THE TASK FORCE TO EXPAND ACCESS THE TASK FORCE TO …ww2.nycourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/files/2018-04/CLS... · civil legal services for low-income individuals. Previously,

THE TASK FORCE TO EXPAND ACCESS

TO CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES IN NEW YORK

NOVEMBER 2010

REPORT TO THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

THE TASK FORCE TO EXPAND ACCESS

TO CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES IN NEW YORK

NOVEMBER 2010


APPENDICESAPPENDICES

APPENDICES

Appendix 1:

The full text of the Chief Judge’s Law Day speech

Appendix 2:

A listing of those who provided pro bono assistance to the Task Force

Appendix 3:

The full text of the joint legislative resolution

Appendix 4:

A Witness List for each of the Chief Judge’s four Hearings

Appendix 5:

Transcript of the First Department Hearing held on September 28, 2010

Appendix 6:

Transcript of the Fourth Department Hearing held on September 29, 2010

Appendix 7:

Transcript of the Third Department Hearing held on October 5, 2010

Appendix 8:

Transcript of the Second Department Hearing held on October 7, 2010

Appendix 9:

Written Statements submitted at the First Department Hearing held on September 28, 2010

THE TASK FORCE TO EXPAND ACCESS TO CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES IN NEW YORK


Appendix 10:

Written Statements submitted at the Fourth Department Hearing held on September 29, 2010

Appendix 11:

Written Statements submitted at the Third Department Hearing held on October 5, 2010

Appendix 12:

Written Statements submitted at the Second Department Hearing held on October 7, 2010

Appendix 13:

Public notice of the Chief Judge’s Hearings posted on the Unified Court System’s website

Appendix 14:

Public notice of the Chief Judge’s Hearings published in the New York Law Journal

Appendix 15:

Notification of the Providers’ Survey published in the New York Law Journal

Appendix 16:

Findings of the Providers’ Survey

Appendix 17:

Findings of Lake Research Partners on Civil Legal Needs Among Low Income New York State Residents


NOVEMBER 2010


APPENDIX 1:The full text of the Chief Judge’s Law Day speech

Page 1 of 7

Law Day 2010 Law in the 21st Century:

Enduring Traditions, Emerging Challenges May 3, 2010

Jonathan Lippman

I have chosen to focus my remarks today on a longstanding challenge that has

grown even more difficult and urgent for our State in these dire financial times--a challenge

representing one of the most essential elements of the rule of law and one of the

foundations of our democracy--equal access to justice.

... I begin by noting that the meaning of "justice" and of "equal justice" has been

studied and debated for literally thousands of years, going back to biblical times. Our own

Declaration of Independence states the self-evident truth that "all men are created equal."

Schoolchildren reciting the Pledge of Allegiance know that our nation promises "justice for

all." And our federal and state constitutions give further meaning to those words. Yet, in

the 21st century, we often fall short of these ideals in America, and here in New York as

well.

The court system is seeing this firsthand, now more than ever. Over the last few

years, a noticeably larger share of our new case filings reflect the direct legal and human

fallout from the recent economic collapse--not just bad debts and bad business deals, but

skyrocketing home foreclosures, consumer debt cases, growing family offense and custody

petitions, and a rise in matrimonial conflict. All of these cases in one way or another

involve the very basic necessities of life for New Yorkers, so many of whom no longer have

the means to hire an attorney.

Page 2 of 7

If they are very fortunate, a small number of these litigants may be represented

by one of the civil legal services programs that provide free representation to low-income

New Yorkers. But, because of lack of resources, more and more of these programs must

turn away potential clients. Some who are turned away may find representation from pro

bono programs, but our State's lawyers, who already donate an estimated two million hours

of pro bono work a year, cannot by themselves possibly fill the huge gap that still exists.

This means that a rapidly growing number of litigants--two million at last count--

have no choice but to go to court without the help of a trained professional who knows the

law and how to navigate the court system. Our court-sponsored volunteer attorney

programs provide limited legal assistance to many of these people. This is extremely

helpful, and we are so grateful to the volunteers, but there is no substitute for full legal

representation, especially for the most vulnerable litigants in our society--the elderly,

children, struggling families, people with disabilities and abuse victims.

How then do we as a profession and as a society fulfill our moral and ethical

obligations to assure equal access to justice? How then do courts and judges fulfill their

mission of delivering equal justice under the trying circumstances I just described?

Forty-seven years ago, the United States Supreme Court in Gideon v.

Wainwright, said in regard to criminal case representation that:

In our adversary system of justice, any person haled intocourt, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assureda fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. This seemsto us to be an obvious truth.

Page 3 of 7

Nearly half a century later, it is an equally obvious truth that in civil proceedings

involving fundamental human needs, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a person

to be assured a fair outcome without a lawyer's help.

As Chief Judge, I see this as one of the great challenges facing our justice

system today. No issue is more fundamental to our constitutional mandate of providing

equal justice under law than ensuring adequate legal representation.

In 2006, the American Bar Association promulgated a resolution urging

governments to provide legal counsel as a matter of right at public expense to low-income

persons in cases where basic human needs are at stake--shelter, sustenance, personal

safety, health, or child custody. While New York provides for a limited statutory right to

counsel in certain family proceedings, there generally is no right to counsel in civil cases

in New York, or for that matter around the country, even where the most basic necessities

of life are at risk.

For all of these reasons, and to meet our constitutional and ethical mandates, the

Judiciary of this State is determined to bring us closer to the ideal of equal access to civil

justice. I am not talking about a single initiative, pilot project, or temporary program, but

what I believe must be a comprehensive, multi-faceted, systemic approach to providing

counsel to the indigent in civil cases.

It begins with a new way of looking at funding. New York already has the dubious

distinction of being one of only seven states that do not provide stable funding for civil legal

services. Our reliance on undependable revenue streams is highly problematic. A stark

illustration is this year's crisis in IOLA, our Interest on Lawyers Accounts program, which

funds many civil legal services providers around the State. IOLA revenues declined from

Page 4 of 7

$31 million to less than $8 million because of the economic downturn, which led us to

allocate $15 million for IOLA in the Judiciary Budget request for the 2010-2011 fiscal year.

While we are hopeful that this request will be granted, it represents only a small portion of

the funding needs--more is needed on a going-forward, permanent basis.

To jump-start this effort to provide civil legal services funding in the years ahead,

as Chief Judge and the head of the Judicial Branch of government, beginning this fall, I will

preside over annual public hearings, to assess the extent and nature of unmet civil legal

services needs in all parts of the State, in order to recommend to the Legislature and the

Executive, publicly and transparently, the level of public resources necessary to meet those

needs. I will conduct one hearing in each of the four Appellate Division Departments,

together with the Presiding Justice of that Judicial Department, the Chief Administrative

Judge, and, the President of the New York State Bar Association.

By doing so, New York will be the first state in the nation to have the entire

leadership of the Judicial Branch of government, and the leadership of the state’s bar, in

our case 150,000 strong, make such a singular and unequivocal commitment to providing

civil legal representation to the poor in matters where they need it most, where their well

being as human beings, and that of their families, is at stake. I want to thank my fellow

members of the Administrative Board of the Courts, the policy-making body of the court

system, Presiding Justice Luis A. Gonzalez of the First Department, Presiding Justice A.

Gail Prudenti of the Second Department, and Presiding Justice Anthony V. Cardona of the

Third Department, all of whom are here today, as well as Presiding Justice Henry J.

Scudder of the Fourth Department for their unswerving support, and Ann Pfau, our terrific

Chief Administrative Judge, and State Bar President Mike Getnick and President-Elect

Page 5 of 7

Steve Younger, all of them for their enthusiastic participation in this effort and their total

dedication to the ideal of equal justice for all in New York.

To help prepare for these public hearings around the State, and as a centerpiece

of our efforts in this regard, I am appointing The Task Force to Expand Access to Civil

Legal Services in New York, made up of distinguished New Yorkers, headed by Helaine

M. Barnett, Esq., who retired recently as the longest-serving president of the Legal

Services Corporation in Washington, D.C., the nation's single largest funding source for

civil legal services for low-income individuals. Previously, Ms. Barnett headed the Civil

Division of the Legal Aid Society in New York City, where she practiced for 37 years. We

could not have a better Chair, and I am so delighted that she has agreed to serve in that

capacity. The composition of the Task Force will be announced in the coming weeks, but

it will include statewide representatives from the courts, civil legal services and pro bono

providers, bar associations and bar foundations, government, law schools, business

groups, consumer advocates, and the not-for-profit community.

In addition to helping set the agenda for the annual hearings that I will be holding,

the Task Force will have a broad mission--recommending statewide priorities, defining the

types of legal matters in which civil legal services are most needed, and proposing

standards, such as income levels for determining which litigants should be eligible. The

Task Force will also advocate for support for expanded civil legal services and help

improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of legal services. It will gather and

distribute information about programs, strategies, and technological approaches that have

proven successful and issue guidelines or best practices to help providers.

Page 6 of 7

The Task Force will work closely with civil legal services groups, grant-making

organizations, foundations, pro bono programs, and law school clinics, and with Judge

Fern A. Fisher, who is our stellar Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for New York City

Courts and Statewide Director of the court system's Access to Justice Program.

Under Judge Fisher's direction, the court system will continue its ongoing work

on the broad range of access to justice issues, which includes providing help for

unrepresented litigants, as well as enhancing pro bono legal services, using vehicles like

the newly established Attorney Emeritus program that taps into an underutilized segment

of the legal community--retired lawyers.

Effective at the beginning of this year under amended attorney registration rules,

qualified attorneys who previously would have retired can now practice law on a pro bono

basis if they commit to at least 30 hours a year of legal services to low-income clients. The

Attorney Emeritus works with a qualified volunteer program, which provides malpractice

coverage and access to offices and staff, as well as any necessary training. With 49

qualified organizations already participating and an enthusiastic response from attorneys,

this idea clearly has struck a chord with senior lawyers, mostly baby boomers, who want

to use their retirement years in productive ways that promote the public good.

To help us capitalize on this early momentum and develop a blueprint for

increased senior lawyer pro bono in New York, I am forming the Attorney Emeritus

Advisory Council to be co-chaired by a distinguished lawyer, academic, and public servant

who really needs no introduction in this state, John D. Feerick, former Dean of Fordham

Law School; and by Fern A. Schair, Chair of the Feerick Center for Social Justice at

Page 7 of 7

Fordham. The Advisory Council will consist of statewide representatives whose mission

will be to advise us and provide support and guidance for the Attorney Emeritus Program.

I believe that with these new structures in place--annual hearings by the Chief

Judge and state court and bar leadership on civil legal services, leading to a

recommendation to the Legislature and the Executive for civil legal services funding; The

Task Force to Expand Access to Civil Legal Services headed by Helaine Barnett; the

expansion of pro bono and self-help resources around the State; and the Attorney

Emeritus Advisory Council led by John Ferrick and Fern Shair--New York will be in the

forefront in this country in expanding civil legal services to the poor in these challenging

times.

In March 2013, we will reach the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's

decision in Gideon v. Wainwright. By then, it is my fervent hope, first, that it will be an

obvious truth to all that those litigants faced with losing the roof over their heads, suffering

the breakup of their families, or having their very livelihood threatened cannot meaningfully

pursue their rights in the courts of New York without legal counsel--and second, that it will

be equally obvious that we together will have taken major steps forward in providing such

representation to those who need it most, making equal justice for all not just an ideal, but

truly a reality in our great State.

Thank you.


NOVEMBER 2010


APPENDIX 2:A listing of those who provided pro bono assistance

to the Task Force

Acknowledgment of Law Firm Pro Bono Assistance to the Task Force Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Robert J. Giuffra, Jr. (Partner, Task Force Member) Marcia Levy (Special Counsel, Counsel to the Task Force) Shannon Haley (Associate) Maya Krugman (Associate) Lara Loyd (Associate) Amma Anaman (Summer Associate) Claire S. Jen (Legal Assistant) Mindy Miller (Administrative Assistant/Secretary) Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Robert C. Sheehan (Of Counsel, Task Force Member) Ron Tabak (Special Counsel) Rosemarie Barnett (Associate) Autumn Montague. (Associate) Kelly Russotti (Associate) Anand Viswanathan (Associate) Proskauer Rose LLP Bettina B. Plevan (Partner, Task Force Member) David A. Picon (Partner) Stacey O'Haire Fahey (Pro Bono Counsel) Michelle Annese (Associate) Kerri Blumenauer (Associate) Latoya Moore (Associate) Kate Rhodes (Associate) Amber Ward (Associate) Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP Mark G. Cunha (Partner, Task Force Member) Harlene Katzman (Pro Bono Counsel and Director) David Edwards (Associate) Silvia Ostrower (Associate) Lexie Pitney (Associate) Kate Rose (Associate) Dan Shin (Associate)


NOVEMBER 2010


APPENDIX 3:The full text of the joint legislative resolution


NOVEMBER 2010


APPENDIX 4:A Witness List for each of the Chief Judge’s

four Hearings

FOURTH DEPARTMENT HEARINGWednesday, September 29, 2010

WITNESS LIST

1- CLIENT PANEL

Jane X (Client of Empire Justice Center)

Laura Hart (Client of Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo)

Heather Oakes (Client of Legal Services of Central New York)

2- EDUCATORS PANEL

Rachael Ann Gazdick (Executive Director of “Say Yes to Education,” Syracuse University)

Jean Claude Brizard (Superintendent of Rochester City School District)

Dr. Anne M. Kress (President of Monroe Community College)

3- HEALTHCARE PANEL

Fran Weisberg (Executive Director of the Finger Lakes Health Systems Agency)

Steven D. Blatt, M.D. (Associate Professor of Pediatrics/Director, Division of General Pediatrics at University Hospital of SUNY Upstate Medical University)

Catherine Cerulli, J.D., Ph.D. (Associate Professor and Director of Laboratory of InterpersonalViolence and Victimization, Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester)

4- JUDGES PANEL

Hon. Henry J. Nowak (Buffalo City, Housing Court)

Hon. Langston C. McKinney (Syracuse City Court)

Hon. Joseph G. Nesser (Monroe County Family Court)

Hon. Joanne M. Winslow (Supreme Court, Monroe County)

5- BUSINESS LEADERS PANEL

Thomas S. Richards, Esq. (Corporation Counsel, City of Rochester, former partner Nixon Peabody LLP and former CEO of Rochester Gas and Electric)

6- PROJECT DIRECTORS PANEL (If time permits)

C. Kenneth Perri, Esq. (Executive Director, Legal Assistance of Western New York)

The Chief Judge’s Hearings on Civil Legal Services

THIRD DEPARTMENT HEARINGTuesday, October 5, 2010

WITNESS LIST

1- GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS PANEL

Michael G. Breslin (Albany County Executive)Kathleen B. Hogan (District Attorney of Warren County)

2- LABOR AND COMMUNITY LEADERS PANEL

Denis M. Hughes (President, New York State AFL-CIO)Denise Berkley (Statewide Secretary, Civil Service Employees Association)

Patricia Bentley (Board of Directors, NYSUT)Earl Eichelberger (Director, Catholic Charities)Steven T. Longo (Executive Director, Albany Housing Authority)

3- JUDGES PANEL

Hon. Judith F. O’Shea (Chemung County Supreme Court)

Hon. Mark L. Powers (Schenectady Family Court)

Hon. Michael C. Conway (Nassau Town Court, Nassau Village Court)Hon. Helena Heath-Roland (Albany City Court)

4- RURAL PANEL

Susan L. Patnode (Executive Director, Rural Law Center)Paul J. Lupia (Executive Director, Legal Aid Society of Mid-New York)

Jeanne Noordsy (DVCCCC/DELTA Coordinator, Domestic Violence Project of Warren & Washington Counties)

Christopher Layo (Client of Legal Aid Society of Northeastern New York)

5- CLIENTS PANEL

Lauren E. Raffe (Client of Legal Aid Society of Northeastern New York, accompanied by Judy Swierczewski)

Dorthea Medina (Client of The Legal Project, accompanied by Lisa Frisch)

Anne E. Knapp and Ronald (Client of Empire Justice Center)


SECOND DEPARTMENT HEARINGThursday, October 7, 2010

WITNESS LIST

1- LEGAL NEEDS SURVEY REPORT

Victor A. Kovner (Chair, Fund for Modern Courts)

2- COMMUNITY LEADERS PANEL

Rev. Terry Troia (Executive Director, Project Hospitality, Staten Island)

Rajiv Garg (President and CEO, Wyckoff Heights Hospital)

Brad Snyder (Representative of Network of Bar Leaders)

3- LOCAL ISSUES AND NEED FOR LEGAL SERVICES PANEL

Mary A. Barbera (Chief, Rockland County Sheriff’s Civil Division)

Christine Malafi (Suffolk County Attorney)

4- DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND NEED FOR LEGAL SERVICES PANEL

Jane Aoyama-Martin (Executive Director, Women’s Justice Center, Pace Law School)

Lois Schwaeber (Director of Legal Services, Nassau County Coalition Against Domestic Violence)

5- CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND NEED FOR CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES

Hon. Charles Hynes (District Attorney, Kings County)

6- CLIENT PANEL

Alvin Thomas (Client of Legal Services of the Hudson Valley, accompanied by Trevor Eisenman)

William Schneider (Client of Nassau/Suffolk Law Services, accompanied by Rose Caputo)

Chakiera Locust (Client of Legal Aid Society of Rockland County, accompanied Mary Ellen Natale)

Gail Greene (Client of Legal Aid Society of New York City, accompanied Sumani Lanka)

7- JUDGES PANEL

Hon. Kathie E. Davidson (Supervising Judge, Family Court, 9th Judicial District)

Hon. Eleanora Ofshtein (Kings County Housing Court)

Hon. Norman St. George (Acting Supreme Court Justice; Nassau County Court Judge)

8- CLOSING STATEMENT FOR STATEWIDE HEARINGS

Hon. Fern Fisher (Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for the New York City Courts;

Director of the New York State Courts Access to Justice Program)



NOVEMBER 2010


APPENDIX 5:Transcript of the First Department Hearing

held on September 28, 2010

Transcript of the First Department Hearing held on September 28, 2010

http://www.nycourts.gov/accesstojusticecommission/PDF/1st-Dept-Hearing-Transcript.pdf

http://www.nycourts.gov/ip/access-civil-legal-services/PDF/1st-Dept-Hearing-Transcript.pdf

www.nycourts.gov/accesstojusticecommission/PDF/1st-Dept-Hearing-Transcript.pdf


NOVEMBER 2010


APPENDIX 6:Transcript of the Fourth Department Hearing

held on September 29, 2010

Transcript of the Fourth Department Hearing held on September 29, 2010

http://www.nycourts.gov/accesstojusticecommission/PDF/4th-Dept-Hearing-Transcript.pdf


