2021 in Review: Data and Research to Fuel the Equity Movement

Dear Atlas users,

As the Covid-19 pandemic dragged on into its second year, the communities most impacted by its economic fallout and systemic inequities advocated for emergency relief and long-term solutions for a more equitable and resilient economy. The Atlas team is proud to support these efforts through our data tools, research, and partnerships with grassroots organizations. In 2021, we published more than a dozen original analyses, and our user base doubled to more than 100,000 people. Here are a few highlights from the year.

Powering Advocacy for Eviction Protections and Rent Relief

Stabilizing renters experiencing housing insecurity is key to an equitable recovery. In April, we launched a regularly updated rent debt dashboard, in partnership with the Right to the City Alliance, that equips advocates and policymakers with timely, local data on the extent of rent debt in their communities to inform policies to prevent eviction and eliminate rent debt. Since its debut, the dashboard and our accompanying analysis have been accessed 19,000 times, and advocates in California, Indiana, Minnesota, and elsewhere used our data to make the case for equity-focused recovery policies at both local and state level. News outlets, including the Los Angeles Times, ABC Baltimore, Texas News Today, the New York Times, and CNN, produced over 150 articles using dashboard data.

Launching the Racial Equity Data Lab

This summer we launched the Racial Equity Data Lab, a new interactive space on the Atlas that helps you create custom displays to tell your community’s equity story, powered by Tableau software and Atlas data. Our Tableau-ready datasets for equity indicators like Poverty, Car Access, Working Poor, and Educational Attainment can be customized to build factsheets and dashboards at the local level. Learn how to use this new tool with this step-by-step guide and starter viz to create your own factsheet to show who in your community is able to access a $15/hour wage.

Activating Local Efforts to Advance Workforce Equity

Through our ongoing Advancing Workforce Equity project, in partnership with the National Fund for Workforce Solutions and Emsi Burning Glass, we worked with local leaders in nine regions across the country to catalyze cross-cutting strategies to build a more equitable economy. In addition to two national reports detailing the early labor-market impacts of the pandemic and laying out a forward-looking, data-driven framework for workforce equity, we published five tailored analyses and blueprints for local action in Boston (with SkillWorks), Chicago (with the Chicagoland Workforce Funder Alliance), Dallas and Collin Counties (with Pathways to Work), the San Francisco Bay Area (with ReWork the Bay), and Seattle (with the Workforce Development Council of Seattle-King County).

Supporting Gig Worker Rights, Equity in Federal Contracting, and Housing Security for All

Throughout 2021, the Atlas team partnered with leaders working to address structural racism and the inequitable impacts of the pandemic to provide actionable insights and analyses across a range of issue areas.

  • Through a study with Rideshare Drivers United, we found that California rideshare drivers, particularly Latinx drivers, are struggling to access health insurance and a safe workplace following the passage of Prop 22. As the first study on rideshare health care access under this legislation, our work was lifted up in SF Examiner, KQED, and The American Prospect, among others.
  • We analyzed small business access to federal contracting dollars, revealing that the number of small businesses contracting with the federal government shrank dramatically – by 40 percent – over the past decade. This analysis contributed to the Biden Administration’s new commitments to advance equity in federal procurement, including increasing federal contracting with businesses owned by entrepreneurs of color to 11 percent in 2022.
  • We produced a series of fact sheets in partnership with For the Many, who used our data to advocate for Good Cause eviction protections across New York’s Mid-Hudson Valley. Our analysis showed that 54 percent of renter households in the region are rent-burdened, and Black and Latinx households are especially impacted. In October Newburg became the first city in the region to pass a law protecting renters from eviction without good cause, as other municipalities in the region consider similar legislation.

Bolstering Regional Equity Campaigns: News from the Bay Area Equity Atlas

Throughout 2021, 50,000 users turned to the Bay Area Equity Atlas to access equity data and policy tools, double the number of users in 2020. The team produced a landmark report on the diversity of high-level elected officials in the Bay Area, which revealed that while these leaders are becoming more representative of the communities they represent every year, significant inequities remain: people of color represent 60 percent of residents, but just 34 percent of top electeds.

Atlas In the News and On The Road

This year, our data and analyses informed 190 print and digital news articles in outlets including The New York Times, CNN, NPR, The Hill, and Buzzfeed News (see full list here). We also shared our work with a diverse set of audiences, conducting dozens of presentations and trainings to policymakers, government agencies, grantmakers, community leaders, and peer organizations, including the House Committee on Ways and Means, Aspen Institute Opportunity Youth Forum to Clear Impact’s Measurable Equity One Year Challenge, and Partnership on AI’s Partner Perspectives: The Next 5 Years in AI.

Join Our Team!

USC Equity Research Institute is hiring a one-year postdoctoral position to provide data analysis support to the Bay Area and National Equity Atlas team. The fellow will help the team design, organize, and conduct advanced quantitative analyses producing academic articles as well as popular reports. Please send experienced candidates our way!

- The National Equity Atlas team at PolicyLink and the USC Equity Research Institute (ERI)

We’re Hiring!

 

Dear Atlas users,

We are excited to announce that the National Equity Atlas team is expanding! While the movement for racial equity continues to gain momentum across the nation, it is critical to center people and communities of color in our economy’s recovery and in our systems and policy change efforts. This additional staffing will allow us to take on more data requests from community leaders and organizers, conduct more original analyses, build more responsive data tools, and dedicate more time to supporting equity advocates and campaigns.

The National Equity Atlas Team Is Growing

The Atlas team is actively recruiting for three new positions: a director to lead the team, a senior associate to conduct research and analysis, and a senior communications associate to lead all of our media & dissemination activities. These are dream jobs for people who love data, use mixed-methods approaches, and want to produce innovative research and partner with grassroots organizations advancing racial and economic equity. We have a preference for Bay Area-based candidates, but encourage applicants from anywhere in the US who are passionate about racial equity and have experience working in and with communities of color. Learn more about the positions here and please share with your networks!

Atlas Featured in “How to Build an Inclusive Economy”

PolicyLink CEO Michael McAfee was included in Freethink’s recent video series on how to build an inclusive economy and lifted up the role of the Atlas in advancing the equity movement by highlighting key data insights that validate the experiences of communities of color and providing fuel to advance equity campaigns. “The National Equity Atlas,” he explained, “will give you a sense of how much a region, a city, a county, a state, would benefit by closing gaps in racial disparities.” Watch the video.

Racial Equity in Entrepreneurship Is Crucial for an Inclusive Recovery

At the recent Institute of Governmental Studies Research Symposium, Sarah Treuhaft joined a keynote panel to share key Atlas data and insights on the state of racial equity in entrepreneurship, noting that in the 10 most populous US cities African Americans remain underrepresented in business ownership. Removing barriers that prevent people of color from starting and growing successful businesses is a crucial inclusive growth strategy as entrepreneurship is an important pathway for building wealth and addressing the racial wealth gap and also creating jobs for workers of color.

In the News

This month, our Rent Debt Dashboard was covered by the Los Angeles Times, Cal Matters, Maryland Matters, CBS8, Mendocino Voice, and the Sahan Journal. Our study of California rideshare driver healthcare access under Prop 22 was covered by LawyersAndSettlements. You can find a complete list of news coverage here.

- The National Equity Atlas team at PolicyLink and the USC Equity Research Institute (ERI)
 

For an Equitable Recovery, We Need to Democratize Access to Federal Contracting

Dear Atlas users,

As evidenced by our most recent rent debt analysis, low-income people of color continue to suffer from the devastating impacts of the pandemic even as other aspects of the economy return to ‘normal.’ The majority of federal rental assistance has yet to reach those who need it, and a new report from The Housing Initiative at Penn found that other housing access programs like Housing Choice Vouchers reach just one in five low-income renter households who are eligible. With federal, state, and local governments working to pass policies to rebuild our economy, the Atlas team continues to equip advocates with necessary data and analysis to push for a just and equitable recovery. Here are some updates:

New Analysis Finds Fewer and Fewer Small Businesses Are Getting Federal Contracts

The federal government is the nation’s largest purchaser of goods and services, but our new analysis reveals that the number of small businesses doing business with the federal government has plummeted over the past decade: about 40 percent fewer small businesses fulfilled federal contracts in 2020 compared with 2010. We also found that while people of color own 29 percent of all American businesses, entrepreneurs of color receive less than 12 percent of federal government contracting dollars. Federal contracts are highly concentrated in just a few congressional districts, mostly in the DC metro area, that are home to less than 4 percent of the total population. A critical solution is within reach through the infrastructure package before Congress, but is at risk of being removed. Policymakers are negotiating the inclusion of a groundbreaking set of programs that would direct $2.4 billion to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and other people-of-color-serving institutions to uplift the next generation of small businesses owners.

Updated Rent Debt Dashboard and Analysis Finds Mounting Debt for Low-Income Renters of Color

The share of renters with debt has not declined since April. Our updated Rent Debt Dashboard and analysis show that nearly 6 million renters remain in debt, and the majority of them are low-income people of color. Just 11 percent of federal rental relief funds have been distributed; our new map shows that many of the cities and counties with the lowest distribution of relief funds have large populations of low-income renters. Finally, we found that Black renters disproportionately expect to be evicted by October: 58 percent of Black tenants with rent debt say they are very or somewhat likely to be evicted, compared with 45 percent of their White counterparts. The dashboard continues to fuel community advocacy for debt cancellation and rent assistance. Recently, California-based Raise the Roof coalition cited our work in their presentation to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, while Housing4Hoosiers provided recommendations to Indiana’s Emergency Rental Assistance program using our data.

You’re Invited! The Power of Place: Addressing Structural Racism in the Workforce and Economy

On September 29, Atlas team member Abbie Langston will speak on a panel on racial equity and the workforce system at the Aspen Institute Opportunity Youth Forum alongside our partners at the National Fund for Workforce Solutions and local partners on our Advancing Workforce Equity project. The conversation will touch on structural racism in the world of work and highlight solutions that workforce systems, communities, employers, and training providers are implementing to improve career outcomes for students and young workers of color. Join us by registering here.

Fact Sheets Reveal Continued Housing Insecurity in Mid-Hudson Valley

Earlier this month, we produced a series of fact sheets on renters in New York’s Mid-Hudson Valley in partnership with For the Many, to support their advocacy for policies to protect renters from unfair evictions and predatory landlords. We found that housing insecurity is a region-wide issue. More than half of renter households in the Mid-Hudson Valley are rent-burdened, and Black and Latinx renters are especially impacted. In New Paltz, for example, nearly all Black renter households are rent-burdened. You can download fact sheets here for the following places: Ulster County, Beacon, Kingston, Newburgh, New Paltz, and Poughkeepsie.

In the News

This month, our Rent Debt Dashboard work was featured in the New York Times, CBS News, Bloomberg, Oklahoma Watch, Minnesota Post, Tampa Bay Times, The Hill, and Law360. Our work on California rideshare driver benefits under Prop 22 was featured in Jacobin and Dissent Magazine. See a complete list of news coverage here.

- The National Equity Atlas team at PolicyLink and the USC Equity Research Institute (ERI)

La Mayor Parte de Conductores Rideshare de California No Reciben Beneficios del Cuidado de la Salud bajo la Propuesta 22

Por Eliza McCullough y Brian Dolber de Rideshare Drivers United*

El uso de la letra “e” en vez de "a/o" cuando se refiere a una persona es intencional y es parte de nuestros principios de ser inclusivos. Se trata de asegurar que nuestres parientes trans y otres que no se identifiquen con el género binario sean incluides en nuestro reporte. 

Una encuesta de más de 500 conductores revela que les conductores de viaje compartido (rideshare) de California, en particular les conductores Latines, están teniendo dificultad para tener acceso al seguro de la salud y un lugar de trabajo seguro.

En el 2020, Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, y otros gigantes de la industria tecnológica, se gastaron una cantidad sin precedentes de $220 millones para llevar a cabo una campaña de referendo para no tener que clasificar a sus trabajadores como empleades bajo la ley estatal de California, conocida como AB5. Las empresas argumentaron que la Propuesta 22 protegería la “flexibilidad” de les trabajadores que se contratan por aplicación en California, y que les proporcionaría beneficios incluyendo estipendios para seguro de salud y entrenamiento de seguridad. La Propuesta 22 fue aprobada en noviembre del 2020 con un porcentaje del 58 por ciento de los votos.

De hecho, el éxito de las empresas privó a les conductores de los derechos básicos en el trabajo, incluyendo beneficios para el cuidado de la salud, un salario mínimo por hora, y los niveles de salud y seguridad. La profesora de derecho laboral Veena Dubal le llamó a la Propuesta 22 “la ley laboral más peligrosa para les trabajadores desde la ley Taft-Hartley,” la cual restringió drásticamente a los sindicatos, argumentando que ésta crea un precedente peligroso para los niveles de empleo en todas las industrias.

