Housing stability and displacement prevention

Before making investments in housing stability and displacement prevention, city and county leaders should ensure this strategy addresses local needs.

The Urban Institute and Mathematica have developed indicator frameworks to help local leaders assess conditions related to upward mobility, identify barriers, and guide investments to address these challenges. These indicator frameworks can serve as a starting point for self-assessment, not as a comprehensive evaluation, and should be complemented by other forms of local knowledge.

The Urban Institute's Upward Mobility Framework identifies a set of key local conditions that shape communities’ ability to advance upward mobility and racial equity. Local leaders can use the Upward Mobility Framework to better understand the factors that improve upward mobility and prioritize areas of focus. Data reports for cities and counties can be created here.

Several indicators in the Upward Mobility Framework may be improved with investments in housing stability and displacement prevention programs. To measure these indicators and determine if investments in this strategy could help, examine the following:

• Housing affordability: Ratio of affordable and available housing units to households with low, very low, and extremely low income levels. These data are available from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Local Income Bands.
• Housing stability: Number and share of public-school children who are ever homeless during the school year. These data are collected by local public school districts.
• Economic inclusion: Share of people experiencing poverty who live in high-poverty neighborhoods. These data are available in the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
• Racial diversity: Index of people’s exposure to neighbors of different races and ethnicities. These data are available through the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
• Social capital: Number of membership associations per 10,000 people and the ratio of residents’ Facebook friends with higher socioeconomic status to their Facebook friends with lower socioeconomic status. These data are available from the Census Bureau’s County Business Patterns and Opportunity Insights’ Social Capital Atlas, respectively.

Mathematica's Education-to-Workforce (E-W) Indicator Framework helps local leaders identify the data that matter most in helping students and young adults succeed. Local leaders can use the E-W framework to better understand education and workforce conditions in their communities and to identify strategies that can improve outcomes in these areas.

One indicator in the E-W Framework may be improved with investments in this strategy. To measure this indicator and determine if investments in this strategy could help, examine the following:

• Access to affordable housing: Ratio of (1) the number of affordable housing units to (2) the number of households with low and very low incomes in an area (city or county). Housing units are defined as affordable if the monthly costs do not exceed 30 percent of a household’s income. Households with low incomes are defined as those earning below 80 percent of area median income (AMI), and very low-income households are defined as those earning below 50 percent of AMI.

• Proactive and early intervention: Effective programs identify and support at-risk households before eviction or displacement occurs, using data and outreach to intervene upstream. Early access to legal aid, rental assistance, or mediation reduces the likelihood of crisis and lowers long-term public costs.

• Flexible, tenant-centered design: Successful initiatives are designed around the needs, experiences, and preferences of tenants, offering flexible supports that account for language, disability, immigration status, and trauma. This includes accessible application processes, culturally responsive outreach, and multiple pathways to receive assistance. Centering tenant dignity and autonomy builds trust and leads to stronger, more sustained outcomes. Additionally, experts mentioned the importance of flexibility in the duration of assistance and the ability for participants to return to a program to receive further programmatic supports.

• Quick allocation of financial assistance: Building fast and timely screening processes to allocate emergency financial assistance to households in need is crucial to avoiding spiraling negative consequences. Financial support can help households with back rent, security deposits, application fees, and utility costs. This support can also be vital for those living in unsafe and precarious housing circumstances, such as those experiencing domestic violence. Some experts recommend against placing a hard cap on emergency rental assistance and thinking more expansively about what is needed for long-term rental stability. For example, car repairs might be required so an individual can get to work.

• Coordination between service providers: The foundation for rapid access to services is a combination of a high degree of coordination among service providers (no wrong doors) and a large network of providers in a jurisdiction. The utilization of a joint database or coordinated entry system can be instrumental in ensuring that households and case managers can easily navigate housing referrals and allocations.

