Can an Oklahoma city pay a nonprofit to help renters avoid eviction without violating the Oklahoma Constitution's public-purpose rule?

Plain-English summary

Tulsa County District Court Judge Doug Drummond described the eviction docket as "staggering." Tulsa and Oklahoma City rank 11th and 20th nationally in eviction rates. Eviction is tightly linked to homelessness, and homelessness costs Oklahoma cities millions in shelter, emergency room, and police services.

Representative Chris Kannady asked the AG: can a city use municipal funds to pay a nonprofit (like Legal Aid Services of Oklahoma) to provide eviction-diversion services, legal help, mediation, case management, for tenants and landlords?

AG Drummond said yes. Article X, §§ 14 and 17 of the Oklahoma Constitution require that public funds be spent for a "public purpose." That term is read broadly, with great deference to the city council as the local legislative body. Oklahoma already has three legislatively recognized programs in the same space (the Housing Authority Act, the Housing Stability Program, the Homeless Prevention Act). A city can reasonably decide that eviction prevention reduces homelessness and lessens burdens on government, both well-established public purposes.

The opinion comes with three guardrails:

1. No interference with the property owner's right to exclude. Eviction prevention does not mean delaying or blocking lawful evictions. The landlord's right to file and complete an eviction must remain undisturbed.
2. Adequate governmental controls. The contract must define eligible services, set eligibility criteria, require submission of claims on government forms, limit expenditures to an approved budget, and include performance measures. Cities cannot just hand over money and walk away.
3. No monetary rental assistance is at issue. The question was about diversion services (legal aid, mediation), not rent payments: though the Homeless Prevention Act separately authorizes rental assistance.

What this means for you

If you sit on a city council

You can lawfully fund eviction-diversion services through a contract with a qualified nonprofit. To survive any future challenge, the council should make a documented finding that:

• The services address a public problem (housing instability, homelessness, costs to city services).
• The benefit reaches a meaningful slice of the public, not just a private group.
• The contract has the four control elements (eligibility, claims process, approved budget, performance measures).
• Property owners' rights remain undisturbed.

This is not an obligation. The opinion confirms a city can do this; it does not require any city to do this. The decision is local.

If you are a city attorney

Build the standard eviction-diversion contract template around the Way v. Grand Lake Association control framework: defined services, eligibility criteria, approved-budget limit, claim-submission process on city forms, and performance measures. Avoid lump-sum grants without controls, they look more like a "gift" prohibited by art. X, § 17.

The AG opinion does not insulate a specific contract from challenge, the AG only addressed the legal framework, not specific facts. Document the city council's public-purpose findings on the record.

If you run Legal Aid Services of Oklahoma or a similar nonprofit

Cities can now contract with you for eviction-diversion work without constitutional concern. To smooth the path for partner cities, draft your contract template to anticipate the four controls (services, eligibility, claims process, budget). Track outcomes (cases handled, evictions avoided, families housed) so cities can satisfy the performance-measure requirement.

If you are a property owner or landlord-association attorney

The opinion explicitly preserves the right to file and complete evictions. Eviction-diversion services are not a delay tactic against landlords, they are services to find resolutions where possible. The AG cited Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (the Supreme Court's strong reaffirmation of the right to exclude) and Alabama Association of Realtors v. HHS (striking down the federal CDC eviction moratorium) to emphasize that the constitutional limit on the city's program is the landlord's property right.

You can also note that recent Oklahoma legislation (21 O.S. §§ 1354–56) gives property owners more tools to remove unlawful occupants, even as cities work on the diversion side.

If you are a tenant facing eviction in a city with a diversion program

These programs typically offer free legal help, mediation, and case management to identify alternatives to eviction (payment plans, transition assistance, referrals to other resources). Contact your city's housing or social services office to find the contracted nonprofit. The program does not stop a lawful eviction from proceeding; it tries to find a resolution before the eviction completes.

If you are a civic advocate, journalist, or local researcher

The AG cited 2023 data on Oklahoma City: more than 8,000 families evicted and roughly $96 per day per unhoused person in costs to taxpayers, totaling more than $2 million per day if all those families ended up unhoused. The financial case for diversion programs is straightforward, even before the human dimension. Programs in Durham, NC; Kalamazoo, MI; Cleveland, OH; Kansas City, MO; and Louisville, KY have shown 60–80% success rates avoiding eviction.

