The webinar began with a presentation from Margaret Hagen, director of Stanford Law School’s Legal Design Lab. Hagen discussed how localities have responded to the crisis by proposing changes to local laws governing evictions, the legal processes through which evictions proceed through the courts, and the regulatory framework surrounding rental housing. According to data gathered by the Pew Charitable Trusts, the number of eviction-related bills introduced and enacted at the state level of government increased sharply in the first half of 2021; approximately 213 bills were introduced or enacted by June 30, 2021, compared with only 98 the previous year, and these recently adopted changes will persist long after the current eviction crisis passes. Hagen reported that these interventions tend to fall into five categories: Just Cause rules, tenant right to counsel in eviction cases, court process reform, incentivization of landlords to avoid evictions, and regulatory oversight of rentals.

Just Cause rules involve changing the relevant law governing evictions to limit the circumstances under which a landlord can file an eviction lawsuit against a tenant, requiring an appropriate reason for the eviction. Although Hagen points out that nonpayment of rent is considered a just cause for eviction, these rules eliminate arbitrary evictions. The state of New Jersey has a Just Cause law, as does the city of Philadelphia. Other cities, such as San Francisco and New York, have Just Cause laws for certain tenants, such as those occupying rent-regulated units.

Adoption of tenant right to counsel rules and other court process reforms are measures targeting the legal processes by which eviction cases move through the courts. In most court systems, Hagen explained, eviction proceedings are rapid and offer tenants few procedural protections. By adopting a local measure that affords tenants a right to counsel — coupled with free legal aid for eligible individuals facing eviction — localities can substantially improve tenant outcomes. Other court process reforms include such measures as increasing (or imposing) fees for filing an eviction lawsuit, allowing judges to divert cases to Emergency Rental Assistance programs, or allowing court navigators or mediators to explain the process to plaintiffs.

Hagen characterized efforts to create incentives for landlords to reduce evictions as “employing both the carrot and the stick” of housing law. She discussed the Gold Star Landlord Program in Tulsa, Oklahoma, as an example of a “carrot.” In this free, voluntary program, Tulsa landlords agree to abide by requirements such as participating in a mediation program before starting eviction proceedings and allowing the Tulsa Health Department to inspect their rental units. In exchange, the city advertises the landlord, refers potential tenants who have completed Housing Solutions’ Housing Stability Certificate program, and offers other incentives financed by the city’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund. By contrast, Hagen characterized more punitive measures as those targeting abusive landlords and serial eviction filers.

The final category of intervention Hagen described, regulatory oversight of rentals, involves government agencies ensuring that rental housing is safe and habitable and that landlords adhere to fair housing laws and avoid abusing the eviction court system. As an example of relevant legal changes, Hagen cited source of income protections — regulations that prohibit discrimination against tenants receiving housing assistance, such as housing choice vouchers.