TABLE 1—

Variation in Local Public Housing Authority Policy Provisions Related to the Admission and Eviction of People With Criminal Justice Histories, Codified in Admission and Continued Occupancy Policies (ACOPs): United States, 2009–2018

ACOP Policy Provision	Prevalence, % (Restrictiveness Scale Value)	Conceptualization of Variable
Admission
Drug-related criminal activity lookback period		Longer lookback period is more restrictive because more time needs to pass before a person is re-eligible for public housing (i.e., the duration of exposure of the risk factor for housing insecurity is greater when the lookback period is longer).
3 y or not specified	46.7 (0)
4–5 y	43.4 (1)
≥ 6 y	9.9 (2)
Violent criminal activity lookback period		Longer lookback period is more restrictive because more time needs to pass before a person is re-eligible for public housing (i.e., the duration of exposure of the risk factor for housing insecurity is greater when the lookback period is longer).
3 y or not specified	46.1 (0)
4–5 y	41.1 (1)
≥ 6 y	11.8 (2)
Drug-related eviction from public housing lookback period		Longer lookback period is more restrictive because more time needs to pass before a person is re-eligible for public housing (i.e., the duration of exposure of the risk factor for housing insecurity is greater when the lookback period is longer).
3 y or not specified	65.8 (0)
4–5 y	25.7 (1)
≥ 6 y	8.6 (2)
Index date for criminal activity lookback perioda		Release from prison or end of supervision is most restrictive because it is the date farthest from the date of the crime and results in the most time that needs to pass before a person is re-eligible for public housing (i.e., the duration of exposure of the risk factor for housing insecurity is greater when the lookback period is longer).
Crime, arrest, or charge	11.2 (0)
Conviction or not specified	82.2 (1)
Release from prison or end of supervision	6.6 (2)
No. of events that explicitly have the ability to trigger denialb		Higher number of events is more restrictive because the probability of an applicant not being eligible for public housing (i.e., exposure to risk factor for housing insecurity and its health consequences) increases with the addition of each event.
Mean	5.06
Median	5
Range	0–9
Arrests or charges explicitly given less weight than conviction		Absence of policy provision is more restrictive because a person can be wrongly arrested or charged and be found not guilty of the crime that would be grounds for denial of admission (2015 HUD policy memo stated that arrest should not be used to trigger application denial for public housing).
Yes	51.3 (0)
No	48.7 (1)
Mitigating circumstances explicitly considered		Absence of policy provision is more restrictive because explicit mention of this type of mitigating circumstance provides the opportunity to admit individuals and families that may otherwise violate admission eligibility criteria related to criminal activity.
Yes	86.2 (0)
No	13.8 (1)
Circumstances related to nature of the violation explicitly considered as mitigating circumstance		Absence of policy provision is more restrictive because explicit mention of this type of mitigating circumstance provides the opportunity to admit individuals and families that may otherwise violate admission eligibility criteria related to criminal activity.
Yes	50.7 (0)
No	49.3 (1)
Impact on family explicitly considered as mitigating circumstance		Absence of policy provision is more restrictive because explicit mention of this type of mitigating circumstance provides the opportunity to admit individuals and families that may otherwise violate admission eligibility criteria related to criminal activity.
Yes	40.8 (0)
No	59.2 (1)
Eviction
Family is explicitly permitted to remove member for any criminal or drug use activity		Absence of policy provision is more restrictive because explicit mention of this allowance provides the opportunity to admit individuals and families that may otherwise violate conditions related to criminal activity.
Yes	50.0 (0)
No	50.0 (1)
Mitigating circumstances explicitly considered		Absence of policy provision is more restrictive because explicit mention of this allowance provides the opportunity to not evict individuals and families that may otherwise violate conditions related to criminal activity.
Yes	52.6 (0)
No	47.4 (1)
Circumstances related to nature of the violation explicitly considered as mitigating circumstance		Absence of policy provision is more restrictive because explicit mention of this allowance provides the opportunity to not evict individuals and families that may otherwise violate conditions related to criminal activity.
Yes	38.2 (0)
No	61.8 (1)
Impact on family explicitly considered as mitigating circumstance		Absence of policy provision is more restrictive because explicit mention of this allowance provides the opportunity to not evict individuals and families that may otherwise violate conditions related to criminal activity.
Yes	34.9 (0)
No	65.1 (1)
Proof of good tenancy explicitly considered as mitigating circumstance		Absence of policy provision is more restrictive because explicit mention of this allowance provides the opportunity to not evict individuals and families that may otherwise violate conditions related to criminal activity.
Yes	27.0 (0)
No	73.0 (1)
Arrest is explicitly grounds for eviction		Absence of policy provision is less restrictive because a person can be wrongly arrested and not be guilty of engaging in criminal activity (2015 HUD policy memo stated that arrest should not be used to trigger eviction from public housing).
Yes	36.8 (1)
No	63.2 (0)
Testimony from rehabilitation centers can explicitly be used as evidence for eviction		Absence of policy provision is less restrictive because the provision enables the eviction of people with substance use disorders who are receiving treatment and might be no longer engaged in drug-related criminal activity.
Yes	32.9 (1)
No	67.1 (0)

Note. HUD = US Department of Housing and Urban Development. The sample size was n = 152.

^aACOPs that did not explicitly indicate the index date were coded as “conviction” because this is analogous to date of eviction being used as the index date for drug-related eviction from public housing according to federal law.

^bScored as the sum of 9 possible events.