"Working to
Build A Better Community"
"The
probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not deter us from the
support of a cause we believe to be just."
~ Abraham Lincoln
EX-OFFENDER HOUSING DISCRIMINATION
THE BIG PICTURE: REALITY IN THE U.S.
THE REALITY IN MASSACHUSETTS
THE LAW IN MASSACHUSETTS
Types of Housing and CORI
Admissions and Appeals
Application
of the Law
COMMUNITY RESOURCES IN
MASSACHUSETTS
APPLICATION OF THE LAW
PROGRAMS IN OTHER STATES
Application of the Law
▼PROBLEMS
WITH THE CORI SYSTEM /
▼AUTOMATIC
INITIAL REJECTIONS /
▼MAKING
CORI JUDGMENTS /
▼PROCEDURAL
PROBlEMS FACING EX-OFFENDERS
/ GLOSSARY
From theory to
practice. This section
outlines some of the realities of how the administration of affordable
housing works with regard to application criteria and criminal record
checks. Through interviews with five public housing authorities and other
experts, various issues surfaced regarding how the application and appeals
process for affordable housing works in relationship to the black letter of
the law.
The first set of problems that exist in practice stem from the inadequacies
of the CORI system itself. The second set of issues relate to the broad
discretion Housing Authorities have to make judgments regarding the
suitability of an application based on the criminal offenses contained a
CORI report. A third set of problems relates to specific procedural
issues for ex-offenders.
PROBLEMS
WITH THE CORI SYSTEM
An
examination of how criminal record requirements apply to public housing
admissions processes must begin with an examination of the CORI record
system. Because PHAs are required to check CORI reports in making
admissions decisions, the accuracy and readability of those reports is
essential for making accurate and just judgments. A variety of criticisms
of the CORI system were raised by interviewees working at PHAs:
§ CORI reports are hard to read and consist of a string of acronyms and database abbreviations. A five page list of abbreviation translations is necessary to read the reports accurately. Judgments may be made based on an mistaken interpretations of CORI reports.
§ CORI reports sometimes contain information that is inaccurate. There are reported instances where offenses were attributed to the wrong person because the perpetrator of a crime used the applicant’s name as an alias. Offender records may be associated with the wrong individuals.
§ The CHSB may improperly prepare an applicant’s CORI report and in doing so include more information than that which pertains to convictions and pending cases. This may lead to an inaccurate assessment of the applicant’s criminal history.
 |
|
Multi-family Housing, Boston |
Things that
should not be on a CORI
Lisa Cammarata, Deputy
Director of the Lawrence Housing Authority, and Laureen Pizzi of the
Weymouth Housing Authority verified that dismissals often appear in a CORI
report. Although they understood that a dismissal was not supposed to be
considered in a determination of eligibility for housing, other PHA
administrators might not be aware of that fact or may not notice that in
fact a particular criminal offense included in the report was then
dismissed. When asked to examine a CORI report that included dismissals, at
least one PHA administrator failed to recognize the fact that because the
offenses were dismissed, they should not have been included in the report to
begin with.
Pizzi acknowledged that indeed sometimes mistakes occur
on an applicant’s CORI report. In particular, she noted that the offenses
committed by one person appeared on the CORI report of another. Mistakes
of identity are often attributed to database entry errors whereby, for
example, the incorrect mixture of records for offenders with the same last
name, the same name distinguished with a “senior” or “junior” designation,
or a false name given as an alias, takes place.
Cammarata noted that many applicants in the appeals process simply dispute
their criminal record as it appears on the CORI report, stating that the
information is inaccurate. Without the time or ability to investigate
further, administrators like Cammarata are compelled to take the CORI report
as an accurate portrayal of the applicant’s criminal past.
This research points out the
utmost importance of CORI report accuracy in order to ensure that an
applicant is not denied housing because of a mistake of fact.
AUTOMATIC
INITIAL REJECTIONS
Every
PHA interviewed used the same basic admissions process regarding criminal
record checks and initial rejections. All PHAs interviewed did a
CORI check for every applicant. Where applicants had CORI reports, regardless
of what those reports actually said, those applicants were rejected and
sent letters stating that they were rejected because of their criminal
records, and that the applicant could appeal his or her denial by showing
mitigating factors in an interview.
This practice may fall
within the legal requirements of allowing an applicant to demonstrate
mitigating factors to show that he or she has changed and was in fact
a suitable prospective tenant. Although seemingly fair on its face,
this practice applies a procedural rule to all applicants in a way that
harms applicants with convictions which, upon cursory review, could be
interpreted as being threatening to other tenants. A past conviction
of an applicant who is now quite elderly or a conviction for a crime such
as uttering (bouncing a check and not paying the balance with the bank)
would automatically result in an initial rejection based on this cursory
standard of review.
