Research Reports
This project has produced a variety of research reports about evictions in Oregon including reports that detail the legal process, describe the tenant experience of eviction, and evaluate eviction prevention policies and programs in Oregon.
Oregon’s Eviction Court Process & Proceedures
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.
To examine how court processes at the Multnomah County Circuit Court impact tenants, our team conducted a series of court observations at the downtown courthouse between October and December 2023. In particular, we examined how the court handled the increasing size of eviction dockets during this period, the availability of legal assistance and other onsite services for tenants, the court’s implementation of new rules from Oregon House Bill 2001 (HB 2001), and any changes HB 2001 had on eviction case outcomes in Multnomah County. From our court observations, we found that high-volume eviction dockets were handled in a way that was convenient for landlords and their legal representatives, but cumbersome for tenants. Because the vast majority of tenants were unrepresented, they faced difficulties navigating the court process, submitting court documents, negotiating stipulated agreements, and defending themselves at trial. While no mediation services were offered at the courthouse, interpretation services, free childcare, and limited legal assistance were available to tenants onsite.
Drawing on both our court observations and court record data, we found that HB 2001 had positive impacts for tenants in eviction court. While the number of eviction filings continued to rise after HB 2001 was implemented, the percentage of tenants who had their eviction case dismissed—rather than receiving a judgment of eviction—increased. In addition, the percentage of tenants who received a default judgment of eviction for failing to appear in court decreased.
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.
Tenant Experience of Eviction in Oregon
Given the extent of the eviction crisis in Oregon, it is crucial to investigate what happens to tenants after they are displaced from their homes. This report investigates three main questions concerning tenants’ post-eviction housing outcomes: Where do tenants live after they have been evicted? How do post-eviction housing outcomes affect tenants’ health, finances, and safety? How do rental assistance and legal assistance affect post-eviction housing outcomes? To answer these research questions, we draw on data from focus groups with 121 Oregon tenants who had an eviction case filed against them, received an eviction notice, or were told to leave by their landlord.
In the original "Fight, Flight, Freeze" (FFF) report, the Evicted in Oregon researchers reported on the experiences of tenants who faced eviction during the COVID-19 pandemic and their access to resources. The current memo provides an updated analysis, now including 121 tenants with eviction experiences in Oregon. The analysis includes13 new focus groups with tenants in both rural and urban Oregon, focusing on the type of support they received while navigating eviction. These groups represent tenants from diverse backgrounds. Additional details on the years and locations of the focus groups are available in the Methods section of the Appendix.
Using the fight-flight-freeze framework, we examined tenants' reactions to eviction. We also report the resources they accessed after being threatened with eviction and describe the broader effects of eviction, including impacts on health and family stability.
To better understand how eviction affects families with children, the Evicted in Oregon team conducted focus groups with 74 tenants from Baker, Lincoln, Linn, Marion, Multnomah, and Washington counties in Oregon. During focus group discussions, we asked participants whether they had children in the household at the time of eviction and how it impacted them. Parents’ reported that their children’s well-being was their main concern during the eviction process. They also described how eviction led to disruptions in their children’s education, health and medical treatments, and living arrangements.
Based on our findings, we provide a set of policy and program recommendations that could prevent eviction and support families facing eviction, including long-term rental assistance, expanding access to and awareness of existing resources, and tenant advocacy. Secure and stable housing environment is essential for healthy children's development; therefore, state and local agencies should continue to invest in programs that help people remain in their homes.
While we know that there are clear racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in eviction filings, there is still much we do not know about discrimination in the eviction process. One concrete way to shed light on this understudied phenomenon is by talking directly with evicted tenants about their experiences as members of Fair Housing-protected identity groups and other marginalized populations. Drawing on focus groups with 101 Oregon tenants who have experienced an eviction since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, this report examines the role that discrimination plays in Oregon evictions. We find that many tenants are specifically targeted for eviction or experience prejudicial treatment during the eviction process because of their identity or background. This includes being treated unfairly based on their race, language, criminal record, gender, sexual orientation, or disabilities. Tenants faced harassment, threats, utility shut-offs, unaddressed habitability issues, and other forms of prejudicial treatment. Additionally, some tenants reported that they either did not challenge their eviction or did not report the discrimination they encountered because they did not expect to be treated fairly by the legal system.
