Resources / Study / Innovation for Court ADR

Just Court ADR

The blog of Resolution Systems Institute

COVID’s ERA and Beyond: How Rental Assistance Affects Eviction Mediation

Stephen Sullivan, June 18th, 2026

Recently, we looked back at the past five years of RSI’s Kane County Eviction Mediation Program. When we launched the program during the COVID-19 pandemic, an eviction moratorium was in place and the prospect of mass evictions loomed. Families feared losing their homes, landlords contended with uncertainty over managing property costs, and courts were concerned about their capacity to handle the anticipated volume of eviction cases.

Stock Photo by Nicola Barts via Pexels

The program’s primary goal has been to provide mediation as an opportunity for tenants and landlords to avoid eviction and pursue alternative solutions. One of the key ways we support this work is to connect parties to resources that may help them navigate their situation, including legal aid and information, financial counseling and, crucially, rental assistance. During the pandemic, the Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) program helped renters who fell behind on payments. In the years since, our staff has continued to reach out to state and local programs to determine what assistance is available and to share this information with parties.

In this article, I discuss the program’s role in sharing resources with parties and how the availability of rental assistance supports positive mediation outcomes. I also discuss recently published research by Eviction Lab analyzing the ERA’s impact across the country.

Sharing Resources with Parties

Most eviction cases that enter our program involve nonpayment of past due rent due to financial hardship. Rental assistance programs provide emergency relief in such cases; funds can cover back rent or a set amount of future rent for eligible applicants. Rental assistance benefits both tenants and landlords. It ensures landlords get the rent they are owed and helps tenants maintain their housing and avoid having an eviction on their record.

However, tenants and landlords often do not know how to access these funds or how to determine their eligibility. Sometimes these programs are also paused as states or localities determine their budgets. These factors may prevent interested parties from knowing about or accessing critical resources to ease their situation. 

This is where the Eviction Mediation Program steps in. As Program Manager Christina Wright shared, “Our program has the opportunity to keep the court and parties informed of these programs, increasing the likelihood of use with or without mediation. Rent assistance is a lifeline for both landlords and tenants and often plays a role in resolving said cases.” Our program staff regularly refers tenants and landlords to rental assistance programs, particularly the Illinois Court-Based Rental Assistance Program (CBRAP), which provides up to $10,000 to cover past due rent and/or funds to cover two months of future rent.

Rental assistance is especially time sensitive because application approval and disbursement of funds cannot happen immediately. At this early stage of the case, self-represented tenants and landlords are often overwhelmed by the amount of information they receive and feel unsure about what they need to do. This is where the mediation program’s intervention can make a meaningful difference. Ensuring parties can effectively and capably access the resources they need remains a core part of the work we do.

Rental Assistance Benefits to Mediation

RSI connects tenants and landlords to resources at various points of the mediation process. Beyond the direct benefits they provide, these resources also help parties better prepare to participate in mediation. As a result, parties are able to develop agreement terms that are practicable.

Without rental assistance resources, the scope of possible solutions narrows. Financial issues may remain unresolved if tenants feel unsure about what they can pay or are pressured to agree to payment plans that they later cannot meet. “We see fewer opportunities for parties to settle with a ‘pay and stay’ agreement,” shares Wright. RSI’s evaluation of New Hampshire’s Eviction Diversion Program found a similar trend. When the state’s rental assistance funding ended, overall agreement rates held, but the proportion of agreements to stay dropped (from 62% before rental assistance ended to 31% afterward).

Research on other eviction mediation programs finds that the availability of rental relief contributes to positive mediation outcomes. For example, an evaluation of Hawai’i’s Act 57 mediation program, established to anticipate the end of the state’s eviction moratorium in August 2021, found that 66% of agreements that involved the repayment of back rent noted the use of rental assistance[1]. Mediators and attorneys interviewed for the study agreed that rent relief helped parties to resolve their disputes[2].

A similar evaluation of an Eviction Diversion Program in Philadelphia found that cases were less likely to result in a subsequent eviction filing if parties received rental assistance (7.4% filing rate) than if they did not (42.2% filing rate). The researchers also note that provision of rental assistance made a meaningful impact in lowering court filing rates whether or not parties mediated or reached an agreement. The lowest rates were among those who received assistance, mediated and reached an agreement (4.2%) and those who received assistance, did not mediate but reached an agreement (1.8%).

