As of August 29, 2023, this report contains corrections throughout. For a full list of corrections and clarifications, please expand the accordion at the end of the report.
Introduction and summary
Racial discrimination and systemic racism1 historically have kept U.S. communities of color trapped in cycles of poverty and housing instability.2 In particular, eviction—defined as “the court-ordered removal of a tenant from the property where they reside”3—has been a substantial driver of housing insecurity for Black Americans, with multifaceted and lasting impacts on families and individuals.4 The COVID-19 pandemic only exacerbated this problem, causing widespread job loss, illness, and economic insecurity that contributed to an increase in rates of housing insecurity, particularly for communities of color.5
State, local, and federal COVID-19 eviction policies saw great success in keeping individuals and families housed during the pandemic,6 but eviction rates have since rebounded.7 Today, two years after the termination of all national and statewide COVID-19 eviction moratoriums and most tenant protection programs,8 more Americans are struggling to pay rent than ever before.9 Communities of color, who experienced high rates of eviction, housing insecurity, and cost burdens prior to the pandemic,10 were disproportionately harmed by the pandemic’s economic repercussions and hardships.11 As a result, 24 percent of Black renters surveyed were behind on rent payments, compared with 11 percent of white renters surveyed.12
After the termination of most pandemic-related renter supports, disparities in eviction filings and occurrences persist.13 Black women, who faced higher rates of job loss during the pandemic14 and experience one of the most severe wage gap in the United States,15 are now more vulnerable to eviction and housing insecurity than they were prior to the pandemic.16 In fact, before, during, and after the pandemic, studies have found that Black women are disproportionately affected by eviction.17
States must respond to the eviction crisis by enacting policies that account for demographic disparities and decrease eviction filing, increase tenant protections and rights during the process, and keep families and individuals out of cycles of poverty and hardship.
At this point in time, reinstating the federal eviction moratorium will be quite difficult—particularly in light of the unsuccessful, yet significant, efforts that progressive lawmakers made in 2021 to revive it.18 During the pandemic, however, many states piloted policies and programs outside of moratoriums, such as eviction diversion programs and automatic sealing. These saw promising outcomes in mitigating the effects of eviction, supporting the populations disproportionately affected, and slowing eviction filing and occurrence rates.19
The following list of recommendations, while far from comprehensive, includes evidence-informed steps that policymakers, particularly those at the state level, can take to reduce the harmful consequences of eviction and slow eviction filing, especially for Black women:
- Invest in preventive eviction diversion programs.
- Guarantee the right to counsel for all tenants facing eviction.
- Automate the sealing of eviction records.
- Enact just-cause (or good-cause) eviction legislation.
- Enact source-of-income nondiscrimination laws.
This report discusses the disproportionate eviction of Black women and the harmful consequences of eviction on them; provides an overview of eviction policies during the pandemic as well as the current state of housing and economic vulnerability; and outlines specific policies, programs, and legislation that states can and should implement to protect tenants, prevent eviction, and mitigate the lasting consequences of eviction for the populations most affected.
Related read
Black women are at greatest risk of eviction
While all renters in the United States can face the threat of eviction, Black women are disproportionately evicted:
- 1 in 5 renters behind on rent and likely to face eviction in the United States are Black women.20
- A study conducted in 2014 found that in Milwaukee, more than 1 in 5 Black female renters were evicted as adults, triple the rate for white women.21 This means that while Black women in Milwaukee account for 9.6 percent of the city’s renter population, they comprise 30 percent of evictions.22
- A recent study by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) found that in at least 17 states, Black female renters were filed against for eviction at double the rate of white renters, or higher.23
- The American Civil Liberties Union’s analysis of 2012–2016 eviction data from Massachusetts indicates that Black women face the greatest risk of being evicted or having an eviction filed against them.24
Given that nonpayment of rent is the leading cause of eviction,25 understanding the unjust economic disadvantages historically and currently faced by Black women in this country is integral to understanding the disproportionate occurrence of eviction. Rent-burdened households or individuals,26 defined as those who spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent, experience heightened risk of eviction due to their likelihood of falling behind on rent payments.27 Before the COVID-19 pandemic, more than half of Black and Latino renters were cost burdened, compared with 42 percent of Asian and white households.28 And during the first year of the pandemic, cost burdens rose fastest among renter households headed by a Black person,29 increasing 3.5 percentage points for Black renters and only 3 percentage points for white renters, who maintained the lowest cost burden rate of any racial group.30 This increasing cost burden rate among Black renters suggested growing financial instability and heightened risk of subsequent eviction and housing insecurity.31
68%
