Phoenix staff outline tenant-assistance and eviction legal services; advocates press for faster outreach and expanded capacity

City of Phoenix Human Services Department staff presented details of the city’s tenant-assistance programs and early results from a newly launched eviction legal services program during the May 28 Economic Development and Housing Subcommittee meeting, and residents and tenant advocates asked the city to increase outreach, reduce application barriers and expand legal capacity.

Human Services Director Jacqueline Edwards told the subcommittee the department operates three primary tenant programs: rental and utility assistance; a landlord–tenant counseling program that interprets the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act; and the eviction legal services (ELS) program, which launched in January 2025 and is funded with a $1,200,000 one‑time American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) interest award.

“Emergency financial assistance services, such as for rent and utility payments, are available to City of Phoenix residents in crisis situations,” Edwards said. She reported that across the department’s various fund sources HSD budgeted about $4.5 million for rental and utility assistance in FY25 and, year to date, had provided $1,600,000 in rental assistance to 949 households (average payment $1,683) and $1,800,000 in utility assistance to 3,390 households (average payment $550). Case management services were serving roughly 600 households, she said.

Edwards reviewed eligibility rules: generally applicants must be Phoenix residents or receive city water services, meet income thresholds tied to fund source rules (examples cited included 200% of the federal poverty line for some emergency assistance and 80% of area median income for other programs), and demonstrate risk of homelessness or housing instability. She said program funding is limited and that staff apply additional emergency criteria (for example, a 24‑hour lockout or utility shutoff notice, household members under age 2, seniors, persons with disabilities, or domestic violence) to prioritize who receives assistance.

On eviction legal services, Edwards said the program connects tenants with one of three contracted legal service providers for mediation, limited or full legal representation, or post‑eviction services. She described a two‑step intake and referral process: city staff screen submitted applications for eligibility and completeness and then refer eligible cases to the legal providers, who make final acceptance decisions. Edwards told the subcommittee that between January and the meeting the city had closed 35 ELS cases; those closures included negotiated settlements, preservation of affordable housing units, prevented eviction filings and fee reductions or waivers.

Edwards also supplied program metrics and early outcomes: since January the city received 40 requests for ELS, and staff said they referred 85 eligible cases to legal service providers; all 85 referrals were accepted by providers (staff later clarified that the higher referral number reflects cases that moved through the city’s internal screening and were forwarded to providers). The department said 71% of the accepted cases received full legal representation and 29% received post‑eviction services; staff reported no mediation referrals completed to date but said they are working to increase mediation usage.

Council members pressed staff for more detail on incomplete or ineligible applications. Edwards said 41 applications were incomplete (and staff routinely attempt outreach to correct missing documentation), 14 were ineligible (eight applicants were not Phoenix residents and six were not on a lease or not at threat of eviction), and some applicants had refused services. She agreed to provide committee members a more detailed breakdown of the incomplete files and follow up on turnaround times.

On process and access, Edwards described immediate and longer‑term improvements: the ELS online intake form and a Spanish version are now available; the department is adding a confirmation email to applicants that contains their responses; staff review ELS submissions within one business day and aim to flag urgent matters for faster attention; vendor review typically targets two business days after referral. Edwards said the department is working with the city’s information technology and telecom teams on a new client-facing module and improved phone routing; the client-facing system is expected to take about 18 months to implement, while process and phone-line improvements and eligibility prioritization changes are targeted in the next three to six months.

Committee members and the public urged faster outreach and easier access. Councilwoman Hodge Washington said she was “beyond elated” that the city is collecting ELS data but highlighted a gap between income thresholds across programs and asked staff to assess whether the differences are leaving people uncovered. Edwards responded that eligibility differences reflect fund-source rules and would require additional funding to change.

Multiple public commenters tied their remarks to the access question. Evelyn Castillo, an organizer with Take Back Our Homes, said, “You know, I didn’t know I could get legal help until it was too late,” and called for the city to “dramatically expand and promote legal aid, increase capacity, and ensure tenants can connect with support quickly within 24 hours on an eviction notice.” Other tenants and advocates described long phone waits, difficulty navigating online forms and instances in which tenants obtained help only because community organizers intervened.

Legal providers who hold city contracts described the services they are delivering and the results they have achieved on referred cases. Pamela Bridge of Community Legal Services (CLS) said CLS received 24 city referrals through May 1 and treated 15 as pre‑eviction limited or full representation (the remainder were post‑eviction services); of those 15, CLS attorneys obtained dismissal in nine cases. Robin Dugas of Cronus Law described cases where negotiated post‑eviction agreements and vacated judgments preserved housing subsidies. Contract providers said they are monitoring referrals closely and that the program is ramping, with referrals increasing month to month. Staff estimated the program capacity at about 50 new cases per month systemwide and said the program was operating at roughly half of that capacity at the time of the meeting.

Asked about outreach, Edwards said HSD will do targeted outreach to ZIP codes and communities with the highest eviction filings, coordinate with community partners and landlords, advertise ELS in the city’s water bill mailings in June, and post information at family service centers and heat‑relief sites. Edwards said the ELS program will be included in multi‑channel public education and that staff expect to do targeted community outreach in the next month.

Multiple council members asked staff for specific follow‑up items: a detailed breakdown of the 55 incomplete or unprocessed requests; average turnaround from initial contact to funds disbursement for rental and utility assistance; and a brief outreach plan describing how the city will reach residents who do not receive a water bill because their landlord pays utilities. Staff committed to furnishing the committee with those details and to sharing a plan for targeted outreach once data identify the highest‑need communities.

Speakers at the meeting recommended that the city partner directly with landlords, housing programs and community organizations to raise awareness, require that certain landlords provide tenants with information about legal-assistance options, and consider expanding vendor capacity and mediation to reduce courtroom time.

The subcommittee did not take formal voting action to change program rules during the meeting. Staff left the committee with a list of follow-up tasks: provide a more granular breakdown of incomplete ELS applications and outcomes, share turnaround-time data for assistance payments, produce a targeted outreach plan for high‑eviction ZIP codes, and continue process improvements (including the promised Spanish translations and confirmation emails). Committee members said they expect further updates as HSD implements immediate improvements and as data accumulate.