• Offering comprehensive support to supplement rental assistance: While rental assistance is critical, many households in unstable housing situations would also benefit from additional services. These can include legal counseling, case management, food security, and physical and mental health treatment. A robust set of community-based partners and referrals can help ensure residents can access the support they need. Knowing the demographics and challenges of households in need can also help in planning the geographic distribution and scope of support.

• Engaging the Courts and the Organized Bar in Developing the Legal Response Strategy: Improving the court process for evictions to ensure it is fair and accessible for all parties, including tenants, is a core element of limiting preventable evictions and ensuring housing stability. Independent evaluations at the local and national levels have shown that programs where the courts and organized bar have collaborated with other key stakeholders to design a more effective housing court process have enabled meaningful improvements in tenant outcomes. These improvements include significant reductions in court-ordered default judgments against tenants, increased tenant access to legal aid and mediation, increased public trust and perceptions of the fairness in the eviction process, and reductions in the number of court-enforced eviction judgments.

• Acquisition, financing, and rental assistance are key for preservation of existing affordable housing: Maintaining the existing affordable housing stock is an upstream approach to housing stability and displacement prevention. Local governments partnering with housing finance entities to fund the acquisition of at-risk affordable housing enables mission-driven owners to prevent displacement and secure long-term affordability, especially in competitive markets. Flexible financing tools support these preservation efforts by funding acquisitions, rehabilitation, and sustainable operations aligned with affordability goals. Ongoing rental subsidy is essential to keeping housing affordable for low-income tenants and ensuring the financial viability of preserved units.

• Target resources to those most marginalized: Programs should either direct support to the individuals and neighborhoods at greatest risk of eviction and homelessness or be structured as universal systems that prioritize rollout in the hardest-hit areas. This approach ensures that limited resources deliver the greatest impact and builds a strong foundation for broader, more equitable access over time.

• Center individuals with lived experience in program design: Engage tenants, people with past housing instability, and community members directly in shaping program goals, outreach strategies, and service delivery.

• Continuously measure access and outcomes: Track and evaluate whether services are reaching historically marginalized groups and whether outcomes—such as housing stability, legal resolution, or service quality—differ across race, income, or geography. Use this data to make timely adjustments and ensure programs are closing equity gaps rather than reinforcing them.

• Include partners that can ensure geographic and cultural coverage: To meet diverse local needs, programs should bring in community-based organizations, legal aid providers, and housing advocates with deep knowledge of specific neighborhoods or populations. Expanding partnerships helps overcome access gaps and ensures services are delivered equitably across the city or region. Providing remote or online access to services can be an effective way of supporting this goal.

• Tenants and residents: Tenants and residents bring lived experience to the table to guide program design as well as accountability to reflect real community needs.

• Local community-based organizations: Community-based organizations have trusted relationships and a deep understanding of the local context, making them ideal partners for outreach, support, and feedback loops.

• Local and county government agencies: Ensure governmental units coordinate across housing, social services, and behavioral and mental health systems. This is Important due to the cross-silo nature of homelessness and housing instability.

• Affordable housing developers and owners: Affordable housing providers are necessary partners in preserving and managing affordable housing stock in the service of long-term affordability and habitability.

• Researchers: Researchers can ensure rigorous evaluation and accountability of program effectiveness, using data to measure impact, identify challenges, and inform policy.

• Courts and bar groups: Courts and bar organizations are essential partners in designing and implementing fairer and more accessible legal processes for eviction that help level the playing field for tenants and reduce preventable evictions.

• Legal aid providers: Legal aid providers offer critical tenant protections through legal representation and education to prevent evictions and enforce housing rights.

• Housing finance agencies and county assessors: Government housing entities structure and manage funding streams, subsidies, and preservation tools necessary to preserve the supply of affordable housing units. For example, providing loans to nonprofits, community land trusts, and socially-minded developers to acquire multi-family properties. County assessors are also important partners in developing tools such as multifamily property tax abatements in exchange for maintaining affordability.

• Philanthropic funders: Philanthropy can be a catalyst for developing new housing stability programs by funding pilot programming and innovative approaches.

