Impact EvaluationStudyof theOaklandandBerkeleyFairChanceHousingOrdinancesPreliminarySurveyResults, November2024 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ResearchStudy: Impact EvaluationStudyof theOaklandandBerkeleyFair ChanceHousingOrdinancesutilizingMixedMethods PreliminaryResults: Surveydataof FormerlyIncarceratedhousingapplicantsinOakland&BerkeleyandHousingProvidersinOakland&Berkeley Principal Investigators: MargarettaLin, JD, MA, Project Scientist, UCBerkeleyInstituteof Urban&Regional Development; CharismaAcey, PhD, MPP, AssociateProfessor, UCBerkeleyDepartment of City&Regional Planning OtherResearchTeamMembers: DanLindheim, PhD, JD, MCP, MPH, UCBerkeleyGoldmanSchool of PublicPolicy; AukeemBallard, UCBerkeleySchool ofEducationPhDCandidate; GabySanchez, MPP, Just Cities; Cesar Garcia, BA,CommunityScholar, UCBerkeley; PrentissMayo, BA, CommunityScholar, UCBerkeley; PatriciaToscano, BA, CommunityScholar, UCBerkeley; Marshal Galvan,MSW, CommunityScholar, UCBerkeley; OmakaJohnson, BA, CommunityScholar,UCBerkeley ResearchProtocol ID: 2021-12-14912
Funders: AlamedaCountyProbationDepartment, Charles&LynnSchustermanFoundation 1 Impact EvaluationStudyof theOaklandandBerkeleyFairChanceHousingOrdinancesPreliminarySurveyResults, November2024 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
BACKGROUND
TheonlyplaceinAmericawhereoneisguaranteedaroof overtheirheadisinprison/jail. TheproposedFairChanceHousingOrdinancewill takestepstowardsaddressingthemajorintersectionof MassIncarcerationandHousingbarriers- BOTHresultingfrompoliciesandprogramsthat werecreatedand/orsanctionedbygovernment- locally, statewideandnationally. Inadditiontoconstitutingahumanright,housingisalsoaPublicHealthandPublicSafetyissue. Theimpact of havingacriminal recordseverelyharmsandimpactsthosewhohaveneverbeenarrested, includingthechildren, parents, partners, andlovedonesof thosewhoareformerlyincarcerated. Just ascriminal recordscannot anddonot striponeof thelegaldutyof payingtaxes, neitherlegallyshouldhavingacriminal recordstripanyoneof oneof themostquintessential elementsof humanrights- andthat ishousing.JohnJonesIII, Fair ChanceHousingCampaignDirector InJanuary2020, theOaklandCityCouncil adoptedaFair ChanceHousingOrdinance(FCHO) prohibitingtheconsiderationof criminal historiesinscreeningapplicationsfor rental housing. TheCityCouncilrequestedthat animpact evaluationstudybeconductedtoassesstheeffectivenessof theFCHO. Ourresearchteam, UCBerkeleyresearchersandCommunityScholarswhowereUCBerkeleyformerlyincarceratedstudents, wasformedtoconduct aresearchstudyof theOaklandFCHO, aswell asthesimilarordinancethat theCityof BerkeleyadoptedinFebruary2020. Thisreport containspreliminaryresultsfromsurveysconductedin2023and2024with97formerlyincarceratedindividualswhosought housinginOaklandandBerkeley, aswell assurveysconductedin2024with95OaklandandBerkeleyhousingproviders. Areport withfinal evaluationresultswill beavailableinsummer 2025.
TheCityCouncil’spublicpolicypurposesincluded: (1) increaseaccesstohousingfor formerlyincarceratedindividualsandtheir familymembers; (2) reducehomelessnessandfamilyseparationthat result fromblanketexclusionof housingapplicantsbasedsolelyoncriminal backgroundchecks; (3) reducerecidivismbyremovingstructural barrierstostablehousing; and(4) provideformerlyincarceratedpeoplewithafairopportunitytoreclaimtheir livesandeffectivelyintegrateintotheOaklandcommunity. 1 TheCityCouncil actionoccurredafter hearingpublictestimonyfrompeoplewithacriminal record, theirfamilymembers, andre-entryserviceprovidersregardingtheextensivebarrierstoaccessingall formsofhousing. Accesschallengesoccurredinbothpubliclysubsidizedandprivaterental housing, regardlessofincomeandemployment status. TheCityCouncil alsoheardabout theinabilityof peoplewithacriminalrecordtolivewithfamilymemberswhohadrental agreementsprohibitingthepresenceof someonewithacriminal record; thuscompromisingtheimportant re-entrystrategyof familyreunification.