Common questions

Q: Is "public purpose" a hard test or a soft one?
A: Soft. Oklahoma courts give "great deference" to the city council's determination, and a court will reverse only on a "clear showing that it was manifestly arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable" (State ex rel. Brown v. City of Warr Acres).

Q: Can the city directly pay a tenant's rent to prevent eviction?
A: That was outside the scope of this opinion. Rental assistance is separately authorized by the Homeless Prevention Act (74 O.S. § 2900.1) and federal programs. Cities should consult counsel before using municipal funds for direct rent payments.

Q: Does the program have to benefit everyone in the city equally?
A: No. Way v. Grand Lake Association and Willow Wind hold that benefits do not have to be spread equally; "a use may be public although it is of benefit primarily to the inhabitants of a small and restricted locality." A program targeting tenants at risk of eviction in a specific neighborhood is permissible.

Q: Can the city require performance metrics from the nonprofit?
A: Yes, and arguably must. The "adequate governmental controls" requirement explicitly contemplates performance measures.

Q: What if a landlord complains the city is interfering with their right to evict?
A: The opinion explicitly preserves landlord rights. The city's contract should make clear that the diversion services are voluntary for both parties and do not delay or block any lawful eviction proceeding. A program that actively interfered with evictions would step outside the AG's safe harbor.

Q: Is this just a legal-aid-funding opinion?
A: Effectively, yes: but the framework also covers mediation services, case management, and similar non-monetary diversion services. The example in the opinion is specifically Legal Aid Services of Oklahoma's eviction work.

Q: Can a city contract with a for-profit eviction-diversion company?
A: The opinion frames the question around nonprofit organizations. The constitutional analysis (public purpose, adequate controls) would apply to any contractor, but cities should be cautious with for-profit contractors because the "no gift" prohibition (art. X, § 17) is stricter when the recipient could profit privately.

Background and statutory framework

Article X, §§ 14 and 17 of the Oklahoma Constitution require public funds to be used only for public purposes and prohibit gifts of public funds to private entities. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has read "public purpose" broadly (Helm v. Childers, 1938; State ex rel. Brown, 1997).

The defining case for adequate governmental controls is Way v. Grand Lake Association (1981), where the Court upheld a state program funding multicounty associations because the legislation: (a) defined eligible expenditures, (b) required claims to be processed through the state budget office on approved forms, (c) operated within an approved budget, and (d) included performance measures. The opinion uses Way as the template for the four controls cities should build into eviction-diversion contracts.

Oklahoma has three legislative programs in the housing-stability space:

• Oklahoma Housing Authority Act (63 O.S. §§ 1051–1084): affordable housing for low-income individuals and families.
• Oklahoma Housing Stability Program (74 O.S. §§ 2903–2903.5, 2023): increasing affordable housing in urban and rural areas.
• Homeless Prevention Act (74 O.S. §§ 2900–2901.4), assisting homeless individuals to participate in private rental markets.

The opinion also references the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (41 O.S. §§ 101–201): which establishes the landlord-tenant rights framework that any city eviction-diversion program must respect.

The AG explicitly preserved the property owner's "right to exclude," citing Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021) and Loretto v. Teleprompter (1982). The opinion also noted City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (2024), where the Supreme Court upheld municipal anti-camping ordinances, as evidence that homelessness response is a complex local-policy area where cities have wide latitude.

