National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 5 Health Effects
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

6

Effects of Economic Policies

In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, families were hit with economic hardship—tens of millions of people lost their jobs, resulting for many families in an inability to pay rent, pay household bills, and feed their families (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2021). This economic hardship disproportionately affected low-income families, who were economically vulnerable prior to the pandemic (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2021). The evidence is clear that a lack of adequate economic resources for families with children compromises the success of these children and the broader society (the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [the National Academies], 2019). In response to these immediate and ongoing consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government provided time-limited provisions through a series of laws to mitigate economic effects of the pandemic: the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act (CPRSAA); the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA); the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act; the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA); and the American Rescue Plan (ARP): see Box 6-1.

The chapter first reviews the evidence to date on the effects of the relevant parts of those laws, including social insurance–related federal relief provisions (unemployment insurance [UI] and paid sick leave and paid family leave), cash transfer programs (economic impact [stimulus] payments, the child tax credit, eviction moratoriums, and student loan relief measures), and other safety net programs. It then describes federal efforts specifically targeted to relief for tribal nations. The following sections describe the current economic well-being of children and families and issues

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

of program implementation. The final section presents the committee’s conclusions.

In addition to these actions, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), acting under the CARES Act, imposed a temporary moratorium for evictions due to nonpayment of rent. While the federal government’s response attended to a diverse set of interests, many provisions were designed to specifically address the economic consequences of the pandemic for marginalized individuals, families, and communities (Artiga & Rae, 2020; Bateman & Ross, 2020; Gonzalez et al., 2020; Gemelas et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2021).

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

The chapter also covers selected state- and community-level policies and programs implemented in response to COVID-19. As detailed in previous chapters, there is a burgeoning literature on the general effects of the pandemic on the well-being of children and their families, including higher rates of mental health challenges, housing and food insecurity, and material hardships. In contrast, research on federal pandemic provisions has largely focused on their effects on the labor force and consumption, with much less empirical attention to effects on child and family well-being.

SOCIAL INSURANCE PROVISIONS

Unemployment Insurance

The FFCRA allowed states to forgo prior UI participation requirements by relaxing the rules for employment search and job separation and other changes (Emsellem & Evermore, 2020). The CARES Act further expanded UI benefits with three programs: the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation program provided an additional $600 per week in UI benefits between March and July 2020 (Han et al., 2020); the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program provided UI eligibility to workers previously excluded from the program, including part-time, self-employed, contract, and “gig workers” (Carey et al., 2021; U.S. Department of Labor [DOL], 2021b); and the Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Assistance program extended UI benefits for an additional 13 weeks for those who had exhausted traditional UI benefits. This second $600 weekly allotment increased the UI wage replacement from about 48 percent prepandemic to 145 percent, especially for lower-wage workers (Dube, 2021), although this varied across states relative to their share of low-wage workers and state-level UI benefits (Ganong et al., 2020).

Following expiration of the first $600 UI weekly benefit in July 2020, the Trump administration issued an executive memorandum that allowed states to provide an additional $300 per week in UI benefits (for up to six weeks of unemployment) through the creation of the Lost Wages Assistance Program (see Congressional Research Service, 2021). This program ran only until September 2020, but passage of the CAA 2 months later extended the $300 weekly UI benefit and provided an additional 11 weeks of eligibility, for a total of 50 weeks. These pandemic UI benefits ended in March 2021 (Congressional Research Service, 2021).

Labor Force Participation Effects

Pandemic-era underemployment and unemployment are reflected in the dramatic increase in UI participation: 2.6 million UI claims were filed in the

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

second quarter of 2019, compared with 33.7 million in the second quarter of 2020 (Perez-Lopez, 2021). To date, research in this area has primarily focused on UI’s relationship to work and economic outcomes, including program participation, work disincentives, and income replacement effects, and that research shows somewhat mixed outcomes.

Take-up of pandemic-period UI benefits was relatively high among eligible individuals, though with state-level variations. For instance, using the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, Carey and colleagues (2021) found that in the first 9 months of the pandemic (March–December 2020), 21 percent of adult respondents reported applying for UI and 16 percent reported receipt of UI benefits. Among those who applied for UI, 77 percent received benefits, though UI receipt was lower for Black, self-employed, less-educated, and low-wage workers, revealing important disparities in UI take-up during the pandemic. Overall receipt was lower in states where prepandemic UI participation was comparatively high.

Other research has leveraged the shift in federal UI benefits from $600 (May–December 2020) to $300 per week (January–March 2021) to examine the relationship between UI benefits and employment. Overall, this line of research has found null or modest effects of UI pandemic expansions on employment. For instance, the variation in states’ UI replacement rates were found to have little effect on employment, even when benefits were reduced, including among workers with a high school diploma or less, and middle- and low-income households (Dube, 2021). Workers who received more generous UI benefits ($600 per week) returned to their previous employer at rates similar to other groups (Altonji et al., 2020), and UI claims relative to net job losses coincided with employment patterns in the first months of the pandemic (Cajner et al., 2020).

There is some evidence, however, that UI benefit expansion was negatively associated with employment. The research in this area suggests UI benefit expansion and decreased work were associated with preexisting state-level employment gaps (Finamor & Scott, 2021); that only a small percentage of workers would turn down employment at their previous wages when UI expansion benefits were in place (Petrosky-Nadeau & Valletta, 2021); and that employment rates improved by about two-thirds after the early termination of UI benefits (Holzer et al., 2021). However, much of this research is either descriptive or has not yet gone through the peer-review process. At the same time, Holzer and colleagues (2021) also found that early termination of UI benefits increased the share of households who reported difficulty in meeting essential expenses (e.g., material hardship) by about 5 percent, suggesting UI generosity may have dampened employment but also buttressed household well-being.

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

Effects on Child and Family Well-Being

A small body of research has considered the relationship between family well-being and pandemic-era UI benefits. Among this work, there is consistent evidence that UI provisions were associated with improvements to some measures of family well-being. This work includes an examination of the association between UI receipt (including the $600 weekly federal supplement in April and July 2020) and food insecurity among those who had lost their jobs and earned $75,000 or less per year (Raifman et al., 2021). Among them, UI receipt was associated with a 4.3 percent decrease in food insecurity (a 35% reduction) and a 5.7 percent decrease in reports of eating less because of financial constraints (a 48% reduction), with the $600 UI federal supplement having larger effects than the $300 UI supplement (Raifman et al., 2021). Conversely, expiration of the weekly $600 UI benefit was associated with an almost 11 percent increase in reports of missed housing payments and increased risk of food insecurity, depression, and anxiety (Berkowitz & Basu, 2021).

Overall, research on the effects of UI pandemic provisions suggests positive effects on family well-being, including reduced food and material hardships, attenuation of mental health duress, especially for lower-wage workers. Those positive effects were dampened when UI expansion benefits were reduced or ended, particularly among lower-wage workers and low-income families. This finding suggests that pandemic UI benefits helped to reduce food and material hardships, and some families’ circumstances deteriorated when they ended. This research on the impact of UI pandemic benefits on work, while still evolving, suggests null or modest effects on employment, which is further bolstered by recent returns to labor force participation rates that are similar to or higher than those prior to the pandemic.

Evidence from the Great Recession

Given the early and limited evidence of pandemic UI provisions on family well-being, the committee turned to studies from the most recent economic downturn, the Great Recession, when unemployment more than doubled between 2007 (7 million) and 2010 (14.8 million). During that period, the federal government expanded UI benefits through extended benefits or emergency unemployment compensation. In the extended benefits program, UI recipients qualified for between 13 and 20 additional weeks of federally supported UI benefits if they resided in a state that exceeded the insured unemployment threshold, and the emergency unemployment compensation program provided federally supported UI benefits when a UI recipient had exhausted regular UI benefits.

Research shows that these Great Recession UI provisions were associated with positive effects on family well-being, such as the prevention of up

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

to 1.3 million home foreclosures (Hsu et al., 2018), reduced poverty (Vroman, 2010), continuity of health insurance (Kuka, 2020), improved mental health (Kuka, 2020), child support payments (Hodges, 2020), reduced child maltreatment (Brown & De Cao, 2020), and children’s educational advancement (Regmi, 2019). At the same time, a number of studies link UI receipt during this period to prolonged unemployment, although the magnitude of such effects is unclear. Nonetheless, evidence from this period points to the potential for UI to buffer the negative impact of economic downturns on family well-being and the importance of future pandemic research on the role of UI in family well-being to consider a host of potential outcomes in addition to labor force effects.

Paid Sick Leave and Paid Family Leave

The FFCRA included provisions for paid sick leave and paid family leave that required employers (with between 50 and 500 workers) to provide paid time off to qualifying workers between April and December 2020. The federal government reimbursed the full cost of leave through a payroll tax credit to employers, at a cost of over $100 billion (Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, 2020). Eligibility requirements and benefits differed in the two programs. For paid sick leave, qualifying workers could receive up to 80 hours of time off at their regular rate of pay for their own quarantine or COVID-19 symptoms or for that of an immediate family member. For paid family leave, qualifying workers could take up to 10 weeks off if they were unable to work because of the need to care for a child whose school or child care facility was closed; these workers received two-thirds of their regular rate of pay (DOL, 2020a).

Paid Sick Leave

There is limited research on the effects of these pandemic-era provisions on families’ economic outcomes. Analysis of FFCRA’s provisions has largely focused on the association between paid sick leave and adherence with public health measures, such as staying at home (Pollack et al., 2020). For example, an examination of the effectiveness of paid sick leave on weekday workplace mobility (measured as travel to and from the workplace, as a proxy for being present or absent from work) found that access to paid leave reduced workplace mobility and COVID-19 transmissions (Pollack et al., 2023). A similar study used cell phone GPS data and found that paid leave reduced the number of hours individuals were away from home, suggesting it may have played an important role in individuals’ adherence to public health measures (Andersen et al., 2020). There is also evidence that states with preexisting paid sick leave programs had higher rates of reduced

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

physical mobility, which suggests these states had an advantage in promoting public health protective measures (Pollack et al., 2022). A related study found that states without preexisting paid sick leave programs had about 400 fewer confirmed COVID-19 cases per day, which translated to an estimated one case per 1,300 workers who received access to two weeks of FFCRA paid sick leave (Pichler et al., 2020).

Overall, take-up of FFCRA’s paid leave provisions was relatively low, a likely reflection of low program knowledge among employees. A study using payroll tax filings through June 2021 found that for firms with 100–300 employees, less than half reported using the paid sick leave tax credit (Goodman, 2021). Goodman noted that based on COVID-19 infection rates, it would be expected that nearly all firms with more than 200 employees would have at least one employee needing the paid sick leave. Another study found that fewer than half of all workers were aware of the program, and there was a strong increase in unmet paid sick leave needs during the pandemic, especially among women workers (Jellife et al., 2021).

Paid Family Leave

Research on the effects of the expanded paid family leave through FFCRA is even more limited than the research on paid sick leave. Pandemic-era paid family leave was limited to caretaking during school closures, and use of the program was significantly less than that of paid sick leave; Goodman (2021) found that only 15 percent of firms with 100–300 employees had at least one employee who used paid family leave.

Although research on federal pandemic-era paid family leave is limited, evidence on state-sponsored programs is instructive. Currently, nine states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington) and the District of Columbia have paid family programs that are designed to provide paid leave to workers who need time to care for a new baby, to care for a family member with a serious health condition, or to contend with a worker’s own health condition (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2021). The design of these programs varies, with differing wage replacement rates, benefit duration, and earnings eligibility. Despite program variations, however, research has found clear evidence of positive effects on outcomes, including maternal health (Jou et al., 2018; Bullinger, 2019); employment, especially among low-income workers and single mothers (Rossin-Slater et al., 2013; Baum & Ruhm, 2016); measures of children’s well-being (Stearns, 2015; Lichtman‐Sadot & Bell, 2017); decreased infant mortality (Khan, 2020; Montoya-Williams et al., 2020); increased breastfeeding (Huang & Yang, 2015; Hamad et al., 2019; Pac et al., 2019); and timely immunizations (Choudhury & Polacheck, 2021).

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

State-level paid family leave programs have also been associated with increased use of preventive health services, including flu vaccinations, and reduced spread of the flu (Jeung et al., 2021; Pichler et al., 2021). Looking at the economic effects of these programs, there is evidence that they have had little or modest effects on businesses. There is evidence that paid family leave reduces labor market exits, particularly for women, which have long-term economic consequences for families (Romig & Bryant, 2021). A recent survey of small businesses during the pandemic found increasing support for national paid leave programs (Bartel et al., 2021).

CASH TRANSFERS

This section reviews the evidence on the effect of cash transfer programs of four programs: economic impact (stimulus) payments, the child tax credit, eviction moratoriums, and student loan relief measures.