TheCityCouncil reviewedfair chancehousingpoliciesadoptedbyother jurisdictions, includingonesthathadlessrestrictiverequirementsandpermittedtheuseof acriminal backgroundchecklater onintheprocess. TheCityCouncil alsoreviewedaccompanyingreportsandpublictestimonyregardingevidenceonwhyalessrestrictiveFair ChanceHousingpolicywouldbeinfeasibleandnot advancetheCity’spublicpolicygoals. Evidenceincludedreportsontheinaccuraciesandmisleadinginformationof criminal database 1 Cityof OaklandAgendaReport, Fair ChanceHousingOrdinance, January2, 2020. 2
Impact EvaluationStudyof theOaklandandBerkeleyFairChanceHousingOrdinancesPreliminarySurveyResults, November2024 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ recordsusedbyhousingprovidersandthat informationabout criminal recordswouldlikelybiasahousingprovider fromrentingtoaformerlyincarceratedapplicant.
SUMMARYOFFAIRCHANCEHOUSINGEVALUATIONSTUDY
TheFair ChanceHousingEvaluationStudy(FCHstudy) isfundedbyAlamedaCountyProbationDepartment andtheCharles&LynnSchustermanFoundation. LedbyUCBerkeleyprincipal investigatorsMargarettaLinandCharismaAcey, theFCHstudyutilizesmixedmethodsresearchtoexaminetheeffectivenessof theOaklandandBerkeleyFCHO. Theprimaryresearchquestionsare:
● Howandtowhat extent dofair chancehousingpublicpoliciesreduceracial andethnicdisparitiesinpost-releasehousingaccessfor formerlyincarceratedpeople?● Doeseliminatingtheabilityof housingproviderstoconduct criminal backgroundchecksresult inincreasedracial discriminationor other unintendedconsequencesbyhousingproviders?● What istheroleof raceand/or ethnicityinpost-releasereentryoutcomesinAlamedaCountyinrelationshiptoother mediatingfactorssuchasimmigrationstatus, familystatus, employment, incomelevels, andaccesstoservicesinaffectingreentryoutcomes?● What istheroleof hopeinracial andethnicdifferencesinrelationshiptoother mediatingfactorsincludinghousingandemployment accessanditseffect onreentryoutcomes? Thismixedmethodsstudyincludesbothqualitativeandquantitativeresearchmethods: conductingliteraturereview; twoyearsof surveysfrombothdiverseformerlyincarceratedindividualswhosought housinginBerkeleyandOaklandandBerkeleyandOaklandhousingproviders; interviewsandfocusgroupswithformerlyincarceratedindividuals, housingproviders, re-entryserviceproviders, andProbationofficers; andreviewof AlamedaCountyProbationdata. Surveyquestionswereinformedbyfocusgroupswithformerlyincarceratedindividualsutilizingtheprinciplesof CommunityBasedParticipatoryActionResearch, andanextensivereviewprocesswithfeedbackfromhousingprovider representatives. Animportant part of thesurveymethodologywastoreachracial/ethnic, age, gender, andincomediversityof formerlyincarceratedpeople, aswell astoreachamixof housingprovider types(publiclysubsidizedhousingprovidersversusprivaterental housingproviders, andsmall versuslarger housingproviders).
