AJ Golio, Grace Daniels, Russell Moran, Y. F. Southall, Tricia Lamoza
{"title":"驱逐法庭的结果和获得程序知识的途径:来自新奥尔良以租户为中心的干预的证据","authors":"AJ Golio, Grace Daniels, Russell Moran, Y. F. Southall, Tricia Lamoza","doi":"10.1080/10511482.2022.2112257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract During the legal eviction process, tenants tend to lack procedural knowledge about how courts operate and how to argue their case. Uneven access to this information tends to result in less favorable outcomes for tenants, including a mark on the tenant’s record that severely limits future housing opportunities. However, there are few—if any—quantitative studies that systematically examine the relationship between knowledge distribution and eviction case outcomes. This article focuses on the unique efforts of a New Orleans-based renters’ rights organization to contact residents facing eviction and provide them with informative resources on the eviction process. We follow the court outcomes of 267 cases, and analyze them using a quasi-experimental approach and a series of weighted logistic regressions. For tenants who were contacted, we observe a 13% reduction in the probability of receiving a rule absolute judgment than among those who were not contacted. Direct forms of contact (e.g., a telephone conversation) tend to have stronger associations with positive court outcomes than indirect forms (e.g., sending a postcard).","PeriodicalId":47744,"journal":{"name":"Housing Policy Debate","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Eviction Court Outcomes and Access to Procedural Knowledge: Evidence From a Tenant-Focused Intervention in New Orleans\",\"authors\":\"AJ Golio, Grace Daniels, Russell Moran, Y. F. Southall, Tricia Lamoza\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10511482.2022.2112257\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract During the legal eviction process, tenants tend to lack procedural knowledge about how courts operate and how to argue their case. Uneven access to this information tends to result in less favorable outcomes for tenants, including a mark on the tenant’s record that severely limits future housing opportunities. However, there are few—if any—quantitative studies that systematically examine the relationship between knowledge distribution and eviction case outcomes. This article focuses on the unique efforts of a New Orleans-based renters’ rights organization to contact residents facing eviction and provide them with informative resources on the eviction process. We follow the court outcomes of 267 cases, and analyze them using a quasi-experimental approach and a series of weighted logistic regressions. For tenants who were contacted, we observe a 13% reduction in the probability of receiving a rule absolute judgment than among those who were not contacted. Direct forms of contact (e.g., a telephone conversation) tend to have stronger associations with positive court outcomes than indirect forms (e.g., sending a postcard).\",\"PeriodicalId\":47744,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Housing Policy Debate\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Housing Policy Debate\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2022.2112257\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Housing Policy Debate","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2022.2112257","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Eviction Court Outcomes and Access to Procedural Knowledge: Evidence From a Tenant-Focused Intervention in New Orleans
Abstract During the legal eviction process, tenants tend to lack procedural knowledge about how courts operate and how to argue their case. Uneven access to this information tends to result in less favorable outcomes for tenants, including a mark on the tenant’s record that severely limits future housing opportunities. However, there are few—if any—quantitative studies that systematically examine the relationship between knowledge distribution and eviction case outcomes. This article focuses on the unique efforts of a New Orleans-based renters’ rights organization to contact residents facing eviction and provide them with informative resources on the eviction process. We follow the court outcomes of 267 cases, and analyze them using a quasi-experimental approach and a series of weighted logistic regressions. For tenants who were contacted, we observe a 13% reduction in the probability of receiving a rule absolute judgment than among those who were not contacted. Direct forms of contact (e.g., a telephone conversation) tend to have stronger associations with positive court outcomes than indirect forms (e.g., sending a postcard).
期刊介绍:
Housing Policy Debate provides a venue for original research on U.S. housing policy. Subjects include affordable housing policy, fair housing policy, land use regulations influencing housing affordability, metropolitan development trends, and linkages among housing policy and energy, environmental, and transportation policy. Housing Policy Debate is published quarterly. Most issues feature a Forum section and an Articles section. The Forum, which highlights a current debate, features a central article and responding comments that represent a range of perspectives. All articles in the Forum and Articles sections undergo a double-blind peer review process.