Abstract
Background While social assistance through the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act provided expanded UI benefits during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic until July 2020, it is unclear whether social assistance was in subsequent months sufficient to meet everyday spending needs and to curb adverse sequelae of financial hardship. Among working-aged Americans with job-related income loss during the pandemic, this study explored the associations of financial hardship with mental health outcomes and food and housing insecurity after accounting for receipt of social assistance.
Methods Using multivariable logistic regression and pooled repeated cross-sectional individual-level data on working-aged adults from nationally-representative surveys administered from September to November 2020, this study investigated the relationships between financial hardship and depressive and anxiety symptoms, food insufficiency, and, among housing renters, the likelihood of being evicted, controlling for the receipt of social assistance and other demographic and socioeconomic factors.
Results Experiencing somewhat of a financial hardship (vs no hardship) was linked to approximately 3-4 times higher odds of depressive or anxiety symptoms and a likely eviction, and a 15 times higher odds of food insufficiency. Experiencing considerable financial hardship (vs no hardship) predicted a 6-fold higher odds of depressive or anxiety symptoms, a 24-fold higher odds of a likely eviction, and a more than 50-fold higher odds of food insufficiency (all P values <.001).
Conclusions Even after accounting for receipt of social assistance, working-aged adults experiencing financial hardship had markedly greater odds of anxiety or depressive symptoms, food insufficiency, and an anticipated housing eviction. Across outcomes, these relationships were stronger at each successively higher level of financial hardship, and more than offset any corresponding benefits from social assistance. Overall, the findings from the present study point to the urgent need for direct and sustained cash relief well in excess of current levels of social assistance, as well as the imperative of extending housing renter eviction protections among Americans.
Introduction
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to the filing of over 70 million unemployment insurance (UI) claims in the United States,1 and has been accompanied by heightened levels of food and housing insecurity.2 Through the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act enacted in March 2020, expanded UI benefits consisted of a $600 weekly payment on top of state payments, 13 extra weeks of UI benefits, and broader UI eligibility guidelines.3 The federal bonus expired in late July 2020, and was followed by a six-week $300 weekly benefit in the majority of states through a federal lost wages assistance program.4 Other provisions along with a public health housing eviction moratorium implemented in September 2020 are set to expire in late December 2020. On December 21, 2020, Congress approved a COVID-19 relief package that includes a one-time direct payment of $600 to individuals and a federal UI bonus of $300 weekly for 11 weeks, and that is now awaiting signature by President Trump.5
An analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Surveys (HPS) administered in June and July 2020 identified UI receipt as associated with better mental health and lower health-related social needs among working-aged adults.6 However, since the federal UI bonus subsequently lapsed and was followed by a subsidy considerably smaller in both amount and duration, it is unclear whether social assistance has been sufficient to meet everyday spending needs and to curb adverse sequelae of financial hardship among those experiencing employment-related income loss. This study was undertaken to estimate recent levels of and changes in financial hardship among working-aged Americans with job-related income loss during the pandemic, and to explore the associations of financial hardship with mental health outcomes and food and housing insecurity, after accounting for receipt of social assistance.
