Exposing Discrimination in “Crime-Free” and “Nuisance” Housing Programs: A Call to Action for Pro Bono Lawyers

Erin Palmer, Associate Director, Corporate Pro Bono

Across the United States, so-called “crime-free” and “nuisance” housing ordinances are being challenged for their discriminatory impacts. These policies, while supposedly intended to enhance safety, often disproportionately affect marginalized communities, including people of color, individuals with disabilities, and survivors of domestic violence. Recent legal developments, including a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, issued on August 15, caution that such housing programs may violate federal laws and undermine civil rights protections. Proactive legal advocacy is crucial, and lawyers play a key role in fighting these injustices and ensuring fair housing practices.

Discrimination Under the Radar: How Crime-Free and Nuisance Programs Fail

Crime-free and nuisance housing ordinances have their origins in law enforcement, with the first programs emerging from the International Crime Free Association, established in 1992 by a member of the Mesa Police Department in Arizona. The Association aimed to use “law enforcement-based crime prevention” to keep illegal activity off rental properties. This effort quickly gained traction, spreading across the United States and embedding itself in local housing policies.

Crime-free and nuisance housing ordinances are local laws that require landlords to evict or reject tenants based on their interactions with the criminal legal system or frequent police calls. They often result in racial exclusion and segregation rather than effective crime prevention. Some ordinances include alleged criminal activities, such as arrests or police stops, regardless of outcome and even based on “stops and mere suspicion.” In some cases, tenants may even be held liable for the actions of their guests or family members. These ordinances frequently fail to differentiate between actual criminal behavior and actions like calling 911 for help, which can lead to an eviction for seeking emergency assistance.

While crime-free and nuisance housing ordinances purportedly aim to enhance community safety, some studies have found that these ordinances have no relationship to reducing crime and instead lead to an increase in evictions. These ordinances also are a tool for racial discrimination and exclusion, disproportionately impacting vulnerable populations, including individuals with prior criminal histories, communities of color, people with disabilities, and survivors of domestic violence. According to LaTanya Jackson Wilson, Vice President of Advocacy at the Shriver Center on Poverty Law, “It used to be legal to enforce race restrictive covenants, limiting access to housing for Black individuals and families. When those covenants became illegal, so-called neutral practices like [crime-free and nuisance ordinances] were created.”

Pro Bono Institute has previously highlighted how crime-free and nuisance housing ordinances disproportionately harm specific communities:

• Communities of Color: Studies have shown that these ordinances disproportionately impact Black and Hispanic neighborhoods. For example, in Milwaukee, properties in Black neighborhoods were more frequently designated as nuisances based on a broad base of activities, leading to evictions for non-criminal incidents like family gatherings. Such practices perpetuate racial segregation and discrimination.
• Survivors of Domestic Violence: These ordinances can penalize individuals who call 911 for help, exacerbating the vulnerability of domestic violence survivors. For instance, the case of Rosetta Watson in Maplewood, Missouri illustrates how victims can be evicted for calling the police during an assault, thus discouraging them from seeking help.
• Individuals with Disabilities: Disabled individuals often face unique challenges under these ordinances. For example, individuals with mental health conditions might avoid calling 911 due to fear of eviction. Additionally, landlords can evict tenants for actions or incidents involving others, such as caregivers, without the tenant’s knowledge.

“Even when well-intentioned, these programs can disrupt lives, force families into homelessness and result in loss of jobs, schooling and opportunities for people who are disproportionately low-income people of color – all in violation of federal law,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division in their August 15 announcement. “These programs can also discourage people with disabilities and their loved ones from seeking help during a mental health crisis and prevent victims of domestic violence from seeking the protection they desperately need.”

DOJ Concerns Over Crime-Free and Nuisance Housing Ordinances and Federal Law Violations

The Department of Justice’s recent letter highlights that crime-free and nuisance housing ordinances may violate four statutes enforced by the Department:

• Fair Housing Act (FHA): These programs may lead to discriminatory practices that disproportionately impact racial minorities and individuals with disabilities. Statistical analyses have shown that Black and Hispanic renters face a higher risk of eviction under such programs, potentially violating the FHA’s prohibition against discriminatory housing practices.
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Crime-free and nuisance housing programs may violate Title VI if they discriminate based on race, color, or national origin in federally funded programs. This prohibition also extends to contractors, making recipients liable for discrimination by their contractors.
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Policies that penalize tenants for seeking emergency services related to disabilities could infringe on the ADA’s protections. Individuals with mental health conditions, for instance, might be deterred from seeking necessary help due to fears of eviction or penalties.
• Violence Against Women Act (VAWA): By penalizing tenants who report domestic disturbances, these housing programs may undermine VAWA’s protections for survivors of domestic violence. This federal law safeguards individuals from adverse housing consequences when seeking help during or after instances of violence.

