The Impending Eviction Cliff: Housing Insecurity During COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic adds a layer of precarity to the current housing crisis, brought about by a series of social and economic policies that transformed housing for living into a commodity.¹ Amid economic slowdowns, business closings, and distancing restrictions, the pandemic exposes important gaps in housing policy.² Although the pandemic has affected homeowners, landlords, and renters, given the magnitude and severity of consequences for renters specifically, I raise evictions as a point of concern.

The housing system is complex, representing multiple stakeholders. I focus on those most likely to be affected by the pandemic to illustrate how the current system is failing lower-income tenants. This piece is not about the details of recent policies per se (e.g., the American Rescue Plan). Instead, I examine renter-focused initiatives to raise questions about whether current measures alone will ensure housing security for renters going forward. This is important because the majority of lower-income renters are (or were previously) employed in industries that have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, examining the impact of the pandemic on tenants experiencing financial distress may highlight lessons for improving housing policy going forward.

US renters are a diverse group. Single and single-parent households are common. Renters are more ethnically and racially diverse than homeowners; ethnic minority households are 39% of the rental market.³ Generally, homeownership rates rise with age; however, significant racial gaps reveal disparities in owning versus renting, especially between Black and White households.⁴ Among all renters, Black renters (53.7%) are the most cost-burdened, defined as “people who pay more than 30% of their income for housing.”³ Since 1960, renter’s incomes have increased by 5%, whereas rents have risen 61%. Discrepancies between stagnant earnings, rising housing costs, and housing availability mean that 48% of renter households are severely cost-burdened, spending more than half of their income on rent and utilities monthly.^{3 , 5}

Given gaps in homeownership and the profile of lower-income renters—the majority of whom are Black and Latinx, single mothers, and severely cost-burdened—it is worth considering how the pandemic has affected these renters. Lower-income renters, for example, are more likely to work hourly wage positions, be subject to layoffs, and to work in sectors most affected by the pandemic, including food services, entertainment, retail, and transportation.⁶ Lower-income renters typically have little, if any, emergency savings and fewer people to rely on in times of need. Perhaps as a result, lower-income renters have experienced more difficulty paying rent and remain at greatest risk for eviction, compared with all renters.^{3 , 7} Measures have been introduced to assist renters during the pandemic, but is it enough?

PROGRESSIVE OR PATCHWORK POLICIES?

In considering directions for advancing future housing policy, some limitations of COVID-19 housing initiatives are detailed alongside suggestions for developing sustainable and structural efforts for eviction prevention.

The American Rescue Plan

Scholars and policymakers differ on the best path forward to avoid a wave of evictions in the coming months. The American Rescue Plan, for instance, has been heralded for delivering a $1.9 trillion relief package, adding $35 billion to the $25 billion provided in 2020 to assist renters. Additional provisions included an extension of unemployment benefits, and individuals earning up to $75 000 (and couples earning up to $150 000) received direct stimulus payments of $1400 per person. Some scholars argue that this relief is sufficient to get renters back on their feet, stating that it “does more to address economic hardship . . . than any other rescue attempts in US history.”⁸ Although this legislation was needed, whether it is sufficient is a matter of debate. The American Rescue Plan provides rental assistance and direct cash payments; however, as the name indicates, it is a rescue plan. Claims that it addresses economic hardship, rather than provide temporary relief for Americans in need, should be carefully evaluated.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Moratorium

On September 4, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a declaration to halt evictions, following the expiration of eviction protections established by the CARES Act (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act; Pub L No. 116-136; §4024).⁹ The measure was designed to contain the spread of COVID-19 by keeping residents “in place,” diverting would-be displaced residents from overcrowded congregate housing (e.g., shelters).⁷ The eviction moratorium applies to income-eligible renters who submit a signed hardship declaration to their landlords.⁹

The CDC eviction moratorium raised a number of legal questions. Some challenges, filed by landlords and corporate interest groups, allege that the moratorium violates constitutional rights. Some district courts have upheld the CDC’s authority to issue such an order, whereas others have ruled in favor of landlords and other plaintiffs.¹⁰ Beyond questions of legality, early evidence suggests that lower-income renters have not reaped the full benefits of protection under the moratorium.

For example, the moratorium does not supersede less protective local provisions, meaning that eviction risk can vary by state (e.g., eviction filings have continued in states with no local protections).¹¹ The moratorium does not prohibit landlords from charging fees for unpaid rent, nor does it forgive unpaid rent.⁹ Moreover, because the federal order is not automatic, renters are only protected if they have knowledge of it and file the appropriate declaration. For instance, despite the order being issued in September 2020, evictions by corporate landlords rose significantly in the same month, evicting tenants potentially before they knew about protections.¹²

If and when tenants do submit a hardship declaration to landlords, to qualify for emergency rental assistance (ERA), a program designed to keep families affected by COVID-19 housed by providing rental assistance, they must provide proof of unemployment or demonstrate a risk of experiencing homelessness. Tenants or landlords can apply for financial support; however, funds are paid directly to landlords.¹³

Emergency Rental Assistance

Rental assistance is an important resource for tenants who would otherwise be unable to afford housing.¹⁴ In response to the pandemic, the US Department of Treasury authorized ERA funding to support landlords and tenants, keeping many lower-income renters stably housed.¹⁵ Nearly 450 ERA programs were created or expanded in response to COVID-19.¹³ At the same time, these programs have limitations that reduce support for all who need it.

