Why Fairer Evictions Don’t Always Mean Fairer Housing

This blog post is based on an article published in the Journal of Social Policy by Antoine Lovell, Raymond Adams, Jennifer M. Lilly, and Lawanda Williams.

Housing has been considered one of the most important social policy challenges over the past decade. Rising rents, a lack of affordable housing, and long-lasting impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic have increased public concern about housing instability in many countries. Governments are turning to the law by implementing tenant protection policies, expanding access to legal assistance, and modifying eviction processes as part of efforts to prevent people from losing their homes.

These changes to housing policy have brought about a significant shift. Eviction is no longer seen solely as a matter of the landlord–tenant relationship, but as a major public policy concern with serious consequences for health, educational development, work potential, and the general welfare of our communities. Strengthening tenants’ legal rights has been at the forefront of all post-pandemic housing reform.

Yet an important question remains: can stronger laws, on their own, reduce housing insecurity?

Our research examines housing law reform in Maryland between 2020 and 2024, asking whether improving eviction procedures reduces tenants’ exposure to housing insecurity. We chose Maryland as our focus area because, while it has implemented many of the most progressive rent protection policies in the country, its eviction filing rate remains among the highest.

What Maryland Changed

Undoubtedly, Maryland has achieved a great deal. The Access to Counsel in Evictions Act provided all renters with an opportunity to be represented by an attorney when facing eviction. Additionally, the Renters’ Rights and Stabilization Act lengthened notice periods, expanded the circumstances in which landlords must show a just cause for eviction, and protected renters from unfair treatment in the eviction court process. Together, these acts demonstrate a growing understanding that a renter’s access to legal remedies depends on the complexity of the law itself.

Although we believe that it may be possible to improve the legal processes by which evictions occur, our analysis suggests that doing so does not address the underlying factors that put a household at risk of eviction. Most of the legislation passed in Maryland since the pandemic has made changes to the eviction process itself. Those changes have made the process more accessible, more transparent, and fairer; however, they have not addressed many of the structural causes of housing insecurity among low-income families. These causes include a persistent shortage of affordable housing, the continued high cost of rents, the imbalance of bargaining power in favour of landlords within the rental market, and inconsistent access to housing assistance.

Procedural Reform Is Not Structural Reform

This distinction between procedural reform and structural reform is more than a conceptual one. It has important implications for how we evaluate housing policy. Procedural reforms improve the way institutions function, providing better information, a fair process, and access to an attorney. Structural reforms change the inherent risks and opportunities as they relate to social and economic factors that cause housing instability.

Fair legal processes are important, but they do not represent the structural changes needed to reduce housing insecurity. The difference matters especially because housing instability is not distributed evenly. It has been decades since we first documented that Black renters, especially Black women, experience higher eviction rates than their white non-Hispanic counterparts. Many of the current housing reform laws are written with no reference to race; however, most of them operate within a housing system that has historically reflected both racial and economic inequalities. Therefore, while an improvement in legal process can ease some of the problems associated with housing instability, it will not address the structural issues that are still producing significant inequalities in housing stability.

What Would Reduce Evictions

Maryland’s experience provides a valuable example for policymakers. The expansion of tenants’ legal rights has been a significant step forward, and it merits celebration. However, achieving fairer eviction procedures and fewer evictions will require housing policy to address the systemic barriers that drive them. That policy needs to include continued funding of new affordable units, strong enforcement of existing rent control laws, increased rental subsidies, and other mechanisms for ensuring that support reaches the communities bearing the greatest burden of housing instability.

In some ways, the COVID-19 pandemic forced governments to rethink their approach to housing issues. While improving eviction procedures was an important part of that response, this effort alone will not produce a future in which fewer families face eviction.

Reference

Lovell, Antoine, Raymond Adams, Jennifer M. Lilly, and Lawanda Williams. 2026. “From Procedural Reforms to Structural Gaps: A Qualitative Legislative Analysis of Eviction Laws in Maryland.” Journal of Social Policy: 1–17. doi: 10.1017/S0047279426101512.

About the Authors

Antoine Lovell is Assistant Professor of Social Work, Morgan State University, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Raymond Adams is Associate Professor of Social Work, Morgan State University, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Jennifer M. Lilly is Assistant Professor in the Graduate School of Social Service, Fordham University, New York City, NY, USA.

Lawanda Williams is Chief Behavioral Health Officer, Health Care for the Homeless, Baltimore, MD, USA.