Overview

In an eviction case, the tenant’s housing outcome refers to whether the tenant remains in their home (the unit) at the end of the eviction process. At the end of the eviction process, either the tenant remained in the home or was displaced. Unfortunately, housing outcomes are not systematically recorded as part of the eviction process. In some cases, the tenant’s housing outcome is recorded in the case records or court documents, but this is not always consistent. To address this, we developed three categories of housing outcomes—remained, displaced, and undeterminable—to measure the outcomes of eviction cases filed in Oregon, even though there are only two de facto outcomes (remained and displaced).

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.

Key Findings

Tenants were displaced in at least 53% of cases. Additional displacement remains hidden in cases where the housing outcome was undeterminable.

Tenants remained in their homes in at least 18% of cases. Additional cases in which the tenant remained in their home remain hidden in cases where the housing outcome was undeterminable.

Housing outcomes were undeterminable in 29% of cases. Despite a thorough review of court documents, the housing outcomes for about one-third of the eviction cases remains unknown. This lack of clarity hinders efforts to measure the effectiveness of new and ongoing eviction prevention and diversion policies and programs.

Analyzing housing outcomes reveals previously overlooked tenant displacement.

Analyzing housing outcomes demonstrates that having a case dismissed is not a reliable indicator that a tenant has remained in their home.

General Information:

Researchers: Colleen Carroll; Dr. Minji Cho; and Dr Lisa K. Bates

Funding: Portland Housing Bureau, Oregon Housing and Community Services. Unless otherwise specifically stated, the views and opinions expressed in the report are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Portland Housing Bureau or Oregon Housing and Community Services.

Citation Details: Carroll, Colleen; Cho, Minji; Bates. Lisa K. (2025) “Displaced: Distinguishing Housing Outcomes from Judicial Outcomes in Oregon’s Eviction Cases.” Evicted in Oregon. https://archives.pdx.edu/ds/psu/42984