"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
COMMUNITY RESOURCES IN
MASSACHUSETTS
PROGRAMS IN OTHER
STATES
REFORM Recommendations
▼legal
recommendations for improving cori /
▼legal
recommendations for improving access to affordable housing /
▼public
policy recommendations /
▼recommendations
for ex-offenders
/ GLOSSARY
The Bottom Line. Three categories of recommendations follow.
1) Legal recommendations regarding CORI and housing law;
2) Public policy recommendations to increase resources for ex-offenders in the re-entry process;
3) Recommendations for ex-offenders as they contemplate the application and appeals process for publicly supported affordable housing.
LEGAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Legal Recommendations for Improving the CORI System
§ Simplify CORI. Make CORI reports easier to understand. Currently, the Criminal History Systems Board (CHSB) generates CORI reports that consist of a string of convictions with abbreviated codes to indicate various fields. Instead of generating arcane technical reports, the CHSB should be charged and funded to produce easily understandable reports with recommendations regarding judgment.
§ Review your CORI. Allow the applicant to review his or her CORI before it reaches the Public Housing Authority (PHA). Because reports may contain inaccuracies, an applicant should be able to review his or her CORI report to ensure that it is an accurate portrayal of his or her criminal history.
§ CORI accuracy. Make CORI reports a more accurate representation of an individual’s criminal history. In its present form, a CORI report consists of court records only up to a criminal conviction, exclusive of that person’s behavior after that point. CORI reports should include verified efforts by individuals to prove their good behavior as well as documentations of their actions toward self-rehabilitation. By integrating reports and recommendations from prison superintendents, educators, and parole officers, the CORI will be a far more accurate snapshot of the ex-offender at a given point in time.
Legal Recommendations for Improving Housing Authority Admissions Standards
§ Initial Judgments and mitigating factors. As currently administered, PHAs automatically reject applicants regardless of the content of their CORI reports, and without an initial judgment of whether an offense would be predictive of tenant unsuitability. Moreover, applicants are not given the opportunity to explain mitigating circumstances such as rehabilitation and reintegration into society that might reveal their suitability for tenancy in the initial screening.
PHAs send an applicant a letter of rejection and specify that the applicant has the right to appeal in order to then show mitigating circumstances. This process will undoubtedly mean that some applicants will not appeal because they assume that an appeals process is either lengthy, biased against them, creating problems or otherwise unlikely to lead to success. In this way the practical opportunity for many applicants to access affordable housing is reduced.
As they currently function, PHAs may meet the legal requirements for review of mitigating circumstances; those legal requirements should be statutorily reworded to require an initial determination of whether offenses raise tenancy suitability concerns and review of mitigating circumstances at the time of the first application rather than at the time of appeal.
§ Procedural consistency. Require PHA administrators to make judgments on CORIs more systematically. Training requirements for administrators to make proper criminal record judgments may help to prevent potential abuse of discretion by PHAs. If PHAs are required to report rejections based on CORIs and also demonstrate that mitigating factors of the applicant’s circumstances have been considered, this may help prevent abuse of discretion.
|
By barring ex-offenders from public housing, the government is passing along the responsibility of facilitating ex-offenders’ re-entry to private landlords. Doing so, however, may have devastating effects for ex-offender’s successful re-entry and exacerbate factors that can lead to recidivism. |
§ Eliminate misleading questions on applications. Stop the practice of requiring applicants to state whether they have been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor on the application. This requirement puts the applicant in a problematic position. The applicant may not know that a misrepresentation of the truth can result in a denial. If the PHA is required to do a criminal background check on the individual regardless, the individual should not be asked whether he or she has been convicted of a crime. This holds particularly true if the applicant’s mitigating circumstances will not be considered until the appeals process anyway.
§ Eliminate questions about mitigating circumstances on applications where they are not actually considered. Unless they are actually used in the initial decision process, prevent PHAs from collecting a description of the mitigating circumstances for admitted crimes on the initial housing application. This portion of the application may convince an applicant that the mitigating factors were considered in the initial rejection, thus discouraging them from appealing their rejection because of a CORI report.
§ Increase efficiency. Increase efficiency on behalf of the PHA and applicants by creating state centralized waiting lists for housing, at least for Section 8 vouchers. Applicants’ initial applications could be placed on a waiting list for tenant-based vouchers available to be used anywhere in the state. An applicant could also indicate his or her willingness to live in particular communities for non-mobile, project based and publicly owned housing programs. The Massachusetts chapter of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (MassNAHRO) has already begun a successful centralized Section 8 waiting list system for Southeast Massachusetts, which could be used as a model. For information about this system, and to view the MassNAHRO website, please click here.