By determining that mitigating circumstances are only presented upon appeal,
many applicants who are discouraged from making appeals are effectively
denied the opportunity to present mitigating circumstances. PHAs
could administer initial review procedures prior to an appeal which allow
for an initial judgment of whether a CORI report raises safety and future
criminal activity concerns, and/or a review of mitigating circumstances
which put an applicant’s criminal record in a larger context of his or
her rehabilitation and reintegration with society.
 |
| Multi-family Housing, Lawrence |
MAKING
CORI JUDGMENTS
Under both state and federal regulations PHAs are given broad discretion
in making determinations about an applicant’s suitability for tenancy.
While a PHA administrator’s goal of ensuring tenant safety through exercise
of this discretion is extremely worthy, the PHA’s discretionary authority
to deny applicants for any variety of crimes that the reviewer thinks
might be adverse to other tenants or staff, may be overly broad.
Standards. Although PHAs must adhere to state and federal regulation standards for issuing rejections, those standards are broad enough for a PHA to easily justify its decision to deny a wide range of applicants housing based on a record showing a wide range of crimes. While, for example, a CORI report includes a variety of convictions committed by the applicant on certain corresponding dates, there are no standards to guide the PHA as to which offenses to ignore if, for example, they were committed prior to a certain past date. As a result, each PHA will use its discretion in interpreting the relevance of convictions based on the dates that they took place. Different standards will guide the acceptance and denial of ex-offender applications for housing by PHAs.
Time frame. Cammarata noted that she was not aware of any time specifications that PHAs were supposed to use in making judgments and used no distinct cut-off dates that would exclude a CORI conviction because it was too far in the past. Other PHA administrators indicated that no attention was paid to conviction dates whatsoever. Administrators of the Boston Housing Authority noted that they considered all convictions regardless of how far in the past they occurred. Michelle Cannon, who directs Section 8 housing at the Cambridge Housing Authority, on the other hand, noted that the PHA only looked at crimes committed in the past five years when making determinations on housing applications.
Disqualifying elements. Louise Galante, Executive Director of the Milton Housing Authority, and Chairperson of the Southeast Housing Authority Executive Director’s Association, stated that a conviction for a violent crime like murder (or assault and battery, or rape) would probably disqualify a person’s housing application regardless of mitigating circumstances. She noted that another PHA Director denied a convicted murderer’s housing application even though the applicant was now an elderly person who had served his prison time. She noted that each Housing Agency will make its own decisions to suit its particular circumstances and in doing so to ensure the safety of other program participants.
Cammarata of the Lawrence Housing Authority stated that about 10 percent of housing applicants are rejected because of CORI. Of all the applicants who are rejected and who then appeal, about half were then rejected because of their CORI reports. Cammarata decides many appeals and states that very rarely does an applicant submit enough information regarding mitigation circumstances to convince her that he or she would not present a problem as a tenant if admitted. Although some applicants have appealed their denial with the DHCD, Camaratta states that her decision to reject an appeal because of a CORI report has never been overturned. There are currently two or three pending appeals at the DHCD based on CORI rejections.
Appeals. Where Cammarata has in fact overturned an initial rejection in an appeal, the applicant provided overwhelming proof of his or her reform as an individual. One applicant came to the appeal with a handful of recommendation letters from community leaders, city officials and church ministers. These letters declared that the applicant was reformed and would not pose a threat as a tenant. In that case, Cammarata decided to “take a chance” on the applicant.
Routine rejections. Ms. Cannon of Cambridge Housing Authority similarly stated that applicants with CORI reports, even those that include only relatively minor crimes, are routinely rejected. She noted that her office will routinely overturn initial admissions rejections upon an appeal. She noted that successful appellants usually come to the appeal with letters of recommendation from employers, parole officers, church leaders and the like.
In Milton, Galante was presented with evidence from an applicant who had a drug-related criminal record. The applicant came with letters of recommendation regarding his participation in a drug rehabilitation program and this was enough for Galante to make a final decision to admit the participant.
Pizzi, who considers appeals in Weymouth, stated that she has never overturned a decision to reject an applicant convicted for a sexual assault, weapons charge, or illegal drug charge. She explained that the types of cases she is most likely to overturn are for applicants with CORI reports including alcohol-abuse related crimes such as driving under the influence. In those cases, she looks for proof that the person has successfully completed a rehabilitation program, has employment and has otherwise successfully reintegrated into society.
Cammarata stated that the majority of applicants with a CORI record were single and without family. In her Single Resident Occupancy (SRO) program, which is run through the local Young Men and Women Catholic Associations, she stated that the PHA continuously denies applicants due to their criminal backgrounds.
