Effects of Tenant Right to Counsel on Eviction Filings across Multiple Jurisdictions

• In Event: Assessing the Right to Counsel: Eviction Prevention and Broader Impacts

Abstract

Advocates have argued that RTC may lower overall eviction filing volume, assuming that the prospect of tenant legal representation discourages landlords from filing frivolous cases or in instances when low amounts of rent are owed. Indeed, policymakers in several jurisdictions have cited high and unequal filing rates in their justifications for passing RTC legislation. This would be an important benefit of such programs, given that eviction filings carry a long-lasting and damaging legal record, regardless of case outcomes. However, there is to date no empirical evidence with which to evaluate RTC’s impact on filings. In this paper, we use eviction filing data from nine jurisdictions that have implemented RTC, along with comparison sites that have not, to determine whether this program significantly reduces eviction case filings.

We use a difference-in-difference framework to measure RTC’s effect on eviction filing volume. Eviction filing data are drawn from the Eviction Tracking System (ETS), a dataset that includes nearly half of the jurisdictions that have implemented RTC in the past decade (as well as a large number of jurisdictions that have not). In each of the RTC jurisdictions, we analyze trends in eviction filings relative to program implementation. For jurisdictions with staggered implementation (i.e., rollout by ZIP code; scenario A), we compare change in filings in early- vs. late-implementing ZIP codes, using heterogeneity-robust methods. For jurisdictions that implemented RTC all at once (scenario B), we use standard, two-way fixed effects models (and synthetic control methods) to compare changes in filings within the jurisdiction, relative to change in nearby, socio-demographically similar jurisdictions lacking RTC. If implementation occurred while a local, state, or federal eviction moratorium was in effect (scenario C), we compare effects of moratorium expiration on filings between jurisdictions with vs. without RTC. 

The paper makes two primary contributions. First, from a policy perspective, findings offer important new insight into the effects of RTC and the potential financial costs of supporting such programs. Second, we provide a roadmap for conducting methodologically rigorous analyses throughout a period in which multiple overlapping policy changes make isolating causal effects challenging.

Author

• Kathryn M Leifheit, University of California - Los Angeles
  Presenting Author