Has your property/company stopped running criminal background screening?

I’m hearing that the Multifamily industry is moving away from performing any kind of criminal background checks on applicants.

Has your property/company stopped running criminal background screening?

Has this had an affect on leasing?
Reputation Mgmt?
How did existing residents react to the change?

WHAT?! The only thing I’ve seen to back this up would be when a manager (or company) gets desperate and hurts the property long term to get short term results.
Where are you hearing this? I’m curious!!
We are third party management and normally come in after this has happened and it takes months to undo the damage. Doing things right is worth the wait.

In Seattle proper you can't base upon criminal or income

Please explain can’t (I’m assuming) reject based on income. What DOES disqualify someone in Seattle now?

HUD guidelines say you shouldn’t do blanket denials based on criminal backgrounds
It’s also not desperate to be aware that a person without means to get a pricey lawyer for a minor non-violent drug charge 5 years ago is different than a person with a misdemeanor that should have been a felony and could make your community less safe
Further, the criminal justice system is VERY racist in practice, and blanket denials have a disparate impact on minorities

Not a chance.

Definitely keeping criminal background checks.

City of Seattle passed a law so that you can't check criminal records except sex offender

Still running them, but not so stringent requirements. HUD calls it "disparate impact"

No shot.

HUD says no more blanket statement in criminal criteria i.e "no felonies" they must now contain a time period and further description.

Kimberly Nowlin Doty exactly, that’s the rule our company is working off of in Ohio - it’s actually much more fare! Years ago I had to deny a gentleman with a 20 year old felony! Something this poor man did at 18 and had no record afterward, he was still paying for 20 years later!! That’s not right! So I was happy to see the removal of blanket statements.

In California, sex offenders are a protected class and criminal checks are no longer allowed. It creates disparate impact. AKA double jeopardy in the social court. If they have done the time for their crime, we cant continue judging them. We are also not the police or parole officers, so we cant tell them where they can or cannot live. If they meet the financial qualifications and rental history quals, they are approved. If the existing tenants dont like it, we explain we follow the law. So, we invite them to contact their lawmakers. Not really that big of a deal anymore. Been around for some time now.

HUD says NEVER accept sexual offenders.

blog.womenagainstregistry.org/hud-bans-h...QMP6KMLqE9KofCR2KDxY

HUD is federal. California law is what I follow. Which states we cant be judge, jury and executioner.

I really haven't ran into an issue with a sex offender, other than other tenants checking the Megan's Law website and coming to me when they discover their neighbor is a sex offender. I remind them that the law worked then. The registry worked. Now they know. If they choose to not live in our community, that's their right... but oh yeah, we're in a housing crisis. Best of luck.

We do 7 years post-convictions. I read that is or was HUDs recommendation for re-entry to society. You also can NEVER accept sexual predators. I want to stress the difference between states; your first DUI in Wisconsin is equivalent to a speeding ticket, no misdemeanor involved, while in Georgia, you do NOT get that same treatment. It takes multiples (5) in Wisconsin for a felony. I also think people who were given felony convictions for weed possession are of way less of a concern than assaults and armed robbery, yet they all get lumped in together.

we dont check any of it. And please keep in mind that a 19 year old busted for peeing in public is a sex offender, for life... so some laws are ridiculous. Keep an open mind about prospects. And dont limit your pool... try and say "yes" instead of looking to say "no".

I had to deny a disorderly conduct and have been working to change it.

In Seattle where I worked they stopped. We are only allowed to look at the sex offender register

I think a bill is going through in Texas to address this

HUD provided guidance for affordable housing in 2016 that cited the dispirate impact criminal background checks have, particularly on POC. The knowledge that POC are far more often stopped and cited for bs charges, makes it harder for them to find decent housing. HUD baiscally says Fair Housing provides protection for those who have something stupid like a disorderly conduct charge, but otherwise qualify for the housing. Meaning if that disorderly conduct is the ONLY reason you denied the applicant, it may be discriminatory.
This is what systemic racism looks like. And it's also what our country was built on.
To be clear, no one's saying you have to approve rapists and murders.
*Getting off my soapbox."

Right before I left California they were doing away with criminal background checks. Here in North Carolina we still do them.

I do understand background checks, and at times it has been my opinion that it has been beneficial - but it is definitely a flawed system/process that needs change. I think overall we do not want to create/own/manage etc communities that are filled with criminal activity and we hope that background checks will reduce the potential of criminal activity and increase safety but at the same time background requirements frequently disqualify people that in my opinion should not be disqualified. I think that it is a positive direction to be evaluating this issue and taking action to address it.

Detroit passed a ruling just this week that outlines when you can run a criminal background on the applicants. I am watching as it is in direct conflict with HUD guidance. The waitlist placement is now not allowed by local but mandatory by HUD.

are they saying that you can’t run it at all or that you can’t use blanket denial reasons?

You cant run it until after you have offered them a unit and they accepted. And, it needs to be added to our TSP and cant be asked on the application.

Good grief, ya'll. HUD in 2016 offered up a ruling on criminal checks. Do you know what disparate impact means? 80% of prisoners are black and Hispanic. So if we stop leasing based on criminal background, those protected classes will be negatively affected. And you cannot run a check based on arrests...they have to have been convicted. Based on Feds, you do not have to lease to those with sex crimes. Go to HUD website and read all of this, then you do have to know state laws as well.

In CT, there's a bill being passed through the legislature that would make criminal activity a protected class. This would make it illegal to discriminate against those with a criminal record. Yes, I know. It's freaking insane.

In California sex offenders are not a protected class.

There are only 7 officially protected classes: Race, Color, Religion, Sex, Handicap, Familial Status, and National Origin.

The trend happening right now has more to do with Disparate Impact - when common practices (such as criminal background checks) adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another. Essentially there is a higher rate of incarceration/criminal records for minorities within one or more of the protected classes, and the argument is that it makes using criminal background checks a type of discriminatory practice.

This does not mean that you may not use criminal records in your rental decision.

There might be newer requirements or restrictions as to how criminal records may be used depending on your location. Seattle implemented an ordinance within the city that specifically affects multifamily (affordable housing and single-family are unaffected) by placing restrictions on the use of criminal records, and requires a heavy burden of proof for the landlord if an adverse action is taken on the basis of sex offender records. The rest of the country is not this strict.

The current movement that's been gaining momentum is ban-the-box requirements where landlords/property managers will have to remove questions on the rental application inquiring about whether the applicant has a prior conviction. The goal of this change is to reduce applicant denials simply because a conviction exists on the applicant's record, regardless of taking into account the type, severity, and age of the conviction. If the application is complete enough to warrant the next step towards credit and background screening, then even applicants with some type of criminal record should have the opportunity to be considered for a property.

Keep an eye on what your state or city might be working on implementing, but be extremely cautious about believing anyone who says conducting background checks is completely prohibited. If your rental policy is written to provide no sway on all criminal records then consider revising your policy to be more specific about the types of convictions that pose a danger to your property and would result in a denial (violence, sex offenses, expensive property damage, etc.). Any areas you can be more accommodating for older convictions that may not be as relevant to the safety of your property would also be a positive change.