IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Examining the Relationship between the EITC and Food Stamp Program Participation Among Households with Children

Listed author(s):
  • Robert I. Lerman
  • Kelly S. Mikelson

The federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Food Stamp Program (FSP) are the largest means-tested transfer programs for low-income working parents in the United States. Together, these two programs cost nearly $50 billion per year and comprise the bulk of the social safety net for working poor families. This paper examines how these two programs interact, particularly the potential impact of the EITC on participation in the FSP during the latter half of the 1990s. This paper is the first to focus on examining the relationship between the EITC and FSP participation. Although EITC payments do not reduce the potential size of a household's food stamp allotment under FSP rules, EITC adds to a household's resources and thus could affect its willingness to participate in the FSP. The paper tests this hypothesis with monthly data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) for 1996 through 1999. We use two logit models to examine the relationship between EITC and FSP participation. Our dependent variable is FSP participation which equals one if a household head participates in the FSP during a given month and zero otherwise. Our primary independent variable of interest in model 1 is actual federal EITC claimed by the household head. In our second model, we replace actual EITC benefits claimed with a computed variable measuring the EITC benefits a household should be eligible for given their household size and earned income. The reduced form of model 1 excludes variables that may be endogenous (e.g., employment status, spousal employment status, TANF participation, and actual TANF benefits received). Specifically, we are concerned about the endogeneity of a household head's employment status, for example, which may simultaneously affect the likelihood of participating in the FSP and be affected by EITC. The full form of model 1 includes these potentially endogenous variables. Model 2 is useful since actual EITC benefits may not be completely exogenous. We tested this by regressing actual EITC benefits on the computed EITC benefits (plus our other control variables) and then including the residuals from this regression in an ordinary least squares regression of food stamp participation on actual EITC benefits and our controls. While our results did not conclusively demonstrate that there was an endogeneity problem with using actual EITC benefits, they did suggest it was possible. Model 2 is also important since there is a large amount of missing data in the SIPP on actual EITC claimed. Since the vast majority of EITC recipients receive the benefit in a lump sum payment between January and April, we might expect that the decision to participate in the FSP would be affected by the seasonal nature of EITC benefits. To determine if the timing of the receipt of EITC benefits impacts food stamp receipt, we also investigate whether federal EITC receipt has a seasonal effect. We do this by running an alternate version of the full form models 1 and 2 using trimester variables (i.e., January-April, May-August, and September-December) interacted with the EITC variable. The results of the reduced and full forms of logit model 1 indicate that federal EITC claimed is positively and significantly related to FSP participation. For the full form model, the coefficient for the low ($1-$999) amount of actual EITC claimed is significantly different from the coefficients on the medium ($1,000-$1,999) and high ($2,000+) amounts at the ten percent level. For the reduced form model, we find that the coefficient for the low ($1-$999) amount of actual EITC claimed is significantly different from the high coefficient, however, the low and medium and high and medium coefficients are not significantly different from one another. We find no significant difference between the coefficients of the actual EITC variable interacted with the calendar trimester. That is, we find no evidence of a seasonal effect of actual EITC on FSP participation. Thus, the coefficients on the federal EITC variables suggest that households that claim EITC are more likely to participate in food stamps, though there does not appear to be a strong relationship between the amount of EITC claimed and FSP participation. Because there is much missing data for EITC claimed in the SIPP, we are skeptical of these results. Our model 2 estimates based on computed EITC benefits show a negative and statistically significant effect of EITC on FSP participation. However, the magnitude of the EITC effect declines as the amount of computed federal EITC benefits increases. The results of the full form model indicate that the effect of computed federal EITC is negative and significant for medium ($1,000-$1,999) and low ($1-$999) amounts of EITC and negative but not significant for high amounts of EITC ($2,000+). Model 2 also provides no evidence of a seasonal effect of computed EITC on FSP participation. Model 2 provides some evidence that the added money households receive from EITC allows them to avoid taking up food stamps. That said, the fact that high levels of computed EITC benefits does not exert a statistically significant effect weakens the hypothesis that money received from EITC may result in households not participating in the FSP. There is no straightforward explanation as to why only low and medium EITC levels reduce FSP participation. We conclude that it is possible that the EITC resulted in some decline in FSP participation rates, however, further study and improved data measuring EITC participation are necessary to sort out the degree to which EITC participation affects participation in the FSP.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
File Function: main text
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Econometric Society in its series Econometric Society 2004 North American Summer Meetings with number 190.

