"HUD Issues New Guidelines on AI Usage in Applicant Screening"

person A.J. Johnson today 05/18/2024

On May 2, 2024, the Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) released two crucial guidance documents. These documents address the Fair Housing Act (FHA) application to two areas where the use of artificial intelligence (AI) poses particular concerns: the tenant screening process and its application to the advertising of housing opportunities through online platforms that use targeted ads. This guidance, mandated by an Executive Order from President Biden, is a significant step in combating discrimination enabled by algorithmic tools used to make leasing decisions.

In this article, I will explain the HUD guidance regarding tenant screening using AI and outline the crucial steps that owners and managers of multifamily housing must take to avoid potential liability in this area. Your role in implementing these steps is vital to ensuring fair and nondiscriminatory housing practices.

This guidance from HUD is a comprehensive explanation of how the Fair Housing Act serves as a protective shield for the rights of applicants for rental housing. It provides recommendations and best practices for housing providers and tenant screening companies to ensure compliance with the Fair Housing Act. ​ The guidance's primary goal is to guarantee that the screening of applicants for rental housing is conducted in a nondiscriminatory manner. It also aims to help applicants understand their rights and identify instances when they may have been unlawfully denied housing. ​ The guidance also acknowledges the growing use of advanced technologies, such as machine learning and artificial intelligence, by tenant screening companies and reiterates that the Fair Housing Act applies to housing decisions irrespective of the technology used.

According to the guidance, certain screenings are particularly likely to pose fair housing concerns. ​ These include:

  1. Screening criteria that disproportionately exclude applicants of a certain race or other protected class: If a screening policy has a disparate impact on a protected class, it may be considered discriminatory. ​ Conducting more precise screenings focusing on relevant information can help mitigate this concern. ​
  2. Screening based on past actions unrelated to tenancy or incidents unlikely to recur: Screening policies should focus on information relevant to applicants' ability to comply with their tenancy obligations. ​ Screening criteria that consider past actions or incidents that are not directly related to tenancy or are unlikely to recur may result in unfair and discriminatory exclusions. ​
  3. Inaccurate records and incomplete datasets: Screening companies should ensure that the records they use are accurate and complete. ​ Inaccurate records can disproportionately affect certain demographic groups, and incomplete datasets may lead to biased screening outcomes. ​ Screening companies should also avoid using wildcard or name-only matching procedures, which can lead to erroneous attributions and misidentifications. ​
  4. Overbroad screening policies: Screening policies should be tailored to the specific needs and circumstances of the housing provider. ​ Overbroad screening policies that consider irrelevant or unnecessary information may result in discriminatory outcomes. ​ Screening policies should be clear, detailed, and publicly available to ensure transparency and fairness. ​
  5. Lack of transparency in complex models: Housing providers and tenant screening companies that use complex models, such as those based on machine learning or artificial intelligence, should ensure transparency in their decision-making processes. ​ Lack of transparency can make it difficult to assess whether a model complies with fair housing laws and can lead to discriminatory outcomes. ​ Models should be designed, tested, and monitored for fairness and accuracy.

Housing managers and tenant screening companies must be fully aware of these fair housing concerns and take immediate steps to address them in their screening practices. Non-compliance can lead to serious legal and reputational consequences, underscoring the urgency of this matter.

The three types of screenings discussed in the document are: ​

  1. Credit History Screening: This type of screening involves assessing an applicant's credit history, including their credit scores and reports. ​ The document highlights the disparities and potential discriminatory effects based on race, national origin, sex, disability, or other protected characteristics. ​ It emphasizes that credit scores were not designed to predict tenancy behavior accurately and that overreliance on credit history may result in unjustified discrimination. ​
  2. Eviction History Screening: Eviction history screening involves reviewing an applicant's records for past evictions. ​ The document points out that eviction records can be unreliable. It highlights the disproportionate impact of evictions on certain groups, such as Black and Hispanic renters, women, families with children, and individuals with disabilities. ​ It cautions against overbroad screening policies that do not consider eviction records' nature, recency, or relevance and emphasizes the need for fair and accurate assessments. ​
  3. Criminal Records Screening: This type of screening involves considering an applicant's criminal history. ​ The document highlights the disproportionate impact on individuals with disabilities and Black and Brown persons and emphasizes that overbroad criminal record screenings can have unjustified discriminatory effects. ​ It recommends differentiating between offenses based on their nature, severity, and recency and providing opportunities for applicants to present evidence of rehabilitation or mitigating factors. Reasonable accommodations may be required for individuals with disabilities or those who have experienced domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. ​

