Maryland officials, advocates and landlords debate limits on criminal‑history screening for rental housing

Jake Day, secretary of the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development, told the House Environment and Transportation Committee at a briefing that DHCD updated its tenant‑screening policy for state‑funded multifamily properties to require transparent, publicly posted screening plans and individualized review of conviction histories. “I believe that shelter is a human right,” Secretary Day said, describing the changes as intended to reduce barriers for people with criminal records seeking housing.

The change stems from a DHCD partnership with the Vera Institute of Justice and from federal guidance on tenant screening. The department said its updated policy prohibits consideration of juvenile records, pardoned or sealed records, and convictions for conduct that is no longer a crime in Maryland. DHCD required all state‑funded multifamily properties to submit updated tenant screening plans by January 1; review of those plans is ongoing, the department told legislators.

The committee heard testimony from housing advocates, reentry organizers and landlord representatives about how screening practices affect reentering Marylanders and broader public safety. David Wheaton, an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said about “22% of adults in Maryland have some sort of conviction or arrest history” and cited studies showing widespread use of criminal‑history checks and frequent errors in screening records. Wheaton said research finds criminal history is not predictive of who will be a good tenant and noted research tying stable housing to lower recidivism.

Minister Thomas Anderson of BUILD described interviews with returning citizens and told the committee: “Stable housing reduces the recidivism rate by 40%.” Elizabeth Ashford, a staff attorney at the Public Justice Center, outlined a model Fair Chance at Housing approach used elsewhere: delaying criminal‑history inquiries until after a conditional offer, limiting the look‑back period, and allowing individualized review. “Fair Chance at Housing legislation ensures that every individual has an equal opportunity to access safe and habitable housing even if they have a criminal record,” Ashford said; she told the committee her coalition is working with Delegate Baufau on a Maryland Fair Chance at Housing Act.

Industry witnesses described current landlord practices and compliance steps. Erin Greenfield, representing the Maryland Multi‑Housing Association, reviewed HUD guidance encouraging narrowly tailored policies and individualized assessments and said housing providers seek both safety and low vacancy. Howard Levin, who identified himself as the owner of a consumer reporting agency that conducts tenant screening and individualized assessments for property managers, said the HUD‑style individualized review commonly used by his clients is effective: for his caseload he estimated that “well over 90% of those individuals are approved” after assessment.

Committee members pressed agency and panel witnesses about federal policy changes: Danielle Meister, assistant secretary for homeless solutions at DHCD, warned that federal protections are shifting, saying “recently, HUD has already rescinded several rules. We’ve, even today the DOJ has halted civil rights investigations.” Witnesses discussed how federal changes could affect HUD‑funded programs versus state‑financed housing and the private rental market.

Several legislators raised landlord liability and municipal rules. Panelists said local ordinances can hold landlords accountable for tenant behavior in some jurisdictions; Montgomery and Prince George’s counties were cited as having enforcement tools and housing justice laws that can be enforced largely on a complaint basis. Landlord and industry witnesses recommended codifying HUD’s individualized‑assessment practices into state law so that denial solely for criminal history must include an offered individualized review.

Advocates and DHCD officials also highlighted practical problems with screening data: Wheaton cited an analysis finding roughly 73% of Maryland screening records contained at least one error and noted TransUnion and other surveys showing most housing providers use criminal history in screening. Panelists repeatedly emphasized that errors, inconsistent reporting, and lack of uniform interview or appeal processes lead to denials of housing to people who may be suitable tenants.

DHCD said it will continue coordinating with the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, the Department of Juvenile Services and the Department of General Services, and will pursue policy leadership and legislative advocacy to reduce housing barriers for returning citizens. No formal bill votes or committee actions occurred at the briefing; committee members and stakeholders signaled interest in drafting state‑level protections aligned with Fair Chance best practices.

The briefing closed with the department and stakeholder groups continuing plans for follow‑up work and possible legislation during the session.