Citations and references

Constitution:
- Okla. Const. art. X, §§ 14, 17: Public purpose; no gift

Statutes:
- 41 O.S. §§ 101–201, Residential Landlord and Tenant Act
- 63 O.S. §§ 1051–1084, Oklahoma Housing Authority Act
- 74 O.S. §§ 2900–2901.4, Homeless Prevention Act
- 74 O.S. §§ 2903–2903.5, Oklahoma Housing Stability Program
- 11 O.S. § 22-101(4), Municipal contracting power
- 21 O.S. §§ 1354–56: Property owner removal of unlawful occupants

Cases:
- State ex rel. Brown v. City of Warr Acres, 1997 OK 117, 946 P.2d 1140, broad reading of public purpose
- Way v. Grand Lake Ass'n, 1981 OK 70, 635 P.2d 1010, adequate governmental controls
- Willow Wind, Inc. v. City of Midwest City, 1989 OK 171, 790 P.2d 1067, public purpose can benefit a small locality
- Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021), right to exclude
- Alabama Ass'n of Realtors v. HHS, 594 U.S. 758 (2021), limits on eviction moratoria

Source

• Landing page: https://oklahoma.gov/oag/opinions/ag-opinions/2024/ag-opinion-2024-10.html
• Original PDF: https://oklahoma.gov/content/dam/ok/en/oag/opinions/ag-opinions/2024/AG Opinion 2024-10 AGO24-12.pdf

Original opinion text

GENTNER DRUMMOND
ATTORNEY GENERAL
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION
2024-10
The Honorable Chris Kannady
Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 91
2300 N. Lincoln Boulevard, Room 240
Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4885

July 12, 2024

Dear Representative Kannady,
This office has received your request for an official Attorney General Opinion in which you ask,
in effect, the following question:
Does the allocation of municipal funds to a not-for-profit organization for the
purpose of eviction prevention serve a valid public purpose within the
applicable provisions of Oklahoma law?1
I.
SUMMARY
Yes. The Oklahoma Constitution permits a municipality to determine, in its legislative capacity,
that eviction prevention services provide a public purpose. Article X, sections 14 and 17, each
require that all expenditures of public funds are for public purposes. The term “public purpose” is
broadly interpreted with great deference to the Legislature and, by extension to the governing body
of a municipality, which serves as its legislative body. State ex rel. Brown v. City of Warr Acres,
1997 OK 117, ¶ 17, 946 P.2d 1140, 1144. Oklahoma has at least three legislatively enacted
programs to ensure individuals and families have access to housing, mitigate homelessness, and
ameliorate the deleterious effects of these issues. The correlations between evictions, housing
instability, and homelessness are known. And their impact on state and local economies is equally
established. Conceivably, then, a municipality can, in its legislative function, determine that
eviction prevention services assist with remedying housing instability and mitigating homelessness

Based on information provided to this office, “eviction prevention” does not include monetary payment to
an individual as a part of rental assistance. Instead, your inquiry concerns eviction diversion services providing legal
aid, mediation, case management, data, and other information to those facing eviction and landlords. NATIONAL
CENTER FOR STATE COURTS, https://www.ncsc.org/consulting-and-research/areas-of-expertise/access-tojustice/eviction-resources/eviction-diversion-planning (last visited July 9, 2024). For the avoidance of doubt, an
example within your inquiry is a municipality contracting with a not-for-profit, such as Legal Aid Services of
Oklahoma, a non-profit, 501(c)(3) for civil legal services, such as legal counsel, to individuals and families facing or
at risk of facing eviction and a pathway for parties to resolve their issues quickly and affordably.
1

313 N.E. 21ST STREET • OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 • (405) 521-3921 • Fax: (405) 521-6246

The Honorable Chris Kannady
Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 91

