Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fair Chance Impact Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
UC Berkeley researchers report major increases in housing access after Berkeley and Oakland Fair Chance ordinances
Summary
UC Berkeley researchers told Alameda County supervisors their mixed-methods evaluation found a reported 94% increase in housing access after Berkeley and Oakland Fair Chance Housing ordinances, high reported compliance among providers, and no evidence the laws reduced public safety; presenters noted possible confounding factors and recommended continued evaluation.
UC Berkeley researchers presented findings from a mixed-methods evaluation of the Berkeley and Oakland Fair Chance Housing ordinances to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors Public Protection Committee on Feb. 26.
Margaretta Lynn, principal investigator and project scientist with UC Berkeley's Institute of Urban and Regional Development, described a methodology combining literature review, surveys of formerly incarcerated people and housing providers, and focus groups that included people with lived experience and housing providers. The study was commissioned to assess whether the ordinances were meeting their goals, whether they reduced racial disparities, and whether they produced unintended consequences for housing providers.
Lynn reported several headline findings as presented to the committee: a reported 94% increase in housing access after the ordinances were enacted; an overall reported compliance rate of about 80% among housing providers; higher compliance reported in Berkeley (95%) than in Oakland (77%); and an 81% increase in access reported among Black respondents. The study team also found increases in access across most income groups and age ranges, with the largest gains for people aged 45 to 54. The researchers said private-rental access increased notably and that some decline in access to public housing was observed, which the team interpreted as partially driven by improved private-market access.
On possible unintended consequences, Lynn said 36% of housing providers surveyed reported increased tenant screening requirements after 2020, but focus-group respondents largely attributed those changes to pandemic-era pressures, eviction moratoria, and cost concerns rather than to Fair Chance ordinances. The study reported no evidence that enabling formerly incarcerated people to access stable housing reduced public safety; rather, presenters said the literature and study show housing stability supports reentry and public safety.
Lynn and panel members noted caveats: the post-2020 housing market changes (supply and cost dynamics) may have influenced access trends, and the study recommended continued monitoring and resourcing for implementation. Supervisors asked about outreach to unincorporated-area housing providers; Lynn said researchers had met with provider associations and that Berkeley's stronger outreach likely contributes to its higher compliance rate.
Public commenters with lived experience and community groups welcomed the findings and urged Alameda County to pursue broad implementation and complementary resources—such as investments from Measure W, AB 109 funds and other pots—to ensure Fair Chance policies translate into stable housing for people returning from incarceration.
The committee received the informational presentation and directed staff to continue drafting the county ordinance to conform with the law and to provide further legal and implementation analysis.
