
  the	
  behavior	
  is	
  not	
  current,	
  or	
  the	
  reasonable	
  
time	
  period	
  has	
  elapsed.	
  	
  The	
  supporting	
  information	
  may	
  come	
  from	
  sources	
  such	
  as	
  a	
  
probation	
  officer,	
  landlord,	
  neighbors,	
  social	
  service	
  agency	
  workers,	
  and	
  verified	
  criminal	
  
records.	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
58	
  A	
  household	
  member	
  is	
  currently	
  engaged	
  in	
  the	
  criminal	
  activity	
  if	
  the	
  person	
  has	
  engaged	
  in	
  the	
  behavior	
  
recently	
  enough	
  to	
  justify	
  a	
  reasonable	
  belief	
  that	
  the	
  behavior	
  is	
  current.	
  	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.855(c)(2).	
  
59	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.855(a).	
  
60	
  Id.	
  §	
  5.855(b).	
  

	
  
19	
  

	
  
	
  

HUD’s	
  policies	
  in	
  Section	
  Five	
  include	
  the	
  prohibition	
  of	
  those	
  subject	
  to	
  lifetime	
  sex	
  

offender	
  registration.61	
  	
  The	
  code	
  also	
  mandates	
  local	
  PHAs	
  establish	
  standards	
  that	
  
prohibit	
  households	
  with	
  a	
  member	
  whose	
  alcohol	
  abuse	
  might	
  reasonably	
  affect	
  other	
  
residents.62	
  	
  This	
  section	
  omits	
  any	
  reference	
  to	
  methamphetamine	
  manufacturing.63	
  
	
  

Section	
  Five	
  is	
  not	
  a	
  substitute	
  for	
  a	
  local	
  policy.	
  	
  There	
  are	
  many	
  legal	
  nuances	
  that	
  

can	
  be	
  misconstrued,	
  and	
  a	
  lack	
  of	
  guidance	
  regarding	
  what	
  constitutes	
  threats	
  to	
  “health,	
  
safety,	
  or	
  peaceful	
  enjoyment	
  of	
  the	
  premises.”	
  	
  For	
  example,	
  would	
  legal,	
  physician-­‐
approved	
  marijuana	
  usage	
  pose	
  a	
  threat?	
  	
  If	
  not,	
  would	
  the	
  illegal	
  use	
  of	
  marijuana,	
  in	
  the	
  
privacy	
  of	
  one’s	
  own	
  home,	
  pose	
  a	
  threat?	
  	
  Would	
  this	
  be	
  different	
  in	
  the	
  states	
  that	
  
recognize	
  medical	
  marijuana	
  and	
  those	
  that	
  do	
  not?64	
  	
  Or,	
  furthermore,	
  in	
  states	
  that	
  have	
  
decriminalized	
  marijuana?65	
  

U.S.	
  Supreme	
  Court	
  Review	
  
	
  

The	
  Supreme	
  Court	
  has	
  previously	
  held	
  that	
  Congress	
  has	
  the	
  power	
  to	
  exclude	
  

whom	
  they	
  wish,	
  based	
  on	
  a	
  rational	
  relationship	
  between	
  the	
  anti-­‐drug	
  goal	
  and	
  the	
  
exclusion	
  policy.	
  	
  In	
  2002,	
  the	
  Court	
  in	
  Dep't	
  of	
  Hous.	
  &	
  Urban	
  Dev.	
  v.	
  Rucker	
  held	
  that	
  the	
  
Anti–Drug	
  Abuse	
  Act	
  required	
  lease	
  terms	
  that	
  gave	
  local	
  public	
  housing	
  authorities	
  the	
  
discretion	
  to	
  terminate	
  the	
  lease	
  of	
  a	
  tenant	
  when	
  a	
  member	
  of	
  the	
  household	
  or	
  a	
  guest	
  
engaged	
  in	
  drug-­‐related	
  activity,	
  regardless	
  of	
  whether	
  a	
  tenant	
  knew,	
  or	
  should	
  have	
  
known,	
  of	
  the	
  drug-­‐related	
  activity.66	
  	
  This	
  policy,	
  however,	
  was	
  not	
  viewed	
  in	
  the	
  context	
  
of	
  Disparate	
  Impact,	
  and	
  the	
  case	
  stems	
  from	
  1997-­‐1998	
  activity.67	
  	
  The	
  Rucker	
  ruling,	
  
evicting	
  an	
  elderly	
  woman	
  for	
  a	
  grandchild’s	
  possession	
  of	
  illegal	
  drugs,	
  is	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  most	
  
highly	
  criticized	
  cases	
  in	
  the	
  area	
  of	
  public	
  housing	
  and	
  tenancy.	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
61	
  Id.	
  §	
  5.856.	
  
62	
  Id.	
  §	
  5.857.	
  	
  Emphasis	
  added.	
  
63	
  Methamphetamine-­‐based	
  exclusions	
  are	
  listed	
  in	
  24	
  §	
  960.204,	
  which	
  is	
  largely	
  redundant	
  to	
  this	
  section.	
  
64	
  As	
  of	
  January,	
  2013,	
  eighteen	
  states	
  and	
  D.C.	
  have	
  enacted	
  laws	
  to	
  legalize	
  medical	
  marijuana:	
  	
  AK,	
  AZ,	
  CA,	
  
CT,	
  DC,	
  DE,	
  HI,	
  MA,	
  ME,	
  MI,	
  MT,	
  NV,	
  NJ,	
  NM,	
  OR,	
  RI,	
  VT,	
  WA.	
  	
  Ten	
  states	
  have	
  pending	
  legislation:	
  AL,	
  IL,	
  IA,	
  KA,	
  
KY,	
  MD,	
  MS,	
  NH,	
  NY,	
  OK.	
  	
  SD	
  has	
  a	
  bill	
  that	
  would	
  treat	
  it	
  favorably,	
  although	
  not	
  legalizing.	
  	
  
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002481	
  
65	
  As	
  of	
  January,	
  2013,	
  seventeen	
  states	
  have	
  some	
  form	
  of	
  marijuana	
  decriminalization	
  laws,	
  either	
  statewide	
  
or	
  in	
  a	
  major	
  city,	
  where	
  small	
  amounts	
  are	
  treated	
  similarly	
  to	
  traffic	
  tickets:	
  AK,	
  CA,	
  CO,	
  CT,	
  IL,	
  ME,	
  MA,	
  MN,	
  
MI,	
  NE,	
  NV,	
  NY,	
  NC,	
  OH,	
  OR,	
  RI,	
  WA.	
  	
  Colorado	
  and	
  Washington	
  have	
  essentially	
  legalized	
  marijuana	
  similar	
  to	
  
alcohol,	
  although	
  this	
  does	
  not	
  protect	
  residents	
  from	
  federal	
  prosecutions.	
  
66	
  535	
  U.S.	
  125,	
  122	
  S.	
  Ct.	
  1230,	
  152	
  L.	
  Ed.	
  2d	
  258	
  (2002)	
  
67	
  See	
  Below,	
  regarding	
  disparate	
  impact.	
  

	
  
20	
  

	
  
	
  

Although	
  the	
  Court	
  has	
  historically	
  provided	
  great	
  leeway	
  in	
  the	
  government’s	
  

efforts	
  to	
  eradicate	
  drugs,	
  including	
  a	
  finding	
  that	
  the	
  smell	
  of	
  marijuana	
  justified	
  breaking	
  
down	
  a	
  door,68	
  any	
  future	
  rulings	
  in	
  this	
  area	
  will	
  be	
  forced	
  to	
  acknowledge	
  Congressional	
  
and	
  Agency	
  efforts	
  to	
  temper	
  the	
  War	
  on	
  Drugs’	
  devastation	
  on	
  communities.	
  	
  Many	
  legal	
  
challenges	
  regarding	
  public	
  housing	
  and	
  criminal	
  convictions	
  can	
  be	
  distinguished	
  from	
  
Rucker,	
  especially	
  where	
  various	
  drug	
  policies	
  have	
  been	
  changing	
  over	
  the	
  past	
  two	
  
decades.	
  

New	
  Orleans,	
  2013	
  |	
  A	
  New	
  HANO	
  Policy	
  
In	
  late	
  2012,	
  community	
  members	
  in	
  New	
  Orleans	
  submitted	
  a	
  proposal	
  to	
  Housing	
  
Authority	
  of	
  New	
  Orleans	
  (HANO)	
  to	
  amend	
  their	
  policy	
  regarding	
  criminal	
  convictions,	
  
admissions	
  and	
  evictions.69	
  	
  This	
  proposal	
  reflects	
  the	
  Model	
  Policy	
  enclosed	
  here	
  (see	
  
Appendix	
  A).	
  	
  HANO	
  is	
  under	
  federal	
  receivership,	
  and	
  is	
  currently	
  being	
  operated	
  directly	
  
by	
  HUD.	
  	
  Although	
  not	
  specifically	
  stating	
  the	
  proposal	
  applies	
  to	
  all	
  manner	
  of	
  HANO	
  
assisted	
  housing,	
  the	
  relevant	
  Housing	
  Choice	
  Voucher	
  and	
  Project	
  Based	
  Voucher	
  program	
  
policies	
  mirror	
  the	
  public	
  housing	
  Admissions	
  and	
  Continued	
  Occupancy	
  Policy	
  (ACOP).70	
  	
  
One	
  structural	
  difference	
  in	
  the	
  programs	
  is	
  the	
  ability	
  for	
  individual	
  landlords	
  to	
  evict	
  
under	
  HCV.71	
  
	
  

On	
  January	
  5th,	
  2013,	
  HANO	
  issued	
  a	
  draft	
  “Criminal	
  Background	
  Policy	
  Statement,”	
  

and	
  notice	
  for	
  a	
  public	
  hearing.	
  	
  A	
  preamble	
  to	
  the	
  statement	
  references	
  a	
  Washington	
  Post	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
68	
  Kentucky	
  v	
  King,	
  563	
  U.S.	
  ____	
  (2011).	
  
69	
  Stand	
  With	
  Dignity	
  is	
  a	
  grassroots	
  group	
  organizing	
  around	
  local	
  housing	
  issues,	
  and	
  are	
  a	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  New	
  

Orleans	
  Workers’	
  Center	
  for	
  Racial	
  Jusitice	
  (NOWCRJ).	
  	
  Along	
  with	
  Voice	
  of	
  the	
  Ex-­‐Offender	
  (VOTE),	
  they	
  have	
  
organized	
  other	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  community.	
  	
  	
  
70	
  See:	
  HANO	
  Housing	
  Choice	
  Voucher	
  Administrative	
  Plan	
  (HCVP),	
  at	
  29-­‐34.	
  (10/01/11).	
  	
  This	
  Plan	
  denies	
  
admission	
  where	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  pending	
  criminal	
  charge	
  (p.	
  30).	
  	
  Once	
  enrolled	
  in	
  HCV,	
  HANO	
  will	
  not	
  provide	
  a	
  
criminal	
  history	
  to	
  prospective	
  landlords	
  attempting	
  to	
  screen	
  a	
  prospective	
  HCV	
  tenant	
  (p.	
  31,	
  citing	
  24	
  
C.F.R.	
  §	
  982.307);	
  cf:	
  HANO	
  will	
  provide	
  criminal	
  history	
  to	
  landlords	
  upon	
  written	
  request	
  (HANO	
  FY	
  2013	
  
Full	
  Draft	
  Annual	
  Plan,	
  at	
  16).	
  	
  Will	
  not	
  deny	
  a	
  household	
  member	
  who	
  shows	
  proof	
  of	
  drug	
  rehabilitation	
  
completion	
  (p.	
  32).	
  	
  Terminations	
  for	
  any	
  violent	
  or	
  drug-­‐related	
  activated,	
  by	
  anyone	
  (including	
  guests	
  and	
  
“persons	
  under	
  tenant’s	
  control”)	
  on	
  or	
  near	
  the	
  premises	
  (p.	
  128,	
  161,	
  165,	
  emphasis	
  added).	
  
Project	
  Based	
  Voucher	
  (PBV)	
  Plan	
  is	
  within	
  the	
  HCVP,	
  at	
  202.	
  	
  It	
  states	
  they	
  will	
  have	
  the	
  same	
  eligibility,	
  and	
  
most	
  will	
  apply	
  for	
  both	
  programs	
  simultaneously.	
  
71	
  HCVP,	
  at	
  166:	
  “The	
  owner	
  may	
  terminate	
  tenancy	
  and	
  evict	
  by	
  judicial	
  action	
  a	
  family	
  for	
  criminal	
  activity	
  
by	
  a	
  covered	
  person	
  if	
  the	
  owner	
  determines	
  they	
  have	
  engaged	
  in	
  the	
  criminal	
  activity,	
  regardless	
  of	
  arrest	
  
or	
  conviction	
  and	
  without	
  satisfying	
  the	
  standard	
  of	
  proof	
  used	
  for	
  a	
  criminal	
  conviction,	
  except	
  in	
  certain	
  
incidents	
  where	
  the	
  criminal	
  activity	
  directly	
  relates	
  to	
  domestic	
  violence,	
  dating	
  violence,	
  or	
  stalking	
  and	
  the	
  
tenant	
  or	
  an	
  immediate	
  member	
  of	
  the	
  tenant’s	
  family	
  is	
  the	
  victim	
  or	
  threatened	
  victim	
  of	
  the	
  domestic	
  
violence,	
  dating	
  violence,	
  or	
  stalking.”	
  	
  

	
  
21	
  

	
  
article	
  that	
  outlines	
  the	
  ignored	
  plight	
  of	
  Black	
  males	
  in	
  America.72	
  	
  HANO	
  recognizes	
  the	
  
lifelong	
  label	
  of	
  “felon”	
  is	
  “an	
  almost	
  automatic	
  bar	
  to	
  gainful	
  work”	
  and	
  a	
  “likely	
  bar	
  to	
  
admission	
  to	
  most	
  affordable	
  housing.”73	
  
“HANO	
  recognizes	
  that,	
  whether	
  explicit	
  or	
  implicit,	
  its	
  practices	
  have	
  served	
  
to	
  perpetuate	
  the	
  problem.	
  	
  As	
  the	
  city’s	
  major	
  provider	
  of	
  affordable	
  housing	
  
and	
  of	
  safe	
  and	
  healthy	
  communities,	
  HANO	
  accepts	
  that	
  it	
  has	
  a	
  responsibility	
  
to	
  give	
  men	
  and	
  women	
  with	
  criminal	
  histories	
  the	
  opportunity	
  to	
  rejoin	
  their	
  
families	
  and	
  communities	
  and	
  to	
  rejoin	
  them	
  as	
  productive	
  members.”74	
  
	
  
This	
  represents	
  a	
  major	
  shift	
  in	
  policy,	
  recognizing	
  the	
  problem	
  and	
  the	
  agency’s	
  role	
  in	
  
perpetuating	
  discrimination	
  and	
  unstable	
  communities.	
  HANO	
  has	
  been	
  known	
  to	
  seek	
  
eviction	
  of	
  entire	
  families	
  even	
  where	
  no	
  arrest	
  occurred,	
  and	
  where	
  the	
  alleged	
  activity	
  is	
  
not	
  even	
  attributed	
  to	
  a	
  household	
  member.75	
  	
  	
  
	
  
HANO’s	
  Proposed	
  Policy	
  Statements	
  |	
  2013	
  
	
  

Although	
  lacking	
  in	
  specifics,	
  the	
  first	
  statement	
  highlights	
  that	
  all	
  people,	
  

regardless	
  of	
  criminal	
  history,	
  will	
  have	
  access	
  to	
  HANO	
  housing	
  and	
  employment.	
  	
  Those	
  
denied	
  are	
  people	
  who	
  pose	
  a	
  “clear	
  and	
  present	
  danger,”	
  or	
  have	
  acts	
  of	
  child	
  abuse,	
  
sexual	
  predation,	
  or	
  domestic	
  violence.76	
  
	
  

Such	
  a	
  vague	
  policy,	
  in	
  practice,	
  might	
  serve	
  to	
  broaden	
  the	
  pool	
  of	
  admissions	
  

denials	
  and	
  convictions,	
  depending	
  on:	
  	
  
(1)	
  How	
  “clear	
  and	
  present	
  danger”	
  is	
  defined;	
  	
  
(2)	
  How	
  broadly	
  they	
  determine	
  the	
  scope	
  of	
  sex	
  crimes;77	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

72	
  Gerson,	
  Michael	
  (uncited),	
  “mid-­‐December	
  2012,”	
  Washington	
  Post.	
  
73	
  DRAFT	
  HANO	
  Criminal	
  Background	
  Policy	
  Statement,	
  1/05/13,	
  at	
  1.	
  
74	
  Id.	
  
75	
  Hous.	
  Auth.	
  of	
  New	
  Orleans	
  v.	
  Graham,	
  2005-­‐0665	
  (La.	
  App.	
  4	
  Cir.	
  3/2/06),	
  925	
  So.	
  2d	
  674	
  (A	
  teenage	
  

daughter	
  allegedly	
  dated	
  a	
  boy	
  for	
  several	
  weeks	
  before	
  becoming	
  a	
  wanted	
  fugitive.	
  	
  He	
  had	
  entered	
  the	
  unit	
  
several	
  hours	
  before	
  the	
  police	
  came.	
  	
  The	
  police	
  were	
  let	
  in,	
  and	
  directed	
  to	
  the	
  fugitive	
  upstairs.	
  	
  Despite	
  no	
  
charges	
  by	
  the	
  NOPD,	
  the	
  eviction	
  case	
  was	
  allowed	
  to	
  go	
  forward.)	
  
76	
  HANO’s	
  policy	
  statement	
  includes	
  reference	
  to	
  employment	
  which	
  mirror	
  housing	
  eligibility.	
  	
  This	
  poses	
  
another	
  problem,	
  although	
  it	
  will	
  not	
  be	
  addressed	
  here.	
  
77	
  Currently,	
  all	
  people	
  on	
  the	
  Sex	
  Registry	
  (regardless	
  of	
  level)	
  are	
  barred-­‐	
  including	
  their	
  families.	
  	
  This	
  is	
  
similar	
  to	
  Chicago.	
  	
  See,	
  e.g.,	
  CHICAGO	
  HOUSING	
  AUTHORITY,	
  FY2010	
  ADMISSIONS	
  AND	
  CONTINUED	
  
OCCUPANCY	
  POLICY,	
  14	
  (approved	
  Sept.	
  21,	
  2010)	
  (denying	
  admission	
  to	
  applicants	
  who	
  have	
  ―ever	
  been	
  
convicted	
  of	
  a	
  crime	
  that	
  requires	
  them	
  to	
  be	
  registered	
  under	
  a	
  state	
  sex	
  offender	
  registration	
  program	
  
including	
  the	
  ten-­‐year	
  Illinois	
  State	
  Sex	
  Offender	
  Registration	
  Act).	
  

	
  
22	
  

	
  
(3)	
  What	
  is	
  meant	
  by	
  “history	
  of	
  domestic	
  violence;”	
  	
  
(4)	
  The	
  composition	
  of	
  the	
  review	
  panel,	
  and	
  	
  
(5)	
  What	
  guidance	
  is	
  used	
  to	
  analyze	
  the	
  factors.	
  
	
  
	
  

Public	
  pressure	
  and	
  comments	
  led	
  to	
  a	
  Second	
  Policy	
  Statement	
  much	
  more	
  

conducive	
  to	
  community	
  concerns.78	
  	
  HANO	
  has	
  hired	
  Vera	
  Institute	
  of	
  Justice	
  to	
  facilitate	
  
stakeholder	
  concerns	
  and	
  propose	
  the	
  final	
  policy	
  language.	
  
	
  

Table	
  A-­‐	
  Comparing	
  HUD,	
  HANO,	
  and	
  Model	
  Policies	
  
	
  

Model	
  Preamble:	
  
The	
  PHA	
  recognizes	
  that	
  among	
  leading	
  causes	
  of	
  criminal	
  activity	
  in	
  America	
  are	
  mental	
  
illness,	
  addiction,	
  unemployment,	
  and	
  homelessness.	
  	
  Healthy	
  communities	
  exist	
  where	
  
these	
  social	
  issues	
  are	
  being	
  treated	
  in	
  a	
  comprehensive	
  manner,	
  therefore	
  the	
  PHA	
  will	
  
make	
  reasonable	
  efforts	
  to	
  contribute	
  to	
  a	
  positive	
  community	
  response	
  to	
  these	
  ailments.	
  
	
  
	
  

HUD	
  Policy	
  	
  
(Minimum	
  Standards)	
  

HANO	
  Policy	
  

PHA	
  Model	
  Policyi	
  

Lifetime	
  
Ban	
  

*The	
  following	
  review	
  periods	
  of	
  exclusion	
  apply	
  to	
  any	
  member	
  of	
  the	
  household.	
  
	
  

Convicted	
  of	
  manufacturing	
  
methamphetamine	
  on	
  PHA	
  
premisesii	
  
Family	
  with	
  household	
  
member	
  subject	
  to	
  lifetime	
  
sex	
  offender	
  registryiii	
  

HUD	
  

HUD	
  Policy	
  

All	
  registered	
  sex	
   Exclude	
  a	
  lifetime	
  registered	
  person	
  only,	
  particularly	
  
offenders	
  and	
  
not	
  where	
  it	
  would	
  serve	
  to	
  exclude	
  victims	
  of	
  sex	
  
their	
  families.iv	
  
offenses.	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

78	
  “No	
  applicant	
  for	
  HANO-­‐assisted	
  housing	
  will	
  be	
  automatically	
  barred	
  from	
  receiving	
  housing	
  because	
  of	
  

his	
  or	
  her	
  criminal	
  background,	
  except	
  as	
  mandated	
  by	
  federal	
  law.	
  
HANO	
  will	
  conduct	
  a	
  criminal	
  record	
  check	
  for	
  all	
  applicants	
  before	
  admission	
  into	
  HANO-­‐	
  assisted	
  housing.	
  
For	
  applicants	
  not	
  barred	
  by	
  federal	
  law,	
  the	
  applicant’s	
  criminal	
  conviction(s)	
  will	
  be	
  assessed	
  to	
  determine	
  
the	
  risk	
  the	
  applicant	
  poses	
  to	
  the	
  safety	
  and	
  well	
  being	
  of	
  the	
  community	
  using	
  an	
  objective	
  set	
  of	
  valid	
  
criteria.	
  Applicants	
  whose	
  conviction(s)	
  do	
  not	
  suggest	
  a	
  significant	
  level	
  of	
  risk	
  will	
  be	
  deemed	
  admissible	
  to	
  
housing	
  if	
  otherwise	
  eligible.	
  Applicants	
  whose	
  conviction(s)	
  suggest	
  a	
  significant	
  level	
  of	
  risk	
  will	
  be	
  
reviewed	
  by	
  a	
  panel	
  of	
  senior	
  HANO	
  officials	
  to	
  assess,	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  totality	
  of	
  the	
  circumstances	
  including	
  
any	
  information	
  the	
  applicant	
  wishes	
  to	
  provide,	
  whether	
  the	
  applicant	
  should	
  be	
  admitted	
  to	
  housing	
  or	
  
denied.	
  If	
  the	
  panel	
  recommends	
  denial	
  of	
  an	
  applicant,	
  the	
  HANO	
  chief	
  executive	
  officer	
  will	
  review	
  the	
  
recommendation	
  and	
  make	
  the	
  final	
  decision	
  on	
  admission.	
  HANO	
  will	
  make	
  public	
  the	
  risk	
  assessment	
  
criteria	
  it	
  uses	
  and	
  details	
  of	
  the	
  review	
  process.	
  
To	
  implement	
  this	
  policy,	
  HANO	
  will	
  revise	
  its	
  housing	
  and	
  employment	
  procedures,	
  including	
  procedures	
  
that	
  will	
  apply	
  to	
  those	
  who	
  do	
  business	
  with	
  HANO.”	
  
	
  

	
  
23	
  

Possible	
  Evictionxiii	
  

Possible	
  Ban	
  

3	
  year	
  Ban	
  

	
  
Prior	
  eviction	
  for	
  drug-­‐
related	
  criminal	
  activity;	
  
Bans	
  entire	
  household	
  unless	
  
guilty	
  person	
  has	
  completed	
  
rehab,	
  or	
  is	
  no	
  longer	
  in	
  
householdv	
  
Criminal	
  activity	
  directed	
  at	
  
PHA	
  agentsvii	
  
Fraud,	
  bribery,	
  or	
  other	
  
corrupt	
  act	
  connected	
  with	
  
fed.	
  Housing	
  program	
  
Past	
  Criminal	
  Activity:	
  
Drug-­‐Related	
  or	
  Violent	
  
Criminal	
  activityviii	
  within	
  a	
  
reasonable	
  timeix	
  
Current	
  Illegal	
  Drug	
  or	
  
Alcohol	
  Abuse:	
  
Reasonable	
  cause	
  to	
  believe	
  a	
  
household	
  member	
  is	
  using	
  
in	
  a	
  way	
  that	
  threatens	
  the	
  
health,	
  safety,	
  or	
  right	
  to	
  
peaceful	
  enjoyment	
  by	
  other	
  
residents.x	
  
Current	
  Drug-­‐Related	
  or	
  
Criminal	
  Activity:	
  
Reasonable	
  cause	
  to	
  believe	
  
the	
  activity	
  threatens	
  the	
  
health,	
  safety,	
  or	
  right	
  to	
  
peaceful	
  enjoyment	
  of	
  the	
  
premises	
  by	
  other	
  
residents.xii	
  
Tenants:	
  
1. Pattern	
  of	
  Illegal	
  
Drug	
  and	
  Alcohol	
  
abuse	
  that	
  threatens	
  
the	
  health,	
  safety,	
  or	
  
right	
  to	
  peaceful	
  
enjoyment	
  of	
  the	
  
premises	
  by	
  other	
  
residents;	
  
2. Fleeing	
  prosecution	
  
or	
  confinement;	
  
3. Violation	
  of	
  
probation	
  or	
  parole.	
  
Tenants	
  and	
  Guests:xvi	
  
1. Criminal	
  Activity	
  
that	
  threatens	
  the	
  
health,	
  safety,	
  or	
  
right	
  to	
  peaceful	
  
enjoyment…;	
  
2. Drug-­‐related	
  
criminal	
  activity	
  on	
  
premises.xvii	
  
	
  

5	
  years;	
  waivable	
  
if	
  offending	
  
member	
  is	
  dead	
  
or	
  in	
  prison.vi	
  

3	
  years	
  unless	
  waived	
  under	
  HUD	
  standards;	
  	
  In	
  all	
  
cases	
  under	
  review,	
  PHA	
  will	
  make	
  a	
  decision	
  after	
  
reviewing	
  evidence,	
  including	
  rehabilitation,	
  42	
  U.S.C.A.	
  
§	
  13662.	
  
	
  

7	
  years	
  

3	
  years,	
  in	
  cases	
  of	
  conviction.	
  

7	
  years	
  

3	
  years,	
  in	
  cases	
  of	
  conviction.	
  

7	
  years	
  

Immediately	
  eligible,	
  dependent	
  upon	
  relationship	
  
between	
  activity	
  and	
  housing,	
  time	
  elapsed,	
  mitigation,	
  
etc.	
  

7	
  years	
  (includes	
  
guests)	
  whether	
  
or	
  not	
  arrested	
  
and/or	
  
convictedxi	
  

A	
  review	
  of	
  current	
  activity	
  shall	
  not	
  extend	
  beyond	
  the	
  
previous	
  six	
  months.	
  
	
  

Yes.	
  	
  Need	
  not	
  be	
  
arrested.	
  

Arrests,	
  alone,	
  shall	
  not	
  be	
  determinations	
  of	
  guilt,	
  or	
  
that	
  the	
  conduct	
  actually	
  occurred.	
  

Any	
  act.	
  	
  Need	
  
not	
  be	
  arrested	
  
or	
  convicted.xiv	
  
	
  
Anyone	
  believed	
  
to	
  be	
  actual	
  and	
  
imminent	
  threat	
  
to	
  resident	
  or	
  
employee.xv	
  

PHA	
  will	
  establish	
  by	
  clear	
  and	
  convincing	
  evidence	
  
that	
  a	
  lease	
  violation	
  has	
  occurred.	
  	
  PHA	
  shall	
  not	
  base	
  
a	
  decision	
  solely	
  upon	
  allegations	
  contained	
  in	
  an	
  
arrest,	
  and	
  shall	
  specifically	
  look	
  to	
  whether	
  the	
  
action(s)	
  are	
  part	
  of	
  a	
  pattern,	
  and	
  threaten	
  the	
  health,	
  
safety,	
  and	
  right	
  to	
  peaceful	
  enjoyment	
  of	
  the	
  premises	
  
by	
  other	
  residents.	
  	
  See:	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.861.	
  
	
  

See	
  above.	
  

A	
  visitor	
  to	
  a	
  tenant,	
  family	
  member	
  or	
  otherwise,	
  shall	
  
not	
  be	
  presumed	
  to	
  be	
  under	
  the	
  tenant’s	
  control;	
  nor	
  
shall	
  a	
  person	
  on	
  the	
  premises,	
  although	
  related	
  to	
  a	
  
tenant,	
  be	
  presumed	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  guest	
  or	
  under	
  the	
  tenant’s	
  
control	
  without	
  further	
  evidence	
  of	
  being	
  in	
  the	
  
tenant’s	
  unit.	
  	
  PHA	
  shall	
  make	
  reasonable	
  
accommodation	
  for	
  formerly	
  evicted	
  tenants	
  to	
  visit	
  
their	
  immediate	
  family	
  members	
  on	
  the	
  premises.	
  	
  
Trespass	
  by	
  someone	
  lawfully	
  prohibited	
  from	
  PHA	
  
premises	
  shall	
  not	
  be	
  grounds	
  for	
  a	
  tenant’s	
  eviction	
  

	
  
24	
  

	
  
unless	
  it	
  is	
  clear	
  and	
  convincing	
  that	
  the	
  tenant	
  aided	
  
and	
  abetted	
  the	
  trespass.	
  	
  
	
  
Persons	
  Under	
  Control	
  of	
  
Tenant:xviii 	
  
Drug-­‐	
  Related	
  criminal	
  
activity	
  on	
  premises	
  

	
  

HUD	
  Policy.	
  
If	
  contraband	
  or	
  
controlled	
  
substance	
  is	
  
seized	
  during	
  
search	
  or	
  arrest,	
  
HANO	
  will	
  be	
  
notified	
  by	
  
District	
  Attorney	
  
that	
  it	
  will	
  
commence	
  
eviction.xix	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  
25	
  

	
  
PHA	
  may	
  work	
  in	
  conjunction	
  with	
  Courts,	
  Agencies,	
  
and	
  Non-­‐Government	
  Organizations	
  focused	
  on	
  
assisting	
  the	
  development	
  and/or	
  rehabilitation	
  of	
  the	
  
PHA	
  resident.	
  	