Aunque la campaña de la industria se enfocó en las protecciones a les trabajadores de la Propuesta 22, estas protecciones están escasamente definidas en la ley y no son iguales a las protecciones legales dadas a les empleades. Les conductores tienen derecho a un estipendio parcial para cubrir las primas del seguro de salud, y solamente si cumplen con múltiples requisitos. [1] La propuesta 22 también requería que las empresas administren entrenamientos de seguridad a todos les conductores, y estos deben incluir información de cómo reportar situaciones de agresión y acoso sexual. Sin embargo, este requisito, es mucho más leve que las protecciones que les empleades tienen bajo la Occupational Safety and Health Act (la Ley de Sanidad y Seguridad Ocupacional).  Con el brote del virus del Corona, la pérdida de seguro médico garantizado y de los niveles de seguridad en el lugar de trabajo han causado riesgos de salud sin precedente para les conductores.

Para comprender si les conductores están teniendo acceso a los beneficios, llevamos a cabo una encuesta de conductores miembros de Rideshare Drivers United (RDU), basados en California, preguntándoles acerca de su acceso al seguro de la salud, los estipendios para el seguro de la salud y los entrenamientos de seguridad. La encuesta se llevó a cabo entre el 19 de mayo y el 12 de junio del 2021, y fue completada por 531 conductores. Debido a las evidentes desigualdades raciales en los datos de la encuesta, tratamos de comprender mejor las experiencias de les conductores de color con entrevistas de seguimiento.  Llevamos a cabo 10 entrevistas con conductores sin seguro quienes hayan manejado desde enero del 2021. Dos de esas entrevistas se llevaron a cabo con conductores primordialmente de habla hispana. [Para ver las citas en español, ver las anotaciones al pie de la página].

Nuestra encuesta reveló lo siguiente:

  • Solamente el 10 por ciento de los encuestados reciben un estipendio, mientras que el 40 por ciento de les encuestades o nunca ha escuchado respecto a poder recibir los estipendios o no estaban seguros si habían recibido la notificación.
  • Los conductores buscan las opciones de seguro público para la salud, o se privan totalmente del seguro para la salud. Veintinueve por ciento de les encuestades depende de Medi-Cal.  Dieciséis por ciento de todos les encuestades no están asegurados, lo cual es el doble de la tasa nacional de personas sin seguro.
  • Les Latines encuestades tienen menos posibilidad de saber respecto a los estipendios y mayor posibilidad que no estén asegurados.
  • Uno de cada seis encuestades no ha recibido entrenamiento de seguridad de una empresa de entrega o rideshare.

Muchos de les conductores entrevistados expresaron frustración con los retos al tratar de conseguir seguro bajo la Propuesta 22, y la mayor parte lo ve como parte de un patrón más amplio de engaño y desconsideración hacia la fuerza laboral de parte de Uber y Lyft. En algunos casos, les conductores reportaron gran dificultad para obtener cuidado médico.

Para mejorar de inmediato el acceso al cuidado de la salud y la seguridad en el lugar de trabajo, recomendamos quitar las restricciones al estipendio para el cuidado de la salud, mejorar la transparencia en la implementación de los estipendios, enfocar ayuda a les conductores con mayor posibilidad de no estar asegurados, y mejorar la implementación de entrenamientos de seguridad. Además, se necesitan cambios a largo plazo a las políticas para crear una industria rideshare que proporcione trabajos de calidad. Les legisladores de California deberían revocar la Propuesta 22 y les legisladores de otros estados deberían prevenir que se aprueben propuestas similares a la Propuesta 22. El gobierno federal también juega un papel importante para asegurar las condiciones de trabajo justas y un salario digno para todos les trabajadores por obra, por medio de políticas como la PRO-Act, así como un programa de salud nacional de pagador único.

Una fuerza laboral en su mayoría inmigrantes y personas de color.

Entre nuestros encuestades, el 65 por ciento son personas de color, 52 por ciento nacieron fuera de los E.E.U.U., y el 37 por ciento habla primordialmente otro idioma que no es inglés. Ochenta y cinco por ciento de les encuestades conduce para Uber, el 68 por ciento conduce para Lyft, y el 59 por ciento de encuestados conduce para un servicio de entrega de alimentos (como Uber Eats, Postmates, o DoorDash). El sesenta y seis por ciento de les encuestades conduce para más de una plataforma y el 75 por ciento ha conducido desde el 1 de enero del 2021, cuando la Propuesta 22 entro en vigor. Cincuenta y uno por ciento de les encuestades eran mayores de 50 y el 21 por ciento de les encuestades eran mayores de la edad de 60, haciendo particularmente importante su acceso al seguro para la salud. No hay una fuente de información de calidad respecto a la demografía de les conductores para evaluar la representación de dicha muestra. Sin embargo, un estudio reciente de les conductores de San Francisco demuestra que, igual que la población de nuestros encuestades, la mayoría de les conductores son personas de color, inmigrantes, mayores de 30 años, y conducen para plataformas múltiples.

Uber y Lyft no notifican adecuadamente a sus conductores respecto a poder calificar para estipendios para la salud.

El cuarenta por ciento de les conductores encuestades no recuerda haber sido notificado respecto a los estipendios, con grandes diferencias entre los grupos raciales/étnicos.  Les conductores Latines tienen menos posibilidad de saber respecto a los estipendios: Aproximadamente la mitad de les conductores Latines no recuerdan haber recibido ninguna notificación o no están seguros.

!function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",(function(e){if(void 0!==e.data["datawrapper-height"]){var t=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var a in e.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r=0;r

Un conductor Latine de 31 años mencionó, “Nadie se comunicó conmigo para decirme lo que era”. La falta de comunicación de parte de las empresas no le sorprende. “Para ser sincero, a ellos no les importan los conductores. Yo sabía que (las promesas de la Propuesta 22) no iban a ser verdaderas.”

Quienes fueron notificados dicen haber recibido correos electrónicos o mensajes de texto de las empresas. Sin embargo, la simple información no significa acceso. Por ejemplo, un conductor de 36 años, hispanohablante en Los Ángeles, dijo: “Yo recibí un correo electrónico con la información. En la aplicación aparece también las horas que uno necesita registrar para cumplir los requisitos para el cupón. Yo también trabajé en DoorDash durante la pandemia. Yo cambiaba entre las plataformas, Uber, Lyft, DoorDash. Con Uber tengo que pasar 20 horas semanales con pasajeros para cumplir los requisitos. Ellos mintieron a los conductores respecto al seguro médico ya que yo estoy aquí, trabajando y no tengo seguro.” Las restricciones en los requisitos para la elegibilidad, además de la mala comunicación, han hecho difícil el acceso a los estipendios de seguro para muchos conductores, especialmente les conductores de color.

La Propuesta 22 redujo el acceso al cuidado de la salud: Menos de uno en cinco conductores reciben estipendios para el cuidado de la salud.

Los requisitos de la Propuesta 22 no han reparado los derechos perdidos de les trabajadores de recibir cuidado para la salud, ya que la mayoría de les conductores no reciben estipendios para el cuidado de la salud. Esto se debe en gran parte a la limitación en los requisitos para calificar para los estipendios bajo la Propuesta 22. Para poder calificar, les conductores no deben recibir cuidado de la salud por medio de Medicare, Medi-Cal, otro trabajo, o por medio de cónyuge o compañere/a. Les conductores deben conducir por lo menos 15 horas participadas por semana en una sola aplicación para recibir el estipendio mínimo. Les conductores también han reportado que deben “mostrar comprobante de seguro de la salud dentro cierto tiempo, antes de solicitar el estipendio,” indicando así que les conductores que no están asegurados podrían no calificar. Juntos, estos requisitos previenen que la mayoría de les conductores tengan acceso a los estipendios para el cuidado de la salud prometidos bajo la Propuesta 22.

!function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",(function(e){if(void 0!==e.data["datawrapper-height"]){var t=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var a in e.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r=0;r

 

Muches conductores no son elegibles ya que sus horas se han reducido por lo tanto sus ingresos se han visto reducidos. Un conductor de 49 años en Los Ángeles, y su hijo de 18 años, ambos han estado sin seguro por nueve meses por esta razón. “Los precios han bajado a .50 cts. [por milla], así que raramente manejo estos días,” dijo.

Aunque él no votó por la Propuesta 22, la apoyaba. “pensé que recibiría seguro gratuito,” dijo. “Me siento tenso.” Él dice que su hijo tuvo una emergencia médica, y tuvo que depender de Medi-Cal, el programa de seguro público, para cubrir los gastos. “Me preocupo ya que casi cumplo 50 y no sé qué va a pasar si sigo conduciendo para Uber y Lyft.”

El conductor de habla hispana de 36 años en Los Ángeles mencionó, “Los conductores se sienten engañados. Estas empresas gastaron mucho dinero en campaña política. Ellos controlan la plataforma. Estos cambios en las empresas se ven muy bien hasta que se sabe la verdad. Las horas necesarias para cumplir los requisitos son demasiadas para ser justas. Nos mintieron. Uber ha estado haciendo demasiados cambios sin la participación de les conductores.

Un conductor de 66 años en el área de San Diego dice que no maneja lo suficiente para recibir un estipendio ya que tuvo que conseguir un trabajo adicional para subsistir. Él dice que es afortunado de vivir cerca de Tecate en la frontera de México-E.E.U.U.  Él cruza la frontera para recibir cuidado asequible. “Algunos de los mejores médicos están en México,” dijo. “Lo máximo de espera son como 15 minutos.”

Entre les encuestades que han conducido desde que la Propuesta 22 entró en vigor, y no reciben seguro médico por medio de un programa público o por cónyuge, solamente el 19 por ciento reciben estipendios para el cuidado de la salud. Las personas que se identifican como de un grupo multirracial o de un grupo racial no incluido en la encuesta, fueron los que menos reciben un estipendio. Aun si solamente el 50 por ciento de les conductores cumplen con el requisito de tiempo-participado de la Propuesta 22 (un cálculo que creemos moderado), solamente un numero sorprendentemente bajo de conductores reciben los estipendios para la salud.

Algunos conductores también han dicho que los estipendios son demasiado bajos para cubrir los gastos. Un conductor de 53 años en Sacramento ha estado sin seguro desde el 2010 y ha tenido gastos médicos considerables a través de los años, incluyendo trabajo dental y cálculos en los riñones. Pero él menciona que aún con el estipendio, un plan de seguro es demasiado caro por que el estipendio solamente cubre una porción de la prima. “Yo me rehúso a pagar por algo así,” dijo. “Yo no voy a pagar para vivir. No está a mi alcance.” Él comenta que sus pagos de carro consumen gran parte de sus ingresos, haciendo que el seguro sea inasequible.

Entre todos los grupos raciales/ étnicos, les conductores Latines son los que tienen menos posibilidades de estar asegurados: un cuarto de les conductores Latines no tienen seguro para la salud.

La pérdida del derecho al seguro médico causado por la Propuesta 22 ha forzado a muches conductores a privarse del seguro médico: el dieciséis por ciento no están asegurados, lo cual es el doble de la tasa nacional de personas sin seguro. Les conductores Latines tienen más posibilidad de no tener seguro.Un cuarto de los encuestados indica no tener seguro.

!function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",(function(e){if(void 0!==e.data["datawrapper-height"]){var t=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var a in e.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r=0;r

Un conductor de habla hispana de 25 años en Los Ángeles dijo, “Yo no tengo seguro de salud. No he tenido desde que trabajo para Uber. He trabajado tres años acá en los E.E.U.U., y todo ese tiempo he trabajado con Uber.

El conductor hispano hablante de 36 años en Los Ángeles mencionó que no ha tenido seguro por año y medio. Dijo “soy diabético. Tengo que prepararme mi medicina. Si no pago me toca endeudarme en los hospitales. Fui al hospital de Glendale, mi cuenta fue de $900. Recientemente cumplí los requisitos para el cuidado médico de emergencia.  En un año he ido dos veces a urgencias.

Nos enteramos de que es altamente probable que los conductores dependan del sistema público: casi un tercio de les encuestados reciben seguro de salud por medio de Medi-Cal. Este dato indica que muches conductores tienen dificultad económica, ya que Medi-Cal está reservado primordialmente para les persones que están al 138 por ciento bajo el nivel de pobreza. También nos enteramos de que la mitad de les encuestades recién seguro por medio de Medi-Cal, Medicare, o por medio del cónyuge o compañere de vida, lo cual automáticamente los descalifica para recibir estipendios para el cuidado de la salud. Por medio de estos requisitos limitados, la Propuesta 22 permite que Uber y Lyft se ahorren miles de millones en costos de seguro para la salud que tenían que pagar antes que la legislación fuera promulgada.

!function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",(function(e){if(void 0!==e.data["datawrapper-height"]){var t=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var a in e.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r=0;r

Uber y Lyft no proporcionan protección de seguridad adecuada a sus conductores

En lugar de las protecciones legalmente obligatorias de salud y seguridad para les empleades, la Propuesta 22 ordena entrenamiento de seguridad para les trabajadores contratados por aplicación. El noventa y tres por ciento de nuestros 531 encuestades han conducido desde el 1 de enero del 2021, cuando la propuesta entro en vigor.  Por lo tanto, a Uber y Lyft se les requiere que proporcionen a estes conductores con entrenamientos de seguridad. Sin embargo, a uno de cada seis conductores que participaron en nuestra encuesta, las empresas Uber y Lyft les ha fallado en proporcionarles entrenamiento. También nos enteramos de que les conductores que se identifican como multirracial o de una raza de otra categoría no incluida en la encuesta, eran los que tenían menos posibilidades de haber recibido entrenamiento, más que otros conductores de otras razas. Este descuido es particularmente perjudicial hacia las mujeres y conductores LGBTQ, quienes tienen más posibilidad de ser sometidas a pasar por acoso y violencia en el trabajo. Sin un entrenamiento adecuado en cómo responder y reportar situaciones perjudiciales, les conductores están en riesgo de correr peligro en el trabajo.