NOVEMBER 2010


APPENDIX 7:Transcript of the Third Department Hearing

held on October 5, 2010

Transcript of the Third Department Hearing held on October 5, 2010

http://www.nycourts.gov/accesstojusticecommission/PDF/3d-Dept-Transcript.PDF


NOVEMBER 2010


APPENDIX 8:Transcript of the Second Department Hearing

held on October 7, 2010

Transcript of the Second Department Hearing held on October 7, 2010

http://www.nycourts.gov/accesstojusticecommission/PDF/2d-Dept-Hearing-Transcript.PDF


NOVEMBER 2010


APPENDIX 9:Written Statements submitted at the First Department

Hearing held on September 28, 2010

Written Statements submitted at the First Department Hearing held on September 28, 2010

Statements of Testifying Witnesses http://www.nycourts.gov/accesstojusticecommission/PDF/1st-De

pt-Testifying-Witnesses.pdf

Statements of Non-Testifying Witnesses http://www.nycourts.gov/accesstojusticecommission/PDF/1st-

Dept-Non-Testifying-Witness-Submissions.pdf

http://www.nycourts.gov/accesstojusticecommission/PDF/1st-Dept-Testifying-Witnesses.pdf

http://www.nycourts.gov/accesstojusticecommission/PDF/1st-Dept-Non-Testifying-Witness-Submissions.pdf


NOVEMBER 2010


APPENDIX 10:Written Statements submitted at the Fourth Department

Hearing held on September 29, 2010

Written Statements submitted at the Fourth Department Hearing held on September 29, 2010

Statements of Testifying Witnesses http://www.nycourts.gov/accesstojusticecommission/PDF/4th-

Dept-Testifying-Witnesses.pdf

Statements of Non-Testifying Witnesses http://www.nycourts.gov/accesstojusticecommission/PDF/4th-

Dept-Non-testifying-Witness-Submissions.pdf


NOVEMBER 2010


APPENDIX 11:Written Statements submitted at the Third Department

Hearing held on October 5, 2010

Written Statements submitted at the Third Department Hearing held on October 5, 2010

Statements of Testifying Witnesses http://www.nycourts.gov/accesstojusticecommission/PDF/3d-

Dept-Testifying-Witnesses.PDF

Statements of Non-Testifying Witnesses http://www.nycourts.gov/accesstojusticecommission/PDF/3d-Dept-Non-testify-Witness-Submissions.PDF

http://www.nycourts.gov/accesstojusticecommission/PDF/3d-Dept-Testifying-Witnesses.PDF


NOVEMBER 2010


APPENDIX 12:Written Statements submitted at the Second Department

Hearing held on October 7, 2010

Written Statements submitted at the Second Department Hearing held on October 7, 2010

Statements of Testifying Witnesses http://www.nycourts.gov/accesstojusticecommission/PDF/2d-

Dept-Testifying-Witnesses.PDF

Statements of Non-Testifying Witnesses http://www.nycourts.gov/accesstojusticecommission/PDF/2d-

Dept-Non-Testifying-Witness-Submissions.PDF

http://www.nycourts.gov/accesstojusticecommission/PDF/2d-Dept-Testifying-Witnesses.PDF


NOVEMBER 2010


APPENDIX 13:Public notice of the Chief Judge’s Hearings posted

on the Unified Court System’s website


The Chief Judge will conduct one hearingin each of the four Appellate Division Depart-ments together with the Presiding Justice of thatJudicial Department (Presiding Justice Luis A.Gonzalez of the First Department, Presiding Justice A. Gail Prudenti of the Second Depart-ment, Presiding Justice Anthony V. Cardona ofthe Third Department, and Presiding JusticeHenry J. Scudder of the Fourth Department),Chief Administrative Judge Ann Pfau, and thePresident of the New York State Bar Association,Stephen P. Younger.

THE HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AS FOLLOWS:

FIRST DEPARTMENTSeptember 28, 2010...............10 a.m. to 1 p.m.Appellate Division 27 Madison Avenue, New York City

FOURTH DEPARTMENTSeptember 29, 2010...............11 a.m. to 2 p.m.Appellate Division50 East Avenue, Rochester

THIRD DEPARTMENTOctober 5, 2010......................10 a.m. to 1 p.m.Court of Appeals20 Eagle Street, Albany

SECOND DEPARTMENTOctober 7, 2010......................10 a.m. to 1 p.m.Appellate Division45 Monroe Place, Brooklyn

The purpose of the public hearings is toreceive the views of interested individuals, organi-zations and entities about the unmet need for civillegal services for low-income New Yorkers in mat-ters in which their basic human needs, and thoseof their families, are at stake. The hearing panelsseek information on the following issues:

The particular types of situations or cases inwhich current civil legal services needs areunmet and their magnitude.The categories of individuals whose unmetlegal needs currently are especially critical.Data on the impact of the economic downturnon sources of funding for civil legal services.Impact on courts of increasing numbers ofunrepresented litigants.The economic and social harm to the community (direct and/or indirect) when critical legal needs are unmet.The economic and social benefits to the community when such needs are met.

THE CHIEF JUDGE’S HEARING PANEL WILLCONSIDER BOTH ORAL TESTIMONY (BYINVITATION ONLY) AND WRITTEN SUBMIS-SIONS. Persons interested in presenting oral tes-timony or making a written submission are asked tofollow the procedures and deadlines describedbelow. Please note that the Hearing Panel can notaccept any comments, written or spoken, address-ing details of individual litigation or complaintsabout individual judges or attorneys.

Because of the limited time available forthe hearings, oral testimony must be byinvitation only. If you are interested in beinginvited to testify at a hearing, you should send anemail to [email protected] nolater than 14 days in advance of the hear-ing at which you propose to testify. Proposedtestimony should be no more than 10minutes in length. If requesting an invitation,please (1) identify yourself and your affiliation (andif you are requesting an invitation for someone elseto testify, that individual’s name and affiliation); (2)attach a prepared statement or a detailed outline ofthe proposed testimony and specify which of thetopics described above will be addressed; (2) indi-cate at which of the hearings the testimony is pro-posed to be given. In advance of the hearing, invi-tations to testify will be issued and will include anapproximate time period for each presenter’s testi-mony. For those not invited to present oral testi-mony, your proposed testimony will be deemed awritten submission.

Persons unable to attend the hearing, orthose interested only in making a writtensubmission, may submit their remarks by email-ing them to [email protected] least seven (7) days in advance of thehearing, or by mailing the submission to the TaskForce to Expand Access to Civil Legal Services inNew York at the address below. The Task Force isassisting the Chief Judge in preparing for the hear-ings and in reporting on its results.

The Task Force to ExpandAccess to Civil Legal Servicesc/o Marcia Levy, Esq.Counsel to the Task ForceSullivan & Cromwell125 Broad StreetNew York, NY 10004-2498

Email [email protected]

The Hon. Jonathan Lippman, Chief Judge of the State of New York, will be conductingfour public hearings to assess the extent and nature of unmet civil legal services needs in allparts of the State in order to recommend to the Legislature and the Executive the level ofpublic resources necessary to meet those needs. Providing funding for these services forlow-income New Yorkers will greatly improve their chances of keeping or securing basicnecessities — the keys to safety, stability and self sufficiency — and help build stronger, morestable communities, producing taxpayer savings at all levels of government.

For further information about the hearings, please visit the Task Force's website

www.nycourts.gov/access-civil-legal-services 7-20-10


NOVEMBER 2010


APPENDIX 14:Public notice of the Chief Judge’s Hearings published in the New York Law Journal


NOVEMBER 2010


APPENDIX 15:Notification of the Providers’ Survey published

in the New York Law Journal

News in Brief New York Law Journal Monday, September 20, 2010 Online Survey Seeks Data On Civil Legal Services As part of its efforts to gauge the level of additional public resources needed for civil legal ser-vices, the court system is asking all organizations that provide such services at no cost to low-income New Yorkers to fill out an online survey. Among other things, the questionnaire asks the providers to estimate the number of people they have been forced to turn away and to supply information about clients who received only brief attention when they needed more extensive advice. It also seeks information about changes in client needs and demographics and the impact of the recession on the organizations themselves. Results of the survey will be included in the upcoming report of the courts' Task Force to Expand Access to Civil Justice Services. They will supplement the findings from four hearings that Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman is conducting around the state beginning Sept. 28 in Manhattan (NYLJ, July 26). Responses to the online survey are requested before Sept. 30. It is available athttps:// www.surveymonkey.com/s/LegalServicesProviderSurvey.


NOVEMBER 2010


APPENDIX 16:Findings of the Providers’ Survey

- 1 -

Findings of the Providers’ Survey

As part of the work of the Chief Judge’s Task Force to Expand Access to Civil Legal Services, an on-line survey of civil legal services providers in New York State was conducted to gauge the current delivery system’s capacity to serve those in need, any changes in the substantive law needs of those seeking assistance, any changes in the demographics of those seeking assistance, and the impact the current funding status is having on organizational operations.

Changing Client Demographics

The most significant finding is the change in the demographics of those seeking legal assistance. Among those legal services providers that would be available to provide assistance to these populations, 91% report an increase in requests for assistance from formerly moderate income households, 90% report an increase in unemployed individuals seeking assistance, and 72% report an increase in homeowners seeking legal assistance.

Sixty-nine percent of providers reported an increase in homeless families seeking assistance while nearly the same amount (66%) reported an increase in homeless individuals seeking assistance.

Changing Legal Needs

The most significant reported change in the substantive law areas in which people are seeking assistance include housing and consumer debt. Ninety percent (90%) of the legal services organizations participating in the survey reported an increase in homeowners seeking assistance in foreclosure matters, 85% are seeing an increase in tenants seeking assistance with evictions, and 81% reported an increase in consumers seeking legal assistance with credit and debt issues.

Housing and Homelessness. Issues relating to housing and homeless were among the legal issues generating the greatest increase in demand. Sixty-one percent (61%) of those responding reported an increase in the number of people seeking legal assistance to address housing code violations; 85% reported an increase in those needing legal assistance to assist in eviction prevention; 91% in foreclosure assistance; 77% in homelessness; 71% in tenant rights; and 61% in utility shut-offs.

Consumer Issues. Of those reporting an increase in demand, every area of consumer law saw a reported increase in demand: credit/debt issues 81%; bankruptcy 78%; non-mortgage loans 70%; medical debt 68%; rent to own issues 54%; and tax problems 64%.

Domestic Violence. In the area of family law, 67% of those responding reported an increased in demand among those seeking legal assistance for issues related to domestic violence.

Employment and Economic Support. Almost 70% (69%) of those responding reported an increase in clients seeking assistance in employment insurance claims. Over 50% (54%) reported an increase in demand for legal assistance in dealing with wrongful termination issues. In the area of income supports, 63% of those responding are seeing an increase in request for legal assistance on issues related to public

- 2 -

assistance, 76% are seeing an increase in those dealing with emergency assistance and 60% are seeing an increase in those seeking legal assistance for issues dealing with Food Stamps/Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Immigrants and Immigration. In the area of immigration law, 59% reported an increase in those seeking assistance in securing special visa protections (for crime victims and victims of human trafficking for example) and 53% reported an increase in immigrant victims of domestic violence seeking legal assistance to pursue protection under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

Turn-away Data

In 2009, IOLA determined that, due to insufficient resources, legal service providers were turning away one out of every two eligible low-income New Yorkers who were seeking legal assistance. In the survey conducted for the Chief Judge’s Task Force, providers were asked if they were experiencing any change in this level of turn-aways. Of those who had collected turn away data in 2009, 20.7% reported turning away significantly more people seeking assistance in 2010; 62.1% are turning away somewhat more; and 17.2 percent are turning away potential clients at the same rate they were turning them away in 2009.

The Impact of Inadequate and Unstable Funding

At a time of increased need, legal services organizations are facing diminishing resources. Of those responding to the survey, 57.7% have reduced staff, eliminated positions or left current positions unfilled, further reducing their capacity to serve clients in need. Local offices have been closed in the Bronx, Clinton and Wyoming counties. Four organizations have reduced hours of service.

Almost 40% of those responding have imposed a salary freeze and have either reduced employee health coverage or increased employee cost-sharing for health benefits.

Survey Respondents

A total of 58 organizations responded to the Task Force survey. The services they provide cover every county in the State. Altogether, these organizations employ 1,967 people who are providing or supporting the provision of legal services. In just the past year, these organizations have collectively lost 112 staff members (111.9 FTEs). Ten of the responding organizations are funded by the federal Legal Services Corporation (LSC), including those receiving pass-through funds for their pro bono organizations. Fifty-one (51) are funded by the IOLA Fund. Over 50% (52.6%) of the responding organizations exist only to provide legal assistance to those in need, devoting 100% of their organizational resources to meeting the legal needs of low income New York residents. Another 24.6% of those responding focus between 50% and 99% of their organizational budgets to providing legal assistance; 14% devote between 10% and 49% of their budgets on legal

- 3 -

services; and under 10% (8.8%) of respondents devote less than ten percent of their organizational budgets on delivering legal assistance to those in need. The organizations ranged in size – from an $83.3 million organization (which devotes 2% of its resources to legal assistance) to an organization of under $100,000 with its full budget devoted to legal assistance. Additional Comments of Providers Reflecting the Increasing Need for the Civil Legal Services

“The major change in demographics that we are seeing is newly unemployed people who used to earn a living who are now receiving or have exhausted their unemployment benefits, depleted their savings and are facing new poverty and homelessness…”

“We are also noting that clients are getting younger – we now have many more clients between the ages of 19-24 than in the past.”

“There are more working class families suffering the loss of one or more incomes and falling into poverty and facing the need for public assistance for the first time. These families often have minimal assets but are faced with the substantial loss of equity in their homes and cars, along with money judgments, bankruptcy and the loss of health care.” “We are truly seeing a great increase in eviction cases in our community and do not have the resources to serve everyone who is facing homelessness. As employment benefits continue to expire and stimulus funds are depleted, our community faces an uncertain future.”

“In the past months, we have also seen many more clients who are seeking assistance for the very first time, having experienced unemployment and medical issues. The level of anxiety and distress permeating the legal issues is evident in the often repeated statement when an attorney is assigned or counsel is provided: "I just don't know what I would have done if you hadn't helped us." “Our clients have proven to be more marginal in their capacity to understand directions and to advocate for themselves. Literacy issues, mental issues and language problems require more hands on help to those who we represent.” “There are more working class families suffering the loss of one or more incomes and falling into poverty and facing the need for public assistance for the first time. These families often have minimal assets but are faced with the substantial loss of equity in their homes and cars, along with money judgments, bankruptcy and the loss of health care.”


NOVEMBER 2010


APPENDIX 17:Findings of Lake Research Partners on Civil Legal Needs

Among Low Income New York State Residents

Civi

l Leg

al N

eeds

Am

ong

Low

-inco

me

New

Yor

k St

ate

Resi

dent

s

Find

ings

from

a s

tate

wid

e su

rvey

of L

ow-in

com

e N

ew Y

ork

resi

dent

s

Com

mis

sion

ed b

y th

e Fu

nd fo

r M

oder

n Co

urts

Oct

ober

201

0

2

Surv

ey M

etho

dolo

gy

Lake

Res

earc

h Pa

rtne

rs d

esig

ned

and

adm

inis

tere

d th

is s

tatis

tical

ly re

pres

enta

tive

tele

phon

e su

rvey

whi

ch re

ache

d a

tota

l of 5

11 lo

w-in

com

e N

ew Y

ork

stat

e re

side

nts

(up

to 2

00%

of f

eder

al

pove

rty

stan

dard

s), a

ge 1

8 or

old

er. T

he s

urve

y w

as c

ondu

cted

by

prof

essi

onal

inte

rvie

wer

s fr

om

Aug

ust 1

6th

to A

ugus

t 29t

h, 2

010.

The

sur

vey

incl

uded

an

over

sam

ple

of 1

00 lo

w-in

com

e La

tinos

(a

t up

to 2

00%

fede

ral p

over

ty s

tand

ards

). Th

e su

rvey

als

o in

clud

ed a

slig

ht o

vers

ampl

e of

re

side

nts

at 0

-100

% o

f fed

eral

pov

erty

sta

ndar

ds, i

n or

der

to o

btai

n en

ough

inte

rvie

ws

to a

naly

ze

this

gro

up s

epar

atel

y. T

his

resu

lted

in 2

66 in

terv

iew

s am

ong

resi

dent

s at

0-1

00%

of f

eder

al

pove

rty

stan

dard

s an

d 24

5 in

terv

iew

s at

101

%-2

00%

of f

eder

al p

over

ty s

tand

ards

. Th

e ov

ersa

mpl

es w

ere

wei

ghte

d do

wn

and

fold

ed in

to th

e ba

se.

The

sam

ple

was

dra

wn

usin

g ra

ndom

dig

it di

al (R

DD

) am

ong

tele

phon

e ex

chan

ges

in c

ensu

s tr

acts

th

at w

ere

in th

e lo

wes

t thi

rd o

f act

ual i

ncom

e. T

he d

ata

wer

e w

eigh

ted

slig

htly

by

gend

er, a

ge,

race

, reg

ion,

and

fede

ral p

over

ty le

vel i

n or

der

to e

nsur

e th

at it

acc

urat

ely

refle

cts

the

dem

ogra

phic

con

figur

atio

n of

this

pop

ulat

ion.

In in

terp

retin

g su

rvey

res

ults

, all

sam

ple

surv

eys

are

subj

ect t

o po

ssib

le s

ampl

ing

erro

r; t

hat i

s, th

e re

sults

of a

sur

vey

may

diff

er fr

om t

hose

whi

ch w

ould

be

obta

ined

if th

e en

tire

popu

latio

n w

ere

inte

rvie

wed

. Th

e si

ze o

f the

sam

plin

g er

ror

depe

nds

upon

bot

h th

e to

tal n

umbe

r of

resp

onde

nts

in th

e su

rvey

and

the

perc

enta

ge d

istr

ibut

ion

of re

spon

ses

to a

par

ticul

ar q

uest

ion.

The

mar

gin

of

erro

r fo

r th

e ov

eral

l sur

vey

is +

/-4.

4 pe

rcen

tage

poi

nts.

The

mar

gin

of e

rror

for

the

Latin

o ov

ersa

mpl

e is

+/-

9.8

perc

enta

ge p

oint

s.

Key

Find

ings

4

Key

Find

ings

•Th

e su

rvey

sug

gest

s th

at m

any

low

-inco

me

New

Yor

kers

do

not r

ecog

nize

that

they

exp

erie

nce

civi

l leg

al

prob

lem

s w

hen

the

topi

c or

issu

e is

pre

sent

ed t

o th

em in

a g

ener

al w

ay. T

here

is m

uch

mor

e re

cogn

ition

w

hen

they

hea

r sp

ecifi

c pr

oble

ms.

Thu

s, c

ivil

lega

l pro

blem

s m

ay b

e un

der-

repo

rted

by

this

pop

ulat

ion

if fr

amed

in a

gen

eral

con

text

.

