Shared Goal

Akron residents have greater access to safe, well-maintained, and affordable housing.

Outcome

Safe & Quality Housing

The Problem

When someone applies to rent a home, landlords often review the person’s background as part of the application process.

This may include checking the person’s credit history, past evictions, and criminal records.

Some landlords and property managers use blanket rules that automatically reject applicants who have any criminal history. For example, an advertisement for an apartment might say, “No applicants with a criminal record.”

These types of policies can make it difficult for people with past convictions to find stable housing, even years after the offense occurred.

Stable housing can play an important role in helping people maintain employment and remain part of their communities.

At the same time, landlords and property managers often say they want to protect the safety of their properties and other residents.

Today, Akron’s housing non-discrimination rules do not limit how landlords can use criminal history when deciding whether to rent to someone.

One idea for addressing this issue is to limit the use of automatic criminal-history bans in rental housing.

This proposal focuses on requiring housing providers to review each applicant individually rather than using blanket exclusions.

The Community Proposal

This proposal would change Akron’s housing discrimination rules so that landlords could not automatically reject rental applicants based only on a criminal record.

Instead, landlords would need to review each applicant’s situation individually before deciding whether to approve or deny the application.

For example, a landlord might consider factors such as how long ago the offense occurred, what the offense involved, and whether it relates to legitimate concerns about safety or property damage.

If a housing provider decides to deny an application based on criminal history, the decision would need to follow these kinds of individualized standards.

In housing law, groups that are protected from discrimination are called protected classes. This proposal would add criminal history to that list, with certain exceptions.

Some exceptions would still apply. For example, federal housing programs already require landlords to deny housing in certain situations, such as when someone is listed on a lifetime sex-offender registry.

Ohio law also allows some people to seal past criminal records so they do not have to disclose them when applying for housing. Because of this, the proposal would mainly affect people whose records cannot yet be sealed, whose offenses are not eligible for sealing, or who have not yet gone through that process.

This proposal would not prevent landlords from screening tenants or considering safety concerns. Instead, it would limit the use of automatic rules that reject applicants without reviewing their individual circumstances.

Possible Approaches

If Akron adopted criminal-history protections in housing, local officials would decide how the policy operates. Possible approaches could include:

Defining what counts as criminal history
The city could specify whether the policy applies to arrests, convictions, or both, and whether older records should be treated differently than recent ones.

Setting clear review factors
Housing providers could be asked to consider factors such as how long ago the offense occurred, its severity, and whether it relates to housing safety or property concerns.

Allowing certain exceptions
The ordinance could include specific exceptions required by federal housing programs or other legal requirements.

Providing a process for denied applicants
Applicants who are denied housing could receive an explanation and an opportunity to provide additional context or correct inaccurate records.

The specific approaches would be determined later if the proposal moves forward.

Benefits & Tradeoffs

Every proposal involves possible benefits and tradeoffs. The points below highlight several that Delegates may want to consider.

Possible Benefits

More housing access for people returning to the community
Limiting blanket bans may give more people with criminal records the opportunity to apply for housing and be considered on a case-by-case basis.

More consistent decision-making
Requiring landlords and property owners to conduct individualized reviews could encourage clearer and more consistent screening practices among housing providers.

Greater housing stability for some residents
Stable housing can help people maintain employment, reconnect with family, and build stability after returning to their communities.

Possible Tradeoffs

Concerns about safety or liability
Some landlords and property owners may have concerns about safety for other tenants or property damage.

Possible shifts to other screening tools
If landlords cannot automatically reject applicants based on criminal history, some may rely more heavily on other screening criteria–such as credit scores, income requirements, or eviction history—which could still make it difficult for some applicants to qualify.

Difficult enforcement
Because property owners are rarely required to explain a rejection, it could be difficult to know whether criminal history was actually the reason, making the rule hard to enforce.

View the Sources