  PHA	
  should,	
  when	
  possible,	
  encourage	
  
and	
  assist	
  residents	
  who	
  may	
  need	
  substance	
  abuse,	
  
mental	
  health,	
  or	
  vocational	
  counseling	
  as	
  it	
  may	
  be	
  
connected	
  to	
  criminal	
  behavior	
  and/or	
  arrest.	
  
	
  

Where	
  the	
  action(s)	
  are	
  disputed,	
  PHA	
  shall	
  not	
  render	
  
a	
  presumption	
  of	
  guilt,	
  nor	
  insert	
  its	
  decision	
  over	
  that	
  
of	
  a	
  judge	
  or	
  jury.	
  	
  PHA	
  shall	
  await	
  the	
  findings	
  of	
  the	
  
courts,	
  and,	
  where	
  an	
  immediate	
  danger	
  is	
  feared,	
  may	
  
provide	
  factual	
  information	
  that	
  is	
  relevant	
  to	
  a	
  bail	
  
hearing.	
  
	
  
Where	
  PHA	
  have	
  properly	
  evicted	
  a	
  tenant,	
  they	
  shall	
  
not	
  evict	
  an	
  entire	
  household	
  unless	
  the	
  remaining	
  
household	
  members	
  are	
  also	
  found	
  to:	
  
a) Exhibit	
  a	
  pattern	
  of	
  disqualifying	
  behavior,	
  or	
  	
  
b) Have	
  knowledge	
  of	
  the	
  disqualifying	
  behavior,	
  
and	
  failed	
  to	
  seek	
  help	
  or	
  intervene.	
  

Evidence	
  

	
  
Conviction	
  records	
  certified	
  
by	
  a	
  state	
  or	
  federal	
  agency	
  
will	
  be	
  given	
  a	
  presumption	
  
of	
  correctness,	
  subject	
  to	
  
rebuttal	
  by	
  the	
  person	
  
challenging	
  their	
  accuracy.	
  	
  
Conviction	
  records	
  will	
  not	
  
be	
  considered	
  binding	
  until	
  
the	
  named	
  person	
  has	
  been	
  
presented	
  with	
  the	
  record	
  
and	
  given	
  an	
  opportunity	
  to	
  
challenge,	
  as	
  it	
  is	
  not	
  
uncommon	
  to	
  produce	
  an	
  
incorrect	
  record.	
  	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  
5.903(f).	
  
	
  

	
  

Preponderance	
  
of	
  the	
  Evidence	
  
(more	
  probable	
  
than	
  not	
  the	
  act	
  
occurred).xx	
  
	
  
Credible	
  
evidence	
  
includes	
  HANO	
  
Hotline,	
  arrest	
  
warrants,	
  
documentation	
  
of	
  drug	
  raids.	
  
	
  
Evidence	
  of	
  
neighbors	
  is	
  
possibly	
  credible	
  
when	
  combined	
  
with	
  other	
  
factual	
  evidence.	
  
	
  
No	
  adverse	
  
action	
  based	
  on	
  
criminal	
  record	
  
is	
  taken	
  before	
  
presenting	
  it	
  to	
  
the	
  
applicant/tenant.	
  
	
  
Consideration	
  
given	
  to	
  Time,	
  
Nature,	
  and	
  
Extent	
  of	
  
Conduct.xxi	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

*Endnotes	
  on	
  page	
  62.	
  

	
  
26	
  

Where	
  convictions	
  during	
  the	
  past	
  three	
  years	
  are	
  
considered,	
  PHA	
  (in	
  accordance	
  with	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.852)	
  
shall:
a) Make	
  a	
  determination	
  of	
  how	
  the	
  act	
  
committed	
  is	
  reasonably	
  related	
  to	
  the	
  
community	
  at	
  large;	
  
b) Consider	
  all	
  mitigating	
  evidence,	
  including	
  
(but	
  not	
  limited	
  to):	
  
1. The	
  determination	
  by	
  the	
  court;	
  
2. Completion	
  of,	
  or	
  ongoing	
  
satisfaction	
  of,	
  the	
  sentence;	
  and	
  
3. Completion	
  of	
  relevant	
  
rehabilitative	
  programming,	
  
whether	
  inside	
  or	
  outside	
  of	
  
prison;	
  	
  
c) Recognize	
  that	
  where	
  the	
  Court	
  orders	
  an	
  
offender	
  to	
  remain	
  in	
  the	
  community,	
  the	
  
Court	
  has	
  not	
  ordered	
  that	
  offender,	
  or	
  
their	
  family,	
  to	
  homelessness.	
  
d) The	
  seriousness	
  of	
  the	
  offending	
  action;	
  
e) The	
  effect	
  on	
  the	
  community	
  by	
  denial	
  or	
  
eviction;	
  
f) The	
  extent	
  of	
  participation	
  by	
  the	
  
leaseholder	
  in	
  the	
  offending	
  action;	
  
g) The	
  effect	
  of	
  denial	
  of	
  admission	
  or	
  
termination	
  of	
  tenancy	
  on	
  household	
  
members	
  not	
  involved	
  in	
  the	
  offending	
  
action;	
  
h) The	
  extent	
  to	
  which	
  the	
  leaseholder	
  has	
  
shown	
  personal	
  responsibility	
  and	
  taken	
  
all	
  reasonable	
  steps	
  to	
  prevent	
  or	
  mitigate	
  
the	
  offending	
  action.	
  
	
  
Expunged	
  convictions	
  shall	
  not	
  be	
  considered.	
  
	
  
Arrests	
  not	
  followed	
  by	
  convictions	
  during	
  the	
  previous	
  
six	
  months	
  shall	
  only	
  be	
  considered	
  when	
  assessing:	
  
a) Current	
  illegal	
  drug	
  or	
  alcohol	
  abuse,	
  or	
  	
  
b) Current	
  criminal	
  activity	
  that	
  threatens	
  the	
  
health,	
  safety,	
  or	
  right	
  to	
  peaceful	
  
enjoyment	
  of	
  the	
  premises	
  by	
  other	
  
residents.	
  
	
  
HANO	
  and	
  its	
  Agents	
  recognizes	
  that	
  people	
  are	
  
innocent	
  until	
  proven	
  guilty,	
  and	
  allegations	
  by	
  law	
  
enforcement	
  or	
  private	
  citizens	
  fail	
  to	
  satisfy	
  clear	
  
and	
  convincing	
  standard	
  that	
  behavior	
  is	
  both	
  actual	
  
and	
  current.	
  	
  Arrests	
  without	
  convictions,	
  resulting	
  in	
  
deferment	
  to	
  a	
  substance	
  abuse	
  program,	
  may	
  prompt	
  
HANO	
  or	
  its	
  Agents	
  to	
  ensure	
  the	
  person	
  is	
  adhering	
  to	
  
the	
  program.	
  	
  	
  
	
  

	
  

Demilitarizing	
  the	
  Zones?	
  
	
  

A	
  federal	
  judge	
  in	
  New	
  York	
  City	
  recently	
  ruled	
  that	
  the	
  NYCHA	
  police	
  cannot	
  stop	
  

and	
  frisk	
  everyone	
  simply	
  for	
  being	
  on	
  Housing	
  Authority	
  property.	
  	
  In	
  New	
  Orleans,	
  
complaints	
  have	
  been	
  arising	
  for	
  similar	
  treatment.	
  	
  HANO	
  posts	
  signs	
  that	
  say	
  “No	
  
Trespassing	
  unless	
  you're	
  with	
  a	
  HANO	
  resident,”	
  and	
  instruct	
  their	
  police	
  to	
  ensure	
  
nobody	
  sets	
  foot	
  on	
  their	
  property.79	
  	
  Such	
  an	
  approach	
  would,	
  if	
  evenly	
  applied,	
  lead	
  to	
  the	
  
police	
  stopping	
  Census	
  workers,	
  community	
  organizers,	
  politicians,	
  religious	
  proselytizers,	
  
and	
  girl	
  scouts	
  with	
  cookies.	
  	
  It	
  does	
  not	
  allow	
  for	
  someone	
  to	
  visit	
  their	
  own	
  mother,	
  
unless	
  the	
  mother	
  (who	
  may	
  be	
  homebound)	
  meets	
  the	
  child	
  at	
  the	
  property	
  edge.	
  
	
  

“Operation	
  Clean	
  Halls”	
  is	
  a	
  common	
  name	
  for	
  the	
  NYPD’s	
  “Trespass	
  Affidavit	
  

Program,”	
  and	
  resulted	
  in	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  arrests,	
  at	
  times	
  of	
  residents	
  who	
  lacked	
  
identification	
  or	
  relatives	
  of	
  residents.	
  	
  A	
  recent	
  hearing	
  determined	
  that	
  the	
  vague	
  policy	
  
intending	
  to	
  limit	
  trespass	
  resulted	
  in	
  police	
  believing	
  they	
  had	
  a	
  right	
  (and	
  duty)	
  to	
  detain	
  
anyone	
  on	
  the	
  property.	
  	
  It	
  was	
  struck	
  down	
  at	
  the	
  federal	
  district	
  court	
  level,	
  in	
  the	
  context	
  
of	
  broader	
  challenges	
  to	
  the	
  police	
  overwhelmingly	
  detaining	
  Black	
  and	
  Latino	
  men.80	
  

National	
  Efforts	
  to	
  Amend	
  Exclusion	
  Policies	
  
	
  

As	
  the	
  table	
  below	
  illustrates,	
  PHAs	
  have	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  standards,	
  many	
  of	
  which	
  

result	
  in	
  families	
  being	
  broken	
  up	
  and/or	
  excluded	
  from	
  affordable	
  housing.	
  	
  	
  Sometimes	
  
exclusions	
  are	
  for	
  life,	
  and	
  never	
  in	
  consultation	
  with	
  a	
  judge	
  regarding	
  an	
  appropriate	
  
sentence	
  for	
  a	
  criminal	
  conviction.	
  	
  Typically	
  the	
  policies	
  are	
  unclear,	
  are	
  not	
  accessible	
  to	
  
the	
  public,	
  and	
  are	
  buried	
  within	
  several	
  hundred	
  pages	
  of	
  text	
  regarding	
  admissions	
  and	
  
continued	
  occupancy.	
  	
  Those	
  posted	
  on	
  the	
  Internet	
  can	
  require	
  a	
  thorough	
  search	
  of	
  the	
  
site	
  to	
  find	
  a	
  link.	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
79	
  State	
  v.	
  Marzett,	
  2009-­‐1080	
  (La.	
  App.	
  4	
  Cir.	
  6/9/10),	
  40	
  So.	
  3d	
  1204,	
  1206.	
  	
  In	
  this	
  case,	
  the	
  Defendant	
  was	
  
convicted	
  of	
  drug	
  possession.	
  	
  Evidence	
  suggests	
  that	
  people	
  who	
  are	
  stopped	
  and	
  released	
  by	
  the	
  police	
  do	
  
not	
  file	
  formal	
  complaints.	
  	
  	
  
80	
  Davis	
  v.	
  The	
  City	
  of	
  New	
  York,	
  10	
  Civ.	
  0699.	
  	
  Gardiner	
  and	
  Gold,	
  “Judge	
  Halts	
  a	
  Stop	
  and	
  Frisk	
  Tactic,”	
  The	
  
Wall	
  Street	
  Journal	
  (1/08/13).	
  	
  
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323482504578229981202346100.html	
  	
  Judge	
  Shira	
  
Scheindlin	
  issued	
  an	
  83-­‐page	
  pre-­‐trial	
  ruling	
  in	
  October,	
  2012.	
  	
  

	
  
27	
  

	
  

Table	
  B.	
  	
  Select	
  Cities’	
  Exclusion	
  Policy	
  
	
  

Felony	
  

Misdemeanor	
  
or	
  violation	
  
2	
  to	
  4	
  yrs	
  after	
  
prison,	
  parole,	
  
&	
  probationxxiv	
  

Bar	
  w/o	
  
Conviction	
  
Yes*	
  (Does	
  
not	
  screen	
  
for	
  arrests)	
  

Prior	
  
Eviction	
  
3	
  yrs+	
  

Clear	
  
Policy	
  
Yes	
  

Internet	
  
Posted	
  
Yes	
  

NYCxxii 	
  

5-­‐	
  6	
  yrs	
  after	
  
prison,	
  parole,	
  
and	
  probationxxiii	
  

Providence	
  

10	
  yrs,	
  Probation	
  
½	
  completexxv	
  	
  

Prob.	
  ½	
  
complete;	
  2	
  yrs	
  
soberxxvi	
  

Yes	
  

Life	
  

No	
  

No	
  

Durhamxxvii	
  

1-­‐10	
  yrs	
  from	
  
release	
  or	
  placed	
  
on	
  probationxxviii	
  

1-­‐3	
  yrs;	
  also	
  
arrests	
  over	
  
past	
  5	
  yrs	
  

Yes	
  

5	
  years	
  

	
  

Yes	
  

Oakland	
  

5yrs	
  (Discretionary)xxix	
  

	
  

No	
  

Yes	
  

San	
  
Antonioxxx	
  
Minneapolis
xxxi	
  

Unspecified	
  

3	
  years	
  

Yes	
  

5	
  yrs	
  (no	
  
waiver)	
  
5	
  years	
  

No	
  

Yes	
  

1-­‐10	
  yrs	
  after	
  
sentence	
  
complete	
  
(includes	
  
probation)xxxii	
  	
  

1-­‐2	
  yrs	
  after	
  
sentence	
  
complete	
  

Yes	
  

5	
  years	
  

Yes	
  

Yes	
  

Seattlexxxiii 	
  	
  
(WA	
  
recently	
  
decrim	
  
marijuana)
xxxiv 	
  
Denverxxxv	
  
(CO	
  recently	
  
decrim	
  
marijuana)
xxxvi 	
  

2-­‐20	
  yrs	
  since	
  
realease.	
  	
  HCVP:	
  1	
  
yr	
  since	
  release	
  

2	
  yrs	
  since	
  
crime/release	
  

Yes	
  

3	
  years	
  

Yes	
  

Yes	
  

Indefinitexxxvii	
  

Indefinite	
  

Yes	
  

3	
  years	
  

No	
  

Yes	
  (not	
  
easily	
  
located)	
  

Los	
  
Angelesxxxviii 	
  

3	
  years	
  

Unclear	
  

Yes*	
  (Does	
  
not	
  screen	
  
for	
  arrests)	
  

3	
  years	
  

No	
  

Yes	
  

New	
  
Orleansxxxix	
  

7	
  years	
  

Unclear	
  

Yes	
  

5	
  years	
  

No	
  

Yes	
  

	
  
*Endnotes,	
  on	
  page	
  63.	
  

	
  
28	
  

	
  
Courts	
  and	
  agencies	
  have	
  been	
  asymmetrically	
  moving	
  in	
  the	
  same	
  direction	
  
undertaken	
  by	
  New	
  Orleans.	
  	
  In	
  Chicago,	
  for	
  instance,	
  the	
  state	
  appeals	
  court	
  held	
  that	
  
arrests,	
  alone,	
  are	
  incapable	
  of	
  constituting	
  a	
  “history	
  of	
  criminal	
  activity”	
  and	
  was	
  not	
  
evidence	
  that	
  someone	
  is	
  a	
  potential	
  threat	
  to	
  the	
  health,	
  safety,	
  and	
  welfare	
  of	
  the	
  public	
  
housing	
  community.81	
  	
  Despite	
  all	
  of	
  a	
  man’s	
  arrests	
  ending	
  in	
  dismissals,	
  he	
  was	
  still	
  
barred	
  from	
  housing	
  before	
  the	
  appeals	
  court	
  held	
  otherwise.	
  	
  
Reports	
  on	
  homelessness	
  are	
  also	
  taking	
  into	
  account	
  criminal	
  records,	
  such	
  as	
  a	
  
2003	
  survey	
  finding	
  1	
  in	
  8	
  homeless	
  adults	
  in	
  Minnesota	
  had	
  been	
  released	
  from	
  prison	
  
within	
  the	
  past	
  two	
  years.82	
  	
  A	
  report	
  on	
  Illinois’	
  public	
  housing	
  identified	
  four	
  key	
  areas	
  
for	
  reform:	
  
	
  (1)	
  The	
  number	
  of	
  years	
  to	
  look	
  back	
  for	
  past	
  criminal	
  activity;	
  	
  
(2)	
  The	
  use	
  of	
  arrests	
  without	
  convictions	
  as	
  proof	
  of	
  criminal	
  activity;	
  
(3)	
  Use	
  of	
  vague	
  categories	
  neither	
  applicants	
  nor	
  administrators	
  can	
  fully	
  
understand	
  and	
  apply	
  fairly;	
  and	
  
(4)	
  Absence	
  of	
  mitigating	
  circumstances	
  as	
  a	
  means	
  to	
  overcome	
  barriers.83	
  
	
  
	
  

The	
  recent	
  developments	
  from	
  HUD	
  indicate	
  a	
  possibility	
  that	
  sustained	
  efforts	
  

(including	
  litigation,	
  organizing,	
  journalism,	
  and	
  studies)	
  may	
  propel	
  a	
  new	
  set	
  of	
  national	
  
standards.	
  	
  HUD	
  first	
  publicly	
  dispelled	
  the	
  myths	
  regarding	
  barriers	
  to	
  public	
  housing,84	
  
then	
  reiterated	
  this	
  in	
  a	
  letter	
  to	
  all	
  PHA	
  executive	
  directors-­‐	
  along	
  with	
  the	
  stated	
  
commitment	
  to	
  helping	
  ex-­‐offenders	
  gain	
  access	
  to	
  housing.85	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

81	
  Landers	
  v.	
  Chicago	
  Housing	
  Authority,	
  936	
  N.E.2d	
  735,	
  at	
  742	
  (Ill.	
  App.	
  Ct.	
  2010).	
  	
  	
  
82	
  Wilder	
  Research,	
  Ex-­‐Offenders	
  Among	
  the	
  Homeless:	
  Highlights	
  From	
  The	
  2003	
  Minnesota	
  Survey	
  of	
  

Homelessness	
  1	
  (June	
  2006).	
  
83	
  Marie	
  Claire	
  Tran-­‐Leung,	
  Sargent	
  Shriver	
  National	
  Center	
  on	
  Poverty	
  Law,	
  When	
  Discretion	
  Means	
  Denial:	
  
The	
  Use	
  of	
  Criminal	
  Records	
  to	
  Deny	
  Low-­‐Income	
  People	
  Access	
  to	
  Federally	
  Subsidized	
  Housing	
  in	
  Illinois,	
  3,	
  
10-­‐27	
  (August	
  2011).	
  	
  The	
  author	
  would	
  like	
  to	
  acknowledge	
  Ms.	
  Tran-­‐Leung	
  for	
  her	
  work	
  as	
  being	
  an	
  
essential	
  foundation	
  to	
  this	
  report.	
  
84	
  Federal	
  Interagency	
  Reentry	
  Council,	
  Reentry	
  Mythbuster	
  on	
  Public	
  Housing	
  (2011),	
  
http://www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/documents/0000/1089/Reentry_Council_Mythbust	
  
er_Housing.pdf.	
  
85	
  Letter	
  from	
  Shaun	
  Donovan,	
  Secretary,	
  United	
  States	
  Department	
  of	
  Housing	
  and	
  Urban	
  Development,	
  to	
  
Public	
  Housing	
  Authority	
  Executive	
  Directors	
  (Jun.	
  17,	
  2011),	
  available	
  at	
  
http://www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/documents/0000/1126/HUD_letter_6.23.11.pdf	
  [hereinafter	
  
Donovan	
  Letter].	
  

	
  
29	
  

	
  
	
  

It	
  is	
  more	
  accurate	
  to	
  perceive	
  the	
  deescalating	
  arc	
  of	
  HUD	
  as	
  a	
  natural	
  recognition	
  

of	
  the	
  failed	
  War	
  on	
  Drugs,	
  rather	
  than	
  the	
  direction	
  of	
  any	
  political	
  party.	
  	
  The	
  agency	
  has	
  
at	
  times	
  been	
  trying	
  to	
  dismantle	
  the	
  PHAs’	
  discretionary	
  exclusion	
  regimes	
  through	
  HUD	
  
guidance,	
  including	
  admonitions	
  that	
  screening	
  applicants	
  is	
  very	
  difficult	
  where	
  criminal	
  
histories	
  are	
  mixed	
  or	
  marginal.86	
  	
  HUD	
  guidance	
  calls	
  for	
  trained	
  staff	
  to	
  sometimes	
  gather	
  
additional	
  information	
  and	
  intervention	
  by	
  outside	
  agencies,87	
  yet,	
  HUD	
  has	
  watched	
  PHAs	
  
use	
  their	
  discretion	
  to	
  develop	
  blanket	
  bans,	
  several	
  decades	
  in	
  the	
  making.88	
  
	
  

HUD	
  recognizes	
  the	
  look-­‐back	
  periods	
  PHAs	
  use	
  are	
  at	
  times	
  draconian,	
  failing	
  to	
  

take	
  into	
  account	
  the	
  principle	
  of	
  completing	
  one’s	
  punishment.	
  	
  They	
  have	
  recommended	
  
that	
  the	
  term	
  “recently”	
  be	
  defined	
  as	
  the	
  past	
  month	
  or	
  six	
  months,89	
  and	
  discourage	
  
excluding	
  former	
  drug	
  users	
  and	
  alcohol	
  abusers,	
  particularly	
  where	
  rental	
  histories	
  show	
  
a	
  propensity	
  for	
  compliance.90	
  	
  They	
  have	
  also	
  advised	
  PHAs	
  to	
  make	
  case-­‐by-­‐case	
  reviews,	
  
focusing	
  on	
  concrete	
  evidence	
  of	
  seriousness,	
  recentness	
  of	
  criminal	
  activity,	
  and	
  evidence	
  
of	
  rehabilitation,	
  as	
  best	
  predictors	
  of	
  tenant	
  suitability.91	
  

	
  

	
  

V.	
  	
  Legal	
  Analysis	
  of	
  Housing	
  Discrimination	
  
	
  

Title	
  VII	
  of	
  the	
  Civil	
  Rights	
  Act	
  of	
  1964,	
  barring	
  discrimination,	
  applies	
  to	
  all	
  

programs	
  receiving	
  federal	
  funds.	
  	
  This	
  includes	
  PHAs,	
  private	
  affordable	
  housing	
  
developments	
  not	
  directly	
  administered	
  by	
  the	
  PHA,	
  and	
  the	
  housing	
  vouchers.	
  
Discrimination	
  based	
  on	
  race,	
  among	
  other	
  protected	
  classes,	
  is	
  prohibited.	
  	
  The	
  judicial	
  
interpretations	
  of	
  discrimination	
  have	
  often	
  been	
  interchangeable	
  with	
  other	
  parts	
  of	
  the	
  
Civil	
  Rights	
  Act,	
  and	
  of	
  the	
  Fair	
  Housing	
  Act	
  of	
  1968.	
  	
  Title	
  VIII	
  of	
  the	
  FHA	
  deals	
  directly	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
86	
  HUD,	
  PUBLIC	
  HOUSING	
  OCCUPANCY	
  GUIDEBOOK	
  73	
  (June	
  2003),	
  available	
  at	
  

http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/rhiip/phguidebooknew.pdf.	
  
87	
  Id.	
  
88	
  John	
  W.	
  Barbrey,	
  Measuring	
  the	
  Effectiveness	
  of	
  Crime	
  Control	
  Policies	
  in	
  Knoxville’s	
  Public	
  Housing:	
  Using	
  
Mapping	
  Software	
  to	
  Filter	
  Part	
  I	
  Crime	
  Data,	
  20	
  JOURNAL	
  OF	
  CONTEMPORARY	
  CRIMINAL	
  JUSTICE	
  6,	
  15	
  
(2004)	
  (describing	
  how	
  the	
  public	
  housing	
  authority	
  in	
  Knoxville,	
  Tennessee	
  would	
  deny	
  admission	
  to	
  
applicants	
  even	
  if	
  they	
  had	
  never	
  been	
  convicted	
  of	
  a	
  crime	
  out	
  of	
  a	
  desire	
  to	
  err	
  on	
  the	
  side	
  of	
  caution).	
  
89	
  PUBLIC	
  HOUSING	
  OCCUPANCY	
  GUIDEBOOK,	
  supra	
  note	
  9,	
  at	
  53.	
  
90	
  See,	
  e.g.,	
  PUBLIC	
  HOUSING	
  OCCUPANCY	
  GUIDEBOOK,	
  supra	
  note	
  9,	
  at	
  92.	
  
91	
  HUD,	
  HUD	
  NOTICE	
  PIH	
  96-­‐16,	
  “ONE	
  STRIKE	
  AND	
  YOU‘RE	
  OUT:	
  SCREENING	
  &	
  EVICTION	
  GUIDELINES	
  FOR	
  
PUBLIC	
  HOUSING	
  AUTHORITIES”	
  (HAS)	
  6	
  (1996),	
  www.hud.gov/offices/adm/hudclips/notices/pih/files/96-­‐
16PIHN.doc.	
  

	
  
30	
  

	
  
with	
  housing	
  discrimination.	
  	
  Courts	
  draw	
  their	
  rationale	
  from	
  parallel	
  provisions,	
  
including	
  employment	
  law.	
  	
  Thus,	
  advocates	
  must	
  take	
  a	
  comprehensive	
  approach,	
  while	
  
courts	
  make	
  individual	
  rulings	
  “with	
  an	
  eye	
  toward	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  a	
  coherent	
  
methodology.”92	
  	
  

Fair	
  Housing	
  Act	
  of	
  1968	
   	
  
	
  

The	
  Fair	
  Housing	
  Act	
  bars	
  (among	
  other	
  things)	
  the	
  refusal	
  to	
  negotiate	
  for	
  the	
  

rental	
  of,	
  or	
  otherwise	
  make	
  unavailable	
  or	
  deny,	
  a	
  dwelling	
  to	
  any	
  person	
  because	
  of	
  race	
  
or	
  color.	
  	
  Terms,	
  conditions	
  or	
  privileges	
  in	
  a	
  rental	
  cannot	
  be	
  discriminatory,	
  nor	
  can	
  
anyone	
  print	
  any	
  notice,	
  statement,	
  or	
  advertisement,	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  the	
  rental	
  of	
  a	
  
dwelling	
  that	
  indicates	
  any	
  preference,	
  limitation,	
  or	
  discrimination	
  based	
  on	
  race	
  or	
  
color.93	
  	
  	
  
	
  

Intentional	
  discrimination	
  against	
  people	
  with	
  criminal	
  convictions	
  (and	
  their	
  

families)	
  appears	
  to	
  be	
  legal,	
  however,	
  it	
  is	
  illegal	
  to	
  intentionally	
  discriminate	
  based	
  on	
  
race.	
  	
  The	
  Supreme	
  Court’s	
  Rucker	
  decision94	
  relied	
  upon	
  Congress’	
  rational	
  intent	
  to	
  keep	
  
drugs	
  out	
  of	
  public	
  housing,	
  however	
  this	
  is	
  unlikely	
  to	
  serve	
  as	
  a	
  basis	
  to	
  bar	
  any	
  and	
  all	
  
people	
  with	
  criminal	
  records.	
  	
  Landlords	
  and	
  PHAs	
  should	
  not	
  rely	
  on	
  perceived	
  liability	
  of	
  
future	
  bad	
  acts	
  either;	
  Louisiana	
  courts,	
  for	
  example,	
  have	
  ruled	
  that	
  there	
  is	
  no	
  special	
  
“duty	
  to	
  protect”	
  a	
  tenant.95	
  	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
92	
  A	
  thoughtful	
  analysis	
  of	
  the	
  difficulties	
  in	
  FHA	
  cases	
  is	
  contained	
  in	
  Judge	
  Moran’s	
  opinion	
  in	
  Hack	
  v.	
  
President	
  and	
  Fellows	
  of	
  Yale	
  College,	
  237	
  F.3d	
  81,	
  87,	
  91-­‐101	
  (2d.	
  Cir.	
  2000)	
  (Moran,	
  J.,	
  dissenting	
  in	
  part),	
  
which	
  noted	
  that	
  “although	
  there	
  is	
  now	
  consensus	
  that	
  Title	
  VII	
  standards	
  govern	
  claims	
  under	
  [the	
  FHA],	
  it	
  
has	
  not	
  always	
  been	
  easy	
  to	
  translate	
  principles	
  designed	
  to	
  regulate	
  employment	
  relations	
  into	
  the	
  realm	
  of	
  
public	
  and	
  private	
  housing.	
  For	
  instance,	
  “job	
  performance”	
  may	
  be	
  more	
  closely	
  related	
  to	
  employment	
  
qualifications	
  than	
  “tenant	
  performance”	
  is	
  to	
  rental	
  criteria.	
  .	
  .	
  .	
  There	
  are	
  analogous,	
  but	
  not	
  identical	
  
concerns	
  at	
  issue;	
  just	
  as	
  there	
  are	
  analogous,	
  but	
  not	
  identical	
  provisions	
  in	
  the	
  antidiscrimination	
  statutes.	
  
The	
  toughest	
  challenge	
  is	
  “to	
  translate	
  a	
  body	
  of	
  precedent	
  that	
  simultaneously	
  is	
  undergoing	
  rapid	
  
evolution.”	
  .	
  .	
  .	
  Because	
  the	
  nature	
  of	
  cases	
  under	
  the	
  Fair	
  Housing	
  Act	
  varies	
  dramatically	
  –	
  from	
  
landlord/tenant	
  disputes	
  to	
  Section	
  8	
  housing	
  participation,	
  from	
  lending	
  practices	
  to	
  urban	
  zoning	
  conflicts	
  
–	
  this	
  translation	
  is	
  best	
  accomplished	
  piece	
  by	
  piece,	
  but	
  with	
  an	
  eye	
  toward	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  a	
  coherent	
  
methodology.	
  Id.	
  at	
  96.	
  
	
  
93	
  42	
  U.S.C.A.	
  §	
  3604(a)(b)(c).	
  
94	
  See	
  Above.	
  
95	
  Foxworth	
  v.	
  Hous.	
  Auth.	
  of	
  Jefferson	
  Parish,	
  590	
  So.	
  2d	
  1347	
  (La.	
  Ct.	
  App.	
  1991)	
  writ	
  not	
  considered,	
  592	
  So.	
  
