Income and child maltreatment in unmarried families: evidence from the earned income tax credit

Abstract

This study estimates the associations of income with both (self-reported) child protective services involvement and parenting behaviors that proxy for child abuse and neglect risk among unmarried families. Our primary strategy follows the instrumental variables approach employed by Dahl and Lochner (2012), which leverages variation between states and over time in the generosity of the total state and federal earned income tax credit for which a family is eligible to identify exogenous variation in family income. As a robustness check, we also estimate standard OLS regressions (linear probability models), reduced form OLS regressions, and OLS regressions with the inclusion of a control function (each with and without family-specific fixed effects). Our micro-level data are drawn from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, a longitudinal birth-cohort of relatively disadvantaged urban children who have been followed from birth to age nine. Results suggest that an exogenous increase in income is associated with reductions in behaviorally approximated child neglect and CPS involvement, particularly among low-income single-mother families.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Specifically, 46 % of excluded family-wave observations resulted from a family not being interviewed at a given wave and 42 % from missing data on the CPS or behaviorally-approximated maltreatment measures; the remaining exclusions were due to missing income data. Table A1 presents a comparison of descriptive statistics from the FFCW sample with fully imputed data and the subsample that we excluded from our analysis due to missing data (prior to implementing our sample exclusion criteria). We find few substantive differences in the characteristics of the two samples, although self-reported CPS involvement is lower in the imputed than non-imputed sample (4.1 % vs. 5.7 %) and there are slightly more single-mother families in the imputed data (47.1 % vs. 41.2 %). Of course, our analysis sample is more disadvantaged than either of the other samples given that it is limited to families that were unmarried at the age-3 interview and had AGI below $45,000.

  2. 2.

    We also tested two additional sample selection criteria: (1) including limiting the sample to families with AGI below 130 % of poverty (Hardy et al. 2015), and (2) limiting the sample to families in which the mother has a high school education or less, a non-income-related marker of disadvantage (Evans and Garthwaite 2014). We present results when these samples are used in Table A2 and A3. In both cases, the general pattern of results is consistent with that in our primary models, though the second stage IV results are less often statistically significant in the alternative specifications, as would be expected given that they less accurately include families that are eligible for the EITC. Furthermore, the low education sample is larger than that of our primary specification and there is considerably greater variation in income, as well as a more skewed income distribution, necessitating that we log the income measures and limiting our confidence in the estimates. Notably, Evans and Garthwaite (2014) use the low education sample selection criteria with a difference-in-difference specification. We are aware of no existing study that uses this sample selection criteria with IV analyses.

  3. 3.

    Notably, the majority of CPS investigations include allegations that are not able to be substantiated by a preponderance of the evidence. As such, investigations, rather than substantiated cases of maltreatment are widely used in child maltreatment studies because the decision to substantiate often reflects factors unrelated to the actual maltreatment allegations (Font and Maguire-Jack 2015); furthermore, associations of investigated (but not substantiated) and substantiated maltreatment with child well-being do not differ (Hussey et al. 2005).

  4. 4.

    In the FFCW age-3 through age-9 interviews, respondents were asked to provide an exact dollar amount of household income. Those that were unable or unwilling were asked to provide a range. Approximately 90 % of respondents provided household income data in one of these two forms. The FFCW study team then imputed household income dollar amounts for respondents who reported income in range format based on other respondents who provided income in the same range but via detailed income amount. They then imputed dollar amounts for those who did not report income in either format. Both imputations included the following covariates: relationship status, age, race/ethnicity, immigrant, employed last year, earnings, total adults in the household, and received welfare in the last year. For a detailed description of the FFCW constructed income variables, see http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/documentation/core/4waves_ff_public.pdf and http://lotka.princeton.edu/archive/ff/datausers/year9/October_2011updateddocs/year9wave_ff_public.pdf. The income measures used in our primary analyses are based on the FFCW constructed income variables. We also conducted supplemental analyses using only observations with non-imputed income and found no substantive differences in results (see Table A5).

  5. 5.

    Although the FFCW data contain separate measures of earnings, this item is only asked with regard to the respondent. Earnings data for partners are only available if the mother’s current partner is the biological father of the focal child; even then, these data are often incomplete. Thus, we determined that subtracting nontaxable income from total income was a superior approach to income based on only those earnings reported.

  6. 6.

    We also conducted our analyses using only lagged income. The results do not change.

  7. 7.

    For all IV results, we present the Kleibergen-Paap F-statistic and the critical values for weak identification (Stock and Yogo 2005).

  8. 8.

