← Project Guardian
Working Paper 03 · Framework · Updated September 2026

Three Ownership Conditions, Three Intervention Starting Points

How ownership evidence connects communities to the services each property may need

Why This Matters
The three-condition framework turns a probable heirs' property inventory into an intervention plan. Unresolved estates point toward probate and title resolution. Multiple-owner records point toward owner identification and stabilization. At-risk records point toward preventive succession planning. The distinction helps communities build the right capacity before outreach begins.

Abstract

Project Guardian separates three screened ownership conditions: unresolved estate, multiple owners, and at risk. Each condition represents a different intervention starting point. This paper compares current examples from Duval County, Florida; Camden County, New Jersey; Jefferson County, Kentucky; and Jefferson County, Arkansas. The county category mixes differ sharply. Camden's corrected exclusive analysis also shows that unresolved-estate concentration falls across tract income quintiles, identifying a clear service-placement question. Jefferson County's death-record screening shows how additional evidence can redirect a property from preventive outreach to probable unresolved-estate review. Together, the findings demonstrate the framework's practical value: communities can estimate the capacity they need, place services where screened need is concentrated, and update the intervention queue as stronger evidence becomes available.

1. The three conditions

Screened conditionWhat the record suggestsIntervention starting pointStill requires validation
Unresolved estateA prior owner appears deceased and the ownership record has not been resolved into a current, stable form.Estate resolution, heir identification, probate navigation, title clearing, urgent loss prevention when needed.Death, legal heirs, probate status, occupancy, liens, and the family's goals.
Multiple ownersThe current record shows several owners or a compressed multiple-owner signal such as Et al.Owner identification, family engagement, governance, mediation, partition prevention, title review.Whether owners are relatives, whether the record is complete, each person's interest, occupancy, and conflict.
At riskThe record names an individual owner and meets the preventive screen through long tenure or a qualifying combination of tenure and property-record signals.Wills, estate planning, beneficiary or deed review where appropriate, homestead review, preventive outreach.Whether the named owner is living, current owner identity, household goals, existing estate documents, eligibility, and legal advice.

Table 1. Three screened ownership conditions and where each one leads.

2. The mix changes by county

Duval, FL
10.97% / 81.54% / 7.48%
Camden, NJ
21.06% / 6.49% / 72.45%
Jefferson, KY
14.94% / 4.27% / 80.79%
Jefferson, AR
0.44% / 62.14% / 37.42%
Unresolved estate
Multiple owners
At risk
CountyEligible denominatorTotal screenedUnresolvedMultiple ownersAt riskScreened prevalence
Duval, FL268,30432,6703,58526,6402,44512.18%
Camden, NJ144,3154,5119502933,2683.13%
Jefferson, KY229,8048,6001,2853676,9483.74%
Jefferson, AR39,2033,859172,3981,4449.84%

Figure 1. Category mix in four current Project Guardian county examples. Compares program composition, not definitive prevalence across counties.

Duval's screening is dominated by multiple-owner records. Jefferson County, Kentucky is dominated by the at-risk condition. Camden's corrected exclusive hierarchy also produces a large at-risk group, while the older tract-fingerprint file used a different, nonexclusive construction and must be kept separate. Jefferson County, Arkansas contains a large multiple-owner group and a substantial at-risk group. These mixes imply different staffing, legal partnerships, outreach messages, and time horizons.

3. Unresolved-estate concentration changes across income quintiles

In Camden County's corrected exclusive tract analysis, unresolved-estate concentration falls sharply across income quintiles. The lowest-income quintile contains 500 unresolved-estate records among 18,086 eligible residential-family parcels, or 27.6 per 1,000. The highest-income quintile contains 13 among 35,577 parcels, or 0.4 per 1,000. Using the unrounded rates, the lowest-income rate is about 76 times the highest-income rate.

Lowest income
27.6
2nd quintile
8.4
3rd quintile
3.8
4th quintile
2.8
Highest income
0.4

Figure 2. Dominant unresolved-estate records per 1,000 eligible residential-family parcels across Camden County tract income quintiles. Source: Project Guardian corrected exclusive income-quintile summary.