These three screenings are particularly likely to pose fair housing concerns due to the potential for disparate impact and discriminatory outcomes. ​ The document provides guidance on how housing providers and tenant screening companies can ensure their screening practices comply with fair housing laws and promote equal opportunity for all applicants. ​

The Role of Tenant Screening Companies in Discriminatory Decisions

Tenant screening companies can play a role in discriminatory decisions by providing screening reports and recommendations to housing providers. ​ They influence the outcome through their screening practices, criteria and standards, discretionary factors, denial recommendations, and the accuracy and completeness of records. ​ Tenant screening companies must ensure compliance with fair housing laws and strive for transparency, accuracy, and fairness in their screening processes to minimize the potential for discriminatory decisions. Most importantly, owners must remember that it is not the screening companies who deny applicants - it is the property owners.

Courts Have Weighed in on the Issue

The document mentions several court cases to provide legal context and support the guidance related to tenant screening practices and the Fair Housing Act. Key cases include:

  1. Sec’y of Dept. of Hous. & Urb. Dev. ex rel. Loveless v. Wesley Apt. Homes, LLC: Related to tenant screening practices.
  2. Conn. Fair Hous. Ctr. v. CoreLogic Rental Prop. Sols., LLC: Highlights tenant screening companies' liability under the Fair Housing Act.
  3. Meyer v. Holley: Explains vicarious liability and housing providers' responsibility for agents' actions.
  4. Sabal Palm Condos. of Pine Ridge Ass’n, Inc. v. Fischer: Discusses tenant screening companies' liability.
  5. United States v. Balistrieri: Supports the broad application of the Fair Housing Act.
  6. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp.: Related to proving discriminatory intent.
  7. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green: Framework for proving discriminatory intent using circumstantial evidence.
  8. Tex. Dept. of Hous. & Cmty. Aff. v. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, Inc.: Burden-shifting framework for proving discriminatory effects.
  9. La. Fair Hous. Action Ctr. v. Azalea Garden Props., LLC: Example of discriminatory effects liability in tenant screening practices.

​​

Information to Provide When Denying an Application

When denying an applicant's application, the following information should be provided to the applicant: ​

  • A detailed denial explanation that specifies the reasons for the denial and the specific standards or criteria that the applicant did not meet. ​
  • Supporting documentation, such as the screening report or records relied upon in making the decision. ​
  • Information on how to dispute the accuracy or completeness of any negative information. ​
  • Information on how to request an appeal if an appeal process is available.
  • Information on requesting a reasonable accommodation if the applicant has a disability. ​
  • An adverse action notice that includes the specific reasons for the denial based on screening results.
  • Contact information for the tenant screening company or housing provider responsible for the denial. ​
  • Information on the screening process, including the criteria used for evaluation and the sources of information relied upon. ​
  • The right to dispute or correct any inaccurate information that may have contributed to the denial.
  • Reminders of fair housing rights and protections, including information on filing a complaint if discrimination is believed to have occurred.

Bottom Line

To comply with the guidance provided, owners can consider the following recommendations:

  1. Review and update screening policies to ensure they are fair and do not disproportionately impact protected groups. ​
  2. Use disparate impact analysis to identify and mitigate any potential discriminatory effects of screening policies. ​
  3. Evaluate alternative methods of assessing an applicant's financial responsibility, such as rental payment history or income verification, instead of relying solely on credit history. ​
  4. Carefully assess eviction history screening practices, considering the circumstances surrounding the eviction. ​
  5. When conducting criminal records screening, differentiate between criminal offenses based on their nature, severity, and recency. ​
  6. Implement mitigating circumstances and provide reasonable accommodations for applicants with disabilities or those who have experienced domestic violence. ​
  7. Regularly audit and monitor screening practices to ensure compliance with fair housing laws. ​
  8. Provide transparency in the screening process by clearly communicating the criteria and allowing applicants to challenge negative information. ​
  9. Stay informed about fair housing laws and seek legal guidance to ensure compliance with the latest guidelines and requirements.

Finally, remember that overreliance on screening company algorithms to make leasing decisions can lead to fair housing trouble. It is people who are applying for housing. It should be people who make the final decision about that person's suitability for housing.

