Create multiple intake options

Creating multiple ways for tenants to apply for services can help with the takeup rate. For example, tenants should be able to do intake through an application at a local provider, by calling a centralized hotline, or by filling out an online form, or when they arrive at court. These systems need to be linked to avoid tenants applying to different providers or having to go through multiple intakes. 

Limit referrals

Providers should limit the amount of referrals or hand-offs that a particular client experiences during intake. When a client is passed around from service provider to service provider, they can get discouraged or get lost in the mix. 

Create a centralized intake system

In jurisdictions with multiple eviction RTC legal services providers, such as in a statewide program or a larger local jurisdiction, a centralized intake system might be necessary. San Francisco, Connecticut, and Maryland use centralized intake systems so that a tenant can answer a series of questions and be connected with the right provider. It can be beneficial to include an intake number on the summons (Washington) or on any right to counsel notice going out to tenants (Connecticut). 

Consider provider capacity BEFORE advertising that intake is open, and have a plan if intake has to be closed.

Outreach about eviction RTC and how/when tenants can apply is an essential component of implementation. However, eviction RTC requires legal services providers to make sure they hire enough staff to take on all of the new clients. Notifying tenants that intake is open only to turn them away due to provider capacity limitations is harmful to the successful rollout of eviction RTC. Overloading intake can occur gradually as eviction filings increase, or it can happen rapidly when tenants learn about eviction RTC through a "know your rights" training, for example. It is therefore crucial to plan carefully. In the event you do have to close intake, have a plan for doing so. 

• If a provider has a good working relationship with the court, the court might be open to adjourning all cases for a period of time. This would affect all cases, not just those where clients are eligible for eviction RTC, so it may meet more resistance.  Alternatively, courts could ask each tenant whether they need an attorney and adjourn cases on an individual basis. 

• Depending on the law in your jurisdiction, file a post-judgment motion to reopen / set aside cases that were lost during the closure: Depending on the jurisdiction, once a provider reopens intake, there may be eligible tenants who did not get an attorney due to intake closure and who lost their case. Depending on the law in your jurisdiction, It’s worth filing a motion to reopen / set aside such cases and argue that the person tried to exercise their RTC at a time when legal services were unavailable. Consider whether you might find applicable court practices or case law in another context that supports reopening the eviction post judgment: for example, courts in Connecticut have recognized the ability to open the eviction post-judgment when emergency rental assistance funds come through after an eviction judgment. 

• Develop guidance materials that tenants can use during the closure. In Connecticut, advocates created the CT Eviction Guide and explored adding this resource to the mandatory notice that tenants receive.