•Lo

w-in

com

e N

ew Y

orke

rs a

re m

ore

likel

y to

repo

rt h

avin

g ex

peri

ence

d on

ly o

ne o

r tw

o ci

vil l

egal

pr

oble

ms,

rath

er th

an a

long

list

of p

robl

ems.

•Lo

w-in

com

e N

ew Y

orke

rs h

ave

the

bigg

est c

ivil

lega

l pro

blem

s, a

nd c

ivil

lega

l nee

ds, i

n th

e ar

eas

of h

ealth

in

sura

nce

or m

edic

al b

ills,

follo

wed

by

finan

ces,

em

ploy

men

t, a

nd h

ousi

ng. S

peci

fical

ly, h

aras

smen

t fro

m

cred

itors

for l

oans

and

unp

aid

med

ical

bill

s ar

e to

p pr

oble

ms

for l

ow-in

com

e N

ew Y

orke

rs.

Oth

er s

peci

fic

top

prob

lem

s ar

e di

ffic

ulty

get

ting

or k

eepi

ng fo

od s

tam

ps, a

nd—

for n

on-h

omeo

wne

rs—

havi

ng u

nsaf

e liv

ing

cond

ition

s, n

egle

cted

rep

airs

, or d

ispu

tes

over

rent

ove

rcha

rges

.

•Lo

w-in

com

e N

ew Y

orke

rs m

ost i

n ne

ed o

f leg

al a

ssis

tanc

e—th

ose

mos

t lik

ely

to e

xper

ienc

e th

e le

gal

prob

lem

s qu

erie

d on

in th

is s

urve

y—ar

e yo

unge

r, A

fric

an A

mer

ican

s, L

atin

os, i

mm

igra

nts,

par

ents

of

child

ren

unde

r ag

e 18

, tho

se li

ving

in p

ublic

, Sec

tion

8, o

r sub

sidi

zed

hous

ing,

the

unem

ploy

ed, u

nins

ured

, an

d di

sabl

ed.

•Im

mig

rant

s, o

r tho

se li

ving

in a

n im

mig

rant

hou

seho

ld, m

ake

up o

ne-t

hird

of t

he s

ampl

e an

d re

port

a

high

er fr

eque

ncy

of c

ivil

lega

l pro

blem

s th

an n

ativ

e-bo

rn h

ouse

hold

s. Y

et, o

nly

five

perc

ent r

epor

t hav

ing

any

prob

lem

s w

ith th

e sp

ecifi

c im

mig

ratio

n pr

oble

ms

cove

red

in th

e su

rvey

. In

stea

d, t

he p

robl

ems

they

re

port

are

mor

e co

ncen

trat

ed in

the

area

s of

hea

lth in

sura

nce

or m

edic

al b

ills,

em

ploy

men

t, a

nd h

ousi

ng.

Thos

e liv

ing

in im

mig

rant

hou

seho

lds

are

also

am

ong

thos

e le

ast l

ikel

y to

take

act

ion

whe

n th

ey d

o ex

peri

ence

a p

robl

em.

5

Key

Find

ings

, Cnt

d.

•O

ver h

alf o

f tho

se w

ho e

xper

ienc

ed a

ny o

f the

36

spec

ific

civi

l leg

al p

robl

ems

in th

e su

rvey

say

they

nev

er

took

act

ion

on a

ny o

f the

pro

blem

s. B

arri

ers

to s

eeki

ng h

elp

with

a le

gal p

robl

em v

ary

base

d on

the

type

of

pro

blem

s ex

peri

ence

d. T

he m

ost c

omm

on th

emes

are

the

belie

f tha

t act

ion

wou

ld n

ot r

eally

hel

p w

ith

the

situ

atio

n an

d a

desi

re n

ot to

cau

se tr

oubl

e. L

ack

of in

form

atio

n ab

out w

here

to g

o fo

r hel

p an

d co

ncer

ns a

bout

exp

ense

s ar

e se

cond

ary.

•Fo

r tho

se w

ho ta

ke a

ctio

n on

thei

r ci

vil l

egal

pro

blem

s, th

ey a

re m

ost l

ikel

y to

act

on

prob

lem

s re

gard

ing

heal

th in

sura

nce

or m

edic

al b

ills,

fina

nces

, fol

low

ed b

y do

mes

tic a

nd fa

mily

issu

es a

nd p

ublic

ben

efits

. Th

ey a

re le

ast l

ikel

y to

act

to s

olve

em

ploy

men

t or h

ousi

ng p

robl

ems.

Whe

n it

com

es to

see

king

out

side

he

lp, t

hose

who

take

act

ion

are

mos

t lik

ely

to s

eek

lega

l hel

p, in

clud

ing

lega

l aid

, for

hou

sing

pro

blem

s an

d do

mes

tic o

r fam

ily is

sues

.

•Lo

w-in

com

e N

ew Y

orke

rs re

port

hav

ing

limite

d ex

peri

ence

with

lega

l aid

. Am

ong

thos

e w

ho e

xper

ienc

e pr

oble

ms,

they

do

not r

epor

t a h

eavy

rel

ianc

e on

lega

l aid

. Yet

, the

oth

er h

alf o

f the

pop

ulat

ion

who

hav

e no

t exp

erie

nced

the

spec

ific

prob

lem

s de

mon

stra

te a

n op

enne

ss to

cal

ling

on le

gal i

nstit

utio

ns, i

nclu

ding

le

gal a

id, i

f the

y w

ere

to e

xper

ienc

e le

gal p

robl

ems.

•W

hile

ther

e is

a h

ealth

y le

vel o

f aw

aren

ess

that

free

lega

l ser

vice

s ar

e av

aila

ble,

the

re is

a la

ck o

f cla

rity

am

ong

low

-inco

me

New

Yor

kers

abo

ut w

heth

er th

ey w

ould

be

elig

ible

for f

ree

lega

l ser

vice

s. A

mon

g th

ose

who

are

aw

are

of fr

ee le

gal s

ervi

ces

for l

ow-in

com

e N

ew Y

orke

rs, o

nly

two

in te

n be

lieve

they

or

thei

r fam

ily w

ould

qua

lify.

Stra

tegi

c Su

mm

ary

7

Stra

tegi

c Su

mm

ary:

Fre

quen

cy o

f Civ

il Le

gal P

robl

ems

Expe

rien

ced

by L

ow-In

com

e N

ew Y

orke

rs

•M

ost l

ow-in

com

e N

ew Y

orke

rs r

epor

t no

thav

ing

had

any

non-

crim

inal

lega

l pro

blem

s: 9

4 pe

rcen

t say

nei

ther

they

nor

any

one

in th

eir

hous

ehol

d ha

ve e

xper

ienc

ed a

ny le

gal p

robl

ems

in th

e pa

st y

ear

(4 p

erce

nt h

ave)

.

•W

hen

the

popu

latio

n is

pre

sent

ed w

ith a

list

of 3

6 sp

ecifi

c ci

vil l

egal

pro

blem

s, a

nd a

sked

w

heth

er t

hey

expe

rien

ced

thes

e in

the

past

yea

r, n

earl

y ha

lf (4

7 pe

rcen

t) s

ay th

ey h

ave

expe

rien

ced

at le

ast o

ne o

f the

se p

robl

ems

(53

perc

ent

have

not

). Th

e su

rvey

pol

led

on

issu

es in

clud

ing

prob

lem

s w

ith h

ousi

ng, f

inan

ces,

em

ploy

men

t, h

ealth

insu

ranc

e or

med

ical

bi

lls, e

mpl

oym

ent,

pub

lic b

enef

its, d

omes

tic a

nd fa

mily

issu

es, i

mm

igra

tion

issu

es, a

nd is

sues

w

ith s

choo

ls fo

r pa

rent

s.

–Ei

ghte

en p

erce

nt r

epor

t hav

ing

one

prob

lem

in th

e pa

st y

ear,

11

perc

ent h

ad tw

o pr

oble

ms,

and

19

perc

ent h

ad th

ree

or m

ore.

•Lo

w-in

com

e N

ew Y

orke

rs m

ost

likel

y to

hav

e ex

peri

ence

d at

leas

t one

of t

he 3

6 pr

oble

ms

are:

thos

e liv

ing

in p

over

ty (5

0 pe

rcen

t ha

d at

leas

t one

pro

blem

in p

ast y

ear)

, und

er a

ge 6

0 (5

5 pe

rcen

t), A

fric

an A

mer

ican

s (5

3 pe

rcen

t), L

atin

os (5

0 pe

rcen

t), i

mm

igra

nt h

ouse

hold

s (5

2 pe

rcen

t), p

aren

ts w

ith c

hild

ren

unde

r ag

e 18

(60

perc

ent)

, tho

se li

ving

in p

ublic

, Sec

tion

8, o

r su

bsid

ized

hou

sing

(54

perc

ent)

, the

une

mpl

oyed

(61

perc

ent)

, uni

nsur

ed (6

6 pe

rcen

t), a

nd

the

disa

bled

(53

perc

ent)

.

8

Stra

tegi

c Su

mm

ary:

Typ

es o

f Civ

il Le

gal P

robl

ems

Expe

rien

ced

•Lo

w-in

com

e N

ew Y

orke

rs a

re m

ost l

ikel

y to

hav

e ex

peri

ence

d at

leas

t one

pro

blem

in th

e ar

ea o

f hea

lth

insu

ranc

e or

med

ical

bill

s (2

0 pe

rcen

t), a

nd th

en fi

nanc

es (1

8 pe

rcen

t), e

mpl

oym

ent (

17 p

erce

nt),

and

hous

ing

(16

perc

ent)

.

•Pr

oble

ms

with

pub

lic b

enef

its (1

3 pe

rcen

t) a

nd d

omes

tic/f

amily

issu

es (1

2 pe

rcen

t) fa

ll in

the

seco

nd ti

er.

–To

p pr

oble

m a

reas

are

sim

ilar f

or th

ose

unde

r age

60,

but

thos

e in

this

age

coh

ort r

epor

t exp

erie

ncin

g m

ore

prob

lem

s in

eac

h of

the

area

s: h

ealth

insu

ranc

e or

med

ical

bill

s (2

5 pe

rcen

t), f

inan

ces

(22

perc

ent)

, hou

sing

(20

perc

ent)

, em

ploy

men

t (19

per

cent

), do

mes

tic a

nd fa

mily

issu

es (1

3 pe

rcen

t), a

nd p

ublic

ben

efits

(15

perc

ent)

.

•Q

uest

ions

spe

cific

to p

aren

ts a

bout

pro

blem

s at

thei

r ch

ild’s

sch

ool w

ith s

uspe

nsio

n or

exp

ulsi

on a

nd w

ith

gett

ing

child

ren

spec

ial n

eeds

hel

p ar

e am

ong

the

leas

t com

mon

, with

onl

y ni

ne p

erce

nt o

f par

ents

re

port

ing

thes

e pr

oble

ms.

•A

ser

ies

of p

robl

ems

wer

e as

ked

only

of i

mm

igra

nts,

incl

udin

g tr

oubl

es w

ith a

gre

en c

ard

or w

ork

auth

oriz

atio

n, p

robl

ems

secu

ring

citi

zens

hip

or p

erm

anen

t res

iden

cy o

r tro

uble

s w

ith s

eeki

ng a

sylu

m o

r de

port

atio

n, b

ut th

ese

wer

e al

so a

mon

g th

e le

ast c

omm

on p

robl

ems

repo

rted

(5 p

erce

nt).

•Th

e to

p sp

ecifi

c pr

oble

ms

repo

rted

acr

oss

thes

e ar

eas

are:

–D

iffic

ulty

or

hara

ssm

ent b

y cr

edito

rs o

ver u

npai

d bi

lls o

r loa

ns, i

nclu

ding

per

sona

l loa

ns, l

oans

use

d to

pur

chas

e so

met

hing

, and

pay

day

loan

s (1

4%);

–D

iffic

ulty

with

cre

dito

rs o

ver u

npai

d m

edic

al b

ills

or h

ospi

tal b

ills

(12%

);–

Uns

afe

cond

ition

s, n

egle

cted

repa

irs,

or

bein

g ov

erch

arge

d in

rent

am

ong

thos

e w

ho r

ent o

r liv

e in

Sec

tion

8 or

pub

lic

hous

ing

(10%

);–

Diff

icul

ty g

ettin

g or

kee

ping

food

sta

mps

(9%

);–

Trou

ble

gett

ing

unem

ploy

men

t ben

efits

or b

eing

den

ied

bene

fits

(7%

); –

Hav

ing

a di

vorc

e, s

epar

atio

n or

ann

ulm

ent o

f one

’s m

arri

age

(7%

); an

d–

Diff

icul

ty k

eepi

ng, b

eing

re-c

ertif

ied,

or

bein

g de

nied

Med

icai

d (7

%).

9

Stra

tegi

c Su

mm

ary:

Typ

es o

f Civ

il Le

gal P

robl

ems

Expe

rien

ced

Am

ong

Dem

ogra

phic

Gro

ups

Dem

ogra

phic

gro

ups

who

rep

ort

expe

rien

cing

mor

e pr

oble

ms

in s

ome

issu

e ar

eas

are

the

follo

win

g:

–Yo

unge

r pe

ople

:Th

ose

unde

r ag

e 30

rep

ort m

ore

prob

lem

s in

nea

rly

ever

y ar

ea, a

nd a

re m

uch

mor

e lik

ely

to re

port

pro

blem

s w

ith h

ousi

ng (3

1 pe

rcen

t) a

nd e

mpl

oym

ent (

26 p

erce

nt).

Par

ents

, m

any

of w

hom

are

you

nger

, als

o re

port

mor

e pr

oble

ms,

and

are

esp

ecia

lly li

kely

to h

ave

prob

lem

s w

ith h

ealth

insu

ranc

e or

med

ical

bill

s (2

9 pe

rcen

t), f

inan

ces

(24

perc

ent)

, and

hou

sing

(24

perc

ent)

.

–Th

ose

In P

over

ty:T

hose

livi

ng in

pov

erty

are

muc

h m

ore

likel

y th

an th

ose

near

pov

erty

to re

port

ho

usin

g pr

oble

ms

(21

perc

ent,

com

pare

d to

12

perc

ent)

.

–La

tino

s:Th

e to

p pr

oble

m fo

r Lat

inos

is h

ousi

ng (2

1 pe

rcen

t), f

ollo

wed

by

dom

estic

and

fam

ily

issu

es (1

8 pe

rcen

t), h

ealth

insu

ranc

e an

d m

edic

al b

ills

(18

perc

ent)

, and

em

ploy

men

t (18

per

cent

). Th

ey re

port

few

er p

robl

ems

with

fina

nces

(14

perc

ent)

. La

tinos

are

mor

e lik

ely

to h

ave

dom

estic

an

d fa

mily

-rel

ated

lega

l pro

blem

s an

d ho

usin

g pr

oble

ms

than

the

over

all p

opul

atio

n.

–A

fric

an A

mer

ican

s’to

p ci

vil l

egal

pro

blem

s m

irro

r tho

se o

f the

tota

l pop

ulat

ion,

but

they

hav

e m

ore

prob

lem

s w

ith fi

nanc

es (2

5 pe

rcen

t) a

nd h

ousi

ng (2

4 pe

rcen

t) t

han

the

over

all p

opul

atio

n.

–Im

mig

rant

s:Th

e ty

pes

of p

robl

ems

repo

rted

by

imm

igra

nt h

ouse

hold

s ru

n pa

ralle

l to

the

over

all

popu

latio

n, w

ith th

e ex

cept

ion

of b

eing

slig

htly

less

like

ly to

hav

e fin

ance

pro

blem

s (1

3 pe

rcen

t,

com

pare

d to

18

perc

ent o

vera

ll).

10

Stra

tegi

c Su

mm

ary:

Typ

es o

f Civ

il Le

gal P

robl

ems

Expe

rien

ced

Am

ong

Dem

ogra

phic

Gro

ups,

Cnt

d.

–U

nem

ploy

ed:L

ow-in

com

e N

ew Y

orke

rs w

ho a

re u

nem

ploy

ed r

epor

t m

ore

civi

l leg

al

prob

lem

s ac

ross

are

as, a

nd a

re d

ispr

opor

tiona

tely

mor

e lik

ely

to r

epor

t pr

oble

ms

with

em

ploy

men

t (27

per

cent

), ho

usin

g (2

5 pe

rcen

t), p

ublic

ben

efits

(18

perc

ent)

and

do

mes

tic/f

amily

issu

es (1

7 pe

rcen

t).

–D

isab

led

low

-inco

me

New

Yor

kers

, or

thos

e liv

ing

in a

hou

seho

ld w

ith s

omeo

ne w

ho is

di

sabl

ed, a

re a

lso

mor

e lik

ely

to r

epor

t pr

oble

ms

acro

ss th

e bo

ard,

and

par

ticul

arly

m

ore

likel

y to

exp

erie

nce

prob

lem

s in

em

ploy

men

t (2

5 pe

rcen

t), p

ublic

ben

efits

(23

perc

ent)

and

with

hea

lth in

sura

nce

or m

edic

al b

ills

(25

perc

ent)

.

–Pu

blic

or

Subs

idiz

ed H

ousi

ng R

esid

ents

:Res

iden

ts o

f pub

lic, S

ectio

n 8,

or

subs

idiz

ed

hous

ing

expe

rien

ce m

ore

prob

lem

s ac

ross

the

boa

rd th

an th

e ov

eral

l pop

ulat

ion,

and

ar

e es

peci

ally

mor

e lik

ely

to r

epor

t pr

oble

ms

with

fina

nces

(25

perc

ent)

, hou

sing

(24

perc

ent)

, and

pub

lic b

enef

its (2

3 pe

rcen

t).

11

Stra

tegi

c Su

mm

ary:

Sol

ving

Civ

il Le

gal P

robl

ems

•Ta

king

act

ion:

With

in t

he s

ix p

robl

em a

reas

ask

ed o

f all

resp

onde

nts,

low

-inco

me

New

Yor

kers

are

mos

t lik

ely

to

have

take

n ac

tion

on p

robl

ems

invo

lvin

g he

alth

insu

ranc

e or

med

ical

bill

s (4

3 pe

rcen

t), a

nd fi

nanc

es (3

7 pe

rcen

t),

follo

wed

by

dom

estic

/fam

ily is

sues

(30

perc

ent)

and

pub

lic b

enef

its (3

0 pe

rcen

t). T

hey

are

leas

t lik

ely

to h

ave

take

n ac

tion

on p

robl

ems

conc

erni

ng h

ousi

ng (2

4 pe

rcen

t) a

nd e

mpl

oym

ent

(21

perc

ent)

.

