Laserfiche WebLink
To provide greater clarity, Treasury is elaborating on the analysis that recipients may <br />undertake to assess the eligibility of specific cash assistance programs or transfers. Cash <br />transfers, like all eligible uses in this category, must respond to the negative economic impacts of <br />the pandemic on a household or class of households. For the reasons discussed above, recipients <br />may presume that low- and moderate -income households (as defined in the final rule), as well as <br />households that experienced unemployment, food insecurity, or housing insecurity, experienced <br />a negative economic impact due to the pandemic. <br />Recipients may also identify other households or classes of households that experienced a <br />negative economic impact of the pandemic and provide cash assistance that is reasonably <br />proportional to, and not grossly in excess of, the amount needed to address the negative <br />economic impact. For example, in the ARPA, Congress authorized Economic Impact Payments <br />to households at certain income levels, identifying and responding to a negative economic impact <br />of the pandemic on these households. <br />Finally, Treasury has reiterated in the final rule that responses to negative economic <br />impacts should be reasonably proportional to the impact that they are intended to address. Uses <br />that bear no relation or are grossly disproportionate to the type or extent of harm experienced <br />would not be eligible uses. Reasonably proportional refers to the scale of the response compared <br />to the scale of the harm. It also refers to the targeting of the response to beneficiaries compared <br />to the amount of harm they experienced; for example, it may not be reasonably proportional for a <br />cash assistance program to provide assistance in a very small amount to a group that experienced <br />severe harm and in a much larger amount to a group that experienced relatively little harm. <br />91 <br />