Item HA 03 - Update to the Housing Choice Voucher Administrative Plan

Home Browse Search

. Administrative Plan 7/1/2025 Page 3-21 PART III: DENIAL OF ASSISTANCE 3-III.A. OVERVIEW A family that does not meet the eligibility criteria discussed in Parts I and II, must be denied assistance. A PHA may deny assistance for an applicant because of the family’s action or failure to act as described in 24 CFR 982.552 or 982.553. In this section we will discuss other situations and circumstances in which denial of assistance is mandatory for the PHA, and those in which denial of assistance is optional for the PHA. While the regulations state that the PHA must prohibit admission for certain types of criminal activity and give the PHA the option to deny for other types of previous criminal history, more recent HUD rules and OGC guidance must also be taken into consideration when determining whether a particular individual’s criminal history merits denial of admission. When considering any denial of admission, PHAs may not use arrest records as the basis for the denial. Further, HUD does not require the adoption of “One Strike” policies and reminds PHAs of their obligation to safeguard the due process rights of applicants and tenants [Notice PIH 2015-19]. HUD’s Office of General Counsel issued a memo on April 4, 2016, regarding the application of Fair Housing Act standards to the use of criminal records. This memo states that a PHA violates the Fair Housing Act when their policy or practice has an unjustified discriminatory effect, even when the PHA had no intention to discriminate. Where a policy or practice that restricts admission based on criminal history has a disparate impact on a particular race, national origin, or other protected class, that policy or practice is in violation of the Fair Housing Act if it is not necessary to serve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest of the PHA, or if that interest could be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect [OGC Memo 4/4/16]. HUD codified this stance on disparate impact and discriminatory effects in a final rule dated March 31, 2023. In doing so, HUD also standardized its long-practiced three-step approach to assessing burdens of proof. PHAs who impose blanket prohibitions on any person with any conviction record, no matter when the conviction occurred, what the underlying conduct entailed, or what the convicted person has done since then will be unable to show that such policy or practice is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest. Even a PHA with a more tailored policy or practice that excludes individuals with only certain types of convictions must still prove that its policy is necessary. To do this, the PHA must show that its policy accurately distinguishes between criminal conduct that indicates a demonstrable risk to resident safety and property and criminal conduct that does not. EXHIBIT 1