2d	
  1328	
  (La.	
  1992)	
  (Tenant's	
  complaints	
  to	
  parish	
  housing	
  authority	
  about	
  threats	
  made	
  by	
  another	
  resident	
  
of	
  apartment	
  complex	
  owned	
  and	
  operated	
  by	
  housing	
  authority	
  did	
  not	
  create	
  “special	
  relationship”	
  
between	
  housing	
  authority	
  and	
  tenant,	
  such	
  that	
  housing	
  authority	
  would	
  have	
  duty	
  to	
  protect	
  tenant	
  from	
  

	
  
31	
  

	
  

Disparate	
  Impact	
  Theory	
  
	
  

Well-­‐established	
  myths	
  regarding	
  people	
  with	
  criminal	
  records	
  pervade	
  American	
  

culture,	
  particularly	
  that	
  they	
  (a)	
  are	
  barred	
  from	
  public	
  housing;	
  (b)	
  federal	
  policy	
  
mandates	
  this	
  bar;	
  and	
  (c)	
  such	
  housing	
  discrimination	
  is	
  legal.	
  	
  People	
  with	
  criminal	
  
convictions	
  are	
  not	
  a	
  protected	
  class	
  however,	
  they	
  (as	
  a	
  group),	
  can	
  show	
  illegal	
  
discrimination	
  under	
  the	
  “Disparate	
  Impact”	
  theory	
  of	
  the	
  Fair	
  Housing	
  Act	
  of	
  1968.96	
  	
  
Although,	
  the	
  Supreme	
  Court	
  has	
  not	
  expressly	
  approved	
  a	
  Disparate	
  Impact	
  theory	
  for	
  
housing	
  discrimination	
  claims,	
  11	
  out	
  of	
  12	
  federal	
  circuits	
  have-­‐	
  and	
  12th	
  (D.C.	
  Circuit)	
  has	
  
assumed	
  as	
  much,	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  federal	
  consensus.97	
  	
  	
  Many	
  of	
  the	
  early	
  cases	
  that	
  established	
  
this	
  consensus	
  followed	
  the	
  lead	
  of	
  the	
  Supreme	
  Court’s	
  first	
  FHA	
  decision,	
  Trafficante	
  v.	
  
Metropolitan	
  Life	
  Ins.	
  Co.,	
  409	
  U.S.	
  205,	
  209	
  (1972),	
  in	
  relying	
  on	
  precedents	
  under	
  Title	
  VII	
  
of	
  the	
  1964	
  Civil	
  Rights	
  Act	
  to	
  interpret	
  the	
  FHA,	
  and	
  the	
  Court’s	
  unanimous	
  decision	
  a	
  year	
  
earlier	
  in	
  Griggs	
  v.	
  Duke	
  Power	
  Co.,	
  401	
  U.S.	
  424,	
  431-­‐32	
  (1971),	
  which	
  held	
  that	
  Title	
  VII	
  
proscribes	
  not	
  only	
  overt	
  discrimination	
  but	
  also	
  practices	
  that	
  are	
  fair	
  in	
  form,	
  but	
  
discriminatory	
  in	
  operation.	
  .	
  .	
  .	
  If	
  an	
  employment	
  practice	
  which	
  operates	
  to	
  exclude	
  
Negroes	
  cannot	
  be	
  shown	
  to	
  be	
  related	
  to	
  job	
  performance,	
  the	
  practice	
  is	
  prohibited…	
  
Congress	
  directed	
  the	
  thrust	
  of	
  the	
  Act	
  at	
  consequences	
  of	
  employment	
  practices,	
  not	
  
simply	
  the	
  motivation.98	
  
Change	
  |	
  HUD	
  2013	
  Disparate	
  Impact	
  Policy	
  Amendments	
  
	
  

In	
  2013,	
  HUD	
  finally	
  embraced	
  and	
  codified	
  disparate	
  impact	
  under	
  Part	
  100,	
  

“Discriminatory	
  Conduct	
  Under	
  the	
  Fair	
  Housing	
  Act.”99	
  	
  Regarding	
  the	
  scope	
  of	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

other	
  resident,	
  who	
  fatally	
  stabbed	
  tenant);	
  Succession	
  of	
  Vanderhoff	
  v.	
  Alphonso,	
  2007-­‐1183	
  (La.	
  App.	
  4	
  Cir.	
  
4/9/08).	
  
96	
  42	
  U.S.C.	
  §3601,	
  et.	
  seq.	
  
97	
  Langlois	
  v.	
  Abington	
  Housing	
  Authority,	
  207	
  F.3d	
  43,	
  49	
  (1st	
  Cir.	
  2000);	
  Pfaff	
  v.	
  HUD,	
  88	
  F.3d	
  739,	
  745–46	
  
(9th	
  Cir.	
  1996);	
  Mountain	
  Side	
  Mobile	
  Estates	
  Partnership	
  v.	
  HUD,	
  56	
  F.3d	
  1243,	
  1250–51	
  (10th	
  Cir.	
  1995);	
  
Jackson	
  v.	
  Okaloosa	
  County,	
  21	
  F.3d	
  1531,	
  1543	
  (11th	
  Cir.	
  1994);	
  Huntington	
  Branch,	
  NAACP	
  v.	
  Town	
  of	
  
Huntington,	
  844	
  F.2d	
  926,	
  934–35	
  (2d	
  Cir.	
  1988);	
  Hanson	
  v.	
  Veterans	
  Administration,	
  800	
  F.2d	
  1381,	
  1386	
  
(5th	
  Cir.	
  1986);	
  Arthur	
  v.	
  City	
  of	
  Toledo,	
  782	
  F.2d	
  565,	
  574–75	
  (6th	
  Cir.	
  1986);	
  Betsey	
  v.	
  Turtle	
  Creek	
  
Associates,	
  736	
  F.2d	
  983,	
  986	
  (4th	
  Cir.	
  1984);	
  Resident	
  Advisory	
  Board	
  v.	
  Rizzo,	
  564	
  F.2d	
  126,	
  146–48	
  (3d	
  Cir.	
  
1977);	
  Metropolitan	
  Housing	
  Development	
  Corporation	
  v.	
  Village	
  of	
  Arlington	
  Heights,	
  558	
  F.2d	
  1283,	
  1290	
  
(7th	
  Cir.	
  1977);	
  United	
  States	
  v.	
  City	
  of	
  Black	
  Jack,	
  508	
  F.2d	
  1179,	
  1184–85	
  (8th	
  Cir.	
  1974).	
  
98	
  Robert	
  Schwemm,	
  Sarah	
  Pratt,	
  National	
  Fair	
  Housing	
  Alliance,	
  “Disparate	
  Impact	
  Under	
  the	
  Fair	
  Housing	
  
Act:	
  A	
  Proposed	
  Approach,”	
  (12/1/2009).	
  
99	
  “DISPARATE	
  IMPACT	
  –	
  H.U.D.	
  FINAL	
  RULE	
  (Transmitted	
  by	
  HUD	
  to	
  Federal	
  Register	
  Feb.	
  8,	
  2013).	
  	
  The	
  
actual	
  regulations	
  are	
  preceded	
  by	
  79	
  pages	
  of	
  Preamble.	
  

	
  
32	
  

	
  
discrimination,	
  HUD	
  adds	
  that	
  unlawful	
  practices	
  may	
  be	
  “established	
  by	
  a	
  practice’s	
  
discriminatory	
  effect,	
  even	
  if	
  not	
  motivated	
  by	
  discriminatory	
  intent.”100 	
  	
  They	
  also	
  have	
  
now	
  added	
  the	
  enactment	
  of	
  land-­‐use	
  rules,	
  ordinances,	
  policies,	
  or	
  procedures	
  that	
  
restrict,	
  deny,	
  or	
  otherwise	
  make	
  unavailable	
  housing	
  opportunities	
  to	
  protected	
  classes.101	
  	
  	
  
	
  

HUD’s	
  new	
  Subpart	
  G	
  applies	
  directly	
  to	
  prohibition	
  of	
  Discriminatory	
  Effect,	
  and	
  is	
  

copied	
  in	
  full	
  here,	
  considering	
  the	
  recent	
  change:	
  
	
  
Subpart	
  G—Discriminatory	
  Effect	
  
§	
  100.500	
  Discriminatory	
  effect	
  prohibited.	
  
Liability	
  may	
  be	
  established	
  under	
  the	
  Fair	
  Housing	
  Act	
  based	
  on	
  a	
  practice’s	
  discriminatory	
  
effect,	
  as	
  defined	
  in	
  §	
  100.500(a),	
  even	
  if	
  the	
  practice	
  was	
  not	
  motivated	
  by	
  a	
  discriminatory	
  
intent.	
  The	
  practice	
  may	
  still	
  be	
  lawful	
  if	
  supported	
  by	
  a	
  legally	
  sufficient	
  justification,	
  as	
  
defined	
  in	
  §	
  100.500(b).	
  The	
  burdens	
  of	
  proof	
  for	
  establishing	
  a	
  violation	
  under	
  this	
  subpart	
  are	
  
set	
  forth	
  in	
  §	
  100.500(c).	
  
. (a)	
  	
  Discriminatory	
  effect.	
  	
  A	
  practice	
  has	
  a	
  discriminatory	
  effect	
  where	
  it	
  actually	
  or	
  
predictably	
  results	
  in	
  a	
  disparate	
  impact	
  on	
  a	
  group	
  of	
  persons	
  or	
  creates,	
  increases,	
  
reinforces,	
  or	
  perpetuates	
  segregated	
  housing	
  patterns	
  because	
  of	
  race,	
  color,	
  religion,	
  
sex,	
  handicap,	
  familial	
  status,	
  or	
  national	
  origin.	
  	
  
. (b)	
  	
  Legally	
  sufficient	
  justification.	
  	
  
. 	
  

(1)	
  A	
  legally	
  sufficient	
  justification	
  exists	
  where	
  the	
  challenged	
  practice:	
  	
  
(i)	
  	
  Is	
  necessary	
  to	
  achieve	
  one	
  or	
  more	
  substantial,	
  legitimate,	
  nondis-­‐	
  criminatory	
  
interests	
  of	
  the	
  respondent,	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  claims	
  brought	
  under	
  42	
  U.S.C.	
  
3612,	
  or	
  defendant,	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  claims	
  brought	
  under	
  42	
  U.S.C.	
  3613	
  or	
  
3614;	
  and	
  	
  
(ii)	
  	
  Thoseinterestscouldnotbeservedbyanotherpracticethathasaless	
  discriminatory	
  
effect.	
  	
  	
  

	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

(2)	
  A	
  legally	
  sufficient	
  justification	
  must	
  be	
  supported	
  by	
  evidence	
  and	
  may	
  	
  
not	
  be	
  hypothetical	
  or	
  speculative.	
  The	
  burdens	
  of	
  proof	
  for	
  establishing	
  each	
  	
   of	
  the	
  
two	
  elements	
  of	
  a	
  legally	
  sufficient	
  justification	
  are	
  set	
  forth	
  in	
  §	
  	
   100.500(c)(2)-­‐(c)(3).	
  

(c)	
  	
  Burdens	
  of	
  proof	
  in	
  discriminatory	
  effects	
  cases.	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
100	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  Subpart	
  A	
  100.5(b).	
  

101	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  	
  Subpart	
  B	
  100.7(d)(5).	
  

	
  
33	
  

	
  
(1)	
  	
  The	
  charging	
  party,	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  a	
  claim	
  brought	
  under	
  42	
  U.S.C.	
  3612,	
  or	
  the	
  
plaintiff,	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  a	
  claim	
  brought	
  under	
  42	
  U.S.C.	
  3613	
  or	
  3614,	
  has	
  the	
  burden	
  of	
  
proving	
  that	
  a	
  challenged	
  practice	
  caused	
  or	
  predictably	
  will	
  cause	
  a	
  discriminatory	
  effect.	
  	
  
(2)	
  	
  Once	
  the	
  charging	
  party	
  or	
  plaintiff	
  satisfies	
  the	
  burden	
  of	
  proof	
  set	
  forth	
  in	
  paragraph	
  
(c)(1)	
  of	
  this	
  section,	
  the	
  respondent	
  or	
  defendant	
  has	
  the	
  burden	
  of	
  proving	
  that	
  the	
  
challenged	
  practice	
  is	
  necessary	
  to	
  achieve	
  one	
  or	
  more	
  substantial,	
  legitimate,	
  
nondiscriminatory	
  interests	
  of	
  the	
  respondent	
  or	
  defendant.	
  	
  
(3)	
  	
  If	
  the	
  respondent	
  or	
  defendant	
  satisfies	
  the	
  burden	
  of	
  proof	
  set	
  forth	
  in	
  paragraph	
  (c)(2)	
  
of	
  this	
  section,	
  the	
  charging	
  party	
  or	
  plaintiff	
  may	
  still	
  prevail	
  upon	
  proving	
  that	
  the	
  
substantial,	
  legitimate,	
  nondiscriminatory	
  interests	
  supporting	
  the	
  challenged	
  practice	
  could	
  
be	
  served	
  by	
  another	
  practice	
  that	
  has	
  a	
  less	
  discriminatory	
  effect.	
  	
  
(d)	
  Relationship	
  to	
  discriminatory	
  intent.	
  	
  A	
  demonstration	
  that	
  a	
  practice	
  is	
  supported	
  by	
  a	
  
legally	
  sufficient	
  justification,	
  as	
  defined	
  in	
  §	
  100.500(b),	
  may	
  not	
  be	
  used	
  as	
  a	
  defense	
  against	
  a	
  
claim	
  of	
  intentional	
  discrimination.	
  

Use	
  of	
  Disparate	
  Impact	
  Theory	
  
	
  

Prior	
  to	
  enacting	
  their	
  own	
  regulations,	
  HUD	
  themselves	
  has	
  used	
  Disparate	
  Impact	
  

as	
  a	
  method	
  of	
  proving	
  discrimination	
  under	
  Title	
  VI.	
  	
  This	
  poses	
  a	
  problem	
  for	
  HUD,	
  who	
  
funds	
  the	
  local	
  PHAs:	
  If	
  discriminating	
  against	
  families	
  with	
  criminal	
  records	
  creates	
  a	
  
Disparate	
  Impact,	
  HUD	
  is	
  subsidizing	
  the	
  very	
  practice	
  they	
  are	
  charged	
  with	
  fighting	
  
against.	
  	
  Disparate	
  impact	
  regarding	
  housing	
  and	
  criminal	
  convictions	
  may	
  be	
  only	
  
recently	
  added	
  to	
  HUD’s	
  radar,	
  but	
  a	
  confluence	
  of	
  HUD	
  and	
  EEOC	
  policies	
  indicate	
  that	
  
strong	
  cases	
  exist.	
  	
  Furthermore,	
  the	
  Court	
  has	
  held	
  that	
  HUD’s	
  regulations	
  interpreting	
  the	
  
FHA	
  are	
  entitled	
  to	
  substantial	
  deference	
  in	
  determining	
  the	
  meaning	
  of	
  the	
  FHA.	
  102	
  
	
  

In	
  cases	
  where	
  Disparate	
  Impact	
  has	
  been	
  found,	
  most	
  involved	
  a	
  waiting	
  list	
  for	
  

affordable	
  housing	
  or	
  a	
  demonstrated	
  shortage	
  of	
  affordable	
  housing.103	
  	
  Although	
  courts	
  
will	
  implement	
  varying	
  tests	
  in	
  each	
  circuit,	
  the	
  5th	
  Circuit	
  has	
  held	
  that	
  the	
  relevant	
  
question	
  in	
  a	
  discriminatory	
  effects	
  claim	
  against	
  a	
  private	
  defendant	
  is	
  whether	
  a	
  policy,	
  
procedure,	
  or	
  practice	
  specifically	
  identified	
  by	
  the	
  plaintiff	
  has	
  a	
  significantly	
  greater	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
102	
  See	
  Meyer	
  v.	
  Holley,	
  537	
  U.S.	
  280,	
  287-­‐88	
  (2003);	
  see	
  also	
  Trafficante	
  v.	
  Metropolitan	
  Life	
  Ins.	
  Co.,	
  409	
  U.S.	
  
205,	
  210	
  (1972)	
  (determining	
  that	
  HUD’s	
  internal	
  interpretation	
  of	
  the	
  FHA	
  is	
  “entitled	
  to	
  great	
  weight”).	
  
103	
  Artisan/Am.	
  Corp.	
  v.	
  City	
  of	
  Alvin,	
  Tex.,	
  588	
  F.3d	
  291,	
  298	
  (5th	
  Cir.	
  2009);	
  See	
  Hallmark	
  Developers,	
  Inc.	
  v.	
  
Fulton	
  County,	
  Ga.,	
  466	
  F.3d	
  1276,	
  1287	
  (11th	
  Cir.2006)	
  (citing	
  cases);	
  see	
  also	
  Huntington	
  Branch	
  NAACP	
  v.	
  
Town	
  of	
  Huntington,	
  844	
  F.2d	
  926,	
  938	
  (2d	
  Cir.1988),	
  aff'd	
  488	
  U.S.	
  15,	
  109	
  S.Ct.	
  276,	
  102	
  L.Ed.2d	
  180	
  (1988).	
  

	
  
34	
  

	
  
discriminatory	
  impact	
  on	
  members	
  of	
  a	
  protected	
  class.104	
  	
  Recent	
  history	
  in	
  New	
  Orleans	
  
has	
  been	
  unique,	
  as	
  Hurricane	
  Katrina	
  displaced	
  several	
  hundred	
  thousand	
  people,	
  and	
  
thousands	
  of	
  affordable	
  housing	
  units	
  were	
  destroyed.	
  	
  The	
  waiting	
  lists	
  for	
  a	
  housing	
  
voucher	
  are	
  so	
  long	
  in	
  Orleans	
  and	
  Jefferson	
  parishes,	
  they	
  no	
  longer	
  take	
  applications.105	
   	
  
	
  
Affordable	
  Housing	
  Shortage	
  in	
  New	
  Orleans	
   	
  
	
  

In	
  2013,	
  the	
  waiting	
  list	
  for	
  public	
  housing	
  in	
  New	
  Orleans	
  is	
  3,939	
  families,	
  and	
  for	
  

housing	
  vouchers	
  (HCV	
  Program)	
  it	
  is	
  22,118.	
  	
  The	
  expected	
  annual	
  turnover	
  is	
  120	
  and	
  
1,700,	
  respectively;	
  meaning	
  a	
  wait	
  of	
  over	
  a	
  decade.106	
  	
  In	
  neighboring	
  Chalmette,	
  over	
  
1000	
  people	
  recently	
  lined	
  up	
  at	
  the	
  PHA	
  to	
  be	
  placed	
  on	
  the	
  HCV	
  waiting	
  list.107	
  	
  Tensions	
  
were	
  so	
  high,	
  six	
  people	
  were	
  arrested	
  for	
  disorderly	
  conduct.108	
  	
  Any	
  successful	
  case	
  under	
  
Disparate	
  Impact	
  will	
  need	
  to	
  show	
  statistical	
  evidence	
  that	
  the	
  discrimination	
  against	
  
families	
  with	
  criminal	
  convictions	
  disproportionately	
  impact	
  Black	
  and	
  Latino	
  people	
  in	
  
New	
  Orleans.	
  	
  	
  
	
  

A	
  recent	
  federal	
  court	
  case	
  puts	
  the	
  availability	
  issue	
  to	
  rest.	
  	
  The	
  court	
  found	
  a	
  

plausible	
  case	
  of	
  housing	
  discrimination	
  against	
  the	
  city	
  of	
  New	
  Orleans	
  for	
  blocking	
  the	
  
zoning	
  and	
  funding	
  of	
  a	
  proposed	
  housing	
  development	
  using	
  post-­‐Katrina	
  funding.109	
  	
  
Through	
  the	
  Piggyback	
  Program,	
  eligible	
  projects	
  require	
  the	
  approval	
  of	
  the	
  Bond	
  
Commission.	
  	
  In	
  August	
  2009,	
  the	
  Bond	
  Commission	
  adopted	
  a	
  moratorium	
  on	
  approving	
  
bond	
  financing	
  under	
  the	
  Piggyback	
  Program	
  for	
  low-­‐income	
  housing	
  projects,	
  stating	
  that	
  
it	
  needed	
  to	
  study	
  the	
  housing	
  market	
  in	
  New	
  Orleans.	
  	
  A	
  final	
  study	
  was	
  released	
  in	
  March	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
104	
  Simms	
  v.	
  First	
  Gibralter	
  Bank,	
  83	
  F.3d	
  1546,	
  1555	
  (5th	
  Cir.	
  1996).	
  	
  	
  
105	
  Jefferson	
  Parish	
  is	
  across	
  the	
  river	
  from	
  New	
  Orleans.	
  	
  The	
  Parish	
  was	
  made	
  famous	
  during	
  Katrina	
  for	
  law	
  

enforcement	
  lining	
  the	
  bridge	
  and	
  blocking	
  refugees	
  from	
  seeking	
  assistance.	
  	
  John	
  Burnett,	
  “Evacuees	
  Were	
  
Turned	
  Away	
  at	
  Gretna,	
  La.,”	
  NPR,	
  (09/20/05)	
  
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4855611	
  
106	
  HANO	
  FY2013	
  Full	
  Draft	
  Plan,	
  at	
  23.	
  
107	
  WGNO	
  10pm	
  News,	
  January	
  9,	
  2013.	
  
108	
  Id.	
  
109	
  United	
  States	
  v.	
  City	
  of	
  New	
  Orleans,	
  CIV.A.	
  12-­‐2011,	
  2012	
  WL	
  6085081	
  (E.D.	
  La.	
  Dec.	
  6,	
  2012).	
  	
  
Under	
  the	
  first	
  and	
  second	
  Arlington	
  Heights	
  factors,	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  alleges	
  that	
  the	
  Board	
  denied	
  the	
  
developers'	
  variance	
  applications	
  on	
  three	
  different	
  occasions,	
  in	
  large	
  part	
  because	
  of	
  the	
  community	
  
opposition	
  expressed	
  at	
  the	
  hearings.	
  The	
  City	
  contends	
  that	
  the	
  public's	
  statements	
  are	
  irrelevant;	
  however,	
  
several	
  courts	
  have	
  held	
  that	
  a	
  city	
  may	
  be	
  liable	
  for	
  responding	
  to	
  public	
  opposition.	
  

	
  
35	
  

	
  
2011,	
  which	
  concluded	
  that	
  the	
  New	
  Orleans'	
  housing	
  market	
  would	
  support	
  additional	
  
low-­‐income	
  affordable	
  housing;	
  however,	
  the	
  moratorium	
  has	
  yet	
  to	
  be	
  lifted.110 	
  

Criminal	
  Convictions	
  and	
  Disparate	
  Impact	
  in	
  Employment	
  
	
  

In	
  2012,	
  the	
  EEOC	
  revised	
  their	
  official	
  standards	
  regarding	
  criminal	
  convictions	
  

and	
  employment	
  practices.111	
  	
  They	
  provided	
  strict,	
  yet	
  flexible,	
  contours	
  for	
  employers	
  to	
  
remain	
  in	
  compliance	
  with	
  Title	
  VII.	
  	
  Namely:	
  
Differences	
  between	
  arrests	
  and	
  convictions	
  
•

Exclusions	
  based	
  on	
  an	
  arrest,	
  in	
  itself,	
  is	
  not	
  job	
  related	
  nor	
  consistent	
  with	
  
business	
  necessity;	
  
o Decisions	
  based	
  on	
  conduct	
  underlying	
  arrests	
  may	
  be	
  legitimate	
  if	
  such	
  
conduct	
  makes	
  them	
  unfit	
  for	
  the	
  particular	
  position.	
  

•

Conviction	
  records	
  are	
  usually	
  sufficient	
  evidence	
  that	
  a	
  person	
  engaged	
  in	
  
particular	
  conduct,	
  however	
  there	
  may	
  be	
  reasons	
  for	
  an	
  employer	
  not	
  to	
  rely	
  upon	
  
a	
  conviction	
  record,	
  alone,	
  in	
  making	
  a	
  decision.	
  

Differences	
  between	
  disparate	
  treatment	
  and	
  disparate	
  impact	
  
•

Treatment:	
  	
  If,	
  for	
  example,	
  White	
  applicants	
  with	
  criminal	
  records	
  received	
  more	
  
favorable	
  treatment	
  than	
  African-­‐American	
  applicants	
  with	
  criminal	
  records;112	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
110	
  Id.	
  

111	
  Consideration	
  of	
  Arrest	
  and	
  Conviction	
  Records	
  in	
  Employment	
  Decisions	
  Under	
  Title	
  VII	
  of	
  the	
  Civil	
  
Rights	
  Act	
  of	
  1964	
  (April	
  25,	
  2012).	
  	
  http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm	
  
112	
  See	
  generally:	
  Devah	
  Pager,	
  “The	
  Mark	
  of	
  a	
  Criminal	
  Record,”	
  108	
  AM.	
  J.	
  SOC.	
  937	
  (2003).	
  	
  
www.princeton.edu/~pager/pager_ajs.pdf.	
  	
  Pager	
  matched	
  pairs	
  of	
  young	
  Black	
  and	
  White	
  men	
  as	
  “testers”	
  
for	
  her	
  study.	
  The	
  “testers”	
  in	
  Pager’s	
  study	
  were	
  college	
  students	
  who	
  applied	
  for	
  350	
  low-­‐skilled	
  jobs	
  
advertised	
  in	
  Milwaukee-­‐area	
  classified	
  advertisements,	
  to	
  test	
  the	
  degree	
  to	
  which	
  a	
  criminal	
  record	
  affects	
  
subsequent	
  employment	
  opportunities.	
  The	
  same	
  study	
  showed	
  that	
  White	
  job	
  applicants	
  with	
  a	
  criminal	
  
record	
  were	
  called	
  back	
  for	
  interviews	
  more	
  often	
  than	
  equally-­‐qualified	
  Black	
  applicants	
  who	
  did	
  not	
  have	
  a	
  
criminal	
  record.	
  Id.	
  at	
  958.	
  See	
  also	
  Devah	
  Pager	
  et	
  al.,	
  Sequencing	
  Disadvantage:	
  The	
  Effects	
  of	
  Race	
  and	
  
Criminal	
  Background	
  for	
  Low	
  Wage	
  Job	
  Seekers,	
  623	
  ANNALS	
  AM.	
  ACAD.	
  POL.	
  &	
  SOC.	
  SCI.,	
  199	
  (2009),	
  
www.princeton.edu/~pager/annals_sequencingdisadvantage.pdf	
  (finding	
  that	
  among	
  Black	
  and	
  White	
  
testers	
  with	
  similar	
  backgrounds	
  and	
  criminal	
  records,	
  “the	
  negative	
  effect	
  of	
  a	
  criminal	
  conviction	
  is	
  
substantially	
  larger	
  for	
  blacks	
  than	
  whites.	
  .	
  .	
  .	
  the	
  magnitude	
  of	
  the	
  criminal	
  record	
  penalty	
  suffered	
  by	
  black	
  
applicants	
  (60	
  percent)	
  is	
  roughly	
  double	
  the	
  size	
  of	
  the	
  penalty	
  for	
  whites	
  with	
  a	
  record	
  (30	
  percent)”);	
  see	
  
id.	
  at	
  200–201	
  (finding	
  that	
  personal	
  contact	
  plays	
  an	
  important	
  role	
  in	
  mediating	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  a	
  criminal	
  
stigma	
  in	
  the	
  hiring	
  process,	
  and	
  that	
  Black	
  applicants	
  are	
  less	
  often	
  invited	
  to	
  interview,	
  thereby	
  having	
  
fewer	
  opportunities	
  to	
  counteract	
  the	
  stigma	
  by	
  establishing	
  rapport	
  with	
  the	
  hiring	
  official);	
  Devah	
  Pager,	
  
Statement	
  of	
  Devah	
  Pager,	
  Professor	
  of	
  Sociology	
  at	
  Princeton	
  University,	
  U.S.	
  EQUAL	
  EMP’T	
  OPPORTUNITY	
  
COMM’N,	
  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/11-­‐20-­‐08/pager.cfm	
  (last	
  visited	
  April	
  23,	
  2012)	
  (discussing	
  
the	
  results	
  of	
  the	
  Sequencing	
  Disadvantage	
  study);	
  DEVAH	
  PAGER	
  &	
  BRUCE	
  WESTERN,	
  NYC	
  COMMISSION	
  ON	
  
HUMAN	
  RIGHTS,	
  RACE	
  AT	
  WORK,	
  REALITIES	
  OF	
  RACE	
  AND	
  CRIMINAL	
  RECORD	
  IN	
  THE	
  NYC	
  JOB	
  MARKET	
  6,	
  

	
  
36	
  

	
  
o Evidence	
  of	
  disparate	
  treatment	
  include,	
  but	
  are	
  not	
  limited	
  to:	
  biased	
  
statements,	
  inconsistencies,	
  similarly	
  situated	
  comparators,	
  match-­‐pair	
  
testing,	
  and	
  statistical	
  evidence.113	
  
•

Impact:	
  	
  A	
  neutral	
  policy	
  (e.g.	
  exclusions	
  based	
  on	
  criminal	
  conduct)	
  may	
  
disproportionately	
  impact	
  some	
  protected	
  classes	
  of	
  individuals,	
  and	
  may	
  violate	
  
the	
  law	
  if	
  not	
  job	
  related	
  and	
  consistent	
  with	
  business	
  necessity	
  (disparate	
  impact	
  
liability);	
  
o The	
  EEOC	
  acknowledges	
  that	
  national	
  data	
  proves	
  exclusions	
  based	
  on	
  
criminal	
  records	
  will	
  have	
  a	
  disparate	
  impact	
  based	
  on	
  race	
  and	
  national	
  
origin.	
  
	
  

Employers	
  are	
  likely	
  to	
  meet	
  “job	
  related”	
  and	
  “business	
  necessity”	
  standards	
  where	
  they	
  
have	
  developed	
  a	
  target	
  screen	
  considering	
  at	
  least:	
  
1. Nature	
  of	
  the	
  crime;	
  
2. Time	
  elapsed;	
  
3. Nature	
  of	
  the	
  job;114	
  
4. Individualized	
  assessment.115	
  
	
  

Although	
  compliance	
  with	
  federal	
  laws	
  and/or	
  regulations	
  conflicting	
  with	
  Title	
  VII	
  

is	
  a	
  defense	
  to	
  a	
  discrimination	
  charge,	
  local	
  laws	
  and	
  policies	
  are	
  preempted	
  by	
  Title	
  VII	
  if	
  
they	
  require	
  or	
  permit	
  any	
  unlawful	
  employment	
  practice	
  under	
  Title	
  VII.116 	
  	
  This	
  
enforcement	
  structure,	
  where	
  naturally	
  extended	
  to	
  public	
  housing	
  practices,	
  allows	
  PHAs	
  
a	
  defense	
  where	
  adhering	
  to	
  HUD	
  requirements,	
  yet	
  a	
  liability	
  where	
  local	
  discretionary	
  
policies	
  either	
  “require”	
  or	
  “permit”	
  unlawful	
  discrimination	
  by	
  use	
  of	
  a	
  criminal	
  record.	
  