of Black mothers are the sole breadwinners of their household
Meanwhile, in 2019, more than half of Black married households were headed by Black women,32 and in 2022, nearly half of Black youth lived with their mothers in single-parent households.33 For Black mothers—68 percent of whom are the sole breadwinners of their households and 82 percent of whom are the primary or co-breadwinners34—pandemic-related financial challenges have posed a significant threat to their ability to remain housed and support their families. Caregiving and breadwinning obligations,35 coupled with the greatest income and wealth disparities of most other demographic groups in the country,36 have made Black women particularly vulnerable to eviction. Furthermore, structural racism and systemic barriers such as unequal pay, high rates of pandemic-related job loss, and discriminatory social bias disproportionately affect Black women and greatly contribute to high cost burdens, housing insecurity, and eviction rates.37
Unequal pay
Systemic discrimination in pay and the exploitation of workers based on gender and race has been prevalent since the founding of this country.38 Despite consistently high labor force participation,39 Black women earn, on average, just 67 cents for every $1 earned by non-Hispanic white men.40 This pay gap has affected the financial stability of Black women in the short and long terms: In the short term, it limits the amount that Black women can allocate to supporting their families—by, for example, paying rent—and in the long term, it limits the financial safety net that Black women have to support their families amid unexpected financial hardship such as pandemic-related job loss.41 Gender and racial discrimination, workplace harassment, and inadequate workplace policies for family caregiving are a few driving forces behind this pay gap.42
Job loss
Black women were “hit especially hard” by pandemic-related job loss.43 While job losses were widespread across many industries, low-wage service sector jobs—where Black women have historically been overrepresented—were particularly vulnerable.44 As a result, between March 2020 and the end of the year, more than half of Black and Hispanic households lost employment income.45 And between February and April 2020, 18.3 percent of Black women lost their jobs, compared with only 13.2 percent of white men.46 While renters who lost employment income during the pandemic were, on average, 2.7 times more likely to be housing insecure, job loss had a particularly harmful impact on the housing stability of Black households.47 In fact, Black households that lost employment income during the pandemic were more likely to tap into emergency savings, miss household payments, and become housing insecure than were their white counterparts.48
Social stigma
Complex and deeply ingrained social stigma and bias often make it more difficult for women, and particularly women of color, to approach their landlord regarding an eviction and receive positive outcomes in exchange.49 In a statistical and ethnographic analysis of evictions in Milwaukee, sociologist Matthew Desmond found that gendered dynamics play a significant role in formal and informal eviction proceedings, and subsequent outcomes, between male landlords and female tenants.50 Among the population surveyed, men who fell behind on rent were far more likely than their female counterparts to directly reach out to a landlord and offer a resolution to make up for late rent after an eviction notice.51 For Black women, who face social stigma, societal pressure, and discrimination based on their gender and race, social dynamics and unfair treatment play a notable role in disproportionate eviction occurrences.
Unequal pay, racism, workforce discrimination, and higher cost burdens while renting are just a few factors contributing to the increased likelihood of housing insecurity and eviction experienced by Black women who lost jobs and faced financial hardship during the pandemic.52
Learn more
Eviction has lasting consequences
Eviction is a destabilizing event that has profound health, economic, social, and financial consequences for families and individuals displaced from their homes, at risk of displacement, or facing an eviction filing.53 It frequently deteriorates a renter’s current and future housing stability and can quickly force them further into poverty and result in homelessness,54 with Black women and their families disproportionately experiencing these consequences.55 The “vicious cycle” between eviction and negative health outcomes has affected millions of renters and widened racial, gender, and socioeconomic disparities across the United States.56 The threat of eviction, regardless of displacement outcome, causes psychological trauma57 and elevated stress58 for tenants; it has even been associated with increased all-cause mortality,59 higher mortality related to multiple substance use categories,60 and a significantly increased risk of suicide.61
Women who face eviction while pregnant experience unique risks. They are more likely to give birth preterm and deliver an infant with low birth weight,62 both of which can result in lifelong health complications for their child.63 Notably, a recent national analysis found that Black women were more likely to live in counties with higher eviction and filing rates and faced the strongest link between eviction occurrence while pregnant and subsequent low birth weight and preterm birth, compared with their white and Hispanic counterparts.64 Moreover, displacement during pregnancy often reduces access to prenatal care and increases “exposure to infectious disease, environmental pollution, violence, and sexual coercion” in shelters or crowded housing.65
Studies have found that eviction increases the likelihood of academic decline, emotional trauma, lead poisoning, and food insecurity for children.