!function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",(function(e){if(void 0!==e.data["datawrapper-height"]){var t=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var a in e.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r=0;r

Para aumentar la seguridad en el lugar de trabajo y acceso al cuidado de la salud para les conductores de viaje compartido (rideshare) se necesitan cambios urgentes a la política.

Nuestros estudios revelan que la implementación de las protecciones delineadas en la Propuesta 22 son impredecibles, desiguales e inadecuadas. En lugar de corregir los problemas que les conductores contratados por aplicación enfrentan, la Propuesta 22 ha aumentado la vulnerabilidad de les conductores en cuanto a riesgos a la salud y la seguridad, así como también a sentimientos de confusión y desilusión. Esto ha sido particularmente grave entre les conductores Latines, quienes tienen menos posibilidades de estar enterados de los estipendios para el cuidado de la salud. Las empresas Rideshare y las agencias reguladoras deben comenzar inmediatamente a mejorar el acceso al cuidado de la salud y a los entrenamientos de seguridad para los conductores.

  • Las empresas deben quitar las restricciones del estipendio para el cuidado de la salud. El estipendio debería cubrir el 100 por ciento de la prima de un plan promedio de Covered California Bronze. La suma total de las horas de trabajo de les conductores debería ser tomado en cuenta y no solo las horas participadas al calcular la participación para el estipendio.
  • Las agencias regulatorias deben mejorar la transparencia en la implementación del estipendio, requiriendo que las empresas informen trimestralmente el porcentaje de conductores que reciben estipendios desagregándolos por raza y etnicidad para asegurarse que todos aquellos que cumplen los requisitos para un estipendio en realidad lo reciben.
  • Uber, Lyft, y otras empresas deben enfocar sus enlaces comunitarios para aquellos conductores con menos posibilidades de estar asegurados. La información de cómo cumplir con los requisitos y recibir el estipendio para el cuidado de la salud debería estar disponible en múltiples idiomas y formatos.
  • Las empresas Rideshare deben mejorar la implementación de los entrenamientos de seguridad asegurándose que todos les conductores reciben entrenamiento y proporcionando información pública respecto al porcentaje de conductores que han completado entrenamientos. Estos entrenamientos deberían también destacar información de como reportar situaciones de agresión o acoso sexual.

Aunque estos cambios mejoraran inmediatamente las condiciones de trabajo de millones de conductores, acciones políticas a largo plazo deben ser tomadas para crear una industria rideshare para beneficio de todos.

Les legisladores deben revocar la Propuesta 22 y clasificar nuevamente a los conductores rideshare como empleados, restaurándoles todos los derechos laborales que se les quitaron al aprobarla. Uber, Lyft y otras empresas de trabajos por obra ya están financiando campañas para legislación similar a la Propuesta 22 en Nueva York, Massachussets, Illinois y otros estados a nivel nacional. Legisladores estatales y partidarios laborales deben proteger los derechos cruciales de los conductores y prevenir la aprobación de esta legislación.

Aun sin la reclasificación de los conductores como contratistas independientes por medio de esta legislación, las protecciones actuales no son suficientes: Los legisladores federales deben asegurar condiciones justas de trabajo y un salario de vida para todos los trabajadores de obra por medio de políticas como la Pro Act.

Les legisladores deberían establecer un programa nacional de salud de pagador único, así como también programas orientados hacia la ciudadanía para proporcionar a todos en los E.E. U.U. cobertura completa para asegurar que les trabajadores de todas las industrias tengan acceso gratuito a un cuidado de salud de calidad.

*Brian Dolber es un profesor adjunto de Comunicaciones en la Universidad Estatal de San Marcos, y un organizador de Rideshare Drivers United. Rideshare Drivers United es una asociación independiente de conductores de US rideshare unidos para exigir pagos más altos y derechos en el lugar de trabajo para todos les conductores (de vehículos compartidos) rideshare.

Esta encuesta es la primera en una serie de análisis coproducidos por National Equity Atlas y Rideshare Drivers United que examinan el impacto a les conductores rideshare por la Propuesta 22. Los autores desean agradecer a Sarah Treuhaft y Michelle Huang de PolicyLink, Carla Tapia de Rideshare Drivers United y Justin Scoggins de Equity Research Institute.

Notes

(1) La Propuesta 22 requiere que las empresas de entregas y de vehículos de viaje compartido (rideshare) paguen un estipendio mensual del 82 por ciento de la prima mensual promedio del plan Covered California Bronze (el nivel más bajo de los planes disponible por medio del intercambio a nivel estatal) para les conductores que han estado ocupados un promedio de más de 25 horas por semana. Tiempo ocupado se define como el tiempo que les conductores pasan desde que recogen a un pasajero hasta que lo dejan en su destino y no incluye el tiempo pasado entre viaje y viaje. Para les conductores con un promedio de por lo menos 15 pero menos de 25 horas de tiempo ocupado, las empresas tienen que pagar un estipendio del 41 por ciento de la prima promedio. Les conductores que trabajan menos de 15 horas de tiempo ocupado por semana no cumplen los requisitos para un estipendio, lo mismo para les conductores que reciben seguro para la salud por medio de Medicare o Medi-Cal, de otro trabajo o por medio de su compañere.

Rent Debt in America: Stabilizing Renters Is Key to Equitable Recovery

Our rent debt dashboard, produced in partnership with the Right to the City Alliance, equips policymakers and advocates with data on the extent and nature of rent debt in their communities to inform policies to eliminate debt and prevent eviction.

By Sarah Treuhaft, Michelle Huang, Alex Ramiller, Justin Scoggins, Abbie Langston, and Selena Tan

Mounting rent debt and the potential for mass eviction is one of the most pressing equity issues created by the Covid-19 pandemic. The vast majority of the millions of renters who are in debt are low-wage workers — disproportionately people of color — who’ve suffered job and income losses due to the pandemic. With the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the federal emergency eviction moratorium on August 26, 2021, these renters are at imminent risk of eviction and homelessness. Allowing the households hardest-hit by the pandemic to be evicted would be a moral travesty and a policy failure that would deepen inequities at a moment when the federal government has prioritized addressing systemic racism and ensuring an equitable recovery.

To inform policymaking and advocacy to prevent eviction and eliminate rent debt, the National Equity Atlas and the Right to the City Alliance — a network of community-based organizations working in 45 cities and 26 states to prevent displacement, expand affordable housing, and build just, sustainable cities for all — launched this rent debt dashboard in April 2021.

The dashboard provides current data on the number and characteristics of renters behind on rent for the US, states, and 15 metro areas, as well as estimates of the amount of back rent owed. With this release, we’ve added a new “Relief Map” to the dashboard tracking the distribution of federal emergency rental assistance in states, counties, and cities. We’ve also expanded our rent debt estimates to cover all states and counties in the US as well as 562 cities. To provide disaggregated data for sub-national geographies, we combine the two most recent waves of the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey and use the individual-level microdata in the Pulse public-use file, which is released two weeks after the tabular data. The dashboard data is refreshed approximately every two weeks. Find our full methodology here.

This analysis shares key insights from the dashboard, incorporating data from the August 4 - 16 Pulse survey, along with action steps that local, state, and federal policymakers must take immediately to keep people in their homes.

An archive of our past analyses can be found here

Rent debt remains at crisis levels: nearly 6 million households are behind on rent, including about 7 million children.

As of mid-August 2021, 5.9 million renter households — 15 percent of all renters — were behind on their rent payments. About half of these households (48 percent) are families with children and we estimate there are 6.7 million children living in these households. This represents an enormous number of renters and their children who are now at risk of eviction and displacement, approaching the scale of the 2008 foreclosure crisis in which nearly 8 million households lost their homes.

Data on the share of households behind on rent comes directly from the Census Pulse survey, which has been asking the question “Is this household currently caught up on rent payments?” every two weeks since mid-August 2020.

The rent debt crisis has not abated over the past four months.

Fourteen percent of renter households were behind on rent the first time the Pulse survey posed this question; the share behind climbed up to 19 percent at the height of the pandemic and economic crisis in January, then crawled back down to 14 percent in March. The rate has remained at 14 - 15 percent behind for the past four and a half months. This is likely about twice the pre-pandemic baseline: the 2017 American Housing Survey found that about seven percent of renters were unable to pay some or all of their rent.


Under the Trump administration, the federal government did not provide any direct resources for rental assistance for the first nine months of the crisis, but in December and January, Congress allocated $46.5 billion toward emergency rental assistance to be distributed by state, local, and tribal governments. By the end of July, however, only $5.1 billion of this rental assistance had been distributed. As our trend data show, these resources are not yet having a measurable impact on renters who are struggling to get out of debt.

The share of renters with debt is much higher in some communities: One in three low-income renters are behind on rent in North Carolina and the District of Columbia.

The share of renters who are behind on rent is much higher than the national average in some communities. One in every five renters are behind in five southern states (Alabama, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia) which offer few tenant protections from eviction. North Carolina has the highest share of renters with debt (25 percent).

Focusing specifically on renters with annual incomes of less than $50,000, who are likely to meet the eligibility criteria for federal rental assistance, we see that nationwide, about one in five low-income renter households (19 percent) are behind on rent. But one in three low-income renter households are behind on rent in North Carolina (33 percent) and the District of Columbia (37 percent), and nearly one in three in South Carolina (30 percent). Less than ten percent of low-income renters owe back rent in the states of Arizona, Idaho, North Dakota, and Utah. In terms of sheer numbers, the most populous states are home to the most at-risk households: there are 2.5 million low-income renter households with debt living in California, Florida, Illinois, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

Among the 15 metros included in the Pulse survey, New York, Washington DC, and Miami have the highest shares of low-income renters behind on rent, all at 28 percent. New York is home to the most low-income renters with debt by far (475,700 households), followed by Los Angeles (247,800 households). 


Nationally, we estimate that rent debt amounts to $15 billion.

According to our estimates, total rent debt is $15 billion nationwide. On average, renters are behind three months’ rent and owe $2,550, but these averages mask much higher debts and levels of need for many renters, especially those with the lowest incomes. This is due to two factors. First, renters in higher-cost communities are paying higher rents thus will owe higher amounts: the average debt in the San Francisco Bay Area is $4,300. Second, the lowest income renters are more likely to be much further behind on rent and owe the most back rent. Based on the Pulse survey’s newly-added question about how many months renters with arrears are behind, 43 percent of renters are one month behind, 25 percent are two months behind, 12 percent are three months behind, 12 percent are between four and seven months behind, and 8 percent are eight to 17 months behind. Low-income renters who are further behind owe greater debts: those who are eight or more months behind owe $9,832 on average.

The vast majority of those who are behind on rent are low-income households who lost jobs and income during the pandemic.

The overwhelming majority of households with debt — 85 percent — are households with earnings of less than $50,000 per year, which is generally the group targeted by federal rental assistance programs.

Today’s rent debt crisis is entirely a consequence of the pandemic’s economic fallout: 68 percent of those who were behind on rent in May had lost employment income at some point during the pandemic, according to the May 12-24 Pulse survey. As our other research has shown, low-wage workers, who are disproportionately workers of color, were hardest hit by pandemic job losses and are most likely to suffer from rent debt. Currently, the majority of renters with arrears were not employed within the past week (56 percent).

Renters have made tremendous sacrifices and tradeoffs to stay current on rent, including foregoing medical care, delaying payment of other bills, eating cheaper (and potentially less healthy) food, and voluntarily moving in with friends and family — increasing their risk of Covid-19 exposure while losing their housing stability. The May 12-24 Pulse survey data showed that among low-income households who lost employment income at some time during the pandemic, 73 percent were current on rent. This underscores how paying rent has remained a top priority for all renters throughout the pandemic, despite the moratoria on evictions.

Renters of color have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic and are more likely to owe back rent, making them more vulnerable to eviction risk.

Workers of color were hardest hit by the pandemic job losses and thus more likely to fall behind on rent through no fault of their own. Two-thirds of renters with arrears (67 percent) are people of color. Today, 27 percent of Black renters, 19 percent of Latinx renters, 18 percent of Asian or Pacific Islander renters, and 17 percent of multiracial renters are behind on rent, compared to 9 percent of White renters.

Among renters with arrears, Black renters disproportionately expect to be evicted by October: 58 percent of Black tenants with rent debt say they are very or somewhat likely to be evicted, compared with 45 percent of their White counterparts. Other research has shown that Black renters, especially Black women with children, are more frequently evicted by their landlords.


In the United States, renters have little housing security, paltry savings, and few legal protections from exorbitant rent increases or eviction (outside of a few states and cities with strong tenant movements). The rent debt crisis adds another layer to these preexisting inequities. Renters were already in crisis when the pandemic began: about a third of White renters and just under half of Black and Latinx renters were both economically insecure (earning less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level) and rent burdened (paying more than 30 percent of their income on rent). Gender is another important axis: women of color are most likely to be rent burdened, and disproportionately face eviction.