Economic Impact Payments

The first stimulus payments were distributed to qualifying individuals and families between April 2020 and March 2021: $1,200 to individuals, $2,400 to married couples, and an additional $500 for each qualifying child. Moderate- and low-income individuals and families received the full stimulus payment; payments to those with higher incomes were reduced by 5 percent above the cutoff. The second stimulus payments, received between December 2020 and January 2021 (part of CPRSSA) provided up to $600 per individual, but households were also able to claim an additional $600 for every child aged 16 or younger. Those who earned under $75,000 in the 2019 tax year received the full stimulus check; a steadily smaller amount was given to those with higher annual incomes, up to a maximum phase-out limit of $87,000. The third and final stimulus payments, in spring 2021, were up to $1,400 per individual and per dependent; couples filing jointly could receive a maximum of $2,800.

There is a growing body of research on the effects of stimulus payments on a host of family well-being outcomes, including consumption and spending (Coibion et al., 2020; Garner et al., 2020; Karger & Rajan, 2020; Li et al., 2021; Parker et al., 2022), food insecurity (Ayllón & Lado, 2021; Kowalski et al., 2021; Wahdat, 2021), housing (Boutros, 2020; Guelespe et al., 2022), material hardship (Karpman & Acs, 2020; Cooney & Shaefer, 2021), health (Berkowitz & Basu, 2021; Asebedo et al., 2021; Schild & Garner, 2021), and work (Chetty et al., 2020; Holzer, 2020; Alon et al., 2021; Yavorsky et al., 2021).

The large-scale studies have found that stimulus payments substantially increased consumption and spending (excluding the lockdown periods),

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

most commonly for essential goods, such as food and rent, as well as savings and debt reduction. Several studies found that, overall, spending was largely concentrated in the first month after the payments were received, ranging from 30 percent to 56 percent (Baker et al., 2020; Coibion et al., 2020; Karger & Rajan, 2020; Parker et al., 2022). Noticeably, low-income people, unemployed people, and those with less than a college degree spent larger shares of their stimulus money during that first period (Baker et al., 2020; Boutrous, 2020; Coiboin et al., 2020; Chetty et al., 2020). People who remained employed during the pandemic (Carroll et al., 2020), were in the middle- and upper-income groups (Boutros, 2020), or had existing savings (Karger & Rajan, 2020) were more likely to report saving their stimulus payments than other recipients, especially poor households (Boutros, 2020). Low-income households were more likely than higher-income households to spend the money on debt reduction (Sahm et al., 2020) and more commonly reported spending it on essential goods, especially food (Garner et al., 2020; Ayllón & Lado, 2021; Li et al., 2021), rent, and utilities (Boutros, 2020; Perez-Lopez and Bee, 2020).

Overall, the evidence suggests that households with fewer resources prior to the pandemic or became short of resources because of the pandemic used stimulus payments for essential goods, which aligns with a long line of scholarship on a similar federal cash transfer program, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC; Romich & Weisner, 2000; Smeeding et al., 2000; Mendenhall et al., 2012; Halpern-Meekin et al., 2015; Sykes et al., 2015).

Low-income families’ use of stimulus benefits to pay for essential goods is reflected in related research on well-being. Several studies have found that the payments reduced material hardship (Karpman & Acs, 2020; Cooney & Shaefer, 2021; Karpman & Zuckerman, 2021) and food insecurity (Wahdat, 2021), with the largest effects among low-income and poor families and people who were unemployed (Karpman & Acs, 2020). Other studies found heterogeneous outcomes relative to race, ethnicity, and economic status. Black and Latino families and families with children were more likely to report food hardship, for example, being worried about being able to afford food (Keith-Jennings et al., 2021). Similarly, reductions in material hardship also varied relative to employment: people enduring work interruptions or job losses reported higher degrees of material hardship (Karpman & Zuckerman, 2021).

Child Tax Credit

ARP included a large expansion to the child tax credit (CTC) by increasing its overall value by removing earnings requirements, making it fully refundable, and providing the benefits in monthly payments rather than annually. It was operative from July through December 2021. The

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

maximum credit was increased from $2,000 to $3,000 per child aged 6–17 and to $3,600 per child under age 6. Families could receive up to half of that amount as monthly payments unless they opted out of monthly installments. Any remaining portion of the credit could be claimed on a 2021 tax return. The revised CTC was fully refundable—meaning that low-income families qualified for the full benefit, regardless of whether they had any income or owed taxes in that year.

The credit was phased out in two stages, beginning at incomes of $112,500 for single parents filing as head of household ($150,000 for married couples), then reduced at a rate of 5 percent thereafter. CTC benefits applied to each child in a household who qualified, so that larger families received larger benefits. Moreover, the income level at which the CTC benefit phased out varied relative to the number of qualifying children in a family. The first monthly CTC payment was distributed to families of 59.3 million children in July 2021, while the second payment reached 60.9 million children in August 2021 (U.S. Department of Treasury, 2021a,b).

Given the timing and expiration of the CTC, there is a growing but limited body of empirical work assessing its effects on antipoverty, employment, and well-being. Analysis of the CTC’s antipoverty effects found that monthly child poverty rates declined from about 16 percent in June 2021 to 12 percent in July 2021 after the first CTC payments. It is estimated that this benefit represented about three million children lifted out of poverty by the CTC, reducing monthly child poverty by an estimated 40 percent (Parolin et al., 2021b). Families’ consumption increased following CTC payments, with low-income families primarily increasing spending on essential goods (similar to stimulus spending), groceries, rent, and health care. The evidence is mixed on the CTC’s effect on savings and debt reduction (Lourie et al., 2021; Waxman et al., 2021a). There is increasing evidence that the CTC substantially affected family and child well-being. For instance, the CTC’s first monthly payment reduced food insecurity by 25 percent among low-income households with children, with the largest effects among families earning less than $35,000 per year (Parolin et al., 2021a).

Two lines of research have considered the CTC’s effects on family outcomes, including work, and on pandemic-era data that was available in real time, such as the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey and Current Population Survey. Some of this research has consistently found null or modest CTC effects on work among parents with children, including low-income families (Ananat et al., 2021; Lourie et al., 2021). One study found no significant effects on work exits due to the CTC among low-income workers (Lourie et al., 2021), and another study found small or statistically insignificant effects on employment, even among lower-income households (Ananat et al., 2021).

A report from the Congressional Research Service focused on CTC’s increased benefits to low-income families, estimating that the average family

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

that would have received $2,597 from the pre-2021 CTC would receive $5,086 after the expansion. Poor families, who tended to receive the smallest CTC benefit before the expansion, were estimated to receive some of the largest gains from the CTC expansion; however, one study found that racial inequities in poverty would likely persist (Crandall-Hollick et al., 2021). Importantly, emerging evidence suggests the CTC’s effects on employment and related outcomes are not definitive and remain controversial (Corinth & Meyer, 2021; Corinth et al., 2021).

Overall, the stimulus and CTC payments during the pandemic were found to be essential to mitigating economic, food, and material hardships, especially among low-income workers and families. This finding suggests that the distribution of direct cash to individuals and families successfully mitigated the potential deleterious consequences of the pandemic, bolstering family income and promoting the ability for families to purchase essential goods and services without the administrative difficulties of onerous applications or ongoing participation requirements inherent to many safety net programs (see Chapter 5 for more discussion on access to coverage). Our review of the evidence on pandemic-era stimulus and CTC payments provides useful evidence of their utility to enhance the economic circumstances of families, especially low-income and racially and ethnically minoritized individuals and families, and to aid their recovery, particularly in the context of increased inflation for essential goods, rising rental costs, and child care expenses.

Although there is limited evidence to date on the influence of stimulus and monthly CTC payments on low-income and racially and ethnically minoritized families’ well-being, evidence from similar resources is instructive. For instance, a long line of research finds that annual EITC payments are predominantly used to pay for essential goods and services; reduce food insecurity (Lenhart, 2019); and improve a host of health outcomes, including maternal health (Evans & Garthwaite, 2014), infant health (Hoynes et al., 2015), and some measures of mental health (Boyd-Swan et al., 2016). Moreover, evidence on monthly or other periodic EITC payments, rather than annual distribution, indicates an association with reduced food insecurity (Andrade et al., 2019), economic and utility hardships, and debt accumulation (Kramer et al., 2019). A similar program, Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend (derived from the state’s minerals revenue), showed marginal effects on employment—a 2 percent increase in the share of individuals working part time (Jones and Marinescu, 2022). However, another study considered the fund’s effects on work and retirement and did not find significant effects for either outcome (Goldsmith, 2012).

Since the pandemic began there has been renewed interest in the potential for universal basic income programs (typically, monthly cash transfers) to improve the well-being of marginalized families, and several locales have

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

implemented demonstration programs. A number of jurisdictions have implemented their own programs since 2020,1 and several were scheduled to begin in 2022.2 Across existing or planned universal basic income programs, there is wide variation in eligibility criteria (some focus exclusively on particular groups, such as youth, young adults, older adults, or single parents), duration of benefits, and benefit amounts. Future analyses from these programs are likely to provide nuanced evidence on the effects of unconditional cash transfers on family well-being. However, many of these programs are limited in scope, enrolling from 12 to less than 200 participants, and some use nonexperimental methods. In contrast, Chicago plans to enroll 5,000 adults through a randomized controlled trial, which should provide robust evidence on the utility of universal basic income benefits in attenuating family hardships. At the same time, analysts also point out that researchers and policy makers should consider the substantial costs of such a program if implemented more broadly in the United States relative to costs of expanding targeted means-tested provisions (Kearney & Mogstad. 2019).

A similar program is Baby’s First Years,3 funded by the National Institutes of Health and a consortium of private foundations, which was launched in 2019. It is a randomized controlled trial of an unconditional cash transfer to low-income mothers recruited from four cities—New York, New York; New Orleans, Louisiana; Omaha, Nebraska; and Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota. The mothers receive $333 per month for the first 52 months of the child’s life; mothers in the control group receive $20 per month. To date, this study is the largest causal research of a universal basic income program targeted toward low-income families with very young children. Overall, Baby’s First Years studies have found that infants in the experiment group had comparatively faster-paced brain activity, which is associated with cognitive development (Troller-Renfree, 2022) and that resources were used to pay for essential goods, even among the control group (Rojas et al., 2020).

Eviction Moratoriums

Prior to the pandemic, it was estimated that about 3.6 million eviction notices were filed in a typical year in the United States (Gromis et al.,

___________________

1 They include New Orleans, Louisiana; St. Paul, Minnesota; Richmond, Virginia; Columbia, South Carolina; Los Angeles, California; Ulster County, New York; Peterson, New Jersey; Cambridge, Massachusetts; New York, New York; Marin County, California; Oakland, California; San Francisco, California; Shreveport, Louisiana; Chelsea, Massachusetts; Lynn, Massachusetts; Santa Fe, New Mexico; and Hudson, New York.

2 They include Washington, DC; Chicago, Illinois; West Hollywood, California; Gainesville, Florida; and Gary, Indiana.

3 See http://babysfirstyears.com

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

2022). Low-income Black and Latino renters, including those with children, were disproportionately more likely to be evicted than their White counterparts (Desmond et al., 2013; Olsen, 2016; Lundberg and Donnelly, 2019; Hazekamp et al., 2020; Hepburn et al., 2020; Schwartz et al., 2022; Gromis et al., 2021). Evictions are associated with a number of negative outcomes, including increased risks of homelessness (Collinson and Reed, 2018); job loss (Benfer et al., 2022; Desmond and Gershenson, 2017); physical and mental health challenges (Vásquez-Vera et al., 2017; Hatch & Yun, 2021); chronic illness (Collinson & Reed, 2018; Keene et al., 2018); and reduced access to health care (Schwartz et al., 2022), credit (Parker & Smith, 2021), and subsequent housing. Among children, experiencing an eviction is associated with increased risk of food insecurity, depression among adolescents, poor academic achievement, and discipline issues at school (Fowler et al., 2015; Leifheit et al., 2020; Parker and Smith, 2021; Schwartz et al., 2021).

In response to COVID-19 and the known consequences of eviction, the CARES Act banned evictions for 120 days from properties that participated in government programs or that had a federally backed mortgage, covering about 28 percent of rental units in the United States (Jowers et al., 2021; Layser et al., 2021). CDC instituted a moratorium that was broader in scope, halting evictions in all residential properties between September 4, 2020, and August 26, 2021 (Jowers et al., 2021; National Housing Law Project and National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2021). In addition to these nationwide policies, 44 states implemented their own eviction moratoriums, most of which expired by the summer of 2020 (Layser et al., 2021; Leifheit et al., 2021). In some locales, eviction hearings were temporarily paused because of pandemic-related court closures (Acosta et al., 2020).

Trends in eviction rates following the onset of COVID-19 suggest that these policies reduced eviction filings. Because the CARES Act moratorium was implemented along with many other state and local eviction moratoriums, it is not possible to evaluate pandemic-era evictions relative to any one policy. However, eviction rates were lowest immediately following passage of the CARES Act in March 2020, and they then substantially increased after its termination. As can be seen in Figure 6-1, the CARES Act played a critical role in limiting evictions nationwide (Cowin et al., 2020; Hepburn et al., 2021; Layser et al., 2021). Moreover, states with strong tenant protection policies that coincided with the CARES Act moratorium generally had lower eviction rates (Cowin et al., 2020; Ahmed & Jackson, 2021; Leifheit et al., 2021; Benfer et al., 2022) than other states, suggesting these policies also helped reduce evictions.

