In Oregon, stipulated agreements are court-enforced agreements that dictate the terms and conditions under which an eviction case can be dismissed. Stipulated agreements are court-enforced agreements that landlords and tenants enter into during the course of the eviction process instead of going to trial. If all the terms of the agreement are not met, the landlord can seek a swift judgment of eviction against the tenant. These types of agreements are often touted as a successful form of post-filing eviction diversion; however, very little is known about the terms and outcomes of these cases. We conclude that stipulated agreements are a costly option for tenants. They are costly to comply with, because landlords can include terms and conditions that they would otherwise not be able to get from the tenant through the eviction legal process. These terms can include repayment for more than the amount owed listed on the notice of termination; the costs of court fees; behavioral concessions; and more. They are also costly when the tenant is unable to comply with all the terms included in an agreement, because the landlord can quickly get a judgment of eviction issued for noncompliance.

Most eviction research focuses on large cities, leaving us with limited knowledge of evictions in smaller cities. Our analysis of evictions in three small and mid-sized cities in Oregon reveals that these cities can also experience severe eviction crises. By collecting and hand-coding data from justice courts, we provide a comprehensive view of evictions in these cities–including the role different types of courts play–for the first time

Housing outcomes differ from judicial outcomes, which refers to the legal outcome of an eviction lawsuit. Researchers and policymakers often rely on judicial outcomes as a proxy for housing outcomes. Studies have relied on judgments of eviction to estimate tenant displacement during the eviction process. However, tenants can be displaced during the eviction process without a judgment of eviction being issued against them. Similarly, the dismissal of an eviction case is often assumed to mean that the tenant has remained in their home. In reality, some eviction cases are dismissed because the tenant has either already moved out or agreed to leave. Recognizing that judicial outcomes and housing outcomes are distinct allows us to measure them independently. By doing so, we can use both metrics to guide policy making and program evaluations that prioritize housing stability and retention. This report defines housing outcomes, describes the method we developed to determine housing outcomes using court records and case documents, and demonstrates how housing outcomes differ from judicial outcomes.

Despite Oregon's expanded investments in affordable housing development and eviction prevention, over 5,400 eviction cases were filed in the state’s subsidized housing from January 2019 to December 2023. This report maps out the landscape of subsidized housing eviction in Oregon and brings attention to the high share of eviction judgments in subsidized eviction cases, the disproportionate rate of eviction filings from housing-authority-contracted management companies and nonprofit housing providers, and the great disparities in legal representation between landlords and tenants.