Rental aid during pandemic boosted mental health

Federal rental assistance distributed during the COVID-19 pandemic did far more than help people stay in their homes. It also improved their mental health.

A UC Riverside study published this week in the journal Health Affairs found that the Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) program—created by Congress in 2021 to prevent evictions among low-income renters during the pandemic—also improved mental health and increased the appropriate use of mental health care. 

“Using a national dataset, we found that housing assistance helped low-income renters—who are among the most vulnerable populations—feel better and get mental health treatment when needed,” said Wei Kang, an assistant professor in UCR’s School of Public Policy who led the study. “This demonstrates the importance of government programs in a time of crisis.”

The federal government allocated $46.55 billion to two ERA programs to provide direct assistance to low-income people struggling to pay rent due to pandemic-related financial hardship. Kang’s analysis drew from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey data collected between 2021 and 2023. The survey includes questions about respondents’ mental health status and whether they had recently sought care.

Kang compared survey responses from two groups: those who had received rental assistance and those who had applied but had not yet received it. The latter served as a control group. Her findings showed that rental assistance recipients experienced a noticeable drop in symptoms of anxiety and depression and were slightly more likely to seek mental health services when experiencing symptoms.

Just under 46% of aid recipients reported symptoms of anxiety in the two weeks prior to the survey—9.1 percentage points lower than those who had not yet received assistance. Similarly, 38% of recipients reported symptoms of depression, an 8.1-point improvement over the control group.

 While the increase in treatment rates was more modest, it was still statistically meaningful. Among individuals who reported symptoms of anxiety or depression and were awaiting assistance, only 16.2% reported having seen a mental health professional for counseling or therapy at any time in the last four weeks. Care seeking rates were higher among those who had received assistance, increasing by 6.5 percentage points for those with anxiety symptoms and by 7.9 percentage points for those with depression symptoms.

To understand how the program improved mental health, Kang used a statistical method called causal mediation analysis. This allowed her to distinguish between direct and indirect effects of the rental assistance. The research found that the ERA program reduced mental distress in two ways: first, by directly alleviating the fear of eviction, and second, by freeing up financial resources for health-related needs.

The most immediate benefit was the reduction in housing insecurity. By helping renters pay off overdue balances and avoid the threat of eviction, the program relieved a major source of stress, which in turn reduced anxiety and depression. That impact was especially strong in anxiety-related symptoms, the study found, as renters no longer had to worry about losing their homes.

But the effect didn’t stop there. With rent covered, many households could redirect their limited funds toward other essentials, including co-pays for doctor visits, prescription medications, and transportation needed to reach mental health services. For those struggling to make ends meet, this shift in financial priorities proved crucial.

The findings offer strong evidence that housing aid is also a form of health care intervention, Kang said. Programs designed to promote financial stability may also serve as a lifeline for those experiencing emotional distress, particularly in times of national crisis.

The paper’s title is “COVID-19 Emergency Rental Assistance Improved Mental Health and Psychotherapy Use Among Low-Income Renters.” In addition to Kang, its UCR co-authors are Qingfang Wang, professor of public policy; Tyler Hoffman,  a research assistant; and Bruce Link, distinguished professor of public policy and sociology. 

The researchers argue that economic relief programs should be seen not only as fiscal policies but also as tools for improving public health. They also suggest that future programs should be designed to take advantage of this dual impact—perhaps by streamlining application processes and speeding up the delivery of aid, to ensure recipients can stabilize their housing and access needed care sooner.

“What’s really interesting is that people in our field often worry about the unintended consequences of government programs—and that they’ll be bad, such as fraud or waste,” Link said. “But to the contrary, here are what might be deemed ‘unintended positive consequences’ that went beyond the intended effect of helping people stay securely housed.”