Poster #146 - 2020 Eviction, Utilities Shutoffs, and Food and Healthcare Insecurity Outcomes among Immigrant in California and Texas

• In Event: Saturday Poster Luncheon

Abstract

Background.

California and Texas have infamously had different approaches to social policy. For instance, California had stronger, universal protections against evictions and utilities shutoffs during the COVID-19 pandemic and long-standing stronger safety nets including SNAP food benefits and ACA healthcare exchange. But to what extent do these policies protect the state’s most vulnerable residents? To answer this question, we consider the intersection of federal and state protections during the first six months after the COVID-19 economic shutdowns. The 2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was designed to provide direct cash assistance in the form of tax rebates to offset the turbulence of economic shutdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, millions of families were left out because they didn’t have a social security number. In this work, we show that a sample of these families in California had better financial outcomes in October 2020 than a matched sample in Texas. We then theorize and test several mechanisms through which these effects may occur. 

Methods

Mission Asset Fund (MAF), a San Francisco-based nonprofit organization, offered a $500 one-time cash assistance to tens of thousands of immigrant families who were ineligible to receive support from the CARES Act. Through follow-up surveys, interviews, and staff focus group sessions, MAF created a dataset to answer the research question in a community-led iterative mixed-methods research process. In October 2020, MAF surveyed the individuals to whom they had already given cash assistance and received 11,677 responses (42% response rate). Respondents were largely based in California (especially San Mateo, San Francisco, and Los Angeles counties) and in Texas (especially Harris county). Using this data, we created a matched sample of California and Texas residents with similar demographics, household composition, and pre-pandemic and current financial lives. 

Results

California residents had better outcomes in several areas including housing (2% CA vs 7% TX were evicted), utilities (10% CA vs. 25% TX had a shutoff), food security (18% CA vs. 26% TX skipped meals or ate less to save money), and healthcare (13% CA vs 24% TX skipped, put off, or avoided doctor’s appointments to save money). 

Additional Analysis

To link social policy to these outcomes, MAF conducted a focus group with five staff members who worked directly with cash assistance recipients. After seeing the quantitative findings, staff identified three mechanisms that may link differences in social policy environments to differences in outcomes between California and Texas residents: M1) availability of institutional support from nonprofits or other community organizations, M2) feelings of security (or fear) in asking for help, and M3) using flexibility created by social policy to prioritize other bills over rent and utilities. Using data from the survey and from a follow-up interview of 60 respondents, we tested each of these proposed mechanisms. We find evidence for M1 and evidence against M3, with mixed evidence for M2. 

Conclusion

We show that universal state policies can have wide-reaching implications for vulnerable communities, partly through creating greater institutional support and opportunities for seeking help. 

Author

• Aparna Ananthasubramaniam, University of Michigan Ann Arbor
  Presenting Author