Rent debt is also contributing to the growth of the racial wealth gap. Historic and continuing housing and lending discrimination, as well as systemic inequities in the labor market, have contributed to large racial inequities in homeownership. (Atlas data show that seven in 10 White households own their homes while the majority of Black and Latinx households rent.) While renters, predominantly people of color, currently hold $17 billion in rent debt alone (not including utilities and other debts), homeowners, who are predominantly White, saw a $1.9 trillion increase in their home equity from the first quarter of 2020 to the first quarter of 2021 as competition for a constrained supply of homes drove prices up.

Rental assistance resources are not sufficiently reaching tenants in need.

Over the past couple of months, the federal government has sought to speed up the distribution of rental assistance and the pace picked up in July, but only 11 percent of the allocated resources have been distributed. Our analysis of Treasury data tracking the distribution of the first round of assistance (ERA1) finds that there are 191 cities and counties where less than 25 percent of the funds have been distributed. This list includes many communities with large populations of low-income renters, such as Broward County, Florida; Chicago; Dallas (city and county); King County, Washington; and Los Angeles (city and county).

With the sluggish distribution of rental assistance, millions of renters are in limbo.

In August, the Pulse survey added a question about the status of rental assistance for households with arrears. This new dataset provides insight into how these programs are working and illustrates many of the challenges that renters face in accessing these resources. Nationwide, one in five renters with debt (22 percent) have applied for rental assistance and are awaiting a response. Three in five (62 percent) have not yet applied for rental assistance. One in ten (10.5 percent) applied for and were denied rental assistance.

Rent is not the only debt accumulating for renters.

While our analysis focuses on back rent, renters’ pandemic debt crisis extends far beyond their obligations to their landlords. Many renters are borrowing from family and friends or taking on other forms of debt in order to make rent and pay for household expenses. A University of Pennsylvania survey of California renters who applied for rental assistance found that the majority had about $3,050 in “shadow debt” they borrowed to pay their rent that is not covered by relief programs.

According to the Pulse survey, among households behind on rent, 43 percent borrowed from friends or family to pay for expenses including rent, compared with 16 percent of households current on rent. About 31 percent of all renter households used a credit card (or some other form of debt) to pay rent. Many are behind on other bills, such as utilities or car payments. A survey of water debt in California found that 1.6 million households owed $1 billion on water bills — $500 on average; and in Massachusetts half a million households were 90 days behind on their utilities, averaging $1,000 in debt.

Eliminating Rent Debt is an Equity Imperative and a Moral, Economic, and Public Health Necessity

Today’s rent debt crisis is a microcosm of the wretched inequality of the pandemic: millions of renter households — most of them people of color — now face the burden of owing back rent and the risk of being evicted due to a public health crisis that upended their finances. These unequal consequences are not random, but the predictable result of past policies that left millions of families with no savings to draw upon in the face of an economic shock, as well as the failed early policy response to the pandemic. Although the CARES Act provided important unemployment benefits and cash assistance as well as an eviction moratorium that helped many pandemic-impacted renters, undocumented and mixed-status families were ineligible for assistance and the moratorium ended in July of 2020, leaving renters unprotected until the CDC enacted its moratorium in early September of last year. Moreover, absent meaningful financial assistance to pay back-rent, the moratorium simply delayed eviction, yet the federal government provided no rent relief until December.

Swiftly clearing rent debts is urgently needed to stave off mass eviction, which would directly harm economically vulnerable families and their communities and have long-term ripple effects throughout communities and our economy. Eviction has significant and undeniable negative consequences for mental and physical health, educational outcomes, and household finances. Amidst the continued spread of the Delta variant, evictions will have disastrous impacts on public health: Research during the pandemic found that states that allowed evictions to proceed had more Covid infections and deaths than those with eviction moratoria. And particularly at a time when rents are increasing everywhere, eviction will increase homelessness, with its devastating consequences for health and well-being and significant costs for local governments.

Forgiving rent debt is also essential to an equitable and people-centered recovery: one in which those hardest-hit by the pandemic can fully participate and thrive.

Policymakers Must Take Immediate Action to Prevent Eviction and Clear Rent Debt

The new data underscores the magnitude of the rent debt crisis in communities across the country and the urgency of providing eviction protections and distributing rental assistance to avert the specter of mass eviction and skyrocketing homelessness. Targeted support is particularly needed in places with the most low-income renters with debt, slowest distribution of rental assistance, and weakest tenant protections. But no community is immune to the rent debt crisis. Policymakers everywhere should partner with community-based organizations that have been working with the communities most impacted by both the pandemic and systemic racism to address this immediate crisis and implement long-term solutions to housing insecurity.

At the federal level, Congress should act immediately to pass a national eviction moratorium that lasts through the end of the pandemic. This will give states and local governments the necessary time to deliver rental assistance to those in need. HUD and FHFA should enact an eviction moratorium for all renters living in all federally assisted properties and urge the administration to explore and use any authority it has to institute a moratorium or other eviction prevention requirements on properties that have a federally backed mortgage or multifamily loan. The Department of Justice and Treasury should use their authority to ensure that renters eligible for relief get assistance quickly and are not moved through the court eviction process.

State and local governments and their courts must double down on the important work they are doing by partnering with directly impacted communities and renter advocates to pass and strengthen eviction and utilities shutoff moratoria, streamline the delivery of rent relief, provide access to free legal assistance for renters facing eviction, establish eviction diversion programs. In the absence of moratoria, they should require landlords to apply for rental assistance as a condition of filing evictions (for any reason, not only nonpayment of rent), ensure that renters who’ve applied for assistance are protected from eviction, and extend rent repayment periods for renters who do not receive assistance.

Localities should disaggregate their data on rent relief program performance by geography, income, and race/ethnicity, and make it accessible to housing assistance providers and the general public. Presenting this data in dashboards is critical but insufficient: the data should be provided in downloadable spreadsheets or databases that can be analyzed to inform outreach and assistance efforts and hold leaders accountable for delivering assistance. Localities should also track and democratize data on evictions and rental ownership patterns with a focus on which landlords are responsible for evictions in order to develop long-term policy solutions to prevent eviction and stabilize renters, particularly as recent data indicate an increase in institutional investor ownership through the pandemic and link between corporate landlords and higher rates of eviction.

For more local policy ideas and examples, see https://ourhomesourhealth.org.

Rent Debt in America: Stabilizing Renters Is Key to Equitable Recovery

Our rent debt dashboard, produced in partnership with the Right to the City Alliance, equips policymakers and advocates with data on the extent and nature of rent debt in their communities to inform policies to eliminate debt and prevent the looming crisis of mass eviction.

By Sarah Treuhaft, Michelle Huang, Alex Ramiller, Justin Scoggins, Abbie Langston, and Selena Tan

Mounting rent debt and the potential for mass eviction is one of the most pressing equity issues created by the Covid-19 pandemic. The vast majority of the millions of renters who are in debt are low-wage workers —  disproportionately people of color — who’ve suffered job and income losses due to the pandemic. With the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the federal emergency eviction moratorium on August 26, 2021, these renters are at imminent risk of eviction and homelessness. Allowing an eviction tsunami to take place would be a moral travesty and a policy failure that would deepen inequities at a moment when the federal government has prioritized addressing systemic racism and ensuring an equitable recovery.

To inform policymaking and advocacy to prevent eviction and eliminate rent debt, the National Equity Atlas and the Right to the City Alliance — a network of community-based organizations working in 45 cities and 26 states to prevent displacement, expand affordable housing, and build just, sustainable cities for all —  launched this rent debt dashboard in April 2021. 

The dashboard provides current data on the number and characteristics of renters behind on rent for the US, states, and 15 metro areas, as well as estimates of the amount of back rent owed. With this release, we’ve added a new “Relief Map” to the dashboard tracking the distribution of federal emergency rental assistance in states, counties, and cities. We’ve also expanded our rent debt estimates to cover all states and counties in the US as well as 562 cities. To provide disaggregated data for sub-national geographies, we combine the two most recent waves of the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey and use the individual-level microdata in the Pulse public-use file, which is released two weeks after the tabular data. The dashboard data is refreshed approximately every two weeks. Find our full methodology here.

This analysis shares key insights from the dashboard, incorporating data from the July 21 - August 2 Pulse survey, along with action steps that local, state, and federal policymakers must take immediately to keep people in their homes. 

This is an update to our April 21, May 25, July 7, and August 10 analyses. The next dashboard update will be directly after the September 8 microdata release.

Rent debt remains at crisis levels: more than 6 million households are behind on rent, including about 7 million children.

As of the first week of August 2021, 6.2 million renter households — 15 percent of all renters — were behind on their rent payments. Half of these households (51 percent) are families with children and we estimate there are 6.9 million children living in these households. This represents an enormous number of renters and their children who are now at risk of eviction and displacement, approaching the scale of the 2008 foreclosure crisis in which nearly 8 million households lost their homes.

Data on the share of households behind on rent comes directly from the Census Pulse survey, which has been asking the question “Is this household currently caught up on rent payments?” every two weeks since mid-August 2020.

The rent debt crisis has not abated over the past four months.

Fourteen percent of renter households were behind on rent the first time the Pulse survey posed this question. The share behind climbed up to 19 percent at the height of the pandemic and economic crisis in January, then crawled back down to 14 percent in March, where it has lingered for the past four months. This is likely about twice the pre-pandemic baseline: the 2017 American Housing Survey found that about seven percent of renters were unable to pay some or all of their rent.


Under the Trump administration, the federal government did not provide any direct resources for rental assistance for the first nine months of the crisis, but in December and January, Congress allocated $46.5 billion toward emergency rental assistance to be distributed by state, local, and tribal governments. By the end of July, however, only $5.1 billion of this rental assistance had been distributed. As our trend data show, these resources are not yet having a measurable impact on renters who are struggling to get out of debt. 

There are six states where at least one in four low-income renters are behind on rent.

The share of renters who are behind on rent is much higher than the national average in some communities. At least one in four low-income renters are behind on rent in Georgia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, and the District of Columbia. New York has the highest share of low-income renters with arrears (31 percent), followed by New Jersey (30 percent), and  South Carolina (28 percent). Less than ten percent of low-income renters owe back rent in the states of Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming.

In terms of sheer numbers, the most populous states are home to the most at-risk households: there are 2.6 million low-income renter households with debt living in California, New York, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Illinois.

Among the 15 metros included in the Pulse survey, New York has the highest share of low-income renters with debt (32 percent), followed by Houston and Washington DC (28 percent). New York is home to the most low-income renters with debt by far (539,600 households), followed by Los Angeles (226,600 households).


Nationally, we estimate that rent debt amounts to $16.8 billion.

According to our estimates, total rent debt is $16.8 billion nationwide. On average, renters are behind three months’ rent and owe $2,730, but these averages mask much higher debts and levels of need for many renters, especially those with the lowest incomes. This is due to two factors. First, renters in higher-cost communities are paying higher rents thus will owe higher amounts: the average debt in the San Francisco Bay Area is $4,660. Second, the lowest income renters are more likely to be much further behind on rent and owe the most back rent. Based on the Pulse survey’s newly-added question about how many months renters with arrears are behind, 44 percent of renters are one month behind, 30 percent are two months behind, 12 percent are three months behind, 12 percent are between four and seven months behind, and 10.5% are eight to 16 months behind. Among low-income renters, one in four (25 percent) are at least four months behind, compared to 13 percent of renters with incomes above $50,000 per year. Low-income renters who are further behind owe greater debts: those who are eight or more months behind owe $9,435 on average (and in the Bay Area, its an average of $14,076). 

The vast majority of those who are behind on rent are low-income households who lost jobs and income during the pandemic.

The overwhelming majority of households with debt — 84 percent — are low-income households with earnings of less than $50,000 per year, which is generally the group targeted by federal rental assistance programs. Nationwide, one in five low-income households are behind on rent. 

Today’s rent debt crisis is entirely a consequence of the pandemic’s economic fallout: 68 percent of those who were behind on rent in May had lost employment income at some point during the pandemic, according to the May 12-24 Pulse survey. As our other research has shown, low-wage workers, who are disproportionately workers of color, were hardest hit by pandemic job losses and are most likely to suffer from rent debt. Currently, the majority of renters with arrears were not employed within the past week (55 percent).

Renters have made tremendous sacrifices and tradeoffs to stay current on rent, including foregoing medical care, delaying payment of other bills, eating cheaper (and potentially less healthy) food, and voluntarily moving in with friends and family — increasing their risk of Covid-19 exposure while losing their housing stability. The May 12-24 Pulse survey data showed that among low-income households who lost employment income at some time during the pandemic, 73 percent were current on rent. This underscores how paying rent has remained a top priority for all renters throughout the pandemic, despite the moratoria on evictions.

Renters of color have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic and are more likely to owe back rent, making them more vulnerable to eviction risk.

Workers of color were hardest hit by the pandemic job losses and thus more likely to fall behind on rent through no fault of their own. Two-thirds of renters with arrears (66 percent) are people of color. Today, 26 percent of Black renters, 19 percent of Latinx renters, 19 percent of multiracial renters, and 17 percent of Asian or Pacific Islander renters are behind on rent, compared to 10 percent of White renters. 

