By Pilar Steward, PBI Intern
Right to Counsel (RTC) programs, which jurisdictions across the United States have enacted, are both crucial to helping low-income tenants remain in their homes and provide a well-established return on investment to the governments that fund them. Yet despite their proven effectiveness, RTC programs remain severely underfunded, forcing many to limit eligibility and ultimately failing on the promise of a true “right” to counsel. Now with the expiration of COVID-19 emergency funds and threats to federal and local civil legal aid funding, these programs are at a crossroads. To ensure the survival of RTC programs and establish sustainable support for tenants, stakeholders should reevaluate their models. Pro bono advocates, while not a substitute for public funding and other support, can play a vital role in initiating and reinforcing local RTC programs.
Pro Bono Institute has been following this issue since the first law guaranteeing RTC for income-eligible tenants in New York City in 2017, through the end of the pandemic-era eviction moratorium in 2021, to the present. The pandemic brought national attention to the impacts of the eviction crisis, and with that came a flourishing of resources for tenants, including emergency funds to cover rent, and growing support for tenant representation in eviction proceedings. As of July 2025, 19 cities, 2 counties, and 5 states have enacted RTC legislation to assist eligible tenants. But concerns remain that if funding dissipates, many tenants will struggle without counsel when facing the peril of losing their home.
The Promise of RTC
Each year, 3.6 million eviction cases are filed in the United States, according to 2018 national data from Princeton University’s Eviction Lab led by Matthew Desmond – the most recent comprehensive dataset available. Among these cases, landlords are often represented in court, while almost all tenants are unrepresented. In 2013, only one percent of New York City tenants had legal representation. But after the city’s unprecedented commitment to providing legal service to low income New Yorkers, representation numbers jumped to 27 percent in just three years, and in 2017, NYC enacted the nation’s first Right to Counsel program. As of FY2024, the NYC’s Office of Civil Justice reports that 42 percent of tenants now receive legal representation, and of those represented, 72 to 93 percent successfully avoid eviction. Additionally, they have found that since the beginning of the program to the present day, eviction filings have decreased by nearly 50 percent, indicating a shift in the power imbalance between landlords and tenants.
New York City isn’t the only success story. From 2011 to 2019, approximately one to two percent of all Cleveland tenants in eviction proceedings were represented. When Cleveland’s RTC became available in 2020, the number of represented tenants rose to 10 percent, and by the end of 2024, 16 percent of eligible tenants were represented. Stout Risius Ross, an economic consulting firm that conducts ROI analyses of RTC programs, finds this significant increase a direct result of Cleveland’s RTC program.
Despite the overwhelming evidence that most tenants who receive full representation successfully avoid disruptive displacement, and the growth of RTC programs around the country, representation remains limited. As of November 2024, still only an average of four percent of tenants across the United States are represented in eviction cases, compared to 83 percent of landlords.
Investing in RTC Programs
After conducting an ROI analysis, estimates that Cleveland’s RTC program has resulted in a return on investment between $2.62 and $3.11 for every dollar it spends on RTC; these cost savings quantify the economic value of retaining residency, mitigating homeless shelter and service costs, savings on out-of-home foster care placement, and reducing Medicaid spending. Similarly, in analyzing ROI in Maryland, Stout finds that for every dollar Maryland has spent on its RTC program,
Stout’s impact calculations across multiple RTC programs find that every dollar spent on legal representation to low-income tenants returns between $2.76 to $4.80 in savings.
This economic justification for RTC helps explain why RTC laws often receive broad support at the time of passage. For example, in Connecticut, RTC passed the House 105-39 and the Senate 22-13; in Maryland, it passed the House 94-42 and the Senate 30-15; and in Washington, it passed the House 72-26 and the Senate 27-22.
Funding and Implementation Barriers
Across all jurisdictions with RTC programs, implementation varies with many relying on a mix of funding models drawn from multiple sources. Program designs often use varying combinations of state/city/county general revenue, federal COVID relief funds, and private support. The COVID relief funds that many of these jurisdictions utilize, however, are either expired as of the end of 2024, or soon to be expired by September 2025. A few cities have implemented unique strategies, such as Boulder, Colorado electing to tax landlord rental licenses, and Jersey City, New Jersey levying developer fees, both of which wholly fund their RTC programs.
