Be aware of the wide scope of changes that will be required of legal services providers.

For decades, civil legal aid providers representing tenants have had scarce resources (in some places, they have had no funding other than what is provided by the federal government through the Legal Services Corporation). This has led legal services programs to “triage” cases, meaning that they provide either limited legal services or no services most of the time while providing full representation to only a small number of cases that are perceived to have the most merit. This long-standing triage practice has created a culture where some legal aid providers may feel that only a small portion of cases should receive full representation. But for the reasons described in Section 3.4, full representation is both our standard for eviction RTC and the standard for all enacted laws to date.

These can include expanding office space for staff expansion and working with courts to secure space for intakes and consultation with clients.

These include expanding phone and computer systems, legal research platforms, internal case management systems, and grant/funding management systems. Technological changes can be even more critical in jurisdictions that still have remote proceedings, where providers may need to make changes to support remote court appearances, staff working from home, and remote client interviews and appearances.

These can include updates to intake and interview protocols, and changes to the internal structure of the organization to account for additional supervisory and line attorney needs (ex: line attorney training, supervisory training, caseload limits, and creation of new units to work on additional types of cases covered by the eviction RTC law such as appeals, administrative proceedings, and affirmative cases). Programs should be prepared to change data collection practices to help gather more information and sustain the program. This includes data that can help stand up other programs that pair well with eviction RTC (such as robust rental assistance) by demonstrating how rental assistance improves eviction RTC outcomes. In St. Louis for example, landlords are more willing to work with tenant attorneys when rental assistance is part of the conversation.

These can include the creation and maintenance of centralized intake systems and regular meetings to address systemic issues throughout implementation. In Maryland for example, a coordinated intake line, administered by Civil Justice, Inc., and 211 program through United Way, has been a successful process change that makes intake easier for tenants and gathers information in order to route them to a legal services provider that has the capacity to take the case.

These can include providers working with courts, tenants, and eviction RTC coordinators to address broader issues. This is a major change that providers in San Francisco experienced: a closer working relationship with the courts to discuss practices and processes.

Passing the law is only the first step: after enactment, legal aid programs need to continue advocating for sufficient and sustainable funding to ensure the program’s longevity and effectiveness. Most programs are funded through general revenue, which means that each year there will be an appropriations process that decides how much funding eviction RTC will get. In Cleveland, for example, providers maintain a steady stream of press coverage about the program to regularly remind policymakers that the program is working and that it requires sustainable funding.

One state’s program administrator that receives the funding and distributes it to legal aid providers observed, “We did not fully appreciate the administrative burden, for us and the [providers], that would come with multiple funding sources. Had we understood the complexity this would add to the first year of implementation, we may have pushed harder for a single funding source.”