GAO Report to the Vice-Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, House of Representatives -.~ l)~~c~~ul)~~~*I’*J’IJO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Information on Court- Ordered Tenant Evictions , .’ llllllll 11111 143093 ll RELEASED RESTRICTED--Not to be released outside the General Accounting oface unless spedfically approved by the OfPice of Congressional Relations. united states GAO General Accountiug Office Washington, D.C. 20648 General Goverument Division B-242125 December 28,199O The Honorable Stan Parris Vice Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia House of Representatives Dear Mr. Vice Chairman: This report responds to your request for information on court ordered tenant evictions in the District of Columbia. Specifically, you asked us to determine (1) the time that elapsed between the landlord’s filing of an eviction request, the court issuance of the eviction order, and the car- rying out of the eviction by U.S. deputy marshals for evictions carried out in fiscal year 1990; (2) reasons for the elapsed times; and (3) whether using contractors to carry out evictions, instead of deputy marshals, would be legal and appropriate. To evict tenants, landlords must first have a writ of restitution (referred Background to as an eviction order) issued by the Landlord and Tenant Branch of the District of Columbia Superior Court. The landlord files a complaint for possession of real estate with the court, which is to set a hearing date for not less than 3 weeks from the date the complaint was filed. In the interim, the landlord is responsible for having the tenant served with the complaint and notified of the scheduled hearing. If the landlord prevails at the hearing or at any trial that might occur, judgment for eviction occurs. If not stayed (deferred) pending tenant compliance with an agreement to pay the rent due, the eviction order is to be issued and sent for execution to the U.S. Marshal for the District of Columbia. The marshal is under the supervision of the Attorney General and the United States Marshal Service (USMS), an agency within the Department of Justice. In performing evictions and other duties for the court, the marshal serves in a role typically filled by a sheriff in other jurisdictions. Upon receipt of the eviction order, the marshal is to stamp on the order the period of time (3 to 35 calendar days) during which the eviction could be executed, notify the tenant of this, and file the order by the applicable District geographic quadrant (e.g., northwest). Evictions are scheduled by quadrant, with priority given to the oldest orders. They are carried out by deputy marshals, who supervise the movement of property from the premises to street curb by laborers provided by the landlord. If an eviction is not done within the 35-day time limit and is Page 1 GAO/GGD91-29 Tenant Evictions B-242125 still wanted, the landlord must have the order reissued by the court. A reissued order is referred to as an alias writ. The eviction process is described in more detail in appendix I and illus- trated in appendix II. Overall statistics on eviction orders issued and their disposition during fiscal year 1990 are included and explained in appendix III. The marshal performed 2,966 evictions in the District of Columbia Results in Brief during fiscal year 1990. An average of 114 calendar days (about 4 months) elapsed from the date landlords requested evictions and when they were done. On average, 62 calendar days elapsed from the land- lord’s complaint to the court issuance of the eviction. There are no overall criteria on how long the court’s part of the eviction process should take. The marshal’s portion of the eviction process averaged 52 calendar days. The marshal completed about 54 percent of the evic- tions under the initial order, which has a 35-day time limit; the process took an average of 25 days from issuance of the order to the actual evic- tion. The remaining evictions involved reissued orders, which averaged 83 days from the date of the initial order to the actual eviction. Delays in the eviction process occurred for a variety of reasons. In the court’s part of the process, delays occurred because issuance of the evic- tion order was stayed for a period of time because the tenant agreed but subsequently failed to pay the rent due, or the case went through a trial. In the marshal’s part of the process, delays occurred because evictions were not carried out on bad weather days, holidays, and weekends; few deputy marshals were assigned to evictions; or the landlord failed to comply with arrangements agreed to with the marshal (e.g., failed to have agreed-upon number of movers present when deputy marshals arrived at the eviction site). A legal barrier exists to contracting out the marshal’s part of the evic- tion process. The Department of Justice’s 1991 appropriation act pro- hibits any contracting out in fiscal years 1991 and 1992 for law enforcement or litigating purposes without specific congressional approval. If not for this law, USMS officials believe that contracting out for evictions would probably be legal. However, they would not want to do so without the approval of the court and the