But despite this variety in funding sources, RTC programs across the country face a consistent obstacle: chronic underfunding. In most jurisdictions, RTC programs are failing to meet tenant needs due to inadequate infrastructure and a lack of dedicated, reliable funding. Those involved in such programs have reported that in jurisdictions without the necessary resources to build infrastructure and sufficiently support staff, they cannot implement the law both promptly and in its entirety.
As seen in the “eligibility req’s” column of this chart from the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel, most jurisdictions have narrowed the scope of who has access to legal services in order to control intake. Most RTC legislation includes some eligibility requirements limiting services to those at 100 or 200 percent below the federal poverty line, those with children in the home, those on public assistance, or those in public housing. Until representation is available to all tenants who need it, not just those who meet narrow eligibility requirements, the “right” to counsel is falling short.
The Cost of Defunding Civil Legal Aid*
Despite the demonstrated financial benefits of RTC programs and the urgent need for sustained funding – particularly as COVID emergency funds expire – civil legal aid funding is under threat. The Trump administration’s FY2026 proposed budget released on May 30, 2025, would Helping more than five million Americans annually, LSC currently provides funding to 130 independent nonprofit legal aid programs across the U.S. On July 15, 2025, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) included $300 million in funding for LSC in their FY26 appropriations. This represents a 46% cut from LSC’s FY25 funding of $560 million, taking LSC back to its 1999 funding level despite an increased need for civil legal aid in the past two decades.
Amid the proposed budget cuts from the Trump administration and the House Appropriations subcommittee on CJS, on July 17, 2025, the Senate Appropriations Committee included $566 million in funding for LSC when they approved the CJS Fiscal Year 2026 appropriations legislation. Prior to the vote, “Dear Colleague” letters in support of robust funding for LSC were endorsed by 48 bipartisan members of the Senate and 154 bipartisan members of the House of Representatives, signaling continued bipartisan support for civil legal aid. It remains to be seen how much funding LSC will ultimately receive for FY2026.
However, threats to civil legal aid are not just at the federal level. For example, San Francisco Mayor’s budget for FY2025-26 proposed cuts to seven legal aid organizations, one of them, Open Door Legal, faced $2.2 million in cuts which accounted for one third of its funding. Fortunately, the Board of Supervisors, given a minute portion of the budget to adjust, restored $4.2 million in funding to general civil legal services as of June 28, 2025. The Washington D.C. Mayor’s FY2026 budget proposed a similar fate, cutting legal aid by 67 percent. The budget would reduce funding of the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) from $26 million to a mere $5 million, threatening thousands of low-income residents with housing instability. On July 14, 2025, the D.C. city council stepped in and voted to restore this important funding, as they have for years prior.
These budgets propose deep cuts to social assistance funding that provide both legal and housing support. As of July 21, 2025, the House Appropriations Committee passed a FY2026 spending bill that would decrease funding for HUD’s affordable housing, homelessness, and community development programs by $939 million from FY25 – providing no funding for HUD’s Eviction Protection Grant Program (EPGP) which funds legal service providers representing tenants. The Senate Appropriations Committee is expected to review the draft bill on July 24, 2025.
Even with the inclusion of $300 million for LSC funding by the House Appropriations subcommittee on CJS, LSC still estimates that nearly 3 million fewer Americans would receive civil legal assistance. Although funding to civil legal services was restored in San Francisco, the Board of Supervisors voted to redirect $34 million in the Our City, Our Home fund from permanent homeless housing to temporary shelter, as well as ban RV parking for more than two hours. As these budgets – and similar ones across the U.S. – are approved, millions of Americans needing crucial legal and financial assistance will lose access to support.