Most ERA programs, for example, have income-based eligibility limits, leaving out residents experiencing hardship but not meeting income thresholds. In addition, households may not receive any other form of housing assistance, must be legal US residents, must have insufficient savings to cover rent, and must have been current on rent before the pandemic.¹⁵ Applicants also had to have experienced some form of COVID-19–related hardship, requiring documentation or proof of income loss.

Although, in theory, these restrictions aim to assist those with the greatest need, it is unclear whether this goal is fully realized, since some very low-income households fail to meet initial eligibility criteria, including those without legal status, people already behind on rent before COVID-19, and those without proof of economic hardship. For tenants able to document eligibility and apply for ERA funds, once approved, landlords must still agree to participate in the program.

In other words, receipt of ERA funds for tenant relief depends ultimately on landlord–tenant cooperation and landlord agreement that they will not evict tenants. Additional stipulations—such as agreeing not to evict tenants for a period of time, forgiving a portion of rent, and waiving late fees—are often required to receive federal funds. Landlords can decline the terms, opting not to renew a tenants’ lease instead, which yields the same result as eviction.¹³ In fact, landlords may cite other violations unrelated to rental payments (e.g., nuisance violations), evidenced by the surge of legal challenges to remove tenants across the country.¹⁶

Preliminary Lessons Learned

Although early evidence is scarce, the American Rescue Plan, eviction moratorium, and ERA programs have likely provided support to renters and reduced the spread of COVID-19. Reports find that policies limiting evictions and utilities shutoffs reduced COVID-19 infections by 3.8% and reduced deaths by 11.0%. Yet if all such policies had been adopted as federal policy during the early months of the pandemic (i.e., early March–November 2020), these measures could have reduced COVID-19 infections by 14.2% and deaths by 40.7%.¹⁷ This suggests that policies—when used intentionally and effectively—can benefit everyone. Therefore, in discussing health and housing policy, two things can be true: (1) the American Rescue Plan can yield benefits for renters (temporarily) and still be insufficient; and (2) the CDC order, which has in fact lowered the number of evictions nationally, can have significant loopholes that make it less effective.

In addition, ERA, although necessary, has not reached all renters in need. An estimated 10 to 12 million renters will owe an average of $5850 in back rent and utilities once the moratorium ends, in addition to $50 per month in late payment penalties.¹² Renters in arrears before COVID-19 are among the most vulnerable; they are more likely to be unemployed, have less income, and live in high-cost areas in the Northeast and California.^{2 , 12} If residents living in these areas are evicted, the likelihood of displacement is high. Therefore, the end of the moratorium may prompt a more severe housing crisis, including displacement, if additional action is not considered.

Taken together, these measures are stopgaps, rather than solutions. Moreover, beyond the pandemic, how do we use lessons learned to advance an equitable and just housing agenda that serves all renters, especially those at the lowest-income levels? Taking this perspective, the question becomes less about whether these policies have achieved some measure of success and more about what else can be done—from a fundamental cause perspective—to prevent negative outcomes associated with poor housing and evictions. There are no easy solutions; however, if stakeholders agree that housing is a right and that stable housing is necessary for good health, a global pandemic should not be required to prioritize health in all housing policy.

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES

The American Public Health Association promotes a health in all policies approach as a collaborative way to address social determinants of health. Housing, and the lack of it, is a domain in which health in all policies is clearly relevant. Evictions, specifically, are closely tied to health and well-being.^{14 , 18} Although there is no “causal” evidence, there are several studies showing strong associations between evictions and poorer health, particularly for Black and Latina women.^{2 , 14 , 18 , 19}

Taking a critical approach to integrate health in all housing policies requires engagement with systems that structure housing as a privilege (rather than a right).¹ Moreover, specificity is required: which groups are most affected by patchwork policies that fail to engage with larger issues of housing and affordability? The pre–COVID-19 housing crisis is the result of historical legacies and structural racism that have created gendered, racial, and spatial disparities, giving rise to today’s segmented rental market.¹ Because the effects of discriminatory housing practices (e.g., redlining, racial covenants) are enduring, the groups most affected by these policies must be prioritized.²⁰ In that spirit, lower-income, Black single-parent–headed households should be highlighted as an especially vulnerable group, because Black single mothers face the highest rates of eviction overall.^{14 , 19} Therefore, health in all policies work must be intersectional and intentional.²¹ As Bowleg reminds us, “We—policymakers, public health officials, and all of us who care about public health—have a moral imperative to center and equitably address the health, economic, and social needs of those who bear the intersectional brunt of structural inequality.”^22(p917)

PLUGGING THE POLICY GAPS

Federal and state moratoria, albeit incomplete, are working. New eviction filings remain higher in states without a moratorium; therefore, extending the federal order until vaccination efforts have reached the majority of the population can be effective.¹² In addition, improving data collection on evictions, building collaborative partnerships, and strengthening tenant protections nationally can help bridge gaps for renters long term.

