Clients Share Positive Experiences with Cleveland’s Right to Counsel Program

By Tori Bourret, NLIHC Manager, State & Local Research Outreach

A study published in Housing Studies, “’If I wouldn’t have had them, I would’ve been lost’: Tenant Right to Counsel in Cleveland,” explored elements of Cleveland’s Eviction Right to Counsel program (RTC-CL) to understand how the process and local context could impact program outcomes. The authors found that staffing, outreach strategy, eligibility criteria, as well as the broader Cleveland housing, legal, and social systems ecosystem may have been responsible for some of the positive impacts. However, they also created certain limitations, such as the program’s limited reach and scope. 

The RTC-CL was implemented on July 1, 2020, with the goal of preventing evictions and creating a fairer eviction court process. The program was created with design elements such as narrow eligibility criteria, a flexible staffing model, and a comprehensive outreach strategy. The program’s narrow eligibility requirements limit assistance to households with at least one child in the home and with incomes at or below 100% of the federal poverty line. The program is implemented by the United Way of Greater Cleveland, and legal representation is provided by Legal Aid Society of Cleveland (LASC) attorneys, as well as 20 additional contracted lawyers who can provide legal representation in court. Attorneys are encouraged to spend part of their time on non-casework activities and receive training about strategies to manage the stress of the work. Throughout 2024, the program also conducted door-to-door canvassing, targeting tenants who had received summonses in specific neighborhoods and providing them with information about their right to counsel. The study explored how these design features and the Cleveland housing, legal, and social services ecosystems facilitated and constrained the right to counsel policy’s reach and effectiveness.  

The authors conducted 32 semi-structured interviews with tenant attorneys, tenants who received legal counsel, tenants who did not receive legal counsel, and community organizers. LASC recruited tenant participants by emailing a random sample of 500 people who interacted with the RTC-CL program. The researchers strived for a diverse sample of tenants who could represent a wide range of experiences, although the final sample mirrored those most likely to be evicted in Cleveland, with 78% of participants identifying as female and 62% identifying as Black. Tenant interviews began with a discussion of the participants’ current housing situations and then progressed to questions about participants’ experiences accessing and utilizing the program or attempting to access the program. The authors also interviewed attorneys and organizers who discussed their involvement with the program and their specific duties. Participants’ answers were coded and then reviewed to identify major concepts and themes. 

The study found that tenants who received eviction legal services through RTC-CL reported improved housing outcomes, more positive experiences navigating the eviction process, increased awareness of their legal rights, and a greater sense of support compared to tenants who did not receive legal assistance. Interviewees highlighted a few key features of the program that may be contributing to these positive outcomes. For example, RTC-CL’s flexible staffing model ensures staff attorneys have enough bandwidth to provide comprehensive and individualized support, enabling tenants to feel heard and to understand their housing rights. One tenant, Serena, noted that her attorney was thoughtful, and made sure she understood what the procedures were, helping her feel confident about the process. The program’s narrow eligibility criteria also helped keep attorneys’ workloads manageable. 

RTC-CL’s door-to-door canvassing strategy to connect with potential clients helped increase awareness of the availability of eviction legal services and enabled the program to engage 60 to 80% of eligible tenants, many of whom may not have known about it otherwise. The program’s location in the ecosystem of tenant supports enabled attorneys to connect tenants to complementary resources, such as rental assistance, utility assistance, and eviction sealing support, to more fully meet their housing stability needs. Andrea, another program participant, noted that her lawyers helped her navigate the very difficult social services system, and didn’t make her feel ashamed for not doing it herself. They were able to get her approved for some programs she didn’t think she would be able to access otherwise. 

The study’s authors note ways in which these same program elements may have introduced certain limitations. The current narrow eligibility criteria only cover a third of tenants in need of eviction assistance in the area. If the program expanded its eligibility criteria to include households without children, it could have reached a wider swath of tenants in need of rental assistance. However, in order to expand its reach, the program would have to raise additional funding to continue to offer the same quality of services and staffing capabilities. The study’s authors also note that tenants served by RTC-CL could have benefitted from legal services for housing problems or landlord disputes other than those related to eviction. For example, some tenants reported habitability issues in their units such as mold or bugs. In many instances, a proactive suit could have resolved the issue faster and avoided retaliatory eviction.  

The authors noted that tenants who had positive experiences with RTC-CL may have been more inclined to participate in this study than those who had negative experiences, potentially skewing the results. As such, they recommend that future research consider tenants who did not successfully engage with RTC-CL to minimize bias and ensure a balanced understanding of the program’s impact. Additionally, the authors encourage further research into the impacts of RTC policies on other aspects of local policies and programs, such as housing court processes or the workloads of legal and social services programs. 

The full report can be found here.