Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
REPORT TO THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
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
REPORT TO THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE STATE OF 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
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
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.
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
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)
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
APPENDIX 3:The full text of the joint legislative resolution
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
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)
The Chief Judge’s Hearings on Civil Legal Services
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)
The Chief Judge’s Hearings on Civil Legal Services
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
APPENDIX 13:Public notice of the Chief Judge’s Hearings posted
on the Unified Court System’s website
The Chief Judge’s Hearings on Civil Legal Services
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
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
APPENDIX 14:Public notice of the Chief Judge’s Hearings published in the New York Law Journal
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
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.
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
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.”
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
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.