Section 8 gives low-income earners nationwide the hope of finding decent housing. The policy echoes international humanitarian policies that state the importance of decent housing to human existence and human dignity. Through section 8, a state collaborates with participating landlords to give subsidized housing vouchers to people who qualify. However, getting housing assistance is a nightmare for people with a criminal or drug history.

Restrictions to housing are seen as one of the most stringent punishments for people with a criminal history. Such laws suggest that criminals do not deserve a second chance in life. I find these laws overboard. Imagine someone arrested for a minor offense who never even appears in court; even this is regarded as criminal history, and it will haunt them the rest of their life.

Studies show that one in every four people in the US has a criminal record. These records range from petty offenses to serious crimes, with some recorded as only arrests and others as convictions and imprisonment. Yet the blanket policies used in housing are applied to all criminal records.

I believe that people who have criminal histories should be given a second chance and be able to access decent housing through Section 8. The prisons are meant to be correctional facilities for offenders. By the time someone is released back to the community, they are perceived to have reformed and become responsible citizens. Discriminating against these people because of an offense they committed decades ago is unfair, and such laws could make ex-inmates commit crimes again because they feel excluded from society.

The primary purpose of the housing restrictions is to enhance public safety by protecting existing tenants. It is logical that people charged with crimes that are deemed severe, such as homicide, could commit similar crimes in the future. However, some offenses do not threaten the security of other tenants. For example, a young lady charged with possession of marijuana three years ago is not likely to harm anyone. Unfortunately, the Department of Housing and Urban Development excludes those with criminal records without regard to the nature of the offense.

Even more devastating is that housing restrictions based on criminal records are used disproportionately to discriminate against people based on their race. For instance, a landlord may deny housing to a black American based on their criminal history. In contrast, the same landlord may grant housing to a white American with a similar criminal record. This kind of discrimination shows the need for Pennsylvania to repeal such policies and to give all people equal opportunities to access decent housing.

According to research, there is a high correlation between Opioids Use Disorder (OUD) and homelessness. The study shows a correlation between the length of time that someone is homeless and the likelihood that they will start using. 

There is a severe crisis the state is facing in rehabilitating people from OUD, and those suffering from OUD do not respond well to medication-assisted treatment. If we continue to embrace policies that discriminate against youth from accessing housing assistance, the OUD crisis will continue to burden us.

In conclusion, Pennsylvania should repeal policies restricting people from accessing housing assistance through the Section 8 program. It is vital to give people a second chance in life to live with the dignity they deserve.