Title
Tenant Screening Policy Options
Recommended Action
Committee Recommendation:
Not referred to a committee.
City Manager Recommendation:
Consider tenant screening policy options and discuss next steps.
Report
Issue:
Whether to consider tenant screening policy options and discuss next steps.
Staff Contact:
Christa Lenssen, Senior Housing Program Specialist, Community Planning & Economic Development, 360.570.3762
Presenter(s):
Christa Lenssen, Senior Housing Program Specialist, Community Planning & Economic Development
Background and Analysis:
Development of Olympia tenant protections
The City of Olympia has been engaged in discussions about renter protections since 2018, prompted by findings from the 2017 Assessment of Fair Housing, 2019 tenant rally at Olympia City Council with proposed amendments to Olympia’s code, and regional conversations with Lacey, Tumwater, and Thurston County. In 2019, Council and Council committees discussed several potential policy options and prioritized a set of actions to explore further, in coordination with other local jurisdictions. Staff provided research on tenant protections enacted in other cities, recent and proposed changes at the state level. In March 2020, the City’s Land Use & Environment Committee held a forum to begin a community conversation about challenges in rental housing and potential solutions. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, these discussions were put on hold until mid-2021.
Starting in 2021, staff were directed to research and update the Council’s Land Use & Environment Committee (LUEC) regarding potential tenant protection policies and policies adopted in other jurisdictions. Staff researched and interviewed other Washington cities about their tenant protection policies. Community stakeholder feedback was solicited regarding various policy proposals. LUEC reviewed stakeholder input and staff research to prioritize policies for adoption in the forthcoming years. Since 2022, Olympia City Council has passed several tenant protection measures under Olympia Municipal Code Chapter 5.82 (known as the Rental Housing Code) that have been referred by LUEC.
At the January 2024 Land Use & Environment Committee (LUEC), staff were directed to bring sample policy language regarding tenant screening for public comment at a public hearing, which was held in March 2024. At its March 11, 2025 study session, Council provided direction to staff to bring tenant screening policy options to LUEC before bringing an ordinance to Council in Quarter 3 of 2025. This meeting provides the first opportunity for LUEC to review and discuss potential policy options. Staff has held initial legal discussions with the City’s legal department on tenant screening policies. Staff is seeking LUEC’s input on policy direction and will conduct further legal analysis after receiving direction from LUEC.
Community Engagement
In November 2020, the cities of Lacey, Olympia, and Tumwater completed a landlord survey as a part of a regional Housing Needs Assessment. Over 1,000 landlords participated in the survey. About 71% of landlords who responded self-manage their properties. Respondents were asked to report what type of tenant screening they perform. Results were aggregated by landlords who self-manage vs. all other management types.
• Credit check: 56% of landlords who self-manage and 54% of all other management types conduct credit checks
• Review rental history: 54% of landlords who self-manage and 52% of all other management types review rental history
• Proof of income: 52% of landlords who self-manage and 52% of all other management types verify income
• Criminal history: 44% of landlords who self-manage and 39% of all other management types conduct criminal history checks
In 2021, the City hired consultant Jason Robertson to assist in developing an outreach and engagement plan to solicit feedback from renters, landlords, and other interested third parties. Through 1-on-1 stakeholder interviews, focus groups (with renters, renter advocates, local landlords and larger property management companies), and community surveys, staff learned about challenges faced by renters, gathered insights from landlords about potential unintended consequences of policies, and relative support from stakeholders for various policy options. About 25% of the 106 landlords who participated in the survey were very or somewhat supportive of prohibiting certain types of renter screening. About 53% of landlords responded that they were not at all supportive or not very supportive of this policy concept. Of the 201 tenants who responded, 74% were very supportive and 13% were somewhat supportive of prohibiting certain types of renter screening. During this public engagement process, staff heard that landlords’ primary concerns are that a tenant pays their rent, does not pose a safety risk to other tenants, and takes care of the rental property.
In 2023, the City of Olympia completed an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) in collaboration with Thurston County and the Housing Authority of Thurston County (HATC), which further illustrated the need for tenant protections. Over 600 individuals responded to an online community survey. About 25% of respondents stated that application or screening barriers (ex. criminal history, credit history, lack of social security number) stand in the way of meeting their housing goals. Of those respondents, 30% indicated their credit history is a barrier, 11% indicated the credit history of someone in their household is a barrier, 6% indicated their criminal history is a barrier, 3% indicated the criminal history of someone in their household is a barrier, and 1% indicated their immigration status or the immigration status of someone in their household was a barrier.