Among renters with arrears, Black renters disproportionately expect to be evicted by October: 56 percent of Black tenants with rent debt say they are very or somewhat likely to be evicted, compared with 45 percent of their White counterparts. Other research has shown that Black renters, especially Black women with children, are more frequently evicted by their landlords.


In the United States, renters have little housing security, paltry savings, and few legal protections from exorbitant rent increases or eviction (outside of a few states and cities with strong tenant movements). The rent debt crisis adds another layer to these preexisting inequities. Renters were already in crisis when the pandemic began: about a third of White renters and just under half of Black and Latinx renters were both economically insecure (earning less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level) and rent burdened (paying more than 30 percent of their income on rent). Gender is another important axis: women of color are most likely to be rent burdened, and disproportionately face eviction.

Rent debt is also contributing to the growth of the racial wealth gap. Historic and continuing housing and lending discrimination, as well as systemic inequities in the labor market, have contributed to large racial inequities in homeownership. (Atlas data show that seven in 10 White households own their homes while the majority of Black and Latinx households rent.) While renters, predominantly people of color, currently hold $17 billion in rent debt alone (not including utilities and other debts), homeowners, who are predominantly White, saw a $1.9 trillion increase in their home equity from the first quarter of 2020 to the first quarter of 2021 as competition for a constrained supply of homes drove prices up. 

Rental assistance is not sufficiently reaching tenants in need. 

Over the past month, the federal government has sought to speed up the distribution of rental assistance and the pace picked up in July, but only 11 percent of the allocated resources have been distributed as of the end of July. Our analysis of Treasury data tracking the distribution of the first round of assistance (ERA1) finds that there are 191 cities and counties where less than 25 percent of the funds have been distributed. This list includes many communities with large populations of low-income renters, such as Broward County, Florida; Chicago; Dallas (city and county); King County, Washington; and Los Angeles (city and county).

With the sluggish distribution of rental assistance, millions of renters are in limbo. 

The rollout of emergency rental assistance has been riddled with challenges including complicated and confusing application processes, which the Treasury is now seeking to streamline, as well as the refusal of some landlords to participate. In August, the Pulse survey added a question about the status of rental assistance for households with arrears. This new dataset provides insight into how these programs are working and illustrates many of the challenges that renters face in accessing these resources. Nationwide, one in five renters with debt (22 percent) have applied for rental assistance and are awaiting a response. Three in five (62 percent) have not yet applied for rental assistance. One in ten (12 percent) applied for and were denied rental assistance.

Rent is not the only debt accumulating for renters.

While our analysis focuses on back rent, renters’ pandemic debt crisis extends far beyond their obligations to their landlords. Many renters are borrowing from family and friends or taking on other forms of debt in order to make rent and pay for household expenses. A University of Pennsylvania survey of California renters who applied for rental assistance found that the majority had about $3,050 in “shadow debt” they borrowed to pay their rent that is not covered by relief programs. 

According to the Pulse survey, among households behind on rent, 51 percent borrowed from friends or family to pay rent, compared with 14 percent of households current on rent. About 30 percent of all renter households used a credit card (or some other form of debt) to pay rent. Many are behind on other bills, such as utilities or car payments. A survey of water debt in California found that 1.6 million households owed $1 billion on water bills — $500 on average; and in Massachusetts half a million households were 90 days behind on their utilities, averaging $1,000 in debt.

Eliminating Rent Debt is an Equity Imperative and a Moral, Economic, and Public Health Necessity

Today’s rent debt crisis is a microcosm of the wretched inequality of the pandemic: millions of renter households — most of them people of color — now face the burden of owing back rent and the risk of being evicted due to a public health crisis that upended their finances. These unequal consequences are not random, but the predictable result of past policies that left millions of families with no savings to draw upon in the face of an economic shock, as well as the failed early policy response to the pandemic. Although the CARES Act provided important unemployment benefits and cash assistance as well as an eviction moratorium that helped many pandemic-impacted renters, undocumented and mixed-status families were ineligible for assistance and the moratorium ended in July of 2020, leaving renters unprotected until the CDC enacted its moratorium in early September of last year. Moreover, absent meaningful financial assistance to pay back-rent, the moratorium simply delayed eviction, yet the federal government provided no rent relief until December.

Swiftly clearing rent debts is urgently needed to stave off mass eviction, which would directly harm economically vulnerable families and their communities and have long-term ripple effects throughout communities and our economy. Eviction has significant and undeniable negative consequences for mental and physical health, educational outcomes, and household finances. Amidst the continued spread of the Delta variant, evictions will have disastrous impacts on public health: Research during the pandemic found that states that allowed evictions to proceed had more Covid infections and deaths than those with eviction moratoria. And particularly at a time when rents are increasing everywhere, eviction will increase homelessness, with its devastating consequences for health and well-being and significant costs for local governments. 

Forgiving rent debt is also essential to an equitable and people-centered recovery: one in which those hardest-hit by the pandemic can fully participate and thrive.

Policymakers Must Take Immediate Action to Prevent Eviction and Clear Rent Debt 

The new data underscores the magnitude of the rent debt crisis in communities across the country and the urgency of providing eviction protections and distributing rental assistance to avert the specter of mass eviction and skyrocketing homelessness. Targeted support is particularly needed in places with the most low-income renters with debt, slowest distribution of rental assistance, and weakest tenant protections. But no community is immune to the rent debt crisis. Policymakers everywhere should partner with community-based organizations that have been working with the communities most impacted by both the pandemic and systemic racism to address this immediate crisis and implement long-term solutions to housing insecurity.

At the federal level, Congress should act immediately to pass a national eviction moratorium that lasts through the end of the pandemic. This will give states and local governments the necessary time to deliver rental assistance to those in need. HUD and FHFA should enact an eviction moratorium for all renters living in all federally assisted properties and urge the administration to explore and use any authority it has to institute a moratorium or other eviction prevention requirements on properties that have a federally backed mortgage or multifamily loan. The Department of Justice and Treasury should use their authority to ensure that renters eligible for relief get assistance quickly and are not moved through the court eviction process.

State and local governments and their courts must double down on the important work they are doing by partnering with directly impacted communities and renter advocates to pass and strengthen eviction and utilities shutoff moratoria, streamline the delivery of rent relief, provide access to free legal assistance for renters facing eviction, establish eviction diversion programs. In the absence of moratoria, they should require landlords to apply for rental assistance as a condition of filing evictions (for any reason, not only nonpayment of rent), ensure that renters who’ve applied for assistance are protected from eviction, and extend rent repayment periods for renters who do not receive assistance. 

Localities should disaggregate their data on rent relief program performance by geography, income, and race/ethnicity, and make it accessible to housing assistance providers and the general public. Presenting this data in dashboards is critical but insufficient: the data should be provided in downloadable spreadsheets or databases that can be analyzed to inform outreach and assistance efforts and hold leaders accountable for delivering assistance. Localities should also track and democratize data on evictions and rental ownership patterns with a focus on which landlords are responsible for evictions in order to develop long-term policy solutions to prevent eviction and stabilize renters, particularly as recent data indicate an increase in institutional investor ownership through the pandemic and link between corporate landlords and higher rates of eviction.

 

For more local policy ideas and examples, see https://ourhomesourhealth.org.

Rent Debt in America: Stabilizing Renters Is Key to Equitable Recovery

Our rent debt dashboard, produced in partnership with the Right to the City Alliance, equips policymakers and advocates with data on the extent and nature of rent debt in their communities to inform policies to eliminate debt and prevent the specter of mass eviction.

By Sarah Treuhaft, Michelle Huang, Alex Ramiller, Justin Scoggins, Abbie Langston, and Jamila Henderson

Mounting rent debt and the potential for mass eviction is one of the most pressing equity issues created by the Covid-19 pandemic. The vast majority of renters who are in debt are low-wage workers — disproportionately people of color — who’ve suffered job and income losses due to the pandemic. As of August 3rd, the federal eviction moratorium was temporarily extended to October 3rd for a more narrow subset of renters. While this extended order will cover the majority of renter households, when the order expires at the beginning of October, the renter households that still hold debt and lack protection by state or local moratoria will be at imminent risk of eviction and homelessness. Allowing this eviction tsunami to take place would be a moral travesty and a policy failure that would deepen inequities at a moment when the federal government has prioritized addressing systemic racism and ensuring an equitable recovery.

To inform policymaking and advocacy to prevent eviction and eliminate rent debt, the National Equity Atlas and the Right to the City Alliance launched a rent debt dashboard in April 2021 with near real-time data on the number and characteristics of renters behind on rent for the US, most states (currently 40 states), and 15 metro areas.* The dashboard also provides estimates of the amount of back rent owed for these geographies, as well as estimates for the number of households with debt and the amount owed for all counties in the states. Drawing current data from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey and the University of Southern California Center for Economic and Social Research's Understanding Coronavirus in America survey, the dashboard data is refreshed approximately every two weeks. Find our full methodology here.

Born out of the need for accessible, current data to inform local and state campaigns, the dashboard was produced in partnership with the Right to the City Alliance, a network of community-based organizations working in 45 cities and 26 states to prevent displacement, expand affordable housing, and build just, sustainable cities for all.

This analysis shares key insights from the dashboard, based on the June 23 - July 5 Pulse survey, along with action steps that local, state, and federal policymakers can take to stabilize the people most negatively impacted by the pandemic and facilitate equitable recovery by addressing the challenge of rent debt.

This is an update to our April 21, May 25, and July 7 analyses. We will be updating our dashboard and this analysis after the August 11 Pulse data release.

Rent debt continues to be a significant issue, with 6.4 million renter households behind on rent.

As of the first week of July 2021 6.4 million renters — 15 percent of all renter households — were behind on their rent payments. The federal eviction moratorium from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention enacted in September 2020 provided these renters with some protection from eviction but will expire on October 3. And even now, the temporary eviction moratorium order does not apply to all renter households who might be at risk. A few states and cities still have moratoria banning eviction for nonpayment of rent. However, most renters with arrears live in the vast majority of states and cities that do not have moratoria and they are at imminent risk of eviction and homelessness. As a point of comparison, nearly 8 million households lost their homes to foreclosure due to the 2008 financial crisis.

The Pulse survey has been asking the question “Is this household currently caught up on rent payments?” every two weeks since August 2020. Nationally, the current share of renters with debt is down from a high of 19 percent in mid-January, but remains far higher than the pre-pandemic baseline. While data on rent debt is sparse, the 2017 American Housing Survey found that about seven percent of renters were unable to pay some or all of their rent.

South Carolina and Georgia have the highest share of renters with arrears among the 40 states analyzed.

The share of renters who are behind on rent is much higher than the national average in some states and metro areas. Among the 40 states with sufficient data to include in our analysis, South Carolina has the highest share of renters with arrears (28 percent), and at least 20 percent of renters are behind in the states of Georgia, New York, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. Idaho and Montana have the lowest shares of renters with debt, at 6 and 4 percent, respectively.

Among the 15 metros included in the Pulse survey, New York and Riverside have the highest share of renters with debt (24 percent), followed by Seattle (21 percent), and Atlanta and Philadelphia (both at 19 percent). Phoenix and Miami are tied for the lowest share of renters in arrears among the 15 metros (8 percent).

Nationally, we estimate that rent debt amounts to about $21 billion.

According to our estimates, households that are behind on rent owe $3,300 on average, for a total of $21.3 billion nationwide. As this average suggests, the majority of households who are behind owe one or two months of back rent. However, a smaller but not insignificant number of renters have not been able to pay rent for many months and owe much larger amounts. Our analysis of the University of Southern California’s Understanding Coronavirus in America national survey finds that approximately 28 percent are one month behind, 22 percent are two months behind, 15 percent are three months behind, and the remaining 35 percent are more than three months behind.

The average amount owed depends primarily on local housing costs, so it varies significantly across states and metros. Among states, Hawaii has the highest average rent debt per behind-household ($5,600), while Arkansas has the lowest ($2,100). At the metro level, San Francisco and Washington DC have the highest average debts ($5,800 and $5,200, respectively), while Detroit has the lowest average debt by far ($2,500), followed by Phoenix ($3,200).

Our national estimates of rent debt fall somewhere in the middle of existing projections in terms of total debt, and on the lower end in terms of per household amount. In January, Moody’s Analytics projected that 6.3 million renters would owe a total of $33 billion in rent debt by March, at an average of $5,282 per household. Stout Analytics estimated that between two and five million renter households owed between $13 and $24 billion as of January. Both Moody’s and Stout used the Pulse survey to inform their estimates of the number of households behind. Using a very different methodology based on modeling employment losses, income supports, and spending choices at the household level, and not incorporating the Pulse survey data, the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia estimated that 1.8 million renter households would owe $11 billion in rent in March, at approximately $6,100 per household.

With the incipient recovery, the number of renters with debt has declined nationwide since its peak in January, but has remained at 14 percent since late March. Most states and metros are following this decline.

Nationwide, the share of renters with debt trended downward from a high of 19 percent in January to 14 percent in late March, and has held steady around 14 percent for the past couple of months. Nearly all states and metros followed this general downward trend since their peaks. Between January and the beginning of July, the rates of renters behind on rent rose in only nine states, the District of Columbia, and four metro.

