Criminal History, Race, and Housing Type: An Experimental Audit of Housing Outcomes

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221082086
• Published date: 01 October 2022
• Date: 01 October 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2022, Vol. 49, No. 10, October 2022, 1536 –1553.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221082086

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2022 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1536

CRIMINAL HISTORY, RACE, AND HOUSING

TYPE

An Experimental Audit of Housing Outcomes

PETER LEASURE

R. CALEB DOYLE

York College of Pennsylvania

HUNTER M. BOEHME

North Carolina Central University

GARY ZHANG

SAS Institute

Although there are a number of experimental studies showing that private housing can be difficult to secure for those with

criminal history, many issues in this area remain unexplored or underexplored. The goal of the current study was to address

the following unexplored or underexplored issues: (a) the impact of various types of multiple conviction records on private

housing outcomes, including one that possessed a certificate of relief; (b) racial differences in private housing outcomes; (c)

the impact of housing type on private housing outcomes; and (d) the impact of a criminal record, race, and housing type

interaction on private housing outcomes. This goal was achieved with the use of a field experiment (correspondence audit).

Results showed several statistically and substantively significant differences among the criminal record, race, and housing

type conditions. These results can be used to better inform individuals with criminal history who are seeking private housing

options.

Keywords: certificates of relief; collateral consequences of conviction; housing; experiment

Housing is a critical factor for a successful reentry (Garland et al., 2010; O’Brien,

2001). Although there are several public housing options (Roman & Travis, 2004),

several laws and policies limit public housing access to those with criminal history (Carey,

2005; Legal Action Center, 2016; Roman & Travis, 2004; Schneider, 2018). Because of

this fact, many of those with criminal history are forced to seek private housing. Although

there are a growing number of experimental studies showing that private housing can be

difficult to secure for those with criminal history in the United States (Evans et al., 2019;

Evans & Porter, 2015),1 many issues in this area remain unexplored or underexplored

with experimental designs. The goal of the current study was to address the following

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The authors would like to thank Samantha Weil-Kaspar and Alexander Shannon for their

assistance with data collection. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Peter Leasure,

York College of Pennsylvania, York, PA 17403; e-mail: pleasure@ycp.edu.

1082086CJBXXX10.1177/00938548221082086Criminal Justice and BehaviorLeasure et al. / AN EXPERIMENTAL AUDIT OF HOUSING OUTCOMES

research-article2022

Leasure et al. / AN EXPERIMENTAL AUDIT OF HOUSING OUTCOMES 1537

unexplored or underexplored issues with the use of an experimental design: (a) the impact

of various types of multiple conviction records on private housing outcomes, including

one that possessed a certificate of relief2; (b) racial differences in private housing out-

comes; (c) the impact of housing type on private housing outcomes; and (d) the impact of

a criminal record, race, and housing type interaction on private housing outcomes.

OBTAINING HOUSING WITH A CRIMINAL RECORD3

Attaining safe and affordable housing is often one of the most significant challenges for

those with criminal history, and an important factor in successful reentry (Lutze et al., 2014;

Poulos, 2020). In fact, research has demonstrated that housing instability increases the risk

of recidivism (Makarios et al., 2010; Metraux & Culhane, 2004). Despite its importance for

a successful reentry, housing is often difficult to obtain for those with criminal history

(Helfgott, 1997; Legal Action Center, 2016; O’Brien, 2001; Petersilia, 2003).

For example, while many reentering individuals return to family members’ or friends’

households (Nelson et al., 1999; Western et al., 2015), parole conditions can sometimes

prevent a reentering individual from living with others who also possess criminal history

(Petersilia, 2003). Community-based correctional or noncorrectional transitional housing

options generally have limited availability often due to poor funding and/or public support

(Legal Action Center, 2016; Roman & Travis, 2004). Similarly, homeless shelters generally

provide only short-term solutions and are often limited by funding issues, and some research

suggests that they may be criminogenic (Metraux & Culhane, 2004).

Government-subsidized housing is another option and this form of assistance is gener-

ally provided in the form of vouchers and government-subsidized residences (42 U.S.C.A.

§ 1437f). These benefits are distributed by local public housing authorities (PHAs).

However, a number of policies (e.g., the Housing and Urban Development’s One Strike

guidelines and the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998) have limited

access to subsidized housing for those with criminal records and their families, especially

those convicted of drug and violent crimes (Carey, 2005; Van Olphen et al., 2009). Policy

examples include lifetime bans for sex offenses and methamphetamine manufacturing;

periodic bans for certain drug offenses; evictions for tenants, household members, or guests

who engage in criminal activity on or near the premises; and refusal of individuals believed

to be abusing drugs (see Cammett, 2015; Carey, 2005; Crowell, 2016; Legal Action Center,

2016; Lundgren et al., 2010; Silva, 2015; Van Olphen et al., 2009, for a full discussion of

the history, specifics, and impacts of such policies). Given these policies, it is unsurprising

that Keene and colleagues (2018) found that reentering individuals convicted of nonviolent

drug offenses faced consistent denials of public housing options.

The final option is private housing. However, numerous factors also limit access to pri-

vate housing. First, many individuals with criminal history lack the funds, credit history, or

work stability necessary to secure private housing (Nagin & Waldfogel, 1998; Petersilia,

2003; Travis, 2005). Even if an individual can afford private housing, some suggest that

they will be charged higher rental rates or deposits because of their perceived risk (Clark,

2007). Second, although federal guidelines exist to regulate the blanket exclusion of those

possessing a criminal record in the employment context (Green v. Missouri Pacific Railroad

Company, 523 F 2d 1290, 1975), such guidelines do not yet exist for private housing

(Oyama, 2009). This creates an opportunity for a larger amount of disparate treatment in the