Community stakeholders provided input during the development of the AFH about screening barriers faced by members of protected classes. According to HATC staff, primary reasons for rejection of tenants with Housing Choice Vouchers in the tenant screening process include: lack of rental history, lack of credit, debt to income ratios, and evictions. Community advocates also identified credit history as a common barrier to accessing housing for multiple protected class groups. Domestic violence survivors may experience financial abuse, which may include a perpetrator opening credit cards or bank accounts in the survivor’s name. According to local advocates, community members with disabilities often have medical debt, or a gap in time between when they stop working and start receiving disability benefits. Undocumented community members lack a Social Security number, are often paid in cash, and have difficulty establishing credit history. One of the regional goals adopted in the AFH is to reduce barriers to accessing housing, such as criminal and credit history.
According to the 2024 Thurston County Point in Time Count, 103 individuals experiencing homelessness indicated they needed help clearing their credit to obtain permanent housing.
Staff is not aware of any available local data sources which indicate the number of tenants who are rejected due to various screening practices.
Alignment with work plans
Establishing tenant protections to address housing stability is addressed under Strategy 2.a. of the City’s Housing Action Plan (“Identify and implement appropriate tenant protections that improve household stability”), which was adopted in June 2021. These measures also align with strategies included in countywide workplans, such as the Thurston County Homeless Crisis Response Plan (“enact and implement tenant protection laws and fund enforcement”) and Thurston County Assessment of Fair Housing (“reduce barriers to accessing housing.”)
Background on tenant screening practices
Tenant screening practices are policies used to determine whether or not to rent to an applicant. Tenant screening practices can include consideration of an applicant’s criminal history, credit history, rental or eviction history, employment history, and income, among other factors.
Tenant screening practices can present significant barriers for renters to access housing opportunities, particularly for people who are low-income, formerly incarcerated individuals, and members of protected classes (such as people of color, people who were born outside the U.S., and people with disabilities).
In April 2016, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) released ‘Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real Estate-Related Transactions’ and in April 2024 released ‘Guidance on Application of the Fair Housing Act to the Screening of Applicants for Rental Housing.’ These guidance documents highlight the disparities in the criminal justice system, credit scoring system, and eviction proceedings for members of protected class groups, particularly for people of color. HUD warns that relying on overly restrictive screening practices may have a disparate impact on protected classes, in violation of the Fair Housing Act.
Proposed Tenant Screening Policies
Staff has focused this briefing on tenant screening policies related to criminal history, credit history, eviction/rental history, and requirements to provide a Social Security Number. Staff has included a summary of identified impacts of each of the tenant screening policies on tenants, sample policies adopted by other jurisdictions in Washington and nationwide, and recommended approaches for Olympia.
Criminal history background
Limiting housing opportunities for individuals with criminal records disproportionately limits housing access for people of color (particularly Black, Indigenous and Latine individuals). Racial disparities in rates of arrest, convictions, and incarceration in the U.S. are well-documented. HUD’s 2016 ‘Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real Estate-Related Transactions,’ cites these disparities in the U.S. criminal justice system. For example, “in 2014, African Americans comprised approximately 36 percent of the total prison population in the United States, but only about 12 percent of the country’s total population.” A 2021 Report to the Washington Supreme Court on Race and Washington’s Criminal Justice System finds that “Black and Indigenous persons are consistently arrested at disproportionate rates both to their relative population size and to White, non-Hispanic individuals…Black people are arrested for drug offenses at a comparative ratio more than 2 times that of White people, despite consistent findings that Black and White people use and sell drugs at similar rates…Black people are 2.7 times more likely to be convicted than White people.”
As a result, housing providers who apply overly restrictive criminal history screening may violate the Fair Housing Act because these practices have a discriminatory impact on people of color. HUD’s guidance states that “a policy or practice that fails to consider the nature, severity, and recency of criminal conduct is unlikely to be proven necessary to serve a ‘substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest’”. HUD warns against having blanket policies, such as a ‘no felonies’ policy, that do not take into account these individual circumstances and don’t distinguish between “criminal conduct that indicates a demonstrable risk to resident safety and/or property and criminal conduct that does not.” HUD also urges landlords to consider making reasonable accommodations when criminal history relates to a person’s disability.