Department of Justice. Page 2 GAO/GGD91-29 Tenant Evictions B-242125 USMSofficials maintain that contracting out is not needed given the addi- tional staff they will be able to assign to evictions. On the basis of evic- tion and other workload problems, Congress authorized 24 additional deputy marshals in October 1990 and another 17 are expected to come on board in January, 1991. Consequently, the marshal plans to assign sufficient deputies so that the eviction backlog will be generally limited to eviction orders under 3 days old and orders that have not been car- ried out for uncontrollable reasons, such as bad weather. Officials in USMSand the marshal’s office believe they will be able, with the addi- tional staff, to execute all orders within the initial 35day period except those for which nonservice was the fault of the landlord or other uncon- trollable reasons. To obtain elapsed times, we randomly sampled 277 of the 2,966 evic- Objectives, Scope,and tions we determined were done during fiscal year 1990.’We arrived at Methodology the total number of evictions by reviewing USMS'daily eviction lists and accounting for all days on which evictions were performed during the year. For each eviction sampled, we reviewed the individual case files maintained by the court and recorded, among other things, the dates the eviction was requested, ordered, and carried out. To determine reasons for the elapsed times, we interviewed court and IJSMSofficials and reviewed court and USMSdocumentation on how the eviction process is supposed to work and how it was carried out during fiscal year 1990. We also determined if the evictions in our sampled cases had involved a trial, a stay because of a tenant’s promise to pay the rent that was due, or the issuance of an alias order. We compared elapsed times for these evictions with evictions not involving these fac- tors. When the information was available, we also recorded why reis- sued orders had not been previously carried out. The decision to limit the file review to evictions performed was based on both availability of data and time constraints, Because cases ending in eviction may be quite different from the larger universe of all com- plaints filed or all eviction orders issued, our sample allows us to gener- alize only about cases resulting in actual evictions. Unless otherwise noted, all sampling errors are less than 9 percent of the estimate, at the 95 percent confidence level. In other words, except where noted, the chances are 19 out of 20 that if we had analyzed all 2,966 evictions, the IThe original sample consisted of 301 evictions, but 24 files could not be located, resulting in a sample size of 2’77. Page 3 GAO/GGD-91-29 Tenant Evictions 5242126 results would differ from our sample results by less than the lo-percent sampling error. (See app. IV for sampling error figures.) To determine any barriers to having a contractor perform the eviction functions now performed by the marshal, we requested the views of USMSand the Superior Court on any legal issues the idea would raise and on the appropriateness of such an endeavor. We also asked the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) whether such contracting would be con- trary to the guidance in OMBCircular A-76, “Performance of Commercial Activities.” We reviewed the law establishing USMSand proscribing its duties and responsibilities; USMS'regulations; the Justice Appropriation Act for 1991 and its legislative history; the Superior Court Rules of Pro- cedure for the Landlord and Tenant Branch; and the District of Columbia statutes relating to evictions. We also reviewed the request for eviction contract proposals USMSissued in 1986 and obtained the views of USMSofficials on why a contract was never let. We also interviewed USMSand court officials regarding any plans they had for shortening the time needed to do evictions, obtained statistics on the eviction process, and observed deputy marshals carry out two evic- tions and cancel a third because movers were not present. We did the audit work from September to December 1990, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We estimate that the 2,966 evictions performed by USMSduring fiscal Average of About 4 year 1990 took, on average, 114 calendar days (about 4 months) from Months Elapsed the date the landlord filed a complaint to the day the eviction was done. Between Landlord Table 1 .l shows the mean, median, and range of elapsed times (1) from complaint to eviction, (2) from complaint to issuance of the eviction Complaint and order (the court’s part of the process), and (3) from eviction order to Eviction eviction (the marshal’s part of the process). Table 1.1: Elapsed Calendar Days for Evictions Performed October 1, 1989 - Complaint to Complaint to Order to September 30,199O Time -_--~___ eviction order eviction Mean 114 6Za 52 Median ---_~ ._-_.._- --- 99 43 35 Shortest______--_____ 37 -._- 21 --__ 6 v Lonaest 945 924 276 aThe sampling error is + 9 days (14.5 percent of the mean) at the 95-percent confidence level. Page 4 GAO/GGD-91-29 Tenant Evictions B-242126 We did not assessthe reasonableness of the elapsed times for the 1990 evictions, given the lack of overall criteria on how