Formerlyincarceratedindividual surveyswereconductedthroughoutreachtore-entryprovidersincludingAlamedaCountyProbation, BerkeleyOaklandSupport Services(BOSS), All of Usor None, AsianPrisonersSupport Committee, andCommunitiesUnitedfor RestorativeYouthJustice(CURYJ). HousingprovidersurveyswereconductedthroughoutreachtotheCitiesof BerkeleyandOakland, theBerkeleyPropertyOwnersAssociation, andtheEast BayRental HousingAssociation. 3 Impact EvaluationStudyof theOaklandandBerkeleyFairChanceHousingOrdinancesPreliminarySurveyResults, November2024 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Demographicsof SurveysfromPeoplewithaCriminal Record: 97Respondents 4 Impact EvaluationStudyof theOaklandandBerkeleyFairChanceHousingOrdinancesPreliminarySurveyResults, November2024 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Demographicsof HousingProvidersSurveyed: 95Respondents
GeographicLocation:● 41%Oakland(39)● 29.5%Berkeley(28)● 29.5%BothBerkeley&Oakland(28) Typeof Provider:● 84%private, not publiclysubsidized(79)● 23%Section8providers(22)● 17%for profit affordablehousing(16)● 5%nonprofit affordablehousing(5)● 4%HousingAuthorityoperatedunits(4) Sizeof Provider:● 66%Triplex, Duplex, SingleFamily(62)● 35%4-10units(33)● 13%11-20units(12)● 14%21plusunits(13) ResearchStudyQuestion1: DidtheBerkeleyandOaklandFairChanceHousingOrdinancesResultinAccesstoHousingforPeoplewithaCriminal Record? ● Preliminaryresearchresultsshowthat significant numbersof formerlyincarceratedpeople, 63%ofsurveyrespondents(61out of 97), haveexperiencedpositiveoutcomesfromtheFCHordinances.○ 27individualsstatedthat theyhadsecuredhousinginBerkeleyandOaklandafter theFCHOhadpassed; 4individualshadsecuredhousingbeforeandafter theFCHOpassed; and9individualshadsecuredhousingbeforetheFCHOpassed.■ 41%of therespondentswhofoundhousingafter theFCHOpassedwereabletoapplyfor andrent their ownhousingand9%of theserespondentswereabletolivewithfamilymembersor other peoplewithout jeopardizingtheir leaseagreements.○ 30individualsstatedtheyhadapositiveoutcomeeventhoughtheydidnot securehousinginBerkeleyor Oakland. Additional informationwill beexaminedinfollowupinterviewsandfocusgroups. ● Prior tothepassageof theFCHordinances, only9%of respondents(9people) hadfoundhousinginBerkeleyandOakland, comparedto28%of respondents(27people) after thepassageof theFCHordinances. TheFCHOresultedinatriplinginthenumber of formerlyincarceratedpeoplewhofoundhousinginBerkeleyandOakland. ● Inaddition, another groupof surveyrespondents, 58%, indicatedthat thepassageof theFCHordinancesmadethemmorehopeful about their futurechancesfor securinghousinginBerkeleyorOakland. Weknowfromlivedexperiencesandresearch 2 that hopeisapowerful tool inhumaneffortstoimproveone’scurrent conditions, whichcancontributetofuturehousingandemploymentstabilityandfamilyreunification, whichareall important ingredientsfor successful re-entry. 3 3
Herbert C. W., Morenoff, J. D., &Harding, D. J. (2015). HomelessnessandHousingInsecurityAmongFormer Prisoners. RSF. 1(2), 44-79; Jacobs, L. A., &Gottlieb, A. (2020). TheEffect of HousingCircumstancesonRecidivism: EvidenceFromaSampleof PeopleonProbationinSanFrancisco. Criminal justiceandBehavior,47(9), 1097–1115; Kirk, D. S., et al. (2017). TheImpact of Residential ChangeandHousingStabilityonRecidivism:Pilot ResultsfromtheMarylandOpportunitiesthroughVouchersExperiment(MOVE). Journal of Experimental Criminology, 14(2), pp. 213-26; UrbanInstitute. (2012). SupportiveHousingforReturningPrisoners: OutcomesandImpactsof theReturningHome-OhioPilot Project, p. Vii. 2 E.g., Snyder, C. R. (2002). TARGETARTICLE: HopeTheory: RainbowsintheMind. Psychological Inquiry, 13(4),249–275. 5 Impact EvaluationStudyof theOaklandandBerkeleyFairChanceHousingOrdinancesPreliminarySurveyResults, November2024 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ● BerkeleyandOaklandhousingproviderssurveyedreportedahighdegreeof compliancewiththeFCHordinances. 80%of all housingprovider respondents(95housingproviders) reportedthat theydidnot conduct criminal backgroundchecksafter theFCHordinancespassed.■ Out of thehousingproviderswhowereexempt fromtheFCHordinancesbecausetheyliveinowner occupiedtriplexor belowproperties(18housingproviders), therewasa100%reportedcompliancerate.■ Out of thehousingproviderswhowerenot exempt fromtheFCHordinances(77housingproviders), therewasa75%reportedcompliancerate.■ Regardingthegeographicdifferencebetweennon-exempt housingproviders: Berkeley(19housingproviders) hada95%compliancerate, Oakland(31housingproviders) hada77%compliancerate, andhousingproviderswithpropertiesinbothBerkeleyandOakland(31housingproviders) hada59%reportedcompliancerate.