Policies that curb rejection of applicants due to criminal history may also prevent homelessness and recidivism. The 2018 report ‘Nowhere to Go: Homelessness among formerly incarcerated people’ indicates that formerly incarcerated people are almost 10 times more likely to be homeless than the general public. A 2018 study, ‘The Prison to Homelessness Pipeline: Criminal Record Checks, Race, and Disparate Impact Race, and Disparate Impact’ estimates that people with unstable housing were up to seven times more likely to re-offend.
Criminal history sample policies
Most cities who have enacted restrictions regarding criminal history screening require some form of individualized assessment that considers the nature, severity, age of the applicant, and other factors surrounding the conviction. Many other cities have enacted rules regarding which aspects of an applicant’s criminal history may be considered in housing decisions. Several cities prohibit consideration of arrest records, convictions that occurred more than a certain number of years prior to application, convictions that have been expunged or are no longer illegal, or occurred when the applicant was a minor. Many cities allow landlords to consider certain conviction types, such as manufacture, distribution or sale of methamphetamine and amphetamine, sex offenses, arson, and homicide. Many cities allow applicants an opportunity to provide additional mitigating information (such as rehabilitation and circumstances when the conviction occurred) that landlords must consider, or a formal appeal process.
The cities of Seattle and Ann Arbor, Michigan prevent most landlords from using criminal history in housing decisions, with some exceptions. Both Seattle and Ann Arbor provide some exceptions for owner-occupied housing (shared residences, ADU/DADUs, etc.) and federally assisted housing where conflicting regulations may apply. Seattle allows landlords to screen sex offender registries. Before a landlord rejects an applicant or takes an adverse action against a prospective occupant or tenant based on registry information, there must be a legitimate business reason for doing so. Except for registered individuals, Seattle landlords may not take adverse action based on an applicant’s criminal history. Ann Arbor landlords are not allowed to inquire about or request information about an applicant’s criminal history. Seattle landlords were similarly not allowed to ask an applicant to disclose their criminal history or inquire about their criminal history, until recent litigation determined that Seattle cannot restrict landlords from inquiring about an applicant’s criminal history.
The State of New Jersey and Cook County, Illinois require a process where the landlord qualifies the applicant based on other criteria (such as income, credit, and rental history) and can only complete criminal history screening after this initial determination. When considering criminal history, landlords must conduct an individualized assessment and provide written explanation for the reasons for denial. Applicants are provided the opportunity to appeal the denial.
Tacoma and the State of Colorado restrict landlords from rejecting an applicant under certain circumstances, such as arrest records and convictions that occurred a defined number of years before the application. Both jurisdictions also allow a landlord to consider certain convictions as ground for rejection, such as sex offenses, violent offenses, manufacturing, sale or distribution of controlled substances. Tacoma prohibits ‘blanket bans’ on criminal history records and requires that landlords conduct individualized assessments of an applicant’s criminal history.
Minneapolis and Portland have a similar approach to tenant screening for criminal, rental and credit history. They offer landlords two options:
1) Utilize an “inclusive” (Minneapolis) or “low barrier” (Portland) screening criterion; or
2) Conduct an individualized tenant screening.
In Minneapolis and Portland, applicants cannot be denied for certain reasons through the inclusive/low barrier option. Examples include: misdemeanors from 3+ years ago, felonies from 7+ years ago, convictions for crimes that are no longer illegal. If landlords choose to conduct the individualized tenant screening, they must consider factors surrounding the conviction, such as the nature, severity, age of the applicant, timeframe, and other mitigating factors.
Staff recommendation regarding criminal history screening
Case law and best practices guidance indicate that blanket bans on criminal history and overly restrictive criminal history screening practices have a disparate impact on people of color. Other jurisdictions have taken steps to reduce these disparities in housing access by implementing policies that require landlords to conduct individualized assessments of criminal history, and/or prohibit landlords from rejecting applicants based on overly broad criteria.
Staff recommends that landlords may not reject tenants based on criteria that may not be relevant to their current situation:
• arrests or charges that did not result in criminal conviction
• convictions that occurred 5-7 years prior to application
• convictions that have been sealed, expunged or dismissed
• convictions that are no longer illegal in the State of Washington
• convictions adjudicated by the juvenile justice system, and/or
• participation in a diversion program.