in new window

Date of creation: 11 Aug 2004
Handle: RePEc:ecm:nasm04:190
Contact details of provider: Phone: 1 212 998 3820
Fax: 1 212 995 4487
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. Logan, Christopher & Fox, Mary Kay & Lin, Biing-Hwan, 2002. "Effects Of Food Assistance And Nutrition Programs On Nutrition And Health, Volume 2, Data Sources," Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Reports 33791, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
  2. Bruce D. Meyer & Dan T. Rosenbaum, 2001. "Welfare, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Labor Supply of Single Mothers," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 116(3), pages 1063-1114.
  3. Philip Gleason & Carole Trippe & Scott Cody & Jacquie Anderson, "undated". "The Effects of Welfare Reform on the Characteristics of the Food Stamp Population," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 11c6cf7a55754b99ae7b68e32, Mathematica Policy Research.
  4. V. Joseph Hotz, 2003. "The Earned Income Tax Credit," NBER Chapters,in: Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the United States, pages 141-198 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  5. J. P. Ziliak & C. Gundersen & D. N. Figlio, "undated". "Welfare Reform and Food Stamp Caseload Dynamics," Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Papers 1215-00, University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty.
  6. Rebecca M. Blank & Patricia Ruggles, 1996. "When Do Women Use Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Food Stamps? The Dynamics of Eligibility Versus Participation," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 31(1), pages 57-89.
  7. Beth Osborne Daponte & Seth Sanders & Lowell Taylor, 1999. "Why Do Low-Income Households not Use Food Stamps? Evidence from an Experiment," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 34(3), pages 612-628.
  8. Jeffrey Grogger, 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, MIT Press, vol. 85(2), pages 394-408, May.
  9. David N. Figlio & Craig Gundersen & James P. Ziliak, 2000. "The Effects of the Macroeconomy and Welfare Reform on Food Stamp Caseloads," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(3), pages 635-641.
  10. Rebecca M. Blank, 1999. "What Goes Up Must Come Down? Explaining Recent Changes in Public Assistance Caseloads," JCPR Working Papers 78, Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research.
  11. Kirlin, John A. & Logan, Christopher, 2002. "Effects Of Ebt Customer Service Waivers On Food Stamp Recipients: Executive Summary," Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Reports 33843, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
  12. Michael Ponza & James C. Ohls & Lorenzo Moreno & Amy Zambrowski & Rhoda Cohen, 1999. "Customer Service in the Food Stamp Program," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 19806d533df943278178d9cf1, Mathematica Policy Research.
  13. M. Robin Dion & LaDonna Pavetti, "undated". "Access to and Participation in Medicaid and the Food Stamp Program: A Review of the Recent Literature," Mathematica Policy Research Reports bfdebd22c4ea47a9a95b33409, Mathematica Policy Research.
  14. Wilde, Parke & Dagata, Elizabeth, 2002. "Food Stamp Participation by Eligible Older Americans Remains Low," Food Review: The Magazine of Food Economics, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, vol. 25(2).
  15. Moulton, Brent R, 1990. "An Illustration of a Pitfall in Estimating the Effects of Aggregate Variables on Micro Unit," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(2), pages 334-338, May.
  16. Moffitt, Robert, 1983. "An Economic Model of Welfare Stigma," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(5), pages 1023-1035, December.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecm:nasm04:190. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Christopher F. Baum)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.