COVID-Era Emergency Rental Assistance Programs Offer Four Lessons for State and Local Governments Today

In 2020 and 2021, Congress appropriated nearly $46.6 billion for the Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) Program to support renters during the COVID-19 pandemic. The US Department of Treasury distributed the funding through 700 state and local government grantees. Despite that many grantees had never set up a program of this scope and scale before, they quickly built an extensive, effective infrastructure that ultimately assisted more than 3 million low-income renter households with rent payments, utility payments, and other services to stabilize renter households with housing counseling and legal aid assistance.

Our recent report documents how these programs evolved as they accelerated their funding distribution through 2021 and into 2022. By the beginning of 2022, the average ERA program spent more than 70 percent of its award amount. As of 2025, ERA programs assisted more than 3 million low-income renter households, and nearly 85 percent were low-income renters.

Although ERA programs had to distribute their funds by September 2025, housing affordability remains an acute challenge for many low-income residents. According to American Community Survey data, more than 80 percent of ERA-eligible renters (at or below 80 percent of the area median income) were rent burdened in 2023.

State and local policymakers can apply the lessons learned from ERA programs to address the needs of low-income renters going forward. Our interviews with state grantees and housing providers point to four recommendations for future rental assistance programs:

1. Streamline documentation requirements.

 Although documentation is important to verify eligibility and reduce program fraud, ERA program administrators found extensive application requirements often dissuade applicants with the most social and economic disadvantages from applying for assistance. Many program administrators found that encouraging a streamlined application approach and removing unnecessary paperwork can improve application uptake and distribution rates (PDF).

According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, 62.3 percent of programs allowed applicants to self-attest for at least one piece of eligibility criteria, including more than half of programs that determined pandemic-related hardship through self-attestation. Some state and local programs relied on existing documentation to determine eligibility. For example, if a household already participated in a program with similar income eligibility requirements like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or Medicaid, then they could submit their enrollment in these programs to verify their eligibility.

These application choices not only reduced the time needed for housing providers and residents to chase down documentation and apply, but they also expedited the review timelines for program administrators. The state program administrators we spoke with highlighted how streamlining the application and eligibility criteria reduced the waiting time usually needed for renters and housing providers gather their documentation. The US Department of the Treasury also highlighted how transitioning to self-attestation models allowed Kentucky to increase their distributions by 87 percent from September to October 2021.

2. User-friendly systems are essential.

Although ERA programs had to design relatively complex application systems with quick turnaround time, some of the housing providers we spoke with found state and local ERA applications time-consuming and burdensome. Many programs fine-tuned their applications based on feedback, reducing technical challenges can expedite application review and maximize program effectiveness. Here are a few ways features application management systems should incorporate:

• Connect housing provider and resident applications: Some ERA programs required housing providers and residents to coordinate on applications. But if a resident applied separately without coordinating with their housing provider, some of the programs could not link the resident and housing provider’s applications (PDF) together. This delayed applications from getting reviewed and, in most cases, required a housing provider and resident to reapply if the program could not link the applications. If a program requires both a landlord and resident to submit an application, then programs should automatically link the resident’s and housing providers’ applications using matching phone numbers or email addresses (PDF).
• Reduce repetitive steps for housing providers: Housing providers expressed frustration in the amount of manual, repeated steps they would take for each applicant. ERA programs required building and financial information for every applicant in the building, but the application portals made the housing provider manually upload the same documentation (PDF) for each applicant in a single building. This made it more expensive for housing providers to complete the application, especially for providers operating larger buildings with several hundred potential applicants. Designing systems that minimize the amount of manual, repeated steps from housing providers can reduce the time and effort needed to apply.
• Be transparent during the application review process: Most of the housing providers we spoke with appreciated programs that communicated an application’s status in the review process. This allowed housing providers and residents to move stalled applications forward. One housing provider described how “housing providers could go in and see where the application was in the process. If we could see that it was hung up on documents and waiting on verification, we would reach out to that resident.” On the other hand, there were programs that did not send application updates and program administrators were difficult to contact. Providing updates for pending applications can improve program outcomes for housing providers and residents, particularly those facing risk of eviction and who need quick, clear responses.

3. Conduct meaningful outreach to housing providers and residents to increase program awareness.

ERA’s flexible guidance encouraged state and local grantees to experiment with new outreach strategies. Previous research (PDF) indicated state and local programs expanded their outreach capacity by partnering with community-based organizations to provide application support and establish more outreach options in multiple languages. We heard from state program administrators that partnering with community-based organizations helped them conduct more-localized, creative outreach. One interviewee (PDF) noted they partnered with hair salon employees and local bartenders to provide program resources if customers noted any difficulty paying their rent. ERA programs expanded partnerships with both housing-related and non-housing-related organizations, and maintaining this network of community-based organizations is crucial for setting up future rental assistance programs.

We also heard from interviewees that many housing providers provided direct outreach to their residents. In some cases (PDF), housing providers worked with residents to complete their applications by helping find the required documentation and supplying the technology needed to apply. Encouraging housing providers to reach out directly to their residents can help raise awareness and increase use of ERA programs.

4. Reduce program requirements not associated with payments, such as rent freezes and eviction moratoria, and coordinate ERA with other programs and policies for renters.

State and local governments began administering ERA with several other policies in place to protect renters—including eviction moratoria and rent freezes. Some state and local programs added additional requirements, such as delaying eviction timelines for applications in progress. But the uncertainty about ERA’s application review timelines may have disincentivized housing providers from reaching out to residents with records of not paying rent. Based on interviews with housing providers and program administrators, we found that ERA programs can provide more certainty to residents and housing providers by minimizing ERA-specific guidelines unrelated to payments and streamlining ERA’s program guidelines to make sure they are coordinated with other state and local policies.

States and localities can build on the legacy of ERA programs

Although most ERA-funded programs have ended, several state and local governments have continued their emergency rental assistance programs with state and local funding. For example:

• Illinois: The state’s housing finance agency established a $75 million program to continue supporting low-income households. Residents and housing providers were eligible to receive $15,000 in past-due payments, two months of future rent payments, and $500 to cover court costs.
• Columbus, Ohio: The city council approved a program to disburse $3 million in local funding for rental assistance in partnership with local nonprofits, which is currently in development.
• Washington, DC: The city’s Department of Health and Human Services recently launched a follow-up ERA program. In addition to covering rental arrears, the program also includes security deposits and lowers the eligible income to 40 percent of the area median income.

Other state and local policymakers can continue incorporating the lessons learned from ERA to address the current needs of lower-income renters. These lessons will be especially valuable if national rental assistance is used for the next national emergency. By designing programs that are easy to navigate and incentivize cooperation between residents, housing providers, program administrators, and community-based organizations, policymakers can maximize the effectiveness of these programs.