Association for Public Policy Analysis & Management

Low-income households make ends meet through a complex arrangement of formal and informal resources (Edin and Lein 1995). Yet, when social programs are evaluated, analysis usually considers participation in a single program on a single outcome, ignoring the patchwork of programs that families rely upon to make it through each month. For example, food and nutrition program are usually evaluated with a focus on identifying a reduction in food insecurity, without a regard to the potential to improve health outcomes or housing security. As a consequence, when making funding decisions regarding specific social programs, policy-makers ignore the potential positive externalities to other domains of well-being because of a lack of evidence to their existence.

This study explores the cross-program effect of participation in wide set of programs that low-income households often experience together— income support (Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, Unemployment Insurance, Workers Compensation, General Assistance and TANF), health care (Medicare), housing assistance (public housing, Section 8, and subsidized rent), utility assistance (LIHEAP or included in public housing), and food and nutrition programs (WIC or SNAP).  Participation for each type of program is modelled as a potential input into household food insecurity, medical hardship, or housing hardship, using 2008 data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation.

Preliminary results suggest that participating in publicly provided health care is associated with reductions in medical hardships, as you might expect, but also home hardships.  Similarly, those receiving housing assistance are less likely to report home hardships and medical hardships. Participation in food assistance programs is associated with increases in food insecurity, medical hardships and home hardships, perhaps through a negative selection process.  Similarly, utility assistance is associated with increases in medical hardships.  Somewhat surprising is the early result that income support is not associated with reductions in any of the three domains of material hardship.

Results from this study are likely to be of interest to a wide audience interested in any of the types of programs examined (nutritional support, health care, utility assistance, housing assistance or income support) or in understanding how the social safety work functions to support the economic well-being of disadvantaged populations in the United States. This study will contribute to a small but growing literature on cross-program effects by documenting the positive externalities of program participation across three domains of material hardship.