Eviction Defense Collaborative legal defense — charity research

Summary

What do they do? EDC is the lead agency for San Francisco’s multi-provider Tenant Right to Counsel system. Its clinic handles intake, pro per assistance, referral, and rental assistance; eligible higher-vulnerability tenants may receive full-scope representation from EDC or a partner. This model isolates full-scope legal defense and stops at retained possession. More

Why this approach interests us

An attorney can identify defenses, negotiate, litigate, obtain repairs or payment terms, and prevent a landlord from converting a disputed case into immediate loss of possession.

Our main reservations

The positive New York randomized result, null Massachusetts full-versus-limited result, and San Francisco descriptive comparison measure different services and outcomes in different courts.

What do you get for your dollar?

Our best guess for the narrow adult-health pathway is $126M per better life (10 QALYs), conditional on funding additional cases. This combines a historical public cost benchmark, a judgmental five-point legal effect and an explicitly subjective health bridge. We would not prioritize EDC on this QALY estimate alone. It does not capture the full value of legal protection, voice, financial security or preventing an unjust eviction. Inspect the model inputs and results →

public cost benchmark: $6,300 — FY2023–24 city team budget divided by a 50-case deliverable; not an EDC marginal price
our conditional best guess: $126,000 — per additional tenant household retaining possession because of full-scope representation
$ per 10 qalys · one better life: $126M — Very-low-confidence subjective adult-health bridge; positive effect and donor additionality assumed
funding room: Not published — the $100,000 gift is a scenario, not a current marginal offer

1. What do they do?

EDC is the lead agency for San Francisco’s multi-provider Tenant Right to Counsel system. Its clinic handles intake, pro per assistance, referral, and rental assistance; eligible higher-vulnerability tenants may receive full-scope representation from EDC or a partner. This model isolates full-scope legal defense and stops at retained possession.

Tenant enters the system

A tenant served with a notice terminating tenancy or eviction papers reaches EDC’s intake and referral clinic.

Case and vulnerability are assessed

All tenants can receive pro per help or referral; full-scope places are allocated using vulnerability scoring when capacity is constrained.

A legal team represents the tenant

An attorney and supporting staff investigate, negotiate, prepare filings, litigate, and coordinate with social-service or rental-assistance supports.

Housing outcomes are verified

A recommendation-grade evaluation would track retained possession, negotiated moves, homelessness, repeat filings, and housing status at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months.

Scope of this review. The model covers full-scope representation only. It excludes limited-scope help, self-help intake, rental assistance, subsidies, shelter advocacy, partner-delivered cases, and broader system coordination. “Retained possession” is narrower than “avoided homelessness” and does not establish how long the household remains housed.

2. Monitoring and information sharing

1,800 San Francisco Tenant Right to Counsel cases across legal-aid partners in FY2022–23; EDC was lead agency

City administrative presentation. The city reported that 63% of full-scope clients stayed in their homes versus 45% receiving limited-scope assistance at a mandatory settlement conference. It also reported that 92% of represented tenants avoided homelessness.

Our assessment. The presentation does not report assignment, adjustment, organization-level results, denominators for every outcome, follow-up duration, or program cost. The differences are descriptive program statistics—not an EDC-specific causal estimate.

268 low-income tenants in New York City Housing Court, randomly offered volunteer legal counsel or usual unrepresented process

Randomized experiment. Final judgments were entered against 22% of represented tenants and 51% of unrepresented tenants. The experiment supports a causal effect in that older NYC setting.

Our assessment. Different jurisdiction, era, attorney model, eligibility, and court process. The result cannot be assigned to EDC or converted into current San Francisco outcomes without an explicit transfer model.

184 Massachusetts Housing Court cases offered full representation or lawyer-for-the-day and unbundled assistance

Randomized experiment. Full representation used substantially more attorney time but did not improve substantive outcomes in this Housing Court context. A separate District Court evaluation was more favorable, underscoring that setting and service design matter.

Our assessment. This is not evidence that EDC has no effect. It is evidence against assuming that more intensive representation always produces the same outcome in every court.

1,140 Memphis tenants seeking assistance

Randomized offer of legal assistance; July 2026 working-paper revision. The instrumental-variable court-eviction effect was a 25-point reduction; it attenuated 86% after rental assistance expired. Ultimate residential stability did not measurably improve.

Our assessment. Do not import this large court effect while omitting complementary cash and its costs. Court judgments, moves and homelessness are different endpoints.

3. Qualitative assessment

An attorney can identify defenses, negotiate, litigate, obtain repairs or payment terms, and prevent a landlord from converting a disputed case into immediate loss of possession.

