A new study from the University of Michigan documents the far-reaching costs of eviction filings for Pennsylvania tenants who had eviction cases filed against them but experienced a “best-case scenario” in court, meaning they had legal representation and their cases were dismissed, withdrawn, or won.

Eviction court filings negatively impacted the health, housing stability and economic prosperity of tenants years beyond their court date—even when the case did not result in an eviction judgment against the tenant. In the study, tenants listed the costs and losses they experienced after an eviction filing and rated the degree of impact of the various costs and losses.

“Simply being named in an eviction complaint is enough to trigger a cascade of consequences that cause lasting harm to tenants and their families,” said Alexa Eisenberg, a research fellow and lecturer at U-M’s School of Public Health.

“The collateral costs of eviction filings are not inevitable. State legislators can automatically seal eviction records from public view and implement other immediate policy changes that can mitigate the harm of eviction records and support the stability and well-being of residents across the state.”

Eisenberg co-authored the report, “Record Costs: Collateral Consequences of Eviction Court Filings in Pennsylvania,” with Kate Brantley, a research area specialist at U-M’s Housing Solutions for Health Equity. The research was supported by Community Legal Services of Philadelphia and Poverty Solutions at U-M.

Landlords increasingly rely on tenant screening companies and internet searches to apply blanket denials of applicants with eviction records. Eight in 10 research participants said their eviction filing limited their future housing options and prolonged their housing instability.

Among the tenants who moved after facing an eviction filing, 65% said a prospective landlord asked about their eviction record, and more than half said a landlord explicitly denied the tenant’s application because of their eviction filing. Tenants pay each time they submit a rental application, so unsuccessful applications rack up excess fees.

“(W)hen we go to find new housing, we can’t because we have these (filings) on our records, and that’s wrong … I won (my) case … and it’s still following me. Why?” said one tenant in the study.

Some tenants with eviction records moved into substandard or hazardous units to avoid or emerge from homelessness. Participants in the study who remained in their housing were generally dissatisfied with their housing quality and endured persistent eviction threats. Most said they would move to a better housing situation if they could, yet the majority did not search and many anticipated challenges securing new housing they could afford.

“Eviction records are not merely a reflection of renters’ instability—they are also a cause of it,” Brantley said. “Punitive filing and landlord screening practices exacerbate the effects of Pennsylvania’s housing crisis, making it nearly impossible for tenants with eviction records to find safe, decent and affordable housing for their families.”

Holly Beck, divisional supervising attorney at Community Legal Services of Philadelphia, said the research shows “what we hear over and over from the tenants we represent: That even when a tenant wins in court, they are routinely denied for rental housing because it’s the eviction filing itself that is reported to future landlords.”

The researchers point to ways Pennsylvania legislators can stabilize communities and reduce the long-term costs of eviction filings, stressing the importance of passing legislation to seal eviction records—especially for cases that are dismissed, withdrawn or won by the tenant. Currently, eviction court filings remain public record indefinitely in Pennsylvania, even when the records are incomplete or inaccurate and regardless of case outcomes.

“Because tenant screening companies can scrape eviction records as soon as the information is public, sealing at the point of filing is the most effective approach to limiting unfair tenant screening practices,” Eisenberg said. “Landlords’ use of tenant screening not only exacerbates housing instability, it also perpetuates housing discrimination against Black women and children who are disproportionately filed against. Sealing eviction records is a housing justice priority.”