Latest Articles

HUD Publishes 2025 Income Limits

On April 1, 2025, HUD published the 2025 income limits for HUD programs and the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and Tax-Exempt Bond programs. The limits are effective on April 1, 2025. The limits for the LIHTC and Bond projects are published separately from those for HUD programs. For better understanding, LIHTC and Bond properties operate under the Multifamily Tax Subsidy Project (MTSP) limits. These properties are 'held harmless' from income limit (and therefore rent) reductions. This means that these properties may use the highest income limits for resident qualification and rent calculation since the project has been in service. However, it's important to note that HUD program income limits are not 'held harmless '. HUD publishes the 50% and 60% MTSP limits alongside the Average Income (AI) limits, which are set at 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, and 80%. Projects that began service before 2009 may utilize the HERA Special Income Limits in areas where HUD has published such limits. Projects placed in service after 2008 cannot use the HERA Special Limits. Projects in rural areas not financed by tax-exempt bonds can use the higher MTSP limits or the National Non-Metropolitan Income Limits (NNMIL). It is important to note that for 2025, HUD has made changes to the definitions of geographic areas as determined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The counties or towns within certain metropolitan areas may have changed. Owners and managers should consult the HUD Area Definition Report for a list of their areas and their components. The link to the Area Definition Report can be found on the website provided below. Owners of LIHTC projects may rely on the 2024 income limits for all purposes for 45 days after the effective date of the newly issued limits, which ends on May 16, 2025. The limits for HUD programs may be found at www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html. The limits for LIHTC and Bond programs may be found at www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/mtsp.html.

Effects of Potential Staffing Cuts on HUD Programs

As the Trump administration moves forward with plans to reduce the federal workforce dramatically, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), according to recent reporting by the Associated Press, could face potential cuts that could eliminate half of its staff approximately 4,000 positions. Widespread Impact Across Essential Services The proposed reductions would affect numerous critical HUD programs, including disaster recovery efforts, rental assistance, housing discrimination investigations, and support for first-time homebuyers. Housing advocates and former HUD officials have raised substantial concerns that these extensive staffing cuts could greatly hinder or even stop the department s ability to carry out its mission. The official HUD position is that this information "should not be considered final. However, the potential extent of these reductions aligns with the administration s broader goal of reducing government spending. Recently appointed HUD Secretary Scott Turner announced the formation of a Department of Government Efficiency task force inspired by billionaire Elon Musk, while also underscoring the identification of "$1.9 billion in misplaced funds and "$260 million in wasteful contracts. Rental Assistance Programs at Risk The proposed cuts most concerning aspect is their potential impact on the Office of Public and Indian Housing, which could lose half its workforce from 1,529 employees to just 765. This office manages rental assistance subsidies for more than 3.5 million households and supports public housing for approximately 1 million people. Georgi Banna, general counsel for the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, warns that such reductions could delay payments for the Section 8 voucher program, which provides rental assistance to millions of low-income Americans. Although tenants have certain protections as long as they pay their share of the rent, they could ultimately face displacement if landlords withdraw from the voucher program due to payment issues. Budget Challenges Compound the Problem The potential staffing cuts come at a particularly challenging time as Congress continues to navigate a contentious appropriations process for HUD programs. The House version of the spending bill would boost funding for Housing Choice Vouchers by $115 million, which sounds promising but falls far short of the estimated $4.3 billion increase needed to simply maintain current service levels, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). If the House budget is approved, it will only meet 90% of the need, potentially causing about 283,000 households to lose voucher access what the CBPP has described as the "most severe funding shortfall in the history of the voucher program. The situation has already caused damage, with some voucher-administering agencies halting the distribution of new vouchers. Local housing authorities have been operating on constrained budgets, and many lack robust reserves to weather a potential government shutdown or significant funding cuts. Fair Housing Enforcement Under Threat Perhaps the most alarming aspect is the proposed 77% reduction in the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, which could shrink its staff from 572 employees to only 134. As HUD s main enforcer of national fair housing laws, this office investigates discrimination complaints and works to ensure equal access to housing. Although Secretary Turner has previously committed to upholding the Fair Housing Act, which includes a statutory mandate for HUD to combat discrimination, the administration s approach to implementing the law may undergo significant changes. Turner recently announced on social media that HUD had canceled $4 million in diversity, equity, and inclusion contracts. Uncertainty for Housing Authorities and Vulnerable Populations Potential staffing cuts and budget uncertainties have come together to create a tumultuous situation for local housing authorities. Housing authorities are finding it difficult to provide clear guidance to both families and landlords while anticipating potentially "draconian consequences if significant cuts or a government shutdown happen. The months ahead may pose unprecedented challenges and uncertainty for millions of Americans relying on HUD programs for stable housing, especially those using Section 8 vouchers. As Congress decides whether to pass a bill keeping the government open, the future of these critical housing programs and the millions of Americans who rely on them hangs in the balance. In conclusion, the proposed staffing cuts at HUD pose a significant threat to the stability and effectiveness of critical housing programs that serve millions of Americans. If carried out, these reductions could disrupt essential services like rental assistance, fair housing enforcement, and disaster recovery putting vulnerable populations at greater risk of housing instability and discrimination. The potential for delayed payments, reduced voucher access, and weakened fair housing protections highlights the profound human impact of these cuts. As Congress deliberates over HUD s budget, the stakes could not be higher for the families, landlords, and housing authorities that rely on these programs for their survival and stability. The coming months will challenge the resilience of HUD s mission and the nation s commitment to providing safe, fair, and affordable housing for all. All those in the affordable housing industry must reach out to their elected representatives to stress the importance of HUD and its programs to the housing needs of America s most vulnerable populations.

