The Cracks in the Eviction Lab Wall are Undercounting the Crisis

Anti-Eviction Mapping Project

New Orleans   When Princeton’s Eviction Lab came out with their national report on many jurisdictions court records of evictions, we had positive things to say about the project, but we were skeptical.  The report seemed to undercount the experience in the community of ACORN Home Savers Campaign.  A critical flaw seemed to be the very fact that only actual adjudicated procedures were part of the dataset, ignoring the vast number of informal evictions and pressured departures that are more common than court filings.

I was scratching my head, as I noted then, because Matthew Desmond, the prize-winning author of Evicted and founder of the Eviction Lab knew better.  In his book he had used a small informal survey of forced and informal evictions that was many times higher than what he was now reporting.  The actual stories from Milwaukee that were the backbone of the book’s attraction also highlighted the ways that high rent and bad conditions kept lower income tenants constantly moving between tenancy and homelessness in order to keep one step ahead of the landlord.

An article in Shelterforce by eight veterans of tenant and housing activism along with extensive experience in data collection called “Eviction Lab Misses the Mark” details that there was a bonfire beneath the smoke I was smelling.  Their point-by-point critique is so devastating that it calls into question whether the data from Eviction Lab is a tool for landlords and policy apologists, rather than a step forward in looking at the impact of soaring evictions on impoverished communities.

Among the points the authors make are these:

  • The Lab resisted collaboration with established data centers from housing activist groups by not sharing policy goals, protocols to protect tenants and confidentiality of data, and offering fair attribution for assistance, much less being willing to pay for the time and trouble of acquisition of the data sets to other nonprofits.
  • The Lab instead in known cases contracted with private business groups involved in “tenant screening” for landlords paying one such group in California over $100,000 to assemble data for the Lab.
  • Where data had been rigorously collected in the community in places like San Francisco, Eviction Lab’s figures undercounted the reality by 50%!
  • Where the Eviction Lab performs a service by trying to establish a national baseline, they fall short in falling to integrate local regulations that impact and potentially distort their numbers, retarding policy changes for the poor, rather than advancing them.

The authors tell one horrific story where tenant groups and others paid $20,000 for Desmond to come to Portland, Oregon to speak on evictions.  The groups were trying to advance a campaign they were waging to replace no-cause evictions in favor a just-cause eviction policy.  They had already won some relief in extending notice up to 90 days even under existing policy.  Because Oregon allows no-cause evictions without court filings, the Eviction Lab figures were drastically undercounting the reality on the ground.  Desmond refused to listen to explanations of flaws in the Lab’s numbers when he was there, and in defending the erroneous numbers from the lab, actually complicated the authorities saying that the fabricated numbers proved they “were doing something right” and naysaying whether no-cause evictions were even a problem.

Hey, anyone can flub up and miss the nuances of local situations when they are parachuted into town, but not even asking or listening, and then weighing in as an expert on something as serious as local policy prescriptions and housing conditions for lower-and-moderate income tenants facing fierce forces of gentrification, that’s a level of hubris that discolors not just the inadequate data and summary of the Eviction Lab, but the entire project.

Desmond and the Eviction Lab need to either get this right or get as far away from this field as possible.


National Eviction Crisis Finally in the Headlines

New Orleans    In the ACORN Home Savers Campaign we’ve learned a lot about the contemporary issues for lower income families struggling with the potentially predatory nature of land contracts as a route to home ownership, but in doing the organizing we have been constantly confronted with the reality that the real trigger for forcing people into these arrangements is the shortage of affordable rental units and the soaring eviction rates.  Thanks to a mammoth data project spearheaded by Matthew Desmond, author of the critically important book, Evicted, in 2017, and now a sociologist at Princeton, we now have some snapshots at how broadly distributed this crisis is in various parts of the country.

Desmond and his team looked at 83 million property records, and where the data was accessible, they found over 900,000 records of evictions.  His book focused on families in Milwaukee.  In truth the rates are high in that city and many other urban corridors, but they don’t lead this terrible league.

A map in the New York Times demonstrated the horror that lower income tenants are facing particularly in the Southeast and Midwest.  The majority of counties in South Carolina were in the highest percentile with Columbia the capital ranking number eight in the top ten cities in the country with the highest rates of eviction at 8.2% and North Charleston, South Carolina claiming the dubious title of number one with a rate that doubled Columbia’s at 16.5%.  North Carolina was hardly an improvement with most of its counties in the dark zones as well.  Virginia was right there in the bad zone alongside the Carolinas.  Greensboro, North Carolina was their only city with over 100,000 population in the top ten at number seven, while Virginia scored across the board with Richmond in the second slot with an 11.4% eviction rate, Hampton in third place at 10.5%, Newport News in fourth with 10.2%, Norfolk in sixth with 8.7%, and Chesapeake in the tenth spot with 7.9%.

Add northwestern Alabama counties as well as Mississippi counties south of Memphis, in the Delta, and along the Gulf Coast, and if you’re a lower income tenant you need to leave Dixie behind.  Statistics weren’t available, probably because they were either not recorded or not accessible online in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas, but looking at the map in Oklahoma, I’d put money on the fact that they would give the rest of the south a hard run in the terrible eviction rate sweepstakes.  Tenants shouldn’t move to the Midwest though either.  Michigan is part of the new south in this sense and West Virginia and parts of Indiana and Ohio were ugly as well.  Warren, Michigan managed to make the top ten list of evictor cities with an 8.1% rate for the ninth spot.

Everyone knows that these numbers are an undercount.  Tenants falling behind often just move.  Landlords are able to evict far more tenants without legal action just with a note on the door or a call for the last month’s rent to be paid.  In some states the law encourages court evictions because predatory landlords can lard up fees and fines by using the court as their collector.  Federal Reserve studies have indicated that eviction rates in corporate properties put Atlanta in the lead with an eviction rate over 22% and Detroit, Memphis, and similar cities relative pikers in corporate evictions at over 8%.

So, the data is now under-girding what organizers find daily on the doors.  That’s good news.  Whether or not anyone, high or low, is willing to try and do something about supporting lower income families in affordable rental housing either under law or public policy is a longshot though.