Section 8 Voucher Program Provisions
The provisions in Section 14(a) of H.R. 3045 would alter the voucher program only. First, the bill would restrict the elective screening process of public housing authorities to criteria “directly related” to the ability of the applicant to “fulfill the obligations of the assisted lease.” The bill makes clear, however, that the language does not prevent public housing authorities from rejecting an applicant due to past criminal activity, as mandated or permitted under the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (QHWRA). As a result, the clause would have little practical effect for individuals with a criminal record. (See below for changes to QHWRA). Second, SEVRA would mandate that a public housing authority consider mitigating factors before rejecting an applicant. Under current regulations, public housing authorities may, but are not required to, consider all of the relevant circumstances, including the seriousness of the offense and the effect of denial on family members not involved in the offense. 24 C.F.R. § 982.553(c)(2). Finally, the bill would protect tenants who receive enhanced vouchers from elective re-screening by public housing authorities.
Federally Assisted Housing Provisions
The provisions in Section 14(b) of H.R. 3045 would amend QHWRA, which applies to public housing, the voucher program, Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation, project-based Section 8, Section 202, 811, 221(d)(3), 236, 514, and 515 housing. 42 U.S.C. § 13664. Under the current statute, public housing authorities may deny an applicant who, within a reasonable time before the admission decision, engaged in violent criminal activity, drug related criminal activity, or “other criminal activity which would adversely affect the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents, the owner, or public housing agency employees.” 42 U.S.C. § 13663(c). First, SEVRA would eliminate the ability of a public housing authority to deny an applicant based on “other criminal activity,” leaving drug related or violent criminal activity “which would adversely affect the health, safety, or right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents, the owner, or public housing agency employees” as permissible grounds for denial. The original version of the bill would have prohibited public housing authorities from rejecting an applicant for a misdemeanor “unless such denial is based on a pattern of activity.” H.R. 3045, 111th Cong. (2009) (as introduced in the House). An amendment introduced to the Financial Services Committee by Representative Biggert of Illinois, however, enlarged the universe of misdemeanor offenses that may serve as permissible grounds for denial. As a result, the version of the bill reported to the House states:
“No denial of admission may be made pursuant to this subsection based on a misdemeanor charge and conviction unless such denial is based on a pattern of activity, the commission of any offense against a child (including child pornography offenses), the commission of any offense involving a child victim, the commission of a sexual assault, the commission of an assault, or the commission of violent, disruptive (as such term is defined by the Secretary), or illegal behavior that interferes with the right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents.”
Although the “disruptive” and illegal behavior” language seems broad, it is important to note that the clause limits the type of drug related or violent criminal activity that could disqualify prospective participants.
Second, SEVRA would remove the “reasonable time” language and allow public housing authorities to reject individuals based on criminal activity that occurred within the previous five years. The change would benefit prospective participants in jurisdictions where public housing authorities deny admission based on criminal activity that occurred over five years before the admission decision. Some public housing authorities, however, do not consider a criminal record over three years old. Because the clause sets five years as a ceiling as opposed to a floor, it would not force such public housing authorities to alter their admission policies. Finally, the bill would require “documented evidence that is credible and objective” to deny an applicant due to past criminal activity.
This page was supported in part by a grant from the Soros Justice Fellowships Program of the Open Society Institute.