A.G. Opinion
Page 2

thereby lessening burdens on governments, including core police and court services, or otherwise
promoting the public welfare. 2
The conclusion in this opinion does not mean or suggest that a municipality should make such a
determination. Instead, that decision-making authority is vested locally with those elected to
govern a municipality. Any municipality determining that eviction prevention services are for
public purposes and contracting with a third party to provide such services for the city must
recognize, and not interfere with, the property owner’s right to exclude others, including filing and
completing an eviction. Finally, any contract between a municipality and a third party for eviction
prevention services must establish and maintain adequate safeguards and governmental controls,
as detailed below.
II.
BACKGROUND
Individuals do not have a constitutional right to housing, any housing adequacy, or a right to
occupy the landlord’s property beyond the lease’s terms. 3 Instead, any assurance of housing or
housing adequacy are matters that particularly rest within the domain of state policy. Alabama
Ass’n of Realtors v. Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 594 U.S. 758, 765 (2021). Rental housing is
no different. Id. And, a property owner, including any owner of rental housing, has a fundamental
right to exclude others. 4 Unsurprisingly, then, the Oklahoma Legislature established the
Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, which authorizes landlords to exclude others from their
property, including by eviction, and concurrently affords rights to tenants. 41 O.S.2021, Supp.2022
& Supp.2023, §§ 101–201. 5 These property owner rights are settled. And they are often used. 6
2
Equally, to mitigate homelessness and its impacts, a municipality may enact an ordinance prohibiting
sleeping or camping on public property, including fines and other consequences for violations. City of Grants Pass,
Oregon v. Johnson, No. 23-175, 2024 WL 3208072, at *19 (U.S. June 28, 2024), (“Homelessness is complex. Its
causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it.”); see also S.B. 1854, 59th Leg., 2024
2d Reg. Sess. (Okla. 2024) (prohibiting use of state-owned lands to establish an unauthorized camp, including tent,
shelter, or bedding for overnight use on property not designated as a campsite).

The United States Constitution does not “guarantee . . . access to dwellings of a particular quality,” Lindsey
v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 74 (1972), and states have “broad power to regulate housing conditions in general and the
landlord-tenant relationship in particular.” Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1, 12 n.6.
3

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139, 140 (2021) (right to exclude is not an empty formality that
can be modified at the government’s pleasure); Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 435,
(1982) (right to exclude is one of the most treasured rights of property ownership).
4

Recently, the Legislature established additional protections for private property owners, explicitly bolstering
the right to exclude and remove others unlawfully occupying real property. 21 O.S.Supp.2024, §§ 1354–56 (generally
providing property owners with the right to request a sheriff immediately remove a person unlawfully occupying real
property but excluding from its removal provisions persons who are or were former tenants under a written or oral
rental agreement).
5

In 2016, the Eviction Lab at Princeton University ranked Tulsa and Oklahoma City as the eleventh and
twentieth highest evicting cities in the United States, despite ranking forty-eighth and twenty-seventh in population
LAB,
https://evictionlab.org/rankings/#/evictions?r=United%20
ranking,
respectively.
EVICTION
States&a=0&d=evictionRate (last visited July 9, 2024); 2016 Census. Additionally, in 2016, landlord-tenant cases
6

The Honorable Chris Kannady
Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 91

A.G. Opinion
Page 3

Illuminating the volume of cases, the parties involved, and the overarching goals and priorities,
Tulsa County District Court Judge Doug Drummond recently stated:
The number of cases in our eviction court is staggering . . . . Reducing cases that
go to court is a priority as is helping families who are legally evicted find another
place to live. The Court’s role is to provide a fair forum for both landlords and
tenants, but the overall goal for our community is to reduce homelessness.
HOUSING SOLUTIONS, https://www.housingsolutionstulsa.org/tulsa-county-district-court-receivesgrant-for-new-eviction-diversion-program/ (last visited July 9, 2024).
The Oklahoma Legislature has enacted at least three programs expressly addressing two issues
raised by Judge Drummond: 1) families finding a place to live following an eviction, or housing
instability, and 2) homelessness. See the Oklahoma Housing Authority Act, 63 O.S.2021, §§ 1051–
1084; the Oklahoma Housing Stability Program, 74 O.S.Supp.2023, §§ 2903–2903.5; the
Homeless Prevention Act, 74 O.S.2021, §§ 2900–2901.4. These programs intend to increase
affordable housing, keep families housed, and recognize the costs and effects that housing
instability and homelessness have on the State, citizens, and local communities. 63 O.S.2021,
§ 1053; 74 O.S.2021, § 2901.4. While the Legislature established these programs to keep
individuals and families housed, no statutory programs expressly relating to eviction diversion
assistance exist. However, correlations between the issues are known. 7 And their impacts on each
other, the parties involved, and state and local economies are equally understood. 8 Considering
represented nearly twenty percent of all filings in courts across the United States. Trends in State Courts, NATIONAL
CENTER FOR STATE COURTS 90 (2016), https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/25578/meeting-thechallenges.pdf.
Homelessness
Stateside
Overview,
OKLAHOMA
HOUSING
NEEDS
7,
32
(2015)
(2015
https://oklahomahousingneeds.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Homelessness-Statewide-Overview.pdf
Oklahoma Department of Commerce and the Oklahoma Housing Finance Agency report providing that the absence
of affordable housing is the largest cause of homelessness in the state, that Oklahoma families living in subsidized
(affordable) housing are most at risk for homelessness because a missed payment can easily lead to eviction and
homelessness, and that the majority of the unsheltered homeless population in Oklahoma City reside in emergency
shelters after falling on hard times, such as “have been lately evicted, lost their job, or have significant medical
expenses.”). See also Strategies to Address Homelessness in Oklahoma City, CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY 17, 25 (2021)
https://www.okc.gov/departments/planning/programs/homelessness/strategies-to-address-homelessness-in-oklahoma
-city (affordable housing is the greatest need for people experiencing homelessness in Oklahoma City, and that
evictions, which “displace many individuals and families from their home to the street or into homelessness.”); 74
O.S.2021, §2901.4.
7

