Tenant information frictions and default judgments in eviction court

Last registered on March 10, 2026

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
Tenant information frictions and default judgments in eviction court
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0018055
Initial registration date
March 09, 2026

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
March 10, 2026, 10:38 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
University of Pennsylvania

Other Primary Investigator(s)

Additional Trial Information

Status
On going
Start date
2025-01-13
End date
2026-03-31
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
I consider the decision to appear in eviction court as dependent on (1) whether the tenant is aware that a court date is scheduled, which I call
awareness frictions and (2) conditional on awareness, whether the tenant believes that appearing in court will lead to better outcomes, which I call belief-based frictions. To test for the role of these information frictions, I conduct a field experiment targeting Philadelphia tenants who have been filed against for an eviction and are awaiting their court hearing. I randomize tenants into three groups: those who receive no information, those who receive information to reduce awareness frictions, and those who receive information to reduce
awareness and belief-based frictions.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Bi, Kathy . 2026. "Tenant information frictions and default judgments in eviction court." AEA RCT Registry. March 10. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.18055-1.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Tenants are assigned to one of three groups:
1. Control group: receives no text messages
2. Treatment 1 group: receives a series of text messages containing logistical information about their court obligation, including the date, time, location, and what qualifies as an appearance. This treatment is intended to reduce awareness frictions.
3. Treatment 2 group: receives the same logistical information as the Treatment 1 group, along with additional information about the potential benefits of appearing in court: on average, tenants who appear in court are less likely to be formally evicted, have more time
in unit before lockout, and owe their landlord less. This treatment is intended to reduce belief-based frictions.

Text messages are delivered 14, 7, 3, and 1 day(s) prior to the scheduled court appearance.
Intervention Start Date
2025-01-13
Intervention End Date
2026-03-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
1.) Tenant behavioral outcomes: appear in court, default judgment, case withdrawn. 2.) Tenant case outcomes: formally evicted within 30, 60, 90, 120 days of final judgment, ever formally evicted, and protected days in unit
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
I define a formal eviction as a legal obligation to move out. If a landlord files for possession, as in $99\%$ of filings, and the tenant does not appear in court, they cannot avoid a formal eviction. Similarly, if a tenant appears in court, has their case heard in front of a judge, and receives a possession judgment, they are formally evicted. If the tenant and landlord sign a ``pay-to-stay'' JBA, the tenant might receive a possession judgment, but is only counted as formally evicted if they breach their agreement. Lastly, if the case is resolved by a ``vacate-by'' JBA, then the tenant is formally evicted on the specified date.

I define protected days in unit as the number of days between filing and the earliest date at which the landlord legally regains possession of the unit.\footnote{I use this measure because actual move-out dates are not observed. Nevertheless, the measure is informative because it captures the length of time before the tenant is legally required to vacate.} \footnote{Results are robust to instead defining protected days in unit as the number of days between the \textbf{final judgment} date and possession date.}

For tenants who are formally evicted, this date is the binding possession date. For tenants who are not formally evicted, I assume the relevant possession date is the lease end date. This assumption yields an upper bound on the effect of court proceedings on days in unit, as it treats all non-evicted tenants as if they could lawfully remain until lease expiration.

To construct a lower bound, I maintain the same definition for formally evicted tenants but modify the assumption for non-evicted tenants with a JBA (approximately $80\%$ of non-evicted tenants). For these tenants, I assume that the absence of a recorded breach reflects early departure after realizing they could not satisfy the agreement’s requirements. Had the tenant remained, noncompliance would have occurred at the first binding deadline specified in the JBA, at which point the landlord would have regained possession. I therefore set the possession date equal to that first binding deadline. For non-evicted tenants without a JBA, I continue to use the lease end date, as these tenants avoid a possession judgment entirely. The true value of protected days in unit lies between these bounds.

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Tenants are randomized into treatment groups and their subsequent behavior and outcomes are observed via the court docket.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization done in office by a computer. Randomization is stratified by whether the contested rental unit is located within a Right-to-
Counsel (RTC) zip code. Stratification is necessary because filings in RTC-designated areas differ along several dimensions:(1) RTC zip codes were selected based on tenant vulnerability and housing instability, (2) eligible low-income tenants in these areas have access to free legal representation, which may influence appearance rates and case outcomes, and (3) all tenants in RTC areas already receive outreach about taking advantage of RCT, which may act as an alternative source of notification and information. Within each stratum, filings are assigned to one of the three experimental groups with equal probability.
Randomization Unit
Filing. This is to avoid within-filing spillovers; suppose one tenant in a filing (housing unit) is randomized into treatment and the other is not. The control group tenant is likely to also be exposed to the treatment (hear about the text), affecting their court appearance decision and invalidating my study design.
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
1500 filings per experimental arm
Sample size: planned number of observations
1875 filings per experimental arm (roughly 1.25 defendants per filing)
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
1500 filings control, 1500 filings treatment group 1 (awareness frictions), 1500 filings treatment group 2 (awareness + belief-based frictions)
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board
IRB Approval Date
2024-12-16
IRB Approval Number
856787