	
  

After	
  the	
  Supreme	
  Court	
  acknowledged	
  in	
  1971	
  that	
  Title	
  VII	
  permits	
  disparate	
  

impact	
  claims,	
  and	
  consensus	
  evolved	
  in	
  the	
  Courts	
  of	
  Appeals	
  that	
  disparate	
  impact	
  is	
  also	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

Figure	
  2	
  (2006),	
  http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/pdf/race_report_web.pdf	
  (finding	
  that	
  White	
  testers	
  with	
  a	
  
felony	
  conviction	
  were	
  called	
  back	
  13%	
  of	
  the	
  time,	
  Hispanic	
  testers	
  without	
  a	
  criminal	
  record	
  were	
  called	
  
back	
  14%	
  of	
  the	
  time,	
  and	
  Black	
  testers	
  without	
  a	
  criminal	
  record	
  were	
  called	
  back	
  10%	
  of	
  the	
  time).	
  
113	
  EEOC	
  Guidelines,	
  at	
  8.	
  
114	
  Id.,	
  at	
  5,	
  citing	
  Green	
  v.	
  Missouri	
  Pacific,	
  549	
  F.2d	
  1158	
  (8th	
  Cir.	
  1977).	
  
115	
  Id.	
  	
  Although	
  not	
  required,	
  those	
  screens	
  lacking	
  an	
  individualized	
  assessment	
  are	
  more	
  likely	
  to	
  violate	
  
Title	
  VII.	
  
116	
  Id.,	
  citing	
  42	
  U.S.C.	
  §	
  2000e-­‐7.	
  

	
  
37	
  

	
  
cognizable	
  under	
  the	
  Fair	
  Housing	
  Act,	
  Congress	
  passed	
  the	
  Fair	
  Housing	
  Amendments	
  Act	
  
of	
  1988.,	
  and	
  the	
  Civil	
  Rights	
  Act	
  of	
  1991.117	
  	
  The	
  updated	
  laws	
  presume	
  Congress	
  adopts	
  
prior	
  judicial	
  interpretation	
  when	
  it	
  is	
  reenacted	
  without	
  change.118	
  	
  The	
  more	
  
contemporary	
  judicial	
  rulings	
  require,	
  	
  a	
  respondent	
  facing	
  an	
  established	
  disparate	
  impact	
  
claim	
  to	
  demonstrate	
  that	
  the	
  practice	
  is	
  job	
  related	
  for	
  the	
  position	
  in	
  question	
  and	
  
consistent	
  with	
  job	
  necessity.119	
  	
  
	
  

VI.	
  Making	
  the	
  Disparate	
  Impact	
  Case	
  
1. Identify	
  the	
  Policy	
  or	
  Practice	
  
	
  

The	
  policy	
  at	
  issue	
  here	
  are	
  crime-­‐related	
  provisions	
  of	
  the	
  Housing	
  Authority	
  of	
  

New	
  Orleans	
  (HANO)	
  Admissions	
  and	
  Continued	
  Occupancy	
  Policy	
  (ACOP).	
  	
  Every	
  local	
  
housing	
  agency	
  is	
  required	
  to	
  develop	
  an	
  ACOP,	
  subject	
  to	
  the	
  baseline	
  standards	
  of	
  HUD	
  
guidelines.	
  	
  HUD	
  currently	
  gives	
  the	
  PHAs	
  discretion	
  to	
  exclude	
  beyond	
  what	
  is	
  required	
  by	
  
Congress.	
  	
  In	
  this	
  way,	
  exclusion	
  policies	
  serve	
  as	
  a	
  mandatory	
  minimum	
  sentence,	
  where	
  
punishments	
  may	
  be	
  harsher,	
  yet	
  never	
  more	
  lenient.	
  	
  Furthermore,	
  private	
  developers	
  
who	
  administer	
  the	
  typical	
  HOPE	
  VI	
  mixed-­‐income	
  properties,	
  such	
  as	
  River	
  Gardens	
  in	
  
New	
  Orleans,	
  would	
  be	
  subject	
  to	
  the	
  same	
  disparate	
  impact	
  standards.120	
  
	
  

The	
  complaining	
  party	
  must	
  also	
  establish	
  causation	
  in	
  an	
  impact-­‐based	
  case.	
  	
  The	
  

plaintiff	
  must	
  begin	
  by	
  identifying	
  the	
  specific	
  practice	
  that	
  is	
  challenged.	
  	
  Especially	
  in	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

117	
  Griggs	
  v.	
  Duke	
  Power,	
  401	
  U.S.	
  424,	
  431-­‐32	
  (1971).	
  	
  	
  
118	
  Lorillard	
  v.	
  Pons,	
  434	
  U.S.	
  575,	
  580	
  (1978)

	
  

119	
  42	
  U.S.C.	
  §	
  2000e-­‐2(k)(1)(A)(i).	
  	
  The	
  Civil	
  Rights	
  Act	
  of	
  1991,	
  Pub.	
  L.	
  No.	
  102-­‐166,	
  §	
  105;	
  see	
  also:	
  Lewis	
  v.	
  

City	
  of	
  Chicago,	
  130	
  S.	
  Ct.	
  2191	
  (2010)	
  (reaffirming	
  disparate	
  impact	
  analysis);	
  Ricci	
  v.	
  DeStefano,	
  557	
  U.S.	
  557	
  
(2009).	
  
120	
  See,	
  e.g.,	
  Salute	
  v.	
  Stratford	
  Greens	
  Garden	
  Apartments,	
  136	
  F.3d	
  293,	
  302	
  (2d.	
  Cir.	
  1998)	
  (transposing	
  a	
  
formula	
  derived	
  from	
  FHA	
  cases	
  against	
  governmental	
  defendants	
  to	
  one	
  involving	
  a	
  private	
  defendant	
  by	
  
merely	
  omitting	
  the	
  word	
  “governmental”	
  (i.e.,	
  concluding	
  that	
  a	
  private	
  defendant	
  must	
  “prove	
  that	
  its	
  
actions	
  furthered,	
  in	
  theory	
  and	
  in	
  practice	
  a	
  legitimate	
  bona	
  fide	
  .	
  .	
  .	
  interest”	
  [quoting	
  Rizzo,	
  564	
  F.2d	
  at	
  148-­‐
49]));	
  National	
  Fair	
  Housing	
  Alliance,	
  Inc.	
  v.	
  Prudential	
  Ins.	
  Co.	
  of	
  Am.,	
  208	
  F.	
  Supp.	
  2d	
  46,	
  59-­‐60	
  (D.	
  D.C.	
  2002)	
  
(rejecting	
  the	
  Brown	
  approach	
  in	
  favor	
  of	
  applying	
  an	
  impact	
  standard	
  for	
  FHA	
  claims	
  against	
  both	
  public	
  and	
  
private	
  defendants);	
  cf.	
  Graoch	
  Associates	
  #	
  33	
  v.	
  Louisville/Jefferson	
  County,	
  508	
  F.3d	
  366,	
  382-­‐90	
  (6th	
  Cir.	
  
2007)	
  (Nelson,	
  J.,	
  concurring,	
  suggesting	
  that,	
  while	
  FHA	
  impact	
  cases	
  may	
  be	
  brought	
  against	
  both	
  public	
  and	
  
private	
  defendants,	
  some	
  parts	
  of	
  the	
  analysis	
  should	
  differ	
  depending	
  on	
  which	
  type	
  of	
  defendant	
  is	
  
involved);	
  Betsey,	
  736	
  F.	
  2d	
  at	
  988	
  n.5	
  (“Obviously,	
  a	
  business	
  necessity	
  test	
  is	
  inapplicable	
  in	
  situations	
  
where	
  the	
  defendant	
  is	
  a	
  public	
  body.”)	
  

	
  
38	
  

	
  
cases	
  where	
  a	
  provider	
  of	
  housing	
  opportunities	
  combines	
  subjective	
  criteria	
  with	
  the	
  use	
  
of	
  more	
  rigid	
  standardized	
  rules	
  or	
  standards,	
  the	
  plaintiff	
  is	
  responsible	
  for	
  isolating	
  and	
  
identifying	
  the	
  specific	
  housing	
  practices	
  that	
  are	
  allegedly	
  responsible	
  for	
  any	
  observed	
  
statistical	
  disparities.	
  	
  A	
  typical	
  case	
  can	
  not	
  be	
  made	
  by	
  offering	
  only	
  one	
  set	
  of	
  cumulative	
  
comparative	
  statistics	
  as	
  evidence	
  of	
  the	
  disparate	
  impact	
  of	
  each	
  and	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  defendant’s	
  
housing	
  practices.	
  	
  As	
  is	
  true	
  under	
  Title	
  VII,	
  FHA	
  disparate-­‐impact	
  cases	
  focus	
  on	
  the	
  
impact	
  of	
  particular	
  practices	
  on	
  opportunities	
  for	
  protected-­‐class	
  members.	
  
However,	
  if	
  the	
  complaining	
  party	
  can	
  demonstrate	
  that	
  the	
  elements	
  of	
  a	
  defendant's	
  
decision-­‐making	
  process	
  are	
  not	
  capable	
  of	
  separation	
  for	
  analysis,	
  the	
  decision-­‐making	
  
process	
  may	
  be	
  analyzed	
  as	
  one	
  practice.121	
  
	
  
2. Determining	
  Disparate	
  Impact	
  
	
  

A	
  practice	
  has	
  a	
  discriminatory	
  effect	
  where	
  it	
  actually	
  or	
  predictably	
  results	
  in	
  a	
  

disparate	
  impact	
  on	
  a	
  group	
  of	
  persons	
  or	
  creates,	
  increases,	
  reinforces,	
  or	
  perpetuates	
  
segregated	
  housing	
  patterns	
  because	
  of	
  race,	
  color,	
  et.al.122	
  	
  The	
  proper	
  comparison	
  is	
  
between	
  the	
  racial	
  composition	
  of	
  the	
  at-­‐issue	
  housing	
  opportunities	
  and	
  the	
  racial	
  
composition	
  of	
  the	
  qualified	
  population	
  in	
  the	
  relevant	
  housing	
  market.	
  	
  This	
  comparison	
  
generally	
  forms	
  the	
  proper	
  basis	
  for	
  the	
  initial	
  inquiry	
  in	
  an	
  impact	
  case.	
  	
  Alternatively,	
  in	
  
cases	
  where	
  such	
  housing	
  market	
  statistics	
  will	
  be	
  difficult	
  or	
  impossible	
  to	
  ascertain,	
  
certain	
  other	
  statistics	
  –	
  such	
  as	
  measures	
  indicating	
  the	
  racial	
  composition	
  of	
  “otherwise-­‐
qualified	
  applicants”	
  for	
  the	
  at-­‐issue	
  housing	
  opportunities	
  –	
  are	
  equally	
  probative	
  for	
  this	
  
purpose.	
  	
  In	
  fact,	
  where	
  figures	
  for	
  the	
  general	
  population	
  might	
  accurately	
  reflect	
  the	
  pool	
  
of	
  qualified	
  housing	
  applicants,	
  a	
  prima	
  facie	
  case	
  may	
  be	
  established	
  based	
  on	
  such	
  
statistics	
  as	
  well.123	
  
	
  

Nationally,	
  African	
  Americans	
  and	
  Hispanics	
  are	
  arrested	
  in	
  numbers	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

121	
  Schwemm	
  and	
  Pratt,	
  supra,	
  at	
  19-­‐20.	
  
122	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  100	
  Subpart	
  G	
  §100.500(a)	
  (as	
  amended,	
  2/8/2013).	
  See:	
  United	
  States	
  v.	
  City	
  of	
  Black	
  Jack,	
  
	
  
Missouri,	
  508	
  F.2d	
  1179,	
  1184-­‐85,	
  1188	
  (8th Cir.	
  1974)	
  (holding,	
  in	
  exclusionary	
  land-­‐use	
  case	
  brought	
  by	
  the	
  
Justice	
  Department,	
  that	
  the	
  defendant-­‐municipality	
  violated	
  the	
  FHA’s	
  §	
  3604(a)	
  and	
  §	
  3617	
  and	
  
commenting	
  that	
  in	
  order	
  “[t]o	
  establish	
  a	
  prima	
  facie	
  case	
  of	
  racial	
  discrimination,	
  the	
  plaintiff	
  need	
  prove	
  
no	
  more	
  than	
  that	
  the	
  conduct	
  of	
  the	
  defendant	
  actually	
  or	
  predictably	
  results	
  in	
  racial	
  discrimination;	
  in	
  
other	
  words,	
  that	
  it	
  has	
  a	
  discriminatory	
  effect.	
  .	
  .	
  .	
  Effect,	
  and	
  not	
  motivation,	
  is	
  the	
  touchstone	
  .	
  .	
  .	
  .”).	
  
123	
  Schwemm	
  and	
  Pratt,	
  at	
  19.	
  

	
  
39	
  

	
  
disproportionate	
  to	
  their	
  representation	
  in	
  the	
  general	
  population.	
  	
  In	
  2010,	
  28%	
  of	
  all	
  
	
  
arrests	
  were	
  of	
  African	
  Americans,124 even	
  though	
  African	
  Americans	
  only	
  comprised	
  
	
  
approximately	
  14%	
  of	
  the	
  general	
  population.125 	
  	
  Moreover,	
  African	
  Americans	
  and	
  
Hispanics	
  were	
  more	
  likely	
  than	
  Whites	
  to	
  be	
  targeted	
  and	
  arrested,	
  convicted,	
  or	
  
sentenced	
  for	
  drug	
  offenses	
  even	
  though	
  their	
  rate	
  of	
  drug	
  use	
  is	
  similar	
  to	
  the	
  rate	
  of	
  drug	
  
use	
  for	
  Whites.126 	
  
	
  

African	
  Americans	
  and	
  Hispanics	
  also	
  are	
  incarcerated	
  at	
  rates	
  disproportionate	
  to	
  

their	
  numbers	
  in	
  the	
  general	
  population.	
  	
  Based	
  on	
  national	
  incarceration	
  data,	
  the	
  U.S.	
  
Department	
  of	
  Justice	
  estimated	
  in	
  2001	
  that	
  1	
  out	
  of	
  every	
  17	
  White	
  men	
  is	
  expected	
  to	
  go	
  
to	
  prison	
  at	
  some	
  point	
  during	
  his	
  lifetime,	
  assuming	
  that	
  current	
  incarceration	
  rates	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
remain	
  unchanged.127 This	
  rate	
  climbs	
  to	
  1	
  in	
  6	
  for	
  Hispanic	
  men.128 For	
  African	
  American	
  
	
  	
  
men,	
  the	
  rate	
  of	
  expected	
  incarceration	
  rises	
  to	
  1	
  in	
  3.129 Based	
  on	
  a	
  state-­‐	
  by-­‐state	
  
examination	
  of	
  incarceration	
  rates	
  in	
  2005,	
  African	
  Americans	
  were	
  incarcerated	
  at	
  a	
  rate	
  
	
  
5.6	
  times	
  higher	
  than	
  Whites,130 and	
  seven	
  states	
  had	
  a	
  Black-­‐to-­‐White	
  ratio	
  of	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
124	
  UNIF.	
  CRIME	
  REPORTING	
  PROGRAM,	
  FED.	
  BUREAU	
  OF	
  INVESTIGATION,	
  CRIME	
  IN	
  THE	
  U.S.	
  the-­‐u.s.-­‐

2010/tables/table-­‐43/10tbl43a.xls.	
  
125	
  U.S.	
  CENSUS	
  BUREAU,	
  THE	
  BLACK	
  POPULATION:	
  2010,	
  at	
  3	
  (2011)	
  ,	
  
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-­‐06.pdf	
  (reporting	
  that	
  in	
  2010,	
  “14	
  percent	
  of	
  all	
  
people	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  identified	
  as	
  Black,	
  either	
  alone,	
  or	
  in	
  combination	
  with	
  one	
  or	
  more	
  races”).	
  
126	
  See,	
  e.g.,	
  HUMAN	
  RIGHTS	
  WATCH,	
  DECADES	
  OF	
  DISPARITY:	
  DRUG	
  ARRESTS	
  AND	
  RACE	
  IN	
  THE	
  UNITED	
  
STATES	
  1	
  (2009),	
  http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0309web_1.pdf	
  (noting	
  that	
  the	
  "[t]he	
  
higher	
  rates	
  of	
  black	
  drug	
  arrests	
  do	
  not	
  reflect	
  higher	
  rates	
  of	
  black	
  drug	
  offending	
  .	
  .	
  .	
  .	
  blacks	
  and	
  whites	
  
engage	
  in	
  drug	
  offenses	
  -­‐	
  possession	
  and	
  sales	
  -­‐	
  at	
  roughly	
  comparable	
  rates");	
  SUBSTANCE	
  ABUSE	
  &	
  
MENTAL	
  HEALTH	
  SERVS.	
  ADMIN.,	
  U.S.	
  DEP'T	
  OF	
  HEALTH	
  &	
  HUMAN	
  SERVS.,	
  RESULTS	
  FROM	
  THE	
  2010	
  
NATIONAL	
  SURVEY	
  ON	
  DRUG	
  USE	
  AND	
  HEALTH:	
  SUMMARY	
  OF	
  NATIONAL	
  FINDINGS	
  21	
  (2011),	
  
http://oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k10NSDUH/2k10Results.pdf	
  (reporting	
  that	
  in	
  2010,	
  the	
  rates	
  of	
  illicit	
  drug	
  
use	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  among	
  persons	
  aged	
  12	
  or	
  older	
  were	
  10.7%	
  for	
  African	
  Americans,	
  9.1%	
  for	
  Whites,	
  
and	
  8.1%	
  for	
  Hispanics);	
  HARRY	
  LEVINE	
  &	
  DEBORAH	
  SMALL,	
  N.Y.	
  CIVIL	
  LIBERTIES	
  UNION,	
  MARIJUANA	
  
ARREST	
  CRUSADE:	
  RACIAL	
  BIAS	
  AND	
  POLICE	
  POLICY	
  IN	
  NEW	
  YORK	
  CITY,	
  1997–2007,	
  at	
  13–16	
  (2008),	
  
www.nyclu.org/files/MARIJUANA-­‐ARREST-­‐	
  CRUSADE_Final.pdf	
  (citing	
  U.S.	
  Government	
  surveys	
  showing	
  
that	
  Whites	
  use	
  marijuana	
  at	
  higher	
  rates	
  than	
  African	
  Americans	
  and	
  Hispanics;	
  however,	
  the	
  marijuana	
  
arrest	
  rate	
  of	
  Hispanics	
  is	
  nearly	
  three	
  times	
  the	
  arrest	
  rate	
  of	
  Whites,	
  and	
  the	
  marijuana	
  arrest	
  rate	
  of	
  
African	
  Americans	
  is	
  five	
  times	
  the	
  arrest	
  rate	
  of	
  Whites).	
  
127	
  PREVALENCE	
  OF	
  IMPRISONMENT,	
  supra	
  note	
  4,	
  at	
  1,	
  8.	
  Due	
  to	
  the	
  nature	
  of	
  available	
  data,	
  the	
  
Commission	
  is	
  using	
  incarceration	
  data	
  as	
  a	
  proxy	
  for	
  conviction	
  data.	
  
128	
  Id.	
  	
  
129	
  Id.	
  	
  
130	
  MARC	
  MAUER	
  &	
  RYAN	
  S.	
  KING,	
  THE	
  SENTENCING	
  PROJECT,	
  UNEVEN	
  JUSTICE:	
  STATE	
  RATES	
  OF	
  
INCARCERATION	
  BY	
  RACE	
  AND	
  ETHNICITY	
  10	
  (2007),	
  
www.sentencingproject.org/Admin%5CDocuments%5Cpublications%5Crd_stateratesofincbyrac	
  
eandethnicity.pdf.	
  

	
  
40	
  

	
  
	
  	
  
incarceration	
  that	
  was	
  10	
  to1.131 In	
  2010,	
  Black	
  men	
  had	
  an	
  imprisonment	
  rate	
  that	
  was	
  
nearly	
  seven	
  times	
  higher	
  than	
  White	
  men	
  and	
  almost	
  three	
  times	
  higher	
  than	
  Hispanic	
  
men.132	
  
	
  

Some	
  supporters	
  of	
  current	
  policy	
  quietly	
  claim	
  that	
  People	
  of	
  Color	
  simply	
  commit	
  

that	
  many	
  more	
  crimes	
  than	
  White	
  people.	
  	
  This	
  view,	
  rooted	
  in	
  racism,	
  has	
  no	
  statistical	
  
foundation.	
  	
  Although	
  education	
  and	
  economic	
  factors	
  do	
  correlate	
  to	
  criminal	
  activity,	
  
there	
  are	
  more	
  poor	
  and	
  under-­‐educated	
  White	
  Americans	
  than	
  all	
  People	
  of	
  Color	
  
combined	
  in	
  America.	
  
	
  

	
  

National	
  data,	
  such	
  as	
  that	
  cited	
  above,	
  supports	
  the	
  EEOC	
  finding	
  that	
  criminal	
  

record	
  exclusions	
  have	
  a	
  disparate	
  impact	
  based	
  on	
  race	
  and	
  national	
  origin.	
  	
  The	
  EEOC	
  has	
  
established	
  a	
  benchmark	
  of	
  “four	
  fifths”	
  as	
  to	
  how	
  substantial	
  the	
  disparate	
  impact	
  is.	
  	
  A	
  
selection	
  rate	
  for	
  any	
  race,	
  sex,	
  or	
  ethnic	
  group	
  which	
  is	
  less	
  than	
  four-­‐fifths	
  (or	
  eighty	
  
percent)	
  of	
  the	
  rate	
  for	
  the	
  group	
  with	
  the	
  highest	
  rate	
  will	
  generally	
  be	
  regarded	
  by	
  the	
  
Federal	
  enforcement	
  agencies	
  as	
  evidence	
  of	
  adverse	
  impact.133	
  	
  	
  
	
  

The	
  national	
  data	
  (according	
  to	
  the	
  EEOC,	
  a	
  federal	
  agency)	
  provides	
  a	
  basis	
  for	
  the	
  

EEOC	
  to	
  further	
  investigate	
  such	
  Title	
  VII	
  disparate	
  impact	
  charges.	
  	
  During	
  an	
  EEOC	
  
investigation,	
  the	
  employer	
  also	
  has	
  an	
  opportunity	
  to	
  show,	
  with	
  relevant	
  evidence,	
  that	
  
its	
  employment	
  policy	
  or	
  practice	
  does	
  not	
  cause	
  a	
  disparate	
  impact	
  on	
  the	
  protected	
  
group(s).	
  	
  For	
  example,	
  an	
  employer	
  may	
  present	
  regional	
  or	
  local	
  data	
  showing	
  that	
  
African	
  American	
  and/or	
  Hispanic	
  men	
  are	
  not	
  arrested	
  or	
  convicted	
  at	
  disproportionately	
  
higher	
  rates	
  in	
  the	
  employer’s	
  particular	
  geographic	
  area.	
  	
  An	
  employer	
  also	
  may	
  use	
  its	
  
own	
  applicant	
  data	
  to	
  demonstrate	
  that	
  its	
  policy	
  or	
  practice	
  did	
  not	
  cause	
  a	
  disparate	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
131	
  Id.	
  

132	
  PAUL	
  GUERINO	
  ET	
  AL.,	
  BUREAU	
  OF	
  JUSTICE	
  STATISTICS,	
  U.S.	
  DEP’T	
  OF	
  JUSTICE,	
  PRISONERS	
  IN	
  2010,	
  at	
  

27,	
  Table	
  14	
  (2011),	
  http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p10.pdf	
  (reporting	
  that	
  as	
  of	
  December	
  31,	
  
2010,	
  Black	
  men	
  were	
  imprisoned	
  at	
  a	
  rate	
  of	
  3,074	
  per	
  100,000	
  Black	
  male	
  residents,	
  Hispanic	
  men	
  were	
  
imprisoned	
  at	
  a	
  rate	
  of	
  1,258	
  per	
  100,000	
  Hispanic	
  male	
  residents,	
  and	
  White	
  men	
  were	
  imprisoned	
  at	
  a	
  rate	
  
of	
  459	
  per	
  100,000	
  White	
  male	
  residents);	
  cf.	
  ONE	
  IN	
  31,	
  supra	
  note	
  4,	
  at	
  5	
  (“Black	
  adults	
  are	
  four	
  times	
  as	
  
likely	
  as	
  whites	
  and	
  nearly	
  2.5	
  times	
  as	
  likely	
  as	
  Hispanics	
  to	
  be	
  under	
  correctional	
  control.	
  One	
  in	
  11	
  black	
  
adults	
  -­‐-­‐	
  9.2	
  percent	
  -­‐-­‐	
  was	
  under	
  correctional	
  control	
  [probation,	
  parole,	
  prison,	
  or	
  jail]	
  at	
  year	
  end	
  2007.”).	
  
133	
  See	
  29	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  1607.4(D),	
  which	
  some	
  FHA	
  decisions	
  have	
  considered.	
  See,	
  e.g.,	
  Langlois	
  v.	
  Abington	
  
Housing	
  Authority,	
  207	
  F.3d	
  43,	
  50	
  (1st	
  Cir.	
  2000).	
  	
  Many	
  courts	
  have	
  held	
  that,	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  violate	
  the	
  FHA,	
  a	
  
defendant’s	
  practice	
  must	
  produce	
  a	
  “substantial”	
  disparate	
  impact.	
  See,	
  e.g.,	
  Schwartz	
  v.	
  City	
  of	
  Treasure	
  
Island,	
  544	
  F.3d	
  1201,	
  1217	
  (11th	
  Cir.	
  2008);	
  Budnick	
  v.	
  Town	
  of	
  Carefree,	
  518	
  F.3d	
  1109,	
  1118-­‐19	
  (9th	
  Cir.	
  
2008)	
  (same,	
  citing	
  Gamble	
  v.	
  City	
  of	
  Escondido,	
  104	
  F.3d	
  300,	
  306	
  (9th	
  Cir.	
  1997));	
  Reinhart	
  v.	
  Lincoln	
  County,	
  
482	
  F.3d	
  1225,	
  1229	
  (10th	
  Cir.	
  2007).	
  	
  In	
  determining	
  whether	
  the	
  proven	
  impact	
  is	
  substantial	
  enough,	
  no	
  
single	
  test	
  controls.	
  Cf.	
  Watson	
  v.	
  Fort	
  Worth	
  Bank	
  &	
  Trust,	
  487	
  U.S.	
  977,	
  995-­‐96	
  n.	
  3	
  (1988)	
  (Title	
  VII	
  case).	
  	
  

	
  
41	
  

	
  
impact.	
  	
  	
  
	
  

An	
  employer’s	
  evidence	
  of	
  a	
  racially	
  balanced	
  workforce	
  will	
  not	
  be	
  enough	
  to	
  

disprove	
  disparate	
  impact.	
  	
  In	
  Connecticut	
  v.	
  Teal,	
  the	
  Supreme	
  Court	
  held	
  that	
  a	
  “bottom	
  
line”	
  racial	
  balance	
  in	
  the	
  workforce	
  does	
  not	
  preclude	
  employees	
  from	
  establishing	
  a	
  
	
  	
  
prima	
  facie	
  case	
  of	
  disparate	
  impact;	
  nor	
  does	
  it	
  provide	
  employers	
  with	
  a	
  defense.134 The	
  
issue	
  is	
  whether	
  the	
  policy	
  or	
  practice	
  deprives	
  a	
  disproportionate	
  number	
  of	
  Title	
  VII-­‐
protected	
  individuals	
  of	
  employment	
  opportunities.135	
  	
  Such	
  an	
  issue	
  would	
  be	
  central	
  to	
  
assessing	
  HANO’s	
  policy,	
  where	
  the	
  population	
  served	
  is	
  overwhelmingly	
  African-­‐American	
  
families.	
  
	
  

Finally,	
  in	
  determining	
  disparate	
  impact,	
  the	
  EEOC	
  will	
  assess	
  the	
  probative	
  value	
  of	
  

an	
  employer’s	
  applicant	
  data.	
  	
  As	
  the	
  Supreme	
  Court	
  stated	
  in	
  Dothard	
  v.	
  Rawlinson,	
  an	
  
employer’s	
  “application	
  process	
  might	
  itself	
  not	
  adequately	
  reflect	
  the	
  actual	
  potential	
  
applicant	
  pool	
  since	
  otherwise	
  qualified	
  people	
  might	
  be	
  discouraged	
  from	
  applying”	
  
	
  	
  
because	
  of	
  an	
  alleged	
  discriminatory	
  policy	
  or	
  practice.136 Therefore,	
  the	
  Commission	
  will	
  
closely	
  consider	
  whether	
  an	
  employer	
  has	
  a	
  reputation	
  in	
  the	
  community	
  for	
  excluding	
  
individuals	
  with	
  criminal	
  records.	
  	
  Relevant	
  evidence	
  may	
  come	
  from	
  ex-­‐offender	
  
employment	
  programs,	
  individual	
  testimony,	
  employer	
  statements,	
  evidence	
  of	
  employer	
  
	
  	
  
recruitment	
  practices,	
  or	
  publicly	
  posted	
  notices,	
  among	
  other	
  sources.137 The	
  Commission	
  
will	
  determine	
  the	
  persuasiveness	
  of	
  such	
  evidence	
  on	
  a	
  case-­‐by-­‐case	
  basis.	
  	
  Considering	
  
the	
  pervasiveness	
  of	
  well-­‐established	
  myths	
  of	
  permanent	
  housing	
  bans,	
  this	
  is	
  likely	
  to	
  
have	
  significant	
  impact	
  regarding	
  HANO.	
  
	
  
3. Burden-­‐Shifting	
  Under	
  Disparate	
  Impact	
  Litigation	
  
	
  

Presuming	
  the	
  data	
  is	
  evident	
  regarding	
  criminal	
  convictions	
  becoming	
  a	
  proxy	
  for	
  

race,	
  and	
  that	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  families	
  barred	
  from	
  public	
  housing	
  disproportionately	
  
impacts	
  People	
  of	
  Color,	
  the	
  PHA	
  would	
  need	
  to	
  then	
  show	
  that	
  the	
  exclusions	
  have	
  a	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
134	
  457	
  U.S.	
  440,	
  442	
  (1982).	
  
135	
  Id.,	
  at	
  453-­‐54.	
  
136	
  433	
  U.S.	
  321,	
  330	
  (1977).	
  

137	
  See,	
  e.g.,	
  Int’l	
  Bhd.	
  of	
  Teamsters	
  v.	
  United	
  States,	
  431	
  U.S.	
  324,	
  365	
  (1977)	
  (stating	
  that	
  “[a]	
  consistently	
  

enforced	
  discriminatory	
  policy	
  can	
  surely	
  deter	
  job	
  applications	
  from	
  those	
  who	
  are	
  aware	
  of	
  it	
  and	
  are	
  
unwilling	
  to	
  subject	
  themselves	
  to	
  the	
  humiliation	
  of	
  explicit	
  and	
  certain	
  rejection”).	
  	
