Skip to main content

Table 1 Associations between the Restrictiveness of Local Housing Authority ACO Policies (ACOP) Towards People with Criminal Justice Histories and County Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Sexually Transmitted Infection Rates per 100,000 County Population

From: Association between local public housing authority policies related to criminal justice system involvement and sexually transmitted infection rates

  HIV Prevalence Rate
Per 100,000
Gonorrhea Newly Diagnosed Rate
Per 100,000
Syphilis Newly Diagnosed Rate
Per 100,000
Chlamydia Newly Diagnosed Rate
Per 100,000
  n B SE n B SE n B SE n B SE
ACOP Score 94 1.14*** 0.40 104 11.20* 5.27 104 0.44 0.49 104 11.34 8.52
Median ACOP Score
 Below Median ACOP Score 44 −6.05** 2.45 47 84.61** − 39.20 47 −3.62 3.47   −61.05 57.41
 Above Median ACOP Score (Ref) 50 57 57 57
Quartile ACOP Score
 1st (Range = 0, 1) 28 −8.55*** 3.01 30 −47.22 32.34 30 −2.34 2.71 30 −58.03 63.21
 2nd (Range = 2, 5) 28 1.08 4.09 30 6.82 35.26 30 3.73 2.83 30 17.43 77.47
 3rd (Range = 6) 15 1.16 3.67 17 86.35** 40.27 17 4.09 3.97 17 98.69 66.78
 Ref: 4th (Range = 7, 8) 23 27 27 27
Specific ACOP Policy Provisions
Admission Decisions
  Arrests and/or charges explicitly given less weight than conviction 52 −5.32** 2.35 55 8.91 25.6 55 1.91 2.25 55 25.91 55.74
  Ref: Arrests and/or charges not explicitly given less weight than conviction 42 49 49 49
  Mitigating circumstances explicitly considered 81 −2.02 2.86 88 −7.64 26.44 88 6.46*** 2.19 88 −5.11 48.17
  Ref: Mitigating circumstances not explicitly considered 13 16 16 16
  Circumstances related to nature of the violation explicitly considered as mitigating circumstance 47 −3.90* 2.23 51 −57.65* 32.49 51 −1.42 2.69 51 − 29.02 55.18
  Ref: Circumstances related to nature of the violation not explicitly considered as mitigating circumstance 47 53 53 53
  Impact on family explicitly considered as mitigating circumstance 39 −8.30*** 1.98 42 −98.66*** 30.20 42 −4.54 2.89 42 − 119.97** 48.56
  Ref: Impact on family not explicitly considered as mitigating circumstance 55 62 62 62
Eviction Decisions
  Family is explicitly permitted to remove member for any criminal/ drug use activity 46 −8.49* 2.30 52 −93.95** 39.94 52 −7.17** 3.23 52 −109.78* 56.00
  Ref: Family is not explicitly permitted to remove member for any criminal/ drug use activity 48 52 52 52
  Mitigating circumstances explicitly considered 56 −2.68 3.32 60 −46.45 33.78 60 −3.39 3.36 60 −61.61 55.37
  Ref: Mitigating circumstances not explicitly considered 38 44 44 44
  Proof of good tenancy explicitly considered as mitigating circumstance 29 −7.21*** 2.52 31 −40.722 33.18 31 −4.30 2.84 31 −17.99 53.01
  Ref: Proof of good tenancy not explicitly considered as mitigating circumstance 65 73 73 73
  Impact on family explicitly considered as mitigating circumstance 34 −0.20 3.93 36 −38.98 27.33 36 −2.62 2.45 36 −56.75 49.98
  Ref: Impact on family not explicitly considered as mitigating circumstance 60 68 68 68
  1. * p < .1, ** p < .05, *** p < .01. HIV Human immunodeficiency virus, ACOP Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy. Ref Reference group. Standard errors are Huber/White corrected for arbitrary forms of heteroscedasticity