Research Summary We examine citizen decision‐making in the context of providing access to safe housing to different noncriminal and criminal populations. More than 4,000 national online survey respondents considered different “emergency housing policy” scenarios that would affect the housing conditions of one of five randomly assigned populations of varying stigma (three noncriminal, two criminal). We find that the criminal populations had the least support for helpful housing policies and the most support for harmful housing policies. Furthermore, compared with a “no cost” policy, average support levels decreased when it increased taxes for the respondent. Policy Implications Citizens seem more willing to subject criminal populations to poor and unsafe housing conditions compared with noncriminal populations. Thus, citizen support may be higher when policies are pitched in ways that do not imply specifically helping ex‐offenders, when they do not involve a personal sacrifice through increased taxes, and when they do not involve “in‐my‐backyard” proposals. For example, a housing policy pitched as aiding the area's homeless (ex‐offenders included) would likely see more support than one that identifies ex‐offenders (and particularly sex offenders) as the population being targeted for help, or that identifies a specific neighborhood as a potential housing facility location.