The City could consider allowing landlords to consider older convictions that are associated with specific offenses, such as manufacture of methamphetamine in a rental property, arson of a rental property, violent offenses against a landlord or other tenants, or require a tenant to register as a sex offender for life. The City could also consider exempting owner-occupied properties, like Seattle has done. Under state law, landlords are required to provide applicants a written adverse action notice with the reason for the adverse action. Staff recommends that landlords provide applicants with an opportunity to provide additional information if an adverse action (such as denial) is taken. Staff recommended policy prohibits rejecting tenants for criminal history that has little bearing on their current situation. These measures do not need to take the place of individualized assessments, rather, they provide some guardrails against overly restrictive screening practices. Staff recommends that additional resource information and guidance be provided to landlords to align with best practices of completing individualized assessments when considering criminal history.
Credit history background
In the 2023 Assessment of Fair Housing, Thurston County advocates identified credit history as a barrier to housing access. Immigrants and refugees may have little to no established credit history in the U.S. and are frequently paid in cash. Survivors of domestic violence may have been subject to financial abuse (intentional damage to credit, were not able to have their own credit card, etc).
Landlords frequently rely on credit history to predict the likelihood of tenants paying rent. According to the landlord survey completed for the regional Housing Needs Assessment, approximately 55% of local landlords complete credit checks to screen potential tenants. In HUD’s Guidance on Application of the Fair Housing Act to the Screening of Applicants for Rental Housing, it is noted that credit scores were not designed to predict a successful tenancy or likelihood of paying rent--credit scores were developed to assess level of risk for defaulting on a loan. However, HUD points out that consumers are more likely to prioritize paying rent over other bills or loans. The National Consumer Law Center suggests a prospective tenant could show their current ability to pay rent with paystubs, tax returns, W-2s, and bank statements, rather than relying on past history of repayment of loan obligations-which are not treated the same as rent obligations. HUD’s guidance also notes that credit scores are not as relevant as other financial characteristics, such as guaranteed rent from a Housing Choice Voucher or co-signer. HUD advises landlords to allow applicants to provide mitigating information, and that an applicant having no credit history or limited credit history is less relevant than having poor credit history.
BIPOC individuals, particularly Black and Latine individuals, are more likely to have no or limited credit history, lower credit scores, and inaccuracies in their credit record.
Disparities in credit score for BIPOC individuals:
• According to the 2019 report Explaining the Black-White Homeownership Gap by the Urban Institute, “more than 50 percent of white households have a FICO credit score above 700, compared with only 20.6 percent of black households. Thirty-three percent of black households with credit histories have insufficient credit and lack a credit score, while only 17.9 percent of white households have missing credit scores.”
• A 2004 study published by Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies found that the median credit score for whites in 2001 was 738, but the median credit score for Blacks was 676 and for Hispanics was 670.
Credit ‘invisibility’ more common among BIPOC individuals:
• According to the 2015 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) report Credit Invisibles, about 11% of the adult population in the U.S. is ‘credit invisible,’ meaning that they do not have a credit record.
• Almost 30% of consumers in low-income neighborhoods are credit invisible and an additional 15% have unscored records (meaning they do not have sufficient or recent enough credit history to generate a credit score).
• According to the CFPB, “Blacks and Hispanics are more likely than Whites or Asians to be credit invisible or to have unscored credit records.
• About 15 percent of Blacks and Hispanics are credit invisible (compared to 9 percent of Whites and Asians) and an additional 13 percent of Blacks and 12 percent of Hispanics have unscored records (compared to 7 percent of Whites).”
Errors in credit reports:
• A 2012 study by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) found that 20% of consumers had verified errors in their reports. BIPOC and younger consumers are more likely to report inaccuracies on their credit records.
• A 2021 report by the CFPB finds that consumers with disputes reported on their credit accounts are generally younger and were also more likely to reside in census tracts that were majority Black or majority Hispanic.
Recent policy regarding inclusion of medical debts in credit reporting:
• In January 2025, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau finalized a rule that bans the inclusion of medical bills on credit reports, finding that medical debts provide little predictive value to lenders about borrowers’ ability to repay other debts, and consumers frequently report receiving inaccurate bills. Implementation has been halted.