When RSI launched our eviction mediation program, ERA was the largest source of rental assistance funds. Eviction Lab recently conducted a study on whether ERA was successful at reaching those who needed assistance most and what patterns emerged in how states distributed funding. Overall, their data suggests that ERA spending was significantly higher in high-risk neighborhoods —where eviction cases were most concentrated before the pandemic. They found that ERA also reached the demographics most at risk for eviction, including renters in majority-Black and majority-Hispanic neighborhoods. Additionally, households with children and those with higher unemployment rates received higher rates of funding than those without children or with lower unemployment rates. States varied in how they distributed funds, but Eviction Lab’s data suggests that these variations had little effect on national patterns: “the distribution of aid matched the geography of housing insecurity.”

Conclusion

These findings point to the benefit of having external support programs such as rental assistance to promote mediation program objectives and help tenants and landlords avoid eviction. Reaching parties who may not know what resources are available or how to access them remains a challenge. This is where effective communications — such as those we identified in our OPEN Project — can make a meaningful difference. The RSI research team is currently working with the eviction mediation program team to update our program materials to ensure parties can effectively learn about the program and access the resources they need. Stay tuned for updates on this project.

[1] The researchers note that it is unclear whether the remaining 33% of cases did not involve rental assistance or if the mediator did not make reference to it in the settlement agreements.

[2] The researchers note that while rent relief availability is an important factor to ensuring housing stability, it alone does not ensure such an outcome. They note that combining rent relief with a robust pre-litigation mediation process strengthens mediation outcomes.

Network is Safe Space for ADR Admin to Talk

Jennifer Shack, May 21st, 2026
A woman with brown curly hair sits and smiles while looking at her laptop and typing.
Stock photo by Uriel Mont via Pexels
Last year, a few ADR staff from courts around the US approached RSI to help with a need that was no longer being met elsewhere. Court ADR administrators needed a safe space to be honest and open when discussing the challenges they face as ADR administrators. Other options couldn’t provide a closed, confidential opportunity to learn and exchange ideas. The ADR staff asked RSI to provide that safe space for them. We agreed — who else would be better suited to take on the role of convening a network of court ADR administrators than RSI?

So, in November 2025, the Court ADR Network was launched. With dozens of members signed up, we held our first meeting to figure out what members wanted from the network. We decided to have RSI host quarterly meetings at which an expert — who could be a member — would present on a topic of interest, followed by a group discussion of that topic, or anything else. We also voted on the topics that would be the focus of each of the next three meetings.


The network is open to both state and federal court administrators, from trial to appellate level, and from single courts to statewide offices. It is also open to allied staff, such as in-house researchers and staff mediators. If you fit those categories and would like to join the Court ADR Network, please reach out to jshack@aboutrsi.org.


Our next meeting in February focused on how to work with self-represented litigants, from referral through mediation. I presented on the needs of self-represented litigants, including the importance of effective communication and issues presented by power imbalances when one side has an attorney and the other does not. That was followed by a lively discussion of the role of technology and AI as avenues for access to justice.

The topic of our third meeting, held this month, was mediator recruitment and retention. Josh Pando, the New Mexico Statewide ADR Senior Program Manager, talked about his successful recruitment and retention strategies. Discussion ranged from where to find new recruits, to ways programs engage and educate mediators, to what programs require of volunteer mediators. In August, we will be talking about the use of technology and AI.

The meetings have also provided members with an opportunity to get to network and learn about what different programs are doing. In emails, members have expressed their appreciation for the network, including a new member who recently wrote, “I absolutely loved yesterday’s meeting.” In addition to the meetings, RSI periodically lets members know about resources and learning opportunities.

The network is open to both state and federal court administrators, from trial to appellate level, and from single courts to statewide offices. It is also open to allied staff, such as in-house researchers and staff mediators. If you fit those categories and would like to join the Court ADR Network, please reach out to me at jshack@aboutrsi.org.

A Look Back at Nearly Five Years of RSI’s Kane County Eviction Mediation Program

Sandy Wiegand, April 22nd, 2026

When RSI launched the Kane County Eviction Mediation Program in May 2021, the Chicago collar county was facing the prospect of an onslaught of evictions as it became evident that pandemic-related eviction moratoria could soon wind down. Having cost so many lives and livelihoods, COVID-19 was also threatening people’s homes.