ResearchStudyQuestion2: Isit Significant that theBerkeleyandOaklandFairChanceHousingOrdinancesApplytoAll Typesof Housing? Issue: Jurisdictionsacrossthenationhavedifferent modelsof Fair ChanceHousinglaws. For example, theRichmondandSanFranciscoFair ChanceHousinglawsonlyapplytopubliclysubsidizedor affordablehousingunits. Animportant publicpolicydebatewaswhether theBerkeleyandOaklandFair ChanceHousinglawsshouldapplytoall formsof housing–publiclysubsidized, affordablehousing, andalsoprivaterental housing. Aspart of their deliberationof evidencepresented, BerkeleyandOaklandCityCouncilmembersdecidedtoremovetheuseof criminal backgroundcheckstoall formsof housing.
PreliminaryFinding: Prior totheFCHordinances, therespondentswhohadfoundhousinginBerkeleyorOaklandonlyfoundhousinginpubliclysubsidizedhousingunits(55%) andnonefoundhousinginprivaterental units. However, after theFCHordinances, respondentsfoundhousinginprivaterental, non-subsidizedunits(26%) andalsopubliclysubsidizedhousing(22%). Thisdataindicatesthat apolicythat appliestoallformsof housingwill likelyresult inincreasingaccesstohousingopportunitiesfor peoplewithacriminalrecord. Giventhesevereshortageof publiclysubsidizedhousingintheBayArea, theinclusionof privaterental housingintheBerkeleyandOaklandFCHordinancesappearstobeaneffectivestrategytoadvancingthepublicpolicygoal of reducinghomelessnessfor formerlyincarceratedresidents. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/supportive-housing-returning-prisoners-outcomes-and-impacts-returning-home-ohio-pilot-project. 6 Impact EvaluationStudyof theOaklandandBerkeleyFairChanceHousingOrdinancesPreliminarySurveyResults, November2024 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ResearchStudyQuestion3: ArethereRacial andOtherSocial EquityConsiderationsinFairChanceHousingOrdinanceOutcomes? Issue: AsstatedintheOaklandCityCouncil agendareport onFCHO, massincarcerationpolicies, throughthedisproportionatetargetingof Black/AfricanAmericanresidents, ledtotheincarcerationofdisproportionatenumbersof Black/AfricanAmericanresidents. AccordingtothePublicPolicyInstituteofCalifornia, in2016, BlackmaleresidentswerethreetimesmorelikelythanWhiteonestobearrested. 4 Theracial disparityinarrest ratesleadstoracial disparitiesinincarcerationrateswherein2017, BlackCaliforniansmadeup5.6%of thestate’sadult menbut 28.5%of itsmaleprisoners. 5 Animportant part ofanypublicpoliciestoadvanceracial equitymust bothacknowledgetheracializationof thestructural rootsofracial disparitiesandexamineif andhowtheneweffortsrepairedtheracializedharm.
PreliminaryFindings: Crosstabanalysisof surveyresultsfoundthefollowingkeyfindings:
Finding3.1: Black/AfricanAmericanrespondentshadthehighest level of positiveresultsfromtheFCHordinances. Out of therespondentswhohadsecuredhousinginBerkeleyor Oaklandafter thepassageof theFCHordinances(40formerlyincarceratedpeople): 65%wereBlack/AfricanAmerican, 10%wereLatinx/Hispanic, 10%weremultipleraces, 3%wereAPI, 3%wereWhite, and10%preferrednot tostate.Preliminarysurveyresultsindicatethat theFCHOmaybeaddressingtheracializedharmof previousmassincarcerationpoliciesandsignificantlybenefittingBlack/AfricanAmericanformerlyincarceratedresidents.