• In April 2025, Washington State Governor Ferguson signed into law Senate Bill 5480, which prohibits collection agencies from reporting medical debt to credit agencies. According to a study published by the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, 30% of Washington residents say they live in a household with medical debt, even with health insurance.
Credit history sample policies
Several cities nationwide have adopted policies limiting the use of tenants’ credit scores to determine whether or not to rent to a tenant. In Philadelphia, landlords may not have blanket exclusion policies based on an applicant’s credit score. Landlords are prohibited from automatically denying a tenant application because their credit score is below a certain numerical threshold and must conduct an individualized assessment.
Colorado landlords may not consider credit history from more than seven years before the date of the tenant’s application and may not inquire about or consider a tenant’s credit score, adverse credit event, or lack of credit score if the tenant using a voucher to pay their rent.
Minneapolis and Portland have a similar approach to tenant screening for criminal, rental and credit history. They offer landlords two options:
3) Utilize an “inclusive” (Minneapolis) or “low barrier” (Portland) screening criterion; or
4) Conduct an individualized tenant screening.
In both Minneapolis and Portland, landlords are not allowed to reject applicants with insufficient credit history. In Minneapolis, landlords cannot screen out tenants based on their credit score but can consider information in a credit report if it is relevant to their ability to pay rent. Portland landlords may not reject applicants with a 500+ credit score, past due-unpaid obligations of less than $1,000, a balance of less than $500 for damages to a prior rental property, discharged bankruptcies, Chapter 13 bankruptcies that are under active repayment, or who have medical or education/vocational training debt. If a landlord decides to complete an individual assessment, they must consider factors such as: the nature and severity of incidents, number and type of incidents, time that has passed since incidents occurred, and age of the individual at the time incidents occurred.
Staff recommendation regarding credit history screening
Staff recommend that landlords are prohibited from denying tenants solely for having no credit history or insufficient credit history. Staff also recommends that landlords may not be permitted to consider medical or education/vocational training debt. Staff recommends that landlords may not reject applicants based on their credit score or credit history if they pay their rent using a Housing Choice Voucher or have a co-signer who has guaranteed their rent payments. Staff recommends that landlords must provide a written explanation with reasons for denial and provide applicants with an opportunity to provide additional information. The City could consider including similar language to Philadelphia, which prohibits landlords from automatically denying an applicant because their credit score is below a certain numerical threshold.
Rental history background
Rental and eviction history are commonly used to screen applicant tenants. As noted by the HUD Office of Fair Housing & Equal Opportunity’s Guidance on Application of the Fair Housing Act to the Screening of Applicants for Rental Housing, court records are often unreliable, as they do not always contain accurate information about the nature and outcomes of a case. The HUD guidance also notes that some eviction records are irrelevant, such as no-fault evictions, evictions that were filed in retaliation for a tenant asserting their rights, evictions filed due to an underlying domestic violence issue where the tenant is the survivor, or tenants who have since obtained a housing voucher to help pay their rent. HUD urges landlords and tenant screening companies not to rely on eviction records that are old or incomplete and additionally advises that applicants should not be denied when the tenant prevailed, a settlement was reached, or the matter was dropped.
According to data from the Evictions Study conducted by University of Washington, between 2013 and 2017, 1 in 55 Washington adults were named in an eviction filing. Lead researcher Dr. Tim Thomas states, “The most concerning finding is the severe over-representation of black adults in the Western Washington eviction filing process. In Pierce County, 1 in 6 black adults were named in a filing between 2013 and 2017, and 1 in 11 in King County during that same time. For whites, it’s 1 in 55 and 1 in 100, respectively. This severe racial disparity makes evictions a civil rights issue, requiring new laws to intervene.” The study also finds that across Washington State, females were evicted 6% more than males.
Rental history sample policies
In Philadelphia and Colorado, tenants cannot be screened for evictions older than four years and seven years, respectively. Evictions with certain case outcomes cannot be considered by the landlord in Philadelphia (such as evictions that have been sealed, evictions that did not result in a judgment for the landlord, evictions that were withdrawn, satisfied or settled). In Philadelphia, landlords cannot have blanket exclusion policies but must conduct individualized assessments of tenant applications.