The intermediate quintiles step down from 8.4 to 3.8 to 2.8 unresolved-estate records per 1,000. The pattern identifies where affordable probate, title-clearing, document retrieval, and heir-identification capacity may be most needed. It supports targeted county validation, outreach, and service placement. The analysis describes a tract-level association. It does not show that income caused an ownership condition or determine the circumstances of an individual family.

4. County findings that lead directly to action

PlaceEvidenceProgram question
Duval County, FL26,640 of 32,670 screened parcels are in the multiple-owner condition in the 12 August 2026 county summary.How much owner identification, family engagement, mediation, and partition-prevention capacity is available at neighborhood scale?
Jefferson County, KYOf 11,018 owner records submitted from the 6,948-property at-risk cohort, 1,144 (10.4%) matched as deceased. On 169 properties, every submitted owner matched as deceased.How quickly can the 169 properties be validated against county title and probate records and connected to estate-resolution support?
Jefferson County, AR2,277 screened parcels are vacant. Of those, 368 are in the mapped 1% annual-chance flood area.Which vacant properties need title work, hazard review, stabilization, or acquisition support first?

5. Et al is a finding

Et al is an ownership finding. It tells us that the displayed ownership record includes other people whose names are not shown. The phrase supplies multiple-owner evidence and also identifies a practical limit: outreach cannot begin responsibly until the other owners are identified. At scale, Et al helps quantify the need for owner research and supports an owner-identification step before family engagement, mediation, partition prevention, or legal work.

6. Limitations

These are screening categories built from property and ownership records. They do not establish legal status. County source systems vary, and some files compress owners or omit details. The four county examples were not produced from one identical source package on one date. The Camden exclusive hierarchy supersedes the older nonexclusive category-count file for category totals, while the older tract file remains useful for its separately defined neighborhood fingerprints. Death-record matches are person-level screening signals; they do not establish heirs' property, probate status, legal heirs, or the absence of an owner omitted from the source record. Cross-county comparisons and intervention decisions must preserve these boundaries.
Summary
Together, the county examples show the practical value of the three-condition framework. It translates screened records into distinct work queues for estate resolution, multi-owner stabilization, and preventive succession planning. Camden's income pattern adds a service-placement finding: unresolved-estate concentration is highest in the lowest-income tracts, where affordable probate and title-resolution capacity may be especially important. Category mix estimates the balance of capacity a community may need, while neighborhood evidence and NEXUS help determine where that capacity should be focused. Jefferson County's death-record results show how the framework can respond when new evidence arrives: the 169 properties where every submitted owner matched as deceased now warrant probable unresolved-estate review, pending county title and probate validation. That ability to update the intervention queue is central to Project Guardian's usefulness — better evidence leads directly to a more appropriate next action.
Data and Methods Used in This Draft
  • Project Guardian national county summaries, algorithm v4, 12 August 2026: Duval County, Florida and Jefferson County, Kentucky.
  • Project Guardian Camden County corrected exclusive dominant-category pipeline and Phase 1 residential denominator files.
  • Project Guardian Jefferson County, Arkansas 2026 Regrid-only screening summary, FEMA flood overlap, and Pine Bluff ward summaries.
  • Project Guardian Camden County corrected exclusive income-quintile summary and Phase 1 eligible residential-family parcel denominators, used for the unresolved-estate concentration figure.
  • Project Guardian, Jefferson County, Kentucky at-risk cohort death-record reconciliation, 1 September 2026: 11,018 submitted owner records and 169 strict probable unresolved-estate-review properties.
  • Regrid national parcel data and local county assessor and property records, used for ownership, tenure, and property-value signals.
  • U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey and Decennial Census, used for household income and tract-level context.
Release Boundary

These are working papers based on Project Guardian analysis files. Counts may change when source files are refreshed, county records are added, or screening rules are revised. Every public release should carry the source date, denominator, geography, and method version.