For full list of sources, see CAP, "The Disproportionate Burden of Eviction on Black Women" (2023).
Children also feel the consequences of eviction, as displacement significantly disrupts their emotional and physical well-being.66 Studies have found that eviction increases the likelihood of academic decline,67 emotional trauma,68 lead poisoning,69 and food insecurity70 for children.71 Such adverse childhood experiences can later lead to long-term health implications, such as “increased risk of cardiovascular disease and pulmonary disease in adulthood and decreased life expectancy.”72
In particular, childhood eviction significantly disadvantages Black children in both the short and long terms, making addressing disproportionate eviction among Black women all the more important for future generations. Strikingly, nearly 20 percent of children born to Black mothers experience eviction, compared with only 11.3 percent of children born to white mothers.73
19.2%
of children born to Black mothers experience eviction
Urban Institute
11.3%
of children born to white mothers experience eviction
Urban Institute
The causal relationship between eviction and homelessness is well-documented.74 In New York City, eviction was the second-leading cause of homelessness among families with children in 2017, with up to 33 percent of families citing it as the reason they were unhoused.75 A recent study in Delaware similarly found that 21 percent of unhoused individuals had a record of eviction filing(s) within the two years prior to their initial use of homelessness services.76 Notably, unhoused individuals in Delaware who were experiencing homelessness with their children, were Black, and/or were female were more likely to have a recent history of eviction prior to becoming unhoused.77
When individuals or families lose housing due to eviction, their household cost of living increases and their future employment and earning potential decreases.78 Tenants who are involuntarily displaced due to eviction are often forced to move to unfamiliar neighborhoods, where the conditions of living decrease and the rate of neighborhood crime increases.79 With an eviction record on file and limited time to find new housing, evicted tenants rarely find ideal, safe, comfortable, and affordable housing.80
When individuals or families lose housing due to eviction, their household cost of living increases and their future employment and earning potential decreases.
For full list of sources, see CAP, "The Disproportionate Burden of Eviction on Black Women" (2023).
Finally, the time commitment and stress of eviction proceedings and/or displacement can interfere with a tenant’s ability to perform at work, which can ultimately result in loss of employment or unmanageable commutes to work after displacement.81 Given that Black women are often the breadwinners and caregivers of their households, interference with employment can quickly result in loss of housing and financial hardship, exacerbating the consequential outcomes of eviction for women and their families.82
See also
COVID-19 policies helped renters stay housed during the pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic caused a moment of unprecedented and profound instability and uncertainty. In response, local, state, and federal governments enacted new policies and regulations that, while imperfect, resulted in an estimated 807,000 fewer filed eviction cases than usual in the 31 cities tracked between mid-March 2020 and the end of 2021.83 At the federal level, two eviction moratoriums were enacted within the first year of the pandemic, with the specific goal of reducing eviction filings.84 Congress also enacted the Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) program85 to help eligible tenants catch up on accrued rent throughout the pandemic, as well as stimulus payments86 and expanded unemployment insurance to help tenants stay current on payments.87
Researchers estimate that each additional week of a statewide eviction moratorium was associated with nearly 130 fewer eviction filings compared to a state weekly average.
For full list of sources, see CAP, "The Disproportionate Burden of Eviction on Black Women" (2023).
