Federal rental assistance distributed during the COVID-19 pandemic did much more than help people stay in their homes. It also improved their mental health.
A UC Riverside study published this week in the journal Health matters found that the Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) program—created by Congress in 2021 to prevent evictions among low-income renters during the pandemic—also improved mental health and increased appropriate use of mental health care.
“Using a national data set, we found that housing assistance helped low-income renters—who are among the most vulnerable populations—feel better and receive mental health treatment when needed,” said Wei Kang, an assistant professor in the UCR School of Public Policy who led the study. “This demonstrates the importance of government programs in a time of crisis.”
The federal government allocated $46.55 billion to two ERA programs to provide immediate assistance to low-income people struggling to pay rent due to pandemic-related financial hardship. Kang’s analysis was drawn from the US Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey data collected between 2021 and 2023. The survey includes questions about respondents’ mental health status and whether they had recently sought care.
Kang compared survey responses from two groups: those who had received rental assistance and those who had applied but not yet received it. The latter served as a control group. Her findings showed that rental assistance recipients experienced a marked drop in symptoms of anxiety and depression and were slightly more likely to seek mental health services when experiencing symptoms.
Just under 46% of aid recipients reported symptoms of anxiety in the two weeks before the survey – 9.1 percentage points lower than those who had not yet received aid. Similarly, 38% of recipients reported symptoms of depression, an improvement of 8.1 points over the control group.
While the increase in treatment rates was more modest, it was statistically significant. Among people who reported symptoms of anxiety or depression and expected help, only 16.2% reported seeing a mental health professional for counseling or treatment at any time in the past four weeks. Care-seeking rates were higher among those who had received help, increasing by 6.5 percentage points for those with anxiety symptoms and 7.9 percentage points for those with depression symptoms.
To understand how the program improved mental health, Kang used a statistical method called causal mediation analysis. This allowed her to distinguish between direct and indirect effects of rental assistance. The research found that the ERA program reduced mental distress in two ways: first, by directly alleviating the fear of eviction, and second, by freeing up financial resources for health-related needs.
The most immediate benefit was a reduction in housing insecurity. By helping tenants pay off arrears and avoid the risk of eviction, the program alleviated a major source of stress, which in turn reduced anxiety and depression. This impact was particularly strong on stress-related symptoms, the study found, as renters no longer had to worry about losing their homes.
But the effect didn’t stop there. With rent covered, many households could redirect their limited funds toward other essential goods, including co-pays for doctor visits, prescription drugs, and transportation needed to access mental health services. For those struggling to make ends meet, this shift in financial priorities proved critical.
The findings offer strong evidence that housing assistance is also a form of health care intervention, Kang said. Programs designed to promote financial stability can also serve as lifelines for those experiencing emotional distress, particularly in times of national crisis.
The title of the paper is “Emergency COVID-19 Rental Assistance Improved Mental Health and Psychotherapy Use Among Low-Income Renters.” In addition to Kang, UCR co-authors are Qingfang Wang, professor of public policy; Tyler Hoffman, research assistant. and Bruce Link, distinguished professor of public policy and sociology.
The researchers argue that financial assistance programs should not only be seen as fiscal policies but also as tools to improve public health. They also suggest that future programs should be designed to take advantage of this dual impact—perhaps by streamlining application processes and speeding up the delivery of assistance to ensure recipients can stabilize housing and access needed care sooner.
What’s really interesting is that people in our field often worry about the unintended consequences of government programs—and that they will be bad, like fraud or waste. But instead, here are what might be considered ‘unintended positive consequences’ that went beyond the intended effect of helping people stay safe.”
Bruce Link, Distinguished Professor of Public Policy and Sociology, University of California – Riverside
Source:
Journal Reference:
