How did federal, state, or local governments respond to gdol delays and eviction spikes in 2024?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Federal, state and local governments deployed a patchwork of emergency funding, legal clarifications and new tenant protections in 2024 to blunt the effects of program delays and a surge in evictions, but implementation was uneven and many responses were reactive rather than preventive [1] [2] [3]. Structural delays in federal disaster and housing programs — and partisan fights over budgets and agency staffing — shaped the scale and speed of those interventions [4] [1] [5].
1. Federal stopgaps: short-term dollars and legal framing
Congress and federal agencies in 2024 leaned toward stopgap measures rather than sweeping reform: a continuing resolution negotiated late in the year included a roughly $100 million allocation for an Eviction Protection Grant Program intended to help prevent evictions, reflecting a last‑minute funding approach to emergent housing needs [1]. At the same time, federal legal frameworks and prior emergency authorities that had kept evictions down during the pandemic were no longer insulating renters: oversight reports and GAO analysis framed the end of national moratoria and the transition to local administration as a driver of renewed eviction activity [6] [3]. Critics also warned that administration proposals to shrink or reorganize housing offices would slow distributions and worsen delays, a contention advanced by policy analysts concerned about proposed cuts and staffing changes [5].
2. State legislative pivots: new protections and fee relief
Several states attempted to fill federal gaps through legislation aimed at shielding renters and lowering procedural barriers to defense. Colorado’s legislature moved bills through committee to cap post‑disaster rent hikes and eliminate filing and service fees in eviction cases — measures designed to blunt disaster‑driven displacement and make it easier for renters to contest evictions (HB24‑1259 and HB24‑1099 observed in committee action) [7]. Elsewhere, state agencies issued operational guidance to limit tenant liability when federal payments were late: Georgia’s Department of Community Affairs explicitly told landlords they could not charge tenants for the agency’s share of rent during a federal payment delay and pledged to make landlords whole when HUD funding resumed [2]. Those state actions were pragmatic and narrow, addressing symptoms rather than fixing federal funding flows.
3. Local emergency measures and the uneven patchwork
City and county responses ranged from eviction moratoria extensions to ad hoc shelter expansion — but capacity often lagged demand. New York City’s shelter system repeatedly signaled it lacked beds for new adult arrivals, resorting to overflow sites and placing pressure on the state for 1,000 more beds amid rising shelter censuses and court settlements tied to intake capacity [8]. In California, jurisdictions that had extended pandemic‑era protections nonetheless saw eviction filings surge to or above pre‑pandemic levels once those local safeguards expired, illustrating how deferred filings translated into concentrated spikes when protections ended [9]. Local officials therefore oscillated between emergency ordinances, temporary prohibitions and referrals to state or federal funds — a reactive posture that produced uneven relief.
4. Administrative bottlenecks and disaster program delays
Federal program design and administrative shortfalls exacerbated the timing problem: HUD Office of Inspector General reporting highlighted that lack of permanent authorization for Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG‑DR) programs was a primary factor driving delays in disaster housing recovery, slowing the flow of funds to states and local implementers and compounding eviction risk among displaced households [4]. Policy groups and watchdogs warned that workforce reductions or reorganizations in housing agencies would further delay distributions and increase the risk that tenants and service providers would face eviction or operational collapse while awaiting payments [5].
5. Politics, incentives and what went unresolved
Partisan budget fights and last‑minute negotiating shaped both the availability and timing of relief: last‑ditch continuing resolutions inserted modest eviction protections and funding, but the political dynamics that produced delays — including competing priorities in Congress and contested agency reforms — remained unresolved and left many localities improvising [1] [5]. Independent analyses underscored that with national moratoria ended and federal rental aid largely wound down, evictions rose in many places; state and local interventions mitigated harms for some but did not reverse the nationwide trend [3] [9]. Reporting and oversight documents together show the response in 2024 was characterized by targeted emergency funding, legal clarifications from state agencies and a flurry of state and local legislative fixes, yet systemic fixes to prevent future waves were not achieved within the year [1] [4] [7].