1

 
CU INDIVISIBLE 

Position paper: Prepared by Emily Rodriguez

I. Our Position
CU Indivisible believe it's high time that the Champaign City Council strike Section 17/4.5 of its
Human Rights Ordinance. This exemption puts renters with a conviction record at risk for
discrimination from landlords at a time when they are in most need of sensible housing options
up to 5 years after they’ve completed their sentence. We join many other groups in the
conviction that this exemption restricts housing options for people of color, constraints
opportunities for community and economic development, compromises the moral standing of
our community, and may constitute a violation of the Fair Housing Act.

II. Background
In 1970s, the Cities of Urbana and City of Champaign updated their municipal code chapters on
Human Rights to prohibit discrimination in the areas of employment, credit, housing and access
to public accommodations on the basis of a person’s “prior arrest or conviction record.” Read
the full ordinance here.

Why did Champaign and Urbana adopt protections for housing?

After reviewing the facts, we see two main reasons.
Reason 1: Affordable and Accessible Housing Means More Opportunities.
Housing availability is a key determinant of a city’s economic success and social stability.
Access to affordable housing has wide ranging, positive impacts. Evidence-based research has
shown that when communities have stable, decent, and accessible housing that they can afford,
they are better able to find employment, achieve economic mobility, perform better in school,
and maintain improved health. For low-income families and individuals, increasing and
preserving access to affordable housing can allow residents to lift themselves out of poverty. In
short, everyone wins when all have affordable housing; it is the difference between a community
and economy that survives or thrives.1

1
The 2017 report includes more than 100 success stories of people and communities that have been
positively impacted by federal affordable housing investments funded through HUD and USDA. See also
 2

Reason 2: Housing is a Civil Right.

Housing reform is a key feature of social mobility, and so it makes sense that the policy area
was a focus of civil rights reforms.The Fair Housing Act aimed to address housing segregation,
and it proved to be among the most difficult legislative tasks undertaken by congress in the
wake of Martin Luther King’s assassination.2 Southern senators fiercely opposed the measure
and framed the reform as a threat to property values and state’s rights.

After several failed attempts, the Fair Housing Act finally passed in 1968. The Act sought to ban
discrimination in the sale or rental of all housing and authorized the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) to investigate allegations of discrimination, issue complaints against
those suspected of discrimination, hold hearings to assess the severity of discrimination, and
publish cease and desist orders in cases where discrimination was confirmed. In addition, the
act empowered the Attorney General to prosecute agents who engaged in a pattern and
practice of discrimination, and individual victims of discrimination were authorized to file civil
suits in federal court for significant damages, punitive awards, court costs, and attorney's fees.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) takes on cases that allege municipalities and other local
government entities have violated the Fair Housing Act by denying permits or zoning changes
for housing developments, or by relegating them to predominantly minority neighborhoods,
because the prospective residents were expected to be predominantly African-Americans.

However, a complaint need not be of explicitly discriminatory intent to face prosecution. In 2015,
the Supreme Court ruled that “disparate impact liability” can be the basis of a valid claim under
the FHA. Disparate impact liability under the FHA arises when a housing provider’s policy or
practice that seems neutral on its face actually results in discriminatory effects on a protected
class. Successful challenges against a housing practice satisfy a 3-part burden.3
The regulation states that a practice has a discriminatory effect “where it actually or predictably
results in a disparate impact on a group of persons or creates, increases, reinforces, or
perpetuates segregated housing patterns because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial
status, or national origin.” The ruling has caused some cities like Seattle, Washington to update
their housing policies to avoid litigation.

Consultant David Schwartz’s 2016 report in the Economic Development Journal, “The Importance of
Affordable Housing To Economic Competitiveness” (Winter 2016 , 15:1).
2
Notable efforts that failed occured in 1964, 1966, and 1967.
3
First, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the challenged practice caused or predictably will cause a
discriminatory effect. Then, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that the challenged practice is
necessary to achieve one or more “substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests.” If the defendant
satisfies that burden, then, the plaintiff must prove that the substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory
interest could be accomplished through a practice that has a less discriminatory effect. The defendant will
be able to prevail if it can show that the substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest cannot be
achieved through a practice that has any less discriminatory effect.
 3

III. The Problem

In 1994, the City of Champaign added an exception to this ordinance that protects housing
providers that choose to discriminate against housing applicants that have lived outside of jail or
prison for at least five years. This exemption, Section 17/4.5 of its Human Rights Ordinance
(HRO, henceforth), worsens Champaign’s existing housing problems by putting renters with a
conviction record at risk for discrimination from housing providers. This has 5 facets worth
discussing.

1. The City of Champaign has developed a persistent housing problem, marked

by a decrease in available housing options4 and an increase in rent prices. The
1994 exemption is a self-inflicted wound exacerbating these problems.5

According to data from the National Low Income Housing Coalition, there were less than 35
affordable and available homes for extremely low income households in Champaign last year--
That’s one of the lowest numbers in Illinois.

For some time now, a chorus of community stakeholders have pointed to the exception in the
City’s HRO as an unnecessary and self-inflicted factor exacerbating Champaign’s housing
problem. The City of Champaign Neighborhood Services Department’s 2014 Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing (a report required by HUD) identified criminal background as a
chief reason many Champaign residents were denied sensible housing:

“Common reasons for being turned down centered on criminal background, with a
perception that denials were unfairly based on non-residential crimes (e.g. retail theft) or
crimes that are many years in the applicant’s past (as opposed to crimes that threaten
building safety, such as arson, or crimes where local laws make it impossible to rent due
to location, such as for registered sex offenders).” (p. 32)

This is experience is echoed by national statistics. A 2015 survey of formerly incarcerated

people and their families found that 79 percent of survey participants were either ineligible for or
denied housing because of their own or a loved one’s conviction history.

4
According to HUD’s most recent Housing Market Analysis of Champaign, construction of
non-student-targeted apartments has been relatively limited since 2012, contributing to the tightening of
the market.
5
The Champaign County Regional Planning Commission reports that of 2016, roughly 50 percent of
renter-occupied households were spending 30 percent or more of their income on housing (A household
that spends 30 percent or more of its collective monthly income to cover housing costs is considered to
be “housing cost-burden[ed].”).
 4

Key stakeholders argue that reverting back to Champaign’s original Human Rights Ordinance
(striking the 1994 exemption) to be a sensible step in solving the housing problem.
● In October, 2016, the Champaign County Reentry Council recommended that HACC
change its eligibility policies and that the City of Champaign change its Human Rights
ordinance to remove the 5-year delay for a person with a conviction record being
protected from housing discrimination.
● Also in October 2016, the City of Champaign Human Relations Commission
recommended to the Champaign City Council that it change its Human Rights law to
repeal the section (17.4-5) allowing discrimination in rental housing based on conviction
record.6
● The Racial Justice Task Force also recommended that the County Board begin to lobby
the City of Champaign to strike its exemption in 2018.

Clarifying questions:

Who is at risk for discrimination?

● The policy has a disparate impact on African Americans because of racial disparity in
both criminal convictions and in income. According to the U.S. Census Bureau 2015
population estimates for Champaign County, 41.5% of African Americans have incomes
below the poverty level compared to 17.2% of white people.
● Anyone with a conviction record. U.S. Department of Justice has estimated one in every
three adults in the US has either an arrest or conviction record.7
● Children are made more vulnerable by the risk posed to parents. The Center for
American Progress reports that nearly half of all children in the U.S. have one parent
with a criminal record.8

Who is not at risk for discrimination?

If a person with a conviction record for any crime, no matter how serious, is from a home-owning
family, the family can reunite immediately upon the person’s release. And it remains unlawful in
City of Champaign to deny the purchase of residential real estate based on the applicant’s
conviction record.

2. The exemption does not protect housing providers from risk, rather, it poses a
legal liability under the Fair Housing Act.
While having a criminal record is not a protected characteristic under the Fair Housing Act,
criminal history-based restrictions on housing opportunities violate the Act if, without justification,

6
Minutes from the City Council Meetings that discussed this recommendation can be found here and
here.
7
Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, “Survey of State Criminal History Information
Systems,” 2012, available here.
8
Vallas, Boteacg, West, Odum. “Removing Barriers to Opportunity for Parents with Criminal Records and
Their Children: A Two Generation Approach,” Center for American Progress. December 2015.
 5

their burden falls more often on renters or other housing market participants of one race or
national origin over another (i.e., discriminatory effects liability, described in the first section).
The Supreme Court affirmed this reading of the FHA in 2015, this ruling is described in the first
section of this paper.

In light of this decision, a 2016 HUD advisory warns that landlords could be breaking the law
when they refuse to rent to people with criminal records — even if they have no intention to
discriminate — because such a policy would likely have a disproportionate impact on applicants
of color. Thus, the exemption might provide a false sense of security in the face of great legal
risk. We note this for two reasons.

a. The policy places the burden on the housing provider to demonstrate that their
screening poses a “substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest” whether they
know it or not-- without providing common sense boundaries that would reduce the risk
of unknowingly violating the Fair Housing Act.
b. It does not require (a) housing providers to distinguish between criminal conduct that
indicates a demonstrable risk to resident safety and/or property and criminal conduct
that does not, nor does it require housing providers to (b) distinguish between crimes
committed at the place where the convicted person had resided from crimes not related
to the convicted person’s former housing.