long it should take from complaint to eviction. Some perspective on the court’s part of the process, however, is possible through an analysis of the hearing dates. Court procedures provide that the initial hearing is to be sched- uled for a date not less than 3 weeks from the date the landlord files the complaint. We were able to determine the initial hearing date for all but seven of the evictions we sampled. We found that 237 of the 270 evic- tions (88 percent) had the initial hearing after 3 weeks. The average for all 270 evictions was 4 weeks. Concerning the marshal’s part of the process, some perspective on the reasonableness of the elapsed time is possible through an analysis of evictions based on initial and reissued eviction orders. As earlier noted, an eviction order has a time limit of 35 calendar days and must be reis- sued if that period expires and the landlord still wants an eviction. We estimated that 54 percent of the 1990 evictions were carried out under the initial eviction order. These evictions, on average, took 25 days from the date of the eviction order. Those involving eviction orders that had to be reissued took about 83 days, which means the order, on average, had been reissued twice. Our analysis of the steps required in the eviction process, discussions Factors Lengthening with court officials and deputy marshals, and review of 277 randomly Time Neededto sampled 1990 evictions revealed several reasons why some evictions Complete Eviction take longer than others. As far as the court’s part of the eviction process is concerned, stays and trials are major factors affecting elapsed time. Process We estimate that stays were involved in about 33 percent of the fiscal year 1990 evictions. For our sample, these cases took, on average, 97 days from complaint to the issuance of the eviction order versus an elapsed time of 46 days for the cases not involving a stay. While trials do not occur often, they do significantly affect the elapsed time. Trials were held in 10 of the 270 sampled evictions (about 4 per- cent) where we could determine whether a trial occurred. These 10 cases took, on average, 112 days from complaint to the issuance of the eviction order versus an elapsed time of 61 days for the orders not involving a trial. According to a court official, another factor affecting elapsed time in the court’s part of the process is the failure of landlords to take required actions, such as assuring that a complaint is properly served on the Page 5 GAO/GGDQl-29 Tenant Evictions B242126 __.-- ..-- ..__.- -----. ---- tenant prior to the initial hearing. However, information on the fre- quency and impact of this factor was not available. Concerning the marshal’s part of the eviction process, we identified three major reasons for delays in executing evictions. First, the number of evictions depends on the number of days on which evictions are done. We determined that evictions were performed on 173 days during fiscal year 1990. Table 1.2 shows the number of days on which evictions were not done and why. Table 1.2: Noneviction Days During Period October 1,1989 - September 30, Number of days 1990 Evictions not Evictions scheduled Total nonevict. Reason scheduled but not done ____. ~- days Weekend 105 . 105 Holiday __-- -.-. (non-weekend) __-. 10 . -~.___--_----.~--~.-.- -..-..- 10 ..~~ Bad weather . 58 58 Operational (e.g., training) 2 --~___ 4 6 Unknown -~-. .- ___-___ 12 1 13 Totals 129 63 192 As shown, evictions are not scheduled for weekends and holidays, and bad weather is the primary reason for canceling scheduled eviction days. IJSMSdefines bad weather as a 50-percent chance of rain or an expected temperature below 25 degrees Fahrenheit. The weather fore- cast is obtained from the National Weather Service early on the sched- uled eviction day. Of the 13 days shown in the table as unknown reasons, 9 occurred in November and December 1989; this may reflect the marshal’s policy of not doing evictions around the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. These 2 months had 108 and 98 evictions respectively, compared to the next lowest month (181) and a monthly average of 247 for all of fiscal year 1990. A second major factor affecting the marshal’s part of the eviction pro- cess is the number of deputy marshals assigned to evictions. Officials told us that they generally had four deputies (two teams) doing evic- tions out of an authorized staff of 37 deputies during fiscal year 1990. They believe that two deputies should be present at each eviction so that one is inside and the other outside the premises to fully observe all aspects of the eviction. As to the overall number of deputies assigned to evictions, we were told that the remaining deputies were needed on Page 6 GAO/GGD-91-29 Tenant Evictions __ 1 B-242126 other duties , such as providing courtroom security and transporting prisoners. W e cannot determine how much time the deputy marshals spent on evic- tions in fiscal year 1990. This information is not separately recorded on overall reports or on indiv idual deputies ’ time and attendance records. O ffic ials in the marshal’s office told us that on various days during fiscal year 1990 there were more than two teams