Indeed, these direct and downstream costs are significant. One unhoused individual is estimated to cost
taxpayers $96 per day. CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, https://www.okc.gov/Home/Components/News/News/4736/18 (last
visited July 9, 2024). Extrapolating these figures, one day of homelessness for the more than 8,000 families evicted in
Oklahoma City in 2023 costs taxpayers more than $2 million. Id. These costs include jail, transportation, shelters,
emergency rooms, mental health services, hospitals, and police services, particularly among 28% of Oklahoma City’s
homeless population who are chronically homeless. Strategies to Address Homelessness in Oklahoma City, CITY OF
OKLAHOMA CITY 11 (2021), https://www.okc.gov/departments/planning/programs/homelessness/strategies-toaddress-homelessness-in-oklahoma-city. Effects on communities are also present with increases in crime. Daniel
Semenza, Richard Stansfield, Jessica M. Grosholz & Nathan W. Link, Eviction and Crime: A Neighborhood Analysis
in Philadelphia, 68 CRIME & DELINQUENCY 707 (2022) (finding evictions are directly associated with an uptick in
8

The Honorable Chris Kannady
Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 91

A.G. Opinion
Page 4

this background, you submit your inquiry, which implicates article X, sections 14 and 17 of the
Oklahoma Constitution. Accordingly, this office analyzes these constitutional provisions, case
law, and Oklahoma statutes, which guide and answer your question. 9
III.
DISCUSSION
If a municipality determines that eviction prevention services provide a public purpose, the city
may lawfully contract with a non-profit organization to provide such services for the benefit of the
municipality. Provided, any determination and contract for such services must: 1) not substantively
interfere with a property owner’s right to exclude others from privately-owned property, including
the right to file and successfully complete an eviction, and 2) establish and maintain adequate
governmental controls and safeguards.
Article X, sections 14 and 17 contain a requirement that public funds are used for public purposes.
OKLA. CONST. art. X, §§ 14(A), 17; State ex rel. Brown, 1997 OK 117, ¶ 1, 946 P.2d at 1143;
Willow Wind, Inc. v. City of Midwest City, 1989 OK 171, ¶ 7, 790 P.2d 1067, 1070. The term
“public purpose” is interpreted broadly and is not construed in a narrow and restricted sense. State
ex rel. Brown, 1997 OK 117, ¶ 18, 946 P.2d at 1144. Indeed, “great deference” is given to a
“legislative body’s determination that a particular project . . . serve[s] a public purpose,” and that
determination will be reversed “only upon a clear showing that it was manifestly arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable.” Id. 10 As early as 1938, the Oklahoma Supreme Court stated:

homicide, burglary, and robberies); see also Stefano Falcone, Do Evictions Increase Crime? Evidence from Nuisance
SCHOOL
OF
ECONOMICS
(Sept.
2022)
Ordinances
in
Ohio,
BARCELONA
https://www.iae.csic.es/investigatorsMaterial/a221912085344sp37207.pdf (finding every ten percent increase in
evictions led to a five-and-one-half percent increase in burglaries and an eight-and-one-half percent increase in the
number of vehicle thefts). In Norman, Oklahoma, available data demonstrates that there were approximately 100 more
arrests at homeless shelters between 2021 and 2022, with drug violations, public intoxication, assault, and theft as the
most common causes. Andrea Hancock, Homelessness and crime by the numbers: What we know, THE NORMAN
TRANSCRIPT,
https://www.normantranscript.com/news/courts_crime_police/homelessness-and-crime-by-thenumbers-what-we-know/article_ed7c3144-96e9-11ee-bccb-378aa6b2fcd6.html (Dec. 10, 2023).
9
Historically, an analysis of the “public purpose” requirement is sewn with Oklahoma’s constitutional
prohibitions on gifts of funds to a private organization without adequate consideration. See OKLA. CONST. art. X, §§ 15
(applicable to the State) and 17 (applicable to a municipality). However, because this office understands your question
relates to a non-profit organization providing services under a contract with a municipality, this situation does not
involve an unlawful gift. Stated otherwise, within the context of your inquiry, the municipality receives services and
benefits in exchange for monetary payment to the non-profit. Childs. Home & Welfare Ass’n v. Childers, 1946 OK
180, ¶ 5, 171 P.2d 613, 614 (a contract entered by the State does not constitute a gift when the State receives property
or services in exchange for monetary payment.). Accordingly, an analysis of the constitutional prohibition on gifts is
unnecessary.
10

The Oklahoma Supreme Court has previously described municipal powers and functions as follows:

The City Council is the legislative body of a city. As such, it is its function to determine what
expenditures are designed to promote the public good and welfare of the city and its inhabitants. It
has no limitations as to expenditures, “save and except those which are expressly placed on its
exercise by the Constitution of the State.”

The Honorable Chris Kannady
Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 91

A.G. Opinion
Page 5

The meaning of “public purposes” for which governmental exaction of money may
be had is not within a narrow and restricted sense. At any rate the courts cannot
interfere to arrest legislative action where the line of distinction between that
allowable and that which is not is faint and shadowy. In such instances the
decision of the Legislature is accepted as final.
Helm v. Childers, 1938 OK 34, ¶ 5, 75 P.2d 398, 399 (emphasis added).
The Oklahoma Supreme Court expressly affirmed this rule in Way v. Grand Lake Association,
1981 OK 70, ¶ 38, 635 P.2d 1010, 1016–17. 11
Critically, any established program or contract must also have governmental controls and
safeguards to fully satisfy the public purpose requirement. Id.; see also Democratic Party of Okla.
v. Estep, 1982 OK 106, ¶ 14 n.19, 652 P.2d 271, 276 n.19 (the legislation in Way required the
“legislative policy to be followed and defined the category of expenditures for which
reimbursement could be sought. All claims of the multicounty organizations to be benefitted by
that act were required to be processed through the state budget office, on state-approved claim
forms and pursuant to an approved budget.”). Helm, 1938 OK 34, ¶ 4, 75 P.2d at 398; Orthopedic
Hosp. of Okla. v. Oklahoma State Dep’t of Health, 2005 OK CIV APP 43, ¶ 7, 118 P.3d 216, 221
(citing Veterans of Foreign Wars v. Childers, 1946 OK 211, ¶¶ 18, 24, 171 P.2d 618, 622, 624).
Accordingly, if the program is for the public good, such as supporting the function of government
or providing a public benefit, and the agency establishes proper controls, the use of funds
withstands a ‘public purpose’ review.
This office previously concluded that public health, safety, and community welfare services
constitute a public purpose. 2004 OK AG 15. Further, Oklahoma courts and this office have
consistently determined that programs promoting economic growth and those benefitting the
public’s financial welfare satisfy the public purpose requirement. State ex rel. Brown, 1997 OK
117, ¶ 7, 946 P.2d at 1144; Way, 1981 OK 70, ¶ 38, 635 P.2d at 1016–17; 1986 OK AG 26;
Application of S. Okla. Dev. Tr., 1970 OK 118, ¶ 16, 470 P.2d 572, 574; Sublett v. City of Tulsa,
1965 OK 78, ¶ 37, 405 P.2d 185, 196–97. 12 Furthermore, housing programs that lessen the burdens