Other components of the CARES Act also likely helped with housing stability, including stimulus and monthly child tax credit payments and safety net and expansions of unemployment insurance benefits. By the time the CARES Act and many state eviction moratoriums expired in late July

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Image
FIGURE 6-1 Eviction trends, 2020.
NOTES: The weekly filings in the eviction tracking system sites are relative to historical averages. Orange is the gap between the CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention moratoriums.
SOURCE: Hepburn et al. (2021, p. 10).

2020, eviction filings had mostly returned to prepandemic levels, spiking in August 2020 between the end of the CARES Act and CDC’s moratorium (Cowin et al., 2020; Hepburn et al., 2021).

While the number of filings fell below prepandemic levels during the CDC moratorium, there were about three times as many eviction filings as occurred when the CARES Act and most state moratoriums were in place, suggesting that the CDC moratorium was not as effective as those interventions (Hepburn et al., 2021, 2022). Of note, unlike the CARES Act and some state moratoriums, the CDC moratorium was not self-executing, meaning that tenants needed to provide paperwork to prove that they were eligible for protection (Monea, 2021). This compliance cost may have led to confusion among renters and prevented some from taking advantage of the legislation, especially since many renters lack access to legal counsel (Ahmed et al., 2021; Benfer et al., 2022). Despite its limitations, however, it appears the policy had a positive effect as reflected in the increase in evictions beginning September 2021, right after the CDC moratorium ended: see Figure 6-2. There is also evidence that CDC’s moratorium prevented thousands of COVID-19 infections, especially in urban areas (Nande et al., 2021).

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Image
FIGURE 6-2 Eviction trends, 2021.
NOTE: CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
SOURCE: Hepburn et al. (2022, p. 3).

Overall, eviction filings were reduced by an estimated 1.55 million and allowed renters to use financial resources for other essential goods, which reduced food insecurity and mental stress (Hepburn et al., 2021; Jowers et al., 2021). However, while eviction moratoriums provided immediate financial relief to renters, they did not address the underlying causes of evictions and their impact on long-term housing stability; consequently, their overall effects were therefore limited (the National Academies, 2022). Moratoriums were not fully comprehensive in coverage because of a lack of clear enforcement regulations—as well as gaps in timing between different policies. As such, these laws were not evenly applied across jurisdictions (Hepburn et al., 2021), and an estimated 1 million evictions did occur during the pandemic (Monea, 2021).

The lifting of state eviction moratoriums was also associated with increased COVID-19 incidence and mortality for at least 12 weeks following the expirations (Leifheit et al., 2021; Sandoval-Olascoaga et al., 2021). These health risks were most pronounced among individuals with preexisting health conditions, as well as those living in areas with high rates of poverty and people with rent-burdened households (Sandoval-Olascoaga et al., 2021). While reducing COVID-19 transmission was one of the central goals of eviction prevention strategies, many moratoriums were lifted even as infections increased, undermining that purpose (Benfer et al., 2022).

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

An analysis of data from the Legal Services Corporation on evictions across 23 states found pandemic-era eviction moratoriums and rental assistance at the federal and local levels significantly averted the eviction cliff, reducing filings by 60 percent from March 2020 to April 2022 (Thomas et al., 2022). However, using forecast models, the researchers predicted that filing counts would reach historic averages by August of 2022, possibly surpassing prepandemic trends for a short period: this forecast suggests that policies only delayed rather than prevented housing insecurity. Across the 23 states studied, the primary drivers of pandemic evictions were counties with low-rent, competitive markets, relatively high percentages of White populations, and neighborhood tracts with higher shares of Black households. Therefore, it could be that Black households in these White counties are experiencing the brunt of pandemic filings, requiring further investigation into the relationship of eviction and structural racial inequalities due to segregation and discriminatory housing policies (Oliver & Shapiro, 2006; Krysan & Crowder, 2017; Rothstein, 2017).

The findings from the 23-state study highlight two points: First, renters with children who live in the most affordable regions are more vulnerable to eviction, especially in counties where low-rent neighborhoods are near higher-rent neighborhoods. Second, low-income households are the most vulnerable to eviction and face a limited number of neighborhoods where they can afford housing. If a county has a higher demand for rentals than they have supply, it will further increase housing costs for already marginalized families (Thomas et al., 2022).

CDC’s eviction moratorium may have also affected landlords. While most pandemic provisions were targeted toward families, workers, renters, and small businesses, the CARES Act did provide landlords who had mortgages backed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) with eligibility for up to 90 days of mortgage forbearance due to financial hardships, in addition to eligibility for small business pandemic support for those who qualified. To date, only a handful of studies have considered the impact of the moratorium on landlords. While all landlords had difficulty collecting full rent during the pandemic, evidence suggests small landlords (1 to 5 properties) and midsize landlords (6 to 19 properties) had comparatively higher rates (10% and 8%, respectively) in comparison with larger landlords (3%) of being owed 50 percent or more in rent from tenants (de la Campa, 2022; Mumford, 2022).

There is other evidence that smaller landlords were hit hard by the moratoriums, such as higher reported difficulties with maintaining properties, mortgage payments, and tax obligations (Broady et al., 2020; de la Campa & Reina, 2022). At the same time, recent evidence suggests that

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

landlords’ losses of rental revenue have been relatively modest over the pandemic to date. It will be important for future work in this area to consider the long-run outcomes of the evictions moratoriums on landlords, especially small landlords with properties in economically disadvantaged communities, which endured some of the highest rates of nonpayment or delayed payment of rent.

Student Loan Pandemic Relief Measures

One large expense for many households is their student loan payment. According to the 2019 Survey of Consumer Finances, parents in nearly one-third of households with children have student loans. The CARES Act included limitations for these payments, which were subsequently extended and expanded several times.

The CARES Act measures initially applied to loans made under the Direct Loan Program of the U.S. Department of Education and the subset of loans made under the Federal Family Education Loan Program that were held by the department. Together, they accounted for about 80 percent of the student loan market. For these loans, the CARES Act mandated (1) a suspension of loan payments (i.e., administrative forbearance; U.S. Department of Education, n.d.), (2) a 0 percent interest rate on outstanding balances, and (3) a suspension of collection activities on defaulted loans. These measures went into effect on March 20, 2020; they were subsequently extended eight times; the current extension is timed to coincide with a pending Supreme Court decision on the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness program to cancel up to $20,000 of student loan debt for all borrowers who are also Pell Grant recipients.4 That is, the current extension of the pause on student loan payments ends 60 days after the loan forgiveness program is scheduled to go into effect or 60 days after June 30, 2023. The timing is to prevent borrowers from making payments on debt that could be canceled (U.S. Department of Education, 2022).

On March 30, 2021, the federal government expanded these provisions to make federal student loans made through the Federal Family Education Loan Program and not owned by the U.S. Department of Education that were in default eligible for the 0 percent interest rate on outstanding balances and the stoppage of collections activities (retroactive to March 13, 2020). Just over a year later, on April 6, 2022, provisions were expanded to reinstate paused defaulted and delinquent federal loans to good standing on expiration of the pandemic-relief measures. Relief for payments on student

___________________

4 Federal Pell Grants are primarily available to undergraduate students who display exceptional financial need and have not earned a bachelor’s, graduate, or professional degree; see https://studentaid.gov/understand-aid/types/grants/pell

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

loans held by private entities was subject to the lender’s discretion and, if available, only on request and typically for much shorter periods.

There is some early research on the effects of pandemic-era student loan pauses on economic outcomes. Using consumer credit records, one study identified student loan borrowers who were making payments ahead of the pandemic (a proxy for eligibility for automatic forbearance) and found subsequent improvements in their credit profiles (Case et al., 2022). The study also estimated more than $80 billion in aggregate savings through spring 2022 among borrowers in this group whose balances were unchanged. A complementary analysis estimated around $200 billion in aggregate payments were waived under automatic forbearance among all borrowers that were eligible (whether they were current on their debt entering the pandemic) and found evidence that the student loan borrowers who were required to make payments struggled (Goss et al., 2022).

Another study analyzed data from two nationally representative datasets—the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Consumer Credit Panel/Equifax—to understand the implications of these student loan provisions for marginalized families with children (Goodman et al., 2022). Though these measures were not targeted and thus applied to borrowers independent of need, the authors found that families with children were more likely to benefit from student loan relief provisions; more than half of households with eligible student loans had children, and the relief reached a greater share of households with children than of those without children.

Among families with children, White families were more likely to be eligible for relief, followed by Black, and then Latino families, presumably driven by the composition of the U.S. population and those who have pursued postsecondary education. A much larger share of Black families with children were eligible for the relief than Latino or White families with children, and such families typically had the most student loan debt and the lowest income. They also typically had the lowest monthly payments, implying less savings from the automatic forbearance provision. In particular, student loan borrowers eligible for federal student loan pandemic relief, including those in higher risk groups, were able to improve their credit profiles. While some of this improvement may be attributable to other fiscal stimulus and relief measures, according to the authors, the findings indicate an outsized improvement for people eligible for federal student loan pandemic relief relative to those who were not eligible. Thus, some of the improvement in overall credit health and interactions with other credit markets may be attributable to the cessation of student loan payments and collection activities (Goodman et al., 2022).

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

SAFETY NET EXPANSIONS

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

FFCRA provided resources to expand federal nutrition assistance programs. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits were raised by 15 percent for all program participants, administrative burdens were reduced, and participating households were allowed the maximum benefit for their household size, averaging a $165 increase in monthly benefits. SNAP was also expanded with the creation of a new program—SNAP Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer (P-EBT)—which provided direct payments to families with children who lost access to free or reduced-price school meals due to school and child care closures. These payments had a value of about $114 per child per month (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2020).

ARP further enhanced SNAP provisions by extending the 15 percent benefit increase through September 2021, allowing schools to forgo income participation requirements for free or reduced-price meals to students, and further increased P-EBT benefits by about 16 percent (Food and Nutrition Service [FNS], 2021). The newly created P-EBT program provided qualifying households with lump-sum payments using EBT cards to replace low or no-cost school meals during the widespread school closures. Of note, P-EBT was designed to be state run: participating states (all but one applied for and were granted approval by June 2020) received waivers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. States implemented the P-EBT program at different start dates, resulting in widespread variation in availability early in the pandemic (see Bauer et al., 2020). Overall, between April and September 2020, SNAP and P-EBT redemptions averaged $8.4 billion per month, representing an 86 percent increase in comparison with the same period in 2019 (Jones, 2021).

Pandemic-era patterns of SNAP participation were temporally sensitive, with stagnant enrollment in the early months (individual participants in January–March 2020), followed by substantial increases in enrollment after program expansions in April 2020 (Rosenbaum, 2020; Dubowitz et al., 2021; FNS, 2021; Fang et al., 2022). Since May 2020, the number of SNAP participants ranged from a high of 43 million in June 2020 to 41.3 million in November 2021 (FNS, 2021). For the P-EBT program, the amount a participating family might receive was contingent on the number of days that schools were closed in their state, but the value placed on meals was similar across states, which was $5.70 for breakfast.

Coinciding with low SNAP take-up rates at the beginning of the pandemic, food insecurity initially rose from 31 percent prepandemic to 39 percent, with the highest rates of food insecurity among low-income, Black,

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

and immigrant households (Bitler et al., 2020; Waxman et al., 2020; Ohri-Vachaspati et al., 2021). Because food prices have risen during the pandemic, thereby further constraining family food budgets, they may have tempered SNAP’s effectiveness in reducing economic, and especially food, hardships (Bitler et al., 2020).

Given the complicated context of the pandemic related to food assistance expansions in the face of increasing food costs and variations in employment losses, an emerging body of work has considered some of these dimensions in assessing effects on family well-being of the SNAP, and, to a lesser extent, P-EBT expansions. However, almost all of the available research on SNAP and P-EBT has considered only the early pandemic period.

Research on SNAP enrollment patterns has consistently found suboptimal take-up rates in the first 6 months of the pandemic (Hembre, 2021; Ohri-Vachaspati et al., 2021; Harper et al., 2022). Moreover, existing evidence suggests Black, Latino, and low-income families with children were disproportionately less likely to enroll during this period than White and higher-income families (Waxman et al., 2020b), though states with higher unemployment rates (Bitler et al., 2020) and less restrictive safety net policies (Hembre, 2021) had larger increases in SNAP enrollment. A survey of 470 low-income families in July 2020 found SNAP participation declined among households with children in the first 4 months of the pandemic, although the lowest-income households (less than $50,000 annual income) were comparatively more likely to be enrolled in SNAP both before and after the onset of COVID-19 (Harper et al., 2022).

