Record Costs: Collateral Consequences of Eviction Court Filings in Pennsylvania
By Alexa Eisenberg and Kate Brantley
Introduction
This research documents the far-reaching collateral costs of eviction filings for Pennsylvania tenants and their families. We used mixed methods to collect and analyze qualitative and quantitative data on Pennsylvania tenants who experienced an eviction filing but attained a “best-case scenario” in court (i.e., secured legal representation and had their case resolved with a dismissal, withdrawal, or a win). The findings show that regardless of the outcome of a tenant’s case, eviction filings have severe consequences for nearly every aspect of life, negatively impacting the health, housing stability, and economic prosperity of tenants years beyond their court date. Punitive filing and landlord screening practices exacerbate the effects of Pennsylvania’s housing crisis, making it nearly impossible for tenants with eviction records to find safe, decent, and affordable housing for their families to live in. The long-term costs of eviction filings unjustly and disproportionately affect Black women and children. The cascading harm of the more than 114,000 eviction filings each year (310 per day) in Pennsylvania reverberates through families and communities and generates negative externalities for state and local governments. These costs are not inevitable. State legislators have the power to automatically seal eviction records and implement other policy changes that can promote the rights, stability, and livelihood of tenants across the Commonwealth.
Key Findings
- Eviction filings had far-reaching collateral costs for tenants and their families, often impacting their well-being and stability for years after the filing. Records stemming from eviction filings, even when tenants’ cases were resolved with a neutral or favorable outcome, negatively impacted the quality and trajectory of their lives. Tenants described how their eviction filing threatened their immediate and long-term housing stability, contributed to income loss and job insecurity, harmed their physical and mental health, and strained relationships with family and friends.
- Despite the court not formally evicting tenants, landlords still had the power to displace them. Though participants in this study did not receive eviction orders in court, the majority said they were forced to move after their eviction filing for reasons beyond their control. Most attributed this to their landlords’ failure to make repairs, which rendered their units uninhabitable. Others had landlords who refused rental assistance during the COVID-19 pandemic, filed repeat eviction cases against them without cause, engaged in illegal discrimination and harassment, or enacted large rent increases.
- Tenants with eviction records encountered punitive rental screening practices that prolonged housing instability and limited their housing options. Eight in 10 participants said that their eviction filing limited their future housing options. Sixty-five percent of those who moved said a prospective landlord asked about their eviction record, and over half reported that a landlord explicitly denied their application because of their filing. Unsuccessful rental applications amounted to hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of dollars in excess costs to tenants.
- Some tenants with eviction records moved into substandard or hazardous units in order to avoid or emerge from homelessness. Roughly half of the tenants who moved after their eviction filing described a subsequent period of homelessness, which they mostly attributed to an inability to find alternative housing by the time their families were forced to move. The desperate need for a stable place to live led some to accept substandard conditions from landlords who would rent to them despite their records.
- Tenants who stayed in their housing post-filing often lived in unstable or unhealthy conditions due to a lack of affordable alternatives. Participants who remained in their housing were generally dissatisfied with their housing quality and endured persistent eviction threats. Most said they would move to a better housing situation if they could, yet the majority did not search. These tenants mostly lived in subsidized housing, and many anticipated challenges in securing new housing that met their affordability needs, particularly due to their filing records.
- After their eviction filings, tenants were often less able to assert their right to habitable housing out of fear of retaliation. 43% of participants reported being less willing to advocate for repairs post-filing. Multiple tenants in need of major health and safety repairs refrained from making requests to avoid conflict or the threat of eviction; this was especially common among participants whose landlords had retaliated against them in the past.