Among states, Georgia saw the largest spike in arrearages (from 18 to 25 percent behind), followed by Oregon (from nine to 12 percent). Missouri saw the most improvement (from 27 to 12 percent behind).

Among metros, Seattle saw the highest increase (from 13 to 21 percent behind). Dallas saw the greatest decrease (from 27 to 10 percent).

The vast majority of those who are behind on rent are low-income households who’ve lost jobs and income during the pandemic.

Today’s rent debt crisis is entirely a consequence of the pandemic’s economic fallout: 68 percent of those who were behind on rent in May had lost employment income at some point during the pandemic, according to the May 12-24 Pulse survey which asked respondents this question. As our other research has shown, low-wage workers, who are disproportionately workers of color, were hardest hit by pandemic job losses and are most likely to suffer from rent debt. Among households with rent debt, 81 percent are low-income (with earnings less than $50,000 per year) and 64 percent are renters of color. The majority (51 percent) are currently unemployed.

Renters have made tremendous sacrifices and tradeoffs to stay current on rent, including foregoing medical care, delaying payment of other bills, eating cheaper (and potentially less healthy) food, and voluntarily moving in with friends and family — increasing risk of Covid-19 exposure while losing their housing stability. One of the most surprising facts in the data is the high share of low-income renters who are paid in full: Among low-income households that lost employment income during the pandemic, 73 percent were not behind on rent as of May (also according to the May 12-24 Pulse survey).* This underscores how paying rent has remained a top priority for all renters throughout the pandemic, despite the moratoria on evictions.

Rent is not the only debt accumulating for renters.

While our analysis focuses on back rent, renters’ pandemic debt crisis extends far beyond their obligations to their landlords. Many renters are borrowing from family and friends or taking on other forms of debt in order to make rent and pay for household expenses. Among households behind on rent, 46 percent borrowed from friends or family to pay rent, compared with just 15 percent of households current on rent. About 30 percent of all renter households, whether behind or current on rent, used a credit card (or some other form of debt) to pay rent. Many are behind on other bills, such as utilities or car payments. A survey of water debt in California found that 1.6 million households owed $1 billion on water bills — $500 on average.

Renters of color have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic and are more likely to owe back rent, making them more vulnerable to eviction risk.

In the United States, renters are already a more vulnerable population as a whole: they have little housing security, paltry savings, and few legal protections from exorbitant rent increases or eviction (outside of a few states and cities with strong tenant movements). Historic and continuing housing and lending discrimination, as well as systemic inequities in our labor market, have contributed to large racial inequities in homeownership. Atlas data show that seven in 10 White households own their homes while the majority of Black, Latinx, and multiracial households rent.

The challenge of unaffordable rents and flat wages add to this underlying housing insecurity among renters. Renters were already in crisis when the pandemic began: about a third of White renters and just under half of Black and Latinx renters were both economically insecure (earning less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level) and rent burdened (paying more than 30 percent of their income on rent). Gender is another important axis: women of color are most likely to be rent burdened, and disproportionately face eviction.

Covid-19 added yet another layer of inequity to these preexisting disparities. Today, 24 percent of Black renters, 17 percent of Asian or Pacific Islander and Latinx renters, and 18 percent of multiracial renters are behind on rent, compared to 9 percent of White renters.

Eliminating Rent Debt is an Equity Imperative and a Moral, Economic, and Public Health Necessity

Today’s rent debt crisis is a microcosm of the wretched inequality of the pandemic: millions of renter households – most of them people of color – now face the burden of owing back rent due to a public health crisis that had extremely concentrated negative economic impacts on low-wage workers. These unequal consequences are not random, but the predictable result of past policies that left millions of families with no savings to draw upon in the face of an economic shock, as well as the failed early policy response to the pandemic. Although the CARES Act provided important unemployment benefits and cash assistance as well as an eviction moratorium that helped many pandemic-impacted renters, undocumented and mixed-status families were ineligible for assistance and the moratorium ended in July, leaving renters unprotected until the CDC enacted its moratorium in early September. Moreover, absent meaningful financial assistance to pay back rent, the moratoria simply delay eviction. Yet, the federal government provided no rent relief until December, nine months into the pandemic.

The magnitude of rent debt is a crisis in and of itself and the leading indicator of a potential eviction tsunami that would be a humanitarian disaster. Rent debt adds a heavy burden onto families who are already financially insecure and struggling during the pandemic, further limiting their choices and creating additional stress. It’s also contributing to the growth of the racial wealth gap: while renters, predominantly people of color, currently hold $20 billion in debt, homeowners, who are predominantly White, saw a $1.9 trillion increase in their home equity from the first quarter of 2020 to the first quarter of 2021 as competition for a constrained supply of homes drove prices up. At a time when racial equity is at the forefront of the policy debate, eliminating rent debt that has unfairly and unequally accrued for people of color should be an urgent priority.

Clearing rent debt is also key to staving off the specter of mass eviction, which would directly harm economically vulnerable families and their communities and have long-term ripple effects throughout our economy. Eviction has significant negative consequences for mental and physical health, educational outcomes, and household finances. Some evicted families and individuals would become homeless, with devastating consequences for long-term health and well-being as well as significant costs for local governments.

The health impacts of eviction and homelessness are even more severe during a pandemic. Research during the pandemic found that states that allowed evictions to proceed had more Covid infections and deaths than those with eviction moratoria. Although the vaccination campaign is in full swing and Covid cases are low in most states, there are hotspots with high infection rates and the longer-term picture remains uncertain.

Forgiving rent debt is also essential to an equitable and people-centered recovery: one in which those hardest-hit by the pandemic can fully participate and thrive.

For an Equitable and Just Recovery, Policymakers Must Clear Rent Debt and Prevent Eviction

Recognizing the catastrophic impact of mass eviction, policymakers have responded, albeit belatedly, by enacting eviction moratoria and establishing rent relief funds. The federal CDC eviction moratorium scheduled to expire last month was temporarily extended through October 3 for most renter households, and the American Rescue Plan (ARP) passed in January provided $21.5 billion for rental assistance programs as well as $350 billion in fiscal support for state and local governments, some of which could be allocated toward debt relief. The December 27 coronavirus relief bill also provided $25 billion in funding for rental assistance.

With the federal moratorium expiring in just a couple months and many state and local emergency rent relief programs supported by the ARP just getting off the ground, there is an urgent need to clear the debts of all tenants in need to prevent mass eviction. Throughout the pandemic, rent relief programs have not been reaching all of those in need. These programs must be structured to meet the scale of the crisis, both to efficiently deliver resources and to ensure that resources are distributed equitably, reaching the low-income renters of color who were both hardest hit by the pandemic and already housing insecure before Covid-19. Renters also need stronger eviction protections, including access to free legal assistance and eviction diversion programs. States and localities should extend their eviction moratoria until the pandemic rent debt crisis has subsided.

As they design rent relief programs, local and state policymakers should implement policies that adhere to the following equitable, common sense principles:

  • No renter, regardless of immigration status, should be evicted or burdened with years of debt for rent that they were unable to pay during the pandemic.
  • Rent debt due to the pandemic should be fully forgiven and should not be conditioned on landlords’ acceptance of funds or participation in programs.
  • Financial assistance to landlords should address the fiscal needs of landlords in danger of going out of business due to lost rent, with a particular focus on keeping small community-based landlords and nonprofit affordable housing operators solvent, rather than attempting to achieve full rent replacement for all landlords. California’s program, negotiated with the state’s landlord association, provides an example: landlords receive 80 percent of back rent owed.
  • Local municipalities’ authority to pass stronger eviction and debt protection laws should be preserved.
  • Landlords should continue to fulfill their legal obligations to tenants regardless of whether they receive assistance, including the duty to maintain habitable premises, refrain from harassment and retaliation against tenants, and respecting tenants’ legal rights.

    For more local policy ideas and examples, see https://ourhomesourhealth.org

    * The number of renter respondents to the Pulse survey for Arkansas, Delaware, Maine, Mississippi, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming was insufficient to produce reliable data to include in the dashboard.

    Pioneer Study Reveals Broken Promises of California’s Proposition 22

    Dear Atlas users,

    The Supreme Court’s rejection of the federal eviction moratorium threatens to push millions of renters out of their homes. As our Rent Debt Dashboard shows, over 6 million renters —  overwhelmingly low-income households of color who have recently lost employment — owe more than $21 billion in back rent, putting them at immediate risk of eviction. Just 10 percent of state rental assistance funds have been distributed, while many who have applied wait in limbo. The Atlas team continues to equip local advocates with data and research to make the case for robust renter protections. We’re currently analyzing the newest rent debt data and will release our findings and analysis on Monday, August 30. Here are some more updates: 

    New Report: Most California Rideshare Drivers Are Not Receiving Health-Care Benefits under Prop 22

    Nearly a year after tech industry giants won passage of a law that exempted them from classifying millions of their drivers as full-time employees, we produced a study in partnership with Rideshare Drivers United to analyze the impact of Prop 22 on rideshare and delivery drivers’ access to health care. Our survey of drivers found that just 10 percent of respondents are receiving health insurance stipends from Uber or Lyft, and 16 percent have no insurance — double the national uninsurance rate. We also found stark racial inequities: Latinx respondents are less likely to know about the stipends and are also more likely to be uninsured. With Prop 22 ruled unconstitutional last week, our research underscores the need to overturn this harmful legislation and prevent its spread to other states where Uber and Lyft are already campaigning for identical legislation. 

    New Analysis Finds that Bay Area Residents of Color Remain Underrepresented in Elected Positions

    Centering the experiences of the people most impacted by structural racism is an essential component of equitable policymaking. The Bay Area Equity Atlas team and Bay Rising are excited to share our latest analysis on the diversity of elected officials in the region, which shows that the region has seen steady growth in electeds of color, but people of color remain highly underrepresented. Strategies like campaign finance reform, leadership development programs, district-based elections, and expanded voter education and voting options can also foster a fairer and more inclusive Bay Area. Join us on September 9 for a webinar to learn more about this research and hear local leaders — like Shanthi Gonzales of Oakland Unified School District and Kimi Lee of Bay Rising — discuss strategies to build political power among communities of color in the region. You can register here. 

    In the News

    This month, our report on the impacts of California’s Prop 22 were featured in the SF ExaminerKQEDThe American ProspectBloomberg Law, and Law360. Our rent debt analysis were featured on KMOV4Multi-Housing NewsCatholic HeraldBollyInsideWOSU Public MediaNorthern Nevada Business WeeklyABC BaltimorePolitiFactNBC5, Maryland MattersTexas News TodayThe CurrentMarket Watch, the Nevada Independent, and News Nation, among others. See the complete list of media coverage here.

    - The National Equity Atlas team at PolicyLink and the USC Equity Research Institute (ERI)
     

    Most California Rideshare Drivers Are Not Receiving Health-Care Benefits under Proposition 22

    A survey of more than 500 drivers reveals that California rideshare drivers, particularly Latinx drivers, are struggling to access health insurance and a safe workplace.

    By Eliza McCullough and Brian Dolber of Rideshare Drivers United*

    In 2020, Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and other tech industry giants led a referendum campaign to exempt themselves from classifying their workers as employees under a California state law known as AB5. Spending a record-shattering $220 million, the companies argued that Proposition 22 would protect California’s app-based workers’ “flexibility” while providing benefits, including health insurance stipends, and safety trainings. Proposition 22 passed on the November 2020 ballot, with 58 percent of the vote. 

    In fact, the companies’ victory stripped drivers of basic employment rights, including health-care benefits, an hourly minimum wage, and health and safety standards. Labor law professor Veena Dubal called Proposition 22 “the most dangerous law to workers since Taft-Hartley,” which dramatically restricted unions, arguing that it sets a dangerous precedent for employment standards across industries. 

    While the industry campaign focused on Prop 22’s worker protections, these protections are narrowly defined in the law and are not equal to the legal protections given to employees. Drivers are eligible for a partial stipend to cover health insurance premiums, and only if they meet multiple qualifications. [1] Prop 22 also required that companies administer safety trainings to all drivers, which must include information about how to report instances of sexual harassment or assault. This requirement, however, is much weaker than protections employees have under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. With the outbreak of the coronavirus, the loss of guaranteed health insurance and workplace safety standards have caused unprecedented health risks for drivers.

    To understand whether drivers are accessing benefits, we conducted a survey of California-based drivers who are members of Rideshare Drivers United (RDU), asking them about their access to health insurance, health insurance stipends, and safety trainings. The survey was conducted between May 19 and June 12, 2021, and was completed by 531 drivers. Given the racial inequities apparent in the survey data, we sought to better understand the experiences of drivers of color with follow-up interviews. We conducted 10 interviews with uninsured drivers of color who have driven since January 2021. Two of these interviews were conducted in Spanish, with primarily Spanish-speaking drivers. See the endnotes for the Spanish version of quotes from these interviews.

