Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse tincidunt sagittis eros. Quisque quis euismod lorem.
In the realm of housing policy, particularly for tribal housing programs, a crucial question arises: How should cases be approached that involve leasing to individuals with criminal convictions? This blog delves into the nuances of the US Dept. of Housing andUrban Development (“HUD”) regulations and the options Tribes can look to implement to best serve their community and members.
The HUD Guidelines Explained
Under HUD guidelines, only a handful of specific crimes lead to a mandatory denial of housing:
There is no HUD mandatory prohibition for a tenant with a violent criminal history, nor a required look back window. If a tribal member does not meet one of these five criteria, then their housing application would fall under the discretionary review of the housing authority.These discretionary denials are:
These discretionary portions ofHUD’s guidelines are left intentionally vague, as it gives the housing authority the power to implement policies that are in the best interest of their community and is another example of Tribe’s exercising their inherent sovereignty and serve the interests of its members.
Tribal housing authorities face this question in higher percentages than nearly any other demographic in theUnited States. Looking to the data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, JailInmates in 2021 and Prisoners in 2021, American Indian and AlaskanNatives make up 763 of 100,000 people in state and federal prisons, and in jails it is a rate of 316 per 100,000 people. In comparison the national rates for prisons were 350 per 100,000 and for jails 192 per 100,000. As the numbers show, despite Native American/Alaskan Natives making up less than 3% of the United States’ population, they are double the national rate of incarcerated individuals.[1]
The over incarceration of Native peoples is a national crisis and is significantly worse in states such as SouthDakota where Natives make up 36% of the state’s prison population, while only being 8% of the state’s total population, it is a systemic problem that requires another article (or honestly an entire thesis) to properly address.Here in Oklahoma the percentage of Native prisoners was 9% of the total prison population, but this data is not accounting for those who identified as more than one race, which would likely result in a much higher percentage. [2]
[1]The data is hyperlinked in the numbers, however if the link does not work, please see: The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ Prisoners 2021 and JailInmates in 2021.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/p21st.pdf
https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/ji21st.pdf
Note that 2021 reports are used to be accurate with the 2020 Census population data.
[2] See Prisoners 2021, Appendix 1 Table.
However, this blog focuses on one of the difficult areas that Tribes can easily address – policy that allows those recently released to find housing upon release, or even years after the conviction. Successful policy usually includes one or more of the following:
Examples of Lenient and Restrictive Housing Policies
Tribes, States, and Municipalities vary widely in their approach to handling applicants with criminal records. Included in this blog post are a few examples that show more lenient or more restrictive policies.
1. Navajo Nation [1]
The Navajo Nation has strict mandatory denials for specific severe crimes, such as rape and murder. However, other offenses, including misdemeanor violent crimes, are assessed on a case-by-case basis, emphasizing rehabilitation programs and community support.
2. Yurok Tribe [2]
The Yurok Indian Housing Authority incorporates a twelve-month look-back for rental admissions, allowing case-by-case assessments. Their policy emphasizes the overall well-being of the community without an outright ban on violent crime convictions.
3. Blackfeet Nation[3]
The Blackfeet Housing policies focus on the health and safety of residents while considering the applicant’s history of criminal activity, particularly violent crimes. They assess each application holistically without a mandated look-back period.
4.Yakima Housing Authority[4]
In contrast, the Yakima HousingAuthority enforces a five-year look-back period for violent crime convictions, reflecting a stricter adherence to HUD's discretionary guidelines.
5.Louisiana Housing Corporation[5]
This non-tribal example shows a progressive approach with a structured look-back window for evaluating felony convictions, emphasizing individualized assessments based on various factors.
Conclusion: Navigating Policy Flexibility
By HUD leaving the discretionary denials so vague, it is intentionally offering Tribal housing authorities considerable discretion in formulating their approval policies to best fit the needs of their community. While some authorities adopt lenient practices to facilitate reintegration of convicted members, others prioritize community safety with stringent rules.
For the Tribal leaders there’s an opportunity to refine policies to better serve members who are finding it difficult to reintegrate within their community after serving time in a prison or jail. By considering changes to policy to incorporate look-back windows, the nature of convictions, or successful completion of rehabilitation programs, less Tribal members are likely to be denied housing and find themselves facing homelessness.
As housing authorities navigate these complex waters, a clear, consistent policy framework will be crucial for successful implementation. The ongoing dialogue between tribal needs and HUD regulations will shape the future of housing access for individuals with criminal histories, aiming to strike a balance between community safety and support for those seeking a fresh start and reintegrate with their Tribal community.
In conclusion, the challenge of balancing community safety with the need for equitable housing access for individuals with criminal convictions is a significant concern for tribal housing authorities. By leveraging the flexibility allowed within HUD regulations, tribal leaders have a unique opportunity to craft policies that reflect their community’s values and needs. Implementing thoughtful measures such as look-back periods, assessing rehabilitation efforts, and considering the broader implications of housing denial can foster an environment that supports reintegration rather than exclusion. As tribes navigate these complexities, ongoing dialogue and collaboration will be essential in developing a framework that not only safeguards community well-being but also extends compassion and second chances to those striving to rebuild their lives.The path forward must prioritize both accountability and opportunity, ensuring that tribal members have access to safe and stable housing as they work towards a brighter future.
[1]See Navajo HousingAuthority “Rental Admissions, Occupancy, Collection, Grievance and TerminationPolicies 2022-2023” https://content.myconnectsuite.com/api/documents/7f36d3f7c02a46bdbe1acc3dd5a5c1cb.pdf
[2]See Yurok Indian HousingAuthority (YIHA) Rental Admissions Policy https://cms9files1.revize.com/yurokhousingca/Rental%20Admission%20Full%20Document.pdf
[3]See Blackfeet Housing RentalAdmissions and Occupancy Policies https://blackfeethousing.org/downloads/bhrentandadmpolicies.pdf
[4]See YHA Policy, pages 3-31to 3-32 https://yakimahousing.org/site/files/file_manager/page/shared/HCV_S8%20Admin%20Plan%206.8.2020.pdf
[5]See LHC Memo: Fair Housing and Tenant Selection with Regard to Criminal Record Screening 7/14/21 https://www.lhc.la.gov/hubfs/Document%20Libraries/Housing%20Development/Compliance/Verifications/Fair%20Housing%20and%20Tenant%20Selection%20with%20Regard%20to%20Criminal%20Record%20Screening%20071421.pdf
Drop us a line.