3. The exemption restricts fair housing options for people of color, widening
racial disparities in housing and the criminal justice system.
Because of widespread racial and ethnic disparities in the U.S. criminal justice system, criminal
history-based restrictions on access to housing are likely disproportionately to burden African
Americans and Latinx communities.
c. This puts people of color at greater risk for predatory housing practices.
Landlords that rent to convicts can require higher deposit payments and rates
and lower living conditions in knowledge that their fellow landlords will either deny
their application or mirror their tactics.
d. As written, the money in a person's bank account matters more than the nature
of the offense or the risk it might pose to residents. This reality directly
contradicts Sec. 17-77 of the HRO, which prohibits discrimination based on
sociological or economic conditions or personal characteristics.
1. In contrast, a person with a conviction record for any crime, no matter
how serious, is from a home-owning family, the family can reunite
immediately upon the person’s release.
2. And it remains unlawful in City of Champaign to deny the purchase of
residential real estate based on the applicant’s conviction record.
 6

4. The exemption does not make tenants any safer, and it puts more tenants at
risk than it would be expected to benefit.9
The policy has no rational relationship to safety of housing communities because it does not
distinguish crimes committed at the place where the convicted person had resided from crimes
not related to the convicted person’s former housing.
 Even a first-time offender whose sentence
is probation for a period of less than five years is subject to a five-year ban from subsidized
housing. Consider the following facts:
● A 2015 NYU report strongly suggests that a criminal record is not a reliable indicator of
risky tenancy.
● The statistics are borne out in our neighboring city, Urbana, which has maintained the
original protections against discrimination for renters with criminal records. There is no
significant difference in crime rates between Urbana and Champaign. A statewide
database showing the number of serious crimes reported for each local law enforcement
agency shows Urbana with 3,938 crimes per 100,000 residents in 2008 and 4,229 per
100,000 for Champaign.
● In Urbana, landlords are not required to keep renting to someone who is perpetrating
ongoing criminal activity. Criminal activity is grounds for eviction.

5. The policy encourages recidivism and poses a barrier to those seeking

rehabilitation into the community.
A wealth of research has shown that an individual’s ability to access safe, secure and affordable
housing after being released from jail or prison is critical determinant of their successful reentry
to society.10
a. Most notably, a 2011 study by the Vera Institute of Justice has shown that people with
stable housing are more likely to successfully reintegrate into society and are less
likely to reoffend.11
b. In Champaign, a person cannot be released on parole from the Department of
Corrections unless they indicate that they have a home to go to. If they do not, they

9
Additional studies also support this conclusion. Kurlychek, et al. “Scarlet Letters & Recidivism: Does an
Old Criminal Record Predict Future Criminal Behavior?” (2006), and “‘Redemption’ in an Era of
Widespread Criminal Background Checks,” NIJ Journal, Issue 263 (June 2009), at page 10 - preliminary
study with group of first-time 1980 arrestees in New York- the findings depend on the nature of the prior
offense and the age of the individual.
10
Three studies support this conclusion. See, e.g., S. Metraux, et al. “Incarceration and Homelessness,”
in Toward Understanding Homelessness: The 2007 National Symposium on Homelessness Research, #9
(D. Dennis, et al. eds., 2007), which argues that the increasing numbers of people leaving carceral
institutions face an increased risk for homelessness and, conversely, how persons experiencing
homelessness are vulnerable to incarceration. See also The Importance of Stable Housing for Formerly
Incarcerated Individuals, Housing Law Bulletin, Volume 40, which demonstrates that a lack of secure
housing increases the number of individuals that face residential instability exacerbates crime.
11
Vera Institute of Justice, “Piloting a Tool for Reentry: A Promising Approach to Engaging Family
Members,” 2011, available here.
 7

serve their parole in prison instead of the community. When a person is released from
prison, they don’t have money to pay a rent and deposit to move into an apartment in
a city that does not allow discrimination.

IV: Reasons for Urgency

Given the wide support this action has received and its absence in Urbana’s City code, it is our
position that the City of Champaign ought to strike the provision without a study. We believe the
problem is one of political will, not a lack of evidence or voices of support. We believe the study
session called for recently was aimed to provide a middle ground for council members and the
information gained from those sessions as a means of justifying their decision. Two extenuating
factors make striking the exemption even more necessary.

First, with expected cuts to federal spending on the horizon, advocates such as the Campaign
for Housing and Community Development Funding (CHCDF) and the National Low Income
Housing Coalition (NLIHC) worry that existing housing problems will develop into crises for
localities like Champaign.12

Second, the exemption stands as mark against our county that detracts from our ability to attract
attention from programs and initiatives that would provide opportunities to improve life for all in
our county. Earning the support of organizations such as the Vera Institute would ease
Champaign’s housing issues. Both the incoming and outgoing Executive Directors of the
Housing Authority of Champaign County recently spoke of their intention to apply to take part in
a trial program that would open up more housing for the reentry population. The Vera Institute
would supply funding for this program, and housing programs outside of the HACC would
benefit. Recently recognized as an Innovator County for its work in criminal justice reform, the
Directors believe that Champaign County could be a competitive candidate for this funding.
However, they believe the exemption would greatly damage our chances.