Another study using the same survey data found that among low-income households reporting food insecurity, 47 percent reported SNAP participation prior to the pandemic but only 39 percent were enrolled in SNAP in the first 6 months of its beginning, with the largest later-pandemic SNAP participation decreases among Black, low-income, and households with children (Ohri-Vachaspati et al., 2021). Another survey of 2,712 low-income adults in the early months of the pandemic found that low-earning workers and workers with income volatility were less likely to take up SNAP, with comparatively higher rates of food insecurity among these groups (Fang et al., 2022). Still another survey study of rural parents in Pennsylvania found that SNAP recipients’ rates of food insecurity were mitigated by the program (Steimle et al., 2021), which aligns with similar research drawing on a larger convenience sample of adults across the United States (Reimold et al., 2021).

Evidence of SNAP’s effects on family well-being after the first months of the pandemic is more limited. SNAP was found to mitigate food insecurity after ARP expansions. For instance, using the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey, one study estimated that SNAP’s 15 percent benefits increase (measured in January 2021) reduced food insecurity by 850,000

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

cases per week (Bryant & Follett, 2022). Similar results were found in California among a survey of low-income families: SNAP participation was associated with reduced food insecurity at the beginning of the pandemic, from 19.3 percent to 14.5 percent (Molitor et al., 2021). However, some of the positive effects of SNAP participation were mitigated by job loss, with people who lost jobs having significantly higher rates of food insecurity despite participation in SNAP (Singleton et al., 2021). In a study looking a particular subgroup of SNAP recipients, a small convenience survey of grandparent-headed households earning less than $30,000 annually found that SNAP receipt was associated with reductions in child maltreatment and material hardship during the pandemic (Xu et al., 2021).

Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer

Research on the P-EBT program is even more limited than that on SNAP, but it offers promising evidence of the effects of P-EBT in reducing economic hardships, especially food hardship, among low-income children and families. At the same time, P-EBT awareness and take-up was relatively low during the first 6 months of the pandemic, particularly for low-income Black and Latino families (Gupta et al., 2020; Keith-Jennings et al., 2021; Harper et al., 2022), which has been linked to food insecurity among these households (Fang et al., 2022). Take-up improved for these groups in the 2020–2021 school year (Waxman et al., 2021b). A small qualitative study found low program awareness (one-third of parent respondents were aware of the P-EBT program in September 2020), but among those who knew of the program, about two-thirds had received benefits (Gupta et al., 2020). A related study by the Urban Institute sought to understand factors that contributed to low P-EBT participation in the first year of the pandemic. To do so, they surveyed and interviewed state SNAP directors and administrators between December 2020 and July 2021 and found several factors: federal funding and delays in guidance from the Food and Nutrition Service hindered receipt of P-EBT waivers; insufficient data sharing with education partners, which was also noted among education staff (Jowell et al., 2021); and limited experience in the prepandemic period. These factors made coordinating with state, education, and child nutrition stakeholders a challenge (Waxman et al., 2021b).

Despite the initial challenges in providing P-EBT benefits, several studies have found that P-EBT receipt was significantly associated with family well-being, namely, in reducing food insecurity. One study found that in the first week after P-EBT benefits were delivered, reports of children in low-income households not having enough to eat fell by 11 percentage points, though by the second week these effects were muted (Bauer et al., 2020). To understand the possible impact of delayed P-EBT implementation across

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

states later in the pandemic (the 2020–2021 school year), the researchers leveraged state-level variation in the program’s rollout and found that P-EBT effectively reduced food insecurity among SNAP households with children by 28 percent, with the largest effects in states with high rates of school closures (Bauer et al., 2020).

Other Safety Net Provisions

In addition to implementation of pandemic provisions and expansion of traditional safety net programs, such as SNAP, other means-tested programming may have been essential to low-income families during the pandemic, including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), which provides child care subsidies to qualifying families to offset the cost of care. Even in the absence of an economic downturn, these provisions provide support to low-income families while also addressing family and child well-being among those who participate (also see Chapter 5).

During the pandemic to date, many safety net programs experienced substantial increases in participation. For instance, the SNAP caseload went from 37 million in February 2020 to 43 million by May 2020 and then held steady the remainder of the year (Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 2022). By the end of 2021, enrollment had dropped to 41 million, but it remained higher than the prepandemic period as of January 2022 (FNS, 2022). Similarly, Medicaid and CHIP enrollment increased by 19.3 million from February 2020 to August 2022, a 27.1 percent increase nationwide, with much of this growth occurring in Medicaid overall, as well as in states that had expanded Medicaid shortly before or at the beginning of the pandemic (Corallo & Moreno, 2022; see Chapter 5 for more discussion on Medicaid). Increased participation in WIC was modest, about two percent nationwide, though there was substantial variation by state, ranging from a 20 percent increase to a 21 percent decrease in WIC caseloads (Food Research and Action Center, 2021). Although TANF experienced an almost nine percent caseload increase in the early months of the pandemic (January–June 2020), caseloads were at or lower than the prepandemic period by October 2020 (Pratt & Hahn, 2022). Similar to other safety net caseloads, TANF participation varied substantially across states between February 2020 and June 2020, ranging from a 13 percent decrease in Mississippi to a 70 percent increase in Maryland (Pratt & Hahn, 2022).

The CARES Act provided the CCDBG with 3.5 billion in emergency funding to allow states more flexibility in providing child care subsidies to families (Bedrick & Daily, 2020; Child Care Aware America, 2020; Public

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

Policy Associates, 2021; The Hunt Institute, 2020). These measures resulted in states being able to: (1) continue to pay institutional child care providers who accepted subsidies during the pandemic-related program closures or those that experienced low attendance due to the pandemic; (2) provide emergency care for essential workers; (3) waive or cover child care costs that families could not pay; and (4) raise the income eligibility limits to promote program take-up (Bedrick & Daily, 2020).

A small qualitative study of child care subsidy recipients in Michigan largely found positive outcomes from these policy changes, and parents reported accessible application processes, although there were reports of insufficient information on the subsidy provisions (Public Policy Associates, 2021). Most respondents in this small study reported experiencing provider closures that affected their work and family life, a common occurrence across the country during the first year of the pandemic (Public Policy Associates, 2021). Recommendations to continue to improve access to the child care subsidy program include enhanced flexibility, dissemination of program information to eligible families, and increasing income eligibility criteria to expand the number of families who would be eligible for child care subsidies (Public Policy Associates, 2021).

At the time of this writing, there is a dearth of information on changes to the child care subsidy caseload following the onset of the pandemic. Given that states had some latitude in the use of CCDBG CARES Act funding, it will be important for future research to consider the effects of different state approaches in promoting take-up or maintenance of subsidies during the pandemic and how such policies might have affected work and family and child well-being.

SUPPORT FOR TRIBAL NATIONS

As part of ARP, tribal nations and Indigenous and Native American populations received unprecedented funding from the federal government to address long-standing health equity issues and address the economic effects of the pandemic. ARP included $32 billion for tribal nations and Native and Indigenous communities, with $20 billion in funding going directly to more than 570 federally recognized American Indian and Alaska tribal governments to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and address the economic fallout for households, businesses, and tribal governments (Kalt et al., 2021). In addition to public health and economic investments, the Administration for Native Americans issued $20 million in grants from ARP to 210 recipients to foster native-language preservation and acquisition (Administration for Children and Families, 2021). These provisions were distributed in a number of ways, including resources for housing and water improvements, social services, primary education, law enforcement,

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

and administrative capacities (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2021, 2022). The Citizen Potawatomi Nation legislature used some of these resources to provide eligible members with a one-time lump sum payment of $1,400 (Citizen Potawatomi Nation, 2021; Kalt et al., 2021). Similarly, the Oneida and Cherokee Nations used their allotment of ARP funds to support direct payments, home repairs, rent and food assistance, vaccination incentives, education, and cultural preservation (Cherokee Nation, 2021; Wisneski, 2021).

Although ARP’s March 2021 funding to these communities represented the federal government’s largest investment to date, a number of researchers, advocates, and policy makers continued to call for such investments (Curtice & Choo, 2020; Doshi et al., 2020; Murkowski et al., 2020; Burki, 2021; Foxworth et al., 2021; Willard, 2021), which was partially met with $8 billion from the CARES Act. Calls for increased funding reflected already deep-seated health and economic disparities facing tribal, Indigenous, and Native American communities, who never fully recovered from the Great Recession of 2007–2009. These communities have comparatively higher unemployment rates and lower median earnings than predominantly White communities in the recovery period, 2009–2019 (Akee, 2021). It has also been noted that the Indian Health Service has been underfunded for decades (Doshi et al., 2020), despite prepandemic health inequities across a host of domains (Kruse et al., 2022).

Given ARP was not implemented until March 2021 and the time lag in receipt of the designated funds, there are as yet no studies that have evaluated the effects of ARP (or the CARES Act) funds to tribal, Indigenous, and Native American communities on economic well-being. There are, however, studies that have documented the pandemic’s effects on well-being more generally. For instance, the education of rural-residing Native American students with disabilities was substantially disrupted by poor funding for health care, high rates of poverty, underfunded infrastructure (such as electricity, running water, and internet access), and severe shortages of special education staff (Running Bear et al., 2021). Relatedly, an Arizona study examined the relationship between poor infrastructure and COVID-19 cases and found that lack of transportation and inadequate housing contributed to higher rates of cases, particularly on tribal lands (Yellow Horse et al., 2022); similar results were found in New Mexico (Huyser et al., 2021) and among Native American and Alaska Native veterans (Wong et al., 2021).

FAMILIES’ CURRENT ECONOMIC WELL-BEING

At the time of this writing, it has been almost three years since the onset of the pandemic, and 1–2 years since the end of most federal pandemic provisions, so the committee attempted to determine how families are

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

currently faring economically. There is understandably little peer-reviewed work yet on the long-term economic outcomes of the pandemic, but there are available descriptive data on economic trends among U.S. households.

One source is the Center on Poverty and Social Policy (CPSP) at Columbia University, which compiles monthly data on work, income, and poverty, including over the course of the pandemic.5 Pandemic-era monthly poverty rates (pretax and pretransfers) peaked at 38 percent in April 2020 and then declined to 32.5 percent by the end of the year. As of October 2022, the monthly poverty rate (pretax and pretransfers) for U.S. households was 30.2 percent—the same rate prior to the pandemic’s beginning in January 2020. After accounting for tax and transfers, racial and ethnic groups also have similar or slightly lower poverty rates as of October 2022 relative to prepandemic poverty rates. For instance, Black households had a monthly poverty rate of 23.8 percent in January 2020; in October 2022, the monthly poverty rate was 21 percent. Similarly, Latino households had a 23.7 percent poverty rate in January 2020 and a 21.6 percent rate in October 2022. Child poverty rates also show a similar pattern: 18.7 percent in January 2020 and 16.8 percent in October 2022.

These trends mask the full influence of federal pandemic provisions on poverty rates before and during the pandemic. CPSP also provides descriptive trends on monthly poverty rates relative to the implementation of expanded UI benefits, EITC receipt, and the monthly distribution of the CTC. These trends suggest that the distribution of the EITC, CTC, and stimulus checks resulted in monthly reductions in household poverty rates—falling from 14.3 percent of households in poverty in February 2021 to 9.3 percent in March 2021. Similar monthly poverty rate reductions were also observed by race and ethnicity although preexisting disparities remained between groups.

However, there was some rebound in poverty rates as the pandemic continued. For instance, in February 2021 the monthly poverty rate for Black households was 20.1 percent and fell to 13.7 percent in March 2021, but it exceeded prepandemic levels by October 2022, at 21 percent. Latino households had similar patterns; their monthly poverty rate in February 2021 was 22.8 percent and fell to 11.6 percent in March 2021 but matched prepandemic levels at 21.6 percent in October 2022. Children’s monthly poverty rates were also substantially reduced after the EITC, CTC, and stimulus checks, dropping from 17 percent in February 2021 to 7.6 percent in March 2021, but they had increased to virtually match prepandemic rates as of October 2022, at 16.8 percent. It will be important for future work to consider more robust causal analysis that disaggregates the

___________________

5 See https://www.povertycenter.columbia.edu/forecasting-monthly-poverty-data

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

influence of particular provisions on family well-being outcomes over the course of the pandemic and in its short- and longer-term aftermath.

Labor force participation rates have also stabilized. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2022a), 62 percent of noninstitutionalized civilians were working in early 2020 and by December 2022, the rate was 62.3 percent. (Between February and April 2020 the labor force participation rate dipped from 63.3% to 60.1%.) Relatedly, unemployment rates have also improved, including across workers with different levels of education. Unemployment rates peaked for all education groups in April 2020, although workers with college degrees fared comparatively better: for workers with less than a high school diploma, the rate was 20.2 percent; for those with a high school diploma, 17.7 percent; for those with some college, 15.5 percent; and for those with a bachelor’s or higher degree, 8.4 percent (BLS, 2022d). By December 2022, all groups had substantially lower unemployment rates: those with less than a high school diploma, 5 percent; those with a high school diploma, 3.6 percent; those with some college, 2.9 percent; and those with a college or higher degree, 1.9 percent.