• Co-design programs with impacted residents: Engage residents who have experienced housing instability or displacement as equal partners in the design, implementation, and evaluation of programs. Their lived experience provides insights that improve program relevance, accessibility, and effectiveness while fostering community trust. Meaningful involvement can include advisory councils, participatory workshops, and ongoing feedback mechanisms to ensure programs truly reflect the needs and priorities of those they serve.

• Tailor affordable housing supply preservation financing strategies to local market conditions: In order to preserve units of subsidized affordable housing or low-cost, private housing, local jurisdictions must often partner with community-based investors, such as Community Development Financial Institutions, to provide low-cost financing. When developing a financing strategy, it is critical to respond to the distinct preservation challenges in different market types, from high-demand areas to neighborhoods facing disinvestment. In appreciating markets, naturally occurring affordable housing is often lost to private investment unless acquisition financing, early intervention tools, and strong public-private coordination are in place. In weaker markets, preservation requires reinvestment in building quality and property management to prevent deterioration and displacement without accelerating market pressures that lead to gentrification.

• Take an intra-agency approach: Homelessness prevention initiatives tend to gain momentum when they are championed by a local government leader—the head of a family services agency or a high-ranking elected official. A vocal champion can then bring pivotal agencies together to develop an action plan, which can require cross-agency and/or cross-government (i.e., a city tenant’s rights office and a state or county court) collaboration.

• Identify patterns of eviction and homelessness causes: Partnerships across government agencies and with local research institutions can provide increased data sharing and analysis capacity. That expanded capacity should focus on identifying trends and patterns of factors leading to eviction and homelessness. Insights gained from this process can include identifying landlords with a history of illegal or wrongful evictions, neighborhoods in particular need of services, and/or the need for changes in program eligibility rules.

• Invest in service providers with deep community roots: Prioritize funding and support for organizations that have longstanding relationships and trust within marginalized communities at most risk of housing instability. These providers possess cultural competence and local knowledge essential for effectively reaching and engaging populations typically excluded from traditional services. Strengthening their capacity ensures programs are more accessible, culturally responsive, and able to address the unique barriers faced by those at greatest risk of displacement. Some grassroots service providers may only be interested in serving as a point of contact or providing case management, so take caution in requiring all providers to also deliver financial assistance, as this may result in excluding important and effective partners. Experts also recounted using data to inform community partnerships, responding to the profile of participants requesting assistance. For example, after a housing agency saw a significant number of survivors of domestic violence requesting housing assistance, staff expanded the service provider partner network to add more agencies serving survivors.

• Emphasize cost savings and effectiveness: Many housing stability programs can be framed as long-term cost-reduction strategies. Highlighting the fact that these services tend to reduce demand for expensive public services (like beds in homeless shelters, supports for individuals experiencing homelessness, and emergency medical care) can be used to cultivate public support and persuade potential funders. Some jurisdictions have found success in performing RCTs or cost-benefit analyses to generate evidence to advocate for continued or expanded funding.

• Streamline application processes: Complex or time-intensive application processes can become barriers to households attempting to access housing assistance programs. By streamlining application processes, such as by setting more flexible eligibility criteria or documentation requirements, agencies can increase the number of households able to access services. For example, an evaluation of an emergency rental assistance program in Kentucky found that simplified income verification requirements significantly increased application approval rates

• Housing stability and retention: Track whether households can maintain safe, healthy, and stable housing after receiving support. Success is demonstrated by fewer evictions, lower unit turnover rates, reduced shelter entries, and a lower housing cost burden. Consider measuring outcomes at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Some data approaches rely on robust data infrastructures, such as a Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) with substantial local participation.

• Equitable access: Measure whether programs effectively reach those most vulnerable to displacement, including low-income renters and communities of color. Furthermore, track outcomes over time to measure whether housing stability persists for the most vulnerable program participants.

• Long-term affordability and neighborhood stability: Evaluate whether affordable housing is preserved and residents can remain in their communities over time. Effective programs maintain or increase affordable units and reduce residential turnover in neighborhoods experiencing rapid change.