Special Issue on Procedural Fairness - American Judges Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Perceptions ofSelf-Represented Tenants in aCommunity-Based Housing CourtRashida Abuwala & Donald J. FaroleI. INTRODUCTIONThis study examines the impact of Harlem CommunityJustice Center, a community-based housing court thatattempts to achieve speedier and more durable outcomes inlandlord-tenant disputes. However, it may be particularly beneficialto pro se litigants (i.e., those who represent themselveswithout an attorney). In New York City, most landlords arerepresented, while the vast majority of tenants are not. In fact,one report notes that only 12% of tenants are able to affordcounsel while 98% of landlords are represented. 1The primary objective of this study was to examine theexperiences of pro se tenants whose cases are heard in Harlem,surveying their perceptions of the fairness, accessibility, timeliness,respectfulness, and comprehensibility of the courtprocess. We conducted a survey of pro se tenants both inHarlem and in New York City’s centralized housing courtlocated in southern Manhattan (hereinafter referred to as“downtown housing court”). Survey results were supplementedwith structured court observations, also conducted atboth locations.BACKGROUNDThe vast majority of housing court cases in New York Cityare filed by landlords to evict tenants for nonpayment of rent.These tenants are often hampered by their inability to navigatethe complexities of the legal system. Unable to afford legal representation,often unaware of their rights and responsibilities,and afraid of losing their apartments, many tenants must filetheir own pleadings and responses to pleadings in court—anintimidating and complex process. These problems are compoundedby the high-volume of housing court cases such asNew York City’s, which hears more than 300,000 cases annually.2 According to one description: “housing court, with itsunruly atmosphere of lawyers and tenants negotiating in thehallways or yelling into cell phones, can be overwhelming . . .the hearings before some of the most overworked judges in thesystem are usually brief, so litigants often have but a few minutesto recount their emotional slide into debt.” 3Recently, community-based models have emerged whichoffer alternative approaches to resolving housing cases in NewYork City, as well as the possibility of enhanced access to justicefor pro se litigants. Community courts hearing housingcases were opened in Harlem and Red Hook, Brooklyn.Opened in May 2001, the Harlem Community Justice Centeris located in East Harlem and handles all housing court casesfrom two Harlem zip codes (10035 and 10037). All otherhousing cases in Manhattan are heard at the centralized housingcourt.The Harlem Community Justice Center seeks to addressmany of the underlying problems that give rise to housingcases. The court is staffed by a single judge and handles casesonly from a limited geographic area. It also seeks to providethe judge with access to comprehensive and up-to-date information.The court works closely with an on-site housingresource center that is staffed by case managers, a pro se attorney,and personnel from partner city agencies. The resourcecenter seeks to link clients to services, including mediation,benefits assistance, budget counseling, and loan assistanceprograms.Aspects of the Harlem Community Justice Center—itsneighborhood location, smaller caseload, single judge andcourtroom, on-site services—might be expected to improve thecourt experience for tenants in terms of both perceptions andoutcomes. The importance of enhanced tenant perceptionsshould not be underestimated. Studies show that litigants placegreat weight on having their problems settled in a way theyview as fair. 4 To date, there has been no systematic evaluation ofthe impact of a community-based housing court. By drawing onthe perspectives of unrepresented tenants appearing in both theHarlem and downtown housing courts, our study provides thefirst indications of the comparative advantages (and/or disadvantages)of a community-based housing court.Between January and May 2007, a total of 343 tenants wereinterviewed: 196 in the Harlem Housing Court and 147 in thedowntown housing court. The survey measures tenant perceptionsabout, and satisfaction with, their court experience.Tenants were asked to assess their experience in a variety ofprocedural fairness domains, including:Footnotes1. COMMUNITY TRAINING AND RESOURCE CENTER AND CITYWIDE TASKFORCE ON HOUSING COURT, INC., HOUSING COURT, EVICTIONS, ANDHOMELESSNESS: THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF ESTABLISHING A RIGHT TOCOUNSEL (1993), available at http://www.cwtfhc.org/about.html.2. Paula Golowitz, The Housing Court’s Role in Maintaining AffordableHousing, in HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IN NEW YORKCITY 177, 177-202 (Michael Schill, ed., 1999).3. David Chen, Boom Times in the City’s Housing Courts, N.Y. TIMES,May 27, 2003, at B1.4. See, e.g., TOM TYLER, WHY PEOPLE OBEY THE LAW (1990); Tom R.Tyler & E. A. Lind, A Relational Model of Authority in Groups, in 25ADVANCES IN EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 115 (Mark P. Zannaed., 1992).56 Court Review - Volume 44