    Our survey revealed the following:

    • Just 10 percent of respondents are receiving a stipend while 40 percent of respondents either never heard about their ability to qualify for the stipends or weren’t sure if they had received notification. 
    • Drivers are either turning to public health-care options or forgoing health insurance altogether: Twenty-nine percent of respondents rely on Medi-Cal. Sixteen percent of all respondents are uninsured which is double the national uninsurance rate
    • Latinx respondents are less likely to know about the stipends and are also more likely to be uninsured. 
    • One in six respondents have not received a safety training from a rideshare or delivery company.

    Many drivers we interviewed expressed frustration with the challenges in getting insurance under Prop 22, and most saw it as part of a larger pattern of deception and disregard for the workforce by Uber and Lyft. In some cases, drivers reported significant hardship in obtaining medical care. 

    To immediately improve access to health care and workplace safety, we recommend removing health-care stipend restrictions, improving transparency of stipend rollout, targeting outreach to drivers who are more likely to be uninsured, and improving implementation of safety trainings. Long-term policy changes are also needed to create a rideshare industry that provides quality jobs. California legislators should repeal Prop 22 and other state legislators should prevent the passage of Prop 22 clones. The federal government also has an important role to play in ensuring just working conditions and a living wage for all gig workers through policies such as the PRO Act as well as a single-payer, national health insurance program.

    A majority people-of-color and immigrant workforce.

    Among our survey respondents, 65 percent are people of color, 52 percent were born outside the US, and 37 percent speak a language other than English as their primary language. Eighty-five percent of respondents drive for Uber, 68 percent drive for Lyft, and 59 percent of respondents drive for a food delivery service (like Uber Eats, Postmates, or DoorDash). Sixty-six percent of respondents drive for more than one platform and 75 percent have driven since January 1, 2021 when Prop 22 took effect. Fifty-one percent of respondents were over the age of 50 and 21 percent of respondents were over age 60, making their access to health insurance particularly important. There is no quality source of driver demographic data to assess the representativeness of this sample. However, a recent study of San Francisco drivers shows that like our respondent population, the majority of drivers are people of color, immigrants, over 30 years old, and drive for multiple platforms.

    Uber and Lyft are failing to adequately notify their drivers about their ability to qualify for health insurance stipends.

    Forty percent of drivers surveyed do not recall being notified about the stipends, with large differences across racial/ethnic groups. Latinx drivers are least likely to know about the stipends: about half of Latinx drivers don’t recall receiving any notification or aren’t sure.

    One 31-year-old male Latinx driver in Los Angeles noted, “No one ever reached out and said what it was.” The lack of communication from the companies does not surprise him. “To be honest, they don’t care about drivers. I knew [the promises of Prop 22 weren’t] going to come true.” 

    Those who were notified said they received emails or text messages from the companies. Information alone, however, has not meant accessibility. For example, one 36-year-old male, Spanish-speaking driver in Los Angeles, said, “I received an email with the information. On the app there is also the hours tallied that you need in order to qualify for the voucher. I also worked DoorDash during the pandemic. I was jumping all over the platforms, Uber, LYFT, DoorDash. With Uber I have to spend 20 hours with a passenger to qualify, weekly. They lied to drivers about the medical insurance because I'm out here working and I don’t have insurance.” [2] Narrow eligibility requirements, on top of poor communication, has made accessing insurance stipends difficult for many drivers, especially drivers of color. 

    Prop 22 reduced access to health care: fewer than one in five drivers are receiving health-care stipends.

    Prop 22 requirements have not made up for drivers’ lost right to health care as the vast majority of drivers do not receive health-care stipends. This is largely due to the narrow requirements to qualify for stipends under Prop 22. In order to qualify, drivers must not receive health care through Medicare, Medi-Cal, another job, or a partner or spouse. Drivers also must drive at least 15 engaged hours per week on one app to receive the minimum stipend. Drivers have also reported that they must “show a proof of health insurance within a certain time frame prior to applying for the stipend,” indicating that drivers who are uninsured may also not qualify. Together, these requirements prevent the vast majority of drivers from accessing the health-care stipends promised under Prop 22. 

     

     

    Many drivers are ineligible because they have seen their income decline during the pandemic, and thus have reduced their hours. One 49-year old male driver in Los Angeles, and his 18-year old son, have both been without insurance for nine months for this reason. “The pricing has gone down to 50 cents [per mile], so I’m very rarely driving these days,” he said. 

    While he did not vote for Prop 22, he supported it. “I thought I’d get free insurance,” he said. “I feel stressed.” He says his son had a medical emergency, and he had to rely on Medi-Cal, the public insurance program, to cover expenses. “I’m worried about me. I’m almost 50 and I don’t know what’s going to happen if I just keep driving for Uber and Lyft.” 

    The 36-year-old male, Spanish-speaking driver in Los Angeles noted, “Drivers feel duped. These companies spent so much money on propaganda. They control the platform. As drivers we have no control. These changes from the companies look cute until the truth is revealed. The hours needed to qualify are too much for what is fair. They lied to us. Uber has been making too many changes without input from drivers.” [3]

    One 66-year-old male driver in the San Diego area says he does not drive enough to receive a stipend because he took on an additional job to make ends meet. He says he is fortunate to live in Tecate near the US-Mexico border. He crosses the border to receive affordable care. “Some of the best doctors are in Mexico,” he said. “If you wait 15 minutes it’s too long.”   

    Among survey respondents who have driven since Prop 22 took effect and don’t receive health insurance through a public program or their spouse, only 19 percent are actually receiving health-care stipends. People who identify as multiracial or a racial group outside of those listed on the survey were least likely to receive a stipend. Even if only 50 percent of drivers are meeting Prop 22’s engaged-time qualifications (an estimate we think is conservative), a shockingly low share of drivers are receiving health care stipends. 

    Some drivers also said that the stipends are too low to cover expenses. One 53-year-old male driver in Sacramento has been uninsured since 2010 and has had significant medical expenses over the years, including dental work and kidney stones. But he says even with the stipend, an insurance plan is still too expensive because the stipend only covers a portion of the premium. “I refuse to pay for something like that,” he said. “I’m not going to pay to live. I can’t afford it.” He noted that his car payments eat up much of his income, making insurance unaffordable.

    Latinx drivers are the least likely to be insured among all racial/ethnic groups: a quarter of Latinx drivers do not have health insurance.

    The lost right to health insurance caused by Prop 22 has forced many drivers to forgo health insurance: sixteen percent of drivers are uninsured, which is twice as much as the national uninsurance rate. Latinx drivers are most likely to lack insurance, with a quarter of respondents indicating that they are uninsured. 

    One 25-year-old male, Spanish-speaking driver in Los Angeles, said, “I do not have health insurance, I haven't had it since I worked with Uber. I've worked three years here in the US, the whole time I've been with Uber.” [4]

    The 36-year-old male, Spanish-speaking driver in Los Angeles noted he has been without insurance for a year and a half. He said, “I'm diabetic. I have to prepare my medicine. If I don't pay I have to take on debt with the hospitals. I went to the hospital in Glendale, my bill was $900. I went recently and qualified for emergency medical care. I have gone to the emergency room twice in a year.” [5]

    We found that drivers are most likely to rely on the public system: nearly one-third of respondents get health insurance through Medi-Cal. This finding indicates that many drivers are also struggling financially as Medi-Cal is primarily reserved for people below 138 percent of the poverty line. We also found that half of all respondents receive insurance through Medi-Cal, Medicare, or a partner or spouse, which automatically disqualifies them from receiving health-care stipends. Through these narrow requirements, Prop 22 allows Uber and Lyft to save billions on the health insurance costs that they were required to pay before the legislation was enacted.

    Uber and Lyft are failing to provide drivers with adequate safety protections.

    In lieu of legally mandated health and safety protections guaranteed to employees, Proposition 22 mandates safety training for app-based workers. Ninety-three percent of our 531 respondents had driven since January 1, 2021, when Proposition 22 took effect. Therefore, Uber and Lyft are required to provide these drivers with safety trainings. However, the companies have failed to provide a training to one in six drivers who responded to our survey. We also found that drivers who identify as multiracial or as a racial category not included in the survey were least likely to have received a training than drivers of other racial groups. This oversight is particularly harmful to women and LGBTQ drivers, who are more likely to experience harassment and violence while working. Without adequate training on how to respond to and report instances of harm, drivers are at risk of danger while on the job. 

    Policy changes are urgently needed to increase workplace safety and access to health care for rideshare drivers.

    Our study reveals that the rollout of protections outlined in Proposition 22 is unpredictable, uneven, and inadequate. Rather than rectifying the problems app-based drivers face, Prop 22 has intensified drivers’ vulnerability to health and safety risks as well as feelings of confusion and disillusionment. This has been particularly acute among Latinx drivers, who are the least likely to know about the health-care stipends and be insured. Rideshare companies and regulatory agencies must take immediate steps to improve access to health care and workplace safety for drivers. 

    • Companies must remove restrictions on the health-care stipend. The stipend should cover 100 percent of the average monthly premium for a Covered California Bronze plan. Drivers’ total work time, rather than engaged work time, should be counted when calculating stipend qualification. 
    • Regulatory agencies must improve transparency of stipend rollout by requiring that companies report the percentage of drivers who receive stipends disaggregated by race and ethnicity on a quarterly basis to ensure that everyone who can qualify for a stipend is actually receiving one. 
    • Uber, Lyft, and other companies need to provide targeted outreach to drivers who are more likely to be uninsured. Information about how to qualify for and receive a health-care stipend should be available in multiple languages and formats. 
    • Rideshare companies must improve implementation of safety trainings by ensuring that all drivers receive trainings and providing public data on the percentage of drivers who have completed trainings. These trainings should also highlight information about how to report instances of sexual assault or harassment.

    While these changes will immediately improve working conditions for millions of drivers, long-term policy action must be taken to create a rideshare industry that benefits everyone. 

    • California legislators must repeal Prop 22 and reclassify rideshare drivers as employees, restoring all labor rights stripped with its passage. Uber, Lyft, and other gig companies are already funding campaigns for legislation identical to Prop 22 in New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, and other states nationwide. 
    • State policymakers and labor advocates must protect crucial rights for drivers and prevent the passage of this legislation
    • Even without the reclassification of drivers as independent contractors through this legislation, current protections are not enough: federal policymakers must ensure just working conditions and a living wage for all gig workers through policies such as the PRO Act
    • Policymakers should establish a single-payer, national health insurance program alongside expanded pathways to citizenship to provide everyone in the US with comprehensive coverage to ensure that workers across all industries have access to free, quality health care. 

    * Brian Dolber is an Associate Professor of Communication at California State University San Marcos, and an organizer with Rideshare Drivers United. Rideshare Drivers United is an independent association of US rideshare drivers coming together to demand higher pay and workplace rights for all rideshare drivers.

    This survey is the first in a series of analyses co-produced by the National Equity Atlas and Rideshare Drivers United examining the impacts of Prop 22 on rideshare drivers. The authors thank Sarah Treuhaft and Michelle Huang of PolicyLink, Carla Tapia of Rideshare Drivers United, and Justin Scoggins of Equity Research Institute. 

    Notes

    (1) Proposition 22 requires rideshare and delivery companies to pay a monthly stipend of 82 percent of the average monthly premium for a Covered California Bronze plan (the lowest tier of plans available through the statewide exchange) for drivers averaging more than 25 hours per week in engaged time. Engaged time is defined as time drivers spend from when they get a ride to when they drop a passenger at their destination and does not include time spent in between rides. For drivers averaging at least 15 but less than 25 engaged hours, companies are required to pay a stipend of 41 percent of the average premium. Drivers who work less than 15 hours of engaged time per week do not qualify for a stipend and the same goes for drivers who receive health insurance through Medicare or Medi-Cal, their partner or spouse, or another job. 

    (2) “Recibí un correo electrónico con la información. En la aplicación también están las horas contabilizadas que necesita para calificar para el cupón. También trabajé en la aplicación durante la pandemia. Estaba saltando por todas partes las plataformas, Uber, Lyft, DoorDash. Con Uber tengo que pasar 20 horas con los pasajeros para calificar, semanalmente. Mintieron a los conductores sobre el seguro médico, porque estoy aquí trabajando y no tengo seguro.”

    (3) “Los conductores se sienten engañados. Estas empresas gastaron mucho dinero en propaganda. Controlaban la plataforma. Como los conductores no tienen control. Estos cambios de las empresas se ven lindos hasta que se revela la verdad. Las horas necesarias para calificar son demasiadas para lo que es justo. Nos mintieron. Uber ha estado haciendo demasiados cambios sin imputación de los conductores“

    (4) “No tengo seguro de salud, no lo he tenido desde que trabajé con Uber. He trabajado tres años aquí en los Estados Unidos, todo el tiempo que he estado con Uber.”

    (5) “Estoy sin seguro y soy diabético. Tengo que preparar mi medicamento. Si no pago tengo que endeudar con los hospitales. Fui al hospital en Glendale, mi factura era de 900 dólares. Fui recientemente y calificé para emergencia médical. He ido a la sala de emergencias dos veces en un año.”

    Rent Debt in America: Stabilizing Renters Is Key to Equitable Recovery

    Our rent debt dashboard, produced in partnership with the Right to the City Alliance, equips policymakers and advocates with data on the extent and nature of rent debt in their communities to inform policies to eliminate debt and prevent the specter of mass eviction.

