Bias Bars the Most Vulnerable from Subsidized Housing, Study Shows
A recent study by BU School of Social Work PhD Candidate Megan Smith (PhD’22) and Prof. Thomas Byrne reveals how screening inconsistencies can be devastating for those applying to government subsidized housing. “Housing is the bedrock of health and stability,” the authors say. “Despite this widespread recognition, it remains out of reach for the majority of households that so desperately need it.”
The study, “Locked Out: The Systematic Exclusion of Poor Renters From Federally Subsidized Housing,” reviewed the different criteria a variety of organizations use when denying applications and discovered that the criteria suffered from a variety of issues:
- Far exceeding federal mandates and leaving much to the discretion of the individual reviewer
- Significant variances between housing developments and organizations overseeing the application review process
- Lacking transparency and clarity that would have otherwise assisted applicants in making more informed housing decisions
The result: a disproportionate amount of denials for applicants that have “historically been deemed unworthy of housing and social inclusion more broadly, including the very poor, people of color, and people with disabilities, particularly those relating to substance use.”
Going Above & Beyond Federal Mandate
The federal government has outlined four categories that result in automatic denial from federally subsidized housing:
- An eviction in the last 3 years from federally assisted housing for drug-related criminal activity
- Current engagement in illegal drug use
- A pattern of illegal drug use interfering with other residents
- Their name is on the lifetime sex offender registry
These specific guidelines are often not the reason applications are denied. In fact, “housing providers have latitude to expand the grounds for denial included in their admissions policies,” the authors explain. “Affordable housing providers make broad use of their discretion in making admissions and denials decisions, creating ambiguity and inconsistency for and between applicants.” Three areas where these discrepancies are most prevalent is credit, criminal, and landlord history; some housing providers looked back as far as 10 years.
Often, these subjective criteria also do not take into account the intersectionality of these factors. “These policies reflect the actuarialism of present-day neoliberalism: individuals are segmented— segregated—on the basis of their perceived criminal and/or financial risk. The experiences that constitute grounds for denial are associated with poverty and membership in racialized and other marginalized groups: a person who is Black and poor is more likely to become entangled in the criminal legal system.”
Lacking Clarity about Applicant Evaluation Process and Results
Even considering the wide range of criteria applicants must meet to be approved for subsidized housing, the opportunities for applicants to understand and consider the criteria are severely limited. The authors themselves shared their difficulties in gathering basic information from housing developments. The study’s seemingly small sample size (37% of subsidized housing developments in Rhode Island) was due to a lack of response from the developments in question: “The non-responsiveness of PHAs to the public records requests underscores the systematic lack of compliance with legal and policy mandates in this area,” say the authors. ““Future research will need to apply more aggressive and resource-intensive strategies —including litigation—to obtain plans from private [housing] developments.”
An application’s lack of transparency can also be lost in translation. For example, a term like “criminal activity” can take on a myriad of definitions depending on the development’s interpretation. Some consider “violent criminal activity,” while others include any use of the word “arrest.” Those who are rejected may also assume that criteria is identical across developments and not apply elsewhere. As a result, applicants cannot strategize where they can or should apply for subsidized housing.
Future Research & Action
The authors note that this research is limited to one Northeastern state and that more research is needed to draw more accurate conclusions on subsidized housing accessibility. Regardless, the trends seen here suggest two main points of intervention:
- Revising application criteria to have more clear and inclusive language
- Increasing oversight and transparency
Most blatantly, the study recommends that the number of subsidized housing units be increased and the number of barriers to access be reduced. “Given what is known about the social and health impacts of housing and the intersecting forms of oppression faced by those excluded from it, these reforms stand to improve the wellness of the prospective/actual tenants, as well as move toward a more equitable housing landscape locally and nationally.”