State ex rel. Brown, 1997 OK 117, ¶ 17, 946 P.2d at 1144 (quoting, in part, Dixon v. Shaw, 1927 OK 24, ¶ 5, 253
P.500, 501). Municipalities have statutory power to “[m]ake all contracts and do all other acts in relation to the property
and affairs of the municipality, necessary to the good government of the municipality . . . .” 11 O.S.2021, § 22-101(4).
See also Oklahoma City News Broad. Ass’n v. Nigh, 1984 OK 31, ¶ 13, 683 P.2d 72, 76 (“We hold that
whether such appropriation is for a ‘public purpose’ is for determination by the Legislature unless it is clearly shown
to be for a purpose expressed by the Legislature in violation of the Constitution.” (Emphasis added.))
11

12
See also 1986 OK AG 71 and 2008 OK AG 10 (determining that contracting with a private organization
for inmates’ health, educational or vocational training satisfies the ‘public purpose’ requirement); But see 1980 OK
AG 44; 1986 OK AG 26 (allocating funds to a private organization solely to benefit various private activities or
making improvements that only benefit private property or persons are not authorized public purposes).

The Honorable Chris Kannady
Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 91

A.G. Opinion
Page 6

of government also serve a public purpose. 13 1982 OK AG 34, ¶ 7 (citing Shotts v. Hugh, 1976
OK 73, ¶ 16, 551 P.2d 252, 255).
Here, Oklahoma has multiple public purpose programs that relate to housing individuals and
families and, in turn ameliorating housing instability and mitigating homelessness. In one, the
Housing Authority Act, the Legislature aims to ensure low-income individuals and families have
affordable housing and can maintain a whole living environment. 63 O.S.2021, § 1053(e);
Boardman v. Oklahoma City Hous. Auth., 1968 OK 132, ¶ 2, 445 P.2d 412, 414. In another, the
Oklahoma Housing Stability Program created in 2023, the Legislature seeks to increase affordable
housing in urban and rural areas of the state. 74 O.S.Supp.2023, §§ 2903–2903.5. Finally, in a
separate program, the Legislature authorizes agencies to assist eligible homeless individuals and
families in participating in the private housing market and paying the rent the private sector charges
for housing. 74 O.S.2021, § 2900.2. 14 Together, these programs protect the public from these
issues’ deleterious effects on the state. 63 O.S.2021, § 1053(b); 74 O.S.2021, § 2901.1. As detailed
above, housing instability, homelessness, and evictions are intertwined issues. 15
Accordingly, a municipality may, in its legislative function, determine that eviction prevention
provides a public benefit, such as assisting with housing instability, mitigating homelessness and
lessening the burdens on government services, or otherwise promoting the community welfare. 16
As such, a municipality making this determination may lawfully contract with a non-profit to
13
The benefits do not have to be spread equally across the entire community. Instead, the Oklahoma Supreme
Court has found that “[a] use may be public although it is of benefit primarily to the inhabitants of a small and restricted
locality.” Way, 1981 OK 70, ¶ 32, 635 P.2d at 1016; Willow Wind, Inc., 1989 OK 171, 790 P.2d 1067.

2017 OK AG 4, ¶ 14 (the Homeless Prevent Act is part of the “State’s obligation to mitigate
homelessness.”). Outside the context of your questions, but to illustrate the scope of this authority, the duty to mitigate
homelessness extends to providing public resources to governmental and non-governmental entities, including through
monetary payments for rental assistance. 74 O.S.2021, § 2900.1.
14

See supra notes 6–7. Established connections between housing instability, homelessness, and eviction exist
elsewhere. In New York, one federal court candidly determined that “if the Court does not enjoin the pending eviction
proceeding, the threat that the Plaintiffs will be evicted and rendered homeless is very high.” Sinisgallo v. Town of
Islip Hous. Auth., 865 F.Supp.2d 307, 343 (E.D.N.Y. 2012); see also Dawson v. Higgins, 197 A.D.2d 127, 138 (citing
In re McMurray v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal, 135 A.D.2d 235, 238) (protections afforded to
tenants is a “tacit recognition of the devastating impact that evictions can have on such tenants and their communities
. . . . After a long residency a tenant takes root in the community and his or her forced removal from familiar
surroundings causes, at the very least, severe disruption. It can also contribute to the problem of homelessness.”).
Furthermore, federal regulations define “homeless” to include facing immediate eviction and inability to identify a
subsequent residence). (24 CFR § 291.405; see also 24 CFR § 583.301 (defining “homeless” to include an individual
who will “imminently lose their housing.”)
15