Similar trends occurred by gender and race. In April 2020 unemployment rates peaked for all groups: men, 13 percent; women, 15.5 percent; White workers, 14.1 percent; Black workers, 16.8 percent; and Latino workers, 14.5 percent., By December 2022, the rates similar to prepandemic levels: men, 3.1 percent; women, 3.2 percent; White workers, three percent; Black workers, 5.7 percent; and Latino workers, 4.1 percent (BLS, 2022b).

Although most groups had rebounded to prepandemic levels of labor force participation, disparities between groups in these domains persisted. However, potentially offsetting the strong labor market has been the increased, stubborn, and prolonged inflation of basic goods, with families paying higher prices for groceries, gas, rent, and other essential goods. Yet wages, on average, have increased given a strong labor market. In the first quarter of 2020, men’s average weekly wages were $1,056 and women’s were $853. By the third quarter of 2022 (last available data at the time of this writing), men’s average weekly earnings had increased to $1,166 (just over 10%) and women’s had increased to $968 (more than 13%). Average weekly earnings also similarly increased between the first quarter of 2020 and the third quarter of 2022 for racial and ethnic groups, though existing disparities persisted. On average, White workers’ average earnings increased from $980 to $1,101 (more than 12%); Black workers’ average earnings increased from $775 to $881 (more than 13%), and Latino workers’ average weekly earnings increased from $721 to $861 (more than 19%; BLS, 2022c). These data indicate the substantial work and earnings improvements since the onset of the pandemic for workers, including those with less education, racial and ethnic groups, and women, even though wide disparities by gender, race, and ethnicity persist.

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

At the same time, U.S. families continue to face a child care crunch, with a shortage of workers and average monthly costs for center-based care averaging $1,324 for infants, $1,096 for toddlers ($889 for preschool and $1,141 for family-based day care; Workman & Jessen-Howard, 2018). Moreover, as detailed above and in Chapter 5, food insecurity surged in the wake of COVID-19, although by June 2022 it had recovered to almost exactly what it was at the onset of COVID-19 and prior to the pandemic (Waxman et al., 2022). Researchers have also estimated a substantial increase in evictions since expiration of the pandemic’s moratorium: analysis of eviction filings in 31 cities suggests that 21 of them saw an increase in eviction filings that were 10 percentage points higher than historical averages (Haas et al., 2021). Thus, there are critical indicators that some families continue to struggle despite a strong labor market.

IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

Across all provisions reviewed in this chapter, there is evidence of both promising and challenging implementation issues. Perhaps the most encouraging practice, relative to positive effects on low-income families, was the distribution of direct cash payments to qualifying individuals and households. There is overwhelming evidence that stimulus and monthly CTC direct cash payments reduced child and family poverty and allowed families, especially low-income families, to purchase essential goods and services, such as food, utilities, and housing. There is also some evidence that such provisions also reduced stress. Similar outcomes were observed relative to the federal government’s expansion of UI benefits, although questions remain about the effects of pandemic-era cash transfers and UI benefits on employment, both in the near and long terms. These conclusions are supported by the report A Roadmap to Reducing Child Poverty that showed that programs that alleviate poverty—either directly, by providing income, or by providing food, housing, or medical care—have been shown to improve child well-being (the National Academies, 2019).

Unlike cash transfers, safety net programs often have greater administrative requirements by typically requiring recipients to access resources through an agency or caseworker. Since the pandemic began, many states have reduced safety net programs’ administrative burdens with positive results. For instance, the use of online applications, telemeetings rather than in-person visits, and relaxation of required documents and recertification periods boosted enrollment in SNAP, WIC, and Medicaid (see Chapter 5), signaling the importance of reducing administrative burdens to promote program enrollment overall and especially in the midst of a disaster such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, evidence points to implementation issues across a range of provisions that disproportionately affected low-income families.

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

For instance, low-income families were less likely than higher-income families to receive initial monthly CTC payments: recent estimates found that only 68 percent of very low-income families received the credit in October 2022 (Pilkauskas & Michelmore, 2021). The pandemic-era paid leave programs had very low take-up rates, with disparities most pronounced for racially and ethnically minoritized groups (Goodman et al., 2021); that outcome was related to deficits in program knowledge (Goodman, 2021). The UI system endured several key challenges, such as delays in benefit distribution (Zipperer & Gould, 2020) and historically high numbers of applications that challenged states’ distribution of benefits, especially those with outdated UI infrastructure (Bilter et al., 2020; Evermore, 2020).

Similar implementation issues occurred in safety net programs. For example, prior perceptions or experiences with poor treatment in means-tested programs delayed or dissuaded low-income women, especially Black and Latina women, from applying for such benefits, suggesting stigma costs were high, and this reduced program enrollment in some instances (Elliott et al., 2021). Moreover, some newly eligible people did not have the requisite program information, including for SNAP and WIC, which delayed or hampered their enrollment: this suggests that learning costs (e.g., program knowledge) were especially high among those who had not previously used some safety net programs (Barnes & Riel, 2022).

The exclusion of immigrants from government-sponsored provisions, with few exceptions, was a cornerstone of the nation’s 1997 welfare reform overhaul of the safety net, and it has continued with exclusions from monthly CTC and stimulus payments during the pandemic. Consequently, immigrant and undocumented families with children had some of the highest rates of hardship during the pandemic (Artiga & Rae, 2020; Gonzalez et al., 2020).

Some researchers have found that the restrictions and a shift from an entitlement-based safety net to a largely work-based safety net may have played a role in restricting or delaying program enrollment during the pandemic because of perceptions of stigma (Lasky-Fink & Linos, 2022) or lack of program knowledge among newly eligible people (Bitler et al., 2020; Barnes & Riel, 2022).

Relatedly, emerging evidence suggests that state policy context mattered in facilitating access to new and existing programs. As noted above, states with existing paid leave programs had higher take-up of the pandemic’s paid leave programs, suggesting that employers and employees in these states may have had an experiential advantage that reduced the learning and compliance costs. Similarly, states with comparatively efficient UI systems had shorter delays in distributing benefits. Some states reduced safety net programs’ administrative burdens more quickly than others did, which is associated with greater program take-up in these states.

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

States’ economic contexts and safety net provisions vary widely. For example, in the year leading up the pandemic (2019), average monthly TANF for a family of three with no other income ranged from a low of $170 in Mississippi to a high of $923 in Alaska. Income eligibility ceilings for Medicaid for pregnant people, a particularly vulnerable group, also varied substantially by state, ranging from 138 percent of the federal poverty line (Idaho, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and South Dakota) to 380 percent of the federal poverty line in Iowa, although 30 states allowed for presumptive eligibility for pregnant people.

Few states had or have either paid family leave or paid sick day mandates or programs. States’ economic characteristics are similarly diverse. For instance, state-level poverty ranged from 3.7 percent in New Hampshire to 19.2 percent in Mississippi; rates of food insecurity ranged from 5.8 percent in New Hampshire to 16.3 percent in Mississippi; the percentage of low-income children without health insurance ranged from less than one percent in Hawaii to 6.9 percent in Texas. Minimum wages, unemployment rates, and child care subsidy participation rules also vary by state in similar ways. Taken together, variations in state policies and economic contexts preceding and during the pandemic suggest that the recovery from the pandemic for low-income and racially and minoritized will be shaped by their state of residence in the absence of national programs or requirements.

CONCLUSIONS

As the pandemic wanes and most pandemic-era provisions expire, there are signs of recovery as evidenced by low unemployment rates, suggesting a rebounding economy. At the same time, inflation continues to be of concern, as are prices for such essential goods as housing, food, and gas—the very expenses those provisions helped to offset during the worst of the pandemic. Moreover, after expiration of the monthly CTC at the end of 2021, 3.7 more million children were in poverty,6 Black and Latino children having the highest percentage increase (Center on Poverty and Social Policy, 2022). Other economic downturns suggest concern for generational consequences of the pandemic on everything from family and child health to children’s educational attainment, future work, earnings, income, and wealth.

Conclusion 6-1: Investment in systems is critical given numerous reports of implementation issues, such as delayed receipt of benefits and overwhelmed systems, especially in UI programs.

___________________

6 See https://www.povertycenter.columbia.edu/news-internal/monthly-poverty-january-2022

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

Conclusion 6-2: The effects of federal pandemic provisions, especially UI, stimulus payments, and the monthly CTC, on the well-being of low-income families have been largely positive, generally demonstrating attenuation of hardships. This line of research is expected to continue to grow, providing much needed and more rigorous evidence on the influence of these investments on family well-being during the pandemic, potential improvements to the distribution of such benefits during future economic shocks, and whether providing such provisions on a permanent basis might offset the recovery of low-income and racially and minoritized families from the pandemic.

Conclusion 6-3: There is a plethora of research on the positive work and family effects of both federal and state-sponsored paid family leave and paid sick leave programs, with limited negative effects on businesses.

Conclusion 6-4: The costs of essential goods have risen since the beginning of the pandemic, suggesting an especially difficult economic recovery for low-income families that struggled prior to the pandemic. Evidence to date demonstrates that families used CTC benefits to pay for essential goods, offsetting food insecurity and helping to protect housing stability.

REFERENCES

Acosta, S., Bailey, A., & Bailey, P. (2020). Extend CARES Act eviction moratorium, combine with rental assistance to promote housing stability. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Administration for Children and Families. (2021). The Administration for Native Americans awards nearly $20 million to support social and economic well-being of Indigenous communities. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/media/press/2021/administration-native-americans-awards-nearly-20-million-support-social-and

Ahmed, A., & Jackson, J. (2021). Race, risk, and personal responsibility in the response to COVID-19. Columbia Law Review, 121(3), 47–70.

Ahmed, R., Youngren, M., Bernstein, D., Abdelhadi, S., Gran, S., & Slosar, M. (2021). On the brink of Eviction: Trends in filings Under State and federal moratoria. Legal Services Corporation. https://lsc-live.app.box.com/v/on-the-brink-of-eviction

Akee, R. (2021). The Great Recession and economic outcomes for Indigenous peoples in the United States. University of Wisconsin-Madison Institute for Research on Poverty. https://www.irp.wisc.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Focus-on-Poverty-38-1e.pdf

Alon, T., Coskun, S., Doepke, M., Koll, D., & Tertilt, M. (2021). From mancession to shecession: Women’s employment in regular and pandemic recessions. (Working Paper No. 28632). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w28632

Altonji, J., Contractor, Z., Finamor, L., Haygood, R., Lindenlaub, I., Meghir, C. O’Dea, C., Scott, D., Wang, L., & Washington, E. (2020). Employment effects of unemployment insurance generosity during the pandemic. Yale University Manuscript. https://tobin.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/C-19%20Articles/CARES-UI_identification_vF(1).pdf

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

Ananat, E., Glasner, B., Hamilton, C., & Parolin, Z. (2021). Effects of the Expanded Child Tax Credit on employment outcomes: Evidence from real-world data. (Working Paper No. 20414). Center on Poverty and Social Policy, Columbia University.

Andersen, M., Maclean, J. C., Pesko, M. F., & Simon, K. I. (2020). Paid sick leave and physical mobility: Evidence from the United States during a pandemic. (Working Paper No. 27138). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Andrade, F. C. D., Kramer, K. Z., Greenlee, A., Williams, A. N., & Mendenhall, R. (2019). Impact of the chicago earned income tax periodic payment intervention on food security. Preventive Medicine Reports, 16, 100993.

Artiga, S., & Rae, M. (2020). Health and financial risks for noncitizen immigrants due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Asebedo, S. D., Quadria, T. H., Gray, B. T., & Liu, Y. (2021). The psychology of COVID-19 economic impact payment use. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 43, 239–260.

Ayllón, S., & Lado, S. (2021). Food insecurity in the US during the pandemic: What can we learn from real-time data? SSRN, 3831053.

Baker, S. R., Farrokhnia, R. A., Meyer, S., Pagel, M., & Yannelis, C. (2020). Income, liquidity, and the consumption response to the 2020 economic stimulus payments. (Working Paper No. 27097). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Barnes, C., & Riel, V. (2022). “I don’t know nothing about that”: How “learning costs” undermine COVID-related efforts to make SNAP and WIC more accessible. Administration and Society, 54(10).

Bartel, A. P., Rossin-Slater, M., Ruhm, C. J., Slopen, M., & Waldfogel, J. (2021). Support for paid family leave among small employers increases during the COVID-19 pandemic. (Working Paper No. 29486). https://doi.org/10.3386/w29486

Bateman, N., & Ross, M. (2020). Why has COVID-19 been especially harmful for working women? 19A: The Brookings Gender Equality Series. https://www.brookings.edu/essay/why-has-covid-19-been-especially-harmful-for-working-women/

Bauer, L., Pitts, A., Ruffini, K., & Schanzenbach, D. W. (2020). The effect of pandemic EBT on measures of food hardship. The Hamilton Project, Brookings Institution.