    By Sarah Treuhaft, Michelle Huang, Alex Ramiller, Justin Scoggins, Abbie Langston, and Jamila Henderson

    Mounting rent debt and the potential for mass eviction is one of the most pressing equity issues created by the Covid-19 pandemic. The vast majority of renters who are in debt are low-wage workers —  disproportionately people of color — who’ve suffered job and income losses due to the pandemic. When the federal eviction moratorium expires at the end of this month, the renter households that still hold debt and lack protection by state or local moratoria will be at imminent risk of eviction and homelessness. Allowing this eviction tsunami to take place would be a moral travesty and a policy failure that would deepen inequities at a moment when the federal government has prioritized addressing systemic racism and ensuring an equitable recovery.

    To inform policymaking and advocacy to prevent eviction and eliminate rent debt, the National Equity Atlas and the Right to the City Alliance launched a rent debt dashboard in April 2021 with near real-time data on the number and characteristics of renters behind on rent for the US, most states (currently 42 states), and 15 metro areas.* The dashboard also provides estimates of the amount of back rent owed for these geographies, as well as estimates for the number of households with debt and the amount owed for all counties in the states. Drawing current data from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey and the University of Southern California Center for Economic and Social Research's Understanding Coronavirus in America survey, the dashboard data is refreshed approximately every two weeks. Find our full methodology here.

    Born out of the need for accessible, current data to inform local and state campaigns, the dashboard was produced in partnership with the Right to the City Alliance, a network of community-based organizations working in 45 cities and 26 states to prevent displacement, expand affordable housing, and build just, sustainable cities for all.

    This analysis shares key insights from the dashboard, based on the May 26 - June 7 Pulse survey, along with action steps that local, state, and federal policymakers can take to stabilize the people most negatively impacted by the pandemic and facilitate equitable recovery by addressing the challenge of rent debt.

    This is an update to our May 25 and April 21 analyses.

    Rent debt continues to be a significant issue, with 5.8 million renter households behind on rent.

    As of the first week of June 2021, 5.8 million renters — 14 percent of all renter households — were behind on their rent payments. Renters with arrears will be at imminent risk of eviction in the absence of strong eviction moratoria and other renter protections, and the current federal eviction moratorium from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was recently extended one final time and will expire July 31. As a point of comparison, nearly 8 million households lost their homes to foreclosure due to the 2008 financial crisis.

    The Pulse survey has been asking the question “Is this household currently caught up on rent payments?” every two weeks since August 2020. Nationally, the current share of renters with debt is down from a high of 19 percent in mid-January, but remains far higher than the pre-pandemic baseline. While data on rent debt is sparse, the 2017 American Housing Survey found that about seven percent of renters were unable to pay some or all of their rent.

    The share of renters who are behind on rent is much higher than the national average in some states and metro areas. Alabama has the highest share of renters with arrears (28 percent), and at least 20 percent of renters are behind in the states of Arkansas, Georgia, New Jersey, New York, and South Carolina. New Hampshire and Utah have the lowest shares of renters with debt, at 7 percent.

    Among the 15 metros included in the Pulse survey, New York has the highest share of renters with debt (24 percent), followed by Atlanta (21 percent), and Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, and Los Angeles, all at 16 percent. Phoenix has the lowest share of renters in arrears among the 15 metros (8 percent).

    Nationally, we estimate that rent debt amounts to about $20 billion.

    According to our estimates, households that are behind on rent owe $3,400 on average, for a total of $20 billion nationwide. As this average suggests, the majority of households who are behind owe one or two months of back rent. However, a smaller but not insignificant number of renters have not been able to pay rent for many months and owe much larger amounts. Our analysis of the University of Southern California’s Understanding Coronavirus in America national survey finds that approximately 28 percent are one month behind, 22 percent are two months behind, 15 percent are three months behind, and the remaining 35 percent are more than three months behind.

    The average amount owed depends primarily on local housing costs, so it varies significantly across states and metros. Among states, Hawaii has the highest average rent debt per behind-household ($5,600), while Arkansas has the lowest ($2,100). At the metro level, San Francisco and Washington DC have the highest average debts ($5,800 and $5,200, respectively), while Detroit has the lowest average debt by far ($2,500), followed by Phoenix ($3,200).

    Our national estimates of rent debt fall somewhere in the middle of existing projections in terms of total debt, and on the lower end in terms of per household amount. In January, Moody’s Analytics projected that 6.3 million renters would owe a total of $33 billion in rent debt by March, at an average of $5,282 per household. Stout Analytics estimated that between two and five million renter households owed between $13 and $24 billion as of January. Both Moody’s and Stout used the Pulse survey to inform their estimates of the number of households behind. Using a very different methodology based on modeling employment losses, income supports, and spending choices at the household level, and not incorporating the Pulse survey data, the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia estimated that 1.8 million renter households would owe $11 billion in rent in March, at approximately $6,100 per household.

    With the incipient recovery, the number of renters with debt has declined nationwide since its peak in January, but has remained at 14 percent since late March. Most states and metros are following this trend.

    Nationwide, the share of renters with debt trended downward from a high of 19 percent in January to 14 percent in late March, and has held steady at 14 percent for the past couple of months. Nearly all states and metros followed this general downward trend since their peaks. Between January and the beginning of June, the rates of renters behind on rent rose in only 10 states, the District of Columbia, and one metro.

    Among states, Georgia and Arkansas saw the biggest spike in arrearages (from 18 to 25 percent behind), followed by Oregon (from nine to 13 percent). Louisiana saw the biggest improvements (from 34 to 18 percent behind).

    Among metros, only Atlanta saw an increase (from 15 to 21 percent behind). Philadelphia saw the greatest decrease (from 27 to 13 percent).

    The vast majority of those who are behind on rent are low-income households who’ve lost jobs and income during the pandemic.

    Today’s rent debt crisis is entirely a consequence of the pandemic’s economic fallout: 68 percent of those who were behind on rent in May had lost employment income at some point during the pandemic, according to the May 12-24 Pulse survey which asked respondents this question. As our other research has shown, low-wage workers, who are disproportionately workers of color, were hardest hit by pandemic job losses and are most likely to suffer from rent debt. Among households with rent debt, 81 percent are low-income (with earnings less than $50,000 per year) and 66 percent are renters of color. The majority (53 percent) are currently unemployed.

    Renters have made tremendous sacrifices and tradeoffs to stay current on rent, including foregoing medical care, delaying payment of other bills, eating cheaper (and potentially less healthy) food, and voluntarily moving in with friends and family — increasing risk of Covid-19 exposure while losing their housing stability. One of the most surprising facts in the data is the high share of low-income renters who are paid in full: Among low-income households that lost employment income during the pandemic, 73 percent were not behind on rent as of May (also according to the May 12-24 Pulse survey).* This underscores how paying rent has remained a top priority for all renters throughout the pandemic, despite the moratoria on evictions.

    Rent is not the only debt accumulating for renters.

    While our analysis focuses on back rent, renters’ pandemic debt crisis extends far beyond their obligations to their landlords. Many renters are borrowing from family and friends or taking on other forms of debt in order to make rent and pay for household expenses. Among households behind on rent, 43 percent borrowed from friends or family to pay rent, compared with just 14 percent of households current on rent. About 30 percent of all renter households, whether behind or current on rent, used a credit card (or some other form of debt) to pay rent. Many are behind on other bills, such as utilities or car payments. A survey of water debt in California found that 1.6 million households owed $1 billion on water bills — $500 on average.

    Renters of color have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic and are more likely to owe back rent, making them more vulnerable to eviction risk.

    In the United States, renters are already a more vulnerable population as a whole: they have little housing security, paltry savings, and few legal protections from exorbitant rent increases or eviction (outside of a few states and cities with strong tenant movements). Historic and continuing housing and lending discrimination, as well as systemic inequities in our labor market, have contributed to large racial inequities in homeownership. Atlas data show that seven in 10 White households own their homes while the majority of Black, Latinx, and multiracial households rent.

    The challenge of unaffordable rents and flat wages add to this underlying housing insecurity among renters. Renters were already in crisis when the pandemic began: about a third of White renters and just under half of Black and Latinx renters were both economically insecure (earning less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level) and rent burdened (paying more than 30 percent of their income on rent). Gender is another important axis: women of color are most likely to be rent burdened, and disproportionately face eviction.

    Covid-19 added yet another layer of inequity to these preexisting disparities. Today, 24 percent of Black renters, 17 percent of Asian or Pacific Islander and Latinx renters, and 18 percent of multiracial renters are behind on rent, compared to 9 percent of White renters.

    Eliminating Rent Debt is an Equity Imperative and a Moral, Economic, and Public Health Necessity

    Today’s rent debt crisis is a microcosm of the wretched inequality of the pandemic: millions of renter households – most of them people of color – now face the burden of owing back rent due to a public health crisis that had extremely concentrated negative economic impacts on low-wage workers. These unequal consequences are not random, but the predictable result of past policies that left millions of families with no savings to draw upon in the face of an economic shock, as well as the failed early policy response to the pandemic. Although the CARES Act provided important unemployment benefits and cash assistance as well as an eviction moratorium that helped many pandemic-impacted renters, undocumented and mixed-status families were ineligible for assistance and the moratorium ended in July, leaving renters unprotected until the CDC enacted its moratorium in early September. Moreover, absent meaningful financial assistance to pay back rent, the moratoria simply delay eviction. Yet, the federal government provided no rent relief until December, nine months into the pandemic.

    The magnitude of rent debt is a crisis in and of itself and the leading indicator of a potential eviction tsunami that would be a humanitarian disaster. Rent debt adds a heavy burden onto families who are already financially insecure and struggling during the pandemic, further limiting their choices and creating additional stress. It’s also contributing to the growth of the racial wealth gap: while renters, predominantly people of color, currently hold $20 billion in debt, homeowners, who are predominantly White, saw a $1.9 trillion increase in their home equity from the first quarter of 2020 to the first quarter of 2021 as competition for a constrained supply of homes drove prices up. At a time when racial equity is at the forefront of the policy debate, eliminating rent debt that has unfairly and unequally accrued for people of color should be an urgent priority.

    Clearing rent debt is also key to staving off the specter of mass eviction, which would directly harm economically vulnerable families and their communities and have long-term ripple effects throughout our economy. Eviction has significant negative consequences for mental and physical health, educational outcomes, and household finances. Some evicted families and individuals would become homeless, with devastating consequences for long-term health and well-being as well as significant costs for local governments.

    The health impacts of eviction and homelessness are even more severe during a pandemic. Research during the pandemic found that states that allowed evictions to proceed had more Covid infections and deaths than those with eviction moratoria. Although the vaccination campaign is in full swing and Covid cases are low in most states, there are hotspots with high infection rates and the longer-term picture remains uncertain.

    Forgiving rent debt is also essential to an equitable and people-centered recovery: one in which those hardest-hit by the pandemic can fully participate and thrive.

    For an Equitable and Just Recovery, Policymakers Must Clear Rent Debt and Prevent Eviction

    Recognizing the catastrophic impact of mass eviction, policymakers have responded, albeit belatedly, by enacting eviction moratoria and establishing rent relief funds. The federal CDC eviction moratorium scheduled to expire last month was extended through July 31, and the American Rescue Plan (ARP) passed in January provided $21.5 billion for rental assistance programs as well as $350 billion in fiscal support for state and local governments, some of which could be allocated toward debt relief. The December 27 coronavirus relief bill also provided $25 billion in funding for rental assistance.

    With the federal moratorium expiring in just a few weeks and many state and local emergency rent relief programs supported by the ARP just getting off the ground, there is an urgent need to clear the debts of all tenants in need to prevent mass eviction. Throughout the pandemic, rent relief programs have not been reaching all of those in need. These programs must be structured to meet the scale of the crisis, both to efficiently deliver resources and to ensure that resources are distributed equitably, reaching the low-income renters of color who were both hardest hit by the pandemic and already housing insecure before Covid-19. Renters also need stronger eviction protections, including access to free legal assistance and eviction diversion programs. States and localities should extend their eviction moratoria until the pandemic rent debt crisis has subsided.

    As they design rent relief programs, local and state policymakers should implement policies that adhere to the following equitable, common sense principles:

    • No renter, regardless of immigration status, should be evicted or burdened with years of debt for rent that they were unable to pay during the pandemic.
    • Rent debt due to the pandemic should be fully forgiven and should not be conditioned on landlords’ acceptance of funds or participation in programs.
    • Financial assistance to landlords should address the fiscal needs of landlords in danger of going out of business due to lost rent, with a particular focus on keeping small community-based landlords and nonprofit affordable housing operators solvent, rather than attempting to achieve full rent replacement for all landlords. California’s program, negotiated with the state’s landlord association, provides an example: landlords receive 80 percent of back rent owed.
    • Local municipalities’ authority to pass stronger eviction and debt protection laws should be preserved.
    • Landlords should continue to fulfill their legal obligations to tenants regardless of whether they receive assistance, including the duty to maintain habitable premises, refrain from harassment and retaliation against tenants, and respecting tenants’ legal rights.

      For more local policy ideas and examples, see https://ourhomesourhealth.org

      * The number of renter respondents to the Pulse survey for Delaware, Maine, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming was insufficient to produce reliable data to include in the dashboard.

      Pages