A. J. Johnson Partners with Mid-Atlantic AHMA for December Training on Affordable Housing—April 2025

In April 2025, A. J. Johnson will partner with the MidAtlantic Affordable Housing Management Association for four live webinar training sessions for real estate professionals, particularly those in the affordable multifamily housing field. The following sessions will be presented: April 15: Pets/Pot/Service Animals: Navigating Fair Housing A Comprehensive 90-Minute Webinar for Housing Professionals Join us for an essential training session that tackles three of the most challenging areas in fair housing compliance today. This practical webinar will equip affordable housing providers with clear guidance on: Service and Emotional Support Animals: Learn the crucial legal distinctions between pets and assistance animals, proper verification procedures, and how to handle accommodation requests while complying with FHA regulations. Pet Policy Development: Explore effective strategies for creating and enforcing fair pet policies that address resident needs while considering property management concerns. Medical Marijuana Considerations: Explore the intricate relationship between federal and state laws concerning medical marijuana use in housing, including the requirements for reasonable accommodation. Through case studies, interactive discussions, and expert analysis of recent court decisions, you will gain actionable strategies for confidently addressing these challenging issues. This tool is perfect for property managers, leasing agents, compliance officers, and housing administrators who want to minimize legal risk while creating inclusive communities. April 16: VAWA with Tips on Communicating with Victims - The Violence Against Women (VAWA) Reauthorization Act of 2013 expanded VAWA protections to many different affordable housing programs, including the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program. While HUD has provided detailed requirements on VAWA implementation at HUD properties, there has been no uniform guidance for LIHTC owners and managers. A proposal before Congress would legislate that LIHTC Extended Use Agreements contain VAWA requirements. The IRS has not provided guidance, and while many state agencies are requiring VAWA plans, they are not providing information on what the plans should look like. This two-hour training, when combined with the course materials, will review VAWA requirements and recommend best practices for developing VAWA plans at LIHTC and other non-HUD properties. The session will be presented by A. J. Johnson, a recognized expert in the affordable housing field and the author of "A Property Manager s Guide to the Violence Against Women Act. April 24: Preparation for Physical Inspections - Agency inspections of affordable housing properties are required for all affordable housing programs, and failure to meet the required inspection standards can result in significant financial and administrative penalties for property owners. This four-hour training focuses on how owners and managers may prepare for such inspections, with a concentration on HUD NSPIRE inspections and State Housing Finance Agency inspections for the LIHTC program. Specific training areas include (1) a complete discussion of the most serious violations, including health & safety; (2) how vacant units are addressed during inspections; (3) when violations will be reported to the IRS; (4) the 20 most common deficiencies; (5) how to prepare a property for an inspection; (6) strategies for successful inspections; and (7) a review of the most important NSPIRE Standards as they relate to the three inspectable areas [Units/Interior/Exterior]. The training will summarize the HUD Final Rule on NSPIRE with a discussion of (1) the new Self-Inspection Requirement and Reports; (2) Timeline for Deficiency Correction; (3) New Affirmative Requirements; and (4) Tenant Involvement. At the end of the training, attendees will have a blueprint they can use to prepare their properties for agency-required physical inspections, regardless of the program under which they operate. April 29: Understanding and Managing Hoarding in Residential Properties: A Fair Housing Compliance Workshop - In May 2013, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) confirmed that Compulsive Hoarding is a mental disability and a protected class. More than 15 million Americans suffer from the mental health problem of hoarding and potential problems from hoarding include noxious odors, pest infestation, mold growth, increased risk of injury or disease, fire hazards and even structural damage. Hoarding is the one class of disability that requires landlords to offer an accommodation even if an accommodation is not requested! This 1.5-hour live webinar is designed to assist multifamily managers in understanding how to deal with hoarding problems in a way that will prevent liability under fair housing law. The session will define hoarding and provide detailed recommendations on how to deal with a hoarding problem. It will outline examples of accommodations for hoarding, how to engage in the "interactive process with residents who hoard, and the steps necessary to remove uncooperative residents. Finally, a recent court case regarding hoarding will be reviewed as an illustration of the potential difficulties managers face in hoarding situations. This is an evolving area of fair housing law, and this webinar will provide the guidance necessary to approach the problem in a systematic way that will give multifamily operators the best chance at avoiding the legal traps that exist when dealing with this unique disability. These sessions are part of the year-long collaboration between A. J. Johnson and MidAtlantic AHMA and are designed to provide affordable housing professionals with the knowledge to effectively manage the complex requirements of the various agencies overseeing these programs. Persons interested in any (or all) training sessions may register by visiting either www.ajjcs.net or https://www.mid-atlanticahma.org.