Today, as the eviction mediation program nears the milestone of five years in operation, we are taking the time to reflect on its goals and share some of its outcomes, including observations from some of the folks involved. Stay tuned in the coming weeks, too, for a more detailed and rigorous report from our Research Team, evaluating the program’s performance in 2025.

Stock photo by Kamaji Ogino via Pexels

Goals and Opportunities

RSI and Illinois’ 16th Judicial Circuit developed the Kane County Eviction Mediation Program together because we saw its potential to help families avoid sheriff’s eviction, as well as to help the court — which had only one eviction judge — manage the “tsunami” of evictions some feared would overtake it when the state’s eviction moratorium ended. Supporters also recognized that the grant-funded mediation program, which was free to participants, could benefit landlords by being cost-effective and potentially helping them to avoid empty units.

One of the program’s early, vital proponents was Judge John Dalton, who presided over Kane County Eviction Court from the program’s inception through December 2023. Judicial support has been key to the success of the program, as a 2022 RSI report stated: “The program can only function if the judges support it both by educating the parties about the resources available to them and by either strongly encouraging or requiring the parties to attend mediation. When tenants and landlords are educated about the benefits of mediation, they are more likely to want to participate.”

Noting that Kane County had been the first in Illinois to launch an eviction mediation program, Judge Dalton commented in 2023: “We have been overwhelmingly pleased with the outcomes. It has been successful in assisting landlords and tenants in reaching mutually beneficial agreements.”

Those with ADR experience, including RSI, foresaw another set of benefits from the eviction mediation program. One was the opportunity for parties to experience procedural justice, elements of which include feeling able to express oneself in mediation, finding the mediation process fair, and feeling satisfied with the process. We also knew that mediation carried the possibility of parties finding creative solutions in a way that was unlikely to occur in court.

Furthermore, because mediation was conducted online, and because the program did not charge parties any fee, it could increase access to justice. 

“(B)eing able to participate in mediation remotely via Zoom has been a huge benefit to all parties,” RSI Eviction Mediation Program Assistant Cathy McCoy noted. “Attending mediation and court in person in Kane County can be difficult without access to transportation, given the layout of the county.”

Mediations, Agreements and Avoided Evictions

Over the course of its existence, the Kane County Eviction Mediation Program has mediated almost 3,000 cases, which led to more than 2,100 agreements that helped parties avoid eviction. RSI program staff has also connected thousands of parties to support such as financial and housing counseling, legal aid, utility assistance and rental assistance.

Cathy, who joined RSI’s staff in 2025, has also been a paid mediator for RSI since the program’s beginning. In 2024, her dedication to providing a supportive process for eviction mediation parties led her to begin volunteering in person at the Kane County Courthouse in Geneva, Illinois, as well. (Although parties can attend mediation and court online, some still choose to attend in person.)

“Eviction mediation can benefit both tenants and landlords, both by shortening the time it takes to resolve their case and by reducing the stress level so that parties can focus on the future and make difficult decisions,” Cathy told us in 2024. “Most importantly, mediation can help avoid evictions and provide a bit of stability during challenging times.”

Tenants in eviction cases are overwhelmingly self-represented, and they often feel overwhelmed and powerless trying to navigate their case. Access to mediators and other support personnel can reduce their barriers to justice. “I often work with pro se parties that express gratitude that RSI mediators help them understand the process and empower them to make decisions, when the expense of an attorney would be a financial burden,” Cathy explained.

Sophie Rexrode is an Illinois Justice Corps fellow who has worked alongside Cathy at the courthouse, providing parties with information about the eviction court process, mediation and rental assistance. Sophie points to the program as a means to improve access to justice, while also noting that promoting dialogue can have additional, less obvious impacts.

“(B)uilding out parallel and alternative ways of resolving issues is tremendously important if we are interested in having a justice system that works for everyone, and the eviction mediation program is a significant step in that direction,” Sophie said recently of the program. “I also think that opening doors for dialogue in the community is critical, and the benefits from that ripple outward even if an individual case doesn’t get resolved.”

Judge and Party Feedback

In 2024, a new presiding judge was assigned to the Kane County Eviction Court and its eviction mediation program. Judge Elizabeth Flood oversaw the mediation program from January 2024 through December 2025. “I think the program was effective in facilitating communication between the parties and giving tenants the possibility of keeping their housing or negotiating more favorable terms to move or decrease debt,” she told RSI recently.

