Fair Chance Focus Group: What We Heard from Rental Housing Providers

Last week, EBRHA members and other rental housing providers gathered at the EBRHA office with Alameda County Housing and Community Development staff for a focused discussion on a proposal that could significantly change how housing providers screen applicants in unincorporated Alameda County: a potential Fair Chance Housing Ordinance.

County staff explained that they are evaluating a policy modeled in large part after Oakland’s Fair Chance ordinance and wanted direct feedback from rental housing providers before moving forward.

"Fair Chance" is the name given to laws that limits how and when a housing provider can consider an applicant’s criminal history during screening. Its goal is to reduce barriers to housing for people with prior records while still allowing consideration of certain safety concerns.

What followed was one of the most candid conversations we’ve heard in some time. The discussion was not about whether people deserve second chances. In fact, many participants repeatedly acknowledged that people make mistakes, rebuild their lives, and should have opportunities to move forward.

The question raised throughout the meeting was different:

How do policymakers expand housing opportunity while still allowing housing providers to protect existing residents, operate responsibly, and manage risk?

Safety Was the Dominant Concern

The most common theme raised during the meeting was safety. Rental housing providers shared concerns that restrictions on criminal background screening may reduce their ability to protect current renters, neighbors, and communities.

Participants discussed concerns ranging from violent crime histories and domestic violence situations to the practical realities of managing shared housing environments where one bad situation can impact an entire building. Several providers emphasized that screening decisions are not only about protecting property. They are also about protecting the quiet enjoyment and safety of everyone already living there.

For many in attendance, the concern was not theoretical. Multiple participants shared personal experiences managing difficult resident situations, unauthorized occupants, and behavior that affected neighboring households.

A Concern That More Restrictions May Produce the Opposite Outcome

One of the strongest points raised throughout the session was that additional screening limitations may unintentionally reduce housing access. Several providers explained that when one screening tool is removed, housing providers naturally shift toward stricter standards elsewhere.

Examples discussed included:

• Higher credit score requirements
• Higher income thresholds
• Longer rental history requirements
• More documentation and verification

The result will actually accomplish the opposite of what the ordinance is trying to achieve by making housing harder to access for applicants who are already struggling to qualify. One participant summarized it this way: "When the cost of making a bad decision becomes too high, people become more conservative in decision-making."

Small Housing Providers Feel Increasingly Asked to Solve Bigger Problems

Another recurring theme was that rental housing providers increasingly feel expected to absorb broader societal challenges. Simply put, rental housing providers are always the scapegoat for legislators when it come to housing.  They become responsible for fixing the housing crisis.

Participants spoke about the growing overlap between housing management and issues like:

• Reentry from incarceration
• Homelessness
• Mental health challenges
• Substance dependency
• Domestic violence situations
• Economic instability

Many described themselves as becoming part housing provider, part counselor, part mediator, and part financial social safety net.

Several attendees feel that housing policy has increasingly shifted responsibilities onto small "mom & pop" rental property owners rather than than public programs and support systems.

Support for Balance Rather Than Blanket Rules

Importantly, very few participants argued for unrestricted screening. Instead, many advocated for a more balanced framework.

Ideas discussed included:

• Providing incentives for owners to take on previously convicted applicants
• Considering violent offenses differently than nonviolent offenses
• Allowing consideration of recent versus older convictions
• Creating clearer standards around community safety concerns
• Preserving reasonable discretion while maintaining anti-discrimination protections
• Building practical implementation standards that housing providers can actually follow

Participants repeatedly emphasized that if a policy moves forward, implementation matters just as much as intent.

Data Matters

Another major takeaway was the repeated call for stronger data.

Attendees asked:

• What percentage of housing denials are truly based on criminal history?

• How many justice-involved individuals with vouchers are unable to secure housing?

• What portion of homelessness is directly connected to screening practices?

• Are there alternative interventions that would better address the root causes?

Participants encouraged the County to focus on measurable outcomes and avoid one-size-fits-all approaches.

The Conversation Is Just Beginning

County staff made clear that this meeting was intended to gather feedback and better understand operational concerns before any future ordinance is finalized.

If there was one message that came through clearly from housing providers, it was this:

Good intentions alone are not enough. Housing policy works best when access, safety, practicality, and long-term outcomes are all considered together.

EBRHA appreciates Alameda County staff for taking time to listen directly to housing providers and appreciates every member who attended and shared their experiences.

These conversations matter, and EBRHA will continue advocating to ensure the voice of rental housing providers remains part of the process.