•Ty

pes

of a

ctio

n ta

ken:

The

spec

ific

type

s of

act

ion

take

n va

ry b

y pr

oble

m t

ypes

as

wel

l. L

ow-in

com

e N

ew Y

orke

rs

are

mos

t lik

ely

to s

eek

help

out

side

the

ir h

ouse

hold

s fo

r do

mes

tic/f

amily

issu

es (2

4 pe

rcen

t) a

nd p

robl

ems

with

pu

blic

ben

efits

(23

perc

ent)

. In

the

next

run

g do

wn,

the

y ar

e ju

st a

s lik

ely

to s

eek

outs

ide

help

as

they

are

to t

ake

actio

n on

the

ir o

wn

conc

erni

ng p

robl

ems

with

hea

lth in

sura

nce

or m

edic

al b

ills

(20

perc

ent)

, fin

ance

s (1

7 pe

rcen

t)

and

hous

ing

(11

perc

ent)

.

–A

mon

g th

ose

who

took

act

ion,

they

are

mos

t lik

ely

to s

eek

lega

l hel

p fo

r hou

sing

pro

blem

s (7

0 pe

rcen

t sai

d th

ey s

ough

t hel

p fr

om le

gal a

id, p

riva

te a

ttor

ney

or c

ourt

or c

ourt

hea

ring

; 36

perc

ent f

rom

lega

l aid

spe

cific

ally

) and

dom

estic

/fam

ily is

sues

(82

perc

ent;

21

perc

ent)

. –

They

turn

to le

gal h

elp,

sec

onda

rily

, on

issu

es in

volv

ing

empl

oym

ent (

45 p

erce

nt le

gal h

elp;

4 p

erce

nt le

gal a

id);

fina

nces

(42

perc

ent;

13

perc

ent)

; and

pub

lic b

enef

its (4

0 pe

rcen

t; 2

0 pe

rcen

t). I

nste

ad, f

or e

mpl

oym

ent a

nd p

ublic

ben

efit

prob

lem

s, th

eyar

e m

ore

likel

y to

see

k he

lp fr

om s

ocia

l ser

vice

age

ncie

s or

loca

l or s

tate

gov

ernm

ent a

genc

ies

(em

ploy

men

t pro

blem

s: 6

9 pe

rcen

t; p

ublic

ben

efits

: 88

perc

ent)

. For

fina

nce

issu

es, t

hese

New

Yor

kers

are

mos

t lik

ely

to s

eek

help

from

fam

ily a

nd fr

iend

s (3

8 pe

rcen

t) a

nd lo

cal/

stat

e go

vern

men

t or s

ocia

l ser

vice

age

ncie

s (3

0 pe

rcen

t).

–Th

is p

opul

atio

n is

leas

t lik

ely

to g

et le

gal h

elp

for p

robl

ems

with

hea

lth in

sura

nce

or m

edic

al b

ills

(28

perc

ent l

egal

hel

p;16

perc

ent l

egal

aid

). F

or th

ese

prob

lem

s, th

ey a

re m

ost l

ikel

y to

see

k as

sist

ance

from

soc

ial s

ervi

ce, o

r loc

al o

r st

ate

gove

rnm

ent,

ag

enci

es (7

2 pe

rcen

t).

•N

ot a

hea

vy r

elia

nce

on le

gal h

elp:

Eigh

t in

ten

low

-inco

me

New

Yor

kers

who

exp

erie

nced

a c

ivil

lega

l pro

blem

of

any

type

in th

e pa

st n

ear

say

they

nev

er s

ough

t he

lp fr

om a

lega

l ins

titut

ion

(lega

l aid

, pri

vate

att

orne

y, o

r co

urt

or c

ourt

hea

ring

). N

earl

y ni

ne in

ten

nev

er s

ough

t he

lp fr

om le

gal a

id.

12

Stra

tegi

c Su

mm

ary:

Bar

rier

s to

Tak

ing

Act

ion

or

Get

ting

Hel

p

•In

acti

on:O

ver

half

of th

ose

who

exp

erie

nced

any

of t

he s

peci

fic p

robl

ems

cove

red

in th

e su

rvey

nev

er to

ok a

ctio

n on

any

of t

hose

pro

blem

s (5

6 pe

rcen

t). A

mon

g th

ose

mos

t pro

ne to

inac

tion

are:

men

, you

ng m

en, m

en li

ving

in p

over

ty, m

arri

ed

men

, whi

tes,

thos

e liv

ing

in im

mig

rant

hou

seho

lds,

ren

ters

not

livi

ng in

pub

lic o

r su

bsid

ized

hou

sing

, the

une

mpl

oyed

, and

ret

iree

s.

•Ba

rrie

rs to

tak

ing

acti

on o

r ge

ttin

g he

lp: A

cros

s th

e ty

pes

of p

robl

ems,

the

mos

t co

mm

only

cite

d re

ason

s fo

r no

t tak

ing

actio

n on

a c

ivil

lega

l pro

blem

is th

e be

lief

that

act

ion

wou

ld n

ot h

elp,

and

not

wan

ting

to “

caus

e tr

oubl

e.”

Alth

ough

, cau

sing

tr

oubl

e is

muc

h le

ss a

con

cern

with

pub

lic b

enef

it pr

oble

ms

(5 p

erce

nt).

This

po

pula

tion

is a

lso

less

like

ly to

say

that

taki

ng a

ctio

n w

ould

be

inef

fect

ive

for

empl

oym

ent p

robl

ems

(onl

y 12

per

cent

).

–Fo

r fa

mily

/dom

estic

issu

es, e

mpl

oym

ent,

and

hou

sing

pro

blem

s, N

ew Y

orke

rs a

re m

uch

mor

e lik

ely

to s

ay th

ey d

id n

ot a

ct b

ecau

se th

ey “

left

or

got o

ut o

f the

situ

atio

n” o

r ju

st

“wai

ted

for

the

prob

lem

to

go a

way

.”

–N

ot k

now

ing

whe

re t

o go

for

help

, not

hav

ing

enou

gh ti

me,

and

con

cern

s th

at h

elp

wou

ld b

e to

o ex

pens

ive

are

low

er le

vel c

once

rns

acro

ss t

he p

robl

em t

ypes

.

13

Stra

tegi

c Su

mm

ary:

Pot

enti

al A

ctio

ns A

mon

g th

ose

Not

Exp

erie

ncin

g Pr

oble

ms

•A

maj

ority

of l

ow-in

com

e N

ew Y

orke

rs w

ho s

ay th

ey h

ave

not e

xper

ienc

ed a

ny o

f the

spe

cific

civ

il le

gal

prob

lem

s co

vere

d in

the

surv

ey s

ay th

ey w

ould

take

act

ion

on th

ose

prob

lem

s w

ere

they

to fa

ce th

em (5

6 pe

rcen

t wou

ld ta

ke a

ctio

n; 2

9 pe

rcen

t wou

ld n

ot).

Am

ong

thos

e w

ho im

agin

e th

ey w

ould

take

act

ion,

ov

er s

ix in

ten

(64

perc

ent)

wou

ld s

eek

outs

ide

help

for t

he p

robl

em a

nd 2

7 pe

rcen

t wou

ld tr

y to

sol

ve th

e pr

oble

m th

emse

lves

.

–If

they

wer

e to

exp

erie

nce

any

of th

e pr

oble

ms

in th

e su

rvey

, tho

se m

ost l

ikel

y to

imag

ine

they

w

ould

take

act

ion

are

olde

r men

, Lat

inos

, Afr

ican

Am

eric

ans,

thos

e liv

ing

in im

mig

rant

hou

seho

lds,

pa

rent

s, a

nd th

ose

livin

g in

hou

seho

lds

whe

re s

omeo

ne is

dis

able

d. W

omen

livi

ng in

pov

erty

(100

%

FPL

or b

elow

) and

whi

te w

omen

are

mor

e pr

one

to th

ink

they

wou

ld n

ot ta

ke a

ctio

n.

•A

mon

g th

ose

who

imag

ine

they

wou

ld s

eek

outs

ide

help

, nea

rly

all w

ould

be

open

to lo

okin

g to

a le

gal

inst

itutio

n fo

r hel

p (9

2 pe

rcen

t wou

ld g

o to

a le

gal a

id p

rogr

am, p

riva

te a

ttor

ney,

or c

ourt

or c

ourt

he

arin

g).

–Th

ree

quar

ters

wou

ld g

o to

a p

riva

te a

ttor

ney

(77

perc

ent)

.–

Two

thir

ds w

ould

go

to a

lega

l aid

pro

gram

(64

perc

ent)

or c

ourt

or c

ourt

hea

ring

(65

perc

ent)

.

•A

dditi

onal

ly, t

hree

-qua

rter

s sa

y th

ey w

ould

go

to a

loca

l or s

tate

gov

ernm

ent a

genc

y or

a s

ocia

l ser

vice

s ag

ency

(73

perc

ent)

. Six

in te

n w

ould

turn

to fa

mily

and

frie

nds

(60

perc

ent)

.

•A

mon

g th

e 29

per

cent

who

imag

ine

they

wou

ld n

ot ta

ke a

ctio

n, s

imila

r bar

rier

s to

act

ion

are

repo

rted

: de

sire

not

to c

ause

trou

ble

(29

perc

ent)

and

the

notio

n th

at ta

king

act

ion

wou

ld n

ot r

eally

hel

p (2

9 pe

rcen

t).

14

Stra

tegi

c Su

mm

ary:

Aw

aren

ess

of F

ree

Lega

l Ser

vice

s &

Per

cept

ions

aro

und

Elig

ibili

ty

•Th

ere

is a

hea

lthy

leve

l of a

war

enes

s th

at fr

ee le

gal s

ervi

ces

are

avai

labl

e, b

ut th

ere

is a

lack

of c

lari

ty

amon

g lo

w-in

com

e N

ew Y

orke

rs a

bout

whe

ther

they

wou

ld b

e el

igib

le fo

r fre

e le

gal s

ervi

ces.

A m

ajor

ity o

f lo

w-in

com

e N

ew Y

orke

rs (5

6 pe

rcen

t) a

re a

war

e th

at th

ere

are

free

lega

l ser

vice

s av

aila

ble

for l

ow-in

com

e re

side

nts

of th

e st

ate.

For

ty-f

ive

perc

ent a

re e

ither

una

war

e (1

1 pe

rcen

t) o

r uns

ure

(34

perc

ent)

.

–A

war

enes

s of

free

lega

l ser

vice

s is

low

est a

mon

g ol

der A

fric

an A

mer

ican

s, a

ctiv

e du

ty o

r vet

eran

ho

useh

olds

, hom

eow

ners

, the

uni

nsur

ed, a

nd r

esid

ents

of U

psta

te N

ew Y

ork,

esp

ecia

lly U

psta

te

East

. –

Aw

aren

ess

leve

ls a

re s

imila

r am

ong

New

Yor

kers

livi

ng in

pov

erty

(58

perc

ent k

now

thes

e se

rvic

es

exis

t) a

nd th

ose

livin

g ne

ar p

over

ty (5

4 pe

rcen

t).

•Th

ree-

quar

ters

of l

ow-in

com

e N

ew Y

orke

rs a

re e

ither

uns

ure

(56

perc

ent)

or d

o no

t bel

ieve

they

wou

ld b

e el

igib

le to

rece

ive

free

lega

l ser

vice

s (1

9 pe

rcen

t). T

hose

livi

ng a

t or b

elow

the

pove

rty

leve

l are

mor

e lik

ely

to b

elie

ve th

ey a

re e

ligib

le (3

4 pe

rcen

t bel

ieve

elig

ible

; 52

perc

ent u

nsur

e) th

an th

ose

near

pov

erty

(1

9 pe

rcen

t bel

ieve

elig

ible

; 59

perc

ent u

nsur

e).

•A

mon

g th

ose

who

are

aw

are

of fr

ee le

gal s

ervi

ces

for l

ow-in

com

e N

ew Y

orke

rs, t

wo

in te

n be

lieve

they

w

ould

be

elig

ible

for t

he fr

ee s

ervi

ces

(22

perc

ent)

, whi

le o

ne th

ird

do n

ot th

ink

this

or a

re u

nsur

e (3

4 pe

rcen

t).

•Th

ose

leas

t lik

ely

to b

elie

ve th

ey a

re e

ligib

le fo

r fre

e le

gal s

ervi

ces

are:

thos

e ag

e 65

and

old

er, r

etir

ees,

on

Med

icar

e, w

hite

wom

en, w

hite

s ag

es 5

0 an

d ol

der,

non

-par

ents

, hom

eow

ners

, and

res

iden

ts o

f the

W

este

rn p

art o

f Ups

tate

New

Yor

k.

Freq

uenc

y of

Civ

il Le

gal P

robl

ems

Expe

rien

ced

by L

ow-In

com

e N

ew Y

orke

rs

Mos

t low

-inco

me

New

Yor

kers

say

they

hav

e no

t had

any

non

-cri

min

al,

lega

l pro

blem

s in

the

past

yea

r, b

ut w

hen

they

are

pre

sent

ed w

ith

spec

ific

civi

l leg

al p

robl

ems

ther

e is

mor

e re

cogn

ition

, with

nea

rly

half

repo

rtin

g at

leas

t one

pro

blem

.

16

Mos

t low

-inco

me

New

Yor

k st

ate

resi

dent

s do

not

rep

ort

havi

ng a

ny n

on-c

rim

inal

, leg

al p

robl

ems

in th

e pa

st y

ear.

In th

e pa

st y

ear,

did

you

or a

nyon

e in

you

r hou

seho

ld h

ave

any

lega

l pro

blem

s,

excl

udin

g an

y cr

imin

al p

robl

ems o

r iss

ues,

or a

ren'

t you

sure

?

2%

94%

4%

Uns

ure

No

Yes

Thos

e ag

es 5

0-64

(11%

) and

hou

seho

lds

with

vet

eran

s or

act

ive

duty

mili

tary

m

embe

rs (1

1%) a

re m

ore

likel

y to

repo

rt h

avin

g a

lega

l pro

blem

in th

e pa

st y

ear,

but s

till o

nly

smal

l per

cent

ages

repo

rt p

robl

ems.

17

How

ever

, whe

n lo

w-in

com

e N

ew Y

orke

rs a

re a

sked

to c

onsi

der

36 s

peci

fic c

ivil

lega

l pro

blem

s in

the

past

yea

r, in

clud

ing

prob

lem

s in

volv

ing

hous

ing,

fina

nces

, em

ploy

men

t, h

ealt

h in

sura

nce

or m

edic

al b

ills,

em

ploy

men

t, p

ublic

ben

efit

s, d

omes

tic

and

fam

ily is

sues

, im

mig

rati

on is

sues

, an

d—fo

r pa

rent

s—is

sues

wit

h sc

hool

s, fo

rty-

seve

n pe

rcen

t re

port

hav

ing

at le

ast o

ne p

robl

em

in th

ese

area

s. E

ight

een

perc

ent

repo

rt h

avin

g on

ly o

ne p

robl

em, 1

1 pe

rcen

t ha

d tw

o, a

nd 1

9 pe

rcen

t ha

d th

ree

or m

ore.

Civ

il Le

gal P

robl

ems

Repo

rted

in th

e Pa

st Y

ear

Non

e: 5

3%2:

11%

1: 1

8%

3 or

mor

e: 1

9%

Low

-inco

me

New

Yor

kers

repo

rt

expe

rienc

ing

an a

vera

ge o

f 1.4

1 le

gal p

robl

ems

in th

e pa

st y

ear.

18

This

tran

slat

es in

to a

lmos

t thr

ee m

illio

n re

side

nts

of N

ew Y

ork

stat

e, w

ho li

ve a

t 20

0% o

f the

FPL

or

belo

w, e

xper

ienc

ing

at le

ast o

ne o

f the

civ

il le

gal p

robl

ems

quer

ied

on in

the

past

yea

r (2.

98 m

illio

n).

Just

ove

r one

mill

ion

wou

ld h

ave

expe

rien

ced

one

prob

lem

, nea

rly

700,

000

two

prob

lem

s, a

nd 1

.2 m

illio

n th

ree

or

mor

e pr

oble

ms.

Estim

ated

Num

ber o

f NYS

Res

iden

ts ≤

200

% F

PL E

xper

ienc

ing

Civi

l Leg

al

Prob

lem

s (E

xtra

pola

tion

to N

YS P

opul

atio

n ≤

200

% F

PL)

1 Pr

oble

m E

xper

ienc

ed2

Prob

lem

s Ex

perie

nced

3 or

mor

e Pr

oble

ms

Expe

rienc

ed

1,14

2,46

0 1,

205,

930

698,

170

Bas

ed o

n da

ta fr

om th

e U

.S. C

ensu

s B

urea

u’s

Cur

rent

Pop

ulat

ion

Surv

ey: A

nnua

l Soc

ial a

nd E

cono

mic

Su

pple

men

t for

200

9

19

Sum

mar

y Ta

ble:

Fre

quen

cy o

f Civ

il Le

gal P

robl

ems

Am

ong

Low

-Inc

ome

New

Yor

kers

(% s

ayin

g ex

perie

nced

at l

east

one

pro

blem

in p

ast y

ear)

Mor

e lik

ely

to h

ave

Expe

rien

ced

Prob

lem

Less

Lik

ely

to h

ave

Expe

rien

ced

Prob

lem

•<1

00%

FPL

(50%

)

•Und

er a

ge 6

0 (5

5%),

espe

cial

ly th

ose

unde

r ag

e 30

(61%

)

•W

omen

und

er a

ge 6

0 (6

0%)

•Afr

ican

Am

eric

ans

(53%

), es

peci

ally

Afr

ican

A

mer

ican

s un

der

age

50 (6

5%)*

•Lat

inos

(50%

)

•Im

mig

rant

hou

seho

lds

(52%

)**

•Par

ents

of c

hild

ren

unde

r 18

(60%

)

•Pub

lic, S

ecti

on 8

, sub

sidi

zed

hous

ing

(54%

)

•Une

mpl

oyed

(61%

)

•Uni

nsur

ed (6

6%)

•Dis

able

d In

divi

dual

s (5

3%) a

nd t

hose

livi

ng in

di

sabl

ed h

ouse

hold

s (5

8%)*

**

•A

ge 6

0 an

d ol

der

(31%

)

•Re

tire

es (3

1%)

•W

hite

s (4

0%)

•N

on-p

aren

ts (4

0%)

•H

omeo

wne

rs (4

1%)

•N

on-D

isab

led

hous

ehol

ds (4

2%)

•U

psta

te E

ast (

43%

)

*Sm

all n

siz

e.

**In

divi

dual

s w

ho a

re e

ither

them

selv

es im

mig

rant

s or

live

in a

hou

seho

ld w

ith s

omeo

ne w

ho is

an

imm

igra

nt.

***In

divi

dual

s w

ho a

re e

ither

dis

able

d th

emse

lves

or l

ivin

g in

a h

ouse

hold

with

a d

isab

led

indi

vidu

al.

20

Thos

e in

pov

erty

—at

100

% o

f the

FPL

or

belo

w—

are

slig

htly

mor

e lik

ely

to

have

exp

erie

nced

civ

il le

gal p

robl

ems,

and

to h

ave

expe

rien

ced

mor

e pr

oble

ms,

than

thos

e liv

ing

near

pov

erty

.

