Effectiveness of Emergency Rental Assistance in Eviction Prevention: Focusing on Nonpayment Evictions in Oregon

• In Event: Housing Stability and Financial Well-Being

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, widespread shutdowns and restrictions on gatherings were implemented to prevent the spread of the virus, leading to reduced incomes, rising unemployment, and a prolonged economic downturn. For the purpose of public health and the tenants’ housing stability, the eviction moratoria were launched at the federal and state levels; however, these moratoria were lifted before people had sufficiently recovered financially to pay off their past-due balances accumulated during the shutdowns and pay their current and future rent on time.

To prevent the potential eviction tsunami, the U.S. Department of the Treasury launched the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERA) to assist tenants with incomes at or below 80% of the area median income who experienced financial hardship. While it was expected that ERA would help prevent evictions, few studies have empirically examined the program's effectiveness in reducing the risk of eviction filings and judgments. Receiving ERA funds might not necessarily guarantee protection from eviction. In some cases, tenants faced eviction actions despite receiving assistance. As an example of Oregon, an ERA application could be submitted after the eviction case was filed. Additionally, the amount of ERA funds might be insufficient to cover the full balance owed. Other factors included tenants being unable to pay subsequent rent or violations of lease terms other than nonpayment.

This study examines the effectiveness of Oregon’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (OERAP) in mitigating nonpayment evictions using a novel data set that links OERAP application records with eviction court data. Specifically, this study aims to answer the following research questions: Were the ERA and Safe Harbor effective in eviction prevention and diversion for ERA applicant households? To answer our research question, we will examine the following analytical questions: [1] How many nonpayment evictions were filed during the pandemic housing emergency period, for applicants and nonapplicants? [2] Are evictions prevented or diverted for OERAP fund recipients? When do evictions occur, what are the outcomes? [3] Given the complementary policy of Safe Harbor, what is the rate of eviction for OERAP applicants who were denied funds but could employ Safe Harbor while they applied?

Findings indicate that OERAP contributed to eviction reduction, both by directly enabling recipients to pay past-due rent and by indirectly allowing OERAP applicants to seek alternative financial resources during the application process, aided by Oregon’s Safe Harbor Policy. However, some tenants not only remained at risk of eviction despite receiving assistance but also failed to apply for OERAP even though they were at risk of nonpayment eviction.

Author

• Minji Cho, Portland State University
  Presenting Author