Methods
Study population
Three months of repeated cross-sectional individual-level data were pooled from nationally-representative HPS surveys administered from September 2—November 23, 2020.7 The study population was adults between the ages of 18 and 64 reporting a loss of household employment income since the beginning of the pandemic (March 13, 2020). The most recently available aggregate data were also drawn from the HPS public-use survey data tables (November 25—December 7). The HPS used the Census Bureau’s Master Address File as the source of sampled housing units (HUs). The sampling frame was a systematic sample of all eligible HUs, adjusted to select a sufficiently large sample to create state-level estimates and estimates for the top 15 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). The HPS was conducted online using Qualtrics as the data collection platform. Across data collection periods, survey response rates ranged from 5.6% to 10.6%.8
Predictors
Financial hardship was defined as household difficulty (not at all/a little/somewhat/very difficult) to pay for usual household expenses including food, rent or mortgage, and loans within the previous week. UI receipt was taken as household receipt of UI benefits since the pandemic began. Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) receipt was defined as household participation in SNAP and using SNAP benefits to meet spending needs within the previous week.8
Outcomes
Outcomes consisted of the frequency of depressive and anxiety symptoms (using the 2- item Patient Health Questionnaire-2 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2, respectively, for scores of 3-6 vs 0-2 to screen for depressive and anxiety disorders, with acceptable sensitivity and specificity levels9), the level of food insufficiency (often or sometimes not enough to eat vs enough to eat), and, among housing renters, the likelihood of being evicted within the next 2 months (very/extremely likely vs somewhat/not at all likely).8
Statistical analysis
Multivariable logistic regression models were fit to estimate adjusted odds ratios with generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures within individuals and person-level survey weights and to obtain robust standard errors. Log-Poisson regression was not employed due to potential bias when estimating relative risks for binary outcomes.10 All models were adjusted for individual age, age squared, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, education, 2019 household income, other federal stimulus assistance, household size, children in household, general health status, state, and survey week. The model for current food insufficiency was also adjusted for pre- pandemic food insufficiency. Multiple imputation analysis (using 25 multiply imputed datasets) and complete case analysis were used to handle missing data for predictor and outcome variables, respectively. All analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Because all data lacked identifying information and were publicly available through the U.S. Census Bureau, this study was deemed exempt by the Human Subject Research Protection Committee at Northeastern University.
Results
Figure 1 shows the estimated percentages of working-aged adults with employment income loss, receipt/denial of UI benefits, mental health-related symptoms, food insufficiency, and financial hardship in the latest wave of the Household Pulse Survey (November 25—December 7). 54.0% of working-aged adults (representing more than 105 million adults) experienced job-related income loss in their households since the start of the pandemic. 35.0% of these individuals received UI. More than one-third or one-quarter reported a higher frequency of feeling anxious or depressed, respectively. 14.9% (corresponding to 25 million adults) experienced food insufficiency. 48.5% of renters (representative of 4.8 million adults) indicated a high likelihood of being evicted. 38.3% (corresponding to 72 million adults) reported a higher level of financial hardship. All proportions were at least 5 percentage points higher among those with employment income loss (Figure 1).
Abbreviations: COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019; UI, unemployment insurance. a Aggregate data were drawn from the latest U.S. Census Bureau Household Pulse Survey public-use data tables for surveys administered between November 25, 2020 and December 7, 2020. All estimates are for adults age 18-64 years except anxiety and depressive symptoms, for which available estimates are for adults age 18-69 years. The yellow bars indicate the number of adults (in millions), and are accompanied by percentage estimates reflecting the number of adults as a percentage of the total number of adults in the denominator (e.g., number responding someone in household lost employment income, number who applied for UI benefits, number who responded to the survey item). Anxiety symptoms were measured by a survey item that inquired about the frequency of feeling nervous, anxious, or on edge over the previous week. Depressive symptoms were measured by a survey item that inquired about the frequency of feeling down, depressed, or hopeless over the previous week. Financial hardship corresponded to it being somewhat to very difficult (vs not at all or a little difficult) to pay for usual expenses over the previous week.
Figure 2 depicts the estimated national percentages of working-aged adults experiencing household financial hardship (somewhat to very difficult to pay for usual household expenses) by survey week between September 2, 2020 and December 7, 2020. During the month of September, this percentage declined from 36.3% to 35.5%, and then rose steadily during each successive survey period to nearly 40% by early December (Figure 2).
a Aggregate data were drawn from the U.S. Census Bureau Household Pulse Survey public-use data tables for surveys administered between September 2, 2020 and December 7, 2020. All estimates are for adults age 18-64 years. Financial hardship corresponded to it being somewhat to very difficult (vs not at all or a little difficult) to pay for usual expenses over the previous week.