  	
  

	
  
42	
  

	
  
legally	
  sufficient	
  justification.138	
  	
  A	
  justification	
  exists	
  where	
  (1)	
  it	
  is	
  necessary	
  to	
  achieve	
  
one	
  or	
  more	
  substantial,	
  legitimate,	
  nondiscriminatory	
  interests	
  of	
  the	
  PHA,	
  and	
  (2)	
  those	
  
interests	
  could	
  not	
  be	
  served	
  by	
  another	
  practice	
  that	
  has	
  a	
  less	
  discriminatory	
  effect.139	
  	
  
Finally,	
  such	
  justification	
  must	
  be	
  supported	
  by	
  evidence	
  and	
  may	
  not	
  be	
  hypothetical	
  or	
  
speculative.140	
  
	
  

The	
  Supreme	
  Court	
  found	
  Congress’	
  desire	
  to	
  have	
  a	
  drug-­‐free	
  public	
  housing	
  

system	
  to	
  be,	
  on	
  its	
  face,	
  a	
  “legally	
  sufficient	
  justification.”	
  141	
  	
  However,	
  a	
  PHA	
  or	
  private	
  
housing	
  corporation	
  administering	
  a	
  subsidized	
  property	
  would	
  need	
  to	
  show	
  that	
  those	
  
interests	
  can	
  not	
  be	
  achieved	
  in	
  a	
  less	
  discriminatory	
  manner,	
  and	
  that,	
  for	
  example,	
  a	
  
blanket	
  ban	
  on	
  people	
  with	
  felony	
  convictions	
  is	
  not	
  speculative	
  regarding	
  their	
  
prospective	
  drug	
  use.	
  	
  	
  
	
  

The	
  new	
  HUD	
  regulations	
  should	
  clarify	
  courts’	
  past	
  conflicts	
  on	
  the	
  proper	
  burden	
  

of	
  proof.	
  	
  Once	
  the	
  charging	
  party	
  establishes	
  a	
  prima	
  facie	
  case	
  of	
  (actual	
  or	
  predictable)	
  
discriminatory	
  effect,	
  the	
  defendant/respondent	
  has	
  the	
  burden	
  of	
  proving	
  that	
  the	
  
challenged	
  practice	
  is	
  necessary	
  to	
  achieve	
  one	
  or	
  more	
  substantial,	
  legitimate,	
  
nondiscriminatory	
  interests.142	
  	
  Even	
  if	
  this	
  burden	
  is	
  satisfied,	
  the	
  charging	
  party	
  may	
  still	
  
prevail	
  upon	
  proving	
  that	
  such	
  legitimate	
  interests	
  could	
  be	
  served	
  by	
  another	
  practice	
  
with	
  a	
  less	
  discriminatory	
  effect.143	
  	
  	
  Although	
  it	
  seems	
  reasonable	
  to	
  ask	
  a	
  PHA	
  to	
  show	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

138	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  100	
  Subpart	
  G	
  §100.500(b)	
  (as	
  amended,	
  2/8/2013).	
  	
  See,	
  e.g.,	
  Huntington	
  Branch,	
  844	
  F.2d	
  at	
  
936	
  (requiring	
  the	
  defendant	
  to	
  prove	
  that	
  its	
  actions	
  furthered	
  “a	
  legitimate	
  bona	
  fide	
  governmental	
  
interest”);;	
  Black	
  Jack,	
  508	
  F.2d	
  at	
  1188	
  n.	
  4	
  (requiring	
  the	
  defendant	
  “to	
  demonstrate	
  that	
  its	
  conduct	
  was	
  
necessary	
  to	
  promote	
  a	
  compelling	
  governmental	
  interest”).	
  	
  Placing	
  the	
  burden	
  upon	
  the	
  Defendant	
  is	
  
consistent	
  with	
  Congress’	
  response	
  to	
  the	
  Supreme	
  Court	
  holding	
  that	
  the	
  burden	
  of	
  persuasion	
  lies	
  with	
  the	
  
plaintiff.	
  	
  Wards	
  Cove	
  Packing	
  Co.,	
  Inc.	
  v.	
  Antonio,	
  490	
  U.S.	
  642,	
  659	
  (1989).	
  	
  In	
  1991,	
  Congress	
  overturned	
  this	
  
part	
  of	
  Wards	
  Cove	
  in	
  the	
  Civil	
  Rights	
  Act	
  of	
  1991.	
  This	
  law	
  amended	
  Title	
  VII	
  to	
  explicitly	
  recognize	
  an	
  impact	
  
standard	
  and,	
  for	
  such	
  cases,	
  to	
  place	
  the	
  full	
  burden	
  of	
  proof	
  (both	
  production	
  and	
  persuasion)	
  on	
  the	
  
defendant	
  to	
  rebut	
  a	
  showing	
  of	
  disparate	
  impact	
  by	
  demonstrating	
  “that	
  the	
  challenged	
  practice	
  is	
  job	
  
related	
  for	
  the	
  position	
  in	
  question	
  and	
  consistent	
  with	
  business	
  necessity.”	
  See	
  42	
  U.S.C.	
  §	
  2000e-­‐	
  
2(k)(1)(A)(i).	
  	
  
139	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  100	
  Subpart	
  G	
  §100.500(b)(1)(i)(ii)	
  (as	
  amended,	
  2/8/2013).	
  
140	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  100	
  Subpart	
  G	
  §100.500(b)(2)	
  (as	
  amended,	
  2/8/2013).	
  
141	
  Dep't	
  of	
  Hous.	
  &	
  Urban	
  Dev.	
  v.	
  Rucker,	
  supra.	
  
142	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  100	
  Subpart	
  G	
  §100.500(c)(2)	
  (as	
  amended,	
  2/8/2013).	
  	
  See,	
  e.g.,	
  United	
  Farm	
  Workers	
  of	
  Florida	
  
Housing	
  Project,	
  Inc.	
  v.	
  City	
  of	
  Delray	
  Beach,	
  493	
  F.2d	
  799,	
  808-­‐11	
  &	
  n.12	
  (5th	
  Cir.	
  1974)	
  (holding,	
  in	
  case	
  
brought	
  under	
  both	
  the	
  FHA	
  and	
  14th	
  Amendment,	
  that	
  the	
  defendants	
  bear	
  a	
  heavy	
  burden	
  of	
  justification	
  
once	
  the	
  plaintiffs	
  prove	
  the	
  existence	
  of	
  a	
  racially	
  discriminatory	
  effect)	
  
143	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  100	
  Subpart	
  G	
  §100.500(c)(3)	
  (as	
  amended,	
  2/8/2013).	
  	
  There	
  is	
  general	
  agreement	
  about	
  this	
  
element	
  in	
  a	
  FHA	
  impact	
  case.	
  See,	
  e.g.,	
  Huntington	
  Branch,	
  844	
  F.2d	
  at	
  936	
  (“the	
  defendant	
  must	
  prove	
  .	
  .	
  .	
  
that	
  no	
  alternative	
  would	
  serve	
  that	
  interest	
  with	
  less	
  discriminatory	
  effect”);;	
  Rizzo,	
  564	
  F.2d	
  at	
  149	
  (“the	
  

	
  
43	
  

	
  
what	
  other	
  practices	
  are	
  available	
  to	
  achieve	
  their	
  goals,	
  or	
  to	
  show	
  why	
  they	
  chose	
  the	
  
particular	
  policy	
  of	
  exclusions,	
  the	
  haphazard	
  development	
  of	
  the	
  status	
  quo	
  suggests	
  that	
  
they	
  would	
  not	
  have	
  a	
  cohesive	
  answer.	
   	
  

VII.	
  	
  Conclusion	
  
	
  

Public	
  Housing	
  Authorities	
  can	
  attempt	
  to	
  exclude	
  their	
  way	
  into	
  providing	
  

sufficient	
  affordable	
  housing	
  for	
  all	
  those	
  who	
  are	
  eligible.	
  	
  If	
  50%	
  of	
  New	
  Orleans’	
  families	
  
have	
  a	
  criminal	
  conviction	
  in	
  20	
  years,	
  it	
  is	
  certainly	
  one	
  dystopian	
  method	
  of	
  meeting	
  the	
  
people’s	
  needs.	
  	
  Such	
  a	
  tactic,	
  however,	
  would	
  certainly	
  lose	
  the	
  consent	
  of	
  the	
  People,	
  and	
  
invite	
  civil	
  unrest.	
  	
  As	
  Dr.	
  Martin	
  L.	
  King	
  said,	
  we	
  need	
  to	
  undergo	
  a	
  “true	
  revolution	
  of	
  
values”	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  develop	
  true	
  justice	
  and	
  democracy	
  in	
  America.	
  
	
  

	
  

Low-­‐income	
  communities	
  of	
  Color	
  are	
  devastated	
  for	
  being	
  the	
  primary	
  targets	
  in	
  

the	
  War	
  on	
  Drugs.	
  	
  A	
  range	
  of	
  motivations	
  created	
  the	
  current	
  state	
  of	
  affairs	
  bifurcating	
  
communities.	
  	
  Whether	
  cynical,	
  racist,	
  greedy,	
  hopeful,	
  fearful,	
  or	
  defiant:	
  many	
  forces	
  are	
  
at	
  work.	
  	
  Furthermore,	
  few	
  policy	
  makers	
  and	
  administrators	
  are	
  proceeding	
  from	
  a	
  
position	
  of	
  comprehensive	
  knowledge.	
  	
  Those	
  who	
  wish	
  to	
  develop	
  honest	
  community-­‐
building	
  policies	
  will	
  need	
  to	
  familiarize	
  themselves	
  in	
  the	
  areas	
  of	
  housing	
  law,	
  civil	
  rights,	
  
criminal	
  sentencing,	
  drug	
  policy,	
  and	
  grassroots	
  community	
  organizations.	
  	
  Isolated	
  
experts	
  cannot	
  be	
  expected	
  to	
  adopt	
  effective	
  housing	
  plans,	
  and	
  should	
  be	
  encouraged	
  to	
  
collaborate	
  with	
  experts	
  in	
  these	
  other	
  fields.	
  
	
  

The	
  media	
  and	
  politicians	
  sometimes	
  advance	
  the	
  notion	
  that	
  affordable	
  housing	
  is	
  a	
  

gift	
  taken	
  by	
  society’s	
  leaches.	
  	
  Such	
  viewpoints	
  overlook	
  the	
  historical	
  sacrifices	
  made	
  by	
  
African-­‐Americans,	
  oppressed	
  immigrant	
  groups,	
  and	
  Native	
  Americans.	
  	
  They	
  also	
  negate	
  
the	
  choice	
  to	
  assist	
  children,	
  the	
  elderly	
  and	
  disabled.	
  	
  When	
  assessing	
  such	
  levels	
  of	
  
discourse,	
  one	
  cannot	
  overlook	
  the	
  role	
  of	
  racism	
  in	
  America.	
  
	
  

If	
  and	
  when	
  the	
  people	
  living	
  in	
  a	
  community	
  take	
  control	
  of	
  solving	
  local	
  problems,	
  

we	
  can	
  expect	
  solutions	
  that	
  acknowledge	
  that	
  the	
  so-­‐called	
  enemy	
  (people	
  convicted	
  of	
  
felonies,	
  for	
  example)	
  is	
  ourselves.	
  	
  We	
  can	
  then	
  recognize	
  that	
  policies	
  on	
  housing,	
  drugs,	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
defendant	
  must	
  show	
  that	
  no	
  alternative	
  course	
  of	
  action	
  could	
  be	
  adopted	
  that	
  would	
  enable	
  that	
  interest	
  to	
  
be	
  served	
  with	
  less	
  discriminatory	
  impact”).	
  
	
  

	
  
44	
  

	
  
education,	
  and	
  employment	
  exist	
  in	
  a	
  social	
  ecosystem	
  that	
  must	
  be	
  addressed	
  as	
  a	
  whole.	
  	
  
The	
  goal	
  of	
  this	
  report	
  is	
  to	
  shed	
  light	
  on	
  a	
  widely	
  unknown	
  pillar	
  of	
  this	
  ecosystem	
  within	
  
low-­‐income	
  communities	
  of	
  Color.	
  	
  People	
  living	
  in	
  these	
  environments	
  should	
  be	
  sought	
  
out	
  to	
  share	
  their	
  wisdom,	
  and	
  local	
  children	
  should	
  be	
  developed	
  in	
  a	
  way	
  to	
  overcome	
  
these	
  challenges-­‐	
  rather	
  than	
  simply	
  be	
  the	
  next	
  generation	
  feeding	
  prisoners	
  into	
  that	
  
industry.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
45	
  

	
  

Proposed	
  HANO	
  Admissions	
  and	
  Continued	
  Occupancy	
  Policy	
  (ACOP)	
  
Amended	
  Regarding	
  Criminal	
  Convictions	
  
	
  
Preamble	
  
HANO	
  recognizes	
  that	
  among	
  the	
  leading	
  causes	
  of	
  criminal	
  activity	
  in	
  America	
  are	
  mental	
  
illness,	
  addiction,	
  unemployment,	
  and	
  homelessness.	
  	
  Healthy	
  New	
  Orleans	
  communities	
  
exist	
  where	
  these	
  social	
  issues	
  are	
  being	
  treated	
  in	
  a	
  comprehensive	
  manner,	
  therefore	
  
HANO	
  will	
  make	
  every	
  reasonable	
  effort	
  to	
  contribute	
  to	
  a	
  positive	
  community	
  response	
  to	
  
these	
  ailments.	
  
	
  
DENIAL	
  FOR	
  DRUG-­‐RELATED	
  &	
  CRIMINAL	
  ACTIVITY	
  
[Replacing	
  original	
  language,	
  p.20,	
  et.	
  seq.	
  ]	
  
	
  
Purpose	
  
All	
  federally	
  assisted	
  housing	
  is	
  intended	
  to	
  provide	
  a	
  safe	
  place	
  to	
  live	
  and	
  raise	
  families	
  in	
  
a	
  drug-­‐free	
  community.	
  	
  HANO	
  recognizes	
  that	
  the	
  rise	
  in	
  arrest	
  and	
  incarceartion	
  rates	
  
have	
  increased	
  dramatically	
  over	
  the	
  past	
  20	
  years,	
  and	
  blanket	
  policies	
  barring	
  families	
  
with	
  a	
  member	
  who	
  has	
  been	
  arrested	
  and/or	
  convicted	
  would	
  likely	
  contribute	
  to	
  
systemic	
  homelessness.	
  	
  Arrest	
  and	
  incarceration	
  rates	
  have	
  particularly	
  impacted	
  African	
  
American	
  and	
  Hispanic	
  men.	
  	
  African	
  Americans	
  and	
  Hispanics	
  are	
  arrested	
  at	
  a	
  rate	
  that	
  is	
  
2	
  to	
  3	
  times	
  their	
  proportion	
  of	
  the	
  general	
  population.	
  	
  Assuming	
  the	
  current	
  incarceration	
  
rates	
  continue,	
  Whites	
  have	
  a	
  1	
  in	
  17	
  chance	
  of	
  serving	
  time	
  in	
  prison	
  in	
  their	
  lifetimes.	
  	
  
The	
  rate	
  climbs	
  to	
  1	
  in	
  7	
  for	
  Hispanics,	
  and	
  1	
  in	
  3	
  for	
  African	
  Americans.	
  	
  
	
  
It	
  is	
  the	
  intention	
  of	
  HANO	
  and	
  its	
  agents	
  to	
  implement	
  a	
  policy	
  designed	
  to:	
  
1. Help	
  create	
  and	
  maintain	
  a	
  safe	
  and	
  drug-­‐free	
  community;	
  
2. Keep	
  our	
  residents	
  free	
  from	
  threats	
  to	
  their	
  safety;	
  
3. Support	
  parental	
  efforts	
  to	
  instill	
  values	
  of	
  personal	
  responsibility	
  and	
  hard	
  work;	
  
4. Help	
  maintain	
  an	
  environment	
  where	
  children	
  can	
  live	
  safely,	
  learn	
  and	
  grow	
  up	
  to	
  
be	
  productive	
  citizens;	
  
5. Assist	
  families	
  in	
  their	
  vocational/educational	
  goals	
  in	
  the	
  pursuit	
  of	
  self-­‐sufficiency;	
  
6. Encourage	
  and	
  assist	
  residents	
  seeking	
  rehabilitative	
  treatment;	
  	
  
7. Further	
  community	
  goals	
  regarding	
  prison	
  diversion	
  and	
  reentry;	
  and	
  
8. Deny	
  admission,	
  or	
  evict,	
  persons	
  only	
  where	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  reasonable	
  connection	
  to	
  a	
  
specific	
  community	
  goal.	
  
	
  
Administration	
  
All	
  screening	
  procedures	
  shall	
  be	
  administered	
  fairly	
  and	
  in	
  such	
  a	
  way	
  as	
  not	
  to	
  
discriminate	
  based	
  on	
  race,	
  color,	
  nationality,	
  religion,	
  sex,	
  familial	
  status,	
  sexual	
  
orientation,	
  disability	
  or	
  against	
  other	
  legally	
  protected	
  groups,	
  and	
  not	
  to	
  violate	
  privacy.	
  
	
  
HANO	
  or	
  its	
  Agents	
  may	
  request	
  an	
  adult	
  criminal	
  background	
  check	
  from	
  a	
  law	
  
enforcement	
  agency	
  after	
  receiving	
  a	
  signed	
  consent	
  form	
  from	
  the	
  household	
  member	
  
over	
  18	
  years	
  old.	
  	
  The	
  request	
  must	
  include	
  this	
  policy’s	
  standards	
  for	
  prohibiting	
  
	
  
46	
  

	
  
admission	
  and/or	
  eviction.	
  	
  	
  Fees	
  may	
  not	
  be	
  passed	
  along	
  to	
  the	
  applicant	
  or	
  tenant.	
  	
  See:	
  
24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.903.	
  
	
  
To	
  the	
  maximum	
  extent	
  possible,	
  HANO	
  and	
  its	
  Agents	
  will	
  involve	
  other	
  community	
  and	
  
governmental	
  entities	
  in	
  the	
  promotion	
  and	
  enforcement	
  of	
  this	
  policy.	
  
	
  
This	
  policy	
  will	
  be	
  posted	
  on	
  HANO’s	
  or	
  its	
  Agents’	
  bulletin	
  board	
  and	
  copies	
  made	
  readily	
  
available	
  to	
  applicants	
  and	
  residents	
  upon	
  request.	
  
	
  
Permanent	
  Denial	
  of	
  Admission	
  
Pursuant	
  to	
  federal	
  law,	
  HANO	
  or	
  its	
  Agents	
  must	
  permanently	
  deny	
  admission	
  to:	
  
1) Persons	
  convicted	
  of	
  manufacturing	
  or	
  producing	
  methamphetamine	
  on	
  the	
  
premises	
  of	
  an	
  assisted	
  housing	
  project.	
  	
  42	
  U.S.C.	
  §	
  1437n(f)(1).	
  
2) Any	
  family	
  in	
  which	
  a	
  household	
  member	
  is	
  subject	
  to	
  a	
  lifetime	
  sex	
  offender	
  
registration	
  requirement.	
  	
  HANO	
  or	
  its	
  agents	
  shall	
  perform	
  necessary	
  criminal	
  
history	
  background	
  checks	
  in	
  Louisiana	
  and	
  any	
  state	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  applicant	
  is	
  
known	
  to	
  have	
  resided.	
  	
  42	
  U.S.C.A.	
  §	
  13663;	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.856.	
  
	
  
Potential	
  Denial	
  of	
  Admission	
  
Prior	
  Lease	
  Termination	
  
HANO	
  or	
  its	
  Agents	
  will	
  deny	
  an	
  otherwise-­‐eligible	
  family	
  who	
  was	
  evicted	
  from	
  federally-­‐
assisted	
  housing	
  within	
  the	
  past	
  3	
  years	
  for	
  drug-­‐related	
  criminal	
  activity,	
  unless	
  HANO	
  is	
  
able	
  to	
  verify	
  that	
  the	
  household	
  member	
  who	
  engaged	
  in	
  the	
  criminal	
  activity	
  has	
  
completed	
  a	
  supervised	
  drug	
  rehabilitation	
  program,	
  or	
  the	
  person	
  who	
  committed	
  the	
  
crime	
  is	
  no	
  longer	
  living	
  in	
  the	
  household.	
  	
  	
  42	
  U.S.C.A.	
  §	
  13661;	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  5.854(a).	
  
	
  
Prior	
  Abuse	
  of	
  Federal	
  Housing	
  Program	
  
HANO	
  or	
  its	
  Agents	
  may	
  deny	
  someone	
  who	
  has	
  engaged	
  in	
  criminal	
  activity	
  that	
  
particularly	
  threatens	
  HANO	
  or	
  its	
  Agents’	
  personnel	
  at	
  any	
  time	
  within	
  the	
  past	
  3	
  years.	
  	
  
See:	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.855(a)4.	
  
	
  
HANO	
  or	
  its	
  Agents	
  may	
  deny	
  someone	
  who	
  has	
  committed	
  fraud,	
  bribery,	
  or	
  any	
  other	
  
corrupt	
  or	
  criminal	
  act	
  in	
  connection	
  with	
  any	
  federal	
  housing	
  program	
  in	
  the	
  last	
  3	
  years.	
  
	
  
Recent	
  Drug-­‐Related	
  or	
  Violent	
  Criminal	
  Convictions	
  
HANO	
  or	
  its	
  Agents	
  may	
  conduct	
  a	
  criminal	
  background	
  check	
  on	
  household	
  members	
  over	
  
the	
  age	
  of	
  18.	
  	
  The	
  period	
  of	
  review	
  shall	
  be	
  limited	
  to	
  the	
  previous	
  three	
  years.	
  	
  The	
  scope	
  
of	
  review	
  will	
  be	
  limited	
  to	
  drug-­‐related	
  or	
  violent	
  criminal	
  activity.	
  	
  HANO	
  has	
  the	
  
discretion	
  to	
  admit	
  or	
  deny	
  applicants,	
  after	
  considering	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  circumstances,	
  pursuant	
  
to	
  42	
  U.S.C.A.	
  §	
  13661;	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §§	
  5.852(a)	
  and	
  960.204.	
  
	
  
HUD	
  permits,	
  but	
  does	
  not	
  require,	
  local	
  PHAs	
  to	
  deny	
  admission	
  to	
  those	
  who	
  have	
  
committed	
  disqualifying	
  behavior	
  within	
  a	
  “reasonable	
  time,”	
  under	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  5.855(b).	
  	
  
Household	
  members	
  convicted	
  of	
  drug-­‐related	
  or	
  violent	
  felonies,	
  during	
  the	
  previous	
  
three	
  years,	
  may	
  be	
  denied	
  admission	
  after	
  HANO	
  or	
  its	
  Agents	
  has	
  reviewed	
  all	
  evidence	
  in	
  
accordance	
  with	
  this	
  policy.	
  	
  HANO	
  and	
  its	
  Agents	
  also	
  have	
  the	
  authority	
  to	
  admit	
  them,	
  
	
  
47	
  

	
  
pursuant	
  to	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.852(d).	
  
	
  
“Violent	
  criminal	
  activity”	
  means	
  any	
  criminal	
  activity	
  that	
  has	
  as	
  one	
  of	
  its	
  elements	
  the	
  
use,	
  attempted	
  use,	
  or	
  threatened	
  use	
  of	
  physical	
  force	
  substantial	
  enough	
  to	
  cause,	
  or	
  be	
  
reasonably	
  likely	
  to	
  cause,	
  serious	
  bodily	
  injury	
  or	
  property	
  damage.	
  	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.100.	
  
Current	
  Drug	
  or	
  Alcohol	
  Abuse,	
  or	
  Criminal	
  Activity	
  
HANO	
  or	
  its	
  Agents	
  may	
  deny	
  admission	
  where	
  they	
  determine	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  reasonable	
  cause	
  
to	
  believe	
  that	
  a	
  member	
  of	
  the	
  applicant	
  household	
  is	
  currently:	
  
	
  
a) Illegally	
  using	
  a	
  controlled	
  substance,	
  or	
  alcohol,	
  in	
  a	
  way	
  that	
  threatens	
  the	
  
health,	
  safety,	
  or	
  right	
  to	
  peaceful	
  enjoyment	
  of	
  the	
  premises	
  by	
  other	
  residents	
  
(See:	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §§5.854(b)	
  and	
  5.857);	
  	
  
b) Engages	
  in	
  drug-­‐related	
  or	
  criminal	
  activity	
  that	
  threatens	
  the	
  health,	
  safety,	
  or	
  
right	
  to	
  peaceful	
  enjoyment	
  of	
  the	
  premises	
  by	
  other	
  residents	
  (See:	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  
5.855(a)).	
  
	
  
In	
  cases	
  where	
  HANO	
  or	
  its	
  Agents	
  has	
  received	
  credible	
  evidence	
  of	
  any	
  of	
  the	
  previously	
  
named	
  categories,	
  they	
  will	
  make	
  a	
  decision	
  after	
  reviewing	
  evidence,	
  including	
  
rehabilitation,	
  in	
  accordance	
  with	
  this	
  policy.	
  	
  42	
  U.S.C.A.	
  §	
  13662.	
  
	
  
A	
  review	
  of	
  current	
  activity	
  shall	
  not	
  extend	
  beyond	
  the	
  previous	
  six	
  months.	
  
	
  
Reviewing	
  Evidence	
  
Conviction	
  records	
  certified	
  by	
  a	
  state	
  or	
  federal	
  agency	
  will	
  be	
  given	
  a	
  presumption	
  of	
  
correctness,	
  subject	
  to	
  rebuttal	
  by	
  the	
  person	
  challenging	
  their	
  accuracy.	
  	
  Conviction	
  
records	
  will	
  not	
  be	
  considered	
  binding	
  until	
  the	
  named	
  person	
  has	
  been	
  presented	
  with	
  the	
  
record	
  and	
  given	
  an	
  opportunity	
  to	
  challenge,	
  as	
  it	
  is	
  not	
  uncommon	
  to	
  produce	
  an	
  
incorrect	
  record.	
  	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.903(f).	
  
	
  
Expunged	
  or	
  Overturned	
  convictions	
  shall	
  not	
  be	
  considered.	
  
	
  
Where	
  convictions	
  during	
  the	
  past	
  three	
  years	
  are	
  considered,	
  HANO	
  and	
  its	
  Agents	
  (in	
  
accordance	
  with	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.852)	
  shall:
i) Make	
  a	
  determination	
  of	
  how	
  the	
  act	
  committed	
  is	
  reasonably	
  related	
  to	
  the	
  
community	
  at	
  large;	
  
j) Consider	
  all	
  mitigating	
  evidence,	
  including	
  (but	
  not	
  limited	
  to):	
  
1. The	
  determination	
  by	
  the	
  court;	
  
2. Completion	
  of,	
  or	
  ongoing	
  satisfaction	
  of,	
  the	
  sentence;	
  and	
  
3. Completion	
  of	
  relevant	
  rehabilitative	
  programming,	
  whether	
  inside	
  or	
  
outside	
  of	
  prison;	
  	
  
k) Recognize	
  that	
  where	
  the	
  Court	
  orders	
  an	
  offender	
  to	
  remain	
  in	
  the	
  community,	
  
the	
  Court	
  has	
  not	
  ordered	
  that	
  offender,	
  or	
  their	
  family,	
  to	
  homelessness.	
  
l) The	
  seriousness	
  of	
  the	
  offending	
  action;	
  
m) The	
  effect	
  on	
  the	
  community	
  by	
  denial	
  or	
  eviction;	
  
n) The	
  extent	
  of	
  participation	
  by	
  the	
  leaseholder	
  in	
  the	
  offending	
  action;	
  
	
  
48	
  

	
  
o) The	
  effect	
  of	
  denial	
  of	
  admission	
  or	
  termination	
  of	
  tenancy	
  on	
  household	
  
members	
  not	
  involved	
  in	
  the	
  offending	
  action;	
  
p) The	
  extent	
  to	
  which	
  the	
  leaseholder	
  has	
  shown	
  personal	
  responsibility	
  and	
  
taken	
  all	
  reasonable	
  steps	
  to	
  prevent	
  or	
  mitigate	
  the	
  offending	
  action	
  

	
  
Arrests	
  not	
  followed	
  by	
  convictions	
  during	
  the	
  previous	
  six	
  months	
  shall	
  only	
  be	
  
considered	
  when	
  assessing:	
  
c) Current	
  illegal	
  drug	
  or	
  alcohol	
  abuse,	
  or	
  	
  
d) Current	
  criminal	
  activity	
  that	
  threatens	
  the	
  health,	
  safety,	
  or	
  right	
  to	
  peaceful	
  
enjoyment	
  of	
  the	
  premises	
  by	
  other	
  residents.	
  
	
  
HANO	
  and	
  its	
  Agents	
  recognizes	
  that	
  people	
  are	
  innocent	
  until	
  proven	
  guilty,	
  and	
  
allegations	
  by	
  law	
  enforcement	
  or	
  private	
  citizens	
  fail	
  to	
  satisfy	
  clear	
  and	
  convincing	
  
standard	
  that	
  behavior	
  is	
  both	
  actual	
  and	
  current.	
  	
  Arrests	
  without	
  convictions,	
  resulting	
  in	
  
deferment	
  to	
  a	
  substance	
  abuse	
  program,	
  may	
  prompt	
  HANO	
  or	
  its	
  Agents	
  to	
  ensure	
  the	
  
person	
  is	
  adhering	
  to	
  the	
  program.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Any	
  policy	
  driven	
  primarily	
  by	
  arrest	
  records	
  will	
  risk	
  producing	
  discriminatory	
  impact	
  
among	
  otherwise-­‐qualified	
  households.	
  	
  See:	
  EEOC	
  Consideration	
  of	
  Arrest	
  and	
  Conviction	
  
Records	
  in	
  Employment	
  Decisions	
  Under	
  Title	
  VII	
  of	
  the	
  Civil	
  Rights	
  Act	
  of	
  1964,	
  915.002	
  
(4/25/2012).	
  
	
  
HANO	
  and	
  its	
  Agents	
  recognize	
  that	
  mental	
  illness	
  is	
  a	
  federally	
  protected	
  disability,	
  one	
  
that	
  also	
  leads	
  to	
  a	
  disproportionate	
  number	
  of	
  arrests.	
  	
  HANO	
  and	
  its	
  Agents	
  shall	
  make	
  
every	
  effort	
  to	
  incorporate	
  the	
  professional	
  assessments	
  of	
  the	
  mental	
  health	
  community	
  
regarding	
  individual	
  applicants.	
  	
  These	
  assessments	
  will	
  relate	
  to	
  how	
  an	
  applicant	
  stands	
  
to	
  threaten	
  the	
  health,	
  safety,	
  or	
  right	
  to	
  peaceful	
  enjoyment	
  of	
  the	
  premises	
  by	
  other	
  
residents.	
  
	
  
Defining	
  “Current”	
  
HANO	
  and	
  its	
  Agents	
  may	
  consider	
  all	
  credible	
  evidence,	
  limited	
  to	
  the	
  previous	
  six	
  
months,	
  for	
  a	
  pattern	
  of	
  disqualifying	
  behavior	
  that	
  would	
  indicate	
  that	
  this	
  behavior	
  
would	
  continue.	
  	
  Where	
  the	
  evidence	
  is	
  clear	
  and	
  convincing,	
  leading	
  a	
  reasonable	
  person	
  
to	
  believe	
  that	
  the	
  behavior	
  would	
  continue,	
  the	
  evidence	
  shall	
  be	
  presented	
  to	
  the	
  
applicant	
  for	
  an	
  opportunity	
  to	
  rebut	
  and/or	
  provide	
  mitigating	
  evidence	
  in	
  response.	
  	
  See:	
  
24	
  C.F.R.	
  5.853(d)..	
  
	
  
Completion	
  of,	
  or	
  successful	
  current	
  participation	
  in,	
  a	
  supervised	
  drug	
  or	
  alcohol	
  
counseling	
  program	
  shall	
  be	
  considered	
  mitigating	
  evidence.	
  	
  See:	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  5.852(c).	
  
	
  
HANO	
  and	
  its	
  Agents,	
  in	
  furtherance	
  of	
  creating	
  safe	
  and	
  healthy	
  communities	
  for	
  families,	
  
will	
  strive	
  to	
  work	
  with	
  other	
  agencies	
  and	
  organizations	
  that	
  promote	
  and	
  provide	
  
substance	
  abuse	
  rehabilitative	
  services.	
  
	
  
Action	
  Upon	
  Disqualification	
  
In	
  the	
  event	
  that	
  a	
  family	
  member	
  is	
  barred,	
  HANO	
  and	
  its	
  Agents	
  shall	
  give	
  the	
  household	
  
	
  
49	
  

	
  
an	
  opportunity	
  to	
  remove	
  the	
  member	
  from	
  the	
  application.	
  	
  The	
  household	
  will	
  
reasonably	
  satisfy	
  HANO	
  and	
  its	
  Agents	
  that	
  the	
  person	
  will	
  not	
  be	
  living	
  in	
  the	
  unit.	
  	
  See:	
  
24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.852(b).	
  
	
  
HANO	
  and	
  its	
  Agents	
  shall	
  also	
  provide	
  the	
  disqualified	
  applicant	
  with	
  a	
  pathway	
  to	
  
admission,	
  unless	
  permanently	
  barred	
  under	
  the	
  methamphetamine	
  or	
  lifetime	
  sex	
  
offender	
  registration	
  requirement.	
  	
  See:	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.855(c).	
  
	
  
Recordkeeping	
  
HANO	
  shall	
  track	
  and	
  periodically	
  review	
  the	
  admissions	
  data.	
  	
  Practices	
  shall	
  be	
  honed	
  in	
  
order	
  to	
  further	
  the	
  creation	
  of	
  stable	
  communities	
  for	
  families,	
  and	
  nondiscrimination	
  
based	
  on	
  race,	
  color,	
  nationality,	
  religion,	
  sex,	
  familial	
  status,	
  sexual	
  orientation,	
  disability	
  
or	
  against	
  other	
  legally	
  protected	
  groups.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Additions	
  to	
  Lease	
  
Following	
  receipt	
  of	
  a	
  family’s	
  request	
  for	
  approval,	
  Management	
  will	
  conduct	
  a	
  pre-­‐
admission	
  screening,	
  including	
  Criminal	
  History	
  (subject	
  to	
  the	
  within	
  guidelines	
  regarding	
  
Admissions	
  and	
  criminal	
  histories)	
  of	
  the	
  proposed	
  new	
  member.	
  	
  Only	
  new	
  members	
  
approved	
  by	
  HANO	
  or	
  its	
  Agents	
  will	
  be	
  added	
  to	
  the	
  household.	
  	
  
	
  
Factors	
  determining	
  household	
  additions:	
  
…	
  
8.	
  	
  HANO	
  and	
  its	
  Agents	
  will	
  seek	
  to	
  promote,	
  wherever	
  possible	
  and	
  consistent	
  with	
  
federal	
  law,	
  reunification	
  of	
  families	
  that	
  have	
  been	
  separated	
  by	
  the	
  criminal	
  justice	
  
system.	
  
	
  
Absence	
  Due	
  to	
  Incarceration	
  	
  
If	
  any	
  resident	
  is	
  incarcerated	
  for	
  more	
  than	
  30	
  consecutive	
  days,	
  he/she	
  will	
  be	
  
considered	
  permanently	
  absent,	
  except	
  in	
  cases	
  where	
  the	
  person	
  remains	
  innocent.	
  	
  If	
  the	
  
resident	
  is	
  the	
  sole	
  household	
  member,	
  their	
  assistance	
  will	
  be	
  terminated	
  in	
  accordance	
  
with	
  HANO’s	
  “Absence	
  of	
  Entire	
  Family”	
  policy.	
  	
  If	
  the	
  resident	
  is	
  part	
  of	
  a	
  household,	
  they	
  
alone	
  will	
  be	
  terminated	
  from	
  the	
  lease	
  after	
  30	
  consecutive	
  days	
  incarceration,	
  except	
  in	
  
cases	
  where	
  they	
  remain	
  innocent.	
  
	
  
HANO	
  or	
  its	
  Agents	
  will	
  determine	
  all	
  reapplications	
  by	
  those	
  terminated	
  under	
  this	
  
provision	
  in	
  accordance	
  with	
  the	
  policy	
  regarding	
  Admissions	
  and/or	
  Additions	
  to	
  Lease.	
  
	
  
Lease	
  Terminations	
  	
  
….	
  
The	
  following	
  criminal	
  and	
  substance	
  abuse	
  activity	
  will	
  subject	
  the	
  household	
  to	
  possible	
  
termination,	
  pursuant	
  to	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §§	
  5.858,	
  5.859,	
  5.860:	
  
	
  
a) Tenants	
  shall	
  not	
  engage	
  in	
  a	
  pattern	
  of	
  drug	
  or	
  alcohol	
  abuse	
  that	
  threatens	
  the	
  
health,	
  safety,	
  or	
  right	
  of	
  peaceful	
  enjoyment	
  of	
  the	
  premises	
  by	
  other	
  residents;	
  
	
  
b) Tenants	
  and	
  their	
  guests	
  shall	
  not	
  engage	
  in	
  any	
  criminal	
  activity	
  that	
  threatens	
  the	
  
	
  
50	
  

	
  

	
  

health,	
  safety,	
  or	
  right	
  of	
  peaceful	
  enjoyment	
  of	
  the	
  premises	
  by	
  other	
  residents;	
  nor	
  
any	
  drug-­‐related	
  criminal	
  activity	
  on	
  or	
  near	
  the	
  premises;	
  
c) Tenants	
  shall	
  ensure	
  that	
  persons	
  under	
  their	
  control	
  do	
  not	
  engage	
  in	
  any	
  drug-­‐
related	
  criminal	
  activity	
  on	
  the	
  premises;	
  

	
  
d) A	
  tenant	
  is	
  fleeing	
  to	
  avoid	
  prosecution,	
  custody,	
  or	
  confinement	
  after	
  conviction;	
  or	
  
in	
  violating	
  terms	
  of	
  their	
  probation	
  or	
  parole.	
  
	
  
Leases	
  shall	
  indicate	
  that	
  the	
  above	
  activities	
  may	
  subject	
  them	
  to	
  eviction.	
  	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  
966.4(I)(5).	
  
	
  
The	
  term	
  “drug-­‐related	
  criminal	
  activity”	
  means	
  the	
  illegal	
  manufacture,	
  sale,	
  distribution,	
  
use	
  or	
  possession	
  with	
  intent	
  to	
  manufacturel,	
  sell,	
  distribute,	
  or	
  use	
  a	
  controlled	
  substance	
  
(as	
  defined	
  by	
  Section	
  102	
  of	
  the	
  Controlled	
  Substances	
  Act,	
  21	
  U.S.C.	
  802).	
  
	
  
The	
  term	
  “guest”	
  means a	
  person	
  temporarily	
  staying	
  in	
  the	
  unit	
  with	
  the	
  consent	
  of	
  a	
  
tenant	
  or	
  other	
  member	
  of	
  the	
  household	
  who	
  has	
  express	
  or	
  implied	
  authority	
  to	
  so	
  
consent	
  on	
  behalf	
  of	
  the	
  tenant.	
  	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.100.	
  	
  Tenants	
  shall	
  be	
  allowed	
  reasonable	
  
accommodation	
  of	
  their	
  guests.	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  966.4(d)(1).	
  	
  	
  
“Person	
  under	
  the	
  tenant's	
  control”	
  means	
  that	
  the	
  person,	
  although	
  not	
  staying	
  as	
  a	
  guest	
  
(as	
  defined	
  in	
  this	
  section)	
  in	
  the	
  unit,	
  is,	
  or	
  was	
  at	
  the	
  time	
  of	
  the	
  activity	
  in	
  question,	
  on	
  
the	
  premises	
  (as	
  premises	
  is	
  defined	
  in	
  this	
  section)	
  because	
  of	
  an	
  invitation	
  from	
  the	
  
tenant	
  or	
  other	
  member	
  of	
  the	
  household	
  who	
  has	
  express	
  or	
  implied	
  authority	
  to	
  so	
  
consent	
  on	
  behalf	
  of	
  the	
  tenant.	
  	
  Absent	
  evidence	
  to	
  the	
  contrary,	
  a	
  person	
  temporarily	
  and	
  
infrequently	
  on	
  the	
  premises	
  solely	
  for	
  legitimate	
  commercial	
  purposes	
  is	
  not	
  under	
  the	
  
tenant's	
  control.	
  	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.100.	
  
A	
  visitor	
  to	
  a	
  tenant,	
  family	
  member	
  or	
  otherwise,	
  shall	
  not	
  be	
  presumed	
  to	
  be	
  under	
  the	
  
tenant’s	
  control;	
  nor	
  shall	
  a	
  person	
  on	
  the	
  premises,	
  although	
  related	
  to	
  a	
  tenant,	
  be	
  
presumed	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  guest	
  or	
  under	
  the	
  tenant’s	
  control	
  without	
  further	
  evidence	
  of	
  being	
  in	
  
the	
  tenant’s	
  unit.	
  	
  HANO	
  and	
  its	
  Agents	
  shall	
  make	
  reasonable	
  accommodation	
  for	
  formerly	
  
evicted	
  tenants	
  to	
  visit	
  their	
  immediate	
  family	
  members	
  on	
  the	
  premises.	
  	
  Trespass	
  by	
  
someone	
  lawfully	
  prohibited	
  from	
  HANO	
  premises	
  shall	
  not	
  be	
  grounds	
  for	
  a	
  tenant’s	
  
eviction	
  unless	
  it	
  is	
  clear	
  and	
  convincing	
  that	
  the	
  tenant	
  aided	
  and	
  abetted	
  the	
  trespass.	
  	
  
“Premises”	
  means	
  the	
  building	
  or	
  complex	
  or	
  development	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  public	
  or	
  assisted	
  
housing	
  dwelling	
  unit	
  is	
  located,	
  including	
  common	
  areas	
  and	
  grounds.	
  	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.100.	
  
If	
  contraband	
  or	
  controlled	
  substance	
  is	
  seized	
  on	
  the	
  above	
  premises,	
  incidental	
  to	
  a	
  
lawful	
  search	
  or	
  arrest,	
  and	
  the	
  District	
  Attorney’s	
  Office	
  notifies	
  HANO	
  or	
  its	
  Agents,	
  an	
  
unlawful	
  detainer	
  action	
  may	
  be	
  commenced.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
HANO	
  and	
  its	
  Agents	
  will	
  establish	
  by	
  clear	
  and	
  convincing	
  evidence	
  that	
  a	
  lease	
  violation	
  
has	
  occurred,	
  in	
  accordance	
  with	
  this	
  policy’s	
  chapter	
  on	
  Denial	
  of	
  Admission	
  for	
  Drug-­‐

	
  
51	
  

	
  
Related	
  or	
  Other	
  Criminal	
  Activity.	
  	
  HANO	
  and	
  its	
  agents	
  shall	
  not	
  base	
  a	
  decision	
  solely	
  
upon	
  allegations	
  contained	
  in	
  an	
  arrest,	
  and	
  shall	
  specifically	
  look	
  to	
  whether	
  the	
  action(s)	
  
are	
  part	
  of	
  a	
  pattern,	
  and	
  threaten	
  the	
  health,	
  safety,	
  and	
  right	
  to	
  peaceful	
  enjoyment	
  of	
  the	
  
premises	
  by	
  other	
  residents.	
  	
  See:	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.861.	
  
	
  
HANO	
  and	
  its	
  Agents	
  may	
  work	
  in	
  conjunction	
  with	
  Courts,	
  Agencies,	
  and	
  Non-­‐Government	
  
Organizations	
  focused	
  on	
  assisting	
  the	
  development	
  and/or	
  rehabilitation	
  of	
  the	
  HANO	
  
resident.	
  	
  HANO	
  and	
  its	
  Agents	
  should,	
  when	
  possible,	
  encourage	
  and	
  assist	
  residents	
  who	
  
may	
  need	
  substance	
  abuse,	
  mental	
  health,	
  or	
  vocational	
  counseling	
  as	
  it	
  may	
  be	
  connected	
  
to	
  criminal	
  behavior	
  and/or	
  arrest.	
  
	
  
Where	
  the	
  action(s)	
  in	
  question	
  are	
  disputed	
  by	
  the	
  resident,	
  HANO	
  and	
  its	
  Agents	
  shall	
  not	
  
render	
  a	
  presumption	
  of	
  guilt,	
  nor	
  insert	
  its	
  decision	
  over	
  that	
  of	
  a	
  judge	
  or	
  jury.	
  	
  Hano	
  and	
  
its	
  Agents	
  shall	
  await	
  the	
  findings	
  of	
  the	
  courts,	
  and,	
  where	
  an	
  immediate	
  danger	
  is	
  feared,	
  
may	
  provide	
  factual	
  information	
  that	
  is	
  relevant	
  to	
  a	
  bail	
  hearing.	
  
	
  
Where	
  HANO	
  and	
  its	
  Agents	
  have	
  properly	
  evicted	
  a	
  tenant,	
  they	
  shall	
  not	
  evict	
  an	
  entire	
  
household	
  unless	
  the	
  remaining	
  household	
  members	
  are	
  also	
  found	
  to:	
  
c) Exhibit	
  a	
  pattern	
  of	
  disqualifying	
  behavior,	
  or	
  	
  
d) Have	
  knowledge	
  of	
  the	
  disqualifying	
  behavior,	
  and	
  failed	
  to	
  seek	
  help	
  or	
  intervene.	
  
	
  
Recordkeeping	
  
.	
  .	
  .	
  
HANO	
  shall	
  periodically	
  review	
  the	
  termination	
  data	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  further	
  the	
  creation	
  of	
  
stable	
  communities	
  for	
  families,	
  and	
  nondiscrimination	
  based	
  on	
  race,	
  color,	
  nationality,	
  
religion,	
  sex,	
  familial	
  status,	
  sexual	
  orientation,	
  disability	
  or	
  against	
  other	
  legally	
  protected	
  
groups.	
  	
  	
  

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  
52	
  

	
  

Nationwide	
  Sample	
  
New	
  York	
  City	
  
	
  
America’s	
  largest	
  city	
  should	
  be	
  expected	
  to	
  have	
  the	
  greatest	
  number	
  of	
  everything,	
  
including	
  residents	
  eligible	
  for	
  federally	
  subsidized	
  housing.144	
  	
  A	
  total	
  of	
  629,345	
  New	
  
Yorkers	
  are	
  served	
  by	
  NYCHA’s	
  Public	
  Housing	
  and	
  Section	
  8	
  Programs.	
  	
  If	
  NYCHA	
  was	
  a	
  
city,	
  it	
  would	
  rank	
  21st	
  in	
  population	
  size	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States,	
  with	
  New	
  York	
  City	
  ranked	
  
first.	
  	
  	
  At	
  the	
  intersection	
  of	
  housing	
  and	
  criminal	
  convictions,	
  the	
  city	
  has	
  been	
  under	
  sharp	
  
criticism	
  over	
  its	
  racially	
  disproportionate	
  arrest	
  numbers.	
  	
  Marijuana,	
  for	
  example,	
  has	
  
been	
  decriminalized	
  in	
  the	
  city	
  and	
  yet	
  the	
  police	
  still	
  arrested	
  50,000	
  people	
  last	
  year,	
  
87%	
  were	
  Black	
  or	
  Latino.145	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Rule:	
  
The	
  53-­‐page	
  NYCHA	
  Tenant	
  Selection	
  and	
  Assignment	
  Plan	
  (TSAP)	
  does	
  not	
  reference	
  
criminal	
  convictions	
  until	
  page	
  45,	
  in	
  the	
  Appendix.146	
  	
  Families	
  with	
  a	
  family	
  member	
  
(over	
  age	
  16)	
  in	
  the	
  following	
  categories	
  will	
  be	
  ineligible	
  for	
  the	
  stated	
  period	
  of	
  time:	
  
1) Lifetime	
  sex	
  offender	
  registration-­‐	
  until	
  the	
  person	
  “is	
  no	
  longer	
  subject	
  to”	
  the	
  
registration;	
  
2) Class	
  A,	
  B,	
  or	
  C	
  felonies147-­‐	
  until	
  6	
  years	
  after	
  completion	
  of	
  prison,	
  parole,	
  and	
  
probation,	
  with	
  no	
  further	
  convictions	
  or	
  pending	
  charges;	
  
3) Class	
  D	
  or	
  E	
  felonies148 -­‐	
  until	
  5	
  years	
  after	
  completion	
  of	
  prison,	
  parole,	
  and	
  
probation,	
  with	
  no	
  further	
  convictions	
  or	
  pending	
  charges;	
  
4) Class	
  A	
  misdemeanors149-­‐	
  until	
  4	
  years	
  after	
  completion	
  of	
  prison,	
  parole,	
  and	
  
probation,	
  with	
  no	
  further	
  convictions	
  or	
  pending	
  charges;	
  
5) Class	
  B	
  or	
  unclassified	
  misdemeanors150-­‐	
  until	
  3	
  years	
  after	
  completion	
  of	
  prison,	
  
parole,	
  and	
  probation,	
  with	
  no	
  further	
  convictions	
  or	
  pending	
  charges;	
  
6) Violations	
  or	
  DWI	
  infractions151-­‐	
  until	
  2	
  years	
  after	
  completion	
  of	
  prison,	
  parole,	
  and	
  
probation,	
  with	
  no	
  further	
  convictions	
  or	
  pending	
  charges;	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
144	
  On	
  February	
  1,	
  2012	
  there	
  were:163,965	
  families	
  on	
  the	
  waiting	
  list	
  for	
  Conventional	
  Public	
  Housing	
  

(including	
  6,987	
  who	
  are	
  in	
  the	
  certification	
  process).	
  	
  123,499	
  families	
  on	
  the	
  waiting	
  list	
  for	
  Section	
  8	
  
Housing	
  (including	
  716	
  in	
  the	
  certification	
  process).	
  The	
  Section	
  8	
  waiting	
  list	
  re-­‐opened	
  on	
  February	
  12,	
  
2007	
  and	
  subsequently	
  closed	
  on	
  May	
  14,	
  2007.	
  	
  21,936	
  applicants	
  are	
  on	
  both	
  waiting	
  lists.	
  
145	
  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/the-­‐cost-­‐of-­‐zero-­‐tolerance.html	
  
146	
  Updated	
  January,	
  2011.	
  	
  Available	
  on	
  the	
  NYCHA	
  website,	
  last	
  accessed	
  July	
  19,	
  2012.	
  	
  
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/downloads/pdf/TSAPlan.pdf	
  
147	
  Class	
  A	
  and	
  B	
  are	
  the	
  most	
  serious	
  felonies.	
  	
  Class	
  B	
  Non-­‐Violent	
  generally	
  receive	
  1-­‐3	
  years	
  in	
  prison.	
  	
  
Class	
  C	
  are	
  crimes	
  that	
  carry	
  sentences	
  of	
  up	
  to	
  15	
  years,	
  including	
  assault,	
  larceny,	
  and	
  drug	
  distribution.	
  	
  A	
  
Non-­‐Violent	
  Class	
  C	
  felony	
  generally	
  receives	
  no	
  jail,	
  and	
  probation	
  between	
  1-­‐15	
  years.	
  
148	
  Class	
  D	
  felonies	
  generally	
  lack	
  malice	
  and	
  carry	
  up	
  to	
  7	
  years	
  in	
  prison,	
  including	
  theft	
  and	
  fraud.	
  	
  Class	
  E	
  is	
  
the	
  lowest	
  felony	
  charge,	
  including	
  contempt,	
  mischief,	
  and	
  possession	
  of	
  stolen	
  goods,	
  and	
  typically	
  carry	
  up	
  
to	
  4	
  years	
  in	
  prison.	
  	
  People	
  convicted	
  in	
  these	
  classes	
  typically	
  receive	
  probation.	
  
149	
  Carry	
  up	
  to	
  1	
  year	
  in	
  jail.	
  	
  Often	
  a	
  fine	
  is	
  paid.	
  	
  Common	
  Class	
  A	
  is	
  possession	
  of	
  a	
  controlled	
  substance	
  in	
  
7th	
  degree	
  (residue),	
  leaving	
  the	
  scene	
  of	
  an	
  accident,	
  3rd	
  degree	
  assault	
  (minimal	
  injury).	
  
150	
  Carry	
  up	
  to	
  3	
  months	
  in	
  jail.	
  	
  Usually	
  a	
  fine	
  is	
  paid.	
  	
  Common	
  charges	
  are	
  5th	
  degree	
  marijuana	
  
(sale/possession),	
  3rd	
  degree	
  trespass,	
  prostitution,	
  3rd	
  degree	
  menacing,	
  possession	
  of	
  graffiti	
  instruments.	
  

	
  
53	
  

	
  
7) Further	
  non-­‐conviction	
  barriers	
  include	
  fire-­‐related	
  (4	
  years),	
  behaving	
  violently	
  
within	
  past	
  3	
  years	
  (3	
  years),	
  disturbing	
  neighbors	
  within	
  past	
  3	
  years	
  (2	
  years),	
  
unsanitary	
  housekeeping	
  (2	
  years);	
  illegally	
  used	
  a	
  controlled	
  substance,	
  including	
  
marijuana,152 	
  within	
  last	
  three	
  years	
  (3	
  years),	
  persons	
  permanently	
  excluded	
  from	
  
NYCHA	
  (5	
  years).153 	
  
	
  
Example:	
  
	
  	
  
After	
  the	
  death	
  of	
  a	
  tenant	
  in	
  2009,	
  her	
  two	
  children	
  (one	
  with	
  a	
  daughter)	
  
attempted	
  to	
  take	
  over	
  the	
  lease	
  of	
  the	
  public	
  apartment	
  they	
  had	
  lived	
  in.154	
  	
  After	
  
conducting	
  a	
  criminal	
  background	
  check,	
  the	
  property	
  manager	
  and	
  borough	
  manager	
  
concurred	
  the	
  household	
  was	
  not	
  eligible.	
  	
  One	
  son	
  had	
  pled	
  guilty	
  to	
  sale	
  of	
  a	
  controlled	
  
substance	
  in	
  the	
  third	
  degree	
  (Class	
  B	
  felony)	
  in	
  2006,	
  and	
  served	
  a	
  three	
  year	
  sentence,	
  
with	
  two	
  years	
  of	
  parole,	
  and	
  six	
  months	
  license	
  suspension.155	
  	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
In	
  2009,	
  he	
  pled	
  guilty	
  to	
  criminal	
  possession	
  of	
  a	
  controlled	
  substance	
  in	
  the	
  
seventh	
  degree	
  (class	
  A	
  misdemeanor),	
  and	
  was	
  sentence	
  to	
  one-­‐year	
  conditional	
  
discharge,	
  community	
  service,	
  and	
  six	
  month	
  loss	
  of	
  license.156	
  	
  He	
  has	
  since	
  worked	
  for	
  the	
  
same	
  company	
  for	
  three	
  years.	
  	
  Neither	
  crime	
  was	
  alleged	
  to	
  have	
  happened	
  on	
  NYCHA	
  
property.	
  
	
  
The	
  other	
  son,	
  who	
  also	
  grew	
  up	
  in	
  the	
  apartment	
  and	
  wished	
  to	
  take	
  over	
  the	
  lease,	
  
pled	
  guilty	
  in	
  2007	
  of	
  criminal	
  possession	
  of	
  a	
  controlled	
  substance	
  in	
  the	
  seventh	
  degree	
  
and	
  received	
  a	
  six	
  month	
  suspension	
  of	
  his	
  license.	
  	
  He	
  explained	
  that	
  he	
  and	
  his	
  daughter	
  
will	
  be	
  homeless	
  if	
  NYCHA	
  rules	
  against	
  them.	
  
	
  
The	
  brothers	
  represented	
  themselves	
  in	
  court	
  against	
  NYCHA	
  General	
  Counsel.	
  	
  The	
  
court	
  upheld	
  the	
  NYCHA	
  board’s	
  ruling	
  that	
  the	
  first	
  brother	
  is	
  not	
  eligible	
  for	
  housing	
  until	
  
2017.	
  	
  The	
  second	
  brother	
  was	
  not	
  able	
  to	
  demonstrate	
  rehabilitation,	
  and	
  the	
  future	
  
homelessness	
  of	
  his	
  daughter	
  was	
  not	
  something	
  they	
  could	
  consider.	
  	
  Thus	
  the	
  application	
  
was	
  denied.	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

151	
  Violations	
  are	
  not	
  considered	
  crimes	
  and	
  do	
  not	
  give	
  someone	
  a	
  criminal	
  record.	
  	
  They	
  include	
  disorderly	
  
conduct,	
  2nd	
  degree	
  harassment,	
  trespass,	
  public	
  intoxication,	
  loitering,	
  and	
  possession	
  of	
  marijuana.	
  
152	
  TSAP,	
  Appendix,	
  p.5.	
  	
  Drug	
  use	
  (without	
  a	
  conviction)	
  ineligibility	
  can	
  be	
  overcome	
  by	
  providing	
  written	
  
verification	
  from	
  a	
  state-­‐licensed	
  drug	
  treatment	
  agency	
  that	
  the	
  person	
  has	
  been	
  drug-­‐free	
  for	
  12	
  
consecutive	
  months	
  and	
  a	
  current	
  clean	
  toxicology	
  report.	
  	
  
153	
  Id.	
  	
  Ineligibility	
  periods	
  do	
  not	
  commence	
  with	
  the	
  prohibited	
  activity,	
  they	
  commence	
  from	
  the	
  date	
  
NYCHA	
  finds	
  them	
  ineligible.	
  	
  For	
  example,	
  one	
  who	
  has	
  waited	
  three	
  years	
  since	
  the	
  activity	
  to	
  apply,	
  may	
  
need	
  to	
  await	
  another	
  three	
  years	
  from	
  the	
  date	
  of	
  application	
  denial.	
  	
  
154	
  Matter	
  of	
  Baum	
  v	
  New	
  York	
  City	
  Hous.	
  Auth.,	
  Unfiled	
  Judgment	
  Index	
  Number	
  100097/2011,	
  Seq.	
  #	
  001,	
  
Art.	
  78,	
  Cal	
  #154,	
  Barabara	
  Jaffe,	
  J.S.C.	
  (Apr.	
  16,	
  2012).	
  	
  
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:mH3S5R6nizwJ:statecasefiles.justia.com/documents/new-­‐
york/other-­‐courts/2012-­‐ny-­‐slip-­‐op-­‐31014-­‐
u.pdf%3Fts%3D1335194389+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESj48Q3Arz7eurdIBUBOK_qZ5N24Ahpqw
DYSZvsUJs0TEQPoQ5mdZkpLVlJkqYHX-­‐
KiUAbdRZcM8JpU9dI_0rpR_OHVLwfyIcrPcmPdaZV_v8UpzBVPSqJP_vk5owy4uKkOHXww0&sig=AHIEtbSi8M
koeWLeZmgAUcyD1euCRxCWeA	
  
155	
  N.Y.	
  Penal	
  Law	
  §	
  220.39	
  (McKinney).	
  	
  The	
  elements	
  consist	
  of	
  knowingly	
  selling	
  “a	
  narcotic	
  drug.”	
  	
  There	
  is	
  
no	
  weight	
  requirement,	
  and	
  the	
  statute	
  has	
  been	
  interpreted	
  to	
  mean	
  the	
  seller	
  need	
  not	
  actually	
  possess,	
  nor	
  
be	
  the	
  actual	
  seller	
  in	
  a	
  transaction.	
  
156	
  N.Y.	
  Penal	
  Law	
  §	
  220.03	
  (McKinney).	
  	
  A	
  person	
  is	
  guilty	
  of	
  criminal	
  possession	
  of	
  a	
  controlled	
  substance	
  in	
  
the	
  seventh	
  degree	
  when	
  he	
  or	
  she	
  knowingly	
  and	
  unlawfully	
  possesses	
  a	
  controlled	
  substance.	
  	
  	
  

	
  
54	
  

	
  
	
  
Providence,	
  RI	
  
	
  
The	
  City	
  of	
  Providence	
  Consolidated	
  Plan	
  (2011-­‐2013)	
  recognizes	
  that	
  the	
  problems	
  
of	
  people	
  “re-­‐entering	
  the	
  community”	
  from	
  prison	
  were	
  mentioned	
  at	
  almost	
  every	
  focus	
  
group	
  regarding	
  the	
  plan.157	
  	
  There	
  is	
  no	
  system	
  of	
  halfway	
  houses	
  in	
  Rhode	
  Island	
  and	
  
some	
  of	
  the	
  17,000	
  annual	
  exits	
  from	
  the	
  Adult	
  Correctional	
  Institutions	
  will	
  walk	
  to	
  the	
  
homeless	
  shelter.158	
  	
  Regulations	
  barring	
  these	
  people	
  from	
  housing	
  (both	
  public	
  and	
  
private)	
  “exacerbate	
  the	
  problem.”159	
  	
  The	
  Plan	
  recognizes	
  that	
  single	
  adults	
  with	
  children	
  
are	
  limited	
  in	
  program	
  access.160	
  Furthermore,	
  estimates	
  of	
  drug	
  use	
  and	
  abuse	
  are	
  all	
  
significantly	
  tied	
  to	
  housing	
  access,	
  in	
  a	
  city	
  reporting	
  14%	
  unemployment	
  in	
  2009.161	
  	
  	
  A	
  
specific	
  objective	
  for	
  persons	
  living	
  with	
  HIV/AIDS	
  (PLWA)	
  is	
  to	
  eliminate	
  background	
  
criteria	
  for	
  housing.162	
  	
  	
  
	
  
The	
  Providence	
  Housing	
  Authority	
  (PHA)	
  has	
  a	
  website	
  tab	
  for	
  “How	
  to	
  Apply.”163 	
  	
  
The	
  third	
  step	
  of	
  the	
  process	
  explains	
  that	
  PHA	
  investigates	
  past	
  behavior,	
  including	
  court	
  
and	
  police	
  records.	
  	