Num

ber o

f Civ

il Le

gal P

robl

ems

Expe

rienc

ed in

Pas

t Yea

r

-55%-5

0%

-53%

16%

18%

18%

16%23

%

19%

45%50

%

47%

101-

200%

FPL

≤100

% F

PL

Tota

l

No

prob

lem

sO

ne p

robl

emTw

o pr

oble

ms

Thre

e or

mor

e

Wom

en in

pov

erty

(100

% F

PL o

r bel

ow) a

re m

ore

likel

y th

an th

eir m

ale

coun

terp

arts

to re

port

a c

ivil

lega

l pro

blem

in th

e pa

st y

ear (

54%

of w

omen

at

100%

FPL

or b

elow

had

at l

east

one

pro

blem

, com

pare

d to

46

perc

ent o

f men

).

11%

11%

10%

21

Add

itio

nally

, you

nger

low

-inco

me

New

Yor

kers

are

muc

h m

ore

likel

y th

an

thei

r old

er c

ount

erpa

rts

to h

ave

expe

rien

ced

civi

l leg

al p

robl

ems,

and

to

have

exp

erie

nced

mor

e of

them

. Whi

le o

ne th

ird

of N

ew Y

orke

rs o

ver

age

60 re

port

a p

robl

em, o

ver

half

of th

ose

unde

r ag

e 60

hav

e ex

peri

ence

d so

me

civi

l leg

al p

robl

em.

Num

ber o

f Civ

il Le

gal P

robl

ems

Expe

rienc

ed in

Pas

t Yea

r

-69%

-45%

-53%

20%

18%

14%

9%

24%

19% 31

%

55%

47%

Age

60+

Und

er a

ge 6

0

Tota

l

No

prob

lem

sO

ne p

robl

emTw

o pr

oble

ms

Thre

e or

mor

e

Wom

en u

nder

age

60

are

mor

e lik

ely

than

thei

r mal

e co

unte

rpar

ts to

repo

rt a

civ

il le

gal p

robl

em

in th

e pa

st y

ear (

60%

had

at l

east

one

pro

blem

, com

pare

d to

48%

of m

en u

nder

60)

.

11%

11%

7%

22

Afr

ican

Am

eric

ans

and

Lati

nos

repo

rt e

xper

ienc

ing

mor

e ci

vil l

egal

pro

blem

s th

an w

hite

s in

the

past

yea

r. T

his

is m

ore

acut

e am

ong

Afr

ican

Am

eric

ans:

a

maj

orit

y ha

ve e

xper

ienc

ed a

t lea

st o

ne c

ivil

lega

l pro

blem

and

ove

r on

e qu

arte

r rep

ort t

hree

or

mor

e pr

oble

ms.

Num

ber o

f Civ

il Le

gal P

robl

ems

Expe

rienc

ed in

Pas

t Yea

r

-50%-47%

-60%

17%

16%

19%

20%

28%

15%

50%53

%

40%

Latin

os

Afr

ican

Am

eric

ans

Whi

tes

No

prob

lem

sO

ne p

robl

emTw

o pr

oble

ms

Thre

e or

mor

e

Youn

ger A

fric

an A

mer

ican

s (u

nder

age

50)

are

mor

e lik

ely

than

old

er A

fric

an A

mer

ican

s to

ha

ve e

xper

ienc

ed a

civ

il le

gal p

robl

em in

the

past

yea

r (65

% h

ad a

t lea

st o

ne p

robl

em,

com

pare

d to

39%

of A

fric

an A

mer

ican

s ov

er 5

0).

9% 9% 10%

23

Imm

igra

nt h

ouse

hold

s—w

ith

at le

ast o

ne p

erso

n w

ho w

as n

ot b

orn

in th

e U

.S.—

are

disp

ropo

rtio

nate

ly m

ore

likel

y to

rep

ort e

xper

ienc

ing

civi

l leg

al

prob

lem

s.

Num

ber o

f Civ

il Le

gal P

robl

ems

Expe

rienc

ed in

Pas

t Yea

r

-55%-4

8%

-53%

18%

18%

17%

19%21

%

19%

45%

52%

47%

Nat

ive-

born

hous

ehol

ds*

Imm

igra

ntho

useh

olds

*

Tota

l

No

prob

lem

sO

ne p

robl

emTw

o pr

oble

ms

Thre

e or

mor

e

11%

13%

9%

*Num

bers

repr

esen

t the

per

cent

age

of in

divi

dual

s liv

ing

in s

uch

a ho

useh

old.

“Im

mig

rant

hou

seho

lds”

are

in

divi

dual

s w

ho a

re e

ither

them

selv

es im

mig

rant

s or

live

in a

hou

seho

ld w

ith s

omeo

ne w

ho is

an

imm

igra

nt.

“Nat

ive

born

hou

seho

lds”

are

indi

vidu

als

livin

g in

a h

ouse

hold

whe

re e

very

one

was

bor

n in

the

U.S

.

24

Poor

New

Yor

kers

who

are

par

ents

of c

hild

ren

unde

r ag

e 18

are

muc

h m

ore

likel

y th

an th

ose

wit

hout

chi

ldre

n to

say

the

y ha

ve h

ad c

ivil

lega

l pro

blem

s in

the

past

yea

r.Th

is is

in-p

art a

func

tion

of a

ge.

Num

ber o

f Civ

il Le

gal P

robl

ems

Expe

rienc

ed in

Pas

t Yea

r

-60%

-40%

-53%

19%

18%

17%

15%

27%

19%

40%

60%

47%

Non

-Par

ents

Pare

nts*

Tota

l

No

prob

lem

sO

ne p

robl

emTw

o pr

oble

ms

Thre

e or

mor

e

11%

14%

9%

* “Pa

rent

s” a

re d

efin

ed a

s in

divi

dual

s w

ho h

ave

with

chi

ldre

n 18

yea

rs o

f age

or y

oung

er li

ving

at h

ome

with

them

.

25

New

Yor

kers

who

live

in p

ublic

hou

sing

, Sec

tion

8 o

r ot

her

subs

idiz

ed

hous

ing

repo

rt h

avin

g m

ore

civi

l leg

al p

robl

ems.

One

qua

rter

rep

ort t

hree

or

mor

e pr

oble

ms

in th

e pa

st y

ear,

com

pare

d to

19

perc

ent o

f oth

er

rent

ers,

and

16

perc

ent o

f hom

eow

ners

.

Num

ber o

f Civ

il Le

gal P

robl

ems

Expe

rien

ced

in P

ast Y

ear

-59%-5

0%-46%

-53%

19%

16%

18%

17%

16%19

%

25%

19%

47%

41%50

%

54%

Hom

eow

ners

Oth

er r

ente

rs

Publ

ic, S

ect.

8, O

ther

Subs

idiz

ed H

ousi

ngRe

side

ntsTo

tal No

prob

lem

sO

ne p

robl

emTw

o pr

oble

ms

Thre

e or

mor

e

11%

13%

11%

8%

26

Six

in te

n lo

w-in

com

e N

ew Y

orke

rs w

ho a

re u

nem

ploy

ed, a

nd tw

o-th

irds

of

thos

e w

ho d

o no

t hav

e he

alth

insu

ranc

e, h

ave

expe

rien

ced

civi

l leg

al

prob

lem

s in

the

past

yea

r. N

earl

y th

ree

in te

n am

ong

thes

e gr

oups

repo

rt

havi

ng th

ree

or m

ore

prob

lem

s.

Num

ber o

f Civ

il Le

gal P

robl

ems

Expe

rienc

ed in

Pas

t Yea

r

-34%

-69%

-39%

-49%

16%

17%

21%

17%

39%

6%

29%

20%

51%

66%

31%

61%

Uni

nsur

ed

Retir

ed

Une

mpl

oyed

Empl

oyed

No

prob

lem

sO

ne p

robl

emTw

o pr

oble

ms

Thre

e or

mor

e

10%

13%

8% 10%

27

A m

ajor

ity

of d

isab

led

New

Yor

kers

, and

thos

e liv

ing

in a

hou

seho

ld w

ith

som

eone

who

is d

isab

led,

repo

rt h

avin

g at

leas

t one

civ

il le

gal p

robl

em in

th

e pa

st y

ear.

Dis

abili

ty is

def

ined

in th

is s

urve

y as

hav

ing

a ph

ysic

al o

r m

enta

l dis

abili

ty th

at li

mit

s th

e ty

pe o

f em

ploy

men

t pur

sued

and

qua

lifie

s on

e fo

r pu

blic

ass

ista

nce.

Num

ber o

f Civ

il Le

gal P

robl

ems

Expe

rienc

ed in

Pas

t Yea

r

-58%-4

2%

-47%

-53%

18%

20%

18%

17%

16%29

%

19% 22

%53

% 58%

42%47

%

Non

-Dis

able

dho

useh

olds

*

Dis

able

d ho

useh

olds

*

Dis

able

d In

divi

dual

Tota

l

No

prob

lem

sO

ne p

robl

emTw

o pr

oble

ms

Thre

e or

mor

e

11%

12%

10%12

%

*Num

bers

repr

esen

t the

per

cent

age

of in

divi

dual

s liv

ing

in s

uch

a ho

useh

old.

“D

isab

led

Hou

seho

lds”

are

in

divi

dual

s w

ho a

re e

ither

dis

able

d th

emse

lves

or l

ivin

g in

a h

ouse

hold

with

a d

isab

led

indi

vidu

al.

28

Exam

inin

g re

gion

s of

the

stat

e, th

ose

livin

g in

the

East

ern

part

of U

psta

te

New

Yor

k ar

e so

mew

hat l

ess

likel

y to

repo

rt e

xper

ienc

ing

any

civi

l leg

al

prob

lem

s in

the

last

yea

r.

Num

ber o

f Civ

il Le

gal P

robl

ems

Expe

rienc

ed in

Pas

t Yea

r

-57%-5

1%

-51%

-53%

18%

17%

18%

21%

11%

20%

21%

19%

47%

43%49

%

49%

Ups

tate

Eas

t

Ups

tate

Wes

t

New

Yor

k Ci

ty

Tota

l

No

prob

lem

sO

ne p

robl

emTw

o pr

oble

ms

Thre

e or

mor

e

11%

11%

10% 10

%

Exam

inat

ion

of S

peci

fic T

ypes

of C

ivil

Lega

l Pr

oble

ms

Expe

rien

ced

by L

ow-In

com

e N

ew

York

ers

Low

-inco

me

New

Yor

kers

are

mos

t lik

ely

to h

ave

expe

rien

ced

at le

ast

one

prob

lem

in th

e ar

ea o

f Hea

lth In

sura

nce

or M

edic

al B

ills,

follo

wed

cl

osel

y by

Fin

ance

s, E

mpl

oym

ent a

nd H

ousi

ng.

Publ

ic B

enef

its a

nd

Dom

estic

& F

amily

Issu

es fa

ll to

a s

econ

d tie

r.

30

Gro

upin

g th

e 36

spe

cific

pro

blem

s in

to e

ight

topi

c ar

eas,

low

-inco

me

New

Yor

kers

ar

e m

ost l

ikel

y to

hav

e ex

peri

ence

d at

leas

t one

pro

blem

in th

e ar

ea o

f Hea

lth

Insu

ranc

e or

Med

ical

Bill

s, fo

llow

ed c

lose

ly b

y Fi

nanc

es, E

mpl

oym

ent,

and

Hou

sing

. Pu

blic

Ben

efit

s an

d D

omes

tic

& F

amily

Issu

es a

re in

a s

econ

d ti

er o

f pro

blem

s.

Perc

ent

Expe

rien

cing

At

Leas

t O

ne P

robl

em in

Las

t Ye

ar: W

ithi

n Pr

oble

m G

roup

5%

9%

12%13

%

16%17

%18%20

%

Ask

ed o

nly

of Im

mig

rant

HH

: Im

mig

rati

on-R

elat

ed Is

sues

Ask

ed o

nly

of P

aren

ts: P

robl

ems

at y

our

Child

's S

choo

l

Dom

esti

c &

Fam

ily Is

sues

Publ

ic B

enef

its

Hou

sing

Empl

oym

ent

Fina

nces

Hea

lth

Insu

ranc

e or

Med

ical

Bill

s

Now

I’d

like

to ta

lk a

bout

som

e pr

oble

ms

peop

le in

New

Yor

k m

ay o

r m

ay n

ot h

ave

had.

Ple

ase

tell

me

if yo

u or

any

one

in

your

hou

seho

ld h

as e

xper

ienc

ed a

ny o

f the

follo

win

g in

the

last

yea

r?

31

Extr

apol

atin

g th

e su

rvey

find

ings

to t

he p

opul

atio

n of

New

Yor

kers

livi

ng a

t or

bel

ow

200%

of t

he F

PL t

rans

late

s in

to a

t le

ast o

ne m

illio

n lo

w-in

com

e N

ew Y

orke

rs

expe

rien

cing

at

leas

t one

pro

blem

in th

e ar

eas

of h

ealt

h in

sura

nce

or m

edic

al b

ills,

fin

ance

s, e

mpl

oym

ent,

and

hou

sing

wit

hin

the

past

yea

r.

Esti

mat

ed N

umbe

r of

Low

-Inc

ome

New

Yor

k St

ate

Res

dien

ts E

xper

ienc

ing

Civi

l Leg

al

Prob

lem

s by

Pro

blem

Gro

up (E

xtra

pola

tion

to

NYS

Pop

ulat

ion

≤ 2

00%

FPL

)

Hea

lth

Insu

ranc

e or

Med

ical

Bill

sFi

nanc

esEm

ploy

men

tH

ousi

ngPu

blic

Ben

efit

sD

omes

tic

& F

amily

Issu

es

1,26

9, 4

00

1,14

2,46

0 1,

078,

990

1,01

5,52

0

825,

110

761,

640

Bas

ed o

n da

ta fr

om th

e U

.S. C

ensu

s B

urea

u’s

Cur

rent

Pop

ulat

ion

Surv

ey: A

nnua

l Soc

ial a

nd E

cono

mic

Su

pple

men

t for

200

9

32

Exam

inin

g ea

ch p

robl

em a

rea

spec

ifica

lly, t

he m

ost c

omm

only

repo

rted

pr

oble

m re

gard

ing

heal

th in

sura

nce

or m

edic

al b

ills

is d

iffic

ulty

wit

h cr

edit

ors

over

unp

aid

med

ical

or

hosp

ital

bill

s. T

his

is a

lso

amon

g th

e m

ost

com

mon

pro

blem

s re

port

ed a

cros

s al

l top

ic a

reas

.

Hea

lth In

sura

nce

or M

edic

al B

ills

(You

or a

nyon

e in

you

r ho

useh

old

expe

rienc

ed in

the

last

yea

r)

12%

Had

diff

icul

ty w

ith c

redi

tors

ove

r unp

aid

med

ical

or

hosp

ital b

ills

(Und

er a

ge 6

0: 1

5%; A

ge 6

0+: 5

%)*

7% H

ad d

iffic

ulty

kee

ping

, bei

ng re

-cer

tifie

d, o

r bei

ng d

enie

d M

edic

aid

heal

th in

sura

nce,

als

o kn

own

as C

hild

Hea

lth P

lus

or

Fam

ily H

ealth

Plu

s(<

60: 8

%; 6

0+: 4

%)*

6% L

ost o

r wer

e de

nied

priv

ate

med

ical

insu

ranc

e or

had

di

fficu

lty g

ettin

g re

imbu

rsem

ent o

r cov

erag

e fr

om e

xist

ing

priv

ate

med

ical

insu

ranc

e(<

60: 6

%; 6

0+: 6

%)*

5% H

ad p

robl

ems

usin

g or

kee

ping

CO

BR

A—he

alth

insu

ranc

e yo

u ca

n pu

rcha

se fr

om y

our

empl

oyer

if y

ou lo

se y

our

job

(<60

: 6%

; 60+

: 4%

)*

5% W

ere

deni

ed M

edic

are

bene

fits

or h

ad d

iffic

ulty

get

ting

adeq

uate

cov

erag

e fr

om M

edic

are,

incl

udin

g M

edic

are

Part

D

(<60

: 6%

; 60+

: 4%

)*

Num

ber o

f Hea

lth In

sura

nce

or M

edic

al

Bill

Pro

blem

s R

epor

ted

in P

ast Y

ear

2: 5

%1:

11%

3 or

m

ore:

3%

*Sm

all n

siz

e fo

r age

dat

a

33

The

mos

t com

mon

pro

blem

repo

rted

in th

e fin

ance

are

a is

diff

icul

ty o

r ha

rass

men

t by

cred

itor

s ov

er u

npai

d bi

lls o

r lo

ans,

incl

udin

g pe

rson

al o

r pa

yday

loan

s. T

his

is th

e bi

gges

t pro

blem

repo

rted

acr

oss

the

surv

ey a

s w

ell.

Add

itio

nally

, six

per

cent

repo

rt p

robl

ems

wit

h ta

x re

fund

s, p

aym

ents

or

tax-

rela

ted

loan

s.

Fina

nces

(Yo

u or

any

one

in y

our

hous

ehol

d ex

perie

nced

in th

e la

st y

ear)

14%

Had

diff

icul

ty o

r wer

e ha

rass

ed b

y cr

edito

rs o

ver u

npai

d bi

lls o

r loa

ns, s

uch

as a

per

sona

l loa

n, lo

an u

sed

to p

urch

ase

som

ethi

ng o

r a p

ayda

y lo

an—

whi

ch is

an

adva

nce

loan

you

get

be

fore

pay

day

(

Und

er a

ge 6

0: 1

7%; A

ge 6

0+: 6

%)*

6% H

ad tr

oubl

e w

ith a

tax

refu

nd, t

ax u

nder

paym

ent,

or w

ith a

lo

an re

late

d to

a ta

x re

fund

(

<60:

8%

; 60+

: 4%

)*

1% F

iled

for b

ankr

uptc

y

(<

60: 1

%; 6

0+: 2

%)*

Num

ber o

f Fin

ance

Pro

blem

s R

epor

ted

in P

ast Y

ear

2: 3

%

1: 1

4%

*Sm

all n

siz

e fo

r age

dat

a

34

Empl

oym

ent p

robl

ems

are

diff

use.

The

mos

t com

mon

em

ploy

men

t rel

ated

pr

oble

ms

repo

rted

incl

ude

trou

ble

obta

inin

g un

empl

oym

ent b

enef

its,

un

safe

wor

king

con

diti

ons,

trou

ble

colle

ctin

g w

ages

, ove

rtim

e pa

y or

oth

er

com

pens

atio

n fr

om e

mpl

oyer

s, a

nd d

iscr

imin

atio

n.

