Access and enrollment in safety net programs in the wake of COVID-19: A national cross-sectional survey

Abstract

The global COVID-19 pandemic is causing unprecedented job loss and financial strain. It is unclear how those most directly experiencing economic impacts may seek assistance from disparate safety net programs. To identify self-reported economic hardship and enrollment in major safety net programs before and early in the COVID-19 pandemic, we compared individuals with COVID-19 related employment or earnings reduction with other individuals. We created a set of questions related to COVID-19 economic impact that was added to a cross-sectional, nationally representative online survey of American adults (age �18, English-speaking) in the AmeriSpeak panel fielded from April 23-27, 2020. All analyses were weighted to account for survey non-response and known oversampling probabilities. We calculated unadjusted bivariate differences, comparing people with and without COVID-19 employment and earnings reductions with other individuals. Our study looked primarily at awareness and enrollment in seven major safety net programs before and since the pandemic (Medicaid, health insurance marketplaces/exchanges, unemployment insurance, food pantries/free meals, housing/renters assistance, SNAP, and TANF). Overall, 28.1% of all individuals experienced an employment reduction (job loss or reduced earnings). Prior to the pandemic, 39.0% of the sample was enrolled in �1 safety net program, and 50.0% of individuals who subsequently experienced COVID-19 employment reduction were enrolled in at least one safety net program. Those who experienced COVID-19 employment reduction versus those who did not were significantly more likely to have applied or enrolled in �1 program (45.9% versus 11.7%, p<0.001) and also significantly more likely to specifically have enrolled in unemployment insurance (29.4% versus 5.4%, p < .001) and SNAP (16.8% versus 2.8%, p = 0.028). The economic devastation from COVID-19 increases the importance of a robust safety net.

Using Linked Survey and Administrative Data to Better Measure Income: Implications for Poverty, Program Effectiveness, and Holes in the Safety Net

“…The imputation of the subsidy amount is based on sparse information, so that the CPS contains at most nine unique values of the subsidy for each of the four regions, and the same value is assigned to a family of similar composition and income in New York City and Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania. 6 In light of these shortcomings of the amounts on the official CPS file, we also report results using the imputed housing-subsidy amounts that the US Census Bureau creates for the experimental poverty measure (Dalaker 2005). We refer to these amounts as "experimental housing-subsidy amounts" below and summarize key differences from the 5 The Data Appendix provides further detail on the adjustment and how we obtain the required probabilities.…”

“…In the online Appendix, we explain that such cases should be uncommon and note a result in related work (Meyer, Mittag, and Goerge 2018) that such errors cause the incompletely linked data to understate the difference between survey reports and true receipt. 6 The imputation uses predicted amounts derived from a model estimated in the 1985 AHS (adjusted for inflation). Most of the predictor and cell variables in the model are imputed themselves (e.g., market rent in the AHS and unit size in the CPS are imputed).…”

Examining the Early Impact of COVID-19 on Single-Parent TANF Caseloads: a Brief Analysis of New Jersey

“…Moreover, COVID-19 has had a particularly negative impact on traditionally vulnerable populations, including those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged and those with disabilities (Shadmi et al, 2020 ). Many vulnerable populations fell into unemployment after the pandemic started, which increased their dependency on the safety net program (Hembre, 2020 ; Saloner et al, 2020 ; Shantz et al, 2020 ). Several states reported that the total number of TANF participants increased significantly shortly after the pandemic started (Hembre, 2020 ; Saloner et al, 2020 ; Shantz et al, 2020 ).…”

Rural Safety Net Use During the Covid-19 Pandemic

“…Research conducted at the national level has emphasized spikes in food pantry use during the pandemic (Saloner et al 2020). Between 2002 and 2018, Bitler, Hoynes, and Schanzenbach 2020b document that, at most slightly more than 3.5% of households nationwide received food from a food pantry within the last month during this 16-year pre-pandemic time period (23).…”

“…The Families First Coronavirus Act and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act expanded existing government safety net infrastructure, created new programs, and gave funds to states and cities. But despite this historic level of government spending, research shows that many households have remained in financial distress (Saloner et al 2020) and millions of U.S. residents have been pushed into poverty since the pandemic began (Parolin et al 2020). These findings suggest that government programs such as the CARES Act have not adequately addressed the financial needs of households impacted by the pandemic, and raises an important and largely unanswered question: What formal and informal resources are households using to close the gap created by insufficient government programs?…”