The Department of Justice’s August 15 letter highlights examples of crime-free and nuisance housing ordinances, based on recent enforcement actions, which affect housing rights and may raise questions under federal law. These include programs that:

• restrict housing based on criminal histories and sometimes just an arrest record;
• fail to provide for a case-by-case determination of purported safety concerns, including for individuals with convictions;
• impose negative housing consequences on an entire household;
• provide substantial enforcement discretion that may be used to target certain people who are protected under federal law;
• were adopted with discriminatory intent, which may be evidenced by the historical backdrop, including growing diversity or racial tension;
• threaten or impose penalties for calls for disability-related issues, including designating a medical or disability-related call as a nuisance;
• publicize confidential information about individuals’ disabilities; and/or
• fail to make reasonable modifications to avoid disability-related discrimination.

Monetary Redress: High-Profile Settlements Highlight the Costs of Discrimination

Recent enforcement actions, as highlighted in the Department of Justice’s August 15 letter, reveal the serious consequences of discriminatory crime-free and nuisance housing ordinances. Here are five significant cases demonstrating the impact and legal repercussions of such policies:

1. Hesperia, California: Hesperia’s crime-free housing ordinance led to disproportionately high eviction rates among Black and Hispanic renters—Black renters were nearly four times more likely to be evicted, and Hispanic renters faced a 29% higher likelihood of eviction. The settlement required nearly $1 million in compensation and penalties, repealed the ordinance, and mandated comprehensive training and outreach to address the program’s racial disparities.
2. Anoka, Minnesota: Anoka’s nuisance ordinance penalized landlords for responses to emergency calls related to mental health disabilities, risking eviction for tenants seeking necessary help. The settlement, totaling $175,000, ended the city’s practice of disclosing sensitive disability information, implemented non-discrimination policies, and required training to prevent future violations.
3. Hemet, California: Hemet’s crime-free and nuisance housing programs, which imposed penalties for frequent emergency calls and mandated evictions for broadly defined criminal activities, resulted in a $200,000 settlement. The city agreed to repeal the programs, fund remediation efforts, and undergo training to address discriminatory enforcement practices.
4. Bedford, Ohio: Bedford’s nuisance housing ordinance allowed landlords to evict residents based on criminal activity near their homes, disproportionately affecting marginalized groups. The settlement of $350,000 led to the repeal of the ordinance, required public notification, and mandated anti-discrimination training to prevent similar future practices.
5. Faribault, Minnesota: Faribault’s rental licensing ordinance, which used criminal history screening and crime-free lease addenda to justify evictions, disproportionately impacted Black individuals and other protected classes. The nearly $700,000 settlement included ordinance amendments, public notice of changes, and training to address discriminatory impacts and ensure fair housing practices.

These cases underscore the crucial role of legal advocacy in addressing and rectifying the harms caused by discriminatory housing policies.

The Critical Role of Pro Bono Lawyers

These cases underscore the importance of legal advocacy in combating discriminatory housing practices. Pro bono lawyers can make a significant impact by:

• Championing Fair Housing: Representing low-income and marginalized individuals affected by discriminatory housing practices. Legal representation can help ensure that tenants receive fair treatment and justice.
• Advocating for Policy Reform: Collaborating with local governments to reform or repeal discriminatory ordinances. Effective advocacy can lead to the implementation of equitable policies that safeguard civil rights while promoting community safety.
• Providing Essential Legal Assistance: Offering pro bono services to tenants facing eviction or discrimination due to these housing programs. Many low-income individuals lack access to legal resources, and pro bono support can be crucial in protecting their rights.

Addressing discrimination in crime-free and nuisance programs is essential for promoting a fair and just housing system. Pro bono lawyers are uniquely positioned to contribute to this effort, driving change and ensuring that vulnerable communities are protected from unfair practices. To address systemic housing issues, pro bono lawyers can partner with organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Housing Law Project, and the Shriver Center on Poverty Law. These groups are actively working to address issues related to crime-free and nuisance housing ordinances and advocate for fair housing. Additionally, pro bono lawyers can volunteer with their local legal aid providers to help individual tenants and families who are facing eviction. For more information on getting involved, reach out to Pro Bono Institute at pbi@probonoinst.org.