working on evic tions , but they could not tell us how often this occurred. Residential evic tions are scheduled to take 1 hour and are generally scheduled to s tart from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Busines s evic tions could be scheduled for longer than 1 hour. Some evic tions may take longer than the scheduled time, causing the deputies to run behind schedule and to work a longer day than planned. These fac tors suggest that a team can accomplish up to 7 evic- tions a day; 2 teams can do 14. During fiscal year 1990, there were 59 days when 14 or fewer evic tions were done and 114 days when over 14 evic tions were done. The average number of evic tions carried out per day was 17. Various fac tors could cause a team to do more or fewer evic tions than seven a day. Sometimes two evic tions are carried out at about the same time when, for example, two apartments in the same building are to be evic ted. Also, some evic tions take les s than an hour, s ince the tenant has already vacated the premises, requiring only a “walk-through” by the deputy marshals , or s ince the evic tion involves the removal of a small amount of personal property. On the other hand, ins tead of being assigned to an actual evic tion, the deputies sometimes perform pre- evic tion surveys to determine special arrangements that may be needed before scheduling the evic tion. This generally occurs when a busines s is involved. A third major fac tor affec ting elapsed time in the marshal’s area is the landlord’s failure to follow through on agreed-upon arrangements for the evic tions . O ffic ials in the marshal’s office told us that landlords often are a cause of delay s in executing evic tions . For example, the land- lord may not have the required number of movers on hand when the deputies arrive at the evic tion scene, despite having previous ly agreed on the number of movers to be present. If there are not enough movers, the evic tion is not done, and the evic tion order is canceled and returned to the court, If the landlord s till wants the evic tion done, the order must be reissued. Page 7 GAO/GGDQl-29 Tenant Evictions B-242126 There are other factors that affect how long the marshal takes to per- form evictions. For example, we were told that an increasing number of evictions involve suspected “crack houses.” These evictions entail working out cooperative arrangements with the District’s police department. Although there is no indication that it affected elapsed time in fiscal year 1990, the marshal does have an agreement with the District’s Department of Human Services to do no more than 60 evictions a day. According to USMS, the Department believes that any higher number would overburden its ability to provide emergency shelter for those evicted tenants who need it. The marshal is currently prohibited from contracting out for evictions Contracting for without congressional approval. The Department of Justice Appropria- Evictions Is Prohibited tion Act for 1991 prohibits any contracting out in fiscal years 1991 and Without Specific 1992 for law enforcement and litigating activities of USMS as well as other components of the Department of Justice unless the contracting Congressional out proposals are specifically approved by an Act of Congress. (Pub. L. Approval No. 101-515, section 212). The conference committee said that: “The enforcement of Federal law is an inherently governmental function which should not be contracted out to private industry. Furthermore, there are concerns that, after a decade in existence, in many instances, contracting out programs have failed to produce both desired management improvements and projected savings. Under the conference agreement, no positions, workyears or associated funding for the law enforcement and litigating components of the Department of Justice associ- ated with contracting out initiatives can be reduced unless specifically approved by the Congress. The conferees agree that it is incumbent upon the Administration to prove that future privatization proposals will produce savings and management improvements before such proposals are submitted to and approved by the Con- gress.” H.R. Rep. No. 909, 1Olst Cong., 2nd Sess. 62, 53 (1990). Besides the aforementioned prohibition, USMS officials told us that con- tracting out would probably be legal but it would be subject to challenge for a number of reasons. Thus, they would not agree to contracting out without first obtaining the approval of the Superior Court and the Department of Justice. Because of the short time frame for doing our work, we have not been able to develop and analyze all the information necessary to determine if, except for the prohibition in the appropriation act, contracting out Page 8 GAO/GGDOl-29 Tenant Evictions 1 B-242126 I / would be legal or appropriate. OMB’S preliminary v iews are that con- tracting out for evic tions along the lines described in USMS’ 1986 request for contract proposals would be inappropriate. OMBis concerned about (1) the possibility of private persons operating under color of law and having to deal with v iolent persons on the premises and (2) the extent to which the judgment of these persons may limit or eliminate