[Dryerase] Housing aid

[Shawn G]

Asheville Global Report
www.AGRnews.org

Reprinting permitted for not profit organizations, and the Dry-Erase News 
Wire


Criminal background checks now required for housing aid

By Elizabeth Allen

Asheville, North Carolina, Sept. 17 (AGR)—  Families receiving Section 8 
housing vouchers are now required by federal law to have criminal background 
checks done by the local public housing authority (PHA) or the owner of the 
residence they are attempting to rent. The screening process is to prevent a 
family from receiving aid if any member of their family has a history of 
either drug-related or violent criminal activity. The PHA can decide if the 
record or incident warrants assistance, denial or eviction. According to 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations eviction can occur if the 
“preponderance of evidence indicates that a family member has engaged in 
such activity, regardless of whether the family member has been arrested.”
Section 8 housing vouchers are a type of federal assistance given to 
eligible needy families to allow them to rent a private residence and pay 
about 30% of their income, with the remainder being paid by the PHA.  
Criminal records checks raise concerns over the rights of those who are 
seeking housing assistance. The right to privacy is an issue because the 
histories of the families seeking assistance are brought to the attention of 
the property owners, the police and the PHA for no reason other than they 
have asked for help. In Tucson, Arizona, consumer advocate Willy Bils feared 
that search warrants will be easier to obtain and individuals easier to 
profile. Locally, homeowners considering renting to Section 8 families are 
encouraged to conduct home visits and to require a credit check, a criminal 
check, and landlord references.
Homeless families are of first priority for receiving aid, but may be denied 
due to previous criminal records. In 1987 a study conducted by the Urban 
Institute demonstrated that one third of the homeless population had spent 
time in alcohol or drug treatment and 29% of single homeless men had spent 
time in prison. Although dated, the study demonstrates that a large quantity 
of the homeless population has problems with drugs or has a criminal record. 
Also significant is that the study only showed how many homeless people had 
received treatment for drug problems, not the percentage that were dealing 
with drug problems. In order for people with histories of drug problems to 
qualify for Section 8 housing, they must be able to prove that they were 
addicted to a substance and have recovered, and may be required to prove 
they have been involved in a treatment program.
Angel, a homeless resident of Asheville commented, “By doing criminal 
background checks they are denying people who want to change their life … 
and then they end up in jail. I just think it’s dumb man, they are denying 
people who need it.”
John Smith, who is disabled and sleeps in a car, continued, “Hillcrest has 
fifty or more apartments empty, and they [the residents] are getting put out 
for no reason, minor things…. Too many people out here living in the streets 
when they should be living in a place.”
Cheri Honkala of the Kensington Welfare Rights Union (KWRU), based in 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said the drug screening has become a major 
obstacle for families trying to obtain housing. She pointed out that entire 
families are rejected and forever ineligible because one of the family 
members has chosen to sell drugs out of necessity, it being the highest 
paying job available and a particular temptation for youth. In his book Down 
and Out in America: the Origins of Homelessness, Peter Rossi describes the 
loss of industrialized, unionized employment in the US in the 1980s as 
leading to increasing numbers of individuals and families unable to afford 
housing. The KWRU is dealing with the problem by putting families in 
abandoned “hot” houses, where they are living day by day.
For Honkala, lack of access to housing rather than invasion of privacy is 
the most pressing issue.
“For poor people, our lives are about nothing but scrutiny, we are really 
used to constant invasion of privacy,” she said.
Her statement is reflected in the surveys conducted in 1969, 1980, and 1990 
by James Klugel and Elliot Smith, which showed the overwhelming majority of 
US citizens polled as holding individualistic explanations for poverty such 
as poor morals, work skills, or lack of effort or ability as opposed to 
structural explanations like lack of adequate schooling, low wages or lack 
of jobs. “As a result,” explained French social scientist Robert Castel in 
1978, “the politics of welfare center around the management of individual 
deficiencies.” In other words, rather than dealing with the causes of drug 
addiction, individual families are refused housing as punishment for 
drug-related activity. This denial of housing contradicts the statement 
found in the Asheville Housing Authority’s Tennant Handbook, which claims: 
“As a US resident you are entitled by law to safe and decent housing.”
The policy of evicting tenants whose family members or guests participated 
in “drug-related criminal activity” was challenged by four residents of 
public housing in Oakland, California who where evicted when their children, 
grandchildren, or hired caretakers where caught with drugs. They claimed 
they had no knowledge of the activity and asked if the statute requiring 
eviction included an “innocent owner” defense and if it does not, then it is 
an unconstitutional violation of Due Process rights. The statute in question 
was the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 which states that each “public housing 
agency shall utilize leases… provid[ing] that any drug related criminal 
activity on or off [federally assisted low-income housing] premises, engaged 
in by a public housing tenant, any member of the tenant’s household, or any 
guest or other person under the tenant’s control, shall be cause of the 
termination of tenancy.”
After state court eviction proceedings, the cases were appealed to the 9th 
Circuit District Court of Appeals which decided that the “innocent owner” 
defense was part of congressional intent and the tenants where entitled to 
housing. The cases were then appealed to the Supreme Court and decided in 
March of 2002 in HUD v.  Rucker. The Court opinion was delivered by Chief 
Justice Rehnquist, which all other members joined with the exception of 
Justice Breyer who took no part in the consideration or decision of the 
case.  The Court overturned the 9th Circuit Court’s decision saying that the 
inclusion of the word “any” in the statue meant all drug-related activity 
“regardless of whether the tenant knew, or had reason to know, of that 
activity,” is grounds for eviction. They went on to state that the statute 
is not a violation of Due Process; unjustly depriving a person of their 
property, because the government is acting as a landlord, invoking a clause 
in a lease which Congress has required and to which both parties agreed. In 
addition it’s “not attempting to criminally punish or civilly regulate 
respondents as members of the general populace.” This statute and decision 
has laid the groundwork for the legality of background checks and Section 8 
housing regulations. Locally, Section 8 applicants are put on a twelve- to 
eighteen-month-long waiting list to receive assistance and the background 
checks ensue once their name comes up. About 2 to 3 percent are rejected due 
to drugs, according to Section 8 caseworker Marjorie Scavella.
The wait itself hurts applicants because of the sheer length of time it 
takes. An Asheville resident, who didn’t want his name disclosed, explained 
that people with children in Department of Social Services custody are 
depending on housing in order to get their children back, and subsequently 
end up having to wait over a year just to get off the waiting list. Homeless 
applicants also have to deal with the wait while living on the street or in 
shelters.
Another homeless Asheville resident who wished to remain anonymous told 
about an incident with the Salvation Army shelter, which charges $60 a week. 
“After I paid they told me to take a drug test, and when I wouldn’t they 
kept the $60 and kicked me out. I went to Wal-Mart and bought a tent and 
sleeping bag and am staying in them. At least nobody can kick me out.”


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com