Key reservations

The city program figures combine multiple legal-aid partners and do not identify an EDC-only effect.
The 63% versus 45% comparison is not reported as randomized or adjusted and may reflect vulnerability scoring and case selection.
Avoided trial is not the same as avoided eviction, housing retention, or avoided homelessness.
EDC's current impact webpage does not display a measurement year, denominator details, follow-up duration, or independent verification.
Rental and client assistance includes transfers to households; treating the transfer value as administrative delivery cost would misstate cost-effectiveness.
The reviewed public record does not identify what a new unrestricted gift would add beyond city and other public funding.
No eviction-specific preference-based utility estimate was found. The 25% health-relevant share and 0.04 utility gain are subjective judgments; adjacent housing studies include null utility results.
The July 2026 Memphis trial had imperfect address matching and survey follow-up. Its residential-stability null informs caution but is not proof that all legal assistance has zero housing benefit.

Benefits not included in our estimate

The city's 63% versus 45% stayed-home comparison as a causal effect
The city's 92% avoided-homelessness claim as an EDC-specific outcome
Dismissals, settlement quality, debt reduction, time gained, legal dignity, and housing-condition remedies
Avoided shelter, healthcare, school disruption, displacement, and other public or household costs
EDC rental assistance, subsidies, intake, referral, shelter advocacy, and services delivered by partner organizations
Mortality, children and household spillovers, WELLBYs, and broader non-health value. The adult-health QALY bridge above is included, but is explicitly subjective.

4. What do you get for your dollar?

Our current model: $126,000 per additional retained-possession outcome—conditional on a positive effect.

The cost anchor is public, recent, and program-specific: $315,000 for a fully loaded team divided by a 50-case deliverable. The causal input is much weaker. We use 5 points—well below the older New York 29-point adverse-judgment result and San Francisco’s unadjusted 18-point stayed-home difference—because full representation produced no retained-possession gain over limited assistance in one Massachusetts Housing Court experiment.

A better life is our comparison unit of 10 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), potentially spread across people. These are uncertain estimates, not measured returns or verified donation offers.

How we calculate the estimate

CONDITIONAL COST PER ADDITIONAL RETAINED-POSSESSION OUTCOME: $6,300 ÷ 5%
= $126,000

Model inputs and assumptions

City fully loaded legal-defense team cost: $315,000 (range: Fixed published value). MOHCD FY2023–24 Tenant Right to Counsel presentation: one attorney, support and supervision fractions, $660 litigation expense per client, and 15% overhead. Public budget context, not EDC marginal cost. high for published budget; not marginal.
City full-scope team case deliverable: 50 cases (range: Fixed published value). MOHCD states that new attorneys require ramp-up time to achieve a deliverable goal of 50 cases. The presentation does not define case complexity, completion, or follow-up. high for published target; moderate as denominator.
Historical public cost per full-scope case: $6,300 (range: Fixed published value). $315,000 fully loaded team cost divided by the 50-case deliverable. This is a TRC-wide historical budget ratio, not an EDC invoice, causal price, or current marginal offer. moderate.
NYC randomized adverse-judgment reduction: 29% (range: Fixed published value). Final judgments were entered against 22% of represented tenants and 51% of unrepresented tenants in an older New York City randomized experiment. Judgment is not the same as retained possession, and the setting differs sharply from current San Francisco. high for study; very indirect for EDC.
SF descriptive stayed-home difference: 18% (range: Fixed published value). MOHCD reported 63% of full-scope clients stayed in their homes versus 45% receiving limited-scope assistance at settlement conference. This was not reported as randomized or adjusted and is not an EDC effect. low for causal use.
MFI estimate of absolute retained-possession effect: 5% (range: 1%–15%). Judgmental transfer set well below the NYC randomized 29-point adverse-judgment effect and the SF unadjusted 18-point comparison because the Massachusetts Housing Court experiment found no retained-possession gain from full versus limited assistance. The numeric range is conditional on a positive effect; null or harm remains outside it. very low.

What would $100,000 buy at the public cost benchmark?

Favorable positive effect: 2.38 additional retained-possession outcomes. 15.87 historical-equivalent full-scope cases · $42K each
Best guess: 0.79 additional retained-possession outcomes. 15.87 historical-equivalent full-scope cases · $126K each
Small positive effect: 0.16 additional retained-possession outcomes. 15.87 historical-equivalent full-scope cases · $630K each

Uncertainty. The conditional range does not include zero or harm. Full representation did not outperform limited assistance on retained possession in the Massachusetts Housing Court experiment. If San Francisco's limited-scope and referral system already captures the marginal benefit, if vulnerability scoring selects harder cases, or if a gift displaces public funding, additional retained-possession outcomes may approach zero or become negative and cost per additional outcome has no finite upper bound.

A best-guess health bridge—not a measured utility effect.

Our best guess for the narrow adult-health pathway is $126 million per 10 QALYs, conditional on extra cases and a positive legal effect. We would not prioritize this program on the present QALY estimate; justice, voice, financial protection and other non-health benefits are not fully represented. This is not evidence that legal assistance has no value. The earlier audit remains a record of evidence limitations, not a reason to withhold this explicitly assumption-based estimate.

