Lessons from the Eviction Diversion Initiative for Coordinated Data & Outcomes Measurement

Eviction diversion programs aim to prevent unnecessary displacement by connecting tenants and landlords with referrals, resources, and resolution options such as mediation. As these programs expand, evaluating their effectiveness is crucial for improving services, influencing policy, and ensuring they meet the needs of vulnerable communities.

At a recent working group session of the Access to Justice Network/Self-Represented Litigation Network on research for access to justice, Neil Steinkamp of Stout led a discussion on strategies for measuring program impact, refining data collection, and translating insights into policy action. Neil has led the evaluation & impact assessment of the Eviction Diversion Initiative (EDI). The National Center for State Courts is leading a cohort of state courts in the EDI to build, refine, and evaluate new eviction diversion efforts around the country and recently released an interim evaluation report on the EDI.

Below are key takeaways from the conversation about Neil’s learnings in building a multi-jurisdiction, standardized (but customizable) evaluation framework, to gather similar data, collect it, and make it useful to stakeholders in many different jurisdictions.

Building a Framework for Evaluation

The primary goal of evaluating eviction diversion programs is often to understand who is being served, what their experiences are, and how well programs link them to resources. Instead of starting with rigid hypotheses, evaluators should approach this work with curiosity and open-ended questions:

What do we need to learn about the impact of eviction diversion?
What data is both useful and feasible to collect?
How can data collection evolve over time to stay relevant?

A flexible, iterative approach ensures that evaluation remains meaningful as conditions change. Some data points may become less useful, while new insights emerge that reshape how success is measured.

Balancing Consistency & Flexibility in Data Collection

Data consistency across jurisdictions is essential for comparisons, trend analysis, and deeper conversations on outcomes. However, differences in court structures, available resources, and local policies mean a one-size-fits-all approach won’t work.

A practical balance found in the EDI was 80% standardized questions for cross-jurisdictional alignment, with 20% tailored to local needs. This allows for:

Identifying national trends in eviction prevention.
Accounting for regional differences in housing, financial aid, and social service access.
Enabling courts and service providers to track their unique challenges and successes.

The key is avoiding overburdening staff or participants with excessive data collection while still capturing essential insights that can help demonstrate impact, identify opportunities for improvement, and assist in advocating for sustainable funding.

Tools & Methods: Making Data Collection Work for Courts

Many courts lack the flexibility to modify their existing case management systems. To address this, evaluators used separate, simple tools like Microsoft Forms and Microsoft Excel Online to streamline intake and reporting, reducing staff workload.

To make sense of the collected data, they developed visual dashboards that:

Simplify complex datasets.
Enable courts and policymakers to track progress in real time.
Highlight gaps in services or emerging trends in housing instability.

By using easy-to-implement tools, courts were able to enhance efficiency without major technology overhauls.

Voluntary Data Collection & Trauma-Informed Approaches

All demographic and personal data collected in the evaluation was voluntary, and most participants were willing to share information. However, a trauma-informed approach recognizes that some individuals may feel uncomfortable disclosing details, especially in high-stress legal situations.

Evaluators emphasized the importance of creating a safe, respectful data collection process — one that builds trust and ensures that participation does not feel coercive or invasive.

Key Insights from the Evaluation for Eviction Prevention Policymaking

Data collected through the eviction diversion pilot programs revealed critical insights into eviction patterns and tenant needs:

Eviction is often preventable with modest financial support — Small rental arrears, often less than $1,000, are a key driver of many evictions.
Affordability crises go beyond rent payments — Many tenants face financial instability due to job loss, medical issues, or family obligations.
A mix of services is essential — Rental assistance alone is not always enough; tenants benefit significantly from legal aid, mediation, and access to other social services.

One major takeaway is that data should be treated as a living resource — each year, evaluators should reassess what they are tracking to ensure they are capturing the most relevant and impactful information.

From Data to Policy: The Power of Evidence-Driven Decisions

Coordinated eviction diversion data plays a powerful role in shaping policy and influencing resource allocation. Some key ways data has been used in practice include:

Informing state and local housing policies — Some jurisdictions used data insights to refine funding strategies for eviction prevention programs.
Stakeholder engagement — Some jurisdictions used data to inform effective dialogue among community stakeholders including the landlord community, tenant advocates, agencies in the continuum of care, and other local stakeholders.
Strengthening legal and mediation services — Data demonstrated that legal aid and mediation can be as crucial as rental assistance, leading to investments in expanded legal support.
Improving landlord-tenant relationships — Greater transparency about rental arrears and eviction patterns has helped courts and service providers create more effective intervention strategies.

While policymakers often focus on one intervention type, such as rental assistance, evaluators advocate for a holistic “AND” approach — combining legal support, financial aid, and mediation to achieve the best outcomes.

What’s Next? Refining the Future of Eviction Diversion

Looking ahead, the focus will be on:

Refining data collection practices — Enhancing the consistency and efficiency of data gathering tools.
Maintaining adaptability — Regularly reassessing what data matters most.
Encouraging a comprehensive approach to eviction prevention — Strengthening connections between legal and social support services.
Using data to inform and advocate for policy changes — Ensuring decision-makers understand that eviction diversion is more than just financial aid — it’s a system of interventions that must work together.

By grounding policy and program design in real-world data, eviction diversion efforts can be more effective, equitable, and responsive to community needs.

As this work continues, stakeholders across courts, legal aid, housing advocacy, and the landlord community must keep asking:

What do we need to learn next? And how can we use that knowledge to prevent unnecessary evictions?

Expanding the Impact: How Federated Data Collection Can Benefit Legal Services

Beyond eviction diversion programs, federated, standardized data collection has the potential to transform other areas of legal services, such as court help centers, brief advice clinics, and nonprofit legal aid organizations. These groups often work in silos, collecting data in ways that are inconsistent across jurisdictions, making it difficult to compare outcomes, identify systemic issues, or advocate for policy changes.

By adopting a shared framework for data collection — where core metrics are standardized but allow for local customization — legal service providers could gain richer insights into who they are serving, what legal issues are most pressing, and which interventions lead to the best outcomes. For example, help centers could track common questions and barriers to accessing services, while brief advice clinics could measure the impact of legal guidance on case outcomes.

This type of data-driven coordination could help funders, policymakers, and service providers make smarter investments, target resources more effectively, and ultimately improve access to justice at scale.

—

Join the Access to Justice Network to learn more about projects like this one. The Network is a community of justice professionals that share best practices & spread innovations across jurisdictions.

See a webinar of Neil and his colleagues present more on evaluating the Eviction Diversion Initiative here.