While we know that there are clear racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in eviction filings, there is still much we do not know about discrimination in the eviction process. One concrete way to shed light on this understudied phenomenon is by talking directly with evicted tenants about their experiences as members of Fair Housing-protected identity groups and other marginalized populations. Drawing on focus groups with 101 Oregon tenants who have experienced an eviction since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, this report examines the role that discrimination plays in Oregon evictions. We find that many tenants are specifically targeted for eviction or experience prejudicial treatment during the eviction process because of their identity or background. This includes being treated unfairly based on their race, language, criminal record, gender, sexual orientation, or disabilities. Tenants faced harassment, threats, utility shut-offs, unaddressed habitability issues, and other forms of prejudicial treatment. Additionally, some tenants reported that they either did not challenge their eviction or did not report the discrimination they encountered because they did not expect to be treated fairly by the legal system.
While we know that there are clear racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in eviction filings, there is still much we do not know about discrimination in the eviction process. One concrete way to shed light on this understudied phenomenon is by talking directly with evicted tenants about their experiences as members of Fair Housing-protected identity groups and other marginalized populations. Drawing on focus groups with 101 Oregon tenants who have experienced an eviction since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, this report examines the role that discrimination plays in Oregon evictions. We find that many tenants are specifically targeted for eviction or experience prejudicial treatment during the eviction process because of their identity or background. This includes being treated unfairly based on their race, language, criminal record, gender, sexual orientation, or disabilities. Tenants faced harassment, threats, utility shut-offs, unaddressed habitability issues, and other forms of prejudicial treatment. Additionally, some tenants reported that they either did not challenge their eviction or did not report the discrimination they encountered because they did not expect to be treated fairly by the legal system.
Evaluating Oregon’s Eviction Prevention Policies & Programs
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.
In an effort to mitigate the impacts of the Covid-19 public health emergency, throughout 2020 and into 2021 novel public health emergency programs were initiated, including a variety of federal, state, and local ‘moratoriums’ on residential evictions for nonpayment of rent. As the moratoria began to sunset, additional ‘post-pandemic’ eviction diversion and tenant protection programs were created to buffer the ‘tsunami’ of evictions that were expected. Oregon’s eviction diversion program, the so-called ‘safe harbor period’ for nonpayment eviction cases, was put into place in July 2021 to maintain some protections for tenants after the state moratorium on nonpayment evictions ended. The key provision of Oregon’s ‘safe harbor’ provision is a delay in eviction proceedings for tenants who have provided proof that they have applied for emergency rent assistance through the Oregon Emergency Rent Assistance Program (OERAP). The ‘safe harbor’ lasts for 60 to 90 days, a time period meant to give enough time for funds from OERAP to be disbursed to the landlord for any rent owed, current and arrears, at which point they should return to court to have the case dismissed. If rent assistance has not been approved and paid, the eviction proceedings can resume. This research tracks Oregon eviction cases from July through September, 2021, to assess the implementation of the safe harbor policy.
Even with substantial resources available in the state for compensating landlords, tenants have to be aware, proactive, present, and assertive at all steps in a legal proceeding in which they have the least knowledge and experience of any of the parties. Instead, our analysis of eviction cases from July through September shows several ways that tenants can be run aground on the way to safe harbor. Even for tenants who have navigated the safe harbor process, they are not safe from eviction. While over 44,000 households applied for emergency rent assistance, by the late fall, the pace of disbursement was not adequate to divert an eviction in 60 days. The failure to move OERAP funds quickly to clear tenant arrears compounds the procedural barriers for tenants. The failure to design a policy to accommodate delays in payment is a problem that is especially troubling at a time when there is more emergency financial assistance for tenants than during any normal time.
Additional Research
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
A new report from Portland State University’s Homelessness Research & Action Collaborative (HRAC) estimates that evictions could cost Oregon as much as $3.3 billion after the statewide eviction ban expires in June.
The center worked with community partners to gather data from emergency shelters, inpatient and emergency medical services, child welfare, and juvenile justice services to estimate the downstream costs of evictions using the Cost of Eviction Calculator developed by the University of Arizona College of Law.
The center’s cost calculation is an estimate of the scale of the crisis that Oregon could face without additional eviction interventions. It does not cover loss of income, increase in public assistance, gaps in education, or the long term impact to health, education and earnings. Neither does it capture the costs of building new shelters and creating new emergency support as a result of exceeding the current system capacity. The estimate also does not include costs associated with likely increased COVID-19 transmission due to evictions.