Baum, C. L., & Ruhm, C. J. (2016). The effects of paid family leave in California on labor market outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35(2), 333–356.

Bedrick, E., & Daily, S. (2020). States are using the CARES Act to improve child care access during COVID-19. Child Trends. ERIC, ED607069.

Benfer, E. A., Koehler, R., Mark, A., Nazzaro, V., Alexander, A. K., Hepburn, P., Keene, D. E., & Desmond, M. (2022). COVID-19 housing policy: State and federal eviction moratoria and supportive measures in the United States during the pandemic. Housing Policy Debate, 1–25

Berkowitz, S. A., & Basu, S. (2021). Unmet social needs and worse mental health after expiration of COVID-19 federal pandemic unemployment compensation: Study examines unmet social needs and mental health after Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation expired. Health Affairs, 40(3), 426–434.

Bitler, M., Hoynes, H. W., & Schanzenbach, D. W. (2020). The social safety net in the wake of COVID-19. (Working Paper No. 27796). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Bitsko, R. H., Claussen, A. H., Lichstein, J., Black, L. I., Jones, S. E., Danielson, M. L., Hoenig, J. M., Davis Jack, S. P., Brody, D. J., Gyawali, S., Maenner, M. J., Warner, M., Holland, K. M., Perou, R., Crosby, A. E., Blumberg, S. J., Avenevoli, S., Kaminski, J. W., Ghandour, R. M., & Contributor (2022). Mental Health Surveillance Among Children - United States, 2013-2019. MMWR Supplements, 71(2), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.su7102a1

Boutros, M. (2020). Evaluating the impact of economic impact payments. SSRN. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3742448

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

Boyd-Swan, C., Herbst, C. M., Ifcher, J., & Zarghamee, H. (2016). The earned income tax credit, mental health, and happiness. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 126, 18–38.

Broady, K. E., Edelberg, W., & Moss, E. (2020). An eviction moratorium without rental assistance hurts smaller landlords, too. Brookings Institution.

Brown, D., & De Cao, E. (2020). Child maltreatment, unemployment, and safety nets. SSRN. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3543987

Bryant, A., & Follett, L. (2022). Hunger relief: A natural experiment from additional SNAP benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Lancet Regional Health-Americas, 10, 100224.

Bullinger, L. R. (2019). The effect of paid family leave on infant and parental health in the United States. Journal of Health Economics, 66, 101–116.

Burki, T. (2021). COVID-19 among American Indians and Alaska natives. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 21(3), 325–326.

Cajner, T., Crane, L. D., Decker, R. A., Grigsby, J., Hamins-Puertolas, A., Hurst, E., Kurz, C., & Yildirmaz, A. (2020). The US labor market during the beginning of the pandemic recession. (Working Paper No. 27159). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Carey, P., Groen, J. A., Jensen, B. A., Krolik, T. J., & Polivka, A. E. (2021). Applying for and receiving unemployment insurance benefits during the coronavirus pandemic. Monthly Labor Review. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2021/article/applying-for-and-receiving-unemployment-insurance-benefits-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic.htm

Carroll, C. D., Crawley, E., Slacalek, J., & White, M. N. (2020). Modeling the consumption response to the CARES Act. (Working Paper No. 27876). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w27876

Case, H., Hannon, S., & A. Mezza (2022). A note on the expected expiration of federal student loan forbearance. FEDS Notes. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/a-note-on-the-expected-expiration-of-federal-student-loan-forbearance-20220527.html

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2021). Tracking the COVID-19 economy’s effects on food, housing, and employment hardships. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/tracking-the-covid-19-economys-effects-on-food-housing-and

______. (2022). SNAP: State by state data, fact sheets, and resources. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/snap-state-by-state-data-fact-sheets-and-resources

Center on Poverty and Social Policy. (2022, February 17). 3.7 million more children in poverty in Jan 2022 without monthly Child Tax Credit. Policy Update, Data Release. Columbia University. https://www.povertycenter.columbia.edu/news-internal/monthly-poverty-january-2022

Cherokee Nation. (2021). American Rescue Plan. https://www.cherokee.org/about-the-nation/gadugi-portal/american-rescue-plan

Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Hendren, N., Stepner, M., & The Opportunity Insights Team. (2020). How did COVID-19 and stabilization policies affect spending and employment? A new real-time economic tracker based on private sector data. (Working Paper No. 27431). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w27431

Child Care Aware of America. (2020). State by state resources. https://www.childcareaware.org/resources/map/

Choudhury, A. R., & Polachek, S. W. (2021). The impact of paid family leave on the timely vaccination of infants. Vaccine, 39(21), 2886–2893.

Citizen Potawatomi Nation. (2021, June 30). ARPA Individual Assistance Program. https://www.potawatomi.org/arpa

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

Coibion, O., Gorodnichenko, Y., & Weber, M. (2020). How did US consumers use their stimulus payments? (Working Paper No. 27693). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. (2020). What’s in the final COVID Relief Deal of 2020? https://www.crfb.org/blogs/whats-final-covid-relief-deal-2020

Congressional Research Service. (2021). Unemployment insurance provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Division N, Title II, Subtitle A, the Continued Assistance for Unemployed Workers Act of 2020). https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11723

Cooney, P., & Shaefer, H. L. (2021). Material hardship and mental health following the COVID-19 relief bill and American Rescue Plan Act. Poverty Solutions. University of Michigan. https://poverty.umich.edu/publications/material-hardship-and-mental-health-following-the-covid-19-relief-bill-and-american-rescue-plan-act/

Corallo, B., & Moreno, S. (2022, October 4). Analysis of recent national trends in Medicaid and CHIP enrollment. Kaiser Family Foundation. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/analysis-of-recent-national-trends-in-medicaid-and-chip-enrollment

Corinth, K., & Meyer, B. D. (2021). A note on Ananat, Glasner, Hamilton and Parolin’s “Effects of the Expanded Child Tax Credit on Employment Outcomes.” https://cpbus-w2.wpmucdn.com/voices.uchicago.edu/dist/a/3122/files/2021/10/Note-on-Ananat-et-al-2021.pdf

Corinth, K., Meyer, B. D., Stadnicki, M., & Wu, D. (2021). The anti-poverty, targeting, and labor supply effects of the proposed child tax credit expansion. (Working Paper No. 29366). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Cowin, R., Martin, H., & Stevens, C. (2020). Measuring evictions during the COVID-19 crisis. Community Development Briefs. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. https://doi.org/10.26509/frbc-cd-20200717

Crandall-Hollick, M. L., Boyle, C. F., & Carter, J. A. (2021). The child tax credit: The impact of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA; PL 117-2) expansion on income and poverty. Congressional Research Service. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46839

Curtice, K., & Choo, E. (2020). Indigenous populations: Left behind in the COVID-19 response. The Lancet, 395(10239), 1753.

de la Campa, E. (2022). How are landlords faring during the COVID-19 pandemic? Evidence from a national cross-site survey. Joint Center for Housing Studies Harvard University. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/research/files/harvard_jchs_covid_impact_landlords_survey_de_la_campa_2021.pdf

de la Campa, E., A., & Reina, V. J. (2022). Landlords’ rental businesses before and after the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from a national cross-site survey. Journal of Housing Economics, 101904.

Desmond, M., & Gershenson, C. (2017). Who gets evicted? Assessing individual, neighborhood, and network factors. Social Science Research, 62, 362–377.

Desmond, M., An, W., Winkler, R., & Ferriss, T. (2013). Evicting children. Social Forces, 92(1), 303–327.

Doshi, S., Jordan, A., Kelly, K., & Solomon, D. (2020). The Covid-19 response in Indian country: A federal failure. Center for American Progress. https://www.Americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2020/06/18/486480/covid-19-response-indian-country

Dube, A. (2021). Aggregate employment effects of unemployment benefits during deep downturns: Evidence from the expiration of the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation. (Working Paper No. 28470). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Dubowitz, T., Dastidar, M. G., Troxel, W. M., Beckman, R., Nugroho, A., Siddiqi, S., Cantor, J., Baird, M., Richardson, A. S., & Hunter, G. P., Mendoza-Graf, A., & Collins, R. (2021). Food insecurity in a low-income, predominantly African American cohort following the COVID-19 pandemic. American Journal of Public Health, 111, 494–497.

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

Elliott, S., Satterfield, S. J., Solorzano, G., Bowen, S., Hardison-Moody, A., & Williams, L. (2021). Disenfranchised: How lower income mothers navigated the social safety net during the COVID-19 pandemic. Socius, 7, 23780231211031690.

Emsellem, M., & Evermore, M. (2020). Understanding the unemployment provisions of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. National Employment Law Project. https://www.nelp.org/publication/understanding-theunemployment-provisions-of-the-families-first-coronavirus-response-act

Evans, W. N., & Garthwaite, C. L. (2014). Giving mom a break: The impact of higher EITC 90. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6(2), 258–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/pol.6.2.258

Evermore, M. (2020). Long lines for unemployment: How did we get here and what do we do now? National Employment Law Project. https://www.nelp.org/publication/long-lines-for-unemployment-how-did-we-get-here-and-what-do-we-do-now

Fang, D., Thomsen, M. R., Nayga, R. M., & Yang, W. (2022). Food insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from a survey of low-income Americans. Food Security, 14, 165–183.

Finamor, L., & Scott, D. (2021). Labor market trends and unemployment insurance generosity during the pandemic. Economics Letters, 199, 109722.

Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). (2021). Fact sheet: Biden-Harris administration’s actions to reduce food insecurity amid the COVID-19 crisis. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.fns.usda.gov/news-item/usda-003721

______. (2022). September Keydata Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.fns.usda.gov/data/september-2022-keydata-report

Food Research and Action Center. (2021). One year of WIC during COVID-19: Waivers are vital to participation and benefit redemption. https://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/One-Year-of-WIC-During-COVID-19.pdf

Fowler, K. A., Gladden, R. M., Vagi, K. J., Barnes, J., & Frazier, L. (2015). Increase in suicides associated with home eviction and foreclosure during the US housing crisis: Findings from 16 national violent death reporting system states, 2005–2010. American Journal of Public Health, 105(2), 311–316.

Foxworth, R., Evans, L. E., Sanchez, G. R., Ellenwood, C., & Roybal, C. M. (2021). “I hope to hell nothing goes back to the way it was before”: COVID-19, marginalization, and native nations. Perspectives on Politics, 1–18.

Ganong, P., Noel, P. J. & Vavra, J. S. (2020). US unemployment insurance replacement rates during the pandemic. (Working Paper No. 27216). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Garner, T. I., Safir, A., & Schild, J. (2020). Receipt and use of stimulus payments in the time of the Covid-19 pandemic. Beyond the Numbers: Prices and Spending, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 9(10), 1–18.

Gemelas, J., Davison, J., & Ing, S. (2021). Inequities in employment by race, ethnicity, and sector during COVID-19. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 9(1), 350–355.

Goldsmith, S. (2012). The economic and social impacts of the permanent fund dividend on Alaska. Alaska’s permanent fund dividend, 49–63. Palgrave Macmillan.

Gonzalez, D., Karpman, M., Kenney, G. M., & Zuckerman, S. (2020). Hispanic adults in families with noncitizens disproportionately feel the economic fallout from COVID-19. Urban Institute.

Goodman, J. M., Williams, C., & Dow, W. H. (2021). Racial/ethnic inequities in paid parental leave access. Health Equity, 5(1), 738–749.

Goodman, L. (2021). Take-up of payroll tax-based subsidies during the COVID-19 pandemic. U.S. Department of the Treasury. https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/131/WP-121.pdf

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

Goss, J., Mangrum, D., & Scally, J. (2022). Revisiting federal student loan forgiveness: An update based on the White House plan. (Working Paper No. 20220927). Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Gromis, A., Fellows, I., Hendrickson, J. R., Edmonds, L., Leung, L., Porton, A., & Desmond, M. (2022). Estimating eviction prevalence across the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(21), e2116169119.

Guelespe, D., Echave, P., & Salas, J. (2022). “Do it for your children”: Mixed-status families’ experiences with the stimulus checks. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/Do%20It%20for%20Your%20Children.pdf

Gupta, P., Gonzalez, D., & Waxman, E. (2020). Forty percent of Black and Hispanic parents of school-age children are food insecure. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/forty-percent-black-and-hispanic-parents-school-age-children-are-food-insecure

Haas, J., Rangel, J., Garnham, J. P., & Hepburn, P. (2021). Preliminary analysis: Eviction filing trends after the CDC moratorium expiration. The Eviction Lab at Princeton University.

Halpern-Meekin, S., Edin, K., Tach, L., & Sykes, J. (2015). It’s not like I’m poor: How working families make ends meet in a post-welfare world. University of California Press.

Hamad, R., Modrek, S., & White, J. S. (2019). Paid family leave effects on breastfeeding: A quasi-experimental study of US policies. American Journal of Public Health, 109(1), 164–166.