While the federal moratoriums served as a critical backstop for tenants at risk, local and state policy also contributed greatly to keeping them housed.88 After the expiration of the eviction moratorium instituted by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act,89 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued an emergency eviction moratorium90 that expanded the share of renters protected. While jurisdictions that were only covered by the CDC moratorium saw, on average, a 36 percent decrease in eviction filings between 2019 and 2020, jurisdictions that also had an active local moratorium saw a 91 percent decrease in filing, on average.91 Many states across the country also issued policies to support renters beyond temporary eviction moratoriums, including utility shutoff moratoriums, bans on rent raises and late fees, grace periods for rent payment, and sealing of eviction records.92
On August 26, 2021, in Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services,93 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the CDC had exceeded its authority and immediately nullified the federal eviction moratorium, leaving tenants across the country solely reliant on depleting support from states.94 During the three months following this ruling, eviction filings across the 6 states and 31 cities tracked by The Eviction Lab jumped by an estimated 20 percent.95 Despite robust evidence of local moratoriums’ importance and effectiveness, only three states had kept them in place by the end of 2021.96 Researchers estimate that each additional week of a statewide eviction moratorium was associated with nearly 130 fewer eviction filings compared to a state weekly average.97
Experts note that the largest filing reductions during the pandemic were found in locations that had “previously experienced [the] highest eviction filing rates,” particularly low-income and Black neighborhoods.98 While the local, state, and federal COVID-19 eviction policies cut filing rates by more than half across the board,99 these changes did not eliminate inequities in eviction risk by race or gender.100 The risk of being evicted as a renter in a majority-Black neighborhood during the pandemic was still greater than the equivalent risk prior to the pandemic in majority-white neighborhoods.101
Policy recommendations
Local, state, and federal moratoriums were successful in keeping millions of people housed during the pandemic. Yet they did little to address long-standing inequities in housing insecurity, eviction filing, and eviction occurrence—all of which disproportionately impact Black women. That said, some state-level policies and programs enacted during the pandemic saw promising outcomes in decreasing eviction rates, mitigating its harmful consequences, and addressing disparities along racial and gender lines in eviction filing and occurrence rates. While these policies are unable to amend centuries of injustice, they are important and urgent steps that states can take now to address eviction and its disproportionate impact on Black women.
While these policies are unable to amend centuries of injustice, they are important and urgent steps that states can take now to address eviction and its disproportionate impact on Black women.
Specifically, to begin equalizing the power imbalance between tenants and landlords that has interfered with just eviction proceedings, state policymakers should invest in preventive eviction diversion programs, enact just-cause eviction legislation, and guarantee all tenants facing eviction the right to counsel. And to begin addressing the outcomes of eviction on affected tenants and improve their ability to quickly find safe housing upon displacement, state policymakers should enact source-of-income nondiscrimination laws and pass legislation to automatically seal eviction records.
The following policy recommendations are informed by past successes and can be accomplished by states now, without delay.
Invest in preventive eviction diversion programs
An increasing number of cities and states across the country have begun developing and implementing eviction diversion programs,102 which holistically combine services that divert and resolve landlord and tenant disputes outside the courtroom. This often includes rental assistance, legal representation, mediation services, and other financial and social services for tenants.103 Eviction mediation programs, for example, are led by professional independent mediators who facilitate power-neutral discussions between landlords and tenants in order to reach resolutions and discuss disputes prior to a formal eviction filing.104 When a resolution is reached through an eviction mediation program, a tenant and landlord may enter into a legally binding agreement and avoid court proceedings, saving time and money for both parties.105 If an agreement is not reached, then the eviction case can still proceed to a formal court hearing, which makes implementing tenant protections, such as the right to counsel, in conjunction with these programs all the more important for successful outcomes.106
Eviction mediation programs are effective at breaking down barriers of social stigma between tenants and landlords by providing a safe space for mutually beneficial resolutions to be made appropriately and formally. Specifically, given the unique impact of social stigma on the eviction of female tenants, eviction mediation programs are promising.107 For example, a free eviction mediation program in Palo Alto, California, has reported that 80 percent of its mediation cases are resolved outside court.108 Similarly, Philadelphia’s eviction diversion program has seen a 93 percent success rate in avoiding evictions.109 According to local data as reported by Philadelphia’s City Council, 74 percent of eviction cases involved a Black tenant, 70 percent involved a woman, and half involved either a parent or caretaker.110 Although the city of Philadelphia used to have one of the highest eviction rates in the nation, its investment in these programs has reduced evictions by 75 percent.111
A wide variety of influential stakeholders, including the White House, have supported eviction diversion programs because they keep people housed, save time and money, and begin effectively preventing cycles of housing insecurity and poverty.112
Guarantee all tenants facing eviction the right to counsel
In eviction cases across 30 jurisdictions, on average, only 3 percent of tenants have legal representation during court proceedings, compared to 81 percent of landlords.113 Without legal representation, the vast majority of tenants lose their cases and housing.114 On the other hand, evidence suggests that represented tenants are significantly more likely to win their cases and remain in their homes. For example, in New York City,115 86 percent of tenants with representation during eviction proceedings remained in their homes, while 67 percent of represented tenants in San Francisco116 and 93 percent of represented tenants in Cleveland117 avoided eviction or an involuntary move.118
Even when legally represented tenants lose their cases, lawyers can help them negotiate for increased time before they have to move, prevent the eviction from damaging their credit, and help expunge the eviction from their record.119 For these reasons, legally represented tenants who are evicted have significantly higher chances of obtaining new housing.120
In eviction cases across 30 jurisdictions, on average, only 3 percent of tenants have legal representation during court proceedings, compared to 81 percent of landlords.
For full source, see CAP, "The Disproportionate Burden of Eviction on Black Women" (2023).
Studies have shown that when tenants have the right to counsel, governments also benefit, as they spend less on services such as foster care, homeless shelters, and emergency health care.121 In fact, a cost-benefit analysis of New York City’s right to counsel in cases for renters with incomes up to 200 percent above the federal poverty line found that the net cost savings for the city would be $320 million per year even after accounting for the costs of providing counsel.122 New York City’s right-to-counsel law provides eligible tenants facing eviction, regardless of immigration status, a free legal representative during administrative and court eviction proceedings across the five boroughs.123 Meanwhile, in Maryland, a new right-to-counsel law guarantees all income-eligible renters access to a free legal representative in eviction proceedings and in courts.124
The right to counsel gives tenants a fair opportunity to fight for their right to stay housed.125 This is particularly important for Black women, who have evictions disproportionately filed against them and often face economic challenges.
Automate the sealing of eviction records
Despite the profound impact that an eviction record can have on a tenant’s ability to secure future housing, it is well-documented that a past eviction filing is not an accurate indicator of future quality as a tenant.126 After an eviction record is generated, credit companies can access a tenant’s eviction data, negatively affecting their financial health and credit access well beyond the initial record filing.127 The data are frequently made available to landlords, who routinely rely on screening policies that deny housing to renters who have previously been named or involved in any eviction case—regardless of the outcome or if the eviction was unlawfully filed.128 In addition, tenant-screening companies, which are given unrestricted access to court records, sometimes create “tenant blacklists” based on eviction records that are misunderstood, incomplete, incorrect, and outdated.129 This is particularly damaging for women, people of color, low-income renters, and children who are named on their parents’ eviction filings or complaints.130
Automated sealing of eviction records, which has gained bipartisan support in many states, is a step that more states can take to remove barriers to securing housing and reduce prolonged hardship.131 Such measures became increasingly common during the COVID-19 pandemic as multiple states responded to widespread housing concerns.132 While the benefits of sealing eviction records are well-known,133 the process of doing so differs across states. Ten states, including Washington, D.C., currently have legislation related to expunging or sealing eviction records.134 Other states, such as California and Colorado, allow for automatic sealing of a record as soon as an eviction lawsuit is filed. Meanwhile, states such as Indiana and Minnesota require tenants to formally apply to have their record sealed or expunged after a court decision,135 while Oregon allows tenants to initiate this process free of charge and request that their eviction record be permanently expunged from the court system.136
Sealing records at the point of filing, which can be done through automatic sealing, is an effective way to reduce the lasting consequences and outcomes of eviction prior to filing data being shared with third parties.
Learn more about eviction record expungement
Enact just-cause eviction requirements
Landlords in most cities and states can evict tenants or refuse to renew leases without providing any justification.137 Just-cause—also known as good-cause or for-cause—eviction laws are a form of tenant protection that is designed to prevent discriminatory, retaliatory, or unjust evictions by legally establishing that landlords can only file evictions for “just causes.”138 At the state and local levels, just-cause legislation typically includes three core components: 1) a definition of the legal grounds for eviction, or “just causes”; 2) limits on rent increases; and 3) a stronger requirement of written notice.139
Although no federal just-cause law exists, five states have implemented the legislation: California, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Washington.140 Moreover, seven localities enacted just-cause protections during the pandemic: Albany, Beacon, Kingston, Newburgh, and Poughkeepsie, New York; Baltimore, Maryland; and Saint Paul, Minnesota.141
A study evaluating the effectiveness of just-cause laws in four California cities found that cities with the laws experienced significantly lower eviction and eviction filing rates in 2019 than cities without them,142 finding that such policies “have a significant and noticeable effect on eviction and eviction filing rates.”143 Given the disparities in eviction and hardships faced by Black women, this legislation is an important step to avoiding wrongful eviction and supporting this population in particular.