DOLLARS PER 10 QALYS: $126,000 × 10 ÷ (1 adult × 25% × 0.04 utility × 1 year × 100% additionality)
= $126 million per 10 QALYs

QALY conversion assumptions

Health-relevant displacement share: 25% (range: 10%–100%). Subjective transfer: a legal outcome may delay or alter a move without preventing health-relevant displacement. The July2026 Memphis trial found no effect on ultimate residential stability, so the central scenario credits only a minority. This is not a measured fraction. Analyst assumption; not measured for EDC.
Utility gain among affected adults: 0.04 (range: 0.01–0.10). Subjective modest health-improvement scenario, not an eviction-specific preference-based study estimate. The search did not identify a measured coefficient; adjacent housing utility studies are often null. Analyst assumption; not measured for EDC.
Duration: 1 year (range: 0.5–2 years). One-year window limits extrapolation. Judge-assignment evidence supports some first-year acute-health effects but not a persistent second-year utilization effect. Analyst assumption; not measured for EDC.
Affected adults: 1 (range: 1). One adult avoids unsupported household/child multipliers; it does not imply that other household members receive no benefit. Analyst assumption; not measured for EDC.
Donor additionality: 100%, conditional (range: 0%–100%). Central assumes the gift funds additional full-scope cases, not replacement of public funding. This is unverified. Zero additionality produces no finite price. Analyst assumption; not measured for EDC.

Favorable positive: $2.1M per 10 QALYs. 42000 dollars per legal outcome; 0.2 incremental QALYs credited per outcome
Central analyst estimate: $126M per 10 QALYs. 126000 dollars per legal outcome; 0.01 incremental QALYs credited per outcome
Unfavorable positive: $25.2B per 10 QALYs. 630000 dollars per legal outcome; 0.00025 incremental QALYs credited per outcome

Zero legal effect, zero health effect or zero donor additionality means no finite cost per QALY; harm remains possible. Positive scenarios are not confidence intervals. The central native legal cost would require 12.6 QALYs per retained-possession household to reach $100K per 10 QALYs, versus our 0.01-QALY narrow health scenario.

5. Funding and previous grants

EDC has not published an EDC-only full-scope cohort, linked housing follow-up, assignment rule, current marginal cost, public-funding displacement rule, or a dated private-gift expansion plan.

The $100,000 scenario is illustrative. The city budget and eight reported attorney vacancies show scale and an implementation constraint, but not an EDC philanthropic gap, private-dollar additionality, or a current case price.

This review does not establish a verified marginal funding offer or a complete history of grants.

Donate

Opens the organization’s giving page. A general donation may not fund the specific activity modeled here; confirm allocation with the recipient.

6. Sources

Audited financial statements, June 30, 2024 and 2023. Eviction Defense Collaborative / Hood & Strong. independent audit. Published: 2025-03-26; retrieved: 2026-08-30.
Community Impact. Eviction Defense Collaborative. organization-reported. Published: date not displayed; retrieved: 2026-08-30.
Tenant Right to Counsel Program presentation. San Francisco Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development. government program data. Published: 2024-04-29; retrieved: 2026-08-30.
The Impact of Legal Counsel on Outcomes for Poor Tenants in New York City's Housing Court. National Institute of Justice. randomized experiment abstract. Published: 2001; retrieved: 2026-08-30.
Legal Representation and Housing Court Cases in the United States. Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab. randomized-evidence synthesis. Published: research dates 2009–2011; retrieved: 2026-08-30.
Association of Promoting Housing Affordability and Stability With Improved Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review. JAMA Network Open. systematic review. Published: 2022-11-01; retrieved: 2026-08-31.
Evictions and Infant and Child Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review. JAMA Network Open. systematic review. Published: 2023-04-11; retrieved: 2026-08-31.
Evictions, legal counsel, and population health: A mixed methods study. Social Science & Medicine. mixed-methods tenant-right-to-counsel study. Published: 2025-07-01; retrieved: 2026-08-31.
Legal Assistance for Evictions. Caspi and Rafkin. Memphis randomized trial; court outcomes differ from residential stability. Published: July 2026 revision; retrieved: 2026-09-07.
Eviction and Poverty in American Cities. Collinson et al.. Judge-assignment study; health pathway, not utility coefficient. Published: 2024; retrieved: 2026-09-07.
Eviction and Poverty in American Cities, working paper Table8. Collinson et al.. Versioned hospital-use estimates; not QALYs. Published: 2022 working paper; retrieved: 2026-09-07.

Annual expenses: years and sources

Average annual expenses (three consecutive fiscal years): $23,390,848. Organization size is separate from the modeled cost-effectiveness of a donation.

Eviction Defense Collaborative Inc

Whole legal entity Form 990 Part IX total functional expenses; latest original reconstructed filings checked, fiscal-end year from printed reporting dates. Older fallback rows from IRS extracted API.

Latest original filings checked; ProPublica extracted API lags these original returns.