Housing Security

The Setting:

The Problem: Since the formation of public defender offices, defense attorneys have sometimes incorporated social workers into the criminal defense team. More recently, some social worker involvement has extended to the provision of services that go beyond the clients’ legal needs. A minority of states (about 14) currently make use of this holistic defense approach, and some are working to expand their use of social workers. Other states are considering whether to adopt a holistic defense approach that incorporates social workers. But there is no credible evidence that incorporating social workers into the criminal defense team, as opposed to advising defendants to make use of social services available in their communities, improves either criminal justice outcomes or improves defendant quality of life. There is also no evidence to suggest that lawyers allocate scarce social worker resources well.

The Questions: Does integrating social work services into the public defense team reduce recidivism and improve other outcomes for defendants? How well do public defenders determine which defendants would most be helped by a social worker?

The Study: Working with Sarah Buchanan, Director of Social Services at the Knox County Public Defender’s Community Law Office, the A2J Lab has designed a four-site, double-randomized evaluation to be implemented in multiple jurisdictions in Tennessee. In all four sites (Jackson, Franklin, Kingston, and Knox Counties), the RCT will investigate whether outcomes with a social worker as part of the criminal defense team are different from those where defendants are invited to take advantage of social workers in their communities. In Knox County, after attorneys make a provisional decision regarding incorporation of a social worker into the criminal defense team, the A2J Lab will randomize each potential client into one of two groups (the first level of randomization). In the first group, the attorney’s decision will be followed; in the second group, a random decision will replace the attorney’s. Among that second group, a computer-based randomizer will “decide” whether the defendant will be offered a social worker as part of the criminal defense team. In the other three counties, a randomizer will determine whether the defendant is offered a social worker as part of the criminal defense team; these three counties will not evaluate attorney triage decisions. In all the sites, the study team will follow various outcomes for each participant, including recidivism, for two years after randomization.

What We’ll Learn: The RCT design will discover how effective incorporating a social worker into the criminal defense team is at decreasing recidivism as well as housing insecurity, unemployment, and other risk factors for future criminal behavior. The double randomization in Knox County will also determine how successful lawyers are at determining which clients would most benefit from the scarce social worker resources.

Research Team: 
Sarah Buchanan (formerly of TN Pub Def Office)
April Faith-Slaker, Executive Director, Texas Access to Justice Commission

The Setting: This project will interrogate the effectiveness of a light-touch court-led diversion program that educates persistent low-level offenders about crime risk factors and connects them to community resources to address socio-economic needs as a strategy to prevent further engagement with the criminal justice system.

The Problem: Light-touch diversion programs could benefit many, including those incarcerated predisposition due to inability to meet court-imposed release conditions, such as paying money bail, finding an open slot in monitoring or treatment programs, or identifying a permanent residence. In addition, light-touch diversion programs (such as the one studied here) could help those guilty of offenses whose comparatively minor significance makes it difficult to justify (morally, fiscally, and legally) a more intrusive or punitive intervention. In both instances, any benefits would likely inure disproportionately to minority communities, the impoverished, the homeless, and those in need of specialized mental health treatment. The lightness of the touch, and thus the reduced expense, of the program makes it a likely subject of replication. But these benefits will manifest only if light-touch programs succeed in reducing recidivism and improving lives. If not, the criminal justice system must confront tough choices. Likely, the system must either explore more intrusive interventions that will be difficult to justify given the low-level nature of the triggering offenses (or the defendant’s pre-guilt status) or confront the prospect of decriminalizing certain behavior.

The Questions: The research questions are: Does light-touch court-led diversion addressing root causes of risky behavior reduce continued arrests/citations, charges, and convictions among persistent low-level offenders?  Does light-touch diversion’s connection with community-based social services improve the housing and employment stability of its participants?

The Study: To understand the effectiveness of the diversion program targeted here, the Access to Justice (A2J) Lab will conduct a randomized control trial (RCT). It will randomly assign consenting study participants to either the diversion program (the “Diversion Group”) or the typical prosecutorial criminal justice process (the “Status Quo Group”).

What We’ll Learn: We will use official/administrative records to understand program effects on criminal case outcomes, recidivism (arrests, charges, and convictions), housing, and employment stability. We will also attempt to investigate whether the diversion program’s connection to community service organizations is enough to increase service take-up.

Research Team:
Access to Justice Lab
Toledo Municipal Court

Resources:
“Toledo Municipal Court Announces Study of Cutting-Edge Diversion Program,” Toledo Municipal Court press release
“Study of Community Diversion Program Launches,” Access to Justice blog, Harvard Law School

The Setting: 

What We’ll Learn:

Research Team:
Access to Justice Lab
Mothers Outreach Network

The Setting: Some evidence suggests that the effects of eviction and housing instability are dire. Some believe that in addition to homelessness, eviction can lead to increased material hardship and forced dislocation to more disadvantaged neighborhoods.[1] Some research suggests that court-ordered evictions have negative impacts on credit ratings and ability to obtain or maintain subsidized housing and other public benefits.[2] This suggests that if individuals and families could be diverted away from the point of initiation of court proceedings, they might avoid some of these consequences.

Advocates argue that downstream impacts of court-ordered evictions might also include increased criminal activity, reduction of neighborhood quality, increased employment instability, and increased depression and other negative health outcomes.[3] Advocates further contend that there is a cost to communities and society with each eviction. They believe that high levels of housing instability within disadvantaged communities disrupts the formation of social relationships.[4] Advocates further contend that evictions are expensive and inefficient. Many stakeholders, including some landlords, agree that upstream solutions are better than evictions.

[1] Jack Tsai & Minda Huang, Systematic Review of Psychosocial Factors Associated with Evictions, Health Soc Care Community 1 (2018).