appropriate government discretion. The Superior Court informed us that it would be inappropriate for the court to take a position on the contracting out issue. W hile at one time they favored the idea of having contractors do evic- tions , USMSoffic ials now believe that there is no need to contract out. On the basis of evic tion and other workload problems, additional deputy marshals are being assigned to the Dis tric t. In O c tober 1990, 24 new deputies completed training and became operational; another 17 are expected to become operational in January 199 1. Consequently, the marshal plans to assign sufficient deputies so that the evic tion backlog will be generally limited to evic tion orders under 3 days old and orders that have not been carried out for uncontrollable reasons, such as bad weather. O ffic ials in USMSand the marshal’s office believe they will be able, with the additional s taff, to execute all orders within the initial 35-day period except those for which nonservice was the fault of the landlord or for other uncontrollable reasons. They believe this I will be achieved in January when they expect to have 8 to 10 teams carrying out evic tions . W e discussed the information in this report with the head of the Court’s Landlord and Tenant Branch, the Marshal and the Chief Deputy Mar- shal for the Dis tric t of Columbia, and USMS'general counsel, who gener- ally agreed with the fac ts presented. As arranged with the committee, we plan no further dis tribution of this report until 30 days after the date of this letter, unles s you or your suc- cessor as Vice Chairman public ly announce its contents earlier. As that time, we will send copies to the Superior Court, the Dis tric t Marshal, IJSMS,and other interes ted parties . Page 9 GAO/GGDOl-29 Tenant Evictions ---~..-__.. B-242126 Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. If you have any questions about this report, please call me on 275-8389. Sincerely yours, L-u Dbyfz- Lowell Dodge Director, Administration of Justice Issues Page 10 GAO/GGD-91-29 Tenant Evictions Page 11 GAO/GGD-91-29 Tenant Evictions . Contents Letter Appendix I The Eviction Process Appendix II 16 The Eviction Process Illustrated Appendix III 18 Eviction Orders Subject to Service and Their Disposition During Fiscal Year 1990 Appendix IV 19 Sampling Errors for Estimates Used in This Report Appendix V 20 Major Contributors to This Report Tables Table 1.1: Elapsed Calendar Days for Evictions 4 Performed October 1,1989 - September 30,199O Table 1.2: Noneviction Days During Period October 1, 6 1989 - September 30,199O Table IV. 1: Confidence Intervals for Duration Estimates 19 (in Days) Table IV.2: Confidence Intervals for Population Estimates 19 for Number of Cases With Conditions Met (Population=2,966) Page 12 GAO/GGD-91-29 Tenant Evictions Contents Figures Figure II. 1: The Court’s Part of the Eviction Process 16 Figure 11.2:The Marshal’s Part of the Eviction Process 17 Abbreviations OMB Office of Management and Budget USMS United States Marshal Service Page 13 GAO/GGDOl-29 Tenant Evictions Annendix I The Eviction Process In general, the eviction process begins with the landlord or the land- lord’s representative filing a complaint for possession of real estate. (According to a court official, about 69,000 complaints were filed during fiscal year 1990.) Court officials will assign a case number to the com- plaint and set a hearing date for not less than 3 weeks from the com- plaint date. In the interim, the landlord is responsible for having the tenant served with the complaint at least 7 full days before the hearing date (excluding Sundays and legal holidays). An affidavit of service must be filed with the court at least 4 days before the hearing. While some hearings result in the judge granting a landlord or tenant request for a trial, most result in either an agreement reached between the landlord and the tenant or a default judgment. On the day of the hearing, the landlord and tenant may reach a settlement through negoti- ation. In a settlement, the tenant often agrees to pay rent due. When such an agreement is reached, the court enters judgment for the landlord but defers (stays) issuing the eviction order as long as the tenant com- plies with the agreement. If the tenant fails to comply, the landlord may request the court to issue the eviction order. The tenant is to be notified of the landlord’s intent to do so. A default judgment is entered when the tenant fails to appear for the hearing. The eviction order can be issued 2 days after the judgment, giving the tenant time to appeal. The U.S. Marshal for the District of Columbia is responsible for sched- uling and executing all eviction orders issued by the District’s Superior Court, Essentially, the marshal serves in the role typically served by a sheriff in other jurisdictions, The marshal is under the general supervi- sion of the Attorney General and LJSMS. As the system is designed, the marshal receives eviction orders for the court twice daily, stamps the period of time for service on the top and bottom parts of the order, and mails the bottom part to the tenant. Evic- tion orders can be served from 3 days (72 hours) up to 35 calendar days from the