Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fair Chance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers 'Fair Chance in Housing' limits on criminal-history screening
Summary
SB 937 would require landlords to provide upfront notice of disqualifying offenses, evaluate income/credit/references before deep criminal-history review, and limit look-back windows for certain offenses; sponsors and advocates argued it supports reentry and public safety, while landlords and data vendors urged technical fixes and raised enforcement and fiscal concerns.
Sen. Shinnick Henson presented Senate Bill 937 to establish a staged tenant-screening process that gives applicants with criminal records a clearer path into housing while allowing landlords to evaluate creditworthiness and other rental qualifications first. "This is why it's called Fair Chance in Housing: it simply gets a person their foot in the door," the sponsor said, describing a two-step process: an upfront notice of certain disqualifying offenses, an initial screening on income/credit/references, and then a deeper criminal-history review only for applicants who pass the first stage.
The Senate amendments carve out owner-occupied properties and smaller landlords (the bill generally applies to landlords owning five or more units), and narrow the list of offenses that can be subject to automatic exclusion at application. The bill sets look-back windows for particular convictions (for example, some felonies within the last five years) and creates an internal grievance process for applicants who claim errors or mistaken identity in their records.
Advocates including the Vera Institute and housing groups argued the policy supports stability and reduces recidivism by helping people who have completed sentences and established employment to secure housing. John Baim of the Vera Institute said the approach emphasizes stability and public safety by requiring landlords to weigh credit and income factors before relying on criminal records.
Landlord representatives and consumer-reporting industry witnesses raised practical and legal concerns. Zachary Taylor of the Consumer Data Industry Association asked that the bill avoid provisions that conflict with the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and urged removal of state-level lookback caps that may be preempted. Committee members discussed penalty structures (a civil-cap number such as $500 was referenced in committee negotiation as a compromise), whether to publish lists of violators, the scope of enforcement (Office of Landlord-Tenant Affairs vs. Consumer Protection Act), and how the bill interacts with other tenant protections such as any proposed good-cause eviction rules.
A major technical question was whether criminal-history references should be limited to Maryland convictions or include records from other states; sponsors explained the bill focuses on Maryland code references to avoid creating a burden requiring landlords to interpret 50 jurisdictions’ statutes. Committee members asked whether small landlords would be unduly burdened and whether look-back periods (three, five, or ten years) struck the right balance between public safety and rehabilitation.
The hearing included extended Q&A but closed without a recorded committee vote in the transcript. Sponsors and advocates signaled willingness to work on technical fixes—reporting requirements, penalty language, and FCRA concerns—before the bill returns for further action.