Across the country, many municipalities have established eviction prevention programs in their efforts to
address homelessness and housing instability. For example, the City of Durham, North Carolina, launched such a
program in 2017 and has seen individuals and families avoid eviction 80% of the time, and two-thirds of tenants
remain in their homes. https://evictioninnovation.org/2020/01/28/diversion-durham/. Other examples include the
Kalamazoo, Michigan; Cleveland, Ohio; Kansas City, Missouri; and Louisville, Kentucky. Kalamazoo, MI, HPRPFunded Prevention Program, HUDUSER.GOV (2015) https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/HPRPCase-Study-Kalamazoo-MI.pdf (finding that in 2013, 360 evictions were prevented, including 719 adults and 363
children); Kansas City program helping residents stay housed, KANSAS CITY (Sept. 21, 2022 12:36 PM),
https://www.kcmo.gov/home/components/news/news/1950/625;
STOPMYEVICTION,
https://www.stopmyeviction.org/ (last visited July 9, 2024).
16

The Honorable Chris Kannady
Oklahoma House of Representatives, District 91

A.G. Opinion
Page 7

provide eviction prevention services, such as legal services, and satisfy the “public purpose”
requirement in the Oklahoma Constitution.17 Provided, any such contract must contain adequate
governmental controls and safeguards. 18
It is, therefore, the official Opinion of the Attorney General that:
A municipality may determine that eviction prevention services provide a
public purpose and, therefore, the city may lawfully contract with a non-profit
organization to provide such services for the benefit of the municipality.
Provided, any determination and contract for such services must: 1) not
substantively interfere with a property owner’s right to exclude others from
privately-owned property, including the right to file and successfully complete
an eviction, and 2) establish and maintain adequate governmental controls and
safeguards. 19

GENTNER DRUMMOND
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA

BRADLEY CLARK
DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL

Again, this is assuredly not to suggest any guarantee or adequacy of housing. Neither is a constitutional
right. See supra Introduction. Furthermore, this determination does not interfere with a property owner’s right to
engage in lawful means to exclude individuals from property. That right is fundamental, constitutionally, and
legislatively backed, and undisturbed. Alabama Ass’n of Realtors, 594 U.S. at 765 (“preventing [landlords] from
evicting tenants who breach their leases intrudes on one of the most fundamental elements of property ownership—
the right to exclude”). Nothing herein prevents the landlord from invoking the eviction process or executing it to its
finish.
17

For example, sufficient controls to guard the administration and allocation of funds include, but are not
limited to, the following: define eligible services, set eligibility criteria, require submission of claims on governmental
forms and records, limit expenditures to those in an approved budget, and mandates performance measures. Way, 1981
OK 70, ¶¶ 9–10, 30, 40, 635 P.2d at 1013, 1015, 1018; see also Democratic Party of Okla., 1982 OK 106, ¶ 14 n.19,
652 P.2d at 276 n.19; see also State of Oklahoma Single Audit Fiscal Year 2022 (finding millions of dollars in
questioned and unallowable costs, including more than seven million dollars associated with rental assistance
payments
under
the
State’s
administration
of
a
federal
program).
https://www.sai.ok.gov/Search%20Reports/database/2022OKStateSingleAudit.pdf. In no instance, however, can a
municipality allocate funds to a third party for eviction prevention services and do so free of the municipality’s control
or management. Veterans of Foreign Wars, 1946 OK 211, 171 P.2d 618.
18

Eviction prevention services are potentially eligible for funding as they may serve a “public purpose,” as
explained in this opinion. However, this office cannot and does not pass on whether a specific eviction prevention
service, in fact, serves a public purpose. Questions of fact are beyond the scope of an Attorney General Opinion. See
74 O.S.Supp.2022, § 18b(A)(5).
19