Table 1 displays the main results from the multivariable-adjusted logistic regression models. In models using data on up to 70,794 working-aged adults (representative of 43 million individuals) with income disruption, experiencing somewhat of a financial hardship (vs no hardship) was linked to approximately 3-4 times higher odds of depressive or anxiety symptoms and a likely eviction, and a 15 times higher odds of food insufficiency. Experiencing considerable financial hardship (vs no hardship) predicted a 6-fold higher odds of depressive or anxiety symptoms, a 24-fold higher odds of a likely eviction, and a more than 50-fold higher odds of food insufficiency (Table 1; all P values <.001). In the same models, UI receipt (vs no receipt) was associated with 10-14% lower odds of depressive symptoms (P = 0.04) and anxiety symptoms (P = 0.003) and food insufficiency (P = 0.10), and a 35% lower odds of an expected eviction (P <.001). SNAP receipt was linked to a 13% lower odds of food insufficiency (P = 0.13).
Financial Hardship and Social Assistance as Predictors of Mental Health, Food Insufficiency, and Likely Housing Eviction Among Those with Job-Related Income Loss During the COVID-19 Pandemic, U.S. Census Bureau Household Pulse Survey, September-November 2020 a
Discussion
This nationally-representative study reveals high levels of financial hardship among working-aged Americans, that have gradually worsened from September to December 2020. Even after accounting for social assistance receipt, working-aged adults experiencing financial hardship had markedly greater odds of anxiety or depressive symptoms, food insufficiency, and an anticipated housing eviction. Across outcomes, these relationships were stronger at each successively higher level of financial hardship, and more than offset any corresponding benefits from UI or SNAP.
Strengths of this study include its use of nationally-representative survey data, as well as data from repeated survey waves that enabled the examination of trends in financial hardship over time. Models also controlled for multiple covariates such as baseline demographic and socioeconomic factors and state fixed effects to reduce confounding. In addition, missing data were handled using multiple imputation methods to reduce bias. Finally, the modeling of multiple categories for the financial hardship measure allowed for the exploration of the presence of dose-response relationships.
Nonetheless, there are limitations to this study. Because of the study’s cross-sectional and observational design, bias due to reverse causation or confounding cannot be entirely ruled out. Moreover, we did not account for the received monetary amounts of UI and SNAP benefits. While sampling weights accounted for non-response, the low survey response rates could have led to selection bias. Last, all measures were based on self-report which could have affected validity, although the adjustment for general health status in all models should have attenuated the degree of same-source bias. There is evidence to support that during the period that the CARES Act was in effect in the spring of 2020, among adults whose families lost work or work-related income due to the pandemic, the level of social assistance including the $600 weekly federal bonus for UI recipients was adequate to meet financial needs.11 UI receipt was linked to a 3- percentage point reduction in the share reporting food insecurity, a 3.7 percentage-point reduction in problems paying utility bills, and reductions of 8.6 to 15.1 percentage points in the share worrying about meeting basic needs.11
Overall, the findings from the present study point to the urgent need for direct and sustained cash relief well in excess of current levels of social assistance, as well as the imperative of extending housing renter eviction protections. Based on the above prior evidence to support that economic hardship and food insecurity declined among UI recipients after enacting the CARES Act, and the current study’s evidence that a substantial and growing share of working-aged adults has experienced household financial hardship since federal UI supplements lapsed by September 2020, in order to alleviate financial hardship and its adverse sequelae, a logical recommendation is that any future federal UI bonus match or even exceed the UI bonus level of $600 weekly and one-time direct payment of $1,200 previously provided through the CARES Act.3 If signed into law, the COVID-19 relief bill recently approved by Congress that limits the federal UI supplement to $300 weekly and a one-time stimulus check of $600, will in all likelihood not provide sufficient support for households that have experienced job- related income loss during the pandemic. Prioritization of expanded and needs-based social policy relief measures is critical to mitigate the pandemic’s impacts on the physical, mental, and social well-being of tens of millions of Americans.
Data Availability
All data are publicly available through the U.S. Census Bureau.
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/household-pulse-survey.html