Finding3.2: Thepreliminarysurveyresultsshowarangeof incomeandemployment statusof formerlyincarceratedsurveyrespondentswhowereabletosecurehousing. For example, 55%of peoplewhosecuredhousinginOaklandor Berkeleyhadincomebelow$25,000and33%wereunemployed. Thispreliminarydataindicatesthat theBerkeleyandOaklandFCHordinancesmaybebenefittingformerlyincarceratedpeopleacrossdifferent incomeandemployment status.
HousingAccessStatus Current IncomeLevel Current Employment Status SecuredhousinginBerkeleyor Oakland(40respondents)
● 55%hadincomebelow$25,000● 28%hadincomefrom$25,000to$49,000● 15%hadincomefrom$50,000to$99,000● 3%hadincomeabove$100,000 ● 38%workedfull-time● 33%wereunemployed● 18%workedpart-time● 8%other● 5%wereretired Didnot securehousinginBerkeleyor Oakland(57respondents) ● 72%hadincomebelow$25,000● 19%hadincomefrom$25,000to$49,000● 7%hadincomefrom$50,000to$99,000● 2%hadincomeabove$100,000 ● 28%workedfull-time● 26%wereunemployed● 11%workedpart-time● 26%other● 9%wereretired 5 Id.
4 PublicPolicyInstituteof California(2019). California’sPrisonPopulation, 1. 7 Impact EvaluationStudyof theOaklandandBerkeleyFairChanceHousingOrdinancesPreliminarySurveyResults, November2024 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ResearchStudyQuestion4: DidtheFairChanceHousingOrdinancesResult inUnintendedConsequencesof IncreasedRacial DiscriminationorIncreasedOtherBarrierstoHousingAccess? Issues&PreliminaryFindings: Duringthepublicpolicydevelopment processof theBerkeleyandOaklandFCHordinances, includingtownhall forums, several concernsandquestionswereraisedbybothhousingprovidersandpolicymakersalike. Theseissueswereincludedinthesurveyquestions.
Issue1: Will removingtheabilityof housingproviderstoconduct criminal backgroundchecksanddenypeoplehousingbaseduponthat informationresult inincreasedracial discrimination, withhousingprovidersusingraceasaproxyfor criminal background? PreliminaryFinding1: Only4%of housingprovidersreportedknowingabout anincreaseinracialdiscriminationagainst rental housingapplicantsafter theFCHordinancespassed.
Issue2: Will removingtheabilityof housingproviderstoconduct criminal backgroundchecksanddenypeoplehousingbaseduponthat informationresult inincreasedtenant selectionrequirements? PreliminaryFinding2: It appearsthat somehousingprovidersincreasedtenant screeningrequirements.However, it’sunclear whether theseincreaseswereduemoretotheimpactsof theCOVIDevictionmoratorium. Thisquestionwill beexaminedduringupcominginterviewsandfocusgroups.
ChangeinTenant ScreeningStandardssinceSpring2020:
ScreeningStandard IncreasedRequirements DecreasedRequirements NoChange Credit Scores 27% 12% 61%
LandlordReferences 21% 3% 76%
SecurityDeposit 29% 24% 47%
Employment References 15% 6% 79%
EvictionHistoryConsideration
35% 3% 62%
Criminal BackgroundConsideration
9% 45% 45%
Issue3: Will allowingpeoplewithcriminal recordsresideinhousingcomplexesresult inincreasedcrimeandviolenceinthat complexor neighborhood? PreliminaryFinding3: Thereisnoavailabledataor evidencesupportingthefear that allowingpeoplewithacriminal recordtoresideinahousingcomplexor neighborhooddirectlyresultsinincreasedcrimeorviolenceinthat area. Thisquestionwill beexaminedfurther infollowupinterviewsandfocusgroups. Ontheother hand, thereisevidencethat correlateshousingstabilitywithincreasedanti-recidivism. 6 6
Seefootnote3. 8