[2] D. James Greiner, Cassandra Wolos Pattanayak, & Jonathan Hennessy, The Limits of Unbundled Legal Assistance: A Randomized Study in a Massachusetts District Court and Prospects for the Future, Harv. L. Rev., 126: 901-989 (2012).

[3] Supra, n. 1.

[4] Deena Greenberg, Carl Gershenson, Matthew Desmond, Discrimination in Evictions: Empirical Evidence and Legal Challenges, 51 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 115, 118 (2016); Supra, n. 1.

The Problem: The hallmark of an eviction lawsuit is speed, something that is true in most U.S. jurisdictions. In Texas a tenant can vacate within three days or suffer the lawsuit. If the tenant suffers the lawsuit and loses, they have six days to leave. By the time a notice to vacate is issued, it is too late for a tenant to seek legal services. The timing is unforgiving. Legal intervention must occur sooner to help a tenant avoid circumstances which may lead to an eviction.

Although eviction is a necessary component of any private housing market, unlawful eviction is not. Properly deployed, legal services and education should disproportionately reduce unlawful, as opposed to lawful, eviction. But eviction legal services are historically reactive.[1] Preventive services are few.[2] In addition, the most common form of service is a type of assistance never credibly studied, namely some form of information/education[3] rather than provision of attorneys for full-scope representation (which is often seen as crisis intervention rather than prevention).[4] This fact makes it important to assess the effectiveness of these short-of-attorney interventions. In addition, these education programs face the challenge of ensuring the information is reaching the population that needs it – ensuring take-up.[5] Evaluations to shape take-up of eviction diversion legal services are limited.[6]

[1] See generally, Natasha Menon, A Comparative Analysis of Urban Eviction Prevention Policies in New York City, Philadelphia, and San Francisco, (April 27, 2020) (Honors Thesis, University of Pennsylvania) (on file with the Penn Libraries, University of Pennsylvania); Maya Brennan, A Framework for Effective and Strategic Eviction Prevention, 41 Mitchell Hamline L. J. Pub. Pol’y & Prac. 37, 39 (2020).

[2] Mark Treskon et al., Eviction Prevention and Diversion Programs: Early Lessons from the Pandemic, Urb. Inst. (April 2021).

[3] See generally, Menon, supra note 5 at 41 (discussing tenant’s rights literature materials); Ignacio Jaureguilorda et al., Eviction Prevention and Mental Health: A New Paradigm for Civil Justice Reform, Ctr. For Ct. Innovation at 9 (November 2021).

[4] Brennan, supra note 5, at 52. Some also view tenant-friendly laws and court procedure as preventative legal services. See, Brennan, supra note 5; Trekson, supra note 6.

[5] Menon, supra note 5 at 51.

[6] Trekson, supra note 6.

The Questions: This randomized control trial (RCT) will investigate whether upstream provision of legal information through text message can prevent eviction court cases and improve housing security.  This evaluation builds on a successful pilot evaluation interrogating the ability of the Access to Justice Lab (A2J Lab) and the University of Houston Law Center (UHLC), in partnership with Connective, to conduct an RCT to evaluate the effect of providing upstream information regarding housing legal issues via text message on preventing eviction court filings.

The Study: This evaluation will investigate one possible solution: a “Know Your Rights” text messaging program both as a way of improving housing stability outcomes and as a device to stimulate take-up of legal services.

What We Hope to Learn: In the pilot we demonstrated that the Connective interface allows identification of a group of individuals with elevated housing insecurity and risk of experiencing a formal eviction in the short term. It suggested that this population’s expense to income ratios limits flexibility to address these problems without services. This population is on its own seeking neither legal services nor community-based housing resources. The research team hypothesizes that observed variables also constitute predictors of future homelessness or persistent housing insecurity that may result in informal evictions, a category of housing insecurity difficult to detect. Indeed, the law in this jurisdiction may favor informal evictions.  One solution to address this vulnerability may be to provide upstream resources to address these challenges.  This RCT will evaluate whether that solution is useful.

Research Team:
Access to Justice Lab
Connective
University of Houston Law Center

The Setting: Residential displacement can disrupt a host of life activities and undoubtedly takes an emotional toll on tenants and their families. To mitigate those impacts, we need to know more about how tenants find themselves as defendants in summary eviction proceedings, the role that lawyers play in stopping or delaying those proceedings, and whether existing legal solutions address the problems of eviction as we understand them.

The Questions: How well do lawyers allocate the scarce resource of their time? Does legal representation yield improved outcomes for those facing eviction?

The Study: With its field partners, the A2J Lab has designed a double-randomized study. This RCT will investigate (1) how well lawyers make decisions about whom to represent; and (2) whether outcomes with direct representation are measurably different from those where tenants only have access to self-help materials. After staff attorneys conduct intake and make provisional representation decisions, the A2J Lab will randomize each potential client into one of two groups (the first level of randomization). In the first group, the attorney’s decision will be followed; in the second group, another random decision will replace the attorney’s. Among that second group, a computer-based randomizer will “decide” whether the potential client receives an offer of representation or self-help materials (the second level of randomization).

What We Hoped to Learn: This RCT design was intended to help identify which eviction defendants’ outcomes truly depend on representation, whether those outcomes are continuances, stays of execution, or even possession of the apartment. It also was intended to reveal whether the offer of direct representation increases the probability of success relative to receiving the self-help packet. Considering the larger social impact of eviction, this study was expected to include non-adjudicatory outcomes measures such as the incidence of homelessness, unemployment, and adverse health effects, among other individual welfare consequences.

Research Team:
Access to Justice Lab
Rhode Island Center for Justice
Roger Williams University School of Law
New Mexico Legal Aid
University of New Mexico School of Law