    IV results for cohabiting families and families with only one child at baseline (age 3) are presented in Table A4. We also estimated a series of robustness checks using the sample of single-mother families at age 3, including (1) limiting the sample to currently unmarried mothers, to currently single (non-cohabiting) mothers, to always unmarried mothers, to always unmarried currently single mothers, to always single mothers, to single mother with two or more children, to single mother families at age 3 with non-imputed income, and to always single-mother families with non-imputed income. Each of these analyses produced results that are substantively consistent with those from our primary models although estimates in some cases were less likely to attain statistical significance due to reduced sample size and associated lack of statistical power. See Table A5.

  9. 9.

    We also estimated supplemental models using alternative specifications of the behaviorally approximated abuse and neglect measures, including dichotomous measures that a family scored more than half of a standard deviation above the sample mean for abuse or neglect, and continuous measures of the abuse and neglect indices (standardized to have a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1). These results (see Table A6 and A7, respectively) were consistent with those from our primary analyses.

References

  1. Adiresksombat, K. (2010). The effects of the 1993 earned income tax credit expansion on the labor supply of unmarried women. Public Finance Review, 38(1), 11–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baker, K. (2008). Do cash transfer programs improve infant health: Evidence from the 1993 expansion of the earned income tax credit. Manuscript, University of Notre Dame, South Bend, IN.

  3. Baughman, R., & Dickert-Conlin, S. (2009). The Earned Income Tax Credit and fertility. Journal of Population Economics, 22(3), 537–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Berger, L. M. (2004). Income, family structure, and child maltreatment risk. Children and Youth Services Review, 26(8), 725–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Berger, L. M. (2007). Socioeconomic factors and substandard parenting. Social Service Review, 81(3), 485–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Berger, L. M., McDaniel, M., & Paxson, C. (2005). Assessing parenting behaviors across racial groups: Implications for the child welfare system. Social Service Review, 79(4), 653–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Berger, L. M., Paxson, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2009). Mothers, men, and child protective services involvement. Child Maltreatment, 14(3), 263–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Berger, L. M., & Waldfogel, J. (2011). Economic determinants and consequences of child maltreatment. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Paper No. 111, OECD Publishing, Paris.

  9. Bitler, M., Hoynes, H., & Kuka, E. (in press). Do in-work tax credits serve as a safety net? Journal of Human Resources.

  10. Boyd-Swan, C., Herbst, C. M., Ifcher, J. & Zarghamee, H. (2013). The Earned Income Tax Credit, health, and happiness. Discussion Paper No. 7261, The Institute for the Study of Labor; Bonn, Germany.

  11. Cancian, M., Yang, M. Y., & Slack, K. S. (2013). The effect of additional child support income on the risk of child maltreatment. Social Service Review, 87(3), 417–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2013). Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analysis of the Census Bureau’s March 2012 Current Population Survey. Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dahl, G. B., & Lochner, L. (2012). The impact of family income on child achievement: evidence from the earned income tax credit. American Economic Review, 102(5), 1927–1956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dickert-Conlin, S., & Houser, S. (2002). EITC and marriage. National Tax Journal, 55(1), 25–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Evans, W. N., & Garthwaite, C. L. (2014). Giving mom a break: The impact of higher EITC payments on maternal health. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6(2), 258–290.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fang, X., Brown, D. S., Florence, C. S., & Mercy, J. A. (2012). The economic burden of child maltreatment in the United States and implications for prevention. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(2), 156–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fein, D., & Lee, W. S. (2003). The Impacts of welfare reform on child maltreatment in Delaware. Children and Youth Services Review, 25(1-2), 83–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Font, S. A., & Berger, L. M. (2015). Child maltreatment and children’s developmental trajectories in early to middle childhood. Child Development, 86(2), 536–556. doi:10.1111/cdev.12322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Font, S. A., & Maguire-Jack, K. (2015). Decision-making in child protective services: influences at multiple levels of the social ecology. Child Abuse & Neglect, 47(September), 70–82. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Grogger, J. (2003). The effects of time limits, the EITC, and other policy changes on welfare use, work, and income among female-headed families. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(2), 394–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gruber, J., & Saez, E. (2002). The elasticity of taxable income: evidence and implications. Journal of Public Economics, 84(1), 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Halpern-Meekin, S., Edin, K., Tach, L., & Sykes, J. (2015). It’s not like I’m poor: How working families make ends meet in a post-welfare world. University of California Press: Oakland, CA.

  23. Hardy, B., Smeeding, T., & Ziliak, J. P. (2015). The changing safety net for low income parents and their children: Structural or cyclical changes in income support policy. Manuscript, American University, Washington, DC.

  24. Heckman, J. J., & Robb, Jr., R. (1985). Alternative methods for evaluating the impact of interventions: An overview. Journal of Econometrics, 30(1-2), 239–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Herbst, C. M. (2011). The impact of the earned income tax credit on marriage and divorce: evidence from flow data. Population Research and Policy Review, 30(1), 101–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hotz,V. J., & Scholz, J. K. (2006). Examining the effect of the earned income tax credit on the labor market participation of families on welfare. NBER Working Paper 11968. National Bureau of Economic Reseach, Cambridge, MA.

