Landlords across the country have been empowered to act as a kind of police force in the name of crime prevention for decades. As? Through local “nuisance property” laws and “crime-free housing” programs that require them to evict tenants for vaguely defined “criminal activities.”
On Monday, California became the first state in the country to ban so-called crime-free housing programs. More states should do the same.
These laws target the eviction of low-income and minority tenants and violate their civil rights. That’s bad enough. But they also fail to reduce crime.
Cities across the country have been implementing these policies for about 30 years, based on the Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which increased evictions in federally subsidized housing. For 2019, approximately 2,000 American cities had a crime-free housing program, and 37 of the 40 largest US cities It had a nuisance property ordinance.
Even when these policies spread, their effectiveness was in doubt. I directed a recent analysis of California’s crime-free housing policies that they found had no effect on crime. Other researchers have found that by driving people to desperation and homelessness, nuisance property ordinances can actually increase property crimes.
Crime-free housing policies backfire in part because they treat 911 calls as an indicator of criminal activity. This creates a perverse incentive: for fear of being evicted, tenants do not call the authorities when they need them.
This is especially detrimental victims of domestic violence, who may hesitate to seek help from the police for fear of losing their home. These policies may also discourage tenants from seek medical help during drug overdose or mental health crisis. Evictions also hamper crime prevention by disrupt community social networksmaking it difficult for residents to monitor what is happening in their neighborhoods, a critical element of crime prevention.
My California study found that city blocks with certified crime-free apartments experienced 21% more evictions than blocks without such housing. Other researchers have discovered that Nuisance property ordinances increase evictions. application submission rates by 16%. In the six months after the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development instituted a “One strike and you’re out” policy on criminal activity in 1996Reported evictions from public housing increased by 40%.
Evictions are deeply harmful in many ways. Evicted people struggle to find housing again, and evicted public housing tenants are prohibited from receiving housing assistance. That can lead to more homelessness and despair. Evictions also cause disproportionate housing insecurity for childrenmore unemployment, additional use of emergency room resources and accidental deaths from drugs and alcohol.
Legal experts have convincingly argued that punishing people with eviction rather than through criminal justice procedures also denies them due process. These policies do not require an arrest or conviction or even an indication of a crime anywhere near the property. They don’t even require a crime.
People have been evicted under crime-free housing policies for more than children playing basketball either jumping on a trampoline and for complaints about barbecues. Tenants may even face serious consequences for their guests’ behavior. Federal court case concerns Illinois city trying to evict a family for a robbery committed by a friend of his teenage son who had slept on his couch.
Policies tend to be applied selectively, with low-income multifamily properties being hardest hit. This has led the Department of Justice to take action against cities for violations of the Fair Housing Act and other federal laws. In 2022, the city of Hesperia in San Bernardino County signed a consent decree with the federal government regarding selective enforcement of its crime-free housing program. Lawsuits on similar grounds have been filed against cities in Washington, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Minnesota.
What is the point of these harmful policies if they do not reduce crime? Public officials have suggested that their real goal is segregation.
A Hesperia official acknowledged that the Purpose of the city’s crime-free housing program. was to eliminate what he described as “those types of people” and “improve our demographics.” The mayor of Bedford, Ohio, said the city nuisance property ordinance It was about “taking pride in middle-class values” and reducing “urban immigration.” The analysis I led found that cities with crime-free housing programs had larger black populations and that the affected apartments were on low-income blocks with larger black and Latino populations.
HUD has issued guide to cities about how these policies may violate the Fair Housing Act by disproportionately evicting women, crime victims, and people with disabilities. But more needs to be done.
Following California’s lead, other states should limit evictions under these policies without arrest or conviction or based on the behavior of nonresidents. Cities should also be required to report the number of evictions resulting from crime-free housing policies and nuisance ordinances. Similar federal policies also need to be reconsidered, including the one-strike policy for public housing and rules that prevent evicted tenants from getting future housing assistance.
These policies and the evictions they cause are, at best, an ineffective means of preventing crime. At worst, they are a harmful form of discrimination that leads to more crime and homelessness. Ending them could make all of our communities safer.
Max Griswold is a policy researcher at Rand Corp.