Many on the other side of the bench seemed to agree with this assessment. RSI’s Research Team regularly surveys Kane County Eviction Mediation Program participants as one way to evaluate the program’s effectiveness. Although feedback on the program has not been universally favorable (read full reports on the program’s survey responses on RSI’s website), the great majority of comments have been positive. Here are a few: 

“When people go through a difficult time, this program gives them a chance.”

“This program is a life preserver to a drowning person. Thank you.”

“This process gave me hope that I could get through a difficult time in my life, without having to further upset my life via eviction! I am very grateful!”

And apart from the surveys, just this month, a landlord emailed program staff to say:

“I truly have nothing but incredibly positive things to say so far in the mediation process and [staff member] was beyond helpful.”

The same week, an attorney sent staff the note:

“I generally have nothing but positive things to say about the mediation program. It has helped me resolve [many] cases over the past few years. … I appreciate that the program is available to facilitate resolution.”

Procedural Justice

RSI’s post-mediation surveys of Kane County Eviction Mediation Program participants focus in particular on measures of procedural justice, or the degree to which people feel they have been treated fairly during the process. In addition to being a useful gauge of participant satisfaction, procedural justice is important to the effectiveness of mediation. When people leave mediation with a sense of having been treated fairly, they tend to be more likely to abide by the agreement reached.

RSI’s survey asks questions about voice, fairness, trust in the mediator, respectful treatment by the mediator and more. Throughout the lifetime of the Kane County program, survey respondents have consistently given it high marks for procedural justice. For example, parties who responded to RSI’s surveys after participating in the program in 2025 gave an average rating above 4 on a five-point scale for each of the five procedural justice questions.

Comments from parties often reflect their appreciation for having a voice in the process and feeling respected. For example, tenant comments from surveys on mediations held in 2025 included the following:

“[Staff member] and [mediator] … made me feel important, I was heard, I was treated fairly and it made a stressful situation very comfortable …”

“[Mediator] did a great job at making sure both myself and my landlord were ‘heard.’”

“The mediator was fair with both sides which is all anyone could ask.”

Likewise, landlord’s attorneys who took surveys provided the following comments regarding 2025 mediations:

“Mediator was fair to both sides and not overly pushy toward settlement. Mediator was incredibly inquisitive, prompting both sides to be more honest or consider things they had not considered. Mediator was patient and thorough, made sure the case was settled and worked through tech issues with the tenant.”

“The resolution took into account the requests and needs of both sides.”

Asked about the program’s impact on parties, Judge Flood summarized: “I believe most parties felt they had a greater opportunity to express themselves and be heard than in a busy courtroom.”

Benefits to the Court

Both Judge Dalton and Judge Flood also credit the Kane County Eviction Mediation Program with helping the court run smoothly.

“Around 70% of the cases referred to mediation were resolved with a settlement agreement,” Judge Flood noted, “which streamlined the court process, led to quicker resolutions, and alleviated the need for trial settings on the majority of the cases.”

“Thanks to this program, the court has been able to run efficiently during an eviction surge,” Judge Dalton said.

RSI is grateful to the funders of this program over the years, including the American Arbitration Association – International Center for Dispute Resolution Foundation and the Illinois Equal Justice Foundation.

We hope to see the program continue for many years to come.

Hon. Elizabeth Flood

Report Offers Useful Insight on Remote Mediation for People with Disabilities

Jasmine Henry, March 20th, 2026

A recent report on remote mediation and disability by Nick White, Research and Evaluation Director for the Maryland Judiciary’s Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office (MACRO), sheds light on how remote mediations might improve access to justice for people with disabilities. The RSI team has found the report’s findings helpful in assessing how our own eviction mediation program serves this population.

A woman with long brown hair and wearing a light pink top and blazer looks intently at a laptop screen while taking notes with a pen and paper. She is sitting in a wheelchair at a round white and brown wood table.
Photo by Gustavo Fring via Pexels

White’s research team recruited 23 mediators and 62 people with disabilities to participate in simulations of remote mediations. The research focused on participants with visual, hearing and physical disabilities. Researchers used interviews and focus groups to gain insight about participants’ and mediators’ experiences before and after the simulated mediation. Participants also completed surveys before and after the simulated mediation.

Participant Experiences vs. Expectations

In many instances, the simulated mediation seems to have met or exceeded participants’ expectations in terms of barriers. Before their simulated mediation, participants were asked what concerns they had and what potential benefits they anticipated. While most participants reported expecting technology challenges or problems communicating online, the participants’ responses after the simulated mediation indicated that most experienced fewer barriers than expected.

