Researchers from the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley have released a new report examining how local institutional capacity relates to take-up rates of emergency rental assistance (ERA) generally and the rates at which ERA payments are made per very low-income (VLI) renter-households in counties. The report, “An Uneven Housing Safety Net: Disparities in the Disbursement of Emergency Rental Assistance and the Role of Local Institutional Capacity,” includes two sets of analyses: one of counties participating exclusively in state ERA programs and one of counties with their own independent ERA programs. Across both analyses, counties with the lowest ERA take-up rates had lower institutional capacity – meaning fewer government agencies experienced with federal housing-related funding and weaker nonprofit networks – compared to those with the highest rates of take-up. Among counties relying on state ERA programs, limited local capacity may contribute to insufficient outreach and low ERA take-up rates, while limited capacity and low take-up rates evident in counties with direct ERA allocations likely indicate the greater economic need experienced by these counties before the onset of the pandemic.
Researchers examined relative ERA take-up rates to identify differences in sociodemographic characteristics, need, and institutional capacity between counties with low and high ERA and to understand how these differences influence take-up. Researchers measured ERA take-up as ERA payments made per VLI renter-household and compared take-up among two sets of counties: (1) 1,164 counties relying exclusively on state ERA programs; and (2) 255 counties with local ERA programs receiving direct allocations from the U.S Department of the Treasury’s (Treasury) ERA program. Among counties relying exclusively on state ERA programs, those with higher ERA take-up rates had more pandemic-induced job losses, higher shares of renter households, and more residents of color, while those with lower take-up rates tended to be more rural and have higher rates of poverty and more Native American residents.
Counties with lower ERA take-up rates also had less robust institutional capacity compared to counties with higher ERA take-up rates. Only 2% of these counties had a large public housing agency or a government agency that received HUD grants, compared to 25% of counties with the highest rates of ERA take-up. Counties with the lowest ERA take-up rates also had fewer and less-resourced nonprofits, with an average of four nonprofits with an average revenue of $4,107 per VLI renter-household (compared to 18 nonprofits with an average revenue of $5,574 per VLI renter-household among counties with the highest rates of ERA take-up). Among counties with direct ERA allocations, those with the lowest ERA take-up rates had more residents of color and higher shares of renters, experienced higher rates of unemployment and poverty before the pandemic, and saw greater and sustained job losses during the pandemic. Though nearly all counties had agencies experienced with federal funding, counties with lower ERA take-up rates had nonprofits with fewer financial resources per VLI renter-households ($4,954) compared to counties with higher ERA take-up rates ($5,318).
These findings suggest that assistance may not have reached as many eligible households as possible in counties with both limited institutional capacity and low take-up rates among communities served by state ERA programs. Among counties with direct ERA allocations, counties with lower ERA take-up faced greater disparities from the start, including increased economic hardship before the pandemic, a greater share of VLI renter-households, and fewer and less-resourced nonprofits. The authors argue that nuanced and alternative approaches need to be used in administering assistance to counties based on local institutional capacity and need.
Read the full report at: https://bit.ly/3kng0Mk