Han, J., Meyer, B. D., & Sullivan, J. X. (2020). Income and poverty in the COVID-19 pandemic. (Working Paper No. 27729). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Harper, K., Belarmino, E. H., Acciai, F., Bertmann, F., & Ohri-Vachaspati, P. (2022). Patterns of food assistance program participation, food insecurity, and pantry use among US households with children during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nutrients, 14(5), 988.

Hatch, M. E., & Yun, J. (2021). Losing your home is bad for your health: Short- and medium-term health effects of eviction on young adults. Housing Policy Debate, 31(3-5), 469–489, https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2020.1812690

Hazekamp, C., Yousuf, S., Day, K., Daly, M. K., & Sheehan, K. (2020). Eviction and pediatric health outcomes in Chicago. Journal of Community Health, 45(5), 891–899.

Hembre, E. (2021). Examining the social safety net response to the Covid‐19 pandemic. SSRN.

Hepburn, P., Louis, R., Fish, J., Lemmerman, E., Alexander, A. K., Thomas, T. A., Koehler, R., Benfer, E., & Desmond, M. (2021). US eviction filing patterns in 2020. Socius, 7, 23780231211009983.

Hepburn, P., Jin, O., Fish, J., Lemmerman, E., Alexander, A.K., & Desmond, M. (2022). Preliminary analysis: Eviction filing patterns in 2021. Eviction Lab. https://evictionlab.org/us-eviction-filing-patterns-2021/

Hodges, L. (2020). Do low-income parents who receive unemployment insurance pay more child support?. Children and Youth Services Review, 111, 104834.

Holzer, H. (2020). COVID outcomes update: Health and employment impacts in the US compared to other countries. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/research/covid-outcomes-update-health-and-employment-impacts-in-the-us-compared-to-other-countries

Holzer, H. J., Hubbard, R. G., & Strain, M. R. (2021). Did pandemic unemployment benefits reduce employment? Evidence from early state-level expirations in June 2021. (Working Paper No. 29575). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Hoynes, H., Miller, D., & Simon, D. (2015). Income, the earned income tax credit, and infant health. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 7(1), 172–211.

Hsu, Joanne W., David A. Matsa, & Brian T. Melzer. (2018). Unemployment insurance as a housing market stabilizer. American Economic Review, 108(1), 49–81.

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

Huang, R., & Yang, M. (2015). Paid maternity leave and breastfeeding practice before and after California’s implementation of the nation’s first paid family leave program. Economics and Human Biology, 16, 45–59.

Huyser, K. R., Yang, T. C., & Horse, A. J. Y. (2021). Indigenous peoples, concentrated disadvantage, and income inequality in New Mexico: A zip code-level investigation of spatially varying associations between socioeconomic disadvantages and confirmed COVID-19 cases. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 75(11), 1044–1049.

Jellife, E., Pangburn, P., Pichler, S., & Ziebarth, N. R. (2021). Awareness and use of (emergency) sick leave: US employees’ unaddressed sick leave needs in a global pandemic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(29). https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2107670118

Jeung, C., Lee, K. M., & Gimm, G. W. (2021). The impact of Connecticut’s paid sick leave law on the use of preventive services. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 60(6), 812–819.

Jones, D., & Marinescu, I. (2022). The labor market impacts of universal and permanent cash transfers: Evidence from the Alaska Permanent Fund. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 14(2), 315–340.

Jones, J. W. (2021). COVID-19 Working Paper: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer Redemptions during the Coronavirus Pandemic. (COVID-19 Working Paper #AP-089). https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/100820/ap-089.pdf?v=5875.9

Jou, J., Kozhimannil, K. B., Abraham, J. M., Blewett, L. A., & McGovern, P. M. (2018). Paid maternity leave in the United States: Associations with maternal and infant health. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 22(2), 216–225.

Jowell, A. H., Bruce, J. S., Escobar, G. V., Ordonez, V. M., Hecht, C. A., & Patel, A. I. (2021). Mitigating childhood food insecurity during COVID-19: A qualitative study of how school districts in California’s San Joaquin Valley responded to growing needs. Public Health Nutrition, 1–11.

Jowers, K., Timmins, C., Bhavsar, N., Hu, Q., & Marshall, J. (2021). Housing precarity & the COVID-19 pandemic: Impacts of utility disconnection and eviction moratoria on infections and deaths across us counties. (Working Paper 28394). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Kaiser Family Foundation. (2021). Paid leave in the U.S. https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/paid-leave-in-u-s

Kalt, J., Henson, E., Jorgensen, M., & Leonaitis, I. (2021). Assessing the US Treasury Department’s allocations of funding for tribal governments under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series.

Karger, E., & Rajan, A. (2020). Heterogeneity in the marginal propensity to consume: Evidence from Covid-19 stimulus payments. Federal Reserve Board of Chicago Working Paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3612828

Karpman, M., & Acs, G. (2020). Unemployment insurance and economic impact payments associated with reduced hardship following CARES Act. Urban Institute.

Kearney, M. S., & Mogstad, M. (2019). Universal basic income (UBI) as a policy response to current challenges. Aspen Institute, 1–19.

Keene, D. E., Henry, M., Gormley, C., & Ndumele, C. (2018). ‘Then I found housing and everything changed’: Transitions to rent-assisted housing and diabetes self-management. Cityscape, 20(2), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/26472170

Keith-Jennings, B., Nchako, C., & Llobrera, J. (2021). Number of families struggling to afford food rose steeply in pandemic and remains high, especially among children and households of color. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Khan, M. S. (2020). Paid family leave and children health outcomes in OECD countries. Children and Youth Services Review, 116, 105259.

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

Kowalski, A. J., Kuhn, A. P., Lane, H. G., Trude, A. C., Selam, H., Hager, E. R., & Black, M. M. (2021). Pre-pandemic to early-pandemic changes in risk of household food insecurity among Maryland families with children. Public Health Nutrition, 1–23.

Kramer, K. Z., Andrade, F. C. D., Greenlee, A. J., Mendenhall, R., Bellisle, D., & Lemons Blanks, R. (2019). Periodic earned income tax credit (EITC) payment, financial stress and wellbeing: A longitudinal study. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 40(3), 511–523.

Kruse, G., Lopez-Carmen, V. A., Jensen, A., Hardie, L., & Sequist, T. D. (2022). The Indian Health Service and American Indian/Alaska native health outcomes. Annual Review of Public Health, 43.

Krysan, M., & Crowder, K. (2017). Cycle of segregation: Social processes and residential stratification. Russell Sage Foundation.

Kuka, E. (2020). Quantifying the benefits of social insurance: Unemployment insurance and health. Review of Economics and Statistics, 102(3), 490–505.

Lasky-Fink, J., & Linos, E. (2022). It’s not your fault: Reducing stigma increases take-up of government programs. https://peoplelab.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Lasky-Fink-Linos-Its-not-your-fault-Feb-2022.pdf

Layser, M. D., Greenlee, A. J., De Barbieri, E. W., Kaye, T. A., & Saito, B. G. (2021). Mitigating housing instability during the COVID-19 pandemic. (University of Illinois College of Law Research Paper No. 20-15, Seton Hall Public Law Research Paper Forthcoming, Northeastern University School of Law Research Paper No. 386-2020, Albany Law School Research Paper No. 6 For 2020-2021, Oregon Law Review, Forthcoming). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3613789 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3613789

Lee, E. K., & Parolin, Z. (2021). The care burden during COVID-19: A national database of child care closures in the United States. Socius, 7, 23780231211032028.

Lee, S. Y., Park, M., & Shin, Y. (2021). Hit harder, recover slower? Unequal employment effects of the Covid-19 shock. (Working Paper No. 28354). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w28354

Leifheit, K. M., Linton, S. L., Raifman, J., Schwartz, G. L., Benfer, E. A., Zimmerman, F. J., & Pollack, C. E. (2021). Expiring Eviction Moratoriums and COVID-19 Incidence and Mortality. American Journal of Epidemiology, 190(12), 2503–2510. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwab196

Leifheit, K. M., Schwartz, G. L., Pollack, C. E., Black, M. M., Edin, K., Althoff, K. N., & Jennings, J. M. (2020). Eviction in early childhood and neighborhood poverty, food security, and obesity in later childhood and adolescence: Evidence from a longitudinal birth cohort. SSM-Population Health, 11, 100575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2020.100575

Lenhart, O. (2019). Safety net against hunger? The effects of the Earned Income Tax Credit on food insecurity. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3389709

Li, K., Foutz, N. Z., Cai, Y., Liang, Y., & Gao, S. (2021). Impacts of COVID-19 lockdowns and stimulus payments on low-income population’s spending in the United States. PloS One, 16(9), e0256407.

Lichtman‐Sadot, S., & Bell, N. P. (2017). Child health in elementary school following California’s paid family leave program. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 36(4), 790–827.

Lourie, B., Shanthikumar, D. M., Shevlin, T. J., & Zhu, C. (2021). Effects of the 2021 expanded child tax credit. SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3990385

Lundberg, I., & Donnelly, L. (2019). A research note on the prevalence of housing eviction among children born in US cities. Demography, 56(1), 391–404.

Mendenhall, R., Edin, K., Crowley, S., Sykes, J., Tach, L., Kriz, K., & Kling, J. R. (2012). The role of earned income tax credit in the budgets of low-income households. Social Service Review, 86(3), 367–400.

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

Molitor, F., Doerr, C., & Kehl, S. (2021). Unemployment, SNAP enrollment, and food insecurity before and after California’s COVID-19 shutdown. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 53(12), 1055–1059.

Monea, N. 2021. Tenant protections in the COVID-19 pandemic. Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3905448

Montoya‐Williams, D., Passarella, M., & Lorch, S. (2020). The impact of paid family leave in the United States on birth outcomes and mortality in the first year of life. Health Services Research, 55, 807–814.

Mumford, M. E. (2022). The Federal eviction moratoria following COVID-19 and its effects on landlords, renters, and the economy. North Carolina Banking Institute, 26, 61

Murkowski, L., Sullivan, D., & Young, D. (2020, April 22). Attacks on Native corporations over CARES Act are unfair. Anchorage Daily News. https://www.adn.com/opinions/2020/04/22/attacks-on-native-corporations-over-cares-act-are-unfair

Nande, A., Sheen, J., Walters, E. L., Klein, B., Chinazzi, M., Gheorghe, A. H., Adlam, B., Shinnick, J., Tejeda, M. F., Scarpino, S. V., Vespignani, A., Greenlee, A. J., Schneider, D., Levy, M. Z., & Hill, A. L. (2021). The effect of eviction moratoria on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Nature Communications, 12(1), 2274. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22521-5

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies). (2019). A roadmap to reducing child poverty. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25246

______. (2022). Rental eviction and the COVID-19 pandemic: Averting a looming crisis. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26106.

National Housing Law Project and National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2021). Federal moratorium on evictions for nonpayment of rent. https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/Overview-of-National-Eviction-Moratorium.pdf

Ohri-Vachaspati, P., Acciai, F., & DeWeese, R. S. (2021). SNAP participation among low-income US households stays stagnant while food insecurity escalates in the months following the COVID-19 pandemic. Preventive Medicine Reports, 24, 101555.

Oliver, M. L., & Shapiro, T. M. 2006. Black wealth, white wealth: A new perspective on racial inequality, (10th anniversary ed.). Routledge.

Olsen, E. (2016). Reducing poverty by reforming housing policy. Submitted for Hearing on Housing Vulnerable Families and Individuals: Is There a Better Way? Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies. U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee.

Pac, J. E., Bartel, A. P., Ruhm, C. J., & Waldfogel, J. (2019). Paid family leave and breastfeeding: Evidence from California. (Working Paper No. 25784). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Parker, J. A., Schild, J., Erhard, L., & Johnson, D. (2022). Household spending responses to the economic impact payments of 2020: Evidence from the consumer expenditure survey. (Working Paper No. 29648). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w29648

Parker, B., & Smith, J. (2021). Women’s housing precarity during and beyond COVID-19. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3896504

Parolin, Z., Ananat, E., Collyer, S. M., Curran, M., & Wimer, C. (2021a). The initial effects of the expanded child tax credit on material hardship. (Working Paper No. 29285). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Parolin, Z., Collyer, S., Curran, M., & Wimer, C. (2021b). Monthly poverty rates among children after the expansion of the child tax credit. (Working Paper No. 20412). Center on Poverty and Social Policy, Columbia University.

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

Perez-Lopez, D. (2021). Fewer received unemployment insurance as U.S. recovered from Great Recession. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/11/will-unemployment-insurance-after-pandemic-follow-same-path-as-after-great-recession.html

Perez-Lopez, D., & Bee, C. A. (2020). How are Americans using their stimulus payments? US Census Bureau. www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/06/how-are-americansusing-their-stimulus-payments.html

Petrosky-Nadeau, N., & Valletta, R. G. (2021). UI generosity and job acceptance: Effects of the 2020 CARES Act. IZA Institute of Labor Economics. https://docs.iza.org/dp14454.pdf

Pichler, S., Wen, K., & Ziebarth, N. R. (2020). COVID-19 emergency sick leave has helped flatten the curve in the United States: Study examines the impact of emergency sick leave on the spread of COVID-19. Health Affairs, 39(12), 2197–2204.