Impact of Trump Administration's Regulatory Restructuring on HUD and IRS

The Trump administration's recent executive order on federal regulations, "Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President's 'Department of Government Efficiency' Deregulatory Initiative," signals significant changes for federal agencies. The order has particularly notable implications for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The New Regulatory Framework On February 19, 2025, President Trump signed this executive order as part of a broader deregulatory agenda aimed at reducing what the administration views as bureaucratic overreach. The directive mandates that federal agencies conduct a comprehensive 60-day review of their regulatory frameworks to ensure alignment with both legal requirements and administration policies. The order targets explicitly regulations considered: Unconstitutional Based on improper delegations of legislative power Imposing excessive costs without clear public benefits Harmful to national interests Hindering development across various sectors This order is part of a series of regulatory rollbacks, including directives like "Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies" and "Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation," which expand upon the administration's previous deregulatory efforts. Specific Impacts on the IRS The IRS faces several significant challenges under this new directive: Continued Hiring Freeze: The executive order maintains an existing hiring freeze at the IRS, which will remain in effect until the Treasury Secretary, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director, determines that lifting it serves the national interest. Increased White House Oversight: IRS regulations will once again be subject to White House review through the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), reinstating a policy from Trump's first term that adds another layer of scrutiny to IRS rulemaking. "10-for-1" Deregulation Mandate: The IRS must eliminate ten existing guidance documents for every new rule or guidance it issues, significantly constraining its ability to update tax regulations and provide new guidance. These measures could substantially impact the IRS's capacity to uphold compliance and maintain operational efficiency, potentially affecting tax administration and enforcement nationwide. Implications for HUD For the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the executive order brings equally significant changes: Comprehensive Program Review: The order requires a review of hundreds of HUD programs, potentially leading to significant restructuring or budget cuts. Grant Funding Uncertainty: Although a federal court temporarily blocked a separate memo seeking to freeze federal grants, the administration's intent to reassess HUD funding remains evident. "10-for-1" Rule Application: Like the IRS, HUD must adhere to the requirement of eliminating ten existing regulations for every new one proposed, which could significantly impact housing policy implementation and program management. These changes may affect HUD's ability to administer housing assistance programs, enforce fair housing regulations, and support community development initiatives. Legal and Procedural Challenges The administration's deregulatory push faces potential legal obstacles: Agencies seeking to rescind or modify rules must generally follow a new rulemaking process, including issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, collecting public comments, and finalizing the new rule. Failure to adhere to these procedural requirements could expose regulatory rollbacks to legal challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The APA requires agencies to engage in reasoned decision-making when modifying or rescinding regulations, and courts may overturn agency decisions if this standard is not met. Outlook As the 60-day review period progresses, the IRS and HUD must navigate competing demands: implementing the administration's deregulatory agenda while maintaining their core functions and avoiding legal challenges. The outcome will likely reshape how these agencies operate and could have lasting implications for the United States s tax administration and housing policy. The full impact of these changes will become more evident as agencies determine which regulations to target and how to implement the administration's directives while fulfilling their statutory obligations.

Want news delivered to your inbox?

Subscribe to our news articles to stay up to date.

We care about the protection of your data. Read our Privacy Policy.