Empl

oym

ent

(You

or a

nyon

e in

you

r hou

seho

ld e

xper

ienc

ed in

the

last

ye

ar)

7% H

ad tr

oubl

e ge

tting

une

mpl

oym

ent b

enef

its o

r wer

e de

nied

be

nefit

s

(Und

er a

ge 6

0: 1

0%; A

ge 6

0+: 2

%)*

5% F

aced

uns

afe

wor

king

con

ditio

ns

(<6

0: 6

%; 6

0+: 4

%)*

5% F

aced

dis

crim

inat

ion

on th

e jo

b be

caus

e of

you

r ag

e, ra

ce,

ethn

icity

, gen

der,

sexu

al o

rient

atio

n, o

r crim

inal

reco

rd

(<

60: 5

%; 6

0+: 5

%);*

(W

hite

s:4%

; Lat

inos

:7%

; Afri

can

Amer

ican

s: 6

%)*

4% H

ad tr

oubl

e co

llect

ing

your

wag

es, o

vert

ime

pay,

or o

ther

co

mpe

nsat

ion

from

you

r em

ploy

er

(<

60:4

%; 6

0+: 2

%)*

3% H

ad tr

oubl

e ge

tting

wor

kers

’ com

pens

atio

n, a

lso

calle

d “w

orke

rs’ c

omp”

(<60

: 3%

; 60+

: 2%

)*

Num

ber o

f Em

ploy

men

t Pro

blem

s R

epor

ted

in P

ast Y

ear

2: 3

%

1: 1

2%

3 or

m

ore:

1%

*Sm

all n

siz

e fo

r age

and

race

dat

a

35

Hou

sing

pro

blem

s ar

e al

so d

iffus

e. T

he m

ost c

omm

on h

ousi

ng p

robl

em

repo

rted

is h

avin

g on

e’s

utili

ties

shu

t off

. Am

ong

non-

hom

eow

ners

, ten

pe

rcen

t say

they

hav

e ha

d re

nter

-spe

cific

trou

bles

incl

udin

g un

safe

hou

sing

co

ndit

ions

, neg

lect

ed r

epai

rs, o

r be

ing

over

char

ged

rent

.

Hou

sing

(Y

ou o

r any

one

in y

our h

ouse

hold

exp

erie

nced

in th

e la

st y

ear)

5% H

ad u

tiliti

es s

hut o

ff

(Und

er a

ge 6

0: 7

%; A

ge 6

0+: 2

%)*

2% B

een

fore

clos

ed o

n or

face

d po

ssib

le fo

recl

osur

e co

nditi

ons

(<60

: 3%

; 60+

: 2%

)*

2% W

ere

unab

le to

get

hou

sing

bec

ause

of y

our

race

, eth

nici

ty,

crim

inal

reco

rd

(<

60: 2

%; 6

0+: 1

%)*

(W

hite

s:2%

; Lat

inos

: 1%

; Afr.

Am

s: 3

%)*

2% H

ad tr

oubl

e ge

tting

or k

eepi

ng p

ublic

hou

sing

or S

ectio

n 8

hous

ing

(<60

: 3%

; 60+

: 1%

)*

1% B

een

forc

ed o

ut o

f you

r ho

me

(<

60: 1

%; 6

0+: 1

%)*

1% H

ad tr

oubl

e ge

tting

or k

eepi

ng e

mer

genc

y sh

elte

r, w

ere

hom

eles

s, o

r had

to s

tay

with

frie

nds

or re

lativ

es b

ecau

se y

ou h

ad

now

here

els

e to

go

(

<60:

2%

; 60+

: --%

)*

ASKE

D O

NLY

OF

REN

TER

S, o

r TH

OSE

WH

O L

IVE

IN P

UBL

IC H

OU

SIN

G, S

ECTI

ON

8/

SUBS

IDIZ

ED H

OU

SIN

G

10%

Had

uns

afe

cond

ition

s or

neg

lect

ed re

pairs

in y

our

hom

e or

w

ere

over

char

ged

for r

ent

(<60

: 10%

; 60+

: 9%

)*

4% F

aced

evi

ctio

n

(<60

: 3%

; 60+

: 4%

)*

Num

ber o

f Hou

sing

Pro

blem

s R

epor

ted

in P

ast Y

ear

2: 3

%

1: 1

2%

*Sm

all n

siz

e fo

r age

and

race

dat

a

36

Am

ong

ques

tion

s as

ked

of b

oth

low

-inco

me

hom

eow

ners

and

no

n-ho

meo

wne

rs, h

avin

g on

e’s

utili

ties

shu

t of

f is

the

mos

t co

mm

on h

ousi

ng p

robl

em r

epor

ted.

Hou

sing

(Y

ou o

r any

one

in y

our h

ouse

hold

exp

erie

nced

in th

e la

st y

ear)

Non

-Hom

eow

ners

Hom

eow

ners

*Had

uns

afe

cond

ition

s or

neg

lect

ed re

pairs

in y

our h

ome

or

wer

e ov

erch

arge

d fo

r ren

t10

%N

/A

Had

util

ities

shu

t off

6%4%

Bee

n fo

recl

osed

on

or fa

ced

poss

ible

fore

clos

ure

3%2%

Wer

e un

able

to g

et h

ousi

ng b

ecau

se o

f you

r rac

e, e

thni

city

, cr

imin

al re

cord

2%1%

Had

trou

ble

getti

ng o

r kee

ping

pub

lic h

ousi

ng o

r Sec

tion

8 ho

usin

g3%

1%

Bee

n fo

rced

out

of y

our h

ome

1%1%

Had

trou

ble

getti

ng o

r kee

ping

em

erge

ncy

shel

ter,

wer

e ho

mel

ess,

or h

ad to

sta

y w

ith fr

iend

s or

rela

tives

bec

ause

you

ha

d no

whe

re e

lse

to g

o

1%1%

*Fac

ed e

vict

ion

4%N

/A

* Ask

ed o

nly

of R

ente

rs, o

r tho

se li

ving

in p

ublic

hou

sing

, Sec

tion

8 ho

usin

g, o

r sub

sidi

zed

hous

ing.

37

In th

e pu

blic

ben

efit

s ar

ea, t

he m

ost c

omm

on p

robl

em is

di

ffic

ulty

get

ting

or k

eepi

ng fo

od s

tam

ps, f

ollo

wed

by

diff

icul

ty

gett

ing

or k

eepi

ng c

ash

assi

stan

ce, w

elfa

re b

enef

its,

or

othe

r pr

oble

ms

in g

ener

al w

ith

one’

s w

elfa

re c

ase.

Publ

ic B

enef

its(Y

ou o

r any

one

in y

our

hous

ehol

d ex

perie

nced

in th

e la

st y

ear)

9% D

iffic

ulty

get

ting

or k

eepi

ng fo

od s

tam

ps

(Und

er a

ge 6

0: 1

0%; A

ge 6

0+: 5

%)*

6% D

iffic

ulty

get

ting

or k

eepi

ng c

ash

assi

stan

ce, w

elfa

re b

enef

its,

or o

ther

pro

blem

s w

ith y

our w

elfa

re c

ase

(<60

: 8%

; 60+

: 2%

)*

3% D

iffic

ulty

get

ting

or k

eepi

ng fe

dera

l Soc

ial S

ecur

ity

retir

emen

t, fe

dera

l dis

abili

ty, o

r fed

eral

SSI

ben

efits

(<

60: 2

%; 6

0+: 3

%)*

ASKE

D O

NLY

OF

VETE

RAN

HO

USE

HO

LDS

1% D

iffic

ulty

get

ting

or k

eepi

ng v

eter

ans’

ben

efits

(<

60: 2

%; 6

0+: -

-%)*

Num

ber o

f Pub

lic B

enef

it Pr

oble

ms

Rep

orte

d in

Pas

t Yea

r

2: 3

%

1: 9

%

3 or

m

ore:

1%

*Sm

all n

siz

e fo

r age

dat

a

38

The

top

prob

lem

reg

ardi

ng fa

mily

or

dom

esti

c is

sues

is d

ealin

g w

ith

a di

vorc

e, s

epar

atio

n or

ann

ulm

ent,

follo

wed

by

prob

lem

s w

ith

child

sup

port

and

dom

esti

c vi

olen

ce.

Fam

ily o

r Dom

estic

Issu

es(Y

ou o

r any

one

in y

our

hous

ehol

d ex

perie

nced

in th

e la

st y

ear)

7% H

ad d

ivor

ce, s

epar

atio

n, o

r ann

ulm

ent o

f you

r m

arria

ge

(Und

er

age

60: 8

%; A

ge 6

0+: 7

%);*

(Pa

rent

s: 9

%; N

on-P

aren

ts: 6

%)*

4% H

ad p

robl

ems

with

chi

ld s

uppo

rt

(<

60: 5

%; 6

0+: 2

%)*

(P

aren

ts: 8

%; N

on-p

aren

ts: 2

%)*

4% E

xper

ienc

ed d

omes

tic v

iole

nce—

whe

re a

spo

use,

par

tner

, bo

yfrie

nd o

r girl

frie

nd w

as p

hysi

cally

, ver

bally

, or e

mot

iona

lly

abus

ive

(<6

0: 4

%; 6

0+: 1

%)*

(P

aren

ts: 5

%; N

on-P

aren

ts: 3

%)*

1% H

ad p

robl

ems

invo

lvin

g ch

ild a

buse

or e

lder

abu

se

(<60

: --%

; 60+

: 2%

)*

1% H

ad tr

oubl

es w

ith c

hild

cus

tody

(

<60:

1%

; 60+

: 1%

)*

1% F

iled

an o

rder

of p

rote

ctio

n

(<60

: 1%

; 60+

: --%

)*

Num

ber o

f Fam

ily o

r Dom

estic

Pro

blem

s R

epor

ted

in P

ast Y

ear

2: 2

%

1: 8

%

3 or

m

ore:

1%

*Sm

all n

siz

e fo

r age

and

par

enta

l sta

tus

data

39

Am

ong

low

-inco

me

pare

nts

wit

h ch

ildre

n un

der

18, f

ive

perc

ent r

epor

t hav

ing

prob

lem

s w

ith

thei

r ch

ild b

eing

su

spen

ded

or e

xpel

led

from

sch

ool i

n th

e pa

st y

ear.

Ano

ther

fo

ur p

erce

nt h

ad t

roub

le g

etti

ng h

elp

for

thei

r ch

ild’s

spe

cial

ed

ucat

ion

need

s.

Amon

g Pa

rent

s: P

robl

ems

with

You

r C

hild

ren’

s Sc

hool

(Y

ou o

r any

one

in y

our

hous

ehol

d ex

perie

nced

in th

e la

st y

ear)

5% H

ad p

robl

ems

with

you

r chi

ld b

eing

sus

pend

ed o

r exp

elle

d fro

m s

choo

l

4% H

ad tr

oubl

es g

ettin

g yo

ur c

hild

ren

help

with

any

spe

cial

ed

ucat

ion

need

s

40

One

thir

d of

the

low

-inco

me

New

Yor

kers

sur

veye

d ar

e ei

ther

im

mig

rant

s th

emse

lves

or

live

in a

hou

seho

ld w

ith

an

imm

igra

nt.

Yet,

imm

igra

nt h

ouse

hold

s re

port

a lo

w n

umbe

r of

ci

vil l

egal

pro

blem

s re

port

ed r

egar

ding

pro

blem

s w

ith

imm

igra

tion

. Amon

g Im

mig

rant

Hou

seho

lds:

Imm

igra

tion-

Rel

ated

Issu

es

(You

or a

nyon

e in

you

r ho

useh

old

expe

rienc

ed in

the

last

yea

r)

4% H

ad tr

oubl

es g

ettin

g or

kee

ping

a g

reen

car

d or

wor

k au

thor

izat

ion

2% H

ad p

robl

ems

tryin

g to

sec

ure

citiz

ensh

ip o

r per

man

ent

resi

denc

y

0% H

ad tr

oubl

es s

eeki

ng a

sylu

m o

r dep

orta

tion

41

New

Yor

kers

livi

ng in

pov

erty

(100

% F

PL o

r be

low

) are

mor

e lik

ely

to r

epor

t hou

sing

pro

blem

s th

an t

hose

livi

ng n

ear

pove

rty

(101

-200

% F

PL).

Perc

ent E

xper

ienc

ing

At L

east

One

Pro

blem

in L

ast

Year

: Wit

hin

Prob

lem

Gro

up

Tota

l*≤1

00%

FPL

101-

200%

FPL

Hea

lth

Insu

ranc

e or

Med

ical

Bill

s20

%22

%19

%

Fina

nces

18%

19%

17%

Empl

oym

ent

17%

18%

16%

Hou

sing

16%

21%

12%

Publ

ic B

enef

its

13%

15%

11%

Dom

esti

c &

Fam

ily Is

sues

12%

14%

10%

*N s

izes

: Hea

lth: N

=100

; Fin

ance

s: N

=86;

Em

ploy

men

t: N

=81;

Hou

sing

: N=8

8; P

ublic

Ben

efits

: N=6

4; D

omes

tic &

Fam

ily Is

sues

: N

=63.

Pro

blem

s at

Chi

ldre

n’s

Scho

ol (N

=17)

and

Imm

igra

tion-

Rel

ated

Issu

es (N

=7) o

mitt

ed d

ue to

sm

all n

siz

e.

42

New

Yor

kers

und

er a

ge 6

0 ar

e m

ore

likel

y th

an th

eir o

lder

cou

nter

part

s to

re

port

pro

blem

s w

ithi

n th

e ar

eas

of h

ealt

h in

sura

nce

or m

edic

al b

ills,

fin

ance

s, e

mpl

oym

ent,

hou

sing

, and

pub

lic b

enef

its.

Perc

ent E

xper

ienc

ing

At L

east

One

Pro

blem

in L

ast

Year

: Wit

hin

Prob

lem

Gro

up

Tota

l*U

nder

Age

60

Age

60+

Hea

lth

Insu

ranc

e or

Med

ical

Bill

s20

%25

%12

%

Fina

nces

18%

22%

9%

Empl

oym

ent

17%

19%

10%

Hou

sing

16%

20%

8%

Publ

ic B

enef

its

13%

15%

7%

Dom

esti

c &

Fam

ily Is

sues

12%

13%

9%

*N s

izes

: Hea

lth: N

=100

; Fin

ance

s: N

=86;

Em

ploy

men

t: N

=81;

Hou

sing

: N=8

8; P

ublic

Ben

efits

: N=6

4; D

omes

tic &

Fam

ily Is

sues

: N

=63.

Pro

blem

s at

Chi

ldre

n’s

Scho

ol (N

=17)

and

Imm

igra

tion-

Rel

ated

Issu

es (N

=7) o

mitt

ed d

ue to

sm

all n

siz

e.

43

Both

Lat

inos

and

Afr

ican

Am

eric

ans

are

mor

e lik

ely

than

whi

tes

to h

ave

expe

rien

ced

a ho

usin

g re

late

d pr

oble

m in

the

past

yea

r. A

ddit

iona

lly,

Afr

ican

Am

eric

ans

are

mor

e lik

ely

to h

ave

expe

rien

ced

a fin

ance

pro

blem

, an

d La

tino

s re

port

a d

ispr

opor

tion

atel

y hi

gher

num

ber o

f dom

esti

c an

d fa

mily

-rel

ated

pro

blem

s.

Perc

ent E

xper

ienc

ing

At L

east

One

Pro

blem

in L

ast

Year

: Wit

hin

Prob

lem

Gro

up

Tota

l*W

hite

Afr

. Am

.La

tino

Hea

lth

Insu

ranc

e or

Med

ical

Bill

s20

%20

%24

%18

%

Fina

nces

18%

14%

25%

14%

Empl

oym

ent

17%

15%

19%

18%

Hou

sing

16%

9%24

%21

%

Publ

ic B

enef

its

13%

10%

13%

14%

Dom

esti

c &

Fam

ily Is

sues

12%

9%10

%18

%

*N s

izes

: Hea

lth: N

=100

; Fin

ance

s: N

=86;

Em

ploy

men

t: N

=81;

Hou

sing

: N=8

8; P

ublic

Ben

efits

: N=6

4; D

omes

tic &

Fam

ily Is

sues

: N

=63.

Pro

blem

s at

Chi

ldre

n’s

Scho

ol (N

=17)

and

Imm

igra

tion-

Rel

ated

Issu

es (N

=7) o

mitt

ed d

ue to

sm

all n

siz

e.

Exam

inat

ion

of S

peci

fic T

ypes

of C

ivil

Lega

l Pr

oble

ms

Am

ong

Dem

ogra

phic

Gro

ups

of

Inte

rest

Som

e de

mog

raph

ic g

roup

s of

spe

cial

inte

rest

rep

ort e

xper

ienc

ing

mor

e pr

oble

ms

in c

erta

in p

robl

em a

reas

. Det

ails

are

giv

en in

this

sec

tion

on

Latin

os, A

fric

an A

mer

ican

s, im

mig

rant

hou

seho

lds,

thos

e un

der a

ge 3

0,

pare

nts,

pub

lic h

ousi

ng re

side

nts,

the

unem

ploy

ed, a

nd d

isab

led.

45

The

top

prob

lem

s fo

r La

tino

s di

ffer

som

ewha

t fro

m t

hose

of t

he to

tal p

opul

atio

n.

Top

prob

lem

s fo

r Lat

inos

are

hou

sing

, fol

low

ed b

y pr

oble

ms

wit

h he

alth

insu

ranc

e an

d m

edic

al b

ills,

dom

esti

c an

d fa

mily

issu

es, a

nd e

mpl

oym

ent.

Lat

inos

are

less

lik

ely

than

the

rest

of t

he p

opul

atio

n to

repo

rt p

robl

ems

wit

h fin

ance

s.

Lati

nos

Expe

rien

cing

At

Leas

t O

ne P

robl

em in

Las

t Ye

ar: W

ithi

n Pr

oble

m G

roup

18%

14%

21%

18%

14%

18%

12%13

%

16%17

%18%

20%

Dom

esti

c &

Fam

ily Is

sues

Publ

ic B

enef

its

Hou

sing

Empl

oym

ent

Fina

nces

Hea

lth

Insu

ranc

e or

Med

ical

Bill

s

Tota

l

Lati

nos

Now

I’d

like

to ta

lk a

bout

som

e pr

oble

ms

peop

le in

New

Yor

k m

ay o

r m

ay n

ot h

ave

had.

Ple

ase

tell

me

if yo

u or

any

one

in

your

hou

seho

ld h

as e

xper

ienc

ed a

ny o

f the

follo

win

g in

the

last

yea

r?

Prob

lem

s at

Chi

ldre

n’s

Scho

ol a

nd Im

mig

ratio

n-R

elat

ed Is

sues

om

itted

due

to s

mal

l n s

ize.

46

Low

-inco

me

Afr

ican

Am

eric

ans’

top

civi

l leg

al p

robl

ems

mir

ror

thos

e of

the

tota

l low

-inco

me

popu

lati

on, b

ut m

ore

Afr

ican

Am

eric

ans

repo

rt p

robl

ems

wit

h fin

ance

s an

d ho

usin

g th

an th

e ov

eral

l pop

ulat

ion.

