What are options for phasing in eviction RTC? 

Zip codes / neighborhoods

This approach focuses on areas with the largest number of eviction filings or the greatest amount of neighborhood instability. However, it can be frustrating for both tenants and legal services programs when tenants with serious cases seek help but happen to be outside the currently-served zip codes.

• In Philadelphia, the Reinvestment Fund conducted an independent analysis to determine the best way to phase in the RTC program by zip code. The report was publicly released to avoid tensions among council members who may have been concerned about the program not coming to their district initially. The initial zip codes were based on the number of filings, rate of eviction, and percentage of families in poverty. Legal aid providers continue to help people who are not in an eviction RTC neighborhood/zip code, including through a lawyer of the day program, support with rental assistance, a hotline, financial counseling, and community workshops/trainings. Some advocates in Philadelphia have suggested that in hindsight they might have opted to phase in citywide and restrict the total number of clients served, rather than going by zip code, because of the staffing and increased cost issues. However, doing so might have led to providers taking a case-by-case approach to deciding who gets counsel, which is the triage model that is contrary to eviction RTC.

• Connecticut uses the zip code approach, but the program administrator left it largely up to the legal aid providers to decide which zip codes to start with based on provider capacity. In making the decisions about where to start, legal services providers relied on information provided by Stout (the state’s eviction RTC evaluator), historic eviction trends in Connecticut, and implementation lessons from other jurisdictions. This information gave providers insight into average filings per zip code, filing rates, and demographics to prioritize historically marginalized communities. Notably, this approach resulted in some rural areas with lower eviction rates having more representation because there is more provider capacity there than in some areas with higher eviction rates.

Prioritization based on case or client factors

Some jurisdictions, like Baltimore, prioritize service delivery based on income. In Connecticut, the phase-in plan primarily follows the zip code/provider capacity model (see above) but while the law covers anyone at 80% of the area median income, Connecticut’s plan allows prioritizes tenants whose income is at or below 200% of the federal poverty level. Other jurisdictions prioritize clients receiving housing subsidies. Yet others, like San Francisco, have prioritized other vulnerability factors. Case/client factors should be objective (income, presence of children, etc.), as opposed to case merit or first-come-first-serve, so that all tenants know ahead of time whether they’ll be eligible or not.

Court and docket volume

In planning for a potential statewide RTC, New York State considered relying on the volume of cases per court. For example, in town courts with a lower volume of cases, RTC coordinators would work with the judiciary to set fixed days/times for evictions with the hope of getting them to agree to adjourn any case to their next scheduled eviction court date, to help with attorney availability.