Pichler, S., Wen, K., & Ziebarth, N. R. (2021). Positive health externalities of mandating paid sick leave. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 40(3), 715–743.

Pilkauskas, N., & Michelmore, K. (2021). Families with low incomes and the child tax credit: Who is still missing out? Poverty Solutions. http://sites.fordschool.umich.edu/poverty2021/files/2022/01/PovertySolutions-Child-Tax-Credit-who-is-still-missing-out-Decembe2021.pdf

Pollack, C. C., Deverakonda, A., Hassan, F., Haque, S., Desai, A. N., & Majumder, M. (2022). The impact of state paid sick leave policies on longitudinal weekday workplace mobility during the COVID-19 pandemic. medRxiv.

Pratt, E., & Hahn, H. (2022). Temporary assistance for needy families caseloads early in the pandemic. Urban Institute.

Public Policy Associates. (2021). Child care assistance during COVID-19: Perspectives from parents. https://publicpolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Child-Care-Assistance-During-COVID-19-Perspectives-from-Parents.pdf

Raifman, J., Bor, J., & Venkataramani, A. (2021). Association between receipt of unemployment insurance and food insecurity among people who lost employment during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. JAMA Network Open, 4(1), e2035884.

Regmi, K. (2019). Examining the externality of unemployment insurance on children’s educational achievement. Economic Inquiry, 57(1), 172–187.

Reimold, A. E., Grummon, A. H., Taillie, L. S., Brewer, N. T., Rimm, E. B., & Hall, M. G. (2021). Barriers and facilitators to achieving food security during the COVID-19 pandemic. Preventive Medicine Reports, 23, 101500.

Rojas, N. M., Yoshikawa, H., Gennetian, L., Lemus Rangel, M., Melvin, S., Noble, K., Duncan, G., & Magunson, K. (2020). Exploring the experiences and dynamics of an unconditional cash transfer for low-income mothers: A mixed-methods study. Journal of Children and Poverty, 26(1), 64–84.

Romich, J. L., & Weisner, T. (2020). How families view and use the EITC: Advance payment versus lump sum delivery. National Tax Journal, 53(4), 1245–1265.

Romig, K., & Bryant, K. (2021). A national paid leave program would help workers, families. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Rosenbaum, D. (2020). Boost SNAP to capitalize on program’s effectiveness and ability to respond to need. Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

Rossin‐Slater, M., Ruhm, C. J., & Waldfogel, J. (2013). The effects of California’s paid family leave program on mothers’ leave‐taking and subsequent labor market outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32, 224–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21676

Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated America. Russell Sage Foundation. Liveright Publishing.

Running Bear, C., Terrill, W. P., Frates, A., Peterson, P., & Ulrich, J. (2021). Challenges for rural Native American students with disabilities during COVID-19. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 40(2), 60–69.

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

Sahm, C. (2021). Robust evidence for $1400 checks: Relief for families and recovery for all. Jain Family Institute.

Sandoval-Olascoaga, S., A. S., Venkataramani, & Arcaya. M. C. (2021). Eviction moratoria expiration and COVID-19 infection risk across strata of health and socioeconomic status in the United States. JAMA Network Open, 4(8), e2129041. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.29041

Schild, J., & Garner, T. (2021). Consumer response to economic impact payments during the COVID-19 pandemic and the role of subjective assessments of well-being: A view from the U.S. using a rapid response survey. (Working Paper No. 540). Office of Prices and Living Conditions, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Schwartz, G. L., Feldman, J. M., Wang, S. S., & Glied, S. A. (2022). Eviction, healthcare utilization, and disenrollment among New York City Medicaid patients. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 62(2), 157–164.

Schwartz, G. L., Leifheit, K. M., Berkman, L. F., Chen, J. T., & Arcaya, M. C. (2021). Health selection into eviction: adverse birth outcomes and children’s risk of eviction through age 5 years. American Journal of Epidemiology, 190(7), 1260–1269.

Shaffer, E., Porter, S., Zha, P., & Condon, E. (2022). Diaper need as a measure of material hardship during COVID-19. Nursing Research, 71(2), 90–95.

Singleton, C., Teran-Garcia, M., Fabusoro, O., & Lara-Cinisomo, S. (2021). O34 change in employment status due to the COVID-19 pandemic, SNAP participation, and food security status. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 53(7), S16.

Smeeding, T. M., Phillips, K. R., & O’Connor, M. (2000). The EITC: Expectation, knowledge, use, and economic and social mobility. National Tax Journal, 53(4), 1187–1209.

Stearns, J. (2015). The effects of paid maternity leave: Evidence from Temporary Disability Insurance. Journal of Health Economics, 43, 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2015.04.005

Steimle, S., Gassman‐Pines, A., Johnson, A. D., Hines, C. T., & Ryan, R. M. (2021). Understanding patterns of food insecurity and family well‐being amid the COVID‐19 pandemic using daily surveys. Child Development, 92(5), e781–e797.

Sykes, J., Križ, K., Edin, K., & Halpern-Meekin, S. (2015). Dignity and dreams: What the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) means to low-income families. American Sociological Review, 80(2), 243–267.

The Hunt Institute (2020). COVID-19 policy considerations: Supporting child care during the crisis. http://www.hunt-institute.org/resources/2020/04/covid-19-policy-playbook-supportingchild-care-during-the-crisis/

Thomas, T., Greenberg, J. & Cohen, A. (2022). Eviction and children during the Covid-19 pandemic. Commissioned Paper for the Committee on Addressing the Long-Term Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families.

Troller-Renfree, S. V., Costanzo, M. A., Duncan, G. J., Magnuson, K., Gennetian, L. A., Yoshikawa, H., Fox, N. A., & Noble, K. G. (2022). The impact of a poverty reduction intervention on infant brain activity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(5), e2115649119.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022a). Civilian labor force participation rate. https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm

______. (2022b). Key economic indicators in the time of COVID-19. https://data.bls.gov/apps/covid-dashboard/home.htm

______. (2022c). Median usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by race and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. https://www.bls.gov/charts/usual-weekly-earnings/usual-weekly-earnings-over-time-by-race.htm

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

______. (2022d). Unemployment rates for persons 25 years and older by educational attainment. https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/unemployment-rates-for-persons-25-years-and-older-by-educational-attainment.htm

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2020. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) fiscal year (FY) 2021 maximum allotments and deductions. https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/media/file/FY21-MaximumAllotments-Deductions.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS). https://studentaid.gov/sites/default/files/fsawg/datacenter/library/PortfoliobyLoanStatus.xls

_____. (2022). Biden-Harris administration continues fight for student debt relief for millions of borrowers, extends student loan repayment pause. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/biden-harris-administration-continues-fight-student-debt-relief-millions-borrowers-extends-student-loan-repayment-pause

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2021). The impact of the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic and recession on families with low incomes. Office of the Secretary of Planning and Evaluation, Office of Human Services Policy. https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2021-09/low-income-covid-19-impacts.pdf

U.S. Department of the Interior. (2021, April 30). Indian Affairs begins disbursement of $900 million in American Rescue Plan funding to tribes across Indian Country. https://www.bia.gov/news/indian-affairs-begins-disbursement-900-million-american-rescue-plan-funding-tribes-across

———. (2022). The American Rescue Plan: How it helps American Indians and Alaska natives. https://www.bia.gov/service/american-rescue-plan-act/what-arp

U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). (2020a). Families First Coronavirus Response Act: Employee paid leave rights. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/pandemic/ffcra-employee-paid-leave

———. (2020b). Unemployment insurance relief during COVID-19 outbreak. https://www.dol.gov/coronavirus/unemployment-insurance

U.S. Department of Treasury. (2021a). Treasury and IRS announce families of nearly 60 million children receive $15 billion in first payments of expanded and newly Advanceable Child Tax Credit. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/Treasury-and-IRS-AnnounceFamilies-of-Nearly-60-Million-Children-Receive-%2415-Billion-Dollars-in-First-Payments-ofExpanded-and-Newly-Advanceable-Child-Tax-Credit in August 2021.

———. (2021b). Treasury and IRS disburse second month of Advance Child Tax Credit payments [Press Release]. Washington, DC. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0322.

Vásquez-Vera, H., Palència, L., Magna, I., Mena, C., Neira, J., & Borrell, C. (2017). The threat of home eviction and its effects on health through the equity lens: A systematic review. Social Science and Medicine, 175, 199–208.

Vroman, W. (2010). The great recession, unemployment insurance and poverty. Urban Institute.

Wahdat, A. Z. (2021). Economic impact payments and household food insufficiency during COVID-19: The case of late recipients. SSRN, 3979134.

Waxman, E., Gupta, P., & Gonzalez, D. (2021a). Initial parent perspectives on the child tax credit advance payments. Urban Institute.

Waxman, E., Gupta, P., Pratt, E., Lyons, M., & Green, C. (2021b). Documenting pandemic EBT for the 2020 -21 school year. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/104949/documenting-pandemic-ebt-for-the-2020-21-school-year_0.pdf

Waxman, E., Gupta, P., & Karpman, M. (2020). More than one in six adults were food insecure two months into the COVID-19 recession. Urban Institute.

Waxman, E., Salas, J., Gupta, P., & Karpman, M. (2022). Food insecurity trended upward in midst of high inflation and fewer supports. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/HRMS%20Food%20Insecurity%20Brief_0.pdf

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×

Willard, K. (2021, October 13). “We’ve been forgotten”: NC tribe says Native Americans have been left behind during the pandemic. WRAL News. https://www.wral.com/coronavirus/native-americans-have-been-left-behind-during-the-pandemic/19924515

Wisneski, N. (2021, June 11). Oneida Nation announces spending plan for American Rescue Plan, fiscal recovery funds. Oneida Nation of Wisconsin. https://oneida-nsn.gov/blog/2021/06/11/oneida-nation-announces-spending-plan-for-american-rescue-plan-fiscal-recovery-funds

Wong, M. S., Upchurch, D. M., Steers, W. N., Haderlein, T. P., Yuan, A. T., & Washington, D. L. (2021). The role of community-level factors on disparities in COVID-19 infection among American Indian/Alaska native veterans. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 1–12.

Workman, S., & Jessen-Howard, S. (2018). Understanding the true cost of child care for infants and toddlers. Center for American Progress, 1–35.

Xu, Y., Jedwab, M., Soto-Ramírez, N., Levkoff, S. E., & Wu, Q. (2021). Material hardship and child neglect risk amidst COVID-19 in grandparent-headed kinship families: The role of financial assistance. Child Abuse and Neglect, 121, 105258.

Yavorsky, J. E., Qian, Y., & Sargent, A. C. (2021). The gendered pandemic: The implications of COVID‐19 for work and family. Sociology Compass.

Yellow Horse, A. J., Yang, T. C., & Huyser, K. R. (2022). Structural inequalities established the architecture for COVID-19 pandemic among Native Americans in Arizona: A geographically weighted regression perspective. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 9(1), 165–175.

Zipperer, B., & Gould, E. (2020). Unemployment filing failures. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/blog/unemployment-filing-failures-new-survey-confirms-that-millions-of-jobless-were-unable-to-file-an-unemployment-insurance-claim

Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 201
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 202
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 203
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 204
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 205
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 206
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 207
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 208
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 209
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 210
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 211
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 212
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 213
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 214
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 215
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 216
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 217
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 218
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 219
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 220
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 221
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 222
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 223
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 224
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 225
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 226
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 227
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 228
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 229
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 230
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 231
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 232
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 233
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 234
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 235
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 236
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 237
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 238
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 239
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 240
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 241
Suggested Citation:"6 Effects of Economic Policies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26809.
×
Page 242
Next: 7 Recommendations »
Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $35.00 Buy Ebook | $28.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on the lives of children and their families, who have faced innumerable challenges such as illness and death; school closures; social isolation; financial hardship; food insecurity; deleterious mental health effects; and difficulties accessing health care. In almost every outcome related to social, emotional, behavioral, educational, mental, physical, and economic health and well-being, families identifying as Black, Latino, and Native American, and those with low incomes, have disproportionately borne the brunt of the negative effects of the pandemic.

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on children and families will be felt for years to come. While these long-term effects are unknown, they are likely to have particularly significant implications for children and families from racially and ethnically minoritized communities and with low incomes.

Addressing the Long-Term Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Children and Families identifies social, emotional, behavioral, educational, mental, physical, and economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and looks at strategies for addressing the challenges and obstacles that the pandemic introduced for children and families in marginalized communities. This report provides recommendations for programs, supports, and interventions to counteract the negative effects of the pandemic on child and family well-being and offers a path forward to recover from the harms of the pandemic, address inequities, and prepare for the future.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!