  27. Hoynes, H. W. , Miller, D. L., & Simon, D. (2012). Income, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and infant health. NBER Working Paper Series #18206. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

  28. Hussey, J. M., Marshall, J. M., English, D. J., Knight, E. D., Lau, A. S., Dubowitz, H., & Kotch, J. B. (2005). Defining maltreatment according to substantiation: distinction without a difference? Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(5), 479–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Internal Revenue Service. (2002). Participation in the Earned Income Tax Credit Program for Tax Year 1996. Washington, D.C: Internal Revenue Service.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kenkel, D. S., Schmeiser, M. D., & Urban, C. (2014). Is smoking inferior? Evidence from variation in the earned income tax credit. Journal of Human Resources, 49(4), 1094–1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kennedy, P. (2008). A Guide to Econometrics. 6th Edition. Cambridge, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lee, S. J., Grogan-Kaylor, A., & Berger, L. M. (2014). Parental spanking of 1-year old children and subsequent child protective services involvement. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(5), 875–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Meyer, B. D. (2010). The effects of the earned income tax credit and recent reforms. In J. D. Brown (Ed.), Tax policy and the economy, volume 24 (pp. 153–180). University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.

  34. Nam, Y., Meezan, W., & Danziger, S. K. (2006). Welfare recipients’ involvement with child protective services after welfare reform. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30(11), 1181–1199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. National Bureau of Economic Research (2012). TAXSIM, version 9. http://www.nber.org/taxsim/.

  36. Paxson, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2002). Work, welfare, and child maltreatment. Journal of Labor Economics, 20(3), 435–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Schmeiser, M. D. (2009). Expanding wallets and waistlines: the impact of family income on the BMI of women and men eligible for the earned income tax credit. Health Economics, 18(11), 1277–1294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Schmeiser, M. D. (2012). The impact of long-term participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program on child obesity. Health Economics, 21(4), 386–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Scholz, J. K. (1994). The earned income tax credit: Participation, compliance, and anti-poverty effectiveness. National Tax Journal, 47(1), 63–87.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sedlack, A. J., Mettenburg, J., Basena, M., Petta, I., McPherson, K., Greene, A., & Li, S. (2010). Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-4): Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

    Google Scholar 

  41. Short, K. (2012). The Research Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2011. Current Population Reports P60-241. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

  42. Slack, K. S., Berger, L. M., Dumont, K., Yang, M. Y., Kim, B., Ehrhard-Dietzel, S., & Holl, J. L. (2011). Risk and protective factors for child neglect during early childhood: A cross-study comparison. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(8), 1354–1363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Slack, K. S., Holl, J. L., Lee, B. J., McDaniel, M., Altenbernd, L., & Stevens, A. B. (2003). Child protective intervention in the context of welfare reform: The effects of work and welfare on maltreatment reports. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22(4), 517–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Stock, J. H., & Yogo, M. (2005). Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. In D. W. K. Andrews and J. H. Stock, (Eds.) Identification and inference for econometric models: Essays in honor of Thomas Rothenberg (pp. 80–108) Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

  45. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Finkelhor, D., Moore, D. W., & Runyan, D. (1998). Identification of child maltreatment with the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales: Development and psychometric data for a national sample of American parents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22(4), 249–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Strully, K. W., Rehkopf, D. H., & Xuan, Z. (2013). Effects of prenatal poverty on infant health: State Earned Income Tax Credits and birth weight. American Sociological Review, 75(4), 534–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2013). Child Maltreatment 2012. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study is funded by NICHD grant numbers R01HD36916, R01HD39135, and R01HD40421, as well as a consortium of private foundations and other government agencies. This research was supported by funding from the Institute for Research on Poverty and the Waisman Center (NICHD grant number P30 HD03352) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Population Research Center (R24 Center Grant) 5 R24 HD042849 NICHD and Training Program in Population Studies 5 T32 HD007081, NICHD at the University of Texas at Austin, and Population Research Center (R24 Center Grant) 2 P2C HD058486 at Columbia University School of Social Work. The authors are listed alphabetically. Address for correspondence: Lawrence M. Berger, University of Wisconsin-Madison, School of Social Work, 1350 University Avenue, Madison, WI 53706

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lawrence M. Berger.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Appendix

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Berger, L.M., Font, S.A., Slack, K.S. et al. Income and child maltreatment in unmarried families: evidence from the earned income tax credit. Rev Econ Household 15, 1345–1372 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-016-9346-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Child abuse and neglect
  • Child protective services
  • Child welfare
  • Earned income tax credit
  • Fragile families and child wellbeing study

JEL Classification

  • I38
  • J13
  • H75
  • H53