After the policy to prevent presumed private bias was implemented, discrimination against African American and Somali American men increased.

From The Impact of Renter Protection Policies on Rental Housing Discrimination by Marina Mileo Gorzig and Deborah Rho.  From the Abstract:

Policies that reduce information on applicants have mixed results in the labor market. However, little is known about their impact in the housing market. We submitted fictitious email inquiries to publicly advertised rentals using names manipulated on perceived race and ethnicity before and after a policy that restricted the use of background checks, eviction history, income minimums, and credit history in rental housing applications in Minneapolis. After the policy was implemented, discrimination against African American and Somali American men increased. Triple difference analysis shows that discrimination increased in Minneapolis relative to St. Paul after the policy.

There is an increasing advocacy movement in some cities to forestall anticipated bias against convicted felons in the property rental market.  Felons have cleared their debt to society, goes the argument, and their successful reintegration into society depends on at least reliable employment and reliable shelter.  The advocacy assumption is that landlords will be prejudiced against felons and that that will hinder their reintegration, to everybody's detriment.

All very plausible.  It does rather ignore that regardless of whether it is true or not, there is, as there should be, limits to the extent to which government can subordinate private property ownership to governmental ends, be they noble or not, be they empirically grounded or not.

In this respect, NGOs and advocacy groups are almost essentially communist in the sense that they are seeking to use the resources of others to an end that they desire.

This finding regarding good intentions leading to bad outcomes is not new news, though it does extend extant knowledge to the rental market.

In the 1990s there was a movement to prevent employers from asking about prior criminal history.  It was known as "Ban the Box."  While Wikipedia says it started in Hawaii in the late 1990s, I would have told you that it emerged in the 1980s.  Regardless, it had the same attributes as the current Fair Chance advocacy.  Ban the Box focuses on preventing employers from asking about criminal history while Fair Chance seeks to prevent landlords from asking about criminal history.

In both instances, there is a common underlying motivation.  African Americans are potentially disproportionately affected by questions about crime.  Whether the question is whether you have been, whether you have been convicted, or whether you have served time, African Americans are disproportionately affected.  This field is notoriously subject to motivated research and too dramatically different answers based subtly different definitions but this study gives a sense of the magnitude of the issue.  From Study estimates U.S. population with felony convictions by Alan Flurry.

New research led by a University of Georgia sociologist on the growth in the scope and scale of felony convictions finds that, as of 2010, 3 percent of the total U.S. population and 15 percent of the African-American male population have served time in prison. People with felony convictions more broadly account for 8 percent of the overall population and 33 percent of the African-American male population.

So IF employers and landlords prejudicially discriminate against those with criminal records then tautologically, African Americans will suffer greater discrimination.  

But just because something is logical or even plausible, doesn't make it so.

Wikipedia has the results of the consequences of the Ban the Box.  Interestingly, their research is from only the past three years but these findings were established by at least the mid-1990s.

A 2020 study by economists Jennifer L. Doleac and Benjamin Hansen found that Ban the Box increased employer discrimination against young, low-skilled black men. The authors argue that when employers are unable to check job applicants' criminal records early in the hiring process, they instead resort to statistical discrimination against groups that include more ex-offenders.

A 2020 study by economist Evan K. Rose found that Ban the Box had negligible effects on ex-offenders' labor market outcomes.

So the NGO advocacy groups, despite good intentions, are actually making it much harder for criminals to gain employment and to obtain rented housing.  

And the reason this appears to be so seems to be the same.  Employers and renters want to make the best legal decision possible when hiring or renting, given the information possible.  

Advocates assume that employers and landlords are straight-up prejudiced against Blacks and against criminals.  

The reality appears to be that American citizens are far more nuanced and fair than the NGO advocates give them credit for.  Indeed, American citizens are far more fair and ethical than the advocates themselves.  

When employers and landlords have more information, such as access to criminal history, they apparently are able to make better decisions.  They distinguish between someone who has a long ago conviction versus someone with a recent conviction.  Between someone with a record for violence versus non-violent crime.  Between felonies and misdemeanors.  Between repeated convictions and single convictions.  Apparently, with that information, they then extend more job offers and rental offers to criminals (and consequently to African Americans) than they do if they don't have access to that information.

If they cannot get a good picture of the safety and reliability of an employee or renter, they apparently fall back on more aggregate heuristics which are both much less fair and much less accurate.

The NGO advocates, based on the research currently available for both Check the Box (employment) and Fair Chance (rentals) would be better off staying out of the way and letting employers and landlords make their own decisions based on the best information available.  They make better decisions more beneficial to everyone than occur under the coercive regimens advocated for by the NGOs.