Minneapolis and Portland have a similar approach to tenant screening for criminal, rental and credit history. They offer landlords two options:
1) Utilize an “inclusive” (Minneapolis) or “low barrier” (Portland) screening criterion; or
2) Conduct an individualized tenant screening.
The inclusive or low barrier screening criteria prohibits landlords from rejecting applicants who have insufficient rental history, rejecting applicants based on evictions that were dismissed or where the tenant prevailed, or resulted in a judgment against the tenant more than three years prior to the application. If a landlord decides to complete an individual assessment, they must consider factors such as: the nature and severity of incidents, number and type of incidents, time that has passed since incidents occurred, and age of the individual at the time incidents occurred.
Staff recommendation regarding rental history screening
Staff recommend that landlords are prohibited from taking adverse action against tenants who use a Housing Choice Voucher to pay their rent who have a prior eviction due to nonpayment of rent that precedes when they received their voucher. Staff recommend that landlords may not reject an applicant with insufficient rental history if they have a co-signer.
Staff recommend that landlords may not take adverse action based on certain rental history, such as:
• evictions where the tenant prevailed
• evictions that were withdrawn, settled or dismissed
• evictions where an order of limited dissemination was entered
• judgments against the tenant that have been satisfied, and
• no-fault evictions.
The City could also require that landlords consider additional information, such as if a tenant with insufficient rental history can otherwise demonstrate financial ability to pay rent through their income, employment, savings, or recent positive rental history.
Social Security number background
Landlords and screening companies frequently require housing applicants to provide a Social Security number to verify identity and to assess credit or rental history. Immigrants and refugees may face additional barriers on their housing applications because they do not have a Social Security number. Washington State’s Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) prohibits housing discrimination based on immigration or citizenship status. However, the State Human Rights Commission lacks capacity to promptly investigate and enforce the WLAD. Applicants may lose a housing opportunity if they are rejected because they are not able to provide a Social Security number on their housing application. Fair housing agencies have provided guidance on alternative documentation that can be utilized to verify an applicant’s identity and financial eligibility, so that screening policies do not have an unintended discriminatory impact on immigrants and refugees.
Social Security numbers sample policies
Tacoma and Portland have adopted policies that restrict landlords from requiring applicants to provide a Social Security number or proof of lawful presence in the U.S. Both Tacoma and Portland’s policies allow applicants to provide alternative documentation to verify identity and financial eligibility.
Staff recommendation regarding use of Social Security Numbers in tenant screening
Staff recommends adopting similar measures to Tacoma and Portland which prohibit landlords from rejecting applicants if they do not provide a Social Security number and from inquiring about an applicant’s lawful presence in the U.S. Staff recommends that alternative documentation be allowed to verify identity and financial eligibility of the applicant. Examples of acceptable documents to establish identity include a birth certificate, driver’s license, individual Tax Payer Identification Number (ITIN), non-immigrant visa, or Certificate of Naturalization (INS I-550).
Enforcement of tenant screening policies considerations
Housing division staff investigate complaints received by the City and can enforce the Rental Housing Code, in collaboration with the City’s Code Enforcement division. While individualized assessments are considered best practice and the City can encourage these practices, adopting policies that require individualized assessments can create some challenges for enforcement. Individualized assessments regarding criminal, credit, and rental/eviction history require landlords to consider factors on a case-by-case basis, such as the nature, severity, age of the applicant, and rehabilitation or new circumstances since the event occurred. Many other cities that require individualized assessments have greater staff capacity for enforcement, or investigations are conducted by their jurisdiction’s human rights commission, which typically conduct a fact-finding investigation that requires more in-depth analysis to establish a finding.
Considering these factors, staff has recommended policies which curb overly restrictive practices while balancing implementation challenges. Should an ordinance be pursued, staff recommends including language that requires landlords to consider additional information provided by the tenant, or allows the tenant to provide mitigating information, so there is still opportunity for a landlord to consider each tenant’s unique circumstances.
Next Steps
Staff is requesting that Land Use & Environment Committee provide feedback on the proposed tenant screening policy options and direct staff whether an ordinance that addresses tenant screening practices should be drafted for full council’s consideration.