Based on the above research, the prospect that an ex-offender will be admitted to a public housing program is bleak. The fact that a single ex-offender, who is straight out of prison, is not able to get a SRO unit during a critical period of transition from prison, highlights the essential role that half-way houses play in filling the housing gap. Moreover, if the state wishes to exclude all criminals from public housing even after they have served time and in some cases been out of prison for some time, then there is certainly a call to provide other forms of public housing. To learn more about different forms of community resources for ex-offenders and their re-entry, click here.
Double jeopardy. According to Mac McCreight, of Greater Boston Legal Services, applicants encounter another problem with the Section 8 voucher program in particular. A PHA in one community may look at the applicant's CORI, and decide to accept the applicant notwithstanding the CORI. However, when that applicant cannot find housing in that community, and instead finds a unit in a different community the original PHA may not be willing or able to administer the subsidy there. Thus the PHA in the second community will administrate the voucher and is permitted to review again the CORI report. The second PHA cannot, however, delay approval of the lease pending a CORI review. (A number of PHAs did do such delays, but HUD issued a letter saying that such delays are not permitted.)
After the tenant has signed a lease, the second PHA may decide that it doesn't like the CORI, and issue a termination notice. The effect of this is not only that the tenant can't hold a lease in that community, but that the Section 8 is cancelled entirely. It is therefore essential for voucher holders to determine whether the PHA in the second community is likely to approach their CORI negatively -- particularly if it is a potentially disputable CORI upon which a PHA could make a decision to deny housing. The inherent difficulty in doing so presents a problem for ex-offender applicants.
Procedural
Problems Facing EX-Offenders
Because
the housing application and appeals process is complex and time consuming,
ex-offenders may face substantial hardships.
 |
|
Fayette Street, Cambridge |
Notice. Even though every public housing applicant has a right to receive notice as to the reasons that he or she was declared ineligible for housing, applicants may not exercise their right to have that information because they are unaware of the right. Many applicants probably do not know that PHAs and private owners must allow applicants to show mitigating circumstances before their applications are denied. Applicants may assume that a decision taking into account mitigating circumstances was already made at the time of the initial review of their application. Application forms for housing include a few lines for applicants to offer evidence of mitigating circumstances. From this, applicants are unlikely to understand that the appeals process is the only way to offer mitigating circumstances and have them fully considered.
Mitigating circumstances. The applicant’s right to show mitigating circumstances highlights the importance of ex-offenders’ role in keeping documentation that may excuse any practices, behaviors, or previous conduct. The more the applicant presents him or herself in a positive light, the easier it will be for the decision-maker(s) to determine that the applicant is eligible for housing. Given that PHAs will undoubtedly run a CORI check, the applicant should present criminal history and mitigating circumstance information as part of his or her original application, rather than waiting for the PHA/Private landlord to solicit the supporting documents as later amendments.
Credibility. Again, despite the imbalance in power and perceived-credibility between an applicant and the PHA/Private landlord, ex-offenders may still prevail in the housing application process if they can provide supporting laudatory documentation from probation/parole officers, wardens, supervisors, employers, etc. in order to demonstrate mitigating circumstances. Jesus Madera, a public housing applicant, rebutted the Springfield Housing Authority’s declaration that he was ineligible for housing due to mental health reasons, by submitting letters on his behalf from his psychiatrist as well as a supervisor from a treatment program that he attended.
Appeals take time. Ex-offenders may be deterred from appealing an adverse housing decision given the amount of time that the appeals process can take. When following the appeals procedures correctly, it can easily take anywhere from several weeks to a few years to obtain eligibility from a PHA or private landlord, where an original decision is overturned.
In the interim, while an appeal is pending, an ex-offender may either be, or become homeless while trying to find housing through one of the Federal or state housing programs. Where this is likely, the time required to engage in the appeals process may make doing so seem unrealistic. Although an applicant may be eligible for a transitional housing program, relief may not be immediate, and ultimately, eligibility through state or Federal housing programs may still be denied. One applicant, Samuel Yegsigian, was homeless for almost a month during his appeal process, and ultimately, the court upheld the director of the Worcester Housing Authority’s decision to deny his application.
To make matters worse, if an ex-offender also happens to be the provider for his or her family, the appeals process may seem even more time-consuming and risky. Coupled with the many social and legal barriers and stigmas that ex-offenders experience after their release from prison, these additional road-blocks can often lead to helplessness and hopelessness associated with higher incidences of recidivism among ex-offenders. Because of the many factors that may complicate the entire appeals process, ex-offenders need to utilize community resources to ensure that they have exhausted all possible and available resources and remedies.