But not just low-income citizens will be impacted by these proposed budgets. It’s been proven many times over that civil legal aid provides a substantial return on investment for communities at large. LSC has complied over 50 studies that demonstrate how meaningful investment in civil legal aid has paid for itself through loss prevention, taxpayer savings, and direct financial wins. For example, Open Door Legal, the San Francisco civil legal aid organization mentioned above, stated that the proposed budget cuts would increase the city’s homelessness by four percent, ultimately costing the city ten times more than the cuts to legal aid themselves, due to shelter and emergency services costs. Additionally, a 2016 study of civil legal aid in Florida found that Florida legal aid programs helped clients recover over $264.3 million in direct benefits, like recovered wages, child support, and Social Security payments. More information about the ROI of civil legal aid can be found here. In short, civil legal aid holistically benefits not only those in need, but tax-paying citizens and their governments.
Moving Forward
However, the threat of continued budget cuts remains, emphasizing the importance of re-evaluating the funding models that support many RTC programs to ensure their survival. Notably, Louisville and Minneapolis shifted from the temporary federal Covid funding that kick-started their RTC programs to permanent local funding, ensuring the sustainability of their programs. Similarly, in light of the proposed federal budget cuts to the LSC, Arizona state lawmakers have allocated state funds to civil legal aid for the first time in their history, as of July 5, 2025. They hope the allocated $3 million that is now going towards civil legal aid organizations will help fill the gaps left by the potential $16 million in federal funding cuts.
The 2025 Housing Policy Debate analysis of the design and implementation of RTC caution that without data about cost savings and outcomes, RTC programs risk rollback or underfunding. Especially in a climate of potential government funding cuts that impact civil legal aid, advocates can utilize the substantial ROI data provided to mobilize local and state governments to enact and sustain vital programs like RTC for tenants.
While advocating for public funding is critical, private philanthropy and pro bono contributions from the legal community can further cement the support tenants need. As seen in Cleveland, their RTC program is a partnership between United Way of Greater Cleveland and The Legal Aid Society of Cleveland, both private non-profit organizations. Although Cleveland’s program benefits from some public funding, its program model emphasizes the crucial role private funding plays in the longevity of these programs. Private funding coupled with pro bono support can help fill gaps left by public funding cuts. Combined, these sources create a more robust and established precedent for right to counsel programs nationally.
After thorough analyses of various RTC programs nationally, a Stout report from January 2025 concludes that The Legal Aid Society of Cleveland is a national leader in how to effectively implement an RTC program. Cleveland’s model includes exploring innovative interventions, advocating for program sustainability and expansion, and prioritizing a data-driven approach to handle client capacity. But even the most acclaimed programs on paper come with significant challenges. Implementation for Cleveland, despite its innovations, is still burdened by financial constraints and, despite its success, there are many left unserved, as Cleveland has the strictest eligibility requirements out of all RTC jurisdictions.
Pro Bono Support
In jurisdictions without right to counsel legislation, pro bono partnerships can be critical in ensuring tenants are still receiving access to justice. For example, the D.C. Housing Right to Counsel Pilot Project is a partnership between six pro bono groups to substantially expand representation for tenants.
Pro bono leaders and volunteers can also play a vital role in advocating for sustainable solutions.
There are a number of opportunities and resources that can assist. These include:
- Partnering with local organizations to volunteer and provide pro bono to those who cannot afford an attorney and risk eviction.
- Utilizing Washington Appleseed’s guide to developing a pilot RTC project and NYC’s Coalition Right to Counsel Toolkit, in order to assist in building out state and local RTC infrastructure.
- Supporting local policies such as Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine’s proposal.
- Employing the National Coalition for Civil Right to Counsel resources, including:
- An extensive list of implementation and outreach resources for new jurisdictions looking to establish RTC.
- Model legislation for tenant right to counsel to help guide comprehensive legislative proposals.
- Community-based organizing resources.
Conclusion
While RTC programs for tenants consistently provide an ROI, they’re still critically underfunded. Tenants who are entitled to legal representation under current RTC programs are still left to defend themselves, due to insufficient staffing and support of RTC. With the expiration of COVID relief funds and reduced government appropriations, local advocacy and nonprofit partnerships are more important than ever. In jurisdictions without an established RTC program, and even in jurisdictions that have RTC but lack sufficient funding to represent all eligible tenants, pro bono volunteers remain essential to representing tenants in eviction proceedings.
*The reported status of LSC funding is current as of July 21, 2025. Visit the LSC website for updates.