date of the order. This time span includes weekends and holi- days, with one exception: The final day cannot be on a weekend or hol- iday. If the order is not served or otherwise canceled during that period, it expires and the landlord must have it reissued if the eviction is still wanted. The reissued orders are also good for 35 calendar days. The tenant does not have to be advised of the landlord’s intent to have the order reissued unless 90 days have elapsed since the date of the judg- ment or the date any stay was lifted. Page 14 GAO/GGD-91-29 Tenant Evictions I . . Appendix 1 The Evktlon Procew The eviction orders are scheduled for service by geographic quadrant (e.g., northwest portion of the District), with the oldest orders being done first. Each eviction involves two deputy federal marshals who oversee movers arranged and paid for by the landlord. The landlord is to arrange for a sufficient number of movers so that the eviction can be completed in 1 hour. The marshal and the landlord determine the number of movers needed. Page 15 GAO/GGD-91-29 Tenant Evictions Appendix II The Eviction ProcessIllustrated Figure 11.1:The Court’s Part of the Eviction Process Landlord and Tenant Branch Hearing Landlord and Tenant D Branch of D.C. a Landlord Files Superb Court Complalnt t @ L Special Process Landlord Server Files Affidavit Tenant of Service With Landlord and Tenant Branch 0 Landlord Hires Special Process Server D ,&*l. Server Special Process Server Serves Summons and Complaint on Tenant Page 16 GAO/GGD91-29 Tenant Evictions Appendix II The Eviction Process Illuetrahd Flgure 11.2:The Marshal’s Part of the Eviction Process Landlord and Tenant Branch Marshals Service Contacts Landlord and Schedules Evlctlon Date and Landlord and TkW Tenant Branch @ Issues EZvlctlon Landlord Hires Order Movers Malls 72-Hour % Evictlon Notlce United States to Tenant I I Marshals Service Tenant Deputy Marshals, Landlord, and Movers Meet at Scheduled Time and Date to Evict Tenant Page 17 GAO/GGD91-29 Tenant Evictions Appendix III Ekiction OrdersSubjectto Serviceand Their ’ DispositionDuring l?iscaIYew 1990’ .-. On hand at beginning of fiscal year 1,392 Received durina the year 20,289 Available for disposition 21,681 Returned to the court during the year Evictions oerformed 2,966 Cancelled after beina scheduled for execution by USMS’ 3,116 Cancelled by landlords before being scheduled for executionb 5,514 Expired-not executed within 35 days of issuanceC 8,650 20,246 On hand at end of fiscal vear 1,435 *Reasons for cancellation include incorrect names or addresses on the eviction orders, payment of rent by tenants, and failure of landlords and/or movers to be at eviction sites at scheduled times. bNormally results when tenants pay rent %easons include bad weather limiting the number of days on which evictions can be performed, depu- ties normally working evictions being assigned to higher priority duties, too few deputies being assigned to evictions, and difficulty in scheduling dates and times with landlords for performrng evictions. ‘Numbers include both initial and reissued (alias) eviction orders. Page 18 GAO/GGD-91-29 Tenant Evictions . Ppe &&&ng Errors for EstimatesUsed in This Report Table IV.l: Confidence Intervals for Duration Estimates (In Days)a Lower Upper bound Estimate bound -.Full Sample (277 cases) Complaint to first eviction order 53 62 71 First order to eviction 47 52 57 Complaint to eviction -________ 104 114 124 Complaint to hearing _...~I__ 27 28 -- 29 Cases where first order was executed (146 cases) --.__ Order to eviction --__--- 23 25 27 -~ Cases with alias orders (126 cases) -.---.- -- Order -~-.__--. to eviction ____-- 76 83 __-__. 90 Cases with stays (88 cases) Complaint to order 70 97 --124 Cases with no stays -- ___- (182 cases) -- Complaint to order 42 46 50 Cases with trials (10 cases) -._______- Complaint to order ----. - ___.. 84 112 ___ __..- 140 Cases .---- with no trials (260 cases) Complaint to order 51 61 71 BTheconfidence interval is the estimate plus or minus the sampling error. Some numbers are based on less than the complete number of cases cited due to missing data. Table IV.2: Confidence Intervals for Population Estimates for Number of Lower Upper Cases With Conditions Met bound Estimate bound (Population=2,966)@ Initial order executed __..__ 1,398 1,563 - 1,728 Trials 45 107 169 Stays 788 942 1,096 Initial hearing more than 3 weeks after comolaint 2.430 2.538 2.646 aThe confidence interval is the estimate plus or minus the sampling error. Page 19 GAO/GGDBl-29 Tenant Evictions Appendix V Major Contributorsto This Report General Government Issues Division, Washington, Carl T. Trisler, Evaluator-in-Charge DC. Mary B. Hall, Evaluator Nelson S. Payne, Jr., Evaluator Barry Jay Seltser, Social Science Analyst Nancy Finley, Senior Attorney Office of General Counsel (Isless) Page 20 GAO/GGD91-29 Tenant Evictions * !’ ..-“.. _.I “.“l._ ..” .“,..-_-.~- ..-._l _-___ --.-~_---__ ,I ’‘f -- ..-_ --..- -..._ - .-.- -..-- .-.....-.--. - ---.. -.-_-.-- -.I--- -.---
District of Columbia: Information on Court-Ordered Tenant Evictions
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-12-28.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)