Identifying the effect of housing policy on mental health outcomes among low-income renters and their children during the COVID-19 pandemic

Research Updates

Updated January 2025
Our project assessed if the Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) programs directly improved mental health outcomes, or indirectly through alleviating housing insecurity and associated stressors. We modeled each hypothesis using data from the Census’ Household Pulse Survey. In Riverside, ERA indirectly improved child mental health outcomes, while in San Francisco ERA directly led to an increase in usage of prescription mental health drugs and mental health services among renters who experience anxiety. This information can be used to evaluate the efficacy of ERA and similar policies as public health instruments and to inform future housing policy interventions.

Proposed Research and Background

Housing has been long considered a critical social determinant of health. COVID-19 placed a large burden on marginalized communities who experienced significant housing insecurity during the pandemic. The Federal ERA programs provide funding to low-income households to help with rent or utilities. However, the relationship between housing insecurity and mental health, and whether the ERA programs helped renters with their mental health are poorly understood.

To address this evidence gap, our study aims to:

1. Determine the prevalence of housing insecurity across racial/ethnic minorities and diverse neighborhoods over the pandemic periods,
2. Evaluate the impact of ERA programs on mental health outcomes among low-income renter households and their children, and
3. Identify the pathways through which ERA programs influence the mental health of renters and their children.

We are constructing a dataset that combines the US Census' restrictive Household Pulse Survey, American Community Survey, and jurisdiction-level data on ERA implementation from the national COVID-19 Rental Assistance Database. Research will be conducted in Northern and Southern California, covering both coastal and inland regions, or approximately 77% of the state's population. The demographics and socioeconomic characteristics and the juridical ERA programs differ significantly across the state. Comparing will enable us to identify the varying impacts of place-based policy implementation and community vulnerability. 

Collaborators

• University of North Texas