Afr

ican

Am

eric

ans

Expe

rien

cing

At

Leas

t O

ne P

robl

em in

Las

t Ye

ar: W

ithi

n Pr

oble

m

Gro

up

10%

13%

24%

19%

25%

24%

20%

18%

17%

16%

13%

12%

Dom

esti

c &

Fam

ily Is

sues

Publ

ic B

enef

its

Hou

sing

Empl

oym

ent

Fina

nces

Hea

lth

Insu

ranc

e or

Med

ical

Bill

s

Tota

l

Afr

Am

s

Now

I’d

like

to ta

lk a

bout

som

e pr

oble

ms

peop

le in

New

Yor

k m

ay o

r m

ay n

ot h

ave

had.

Ple

ase

tell

me

if yo

u or

any

one

in

your

hou

seho

ld h

as e

xper

ienc

ed a

ny o

f the

follo

win

g in

the

last

yea

r?

Prob

lem

s at

Chi

ldre

n’s

Scho

ol a

nd Im

mig

ratio

n-R

elat

ed Is

sues

om

itted

due

to s

mal

l n s

ize.

47

The

type

s of

pro

blem

s re

port

ed b

y im

mig

rant

hou

seho

lds

run

para

llel t

o th

e pr

oble

ms

of th

e to

tal N

ew Y

ork

low

-inco

me

popu

lati

on, e

xcep

t tho

se li

ving

in

imm

igra

nt h

ouse

hold

s ar

e le

ss li

kely

to re

port

fina

nce

prob

lem

s.

Imm

igra

nt H

ouse

hold

s Ex

peri

enci

ng A

t Le

ast

One

Pro

blem

in L

ast

Year

: Wit

hin

Prob

lem

Gro

up 12%

10%

18%

18%

13%

20%

12%13

%

16%17

%18%

20%

Dom

esti

c &

Fam

ily Is

sues

Publ

ic B

enef

its

Hou

sing

Empl

oym

ent

Fina

nces

Hea

lth

Insu

ranc

e or

Med

ical

Bill

s

Tota

l

Imm

igra

ntho

useh

olds

Now

I’d

like

to ta

lk a

bout

som

e pr

oble

ms

peop

le in

New

Yor

k m

ay o

r m

ay n

ot h

ave

had.

Ple

ase

tell

me

if yo

u or

any

one

in

your

hou

seho

ld h

as e

xper

ienc

ed a

ny o

f the

follo

win

g in

the

last

yea

r?

Prob

lem

s at

Chi

ldre

n’s

Scho

ol a

nd Im

mig

ratio

n-R

elat

ed Is

sues

om

itted

due

to s

mal

l n s

ize.

48

Thos

e un

der

age

30 a

re m

uch

mor

e lik

ely

to r

epor

t pro

blem

s w

ith

hous

ing

and

empl

oym

ent.

Hea

lth

insu

ranc

e an

d m

edic

al b

ills,

as

wel

l as

finan

ces,

ar

e al

so to

p co

ncer

ns.

Youn

g Pe

ople

Exp

erie

ncin

g A

t Le

ast

One

Pro

blem

in L

ast

Year

: Wit

hin

Prob

lem

Gro

up

15%

13%

31%

26%

21%

24%

12%13

%

16%17

%18%20

%

Dom

esti

c &

Fam

ily Is

sues

Publ

ic B

enef

its

Hou

sing

Empl

oym

ent

Fina

nces

Hea

lth

Insu

ranc

e or

Med

ical

Bill

sTo

tal

Und

er a

ge 3

0

Now

I’d

like

to ta

lk a

bout

som

e pr

oble

ms

peop

le in

New

Yor

k m

ay o

r m

ay n

ot h

ave

had.

Ple

ase

tell

me

if yo

u or

any

one

in

your

hou

seho

ld h

as e

xper

ienc

ed a

ny o

f the

follo

win

g in

the

last

yea

r?

Prob

lem

s at

Chi

ldre

n’s

Scho

ol a

nd Im

mig

ratio

n-R

elat

ed Is

sues

om

itted

due

to s

mal

l n s

ize.

49

Pare

nts

wit

h ch

ildre

n un

der

age

18 s

hare

the

sam

e to

p pr

oble

ms

area

s w

ith

the

tota

l pop

ulat

ion,

but

acr

oss

prob

lem

are

as p

aren

ts a

re m

ore

likel

y to

re

port

hav

ing

civi

l leg

al p

robl

ems,

esp

ecia

lly w

ith

heal

th in

sura

nce

or

med

ical

bill

s, fi

nanc

es, a

nd h

ousi

ng.

Pare

nts

Expe

rien

cing

At

Leas

t O

ne P

robl

em in

Las

t Ye

ar: W

ithi

n Pr

oble

m G

roup

16%

16%

24%

21%

24%

29%

12%13

%

16%17

%18%20

%

Dom

esti

c &

Fam

ily Is

sues

Publ

ic B

enef

its

Hou

sing

Empl

oym

ent

Fina

nces

Hea

lth

Insu

ranc

e or

Med

ical

Bill

s

Tota

lPa

rent

s

Now

I’d

like

to ta

lk a

bout

som

e pr

oble

ms

peop

le in

New

Yor

k m

ay o

r m

ay n

ot h

ave

had.

Ple

ase

tell

me

if yo

u or

any

one

in

your

hou

seho

ld h

as e

xper

ienc

ed a

ny o

f the

follo

win

g in

the

last

yea

r?

Prob

lem

s at

Chi

ldre

n’s

Scho

ol a

nd Im

mig

ratio

n-R

elat

ed Is

sues

om

itted

due

to s

mal

l n s

ize.

50

The

top

prob

lem

s re

port

ed b

y re

side

nts

of p

ublic

, Sec

tion

8, o

r su

bsid

ized

hou

sing

ar

e is

sues

wit

h fin

ance

s, h

ousi

ng, p

ublic

ben

efit

s, a

nd h

ealt

h in

sura

nce

or m

edic

al

bills

. The

y ar

e m

ore

likel

y to

rep

ort p

robl

ems

wit

h fin

ance

s, h

ousi

ng a

nd p

ublic

be

nefit

s th

an th

e to

tal p

opul

atio

n.

Publ

ic o

r Su

bsid

ized

Hou

sing

Res

iden

ts: E

xper

ienc

ing

At

Leas

t O

ne P

robl

em in

Las

t Ye

ar

15%

23%24

%

18%

25%

23%

12%13

%

16%17

%18%

20%

Dom

esti

c &

Fam

ilyIs

sues

Publ

ic B

enef

its

Hou

sing

Empl

oym

ent

Fina

nces

Hea

lth

Insu

ranc

e or

Med

ical

Bill

s

Tota

l

Publ

ic, S

ecti

on 8

,Su

bsid

ized

Hou

sing

Resi

dent

s

Now

I’d

like

to ta

lk a

bout

som

e pr

oble

ms

peop

le in

New

Yor

k m

ay o

r m

ay n

ot h

ave

had.

Ple

ase

tell

me

if yo

u or

any

one

in

your

hou

seho

ld h

as e

xper

ienc

ed a

ny o

f the

follo

win

g in

the

last

yea

r?

Prob

lem

s at

Chi

ldre

n’s

Scho

ol a

nd Im

mig

ratio

n-R

elat

ed Is

sues

om

itted

due

to s

mal

l n s

ize.

51

The

unem

ploy

ed a

re d

ispr

opor

tion

atel

y m

ore

likel

y to

rep

ort p

robl

ems

wit

h em

ploy

men

t, h

ousi

ng, p

ublic

ben

efit

s, a

nd fa

mily

issu

es.

Une

mpl

oyed

Exp

erie

ncin

g A

t Le

ast

One

Pro

blem

in L

ast

Year

: Wit

hin

Prob

lem

Gro

up

17%18

%

25%

27%

22%

25%

10%

12%

16%

18%

21%23

%

Dom

esti

c &

Fam

ily Is

sues

Publ

ic B

enef

its

Hou

sing

Empl

oym

ent

Fina

nces

Hea

lth

Insu

ranc

e or

Med

ical

Bill

s

Empl

oyed

Une

mpl

oyed

Now

I’d

like

to ta

lk a

bout

som

e pr

oble

ms

peop

le in

New

Yor

k m

ay o

r m

ay n

ot h

ave

had.

Ple

ase

tell

me

if yo

u or

any

one

in

your

hou

seho

ld h

as e

xper

ienc

ed a

ny o

f the

follo

win

g in

the

last

yea

r?

Prob

lem

s at

Chi

ldre

n’s

Scho

ol a

nd Im

mig

ratio

n-R

elat

ed Is

sues

om

itted

due

to s

mal

l n s

ize.

52

Thos

e w

ho a

re d

isab

led,

or l

ivin

g in

a h

ouse

hold

wit

h so

meo

ne w

ho is

dis

able

d, a

re

mor

e lik

ely

to r

epor

t pro

blem

s ac

ross

the

topi

c ar

eas,

and

par

ticu

larl

y m

ore

likel

y to

ha

ve p

robl

ems

wit

h em

ploy

men

t, p

ublic

ben

efit

s, a

nd h

ealt

h in

sura

nce

or m

edic

al

bills

.

Dis

able

d H

ouse

hold

s Ex

peri

enci

ng A

t Le

ast

One

Pro

blem

in L

ast

Year

: Wit

hin

Prob

lem

Gro

up

15%

23%

20%

25%

21%

25%

12%13

%

16%17

%18%20

%

Dom

esti

c &

Fam

ily Is

sues

Publ

ic B

enef

its

Hou

sing

Empl

oym

ent

Fina

nces

Hea

lth

Insu

ranc

e or

Med

ical

Bill

s

Tota

l

Dis

able

dho

useh

olds

Now

I’d

like

to ta

lk a

bout

som

e pr

oble

ms

peop

le in

New

Yor

k m

ay o

r m

ay n

ot h

ave

had.

Ple

ase

tell

me

if yo

u or

any

one

in

your

hou

seho

ld h

as e

xper

ienc

ed a

ny o

f the

follo

win

g in

the

last

yea

r?

Prob

lem

s at

Chi

ldre

n’s

Scho

ol a

nd Im

mig

ratio

n-R

elat

ed Is

sues

om

itted

due

to s

mal

l n s

ize.

Solv

ing

Civi

l Leg

al P

robl

ems:

Am

ong

thos

e Re

port

ing

Prob

lem

s

With

in th

e si

x pr

oble

m-a

reas

ask

ed o

f eve

ryon

e, lo

w-in

com

e N

ew Y

ork

stat

e re

side

nts

are

mos

t lik

ely

to h

ave

take

n ac

tion

on p

robl

ems

invo

lvin

g he

alth

insu

ranc

e an

d m

edic

al b

ills

and

finan

ces,

and

leas

t lik

ely

to h

ave

take

n ac

tion

on p

robl

ems

deal

ing

with

hou

sing

and

em

ploy

men

t.

54

Ove

r ha

lf of

thos

e w

ho e

xper

ienc

ed a

ny o

f the

36

spec

ific

civi

l leg

al

prob

lem

s co

vere

d in

the

surv

ey n

ever

took

any

act

ion

on th

ose

prob

lem

s (5

6%) .

Am

ong

thos

e m

ost p

rone

to in

acti

on a

re m

en, w

hite

s, th

ose

livin

g in

im

mig

rant

hou

seho

lds,

non

-sub

sidi

zed

rent

ers,

une

mpl

oyed

, ret

ired

, and

m

en, e

spec

ially

unm

arri

ed m

en a

nd y

oung

er m

en.

Mos

t Lik

ely

to N

ot T

ake

Act

ion

on A

ny C

ivil

Lega

l Pro

blem

(% th

at h

ad a

t lea

st o

ne p

robl

em, b

ut n

ever

took

act

ion

on a

ny o

f the

ir p

robl

ems)

•M

en (6

1%)

•M

en ≤

100%

FPL

(64%

)*

•M

en u

nder

age

50

(63%

)*

•W

hite

s (6

2%)

•M

arri

ed m

en (6

4%)*

•Im

mig

rant

hou

seho

lds

(61%

)

•Re

nter

s w

ho d

o no

t liv

e in

pub

lic, S

ecti

on 8

, or

subs

idiz

ed h

ousi

ng

(67%

)

•U

nem

ploy

ed (6

2%)*

•Re

tire

d (6

8% )*

•N

YC R

esid

ents

at 1

01-2

00%

FPL

(63%

)*

*Sm

all N

siz

e

55

Low

-inco

me

New

Yor

kers

who

took

act

ion

on th

eir

civi

l leg

al p

robl

ems

are

mos

t lik

ely

to h

ave

take

n ac

tion

rega

rdin

g he

alth

insu

ranc

e or

med

ical

bill

s an

d fin

ance

s,

follo

wed

by

dom

esti

c an

d fa

mily

issu

es a

nd p

ublic

ben

efit

s. T

hey

are

leas

t lik

ely

to

have

take

n ac

tion

on

empl

oym

ent o

r ho

usin

g pr

oble

ms.

Am

ong

Thos

e Ex

peri

enci

ng A

Pro

blem

: Act

ion

Take

n

Rank

ord

ered

by

Freq

uenc

y of

Pro

blem

Are

aEx

per.

at L

east

One

Pr

oble

m in

Las

t Yea

rTo

ok A

ctio

nD

id n

ot T

ake

Act

ion

Hea

lth

Ins.

, Med

ical

Bill

s20

%43

%50

%

Fina

nces

18%

37%

59%

Empl

oym

ent

17%

21%

68%

Hou

sing

16%

24%

65%

Publ

ic B

enef

its

13%

30%

62%

Dom

esti

c &

Fam

ily12

%30

%52

%

Prob

lem

s at

Chi

ldre

n’s

Scho

ol (N

=17)

and

Imm

igra

tion-

Rel

ated

Issu

es (N

=7) o

mitt

ed fr

om a

naly

sis

due

to s

mal

l N s

izes

.

56

Exam

inin

g th

e sp

ecifi

c ty

pe o

f act

ion

take

n, th

ere

is a

lso

vari

atio

n by

pro

blem

typ

es. N

ew

York

ers

are

mos

t lik

ely

to s

eek

help

out

side

thei

r ho

useh

olds

for

dom

esti

c an

d fa

mily

pr

oble

ms,

and

pro

blem

s w

ith

publ

ic b

enef

its.

In a

low

er ti

er, t

hey

are

just

as

likel

y to

see

k ou

tsid

e he

lp o

r to

take

act

ion

on t

heir

ow

n co

ncer

ning

pro

blem

s w

ith

heal

th in

sura

nce

and

med

ical

bill

s, fi

nanc

es, a

nd h

ousi

ng.

Did

you

take

any

act

ion

to d

eal w

ith

this

sit

uati

on, o

r did

you

not

take

any

act

ion?

How

did

you

take

act

ion

in th

is

situ

atio

n: D

id y

ou s

eek

help

from

out

side

you

r hou

seho

ld o

r Did

you

try

to s

olve

it y

ours

elf w

itho

ut a

ny o

utsi

de h

elp?

-52%

-62%

-65%

-68%-5

9%-50%

24%

23%

11%

13%17

%

20%

7%

13%

8%

16%23

%

6%D

omes

tic &

Fam

ily

Publ

ic B

enef

its

Hou

sing

Empl

oym

ent

Fina

nces

Hea

lth In

s., M

ed. B

ills

Did

NO

T ta

ke a

ctio

nTo

ok A

ctio

n w

ith

Out

side

Hel

pTo

ok A

ctio

n w

ith

NO

Out

side

Hel

p

Prob

lem

s at

Chi

ldre

n’s

Scho

ol (N

=17)

and

Imm

igra

tion-

Rel

ated

Issu

es (N

=7) o

mitt

ed d

ue to

sm

all n

siz

e.

(Ran

k or

dere

d by

Fre

quen

cy o

f Pro

blem

Are

a)

57

Am

ong

thos

e w

ho s

ough

t ou

tsid

e he

lp, l

ow-in

com

e N

ew Y

orke

rs a

re m

ost l

ikel

y to

see

k le

gal

help

of a

ny k

ind

for

hous

ing

and

dom

esti

c/fa

mily

issu

es, a

nd s

econ

dari

ly fo

r em

ploy

men

t,

finan

cial

, and

pub

lic b

enef

its

prob

lem

s. T

hey

are

leas

t lik

ely

to g

et le

gal h

elp

for

prob

lem

s w

ith

heal

th in

sura

nce

or m

edic

al b

ills.

Tho

se w

ith

hous

ing

prob

lem

s ar

e m

ost

likel

y to

hav

e go

ne t

o le

gal a

idfo

r he

lp.

Am

ong

Thos

e W

ho S

ough

t Hel

p fr

om O

utsi

de th

eir H

ouse

hold

: W

here

did

you

go

to g

et h

elp

outs

ide

your

ho

useh

old?

Did

you

go

to a

ny o

f the

follo

win

g? [M

ULT

IPLE

RES

PON

SE]

21%

20%36

%

13%

16%

54%

49%

40%

21%

16%

31%

31%

21%

59%

88%

52%

69%

30%72

%

34%

45%

43%

36%

38%

39%

4%

14%

29%

7%

52%

Dom

esti

c &

Fam

ily (2

4%)

Publ

ic B

enef

its

(23%

)

Hou

sing

(11%

)

Empl

oym

ent

(13%

)

Fina

nces

(17%

)

Hea

lth

Ins.

, Med

. Bill

s(2

0%)

Lega

l aid

Priv

ate

Att

yCo

urt,

hea

ring

Loca

l, st

ate

govt

, or

soci

al s

ervi

ce a

genc

yFr

iend

s &

Fam

ily

% S

ough

t Out

side

Hel

p

28%

42%

45%

70%

40%

82%

Soug

ht A

ny

Lega

l Hel

p(in

clud

ing

lega

l aid

, pr

ivat

e at

torn

ey,

cour

ts)

Prob

lem

s at

Chi

ldre

n’s

Scho

ol (N

=17)

and

Imm

igra

tion-

Rel

ated

Issu

es (N

=7) o

mitt

ed d

ue to

sm

all n

siz

e.

58

Eigh

t in

ten

low

-inco

me

New

Yor

kers

who

exp

erie

nced

a c

ivil

lega

l pro

blem

in

the

past

yea

r ne

ver

soug

ht a

ny t

ype

of le

gal h

elp.

Eve

n fe

wer

sou

ght

lega

l aid

hel

p.

Am

ong

Thos

e Ex

peri

enci

ng A

t Lea

st O

ne C

ivil

Lega

l Pro

blem

Tota

l≤1

00%

10

1-20

0%

Ever

Sou

ght

Lega

l Hel

p*17

%**

14%

19%

Nev

er S

ough

t Le

gal H

elp*

83%

86%

81%

Ever

Sou

ght

Lega

l AID

Hel

p7%

**6%

7%

Nev

er S

ough

t Le

gal A

ID H

elp

93%

94%

93%

*“Le

gal H

elp”

incl

udes

lega

l aid

, priv

ate

atto

rney

, or c

ourt

s or

cou

rt h

earin

g.