Staff has already drafted an ordinance that limits the amount of income landlords may require when screening a tenant for eligibility to rent a housing unit. At the Land Use & Environment Committee’s November 2024 meeting, staff provided a briefing on policy options regarding rent to income ratios and shared information on similar policies enacted in other jurisdictions. At the November 2024 meeting, staff was directed by the Land Use & Environment Committee to draft an ordinance to bring to Council. The draft ordinance requires that landlords may not require applicant(s) to earn greater than 2.5 times the monthly rent and that households may use combined income or choose a financially responsible applicant for screening purposes. Staff provided a briefing on the proposed ordinance at Council’s March 11, 2025 study session. Staff recommends combining the draft code language with additional tenant screening policies into one ordinance to be brought forward to Council. This will help to streamline implementation dates and aid in communication with the public.
Climate Analysis:
The proposed rental housing policies are not expected to have a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. If a household can qualify for more housing options and relocate closer to their existing residence, they may have reduced commute times, resulting in a long-term reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Equity Analysis:
Adopting policy measures that address overly restrictive criminal, credit and rental history tenant screening and provide other means of verification besides Social Security numbers will increase access to more housing opportunities for BIPOC, immigrants, DV survivors, people with disabilities, and others.
BIPOC households are more likely to rent and less likely to own their homes than white households in Olympia. According to HUD CHAS data (retrieved from Department of Commerce), 50% of white households in Olympia rent, while 61% of BIPOC households and 73% of Hispanic/Latine households rent. According to American Community Survey (ACS) data (retrieved from the Thurston County Assessment of Fair Housing), about 82% of Olympia households with a single mother rent rather than own their homes.
According to data provided by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, HUD, the Urban Institute, and other sources cited earlier, Black and Hispanic individuals are more likely to have no credit history, lower credit scores, or inaccuracies on their credit records than white, non-Hispanic individuals. Younger consumers are also more likely to dispute the accuracy of their credit record. HUD’s 2024 guidance also cites data that other groups such as immigrants and survivors of domestic violence (who are disproportionally women) may lack credit history. People who have recently immigrated to the U.S. may have established credit history in their country of origin but have had limited opportunities to build credit history in the U.S. Survivors of domestic violence may be prevented from opening their own accounts or subjected to other forms of financial abuse.
Data cited by HUD in their 2024 guidance states that “in 2014, African Americans comprised approximately 36 percent of the total prison population in the United States, but only about 12 percent of the country’s total population…Hispanics were similarly incarcerated at a rate disproportionate to their share of the general population, with Hispanic individuals comprising approximately 22 percent of the prison population, but only about 17 percent of the total U.S. population.”
According to the study A comprehensive demographic profile of the US evicted population, Black renters face a disproportionate share of evictions. Their research finds that “Less than one in every five renters in the U.S. is Black (18.8%), but over half of all eviction filings are against Black renters (51.1%). Households that include children are filed against for eviction at high rates. Indeed, the eviction filing rate for adults living with a child was 10.4%, over double the risk for adults living without children (5.0%). Black families with children are particularly at risk for eviction. Annual eviction filing rates among Black adults living with kids surpass 25%, well over double the risk faced by members of any other group.”
Requiring provision of Social Security numbers prevents housing access for immigrants to the U.S. According to ACS 5-year estimates, Olympia’s immigrant is growing. Between 2010 and 2020, the City of Olympia experienced 3% growth in residents born outside the U.S. Ten percent of Olympia’s population was born outside the U.S.
In addition to benefiting BIPOC, immigrants, DV survivors, and people with disabilities, making housing more accessible benefits the community at-large and the homeless response system. Data indicates that recidivism is reduced when formerly incarcerated individuals have stable housing. Families with mixed immigration status, parents with criminal histories, and multigenerational families will benefit, as well. A 2022 University of Michigan study finds nearly half of U.S. kids live in homes with criminal justice involvement.
There is limited data on landlord demographics. City of Olympia surveys include demographic data, but not all respondents provide demographic information and there is a limited sample size. Approximately 71% of landlords who completed the landlord survey (part of the Olympia rental housing code update in 2022) identified as white, which is similar to the general population of Olympia overall. Landlords are burdened by requirements that may change their current rental screening practices and if they are required to spend more time reviewing individual applications on a case-by-case basis.
Neighborhood/Community Interests (if known):
Potential changes to Olympia Municipal Code’s Rental Housing Code (OMC 5.82) are a topic of significant interest to renters and rental housing owners/operators within the city and around Thurston County.
