Researchers Assess Impact of Tenant Screening Practices on Housing Choice Voucher Holders

By Raquel Harati, NLIHC Research Analyst 

A recent article published in Housing Studies titled, “Choice Denied: Impact of Income and Credit-Based Tenant Screening on the Housing Choice Voucher Program,” explored whether tenant screening practices bar some housing choice voucher (HCV) holders from housing opportunities. Screening practices such as checking credit scores, late payment history, and rent-to-income ratios were among the criteria examined. The researchers found that one in ten voucher holders would likely be rejected based on credit and income-related screening criteria in the application process. For voucher holders with poor credit or past bankruptcies, the risk of their rental application being denied was higher, even though a large portion of their rent is guaranteed through the voucher. The study’s findings suggest that the framework private tenant screenings rely upon should not be applied to renters with HCVs as their rental situation differs from the general rental population.  

The authors of the study were motivated by two primary research questions:  

1. How would voucher applicants be impacted by common tenant screening practices?
2. What is the likelihood of their acceptance based on their credit and debts?  

To answer these questions, the authors collected over 1,200 tenant screening documents from property management companies such as Rent Café and Trulia. They then compared the criteria in those documents to a large sample of national household data from the Survey of Consumer Finance (SCF). By comparing the screening criteria to a household’s ability to meet these criteria, they were able to measure the probability of non-acceptance for each potential tenant application. They separated potential tenants into three groups: renters with subsidies (current voucher holders), renters who are voucher eligible (treated as new HCV holders), and renters not eligible for subsidies. The authors note that the data from SCF did not differentiate between voucher holders and residents of public housing. Therefore, it is possible that some households in the voucher holder group actually reside in public housing.  

Non-eligible renters without subsidies had a higher probability of non-acceptance (45.3%) than both renters who are voucher eligible (8.5%) and renters with current voucher holders (10.3%). The authors explain that this is largely attributable to the rent-to-income ratio criterion, since they assumed voucher holders and voucher-eligible renters, treated as new voucher holders in their model, would have their rent-to-income ratios capped at 30% due to their subsidy. Based on the rent-to-income criterion alone, the authors estimated that 39% of non-eligible renters would be rejected, while less than 1% of voucher holders and voucher eligible renters would be rejected. The differences between groups for late payments were negligible as all groups had a less than 1% probability of non-acceptance based on this criterion alone.    

Although the authors found that non-eligible renters without subsidies were most likely to be rejected, screening criteria still present barriers for voucher households and voucher-eligible households. One criterion that presents a particularly significant barrier for voucher holders and voucher eligible renters is net income after paying rent and other debt obligations. A common formulation of this criterion stipulates that tenants should have at least $800 a month left over after rent and debt payments each month. The authors found that this fixed measure of $800 would negatively weigh against 28.4% of renters with vouchers and 50.5% of renters eligible but not receiving a voucher, making them unlikely to be approved. Minimum credit score requirements were also associated with marginally higher rates of non-acceptance for renters with vouchers (6.3%) when compared to voucher eligible renters (4.9%) and non-eligible renters without subsidies (5.7%).  

The researchers conclude that policymakers need to address the way tenant screening is regulated to avoid those with housing choice vouchers being turned away. Potential solutions they highlight are how tenant screening services could be required to make exceptions for voucher holders or to disregard certain criteria that are no longer relevant once a tenant has a voucher. HUD could also improve tracking of housing searches and denial reasons to better understand when and why voucher holders are being turned away. Ultimately, the study concludes that if the goal of the HCV program is to expand housing access and choice, private tenant screening practices need to be updated to fully allow this. Otherwise, private market rules will continue to undercut public policy goals, limiting the impact of vouchers and the opportunities they are meant to create for households. 

The full article can be found here.