**Sm

all N

siz

e fo

r “Ev

er S

ough

t Leg

al A

id”

and

“Eve

r sou

ght l

egal

hel

p”

59

The

mos

t co

mm

only

cit

ed r

easo

ns fo

r no

t tak

ing

acti

on o

n a

civi

l leg

al p

robl

em is

the

belie

f th

at a

ctio

n w

ould

not

hel

p an

d no

t w

anti

ng t

o “c

ause

tro

uble

.” A

sec

onda

ry r

easo

n fo

r m

ost

prob

lem

are

as is

a la

ck o

f kno

wle

dge

abou

t w

here

to

go fo

r he

lp.

Thos

e fa

cing

hou

sing

and

em

ploy

men

t pro

blem

s ar

e m

ore

likel

y to

say

they

too

k no

act

ion

beca

use

they

just

got

out

of

the

situ

atio

n or

wai

ted

for

it to

go

away

.

Firs

t Tie

r Pro

blem

s (T

iere

d By

Pro

blem

Fre

quen

cy)

Whi

ch o

f the

follo

win

g re

ason

s de

scri

bes

why

you

did

not

take

any

act

ion?

Hea

lth

Ins.

, M

edic

al b

ills*

Fina

nces

*Em

ploy

men

t*H

ousi

ng*

Did

not

thi

nk ta

king

act

ion

wou

ld

real

ly h

elp

28%

28%

12%

25%

Did

not

wan

t to

caus

e tr

oubl

e18

%19

%18

%20

%D

id n

ot k

now

whe

re to

go

or c

all f

or

help

15%

12%

12%

16%

Did

not

hav

e ti

me

11%

9%6%

1%

Thou

ght

it w

ould

be

too

expe

nsiv

e3%

13%

8%9%

Left

or

got o

ut o

f sit

uati

on2%

2%15

%11

%

Wai

ted

for

prob

lem

to

go a

way

3%5%

11%

13%

*Exp

erie

nced

Pro

blem

, too

k no

act

ion:

Hea

lth In

sura

nce/

Med

ical

Bill

s: N

=51;

Fin

ance

s: N

=52;

Em

ploy

men

t: N

=56;

H

ousi

ng: N

=53

60

For p

ublic

ben

efit

s, th

e st

rong

est r

easo

n fo

r in

acti

on is

the

belie

f tha

t ac

tion

wou

ld

not h

elp

muc

h. I

n ad

diti

on to

inef

fect

iven

ess

and

not w

anti

ng to

mak

e w

aves

, New

Yo

rker

s fa

cing

fam

ily d

omes

tic

prob

lem

s ar

e al

so m

ore

likel

y to

say

they

left

the

si

tuat

ion

or w

aite

d fo

r th

e pr

oble

m to

go

away

.

Seco

nd T

ier P

robl

ems

(Tie

red

By P

robl

em F

requ

ency

)W

hich

of t

he fo

llow

ing

reas

ons

desc

ribe

s w

hy y

ou d

id n

ot ta

ke a

ny a

ctio

n?

Publ

ic B

enef

its*

Fam

ily &

Dom

esti

c*

Did

not

wan

t to

caus

e tr

oubl

e5%

19%

Did

not

thi

nk ta

king

act

ion

wou

ld

real

ly h

elp

38%

24%

Did

not

kno

w w

here

to g

o or

cal

l for

he

lp16

%11

%

Did

not

hav

e ti

me

13%

2%

Thou

ght

it w

ould

be

too

expe

nsiv

e3%

9%

Left

or

got o

ut o

f sit

uati

on2%

18%

Wai

ted

for

prob

lem

to

go a

way

5%14

%

*Sm

all N

siz

es: E

xper

ienc

ed P

robl

em, t

ook

no a

ctio

n: P

ublic

ben

efits

: N=3

7; F

amily

or D

omes

tic: N

=34

Prob

lem

s At

Chi

ldre

n’s

Scho

ol (N

=4) a

nd Im

mig

ratio

n-R

elat

ed Is

sues

(N=4

) om

itted

due

to s

mal

l siz

e.

Solv

ing

Civi

l Leg

al P

robl

ems:

Am

ong

thos

e W

itho

ut P

robl

ems

A m

ajor

ity o

f low

-inco

me

New

Yor

kers

who

say

they

hav

e no

t ex

peri

ence

d an

y of

the

spec

ific

civi

l leg

al p

robl

ems

cove

red

in th

e su

rvey

sa

y th

ey w

ould

take

act

ion

on th

ose

prob

lem

s w

ere

they

to e

xper

ienc

e th

em. A

mon

g th

ose

who

wou

ld s

eek

outs

ide

help

, nea

rly

all w

ould

be

open

to lo

okin

g fo

r hel

p fr

om a

lega

l ins

titut

ion:

thre

e-qu

arte

rs fr

om a

pr

ivat

e at

torn

ey a

nd tw

o-th

irds

from

lega

l aid

.

62

Am

ong

thos

e w

ho R

epor

t N

o Le

gal P

robl

ems:

If y

ou w

ere

to h

ave

any

of t

he p

robl

ems

abov

e do

yo

u th

ink

you

wou

ld t

ake

any

lega

l act

ion

to d

eal w

ith

the

situ

atio

n, o

r w

ould

you

not

tak

e ac

tion

?

56%

-29%

Wou

ld n

ot ta

ke a

ctio

nW

ould

take

act

ion

Am

ong

New

Yor

kers

who

hav

e no

t exp

erie

nced

any

pro

blem

s (5

3 pe

rcen

t of

the

sam

ple)

, a m

ajor

ity

say

they

wou

ld h

ave

take

n ac

tion

that

if t

hey

wer

e to

ha

ve e

xper

ienc

ed a

ny o

f the

pro

blem

s.

Don

’t K

now

:

15%

63

Thos

e m

ost l

ikel

y to

imag

ine

they

wou

ld ta

ke a

ctio

n—if

they

wer

e to

exp

erie

nce

any

prob

lem

s—ar

e ol

der m

en, L

atin

os, A

fric

an A

mer

ican

s, t

hose

livi

ng in

imm

igra

nt

hous

ehol

ds, p

aren

ts, a

nd th

ose

livin

g in

hou

seho

lds

whe

re s

omeo

ne is

dis

able

d.

Wom

en li

ving

in p

over

ty a

re m

ore

pron

e to

thin

k th

ey w

ould

not

take

act

ion.

*Sm

all N

siz

e

Mos

t Lik

ely

to T

ake

Act

ion

If P

robl

ems

Wer

e Ex

peri

ence

dLe

ss L

ikel

y to

Tak

e A

ctio

n If

Pro

blem

s W

ere

Expe

rien

ced

•M

en a

ge 5

0 an

d ol

der

(69%

wou

ld ta

ke a

ctio

n)*

•La

tino

s (6

9%)

•A

fric

an A

mer

ican

s (6

1%)*

•Im

mig

rant

hou

seho

lds

(62%

)

•Pa

rent

s of

chi

ldre

n un

der

age

18(6

3%)*

•Th

ose

disa

bled

or

livin

g in

a h

ouse

hold

wit

h so

meo

ne w

ho is

dis

able

d(6

7%)*

•W

omen

at 1

00%

FPL

or

belo

w (3

8% w

ould

not

ta

ke a

ctio

n)*

•W

hite

wom

en(3

9%)

•W

orki

ng w

omen

(37%

)*

•Th

ose

on M

edic

are

(36%

)

64

Am

ong

the

56 p

erce

nt w

ho s

aid

they

wou

ld ta

ke a

ctio

n, o

ver

six

in te

n sa

y th

ey w

ould

see

k he

lp fr

om o

utsi

de th

eir

hous

ehol

d (6

4 pe

rcen

t) a

nd h

alf

that

(27

perc

ent)

imag

ine

they

wou

ld ta

ke a

ctio

n on

thei

r ow

n be

half.

Am

ong

Thos

e W

ho W

ould

Tak

e A

ctio

n: A

nd if

you

wer

e to

tak

e ac

tion

, do

you

thin

k yo

u w

ould

see

k he

lp fr

om o

utsi

de y

our

hous

ehol

d or

wou

ld y

ou t

ry t

o so

lve

it

your

self

wit

hout

any

out

side

hel

p?

64%

27%

Wou

ld h

ave

soug

ht h

elp

outs

ide

hous

ehol

dW

ould

hav

e ta

ken

acti

on w

ith

no o

utsi

de h

elp

65

Am

ong

thos

e w

ho s

ay th

ey w

ould

take

act

ion

by s

eeki

ng h

elp

outs

ide

thei

r ho

useh

old,

nea

rly

all (

92 p

erce

nt) s

ay th

ey w

ould

look

to a

lega

l ins

titu

tion

for

help

, in

clud

ing

lega

l aid

, a p

riva

te a

ttor

ney,

or

a co

urt o

r co

urt h

eari

ng.

Am

ong

Thos

e W

ho W

ould

See

k H

elp

Out

isde

Hou

seho

ld, W

ere

they

to

have

a P

robl

em:

Whe

re

wou

ld y

ou g

o to

get

hel

p ou

tsid

e yo

ur h

ouse

hold

? W

ould

you

go

to a

ny o

f the

follo

win

g?

[MU

LTIP

LE R

ESPO

NSE

]

60%

73%

64%

77%

65%

Frie

nds

& F

amily

Loca

l, st

ate

govt

, or

soci

al s

ervi

ce a

genc

y

Lega

l aid

Cour

t, he

arin

g

Priv

ate

Att

orne

y

92%

Thos

e liv

ing

at 1

00%

FPL

or b

elow

are

mor

e lik

ely

to s

ay th

at th

ey w

ould

go

to a

le

gal a

id p

rogr

am if

they

wer

e to

exp

erie

nce

a pr

oble

m (7

1%) t

han

are

thos

e at

101

-20

0% F

PL (6

1%).

66

Am

ong

thos

e w

ho im

agin

e th

ey w

ould

not

take

act

ion

wer

e th

ey to

hav

e an

y of

the

pr

oble

ms

surv

eyed

on,

the

mos

t com

mon

reas

ons

for

pote

ntia

l ina

ctio

n ar

e a

desi

re

not t

o ca

use

trou

ble

and

the

belie

f tha

t ta

king

act

ion

wou

ld n

ot re

ally

hel

p.

Am

ong

Thos

e W

ho W

ould

Not

Tak

e A

ctio

n, W

ere

they

to

Hav

e a

Prob

lem

: Why

do

you

thin

k yo

u w

ould

not

tak

e an

y ac

tion

: Whi

ch o

f the

follo

win

g re

ason

s be

st d

escr

ibes

why

you

wou

ld n

ot t

ake

acti

on?

12%

3%

4%

7%

29%

29%

5%

Oth

er

I wou

ld n

ot k

now

whe

re t

ogo

for

help

or

who

to

call

It w

ould

be

too

expe

nsiv

e

I wou

ld n

ot h

ave

tim

e

I wou

ld w

ait

for

the

prob

lem

to g

o aw

ay

I wou

ld t

hink

tak

ing

acti

onw

ould

not

rea

lly h

elp

I wou

ld n

ot w

ant

to c

ause

trou

ble

Aw

aren

ess

of F

ree

Lega

l Ser

vice

s &

Pe

rcep

tion

s A

roun

d El

igib

ility

A m

ajor

ity o

f low

-inco

me

New

Yor

kers

are

aw

are

that

ther

e ar

e fr

ee le

gal

serv

ices

ava

ilabl

e fo

r low

-inco

me

resi

dent

s of

the

stat

e, b

ut th

ree-

quar

ters

of l

ow-in

com

e N

ew Y

orke

rs a

re e

ither

uns

ure

or d

o no

t bel

ieve

th

at th

ey w

ould

be

elig

ible

to re

ceiv

e fr

ee le

gal s

ervi

ces.

68

Are

the

re fr

ee le

gal s

ervi

ces

avai

labl

e fo

r lo

w-i

ncom

e pe

ople

in t

his

stat

e, o

r no

t?

34%

11%

56%

Uns

ure

No

Yes

A m

ajor

ity

of lo

w-in

com

e N

ew Y

orke

rs a

re a

war

e th

at t

here

are

fr

ee le

gal s

ervi

ces

avai

labl

e fo

r lo

w-in

com

e re

side

nts

of th

e st

ate.

Ove

r fo

ur in

ten

are

eith

er u

naw

are

or u

nsur

e. 45%

Ove

r hal

f of l

ow-in

com

e N

ew Y

orke

rs w

ho re

port

exp

erie

ncin

g an

y ci

vil l

egal

pr

oble

m in

the

past

yea

r are

aw

are

of th

e fr

ee le

gal s

ervi

ces

(54%

), co

mpa

red

to

57%

who

do

not r

epor

t any

pro

blem

s.

69

New

Yor

kers

livi

ng in

pov

erty

and

tho

se li

ving

nea

r po

vert

y ha

ve s

imila

r le

vels

of a

war

enes

s on

whe

ther

the

re a

re fr

ee

lega

l ser

vice

s av

aila

ble

in th

e st

ate.

≤100

% F

PL

No:

10%

Yes

: 58%

Uns

ure:

32

%Are

ther

e fr

ee le

gal s

ervi

ces

avai

labl

e fo

r low

-inco

me

peop

le in

this

sta

te, o

r not

?

101-

200%

FPL

No:

11%

Yes

: 54%

Uns

ure:

35

%

70

Mos

t Una

war

e of

Fre

e Le

gal S

ervi

ces

(% s

ayin

g no

or d

on’t

kno

w if

“fr

ee le

gal s

ervi

ces

avai

labl

e fo

r low

-inco

me

peop

le

in th

is s

tate

”)

•A

fric

an A

mer

ican

s ag

e 50

and

old

er (5

2%)*

•A

ctiv

e du

ty m

ilita

ry o

r ve

tera

n ho

useh

olds

(54%

)*

•H

omeo

wne

rs (4

9%)

•Th

ose

wit

hout

med

ical

insu

ranc

e (5

0%)*

•Re

side

nts

of U

psta

te (5

4%),

espe

cial

ly U

psta

te E

ast (

58%

); U

psta

te

Wes

t is

49%

Low

-inco

me

New

Yor

kers

who

are

mos

t una

war

e th

at fr

ee le

gal

serv

ices

are

ava

ilabl

e fo

r lo

w-in

com

e pe

ople

are

old

er A

fric

an

Am

eric

ans,

hom

eow

ners

, tho

se li

ving

in m

ilita

ry o

r ve

tera

n ho

useh

olds

, the

uni

nsur

ed, a

nd re

side

nts

of U

psta

te N

ew Y

ork.

*Sm

all N

siz

e

71

56%

19%

25%

Uns

ure

No

Yes

75%

Thre

e-qu

arte

rs o

f low

-inco

me

New

Yor

kers

are

eit

her

unsu

re o

r do

not

bel

ieve

that

the

y w

ould

be

elig

ible

to re

ceiv

e fr

ee le

gal

serv

ices

.

Are

you

and

you

r fa

mily

elig

ible

to

rece

ive

free

lega

l ser

vice

s--in

clud

ing

a la

wye

r, ar

e yo

u no

t el

igib

le, o

r ar

en't

you

sur

e?

Twen

ty-o

ne p

erce

nt o

f tho

se w

ho h

ave

not

expe

rienc

ed a

ny le

gal p

robl

ems

in th

e pa

st

year

bel

ieve

they

are

not

elig

ible

for f

ree

lega

l se

rvic

es, c

ompa

red

to 1

6% o

f tho

se w

ho h

ave

expe

rienc

ed a

t lea

st o

ne p

robl

em.

72

Thos

e liv

ing

in p

over

ty a

re s

omew

hat m

ore

likel

y to

thin

k th

ey

are

elig

ible

for

free

lega

l ser

vice

s.

≤100

% F

PL No:

14%

Yes:

34%

Uns

ure:

52%

Are

you

and

you

r fam

ily e

ligib

le to

rece

ive

free

lega

l ser

vice

s--in

clud

ing

a la

wye

r, ar

e yo

u no

t elig

ible

, or

are

n't y

ou s

ure?

101-

200%

FPL

No:

22%

Yes:

19%

Uns

ure:

59%

73

Mor

e lik

ely

to B

elie

ve th

ey a

re E

ligib

le

for

Free

Ser

vice

sLe

ss L

ikel

y to

Bel

ieve

they

are

Elig

ible

fo

r Fr

ee S

ervi

ces

•<1

00%

FPL

(34%

)

•Th

ose

aged

40-

49 (3

6%)

•M

en u

nder

age

50

(32%

)

•La

tina

s (3

4%)

•Im

mig

rant

hou

seho

lds

(34%

)

•U

nmar

ried

men

(33%

)

•Pa

rent

s (3

0%)

•Pu

blic

, Sec

tion

8, o

r su

bsid

ized

hou

sing

re

side

nts

(39%

)

•U

nem

ploy

ed (4

1%)

•D

isab

led

indi

vidu

als

(39%

)

•St

uden

ts (3

6%)

•Th

ose

on M

edic

aid

or w

ith

fam

ily m

embe

rs o

n M

edic

aid

(35%

)

•Re

side

nts

of N

ew Y

ork

City

(31%

), es

peci

ally

N

ew Y

ork

City

res

iden

ts w

ho a

re: m

en (3

3%),

unde

r ag

e 50

(32%

), an

d La

tino

(37%

)

•A

ge 6

5 an

d ol

der

(24%

)

•Re

tire

es (2

6%)

•Th

ose

on M

edic

are

(26%

)

•W

hite

wom

en (2

4%)

•W

hite

s ag

e 50

and

old

er (2

4%)

•N

on-p

aren

ts (2

4%)

•H

omeo

wne

rs (2

5%)

•Re

side

nts

of U

psta

te W

est (

25%

)

74

Am

ong

thos

e w

ho a

re a

war

e th

at fr

ee le

gal s

ervi

ces

are

avai

labl

e fo

r lo

w-in

com

e pe

ople

in N

ew Y

ork,

two

in te

n be

lieve

they

wou

ld b

e el

igib

le fo

r th

e fr

ee s

ervi

ces.

One

thir

d do

not

thi

nk t

hey

are

elig

ible

, or

are

unsu

re.

Aw

aren

ess

and

Perc

eptio

n of

Elig

ibili

ty fo

r Fre

e Le

gal S

ervi

ces*

Awar

e, b

ut d

on't

belie

ve/u

nsur

e w

heth

er e

ligib

le:

34%

Una

war

e or

un

clea

r whe

ther

fre

e se

rvic

es a

re

avai

labl

e: 4

5%

Awar

e, a

nd

belie

ve th

ey a

re

elig

ible

: 22%

*Tot

al is

mor

e th

an 1

00%

due

to w

eigh

ting.

Documents

THE TASK FORCE TO EXPAND ACCESS THE TASK FORCE TO …ww2.nycourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/files/2018-04/CLS... · civil legal services for low-income individuals. Previously,