Over 600 community members participated in a survey for the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) and over 400 community members participated in a survey during the City’s 2022 public engagement for renter protections. Respondents to the AFH survey were asked to prioritize the top five strategies (out of 13 options) to increase equity and address housing disparities for members of protected classes in Thurston County. Reducing barriers to accessing housing (ex: criminal history, credit history) was ranked as the 4th highest priority.
A sample of public comments are included here:
• ‘Due to the continually higher cost of application fees I feel a lot of landlords who see any risk use that standard to keep the fee and deny the applicant much more often now days. I have spent well over $400 in just application fees and have been denied multiple times due to lack of credit. After 3 months of looking for a place to live I am now sleeping on the sidewalk.’
• ‘My Mother has an eviction in Her name from the past and it is causing Us to be unable to add Her to the lease or get assistance that includes Her because She's unable to be added to Our lease. Our official household size is 4 but She does basically live with Us without being on Our lease.’
• ‘More landlords should accept vouchers. Vouchers should exempt credit checks and meeting 2-3 times the rent requirements.’
• ‘I think that credit ratings don't indicate the ability of a prospective renter to pay rent. Old debts of medical bills should not be considered.’
• ‘When supporting clients, the feedback on barriers to gain housing regardless of our rental assistance is always requirements of income, credit scores, rental history and past debts (5+ years). I work with DV survivors and I am one as well, and this also has played a part in my inability to gain housing on my own. Financial and Economic abuse is a real thing and we do not have sufficient programs that support survivors who have had identity theft, not been able to build credit, has been living with an abuser who took her off the lease to put her at risk and overall credit scores do not determine how good people are and it definitely does not tell you if a tenant will be a good one or not.’
• ‘Certain criminal charges have detrimental impacts of rental eligibility which creates barriers for folks who are looking to improve their lives. Studies show that safe housing has an enormous impact on recidivism and general life stability. Renters do not need to know about someone's history if it doesn't directly affect the house or payments made.’
• ‘Just because someone has bad credit, doesn't mean they won't be a good tenant.’
• ‘Our county needs more housing opportunities for people with criminal backgrounds that have had past evictions related to substance abuse’
• A community member shared the story of her friend who died by suicide when facing homelessness after her rental applications were repeatedly rejected due to her credit history. Despite having rental assistance through local organizations, her credit had suffered due to recent cancer treatments and divorce, and she was not able to qualify for a unit.
There was a mix of responses from landlords when asked about restricting tenant screening, with many landlords indicating they would need to know more specific information before expressing an opinion:
• ‘I am most interested in things that have happened recently. I am less interested in a bankruptcy from 10 years ago or a misdemeanor from a lifetime ago. We all make mistakes and I would like to see space allowed for that.’
• ‘Some of my best tenants were folks who had low credit scores or just didn't look good on paper. They were hard working folks who were grateful for a chance to have a roof above their heads.’
• ‘We must have the ability to check credit. That is the number one indicator if someone will be a good tenant or not.’
• ‘Removes a landlords rights to do with their property as they see fit, staying inside of federal and state discrimination guidelines of course.’
• ‘I run full nationwide credit/criminal check and check references/ verify sufficient income and follow all Fair Housing Laws.’
• ‘I want to know who the person is that I have to collect rent from. I have that right for my own safety. Once you create these policies all you’re going to do is make landlords exceptionally nervous to rent to anyone.’
• ‘Even though no children live with me, I live in a family neighborhood and would not want a sex offender living here.’
• ‘I need to know as much as possible about the tenant. This is not only for my benefit that I find someone who will not damage my rental unit, but also for the safety of other tenants.’
• ‘I assume this is for potential renters who have a criminal record. They've served their time and are eligible for new beginnings.’
• ‘I should be able to know whose in my house. My mortgage deed says I will not knowingly use my house for crime or store hazardous material.’
Options:
1. Consider tenant screening policy options and discuss next steps.
2. Do not receive a briefing on tenant screening policy options or discuss next steps.
3. Take other action.
Financial Impact:
Additional staff time may be required to investigate and enforce violations of any ordinance that the City adopts.
Attachments:
Tenant Screening sample policies
HUD Guidance on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Use of Criminal Records by Providers of Housing and Real Estate-Related Transactions