12
President Trump has put forward a 2019 budget that cuts basic assistance that millions of families
struggling to get by need to help pay the rent, put food on the table, and get health care. The Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities estimate the cuts would affect a broad range of low- and moderate-income
people, including parents, children, seniors, and people with disabilities. Taken together, the cuts are far
deeper than any ever enacted and would deepen poverty and hardship and swell the ranks of the
uninsured. Although congress is likely to put forward a budget with less-severe cuts, Illinois housing
advocates continue to voice their concerned for the extremely impoverished, as the overwhelming
majority of federal, state, and local money for ‘affordable housing’ already goes toward households above
(50 percent) of the area median income.
 8

V. Moving Forward
Now, more than ever, is a time for leadership from Champaign’s Mayor Feinen.

We believe the Council is deeply anxious of public involvement in the political process and is not
prepared for the scrutiny this issue will bring. After meeting with Council Members, constituents
have reported that a few opposed striking the exemption because they themselves are
landlords. They also reported Council Members seemed to resent challenges from and the
“politicization” of the issue from the County Board. We believe public trust is at risk. Continued
interactions such as these will frustrate our members and would not bear well on the reputation
of the Champaign City Council.

We call on Mayor Feinen to discuss the urgency of this issue with the City Council. We urge the
Council to review Seattle, Washington’s decision to strike a similar exemption from their own
Human Rights Ordinance on August 14, 2017.

Prevent landlords from using criminal record as a basis for denial of any rental housing.
Prevent landlords fors screening applicants for arrests that didn’t lead to a conviction, as well as
records that have been expunged, vacated, or sealed; and juvenile records.

Supporters
CUI members listened to the final report of the Racial Justice Task Force with great interest. We
know CUI can help push for action on these common sense reforms, and we've been advised
by the task force to start with with this exemption. We seek to add our support for striking this
measure, alongside the City of Champaign Human Relations Commission, the Housing
Authority of Champaign County, the Champaign County Reentry Council the Racial Justice Task
Force, and more recently, the Champaign County Board.
 9

VI. Other Notes

Government Structure of Champaign

The City of Champaign operates under the council-manager form of government. The City
Council and the mayor are elected by the public and serves as the governing body of the City.
The City Council in turn appoints a professional City Manager who implements Council direction
and oversees the day-to-day operations of the City.

The Mayor: Responsibilities are primarily to preside at council meetings and to act as head of
the city for ceremonial purposes and for purposes of military law. The mayor votes as a
councilmember and does not have any veto power. Political skills possessed by the mayor can
be helpful in bringing parties together in the policy development process. The mayor creates
order in the group.

City Council: Champaign’s legislative and policy-making body. The City Council establishes the
vision and goals for the City. The Council is comprised of the Mayor and seven Council
members. Two Council members are elected At-Large and five are elected by Council District.
Five votes are needed to get any item on the agenda and to approve any motion.

City Code, Human Rights Ordinance Language

Sec. 17-75. - Exceptions. (C.B. No. 94-167, § 1, 7-5-94)
(e) Added on July 5, 1994: Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit discrimination in the leasing of
residential property based upon a person's record of convictions for a forcible felony or a felony
drug conviction or the conviction of the sale, manufacture or distribution of illegal drugs or
convictions which are based upon factors which would constitute one of the categories of
convictions listed above under Illinois law; provided, that the conviction shall not be allowed to
be the basis of discrimination if the person convicted has resided outside of prison at least the
last five (5) consecutive years without being convicted of an offense involving the use of force or
violence or the illegal use, possession, distribution, sale or manufacture of drugs.

Sec. 17-77. - Discrimination based on sociological or economic conditions or personal

characteristics. (C.B. No. 94-167, § 1, 7-5-94)
In addition to other types of discrimination this chapter shall be interpreted to the end of
eliminating discrimination on the basis of real or perceived economic and social conditions in
which a person resides or is raised or personal characteristics shared by a group and which
condition or characteristics are perceived to result in stereotypical behavior for which no
statistically significant basis exists and upon which an individual takes adverse action against a
person perceived to be in that condition or possess that stereotypical characteristic despite the
lack of facts available upon which to base such adverse action. The Human Relations
Commission should investigate complaints of discrimination not otherwise specifically prohibited
 10

by this chapter to determine if additional specific prohibitions or guidelines to prevent and

remedy unwarranted discrimination should be adopted.