When asked after their simulated mediation whether it “reduced any barriers … that [they] expected to face,” 85.5% of 54 participants responded “yes.” Additionally, when participants were asked if remote mediation “created any barriers … that [they] were not expecting,” 74.5% answered “no.” This is in line with the participants’ overall comments, 73.5% of which focused on potential benefits to using remote mediation, and 26.5% of which focused on potential barriers.

Although the participants’ responses were largely positive, some barriers, discussed below, did affect the simulated mediations.

Technology Challenges

Unsurprisingly, technology issues were among the challenges. Both participants and mediators mentioned having connectivity issues during their simulated mediation. Complications also occurred with the use of assistive technology. For example, during one simulated mediation, the mediator was unable to work their closed caption software, despite having practiced using the tool prior to the session. Further, a participant noted that closed captions are not always accurate.

Participants and mediators in White’s study seemed to agree that the best solution for any potential technology challenge is to ensure everyone is fully prepared for the session. When asked what advice or info they would give someone with a disability who is considering remote mediation, a party stated: “Always communicate your needs before the mediation to make the process comfortable for you.” When asked what worked well in their session, a mediator said: “Understanding ahead of time how the participants wanted to engage in the mediation, what technology they were using, and checking in ahead of time regarding any needed accommodations or supports.”

A good intake protocol, such as the one provided in the appendix of White’s report, is important for being fully prepared. As RSI works to improve our eviction mediation program’s intake process to better serve parties with disabilities, we plan to adopt some of the report’s guidance, including adding the intake question: “Do you have any accessibility needs that we should be aware of to ensure your full participation in the remote mediation process?”

Online vs. In-Person Mediation

Participants in the simulated mediations also voiced concerns about potential disadvantages to online versus in-person mediation. A central concern was the potential loss of nonverbal communication and the possibility that the mediator might miss subtle cues like body language or tone.

Such disadvantages are exacerbated when parties are either unable or choose not to turn on their cameras. The question of whether participants should be required to keep cameras on is tricky, and not just for mediations involving people with disabilities. Having video provides mediators with nonverbal cues that can help them better recognize party emotions and engagement. It also allows everyone in the mediation to more easily see if others are in the room with a participant. Additionally, using videos for mediations can provide participants with more context; for example, a deaf participant noted that they find lip reading helpful and recommended that camera use be mandatory. However, some participants may not be able to navigate the necessary technology to turn their videos on for a remote mediation, and some may prefer to keep their cameras off, for reasons that may or may not be connected to their disability.

RSI’s mediation program typically requires that both parties’ cameras be turned on, with case-by-case exceptions. When those exceptions occur, we recommend that our mediators tell both parties to keep their cameras off, as a way to address potential power imbalances created when only one party has their camera on. (See our Power Imbalance Toolkit for more on this.)

Concerns About Discrimination

Another concern named by parties in the research was the potential for the mediator to misunderstand or discriminate against them because of their disability. Participant comments noted that discrimination sometimes occurs when the mediator does not fully understand the parties’ needs, with one participant’s post-mediation comment calling on mediators to “make sure they are sensitive to people with [disabilities].” Another research participant shared the following post-mediation feedback: “you are thinking that one size fits all disabilities — this will not be true,” and another shared, after the mediation, that “[the mediator] can check their ableist attitudes.”

The report recommends ways for mediators to accommodate parties. For example, for participants with visual disabilities, mediators can take specific care to describe any documents, graphics or photos shared on the screen. For participants with auditory disabilities, mediators should ensure they are able to use closed captioning; and, once closed captioning is enabled, they should remain vigilant to ensure it is accurate. Above all, the research emphasized that mediators should remember to treat parties with empathy and patience, regardless of their status.

Conclusions

Overall, the report found that remote mediation opened access to people with disabilities who may otherwise have a hard time participating in mediation. Further, research participants were highly positive about their experience. The report’s findings indicate that courts should take careful consideration when providing remote mediation to parties with disabilities. Deliberate planning, mediator training and a good intake protocol are all essential aspects of a fair, effective and efficient service.

RSI’s mediation program works to address several of the issues named in the report in our mediator meet-ups, which occur monthly. These meet-ups are geared toward helping our mediators better provide services to all parties who enter our program. Reports such as this are essential to helping our mediators improve.

Verified by ExactMetrics