In the face of rising housing costs, economic instability, and recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, this policy alone will not solve the eviction crisis or completely protect vulnerable residents but certainly can help reduce the number of eviction cases.144
Adopt source-of-income nondiscrimination laws
While the Fair Housing Act made discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, or familial status illegal, federal law still allows landlords to deny housing to tenants based on their source of income.145 Federal law does not require landlords to accept housing choice vouchers as a form of rental payment,146 allowing them to legally deny housing to low-income tenants on this basis.147
Source-of-income discrimination has disproportionately affected renters of color, elderly renters, disabled renters, and women.148 Women head 78 percent of all households receiving housing choice vouchers,149 and 65 percent of voucher holders are either Black or Hispanic.150 Discrimination against potential tenants who receive housing vouchers perpetuates systemic racism in housing and denies equal access to housing opportunities for Black renters.151
Increasing investment in and access to housing choice vouchers would allow more families to stay housed and avoid wrongful denial of rental housing.
As of September 2022, 17 states, 21 counties, and 35 cities had banned source-of-income discrimination.152 Moreover, in the past four years, California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia have enacted statewide protections for renters who receive housing choice vouchers.153 Recent momentum has resulted in more than 57 percent of households with vouchers living in communities that have banned source-of-income discrimination.154
Because there is currently no federal voucher nondiscrimination law,155 policymakers should pass local and state laws that ban source-of-income discrimination to protect low-income families and increase their ability to receive and utilize federally funded housing support.156 In 2017 alone, Washington state’s statewide voucher nondiscrimination laws covered 53,271 voucher-covered households.157
Increased funding for housing choice vouchers is also necessary to meet the current demand of families in need of affordable housing and rental assistance.158 Across the country, thousands of families sit on waitlists due to insufficient funding.159 Increasing investment in and access to housing choice vouchers, along with adopting source-of-income nondiscrimination laws, would allow more families to stay housed and avoid wrongful denial of rental housing. This is especially important for those who have previously been displaced or faced housing insecurity.
Additional reading
Conclusion
An essential goal of post-pandemic recovery for the United States should be implementing policies and passing laws that support and protect tenants who have already experienced or are at high risk of experiencing eviction. Long-term policy solutions must address the systemic barriers to housing, including income inequality and shortages of affordable housing, in order to provide all people equal access to housing security. This will be a particularly important step to rectifying the past and present harms and disadvantages faced by Black women. There is an immediate need for states to respond to the eviction crisis by enacting policies that account for demographic disparities and decrease eviction filings, increase tenant protections and rights during the process, and keep families and individuals out of cycles of poverty and hardship.
Corrections
- This report has been corrected to clarify that 24 percent of Black renters surveyed nationally noted that they were behind on rent payments, compared with 11 percent of white renters surveyed.
- This report has been corrected in multiple places to clarify that Black women experience one of the greatest wage gaps of any demographic group. It has also been corrected to clarify that Black women are disproportionately affected by eviction.
- This report has been corrected to clarify findings from the American Civil Liberties Union’s analysis of 2012–2016 eviction data from Massachusetts that Black women face the greatest risk of being evicted or having an eviction filed against them.
- On October 2, 2023, this report was corrected to clarify that the definition of rent-burdened households refers to those that pay 30 percent or more of their income toward housing costs.
- This report has been corrected to clarify that a 2019 study found that more than half of Black married households were headed by Black women—and that a separate 2022 data point is that nearly half of Black youth lived with their mothers in a single-parent household. Additionally, 68 percent of Black mothers were the sole breadwinner of their household.
- This report has been updated with more recent data that clarify that Black women earn, on average, just 67 cents for every $1 earned by non-Hispanic white men.
- This report has been corrected to properly quote direct source language (endnotes 65, 72, and 98).
- This report has been corrected to clarify that the local data regarding eviction cases in Philadelphia is reported according to Philadelphia’s City Council.
- This report has been corrected to denote that based on data from 30 jurisdictions, on average, only 3 percent have representation during eviction proceedings.
- This report has been corrected to clarify that New York’s right-to-counsel law provides counsel for eligible tenants, regardless of immigration status.
- This report has been corrected to clarify the impacts of just-cause eviction laws in four California counties studied by Princeton University, as well as that just-cause eviction laws can help reduce the number of eviction cases.
- Citations in this report have been adjusted for alignment and accuracy (endnotes 4, 7, 8, 17, 40, 71, 72, 90, 119, 120, 121, and 146).