Suffering, the Safety Net, and Disparities During COVID-19

The economic and public health crisis caused by COVID-19 was devastating and disproportionately hurt Blacks and Hispanics and some other groups. Unemployment rates and other measures of material hardship were higher and increased more during the crisis among Blacks and Hispanics than among non-Hispanic Whites. Congress authorized a historic policy response, incorporating both targeted and universal supports, and expanding both the level and duration of benefits. This response yielded the remarkable result of an estimated decline in the Supplemental Poverty Measure between 2019 and 2020. We study administrative data to investigate the impact of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) during the crisis. We find that participation in SNAP increased more in counties that experienced a larger employment shock. By contrast, the increase in total SNAP benefits was inversely related to the employment shock. The SNAP benefit increases were less generous to Black and Hispanic SNAP participants than to White.

Incomplete program take-up during a crisis: evidence from the COVID-19 shock in one U.S. state.

In the U.S., means-tested cash, in-kind assistance, and social insurance are part of a patchwork safety net, often run with substantial involvement of state and local governments. Take-up-participation among eligible persons in this system is incomplete. A large literature points to both neo-classical and behavioral science explanations for low take-up. In this paper, we explore the response of the safety net to COVID-19 using newly-collected survey data from one U.S. state-Utah. The rich Utah data ask about income and demographics as well as use of three social safety net programs which collectively provided a large share of relief spending: the Unemployment Insurance program, a social insurance program providing workers who lose their jobs with payments; the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which provides benefit cards for purchasing unprepared food at retailers; and Economic Impact Payments, which provided relatively universal relief payments to individuals. The data do not suffice to determine eligibility for all of the programs, so we focus on participation per capita. These data also collect information on several measures of hardship and why individuals did not receive any of the 3 programs. We test for explanations that differentiate need, lack of information, transaction costs/administrative burden, stigma, and lack of eligibility. We use measures of hardship to assess targeting. We find that lack of knowledge as well as difficulty applying, and stigma in the UI program each play a role as reasons for not participating in the programs.

The Social Safety Net in the Wake of COVID-19

The COVID-19 crisis has led to spiking unemployment rates with disproportionate impacts on low-income families. School and child-care center closures have also meant lost free- and reduced-price school meals. Food prices have increased sharply leading to reduced purchasing power for families’ limited income. The Families First Coronavirus Act and the CARES Act included robust responses including expansions to unemployment insurance (expansions in eligibility and $600 per week supplement), a one-time payment of $1,200 per adult and $500 per dependent, an increase in SNAP payments, and the launch of the Pandemic EBT program to replace lost school meals. Despite these efforts, real time data show significant distress – notably food insecurity rates have increased almost three times over the pre-COVID rates and food pantry use has also spiked. In this paper, we explore why there is so much unmet need despite a robust policy response. We provide evidence for three explanations: (1) timing - relief came with a substantial delay (due to overwhelmed UI systems/need to implement new programs);(2) magnitude – payments outside UI are modest;and (3) coverage gaps – access is lower for some groups and other groups are statutorily excluded.

CYCLICALITY OF THE US SAFETY NET: EVIDENCE FROM THE 2000s AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE COVID-19 CRISIS

In this paper, we explore the cyclicality of the U.S. safety net over the 2000s through the economic peak in February 2020 before the onset of the COVID-19 crisis. We compare the effects of means-tested programs with those of social insurance programs, separately and combined. We find, on a per capita basis, Unemployment Insurance (UI) is by far the most cyclical, particularly when fully funded federal extensions are included. A 1-percentage-point increase in the unemployment rate leads to a 17 percent increase in monthly real UI spending. Overall, the social insurance programs provide an additional $31 (2019$) in per capita real spending for each percentage point increase in the annual unemployment rate, while the means-tested programs provide a statistically insignificant $8.50 per capita for each percentage point increase in unemployment. The means-tested programs without SSI provide a significant $12 for each percentage point increase in the unemployment rate. Thus, the parts of the means-tested safety net that can respond quickly are also providing modest countercyclical stabilization. We conclude by speculating what this means for the current response to COVID-19.