• Opportunity to participate in the process;• Clarity of the process;• Polite and fair treatment from the judge and court staff;• Fairness of the outcome; and• Satisfaction with the outcome.Tenants were also asked to rate their preparation for court,difficulties faced in preparing for the appearance, awarenessand use of available services, and suggestions for improvement.5To complement the survey, research staff conducted structuredcourt observations in the Harlem and downtown housingcourts. Using court observation instruments, we formallyassessed tenant court appearances in terms of preparation,behavior during the appearance, treatment by other parties(judge, court clerks, attorneys, etc.), and case outcomes. Intotal, 406 court appearances were observed: 109 in the Harlemhousing court, and 297 in various downtown court parts.II. DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY SAMPLEOverall, survey respondents appear to be generally representativeof housing court tenants. Most of those interviewedwere racial/ethnic minorities—half African-American andanother quarter Hispanic. Two in three (67%) were female. Themajority had at least one indicator of low socioeconomic status:59% reported being unemployed, receiving Section 8rental assistance, or living in public housing (Table 1).Those interviewed in the Harlem and at the downtownhousing courts were similar in many, but not all, respects.There were no significant differences across sites in gender,education level, and employment status. However, those interviewedin Harlem were more likely to identify themselves asAfrican-American (63% compared to 36% downtown) and lesslikely as white (4% compared to 16 % downtown).CASE CHARACTERISTICSNot surprisingly, more than eight in 10 (85%) of those surveyedwere involved in a nonpayment of rent case. A largerpercentage of downtown litigants were in court on a holdovercase (19% vs. 7% downtown). 6 Also not surprisingly, the overwhelmingmajority of tenants, both downtown (87%) andparticularly in Harlem (97%), appeared pro se. By contrast,very few tenants reported that their landlord was pro se (5% inHarlem; 6% downtown). The majority of tenants (53%) alsoreported that they are facing eviction as a result of their currentcourt case. Importantly, despite the fact that public housing(NYCHA) cases comprise a larger percentage of Harlem’sthan downtown’s caseload, the Harlem tenants interviewed forthis study were not significantly more likely to be publichousing residents than were those downtown (29% vs. 25%,respectively).TABLE 2: CASE CHARACTERISTICSHARLEM DOWN- TOTALTOWNTABLE 1: CHARACTERISTICS OF SURVEY RESPONDENTSCASE TYPEHARLEM DOWN- TOTALNonpayment***92% 76% 85%TOWNHoldover***7% 19% 13%RACEOther***2% 4% 3%Black***Latino †63%21%36%31%51%25%TENENT IN PUBLIC HOUSING(NY CHA) 29% 25% 28%White4% 16% 9%Other12% 18% 15%FIRST APPEARANCE INCOURT CASE † 26% 19% 23%GENDERFemale** 70% 63% 67%TENANT PRO SE* 97% 87% 93%HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA/GED 86% 86% 86%LANDLORD PRO SE 5% 6% 5%EMPLOYED***68% 59% 64%TENANT FACING EVICTION* 45% 62% 53%Part-time11% 17% 14%Full-time57% 42% 50%*p
Page 1 and 2:
Court ReviewVolume 44, Issu
Page 3 and 4: Court ReviewT H E J O U R N A L O F
Page 5 and 6: A WHITE PAPER OF THE AMERICAN JUDGE
Page 7: nomenon exists. 6 Thus, procedural
Page 10 and 11: THE PUBLIC EXPANDS THEIR KNOWLEDGE
Page 12 and 13: ception of the courts as long as pe
Page 14 and 15: or also because they are more famil
Page 16 and 17: PERCEPTIONS OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS
Page 18 and 19: up to the courtroom, but also the w
Page 20 and 21: 3. Judicial education must include
Page 22 and 23: Society Faculty Working Papers, Pap
Page 24 and 25: ABOUT THE AMERICAN JUDGES ASSOCIATI
Page 26 and 27: from outcomes and toward the proced
Page 28 and 29: courts are based heavily upon evalu
Page 30 and 31: Providing people with information a
Page 32 and 33: compared to traditional court proce
Page 34 and 35: judges, if procedural fairness is e
Page 36 and 37: Commission on Children in Foster Ca
Page 38 and 39: Several of the court attenders expr
Page 40 and 41: prior experience with the legal sys
Page 42 and 43: Vicky Weisz is a Research Professor
Page 44 and 45: emerged as the strongest predictor
Page 46 and 47: CONFERENCE OF STATECOURT ADMINSTRAT
Page 48 and 49: The resourceguide... willcontain ef
Page 50 and 51: [T]he AOC willbe better able toiden
Page 52 and 53: Impacts of the ACTION program:• O
Page 56 and 57: APPEARANCE OUTCOMEStipulation*Stipu
Page 58 and 59: TABLE 8: SATISFACTION WITH COURT EX
Page 60 and 61: Decision Makers andDecision Recipie
Page 62 and 63: [Judges']proceduralfairness andoutc
Page 64 and 65: Study 3 isimportant becauseit demon
Page 66 and 67: [O]ur questions toparticipantsinclu
Page 68 and 69: addition, Fairness Heuristic Theory
Page 70 and 71: dural justice can obscure the equal
Page 72 and 73: economic loss based on a variety of
Page 74 and 75: doubt that aspirations for, and sat
Page 76 and 77: proposed conditions, in the judge c
Page 78 and 79: ole optimally, procedural fairness
show all

Special Issue on Procedural Fairness - American Judges Association

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?