  There	
  is	
  no	
  link	
  on	
  the	
  website	
  to	
  any	
  standards	
  of	
  procedures.164	
  	
  The	
  
local	
  PHA	
  attorney	
  explained	
  that	
  she	
  does	
  not	
  have	
  an	
  ACOP,	
  and	
  she	
  uses	
  Section	
  Five	
  to	
  
make	
  her	
  decisions.165	
  	
  There	
  is,	
  however,	
  an	
  ACOP.	
  
	
  
The	
  PHA	
  states	
  that	
  a	
  family	
  does	
  not	
  meet	
  the	
  criteria	
  for	
  admission	
  if	
  anyone:	
  
• Has	
  ever	
  been	
  evicted	
  from	
  public	
  housing;	
  
• Commits	
  drug	
  related	
  criminal	
  activity,	
  violent	
  criminal	
  activity,	
  or	
  is	
  subject	
  to	
  the	
  
lifetime	
  sex	
  offender	
  registration.	
  166 	
  
	
  
	
  
PHA	
  will	
  do	
  a	
  background	
  check	
  and	
  consider	
  all	
  criminal	
  activity,	
  including	
  
felonies,	
  misdemeanors,	
  and	
  pending	
  charges,	
  regardless	
  of	
  when	
  they	
  occurred.167	
  	
  The	
  
policy	
  lacks	
  specific	
  guidance,	
  stating	
  that	
  nearly	
  any	
  criminal	
  activity	
  may	
  result	
  in	
  a	
  
family’s	
  rejection,	
  including	
  possession	
  of	
  illegal	
  drugs,	
  larceny,	
  receipt	
  of	
  stolen	
  goods,	
  
spouse	
  abuse,	
  “violence,”	
  and	
  “drugs.”168	
  	
  The	
  PHA	
  does	
  note	
  that	
  the	
  Fair	
  Housing	
  Act	
  bars	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
157	
  Plan,	
  at	
  56.	
  	
  Accessible	
  on	
  the	
  web:	
  http://www.providenceri.biz/efile/2213	
  
158	
  The	
  Plan	
  references	
  “over	
  1500”	
  released	
  from	
  prison.	
  	
  However,	
  the	
  DOC	
  data	
  is	
  much	
  higher.	
  	
  17000	
  are	
  

released	
  from	
  the	
  consolidated	
  jail	
  and	
  prison.	
  
159	
  Id.	
  
160	
  Id.	
  At	
  69.	
  
161	
  Id.	
  At	
  57.	
  	
  The	
  Plan	
  estimates	
  17,635	
  individuals	
  with	
  substance	
  abuse	
  problems,	
  22,560	
  marijuana	
  users,	
  
8,460	
  nonmedical	
  pain	
  reliever	
  users,	
  and	
  5,460	
  cocaine	
  users	
  in	
  Providence.	
  	
  Based	
  on	
  U.S.	
  Dept.	
  of	
  Health	
  
and	
  Human	
  Services	
  survey:	
  2007	
  National	
  Household	
  Survey	
  on	
  Drug	
  Use	
  and	
  Health.	
  
162	
  Id.	
  At	
  131.	
  
163	
  http://www.pha-­‐providence.com/index.php?cID=how-­‐to-­‐apply	
  
164	
  Last	
  accessed	
  July	
  19,	
  2012.	
  
165	
  Michelle	
  Bergin,	
  esq.,	
  phone	
  call	
  with	
  Bruce	
  Reilly,	
  July	
  25,	
  2012.	
  	
  An	
  initial	
  call	
  to	
  the	
  PHA	
  failed,	
  as	
  a	
  
worker	
  directed	
  Reilly	
  to	
  the	
  local	
  HUD	
  office,	
  “where	
  they	
  have	
  all	
  of	
  that.”	
  	
  The	
  HUD	
  attorney	
  was	
  also	
  not	
  
familiar	
  with	
  ACOP,	
  expalined	
  that	
  the	
  federal	
  code	
  regulates	
  the	
  policy,	
  and	
  suggested	
  Reilly	
  purchase	
  a	
  copy	
  
of	
  the	
  Federal	
  Code	
  at	
  a	
  local	
  post	
  office.	
  	
  	
  A	
  call	
  back	
  to	
  the	
  PHA,	
  specifically	
  asking	
  for	
  the	
  “legal	
  department,”	
  
prompted	
  the	
  conversation	
  with	
  Bergin.	
  
166	
  PHA,	
  Dept.	
  of	
  Rental	
  Housing	
  Adminstrative	
  Plan,	
  Sec.	
  2	
  Eligibility	
  for	
  Admission,	
  at	
  17.	
  
167	
  Providence	
  Housing	
  Authority,	
  Dept.	
  of	
  Housing	
  Mgmt.	
  Plan,	
  Sec.	
  6.7.1,	
  page	
  6-­‐18.	
  
168	
  Id.,	
  Sec.	
  7.6,	
  at	
  page	
  7-­‐4.	
  

	
  
55	
  

	
  
discrimination	
  against	
  former	
  users	
  of	
  drugs,	
  thus	
  the	
  question	
  depends	
  upon	
  whether	
  
they	
  are	
  currently	
  in	
  recovery.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Mitigating	
  Circumstances	
  
	
  
Furthermore,	
  the	
  PHA	
  will	
  not	
  overlook	
  “years	
  of	
  criminal	
  activity,”	
  although	
  
someone	
  is	
  now	
  rehabilitated.169	
  	
  PHA	
  will	
  allow	
  a	
  probationer	
  who	
  is	
  at	
  least	
  halfway	
  
through	
  their	
  probation	
  period,	
  with	
  a	
  letter	
  from	
  their	
  probation	
  officer	
  verifying	
  
compliance	
  with	
  the	
  terms	
  of	
  probation.	
  	
  For	
  those	
  with	
  substance	
  abuse	
  problems,	
  they	
  
must	
  show	
  completion	
  of	
  a	
  drug	
  rehabilitation	
  program,	
  and	
  evidence	
  of	
  at	
  least	
  two	
  years	
  
of	
  sobriety.170	
  	
  Those	
  with	
  violent	
  crimes	
  or	
  sex	
  offenses	
  (other	
  than	
  the	
  permanently	
  
barred	
  lifetime	
  registrant)	
  must	
  also	
  be	
  over	
  halfway	
  through	
  their	
  probation,	
  have	
  a	
  letter	
  
from	
  the	
  probation	
  officer,	
  and	
  have	
  completed	
  a	
  program	
  directed	
  at	
  the	
  nature	
  of	
  the	
  
offense.171	
  	
  The	
  guidance	
  on	
  non-­‐violent	
  crimes	
  are	
  the	
  same	
  halfway	
  period	
  for	
  probation,	
  
along	
  with	
  evidence	
  of	
  counseling	
  and	
  restitution.	
  	
  There	
  is	
  no	
  guidance	
  in	
  the	
  policy	
  as	
  to	
  
what	
  constitutes	
  a	
  violent	
  or	
  non-­‐violent	
  crime,	
  however,	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  reviewing	
  
mitigating	
  circumstances	
  are	
  similar.	
  
	
  
The	
  Providence	
  Housing	
  Authority	
  final	
  determination	
  policy	
  regarding	
  criminal	
  
activity	
  states	
  that	
  they	
  will	
  consider	
  any	
  criminal	
  activity	
  during	
  the	
  past	
  10	
  years.	
  	
  They	
  
also	
  state	
  that	
  nobody	
  18	
  years	
  or	
  older	
  should	
  be	
  admitted	
  if	
  they	
  have	
  been	
  convicted	
  of	
  a	
  
felony,	
  have	
  charges	
  pending,	
  or	
  are	
  currently	
  involved	
  in	
  criminal	
  activity.172	
  
	
  
	
  Durham,	
  NC	
  
	
  
Durham’s	
  standing	
  policy	
  is	
  the	
  2010	
  version	
  posted	
  on	
  their	
  website.	
  	
  Proposed	
  
changes	
  include	
  increasing	
  the	
  waiting	
  period	
  for	
  those	
  evicted	
  due	
  to	
  drug-­‐related	
  activity,	
  
from	
  three	
  years	
  to	
  five.173 	
  	
  They	
  held	
  a	
  public	
  hearing	
  in	
  September,	
  2012,	
  regarding	
  
proposed	
  changes	
  for	
  the	
  next	
  Five	
  Year	
  Plan.	
  
	
  
According	
  to	
  the	
  policy,	
  DHA	
  is	
  still	
  operating	
  under	
  the	
  mistaken	
  belief	
  that	
  they	
  
will	
  receive	
  points,	
  and	
  additional	
  funding,	
  for	
  showing	
  HUD	
  that	
  they	
  screen	
  out	
  people	
  
with	
  criminal	
  histories.	
  
	
  
“Under	
  the	
  Public	
  Housing	
  Assessment	
  System	
  (PHAS),	
  PHA’s	
  that	
  have	
  
adopted	
  policies,	
  implemented	
  procedures	
  and	
  can	
  document	
  that	
  they	
  successfully	
  
screen	
  out	
  and	
  deny	
  admission	
  to	
  certain	
  applicants	
  with	
  unfavorable	
  criminal	
  
histories	
  receive	
  points.”174	
  	
  
	
  
DHA	
  requires	
  all	
  of	
  its	
  residents	
  to	
  authorize	
  an	
  annual	
  criminal	
  background	
  check	
  
on	
  them.175	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
169	
  Id.,	
  Ch.	
  7.6.2,	
  at	
  p.	
  7-­‐5.	
  
170	
  Id.	
  Ch.	
  7.6.3.	
  

171	
  Id.	
  	
  It	
  is	
  unclear	
  how	
  a	
  combination	
  sentence	
  of	
  prison	
  and	
  probation	
  factors	
  into	
  this	
  equation.	
  	
  For	
  
example,	
  on	
  the	
  same	
  charge:	
  someone	
  could	
  receive	
  ten	
  years	
  in	
  prison	
  followed	
  by	
  ten	
  years	
  probation.	
  	
  
Someone	
  else	
  may	
  have	
  been	
  sentenced	
  to	
  fifteen	
  years	
  in	
  prison,	
  without	
  probation.	
  	
  Someone	
  else	
  may	
  have	
  
been	
  sentenced	
  to	
  twenty	
  years	
  probation,	
  without	
  prison.	
  
172	
  Id.	
  Ch.	
  8.2.2.	
  
173	
  DHA	
  Plan	
  Update,	
  Amendments	
  Only	
  to	
  the	
  HCV	
  Plan	
  (9),	
  at	
  3	
  (Oct.	
  22,	
  2010).	
  	
  Available	
  on	
  the	
  web	
  at:	
  	
  
http://www.durhamhousingauthority.org/assets/20105YP-­‐approved.pdf	
  
174	
  ACOP	
  (2010),	
  at	
  46.	
  Page	
  3-­‐14,	
  citing:	
  24	
  CFR	
  960.203	
  (b)	
  and	
  (c).	
  	
  
175	
  ACOP	
  (2010),	
  at	
  174,	
  Page	
  9-­‐4.	
  

	
  
56	
  

	
  
	
  
Following	
  HUD	
  guidance,	
  DHA	
  will	
  admit	
  an	
  otherwise-­‐eligible	
  family	
  who	
  was	
  
evicted	
  from	
  federally-­‐assisted	
  housing	
  within	
  the	
  past	
  3	
  years	
  for	
  drug-­‐related	
  criminal	
  
activity,	
  if	
  DHA	
  is	
  able	
  to	
  verify	
  that	
  the	
  household	
  member	
  who	
  engaged	
  in	
  the	
  criminal	
  
activity	
  has	
  completed	
  a	
  supervised	
  drug	
  rehabilitation	
  program	
  approved	
  by	
  DHA,	
  or	
  the	
  
person	
  who	
  committed	
  the	
  crime	
  is	
  no	
  longer	
  living	
  in	
  the	
  household.	
  	
  
	
  
Mandatory	
  Exclusion	
  
DHA	
  will	
  deny	
  admission	
  if:	
  
• They	
  determine	
  that	
  any	
  household	
  member	
  has	
  used	
  illegal	
  drugs	
  during	
  the	
  
previous	
  six	
  months.176	
  	
  	
  
• DHA	
  has	
  reasonable	
  cause	
  to	
  believe	
  that	
  any	
  household	
  member's	
  current	
  use	
  or	
  
pattern	
  of	
  use	
  of	
  illegal	
  drugs,	
  or	
  current	
  abuse	
  or	
  pattern	
  of	
  abuse	
  of	
  alcohol,	
  may	
  
threaten	
  the	
  health,	
  safety,	
  or	
  right	
  to	
  peaceful	
  enjoyment	
  of	
  the	
  premises	
  by	
  other	
  
residents.177	
  	
  
• If	
  any	
  household	
  member	
  has	
  ever	
  been	
  convicted	
  of	
  drug-­‐related	
  criminal	
  activity	
  
for	
  the	
  production	
  or	
  manufacture	
  of	
  methamphetamine	
  in	
  any	
  location;178	
  
• If	
  any	
  household	
  member	
  is	
  currently	
  registered	
  as	
  a	
  sex	
  offender	
  under	
  a	
  state	
  
registration	
  requirement,	
  regardless	
  of	
  whether	
  it	
  is	
  a	
  lifetime	
  registration	
  
requirement.179 	
  
The	
  standard	
  of	
  any	
  determination	
  is	
  based	
  on	
  a	
  preponderance	
  of	
  the	
  evidence.180 	
  
	
  
Discretionary	
  Exclusion	
  
If	
  any	
  household	
  member	
  is	
  currently	
  engaged	
  in,	
  or	
  has	
  engaged	
  in	
  any	
  of	
  the	
  following	
  
criminal	
  activities,	
  within	
  the	
  past	
  five	
  years,	
  the	
  family	
  will	
  be	
  denied	
  admission:	
  
• Drug-­‐related	
  criminal	
  activity,181	
  
• Violent	
  criminal	
  activity,182	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
176	
  ACOP,	
  at	
  45,	
  Page	
  3-­‐15.	
  	
  “Drug	
  means	
  a	
  controlled	
  substance	
  as	
  defined	
  in	
  section	
  102	
  of	
  the	
  Controlled	
  
Substances	
  Act	
  [21	
  U.S.C.	
  802].	
  	
  Currently	
  engaged	
  in	
  the	
  illegal	
  use	
  of	
  a	
  drug	
  means	
  a	
  person	
  has	
  engaged	
  in	
  
the	
  behavior	
  recently	
  enough	
  to	
  justify	
  a	
  reasonable	
  belief	
  that	
  there	
  is	
  continuing	
  illegal	
  drug	
  use	
  by	
  a	
  
household	
  member	
  [24	
  CFR	
  960.205(b)(1)].”	
  	
  
177	
  Id.	
  	
  In	
  determining	
  reasonable	
  cause,	
  DHA	
   will	
  consider	
  all	
  credible	
  evidence,	
  including	
  but	
  not	
  limited	
  to,	
  
any	
  record	
  of	
  convictions,	
  arrests,	
  or	
  evictions	
  of	
  household	
  members	
  related	
  to	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  illegal	
  drugs	
  or	
  the	
  
abuse	
  of	
  alcohol.	
  	
  
178	
  HUD	
  mandates	
  denial	
  only	
  for	
  those	
  who	
  have	
  manufactured	
  on	
  federally-­‐assisted	
  housing	
  premises.	
  
179	
  HUD	
  mandates	
  denial	
  only	
  for	
  those	
  subject	
  to	
  lifetime	
  registration	
  requirements.	
  
180	
  DHA	
  considers	
  the	
  following	
  factors	
  when	
  making	
  its	
  decision:	
  	
  
(1)	
  The	
  seriousness	
  of	
  the	
  case,	
  especially	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  how	
  it	
  would	
  affect	
  other	
  residents;	
  (2)	
  The	
  effects	
  
that	
  denial	
  of	
  admission	
  may	
  have	
  on	
  other	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  family	
  not	
  involved	
  in	
  the	
  action;	
  (3)	
  The	
  extent	
  
of	
  participation	
  or	
  culpability	
  of	
  individual	
  family	
  members,	
  including	
  whether	
  the	
  culpable	
  member	
  is	
  a	
  
minor	
  or	
  disabled;	
  (4)	
  The	
  length	
  of	
  time	
  since	
  the	
  violation	
  occurred,	
  the	
  family’s	
  recent	
  history	
  and	
  the	
  
likelihood	
  of	
  favorable	
  conduct	
  in	
  the	
  future;	
  (5)	
  Evidence	
  of	
  the	
  applicant	
  family’s	
  participation	
  in	
  or	
  
willingness	
  to	
  participate	
  in	
  social	
  service	
  or	
  other	
  appropriate	
  counseling;	
  (6)	
  In	
  the	
  case	
  of	
  drug	
  or	
  alcohol	
  
abuse,	
  whether	
  the	
  culpable	
  household	
  member	
  is	
  participating	
  in	
  or	
  has	
  successfully	
  completed	
  a	
  supervised	
  
drug	
  or	
  alcohol	
  rehabilitation	
  program	
  or	
  has	
  otherwise	
  been	
  rehabilitated	
  successfully	
  	
  
181	
  defined	
  by	
  HUD	
  as	
  the	
  illegal	
  manufacture,	
  sale,	
  distribution,	
  or	
  use	
  of	
  a	
  drug,	
  or	
  the	
  possession	
  of	
  a	
  drug	
  
with	
  intent	
  to	
  manufacture,	
  sell,	
  distribute	
  or	
  use	
  the	
  drug	
  [24	
  CFR	
  5.100].	
  

	
  
57	
  

	
  
•
•
•

Criminal	
  activity	
  that	
  may	
  threaten	
  the	
  health,	
  safety,	
  or	
  welfare	
  of	
  other	
  tenants.183	
  
Criminal	
  activity	
  that	
  may	
  threaten	
  the	
  health	
  or	
  safety	
  of	
  DHA	
  staff,	
  contractors,	
  
subcontractors,	
  or	
  agents.	
  	
  
Criminal	
  sexual	
  conduct,	
  including	
  but	
  not	
  limited	
  to	
  sexual	
  assault,	
  incest,	
  open	
  and	
  
gross	
  lewdness,	
  criminal	
  sexual	
  offenses	
  involving	
  children,	
  or	
  child	
  abuse.	
  	
  

	
  
	
  
Evidence	
  of	
  such	
  criminal	
  activity	
  includes,	
  but	
  is	
  not	
  limited	
  to	
  any	
  record	
  of	
  
convictions,	
  arrests,	
  or	
  evictions	
  for	
  suspected	
  drug-­‐related	
  or	
  violent	
  criminal	
  activity	
  of	
  
household	
  members	
  within	
  the	
  past	
  5	
  years.184	
  	
  
	
  

Oakland,	
  CA	
  
	
  
Oakland’s	
  Admissions	
  and	
  Continued	
  Occupancy	
  Policy	
  is	
  easily	
  accessible	
  on	
  their	
  
public	
  website.185	
  	
  Oakland	
  Housing	
  Authority	
  (OHA)	
  opens	
  their	
  denial	
  of	
  admissions	
  with	
  
a	
  factual	
  error,	
  believing	
  that	
  HUD	
  requires	
  them	
  to	
  exclude	
  those	
  evicted	
  for	
  drug-­‐related	
  
activity	
  for	
  five	
  years.186	
  	
  They	
  also	
  leave	
  out	
  the	
  provision	
  where	
  a	
  competed	
  drug	
  
rehabilitation	
  program	
  can	
  overcome	
  that	
  ban.187	
  
	
  
Mandatory	
  Exclusion	
  
“HUD	
  requires	
  OHA	
  to	
  deny	
  assistance	
  in	
  the	
  following	
  cases”:	
  
• Any	
  household	
  member	
  has	
  been	
  evicted	
  from	
  federally-­‐assisted	
  housing	
  in	
  the	
  last	
  
5	
  years	
  for	
  drug-­‐related	
  criminal	
  activity.	
  
• OHA	
  determines	
  that	
  any	
  household	
  member	
  is	
  currently	
  engaged	
  in	
  the	
  illegal	
  use	
  
of	
  drugs.188	
  
• OHA	
  has	
  reasonable	
  cause	
  to	
  believe	
  that	
  any	
  household	
  member's	
  current	
  drug	
  or	
  
alcohol	
  use,	
  may	
  threaten	
  the	
  health,	
  safety,	
  or	
  right	
  to	
  peaceful	
  enjoyment	
  of	
  the	
  
premises	
  by	
  other	
  residents.189	
  
• Any	
  household	
  member	
  has	
  ever	
  been	
  convicted	
  of	
  manufacturing	
  
methamphetamine	
  on	
  the	
  premises	
  of	
  federally	
  assisted	
  housing;	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
182	
  defined	
  by	
  HUD	
  as	
  any	
  criminal	
  activity	
  that	
  has	
  as	
  one	
  of	
  its	
  elements	
  the	
  use,	
  attempted	
  use,	
  or	
  

threatened	
  use	
  of	
  physical	
  force	
  substantial	
  enough	
  to	
  cause,	
  or	
  be	
  reasonably	
  likely	
  to	
  cause,	
  serious	
  bodily	
  
injury	
  or	
  property	
  damage	
  [24	
  CFR	
  5.100].	
  
183	
  [24	
  CFR	
  960.203(c)(3)].	
  
184	
  In	
  making	
  its	
  decision	
  to	
  deny	
  assistance,	
  DHA	
  will	
  consider	
  the	
  factors	
  discussed	
  in	
  Section	
  3-­‐III.E.	
  Upon	
  
consideration	
  of	
  such	
  factors,	
  DHA	
  may,	
  on	
  a	
  case-­‐by-­‐case	
  basis,	
  decide	
  not	
  to	
  deny	
  assistance.	
  	
  
185	
  http://www.oakha.org/MTW/ACOP.pdf	
  
186	
  Oakland	
  Housing	
  Authority,	
  ACOP,	
  Page	
  3-­‐19,	
  04/14/2006.	
  	
  The	
  HUD	
  policy	
  is	
  three	
  years.	
  	
  OHA	
  cites	
  24	
  
CFR	
  960.204	
  for	
  their	
  section	
  3-­‐III.B.	
  Required	
  Denial	
  of	
  Admission.	
  
187	
  24	
  CFR	
  960.204(a)(1)(i).	
  The	
  PHA	
  may	
  also	
  allow	
  a	
  household	
  if	
  the	
  offender	
  is	
  dead,	
  in	
  prison,	
  or	
  
otherwise	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  household.	
  	
  Id.	
  (a)(1)(ii).	
  
188	
  Drug	
  means	
  a	
  controlled	
  substance	
  as	
  defined	
  in	
  section	
  102	
  of	
  the	
  Controlled	
  Substances	
  Act	
  [21	
  U.S.C.	
  
802].	
  Currently	
  engaged	
  in	
  the	
  illegal	
  use	
  of	
  a	
  drug	
  means	
  a	
  person	
  has	
  engaged	
  in	
  the	
  behavior	
  recently	
  
enough	
  to	
  justify	
  a	
  reasonable	
  belief	
  that	
  there	
  is	
  continuing	
  illegal	
  drug	
  use	
  by	
  a	
  household	
  member	
  [citing:	
  
24	
  CFR	
  960.205(b)(1)].	
  
189	
  In	
  determining	
  reasonable	
  cause,	
  OHA	
  will	
  consider	
  all	
  credible	
  evidence,	
  including	
  but	
  not	
  limited	
  to,	
  any	
  
record	
  of	
  convictions,	
  arrests,	
  or	
  evictions	
  of	
  household	
  members	
  related	
  to	
  the	
  use,	
  sales,	
  possession	
  or	
  
abuse	
  of	
  illegal	
  drugs	
  or	
  the	
  abuse	
  of	
  alcohol.	
  

	
  
58	
  

	
  
•

Any	
  household	
  member	
  is	
  subject	
  to	
  a	
  lifetime	
  sex	
  offender	
  registration.	
  

	
  
Like	
  Durham,	
  NC,	
  Oakland	
  is	
  still	
  operating	
  under	
  the	
  policy	
  that	
  there	
  are	
  PHAS	
  points	
  to	
  
be	
  earned	
  for	
  screening	
  and	
  exclusion.190	
  
	
  
Discretionary	
  Exclusion	
  
A	
  family	
  will	
  be	
  denied	
  admission	
  if	
  any	
  household	
  member	
  has	
  engaged	
  in,	
  any	
  of	
  the	
  
following	
  within	
  the	
  past	
  five	
  years:	
  
• Drug-­‐related	
  criminal	
  activity,	
  191	
  
• Violent	
  criminal	
  activity,	
  192	
  
• Criminal	
  activity	
  that	
  may	
  threaten	
  the	
  health,	
  safety,	
  or	
  welfare	
  of	
  other	
  tenants,193	
  	
  
• Criminal	
  activity	
  that	
  may	
  threaten	
  the	
  health	
  or	
  safety	
  of	
  OHA	
  staff,	
  contractors,	
  
subcontractors,	
  or	
  agents.	
  
• Criminal	
  sexual	
  conduct.194	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
Evidence	
  of	
  such	
  criminal	
  activity	
  includes,	
  but	
  is	
  not	
  limited	
  to	
  any	
  record	
  of	
  
convictions,	
  arrests,	
  or	
  evictions	
  for	
  suspected	
  drug-­‐related	
  or	
  violent	
  criminal	
  activity	
  of	
  
household	
  members	
  within	
  the	
  past	
  5	
  years.195	
  
	
  
San	
  Antonio,	
  TX	
  
	
  
The	
  San	
  Antonio	
  Housing	
  Authority	
  (SAHA)	
  recently	
  updated	
  their	
  ACOP	
  policy,	
  and	
  
it	
  is	
  available	
  on	
  their	
  public	
  website.196	
  	
  All	
  applicants	
  over	
  18	
  will	
  undergo	
  a	
  background	
  
check,	
  and	
  SAHA	
  will	
  test	
  all	
  applicants	
  against	
  the	
  following	
  additional	
  criteria:197	
  
• History	
  of	
  any	
  drug-­‐related	
  or	
  violent	
  criminal	
  activity,	
  or	
  other	
  criminal	
  acts,	
  which	
  
would	
  adversely	
  affect	
  the	
  health,	
  safety,	
  well-­‐being	
  or	
  right	
  of	
  peaceful	
  enjoyment	
  
of	
  the	
  premises	
  by	
  other	
  residents	
  or	
  SAHA	
  employees;	
  
• History	
  of	
  abusing	
  alcohol	
  in	
  a	
  way	
  that	
  may	
  interfere	
  with	
  the	
  health,	
  safety,	
  or	
  
right	
  to	
  peaceful	
  enjoyment	
  of	
  the	
  premises	
  by	
  others;	
  	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

190	
  ACOP,	
  Page	
  3-­‐20.	
  	
  “Under	
  the	
  Public	
  Housing	
  Assessment	
  System	
  (PHAS),	
  PHAs	
  that	
  have	
  adopted	
  policies,	
  

implemented	
  procedures,	
  and	
  can	
  document	
  that	
  they	
  successfully	
  screen	
  out	
  and	
  deny	
  admission	
  to	
  certain	
  
applicants	
  with	
  unfavorable	
  criminal	
  histories	
  receive	
  points.”	
  
191	
  “Defined	
  by	
  HUD	
  as	
  the	
  illegal	
  manufacture,	
  sale,	
  distribution,	
  or	
  use	
  of	
  a	
  drug,	
  or	
  the	
  possession	
  of	
  a	
  drug	
  
with	
  intent	
  to	
  manufacture,	
  sell,	
  distribute	
  or	
  use	
  the	
  drug”	
  [citing:	
  24	
  CFR	
  5.100].	
  
192	
  “Defined	
  by	
  HUD	
  as	
  any	
  criminal	
  activity	
  that	
  has	
  as	
  one	
  of	
  its	
  elements	
  the	
  use,	
  attempted	
  use,	
  or	
  
threatened	
  use	
  of	
  physical	
  force	
  substantial	
  enough	
  to	
  cause,	
  or	
  be	
  reasonably	
  likely	
  to	
  cause,	
  serious	
  bodily	
  
injury	
  or	
  property	
  damage.”	
  	
  Citing:	
  24	
  CFR	
  5.100.	
  
193	
  Citing:	
  24	
  CFR	
  960.203(c)(3).	
  
194	
  Including	
  but	
  not	
  limited	
  to	
  sexual	
  assault,	
  incest,	
  open	
  and	
  gross	
  lewdness,	
  or	
  child	
  abuse.	
  
195	
  In	
  making	
  its	
  decision	
  to	
  deny	
  assistance,	
  OHA	
  will	
  consider	
  the	
  factors	
  discussed	
  in	
  
Section	
  3-­‐III.E.	
  Upon	
  consideration	
  of	
  such	
  factors,	
  OHA	
  may,	
  on	
  a	
  case-­‐by-­‐case	
  basis,	
  
decide	
  not	
  to	
  deny	
  assistance.	
  
196	
  
http://www.saha.org/aboutsaha/pdfs/Final%202012%20ACOP%20as%20of%20June%2012%202012.pdf	
  
197	
  ACOP,	
  at	
  96-­‐97.	
  

	
  
59	
  

	
  
o Alcohol	
  abuse	
  shall	
  only	
  be	
  evaluated	
  as	
  an	
  aggravating	
  factor	
  in	
  the	
  context	
  
of	
  a	
  criminal	
  conviction,	
  as	
  determined	
  in	
  Exhibit	
  1E	
  hereof,	
  or	
  in	
  the	
  context	
  
of	
  a	
  prior	
  housing	
  eviction.	
  
	
  
	
  
Discretionary	
  Exclusion	
  
• Evidence	
  of	
  current	
  drug-­‐related	
  criminal	
  activity;	
  	
  
• Reasonable	
  belief	
  that	
  illegal	
  drug	
  use	
  may	
  adversely	
  affect	
  other	
  residents;	
  	
  
• Evidence	
  of	
  current	
  violent	
  criminal	
  activity;	
  or	
  	
  
• Other	
  criminal	
  activity	
  which	
  may	
  threaten	
  the	
  other	
  residents;	
  or	
  personnel	
  for	
  the	
  
Authority.	
  	