PUblic Policy recommendations
State and federal housing admissions requirements prevent most ex-offenders
from obtaining affordable public housing. It is evident that increased
state resources need to target housing for ex-offenders in order to enable
successful re-entry and facilitate community harmony. By barring
ex-offenders from public housing, the government is passing along the
responsibility of facilitating ex-offenders’ re-entry to private landlords.
Doing so, however, may have devastating effects for ex-offender’s successful
re-entry and exacerbate factors that can lead to recidivism. To
address this problem the state should focus on the following recommendations:
§ Bolster transitional support system. Adoption of a state-driven, overarching, predictable system of transitional assistance for offenders would help them gradually re-integrate into mainstream society. This recommendation goes hand-in-hand with legal recommendations for sentencing reform.
§ Include ex-offenders in designing transitional programs. Ex-offenders know the challenges ex-offenders face in re-entry. Many ex-offenders have also become staunch, highly informed and committed advocates of ex-offenders throughout re-integration. There is no policy justification for not including ex-offenders in shaping re-entry programs.
§ Fund transitional programs. The state should invest in increasing numbers of transitional programs including pre-release and work-release centers. Such programs already exist, but more are needed. These programs need to be incorporated as part of the overall correctional system rather than special programs that rely on temporary grants. Washington D.C. has a new strategy that represents an ambitious restructuring of previous re-entry programs. To view the Programs in Other States page, please click here.
§ Collect improved data. Adoption of a comprehensive system of data collection and management by the state in order to more effectively track the re-entry success of inmates and ex-offenders. In order to build on existing programs or gauge specific areas of need, the state needs more empirical data to ascertain what happens with inmates once they are released.
§ Improve coordination between services and programs. Better coordination of resources and programs within state correctional facilities. This includes coordination both within the MA Department of Corrections, within the county correctional facilities, and between the two branches. Some very positive work is being done in various units of various correctional facilities, but this work seems to lack a common sense of mission and cohesive program goals that encompass both state and county efforts.
§ Reform sentencing guidelines. The state should reform sentencing guidelines that currently restrict inmates from taking part in transitional programs especially in medium- to maximum-security prisons. The classification system as well as correctional facility guidelines should be reviewed to allow all inmates to access transitional assistance.
§ Enable community outreach. More community outreach on the part of correctional facilities. There should be a better system of recognizing existing community resources, both individuals and organizations, and linking them with prisoners in need prior to their release. Such connections respond to the concern, that once released, it is the community that “owns” the ex-offender rather than the Corrections Department.
§ Shift public sentiment. An effort led by public officials and community activists to shift public sentiment from punishment and corrections to rehabilitation and reform. The idea is that once the public understands that the corrections system as it stands does not prevent recidivism, there may be more willingness to support initiatives to reform the correctional system in MA.
§ Housing for ex-offenders. A special housing program for ex-offenders needs to be developed to help them re-enter society. A special tenant-voucher program for willing landlords may be an effective approach to disperse ex-offenders into society and at the same time disperse the “risk” of housing ex-offenders to willing landlords. Similarly, Massachusetts could increase available housing for ex-offenders by creating tax incentives for organizations and individuals willing to create housing allocated to ex-offenders. Bonds could serve as insurance for those landlords willing to take such risks.
Recommendations for Ex-Offenders
Recommendations
for Applying for Public Housing
§ Be proactive. If you have been convicted of a crime and wish to get public housing assistance make sure that you include information in your application about how you have worked to reform yourself. In judging your application, a PHA will assume that even if you have re-paid society with your time in jail, you are still a danger to other tenants in any given housing situation. Essentially, the burden is on you to demonstrate that you have “turned over a new leaf,” and will not be a risk to a landlord’s property or to other tenants. Even if your application does not require it, attach to your housing application one or more of the following:
- Information verifying your participation in or completion of a drug-rehabilitation program;
- Information about medications you take that will prevent a re-occurrence of a violent outburst or crime;
- Testimonials or written recommendations from counselors or social service agencies documenting that you are capable of meeting all of the obligations and responsibilities of a tenant who will not substantially interfere with the rights and safety of other tenants or PHA employees.
§ Be honest when asked difficult questions. When asked on a housing application, always report that you have been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor. Regardless of your answer, the PHA will do a check on your criminal background, and if you answer incorrectly the PHA will have the right to reject your application simply because you did not state the truth.
§ Be persistent – apply, apply, apply. Apply for housing at as many PHAs as feasible. At each PHA your criminal background may be judged differently. Because each PHA has wide discretion in making its judgment of whether you are fit to be a tenant, one PHA may admit you while another may deny. Section 8 tenant-based housing vouchers can be used anywhere in the state. Thus, if you are accepted for the voucher program in a community far away from where you wish to live, you can still use that voucher in your community of choice.