Data Collection

More reliable metrics to track evictions and displacement are needed. There is no federal database tracking eviction filings and outcomes. Moreover, although useful, filings may not provide a complete picture because not all landlords file for eviction, and residents without formal lease agreements or evicted without a court order typically do not report being evicted.

Collaborative Partnerships

In addition to collecting data that would facilitate research on the impact of evictions, increasing public awareness about housing insecurity and building multilevel partnerships to bridge gaps between rental assistance and tenant need are necessary.²³ Eviction diversion programs and the civil right to counsel, for example, educate and protect residents at the local level, slowing the eviction process. Tenant education programs, legal aid, and landlord–tenant settlements have decreased the number of default judgments and orders of eviction in areas providing these services.¹²

Local Legislation

As an additional level of protection, states and jurisdictions can enact new legislation. Some state courts now request the presence of social service representatives at hearings and provide funds to incentivize settlements as well as rental assistance. In New York City, grassroots tenant organizing led to universal counsel for income-eligible tenants, preventing more than 22 000 evictions.²⁴ At the state level, New York issued stronger protections than the CDC moratorium, including a full 90-day ban on all eviction proceedings, increased renter protections, and enacting the COVID-19 Eviction and Foreclosure Act, which halted evictions and foreclosures through May 1, 2021. These efforts closed gaps left by the federal order, resulting in fewer evictions.²⁴

Tenant Protections and Enforcement

Broadly, ERA programs can better meet tenant demand by expanding eligibility and easing the application process.¹³ Other renter-focused policies include prohibiting evictions because of back rent accumulated during the pandemic, establishing rent repayment options, prohibiting late fees, allowing tenants to use a security deposit to satisfy back rent, preventing evictions from being reported to consumer agencies, and canceling rent and debt collections altogether. These efforts may help prevent evictions and keep families stably housed when moratoria expire.

Because enforcement of any policy remains a challenge, local–federal partnerships are key for protecting tenant rights. For example, there are fines for landlords violating the CDC moratorium (e.g., under 18 USC 3559, 3571)⁹; however, documenting violations (via coercion, illegal evictions, or harassment) is difficult to track and varies across states, and abuses may be egregious in areas where landlords and other real estate interests hold significant power.^{16 , 24} In addition, reports suggest that some state court systems have issued separate guidance related to the moratorium specific to those states, indicating that courts have flexibility in the abatement of cases based on legal challenges to the CDC eviction moratorium.²⁵ In these instances, public opposition and legal advocacy may apply additional pressure.

Connecting Macro- to Micropolicies

Though not comprehensive, coordinated efforts across grassroots, local, state, and federal levels can begin to “plug” gaps and form the basis of a larger conversation about lower-income housing needs. In the long term, affordable housing and tenant protection require the sustained attention of researchers and policymakers. The drivers of the current crisis are extensive and will not be undone by temporary measures. Large-scale changes include a complete “re-envisioning of national housing policy.”⁴ Notably, remedying legacies of discrimination requires creating new tools to subsidize affordable development for lower-income households,¹⁹ preserving existing affordable housing (e.g., via the National Housing Trust), using regulatory and tax incentives to promote private housing developments (e.g., opportunity zones) without displacement, revising zoning standards and repealing policies prohibiting new development (e.g., Faircloth Amendment), expanding housing choice vouchers and rental assistance, investing in Black and Latinx communities and land trusts, supporting homeownership education and counseling, providing down payment assistance, and broadening the availability and affordability of mortgage financing with the help of strong incentives.⁵

Combined with progressive social policy, such as raising the minimum wage, expanding unemployment benefits, and eviction court reform, significant gains can be achieved, especially for Black and Latinx renters and single mothers living in poverty. In a promising development, President Biden recently proposed a $9 billion (15%) increase to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 2022 fiscal year budget, as part of a larger effort by the Biden administration to invest in the country’s housing infrastructure. If enacted, the increase would facilitate the largest single expansion of housing choice vouchers (a form of rental assistance) in the program’s history, as well as provide substantial federal investments in affordable homes. The administration also proposes a $500 million increase in funding for homeless assistance grants to provide rental and other assistance to an additional 100 000 people experiencing or at risk of homelessness. President Biden and Secretary of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development Marcia Fudge propose these investments alongside the proposed $318 billion in housing investments included in the American Jobs Plan.

Clearly, solutions are not in short supply. Responsible housing policy going forward does, however, require political will, intentionally inclusive policies, and restructuring incentives that reclaim housing as a human right.