  
• Evidence	
  of	
  eviction	
  within	
  the	
  last	
  five	
  (5)	
  years	
  from	
  any	
  federal	
  assisted	
  housing	
  
program	
  for	
  drug	
  and/or	
  criminal	
  related	
  activity.	
  	
  
o Can	
  be	
  waived	
  if	
  the	
  evicted	
  household	
  member	
  who	
  engaged	
  in	
  drug-­‐related	
  
criminal	
  activity	
  demonstrates	
  successful	
  completion	
  of	
  a	
  rehabilitation	
  
program	
  approved	
  by	
  the	
  Authority;	
  or	
  	
  
o The	
  circumstances	
  leading	
  to	
  the	
  eviction	
  no	
  longer	
  exist	
  (e.g.,	
  the	
  individual	
  
involved	
  in	
  drugs	
  is	
  no	
  longer	
  a	
  household	
  member	
  because	
  of	
  
incarceration.)	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
Where	
  applicable,	
  the	
  Authority	
  may	
  waive	
  its	
  policy	
  of	
  prohibiting	
  admission	
  if	
  the	
  
household	
  member	
  demonstrates	
  to	
  the	
  Authority's	
  satisfaction	
  that	
  he/she	
  is	
  no	
  longer	
  
engaging	
  in	
  illegal	
  use	
  of	
  a	
  controlled	
  substance	
  or	
  abuse	
  of	
  alcohol	
  and:	
  	
  
• Has	
  successfully	
  completed	
  a	
  supervised	
  rehabilitation	
  program;	
  	
  
• Has	
  otherwise	
  been	
  rehabilitated	
  successfully;	
  or	
  	
  
• Is	
  currently	
  participating	
  in	
  a	
  supervised	
  rehabilitation	
  program	
  	
  
• The	
  circumstances	
  which	
  led	
  to	
  eviction	
  no	
  longer	
  exist	
  (e.g.	
  the	
  person	
  involved	
  in	
  
the	
  criminal	
  activity	
  no	
  longer	
  lives	
  in	
  the	
  household).	
  	
  
	
  
	
  
In	
  evaluating	
  evidence	
  of	
  negative	
  past	
  behavior,	
  the	
  Authority	
  will	
  give	
  fair	
  
consideration	
  to	
  the	
  seriousness	
  of	
  the	
  activity	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  how	
  it	
  would	
  affect	
  other	
  
residents,	
  and/or	
  the	
  likelihood	
  of	
  favorable	
  conduct	
  in	
  the	
  future	
  which	
  could	
  be	
  
supported	
  by	
  evidence	
  of	
  rehabilitation.	
  	
  
	
  
SAHA	
  may	
  conditionally	
  admit	
  a	
  household,	
  with	
  a	
  requirement	
  that	
  the	
  household	
  
member	
  who	
  engaged	
  in	
  or	
  is	
  culpable	
  for	
  the	
  drug	
  use	
  or	
  alcohol	
  abuse	
  may	
  not	
  reside	
  in	
  
the	
  unit.	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Minneapolis,	
  MN	
  
	
  
This	
  policy	
  is	
  among	
  the	
  more	
  straightforward	
  and	
  user-­‐friendly	
  policies	
  surveyed,	
  
and	
  it	
  is	
  available	
  on	
  their	
  public	
  website.198	
  	
  The	
  policy	
  includes	
  a	
  detailed	
  Appendix	
  that	
  
correlates	
  waiting	
  periods	
  to	
  specific	
  criminal	
  activity.199	
  	
  There	
  are	
  mandatory	
  waiting	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

198	
  http://www.mphaonline.org/pr-­‐policies-­‐and-­‐publications/public-­‐housing-­‐statement-­‐of-­‐policies/	
  
199	
  http://www.mphaonline.org/wp-­‐content/uploads/2011/11/SOP-­‐2011-­‐12-­‐Appendix-­‐H.pdf.	
  	
  See	
  

Appendix	
  in	
  this	
  report.	
  

	
  
60	
  

	
  
periods	
  for	
  a	
  list	
  of	
  crimes,	
  which	
  provide	
  guidance	
  for	
  crimes	
  not	
  listed.	
  	
  The	
  MPHA	
  will	
  
not	
  consider	
  any	
  crime	
  that	
  has	
  occurred	
  outside	
  of	
  the	
  waiting	
  period.	
  	
  The	
  waiting	
  period	
  
begins	
  after	
  all	
  prison	
  and/or	
  probation	
  is	
  served.	
  
	
  
MPHA	
  differentiates	
  the	
  various	
  levels	
  of	
  sex	
  offenses	
  (including	
  the	
  lifetime	
  ban	
  on	
  
those	
  registered	
  for	
  life)	
  and	
  drug	
  offenses	
  (including	
  the	
  lifetime	
  ban	
  for	
  those	
  
manufacturing	
  methamphetamines).	
  
	
  
The	
  MPHA	
  waiting	
  periods	
  are	
  lengthy,	
  although	
  clear.	
  	
  Minnesota	
  sentences	
  people	
  
to	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  longer	
  probation	
  periods	
  in	
  the	
  nation;	
  terms	
  spent	
  living	
  in	
  the	
  community.	
  	
  
Probation	
  for	
  the	
  prisoner	
  is	
  a	
  mandatory	
  last	
  third	
  of	
  the	
  sentence.	
  	
  Thus,	
  if	
  a	
  household	
  
member	
  is	
  sentenced	
  to	
  one	
  year	
  probation	
  for	
  public	
  urination	
  or	
  disorderly	
  conduct,	
  the	
  
family	
  will	
  be	
  eligible	
  to	
  apply	
  for	
  public	
  housing	
  one	
  year	
  after	
  that	
  period	
  runs	
  out.	
  	
  
Similarly,	
  If	
  someone	
  serves	
  seven	
  years	
  in	
  prison	
  for	
  “intent	
  to	
  sell”	
  drugs,	
  then	
  spends	
  
three	
  years	
  living	
  outside	
  on	
  probation:	
  their	
  family	
  will	
  be	
  eligible	
  for	
  public	
  housing	
  after	
  
another	
  five	
  years;	
  fifteen	
  years	
  after	
  the	
  crime.	
  	
  
	
  
	
  

Endnotes-­‐	
  Table	
  A	
  and	
  B	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

TABLE	
  A	
  
i	
  Proposed	
  policy	
  of	
  the	
  Formerly	
  Incarcerated	
  &	
  Convicted	
  People’s	
  Movement,	
  and	
  currently	
  under	
  
consideration	
  at	
  HANO	
  with	
  the	
  local	
  efforts	
  of	
  Stand	
  With	
  Dignity	
  (organization	
  within	
  the	
  New	
  Orleans	
  
Workers’	
  Center	
  for	
  Racial	
  Justice),	
  Voice	
  of	
  the	
  Ex-­‐Offender	
  (VOTE),	
  and	
  others.	
  	
  A	
  public	
  hearing	
  was	
  held	
  at	
  
HANO,	
  January	
  22,	
  2012.	
  
ii	
  42	
  U.S.C.	
  §	
  1437n(f)(1).	
  	
  Commonly	
  known	
  as	
  “Meth	
  Labs,”	
  these	
  operations	
  have	
  been	
  known	
  to	
  explode	
  
due	
  to	
  the	
  dangerous	
  chemical	
  compounds	
  involved.	
  	
  	
  
iii	
  42	
  U.S.C.A.	
  §	
  13663;	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.856.	
  
iv	
  The	
  effect	
  of	
  this	
  ban	
  implies	
  that	
  someone	
  guilty	
  of	
  a	
  sex	
  offense	
  who	
  was	
  either	
  not	
  placed	
  on	
  the	
  Registry,	
  
or	
  has	
  been	
  removed,	
  would	
  then	
  be	
  eligible	
  7	
  years	
  after	
  the	
  activity.	
  	
  The	
  proposed	
  change	
  would	
  turn	
  all	
  
sex	
  offenses	
  into	
  the	
  equivalent	
  of	
  manufacturing	
  methamphetamine	
  on	
  federally-­‐subsidized	
  housing	
  
property.	
  	
  Even	
  mothers	
  with	
  an	
  act	
  of	
  prostitution	
  20	
  years	
  ago	
  would	
  be	
  banned.	
  
v	
  42	
  U.S.C.A.	
  §	
  13661;	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.854(a).	
  
vi	
  See	
  the	
  exclusion	
  standards:	
  HANO	
  ACOP,	
  at	
  22-­‐24.	
  
vii	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.855(a)4.	
  
viii	
  “Violent	
  Criminal	
  Activity”	
  means	
  any	
  criminal	
  activity	
  that	
  has	
  one	
  of	
  its	
  elements	
  the	
  use,	
  attempted	
  use,	
  
or	
  threatened	
  use	
  of	
  physical	
  force	
  substantial	
  enough	
  to	
  cause,	
  or	
  be	
  reasonably	
  likely	
  to	
  cause,	
  serious	
  
bodily	
  injury	
  or	
  property	
  damage.	
  	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.100.	
  	
  (emphasis	
  added).	
  
ix	
  42	
  U.S.C.A.	
  §	
  13661;	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §§	
  5.852(a)	
  and	
  960.204	
  (limiting	
  scope	
  to	
  drug-­‐related	
  and	
  violent	
  criminal	
  
activity).	
  	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  5.855(b)	
  (permitting,	
  but	
  not	
  requiring,	
  denials	
  based	
  on	
  disqualifying	
  information	
  within	
  
“reasonable	
  time.”).	
  	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.852(d)	
  (granting	
  authority	
  for	
  PHA	
  to	
  admit,	
  even	
  when	
  activity	
  is	
  within	
  a	
  
reasonable	
  time.)	
  
“Drug-­‐related	
  criminal	
  activity”	
  means	
  the	
  illegal	
  manufacture,	
  sale,	
  distribution,	
  use	
  or	
  possession	
  with	
  
intent	
  to	
  manufacture,	
  sell,	
  distribute,	
  or	
  use	
  a	
  controlled	
  substance	
  (as	
  defined	
  by	
  Section	
  102	
  of	
  the	
  
Controlled	
  Substance	
  Act,	
  21	
  U.S.C.	
  802).	
  
x	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §§	
  5.854(b)	
  and	
  5.857.	
  
xi	
  Includes	
  narcotic	
  paraphernalia.	
  	
  This	
  will	
  be	
  waived	
  for	
  remaining	
  household	
  members	
  if	
  the	
  offender	
  is	
  
incarcerated	
  for	
  a	
  term	
  over	
  7	
  years.	
  
xii	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.855.	
  	
  This	
  is	
  most	
  likely	
  to	
  apply	
  where	
  there	
  is	
  an	
  arrest	
  but	
  no	
  conviction.	
  	
  The	
  EEOC	
  has	
  
recently	
  set	
  
	
   guidelines	
  warding	
  employers	
  away	
  from	
  their	
  use	
  of	
  arrests	
  	
  (see:	
  EEOC	
  Guidelines,	
  at	
  12,	
  and	
  
citations).	
   	
  
	
  
“The	
  fact	
  of	
  an	
  arrest	
  does	
  not	
  establish	
  that	
  criminal	
  conduct	
  has	
  occurred.	
  	
  At	
  least	
  13	
  states	
  have	
  

	
  
61	
  

	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
statutes	
  explicitly	
  prohibiting	
  arrest	
  record	
  inquiries	
  and/or	
  dissemination;	
  Arrests	
  a	
  re	
  
	
  	
   not	
  proof	
  of	
  criminal	
  
conduct.	
  Many	
  arrests	
  do	
  not	
  result	
  in	
  criminal	
  charges,	
  or	
  the	
  charges	
  are	
  dismissed. Even	
  if	
  an	
  individual	
  is	
  
charged	
  and	
  subsequently	
  prosecuted,	
  he	
  is	
  presumed	
  innocent	
  unless	
  proven	
  guilty.	
  
An	
  arrest,	
  however,	
  may	
  in	
  some	
  circumstances	
  trigger	
  an	
  inquiry	
  into	
  whether	
  the	
  conduct	
  
underlying	
  the	
  arrest	
  justifies	
  an	
  adverse	
  employment	
  action.	
  Title	
  VII	
  calls	
  for	
  a	
  fact-­‐	
  based	
  analysis	
  to	
  
determine	
  if	
  an	
  exclusionary	
  policy	
  or	
  practice	
  is	
  job	
  related	
  and	
  consistent	
  with	
  business	
  necessity.	
  
Therefore,	
  an	
  exclusion	
  based	
  on	
  an	
  arrest,	
  in	
  itself,	
  is	
  not	
  job	
  related	
  and	
  consistent	
  with	
  business	
  necessity.	
  
Another	
  reason	
  for	
  employers	
  not	
  to	
  rely	
  on	
  arrest	
  records	
  is	
  that	
  they	
  may	
  not	
  report	
  the	
  final	
  disposition	
  of	
  
the	
  arrest	
  (e.g.,	
  not	
  prosecuted,	
  convicted,	
  or	
  acquitted).	
  As	
  documented	
  in	
  Section	
  III.A.,	
  supra,	
  the	
  DOJ/BJS	
  
reported	
  that	
  many	
  arrest	
  records	
  	
  	
  in	
  the	
  FBI’s	
  III	
  database	
  and	
  state	
  criminal	
  record	
  repositories	
  are	
  not	
  
associated	
  with	
  final	
  dispositions. Arrest	
  records	
  also	
  may	
  include	
  inaccuracies	
  or	
  may	
  continue	
  to	
  be	
  
reported	
  even	
  if	
  expunged	
  or	
  sealed.”	
  
xiii	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §§	
  5.858-­‐860.	
  	
  Leases	
  shall	
  indicate	
  that	
  the	
  listed	
  activities	
  may	
  subject	
  them	
  to	
  eviction.	
  	
  24	
  
C.F.R.	
  §	
  966.4(l)(5).	
  
xiv	
  HANO	
  ACOP,	
  at	
  138.	
  
xv	
  Id.	
  At	
  144.	
  
xvi	
  “Guest”	
  means	
  a	
  person	
  temporarily	
  staying	
  in	
  the	
  unit	
  with	
  the	
  consent	
  of	
  the	
  tenant	
  or	
  other	
  member	
  of	
  
the	
  household	
  who	
  has	
  express	
  or	
  implied	
  authority	
  to	
  so	
  consent	
  on	
  behalf	
  of	
  the	
  tenant.	
  	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.100.	
  	
  
Tenants	
  shall	
  be	
  allowed	
  reasonable	
  accommodation	
  of	
  their	
  guests.	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  966.4(d)(1).	
  	
  	
  
xvii	
  “Premises”	
  means	
  the	
  building	
  or	
  complex	
  or	
  development	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  public	
  or	
  assisted	
  housing	
  
dwelling	
  unit	
  is	
  located,	
  including	
  common	
  areas	
  and	
  grounds.	
  	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.100.	
  
xviii	
  “Person	
  under	
  the	
  tenant's	
  control”	
  means	
  that	
  the	
  person,	
  although	
  not	
  staying	
  as	
  a	
  guest	
  (as	
  defined	
  in	
  
this	
  section)	
  in	
  the	
  unit,	
  is,	
  or	
  was	
  at	
  the	
  time	
  of	
  the	
  activity	
  in	
  question,	
  on	
  the	
  premises	
  (as	
  premises	
  is	
  
defined	
  in	
  this	
  section)	
  because	
  of	
  an	
  invitation	
  from	
  the	
  tenant	
  or	
  other	
  member	
  of	
  the	
  household	
  who	
  has	
  
express	
  or	
  implied	
  authority	
  to	
  so	
  consent	
  on	
  behalf	
  of	
  the	
  tenant.	
  	
  Absent	
  evidence	
  to	
  the	
  contrary,	
  a	
  person	
  
temporarily	
  and	
  infrequently	
  on	
  the	
  premises	
  solely	
  for	
  legitimate	
  commercial	
  purposes	
  is	
  not	
  under	
  the	
  
tenant's	
  control.	
  	
  24	
  C.F.R.	
  §	
  5.100.	
  
xix	
  HANO	
  ACOP,	
  at	
  136.	
  	
  It	
  appears	
  unusual	
  that	
  HANO’s	
  policy	
  includes	
  regulations	
  for	
  the	
  District	
  Attorney.	
  	
  
Regardless	
  of	
  HANO’s	
  power	
  to	
  compel	
  a	
  separate	
  state	
  agency,	
  this	
  clearly	
  represents	
  longstanding	
  practice	
  
of	
  initiating	
  eviction	
  before	
  any	
  evaluation	
  of	
  the	
  evidence	
  by	
  the	
  court.	
  
xx	
  HANO	
  ACOP,	
  at	
  23-­‐24.	
  
xxi	
  HANO	
  ACOP	
  ,	
  at	
  27.	
  
	
  
	
  
TABLE	
  B	
  
xxii	
  Updated	
  January,	
  2011.	
  	
  Available	
  on	
  the	
  NYCHA	
  website,	
  last	
  accessed	
  July	
  19,	
  2012.	
  	
  
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/downloads/pdf/TSAPlan.pdf	
  
xxiii	
  Class	
  A	
  and	
  B	
  are	
  the	
  most	
  serious	
  felonies.	
  	
  Class	
  B	
  Non-­‐Violent	
  generally	
  receive	
  1-­‐3	
  years	
  in	
  prison.	
  	
  
Class	
  C	
  are	
  crimes	
  that	
  carry	
  sentences	
  of	
  up	
  to	
  15	
  years,	
  including	
  assault,	
  larceny,	
  and	
  drug	
  distribution.	
  	
  A	
  
Non-­‐Violent	
  Class	
  C	
  felony	
  generally	
  receives	
  no	
  jail,	
  and	
  probation	
  between	
  1-­‐15	
  years.	
  	
  Class	
  D	
  felonies	
  
generally	
  lack	
  malice	
  and	
  carry	
  up	
  to	
  7	
  years	
  in	
  prison,	
  including	
  theft	
  and	
  fraud.	
  	
  Class	
  E	
  is	
  the	
  lowest	
  felony	
  
charge,	
  including	
  contempt,	
  mischief,	
  and	
  possession	
  of	
  stolen	
  goods,	
  and	
  typically	
  carry	
  up	
  to	
  4	
  years	
  in	
  
prison.	
  	
  People	
  convicted	
  in	
  these	
  classes	
  typically	
  receive	
  probation.	
  
xxiv	
  Class	
  A	
  Misdemeanors	
  carry	
  up	
  to	
  1	
  year	
  in	
  jail.	
  	
  Often	
  a	
  fine	
  is	
  paid.	
  	
  Common	
  Class	
  A	
  is	
  possession	
  of	
  a	
  
controlled	
  substance	
  in	
  7th	
  degree	
  (residue),	
  leaving	
  the	
  scene	
  of	
  an	
  accident,	
  3rd	
  degree	
  assault	
  (minimal	
  
injury).	
  
Class	
  B	
  Misdemeanors	
  carry	
  up	
  to	
  3	
  months	
  in	
  jail.	
  	
  Usually	
  a	
  fine	
  is	
  paid.	
  	
  Common	
  charges	
  are	
  5th	
  degree	
  
marijuana	
  (sale/possession),	
  3rd	
  degree	
  trespass,	
  prostitution,	
  3rd	
  degree	
  menacing,	
  possession	
  of	
  graffiti	
  
instruments.	
  
Violations	
  are	
  not	
  considered	
  crimes	
  and	
  do	
  not	
  give	
  someone	
  a	
  criminal	
  record.	
  	
  They	
  include	
  disorderly	
  
conduct,	
  2nd	
  degree	
  harassment,	
  trespass,	
  public	
  intoxication,	
  loitering,	
  and	
  possession	
  of	
  marijuana.	
  
Further	
  barriers	
  (TSAP,	
  Appendix,	
  p.5)	
  include	
  drug	
  use	
  (without	
  a	
  conviction)	
  ineligibility	
  can	
  be	
  overcome	
  
by	
  providing	
  written	
  verification	
  from	
  a	
  state-­‐licensed	
  drug	
  treatment	
  agency	
  that	
  the	
  person	
  has	
  been	
  drug-­‐
free	
  for	
  12	
  consecutive	
  months	
  and	
  a	
  current	
  clean	
  toxicology	
  report.	
  	
  

	
  
62	
  

	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
Ineligibility	
  periods	
  do	
  not	
  commence	
  with	
  the	
  prohibited	
  activity	
  (Id.),	
  they	
  commence	
  from	
  the	
  date	
  NYCHA	
  
finds	
  them	
  ineligible.	
  	
  For	
  example,	
  one	
  who	
  has	
  waited	
  three	
  years	
  since	
  the	
  activity	
  to	
  apply,	
  may	
  need	
  to	
  
await	
  another	
  three	
  years	
  from	
  the	
  date	
  of	
  application	
  denial.	
  
xxv	
  Providence	
  Housing	
  Authority,	
  Dept.	
  of	
  Housing	
  Mgmt.	
  Plan	
  Ch.	
  8.2.2.	
  
xxviId.,	
  Sec.	
  6.7.1,	
  page	
  6-­‐18.	
  
xxvii	
  DHA	
  Administrative	
  Plan	
  for	
  HCVP	
  (10/2011),	
  at	
  51.	
  	
  DHA	
  has	
  accepted	
  public	
  comments	
  for	
  a	
  revision	
  to	
  
their	
  overall	
  Plan.	
  	
  Available	
  online	
  at:	
  
http://www.durhamhousingauthority.org/assets/Admin%20Plan%202011%20Final.pdf	
  
xxviii	
  DHA	
  ACOP	
  (08/25/2010),	
  Exhibit	
  3-­‐2,	
  page	
  3-­‐25.	
  	
  Misdemeanor	
  Assault,	
  Fraud,	
  Property	
  Damage,	
  
Trespassing	
  (1	
  yr);	
  Misdemeanor	
  larceny,	
  drug	
  possession,	
  felony	
  assault,	
  Breaking	
  and	
  Entering,	
  burglary	
  (3	
  
yrs);	
  drug	
  use,	
  drug	
  possession	
  w/intent	
  to	
  sell,	
  felony	
  fraud,	
  felony	
  larceny,	
  poss.	
  Weapon	
  on	
  school	
  grounds,	
  
arrest	
  or	
  conviction	
  where	
  posed	
  threat	
  to	
  DHA	
  staff/resident	
  (5	
  yrs);	
  drugs	
  trafficking	
  (10	
  yrs).	
  	
  	
  
xxix	
  Oakland	
  Housing	
  Authority,	
  ACOP,	
  Page	
  3-­‐19,	
  04/14/2006.	
  	
  	
  
xxx	
  	
  SAHA	
  2012	
  ACOP,	
  pp	
  96-­‐100,	
  
http://www.saha.org/aboutsaha/pdfs/Final%202012%20ACOP%20as%20of%20June%2012%202012.pdf	
  	
  
SAHA’s	
  policy	
  is	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  more	
  clear	
  policies.	
  	
  Although	
  the	
  look-­‐back	
  period	
  has	
  no	
  est	
  parameter,	
  the	
  
review	
  calls	
  for	
  a	
  clear	
  analysis	
  of	
  rehabilitation	
  and	
  reasonably	
  expected	
  future	
  conduct.	
  	
  Similarly,	
  SAHA	
  
will	
  not	
  put	
  the	
  crimes/addictions	
  of	
  one	
  upon	
  the	
  entire	
  family,	
  both	
  in	
  admissions	
  and	
  evictions.	
  
xxxi	
  MPHA	
  Applicant	
  Screening	
  Guidelines,	
  Appx	
  H,	
  available	
  online:	
  http://www.mphaonline.org/wp-­‐
content/uploads/2012/12/2012-­‐13-­‐SOP-­‐Appendix-­‐H.pdf	
  
xxxii	
  MN	
  is	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  national	
  leaders	
  in	
  usage	
  of	
  probation,	
  including	
  extremely	
  long	
  terms.	
  
xxxiii	
  Applicants	
  are	
  automatically	
  denied	
  for	
  certain	
  crimes,	
  including:	
  Misdemeanors,	
  drug	
  crimes,	
  burglary,	
  
prostitution	
  within	
  (2	
  years);	
  unlisted	
  felony	
  convictions	
  (3	
  years);	
  domestic	
  abuse,	
  robbery,	
  felony	
  drug	
  
crimes,	
  felony	
  assault	
  (5	
  years);	
  kidnapping	
  (7	
  years);sexual	
  assault,	
  arson,	
  armed	
  robbery,	
  4	
  or	
  more	
  
assaults	
  within	
  10	
  years	
  (10	
  years);	
  homicide	
  (20	
  years).	
  	
  Available	
  on	
  the	
  web:	
  
http://www.seattlehousing.org/housing/public/eligibility/	
  
This	
  does	
  not	
  include	
  time	
  spent	
  incarcerated;	
  it	
  is	
  unclear	
  how	
  this	
  relates	
  to	
  probation	
  or	
  parole.	
  	
  SHA	
  will	
  
deny	
  anyone	
  who	
  has	
  been	
  incarcerated	
  in	
  the	
  past	
  6	
  months	
  for	
  any	
  reason;	
  and	
  treats	
  Not	
  Guilty	
  verdicts	
  by	
  
reason	
  of	
  insanity,	
  or	
  diminished	
  capacity,	
  the	
  same	
  as	
  a	
  guilty	
  verdict.	
  	
  SHA	
  Manual,	
  Code	
  L10.4-­‐1,	
  Section	
  F,	
  
p.9-­‐10	
  (Rev.	
  07/01/10).	
  
See	
  also:	
  Seattle	
  Housing	
  Authority,	
  	
  Housing	
  Choice	
  Vouchers	
  Administrative	
  Plan	
  (11/2003),	
  Updated	
  
December	
  2012,	
  2-­‐7.	
  http://www.seattlehousing.org/residents/pdf/HCVP_AP_Chapter_2.pdf	
  
SHA	
  has	
  a	
  detailed	
  point	
  system	
  for	
  suitability	
  in	
  public	
  housing.	
  	
  Among	
  ways	
  to	
  earn	
  points	
  is	
  successful	
  
residency	
  in	
  transitional	
  housing;	
  see:	
  SHA	
  Manual,	
  Code	
  L10.4-­‐1,	
  p.6	
  (Rev.	
  07/01/10).	
  	
  
http://www.seattlehousing.org/residents/pdf/10-­‐4-­‐1_Suitability_Factors.pdf	
  	
  SHA	
  also	
  allows	
  for	
  “Sponsor	
  
Agreements”	
  for	
  those	
  lacking	
  the	
  suitability	
  history	
  to	
  qualify.	
  	
  Id.,	
  at	
  7-­‐8.	
  
xxxiv	
  SHA	
  allows	
  for	
  medical	
  marijuana	
  use,	
  as	
  an	
  accommodation	
  for	
  residents’	
  disability.	
  	
  All	
  other	
  marijuana	
  
use,	
  on	
  or	
  off	
  premises,	
  is	
  cause	
  for	
  eviction.	
  	
  SHA	
  Manual,	
  L11.1-­‐3	
  
http://www.seattlehousing.org/residents/pdf/11-­‐1-­‐3_Eligibility_For_Continued_Occupancy.pdf	
  
Washington	
  state	
  passed	
  a	
  law	
  that	
  renders	
  marijuana	
  similar	
  to	
  alcohol	
  for	
  personal	
  use.	
  	
  Parts	
  of	
  the	
  federal	
  
government	
  have	
  refused	
  to	
  recognize	
  any	
  changes	
  in	
  marijuana	
  laws,	
  however	
  U.S.	
  Department	
  of	
  Housing	
  
and	
  Urban	
  Development	
  (HUD)	
  defines	
  medical	
  marijuana	
  which,	
  when	
  prescribed	
  by	
  a	
  physician	
  to	
  treat	
  a	
  
serious	
  illness	
  such	
  AIDS,	
  cancer,	
  or	
  glaucoma,	
  is	
  legal	
  under	
  State	
  law.	
  	
  (Id.)	
  
xxxv	
  Denver	
  Housing	
  Authority	
  Admissions	
  and	
  Occupancy	
  Terms	
  and	
  Policies	
  (2)	
  revised	
  8-­‐17-­‐11,	
  Generally,	
  
including	
  Section	
  8,	
  at	
  23-­‐27.	
  	
  Available	
  at:	
  
http://www.denverhousing.org/aboutus/agencyplan/Documents/Admissions%20and%20Occupancy%20T
erms%20and%20Policy%20revised%208-­‐17-­‐11.pdf	
  	
  DHA	
  permits	
  mitigating	
  circumstances,	
  but	
  does	
  not	
  
ensure	
  it	
  will	
  override	
  the	
  uncertain	
  bar.	
  
xxxvi	
  Any	
  reference	
  to	
  medical	
  marijuana,	
  or	
  other	
  marijuana	
  usage,	
  could	
  not	
  be	
  found	
  in	
  the	
  policy.	
  
xxxvii	
  Particularly	
  looking	
  at	
  criminal	
  activity	
  against	
  a	
  person	
  (7	
  yrs),	
  property	
  crime	
  conviction	
  (5	
  yrs),	
  any	
  
violent	
  or	
  drug	
  related	
  criminal	
  activity.	
  	
  Id.,	
  at	
  29.	
  
xxxviii	
  HACLA	
  ACOP	
  (04/03/12),	
  at	
  16-­‐17.	
  	
  http://www3.lacdc.org/CDCWebsite/uploadedFiles/HM/ACOP.pdf	
  
HACLA	
  considers	
  it	
  a	
  lease	
  violation,	
  subject	
  to	
  3	
  days	
  notice	
  of	
  eviction,	
  to	
  have	
  a	
  controlled	
  substance	
  in	
  
their	
  system,	
  on	
  or	
  off	
  the	
  premises.	
  	
  Id.	
  At	
  121.	
  	
  Use	
  of	
  a	
  controlled	
  substance	
  or	
  alcohol	
  is	
  considered	
  a	
  

	
  
63	
  

	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
“pattern”	
  by	
  3	
  or	
  more	
  incidents	
  in	
  12-­‐month	
  period.	
  	
  Id.,	
  at	
  122.	
  	
  No	
  loitering	
  is	
  allowed	
  in	
  any	
  common	
  area	
  
of	
  the	
  premises,	
  defined	
  as	
  “when	
  a	
  person	
  delays,	
  lingers,	
  idles,	
  	
  or	
  remains	
  in	
  an	
  area	
  and	
  does	
  not	
  have	
  a	
  
lawful	
  purpose	
  for	
  being	
  there.”	
  	
  Id.	
  	
  At	
  151.	
  	
  Similar	
  language	
  was	
  held	
  unconstitutional	
  in	
  Chicago	
  and	
  New	
  
York	
  City.	
  	
  See:	
  Chicago	
  v	
  Morales,	
  527	
  U.S.	
  41	
  (1999).	
  
xxxix	
  HANO	
  ACOP,	
  Id.	
  

	
  
64

 

 

The Habeas Citebook: Prosecutorial Misconduct Side
Advertise Here 3rd Ad
PLN Subscribe Now Ad