Related Research and Policy Resources

Parenting and Economic Supports Policies

Profile benchmarks for parenting supports

  • State exempts single parents on TANF from work requirements until the youngest child reaches age 1
  • State reduces the TANF work requirement to 20 hours or less for single parents with children under age 6
  • State offers exemptions and/or extensions of the TANF benefit time limit for recipients who are pregnant
  • State offers exemptions and/or extensions of the TANF benefit time limit for recipients who are caring for a child under 6 months of age
  • State allows TANF participants to receive benefits for a maximum of 60 months in their lifetime without limits on continuous coverage
  • State has paid family leave for a minimum of 6 weeks with partial replacement of wages
  • State offers accrual of at least five paid sick days

Profile benchmarks for strengthening family economic security

  • State established a state minimum wage that meets or exceeds $14.00/hour and is indexed to inflation for a family of three
  • State sets gross income eligibility limit at 200% FPL and does not have asset limits for SNAP 
  • State offers a refundable state Earned Income Tax Credit 
  • State does not charge personal income tax for single-parent families of three below the federal poverty level
  • State offers a refundable state dependent care tax credit
  • State offers a refundable Child Tax Credit 
  • State keeps copayments for child care subsidies at or below 7% of family income for families of three at 150% FPL
  • State offers a minimum of 28 weeks of Unemployment Insurance benefits
  • State funds a housing program that provides rental assistance to low-income families with children at 80% AMI/200% FPL or less to avoid eviction or homelessness

Back to EC Profiles

Profile benchmarks for parenting supports

  • State exempts single parents on TANF from work requirements until the youngest child reaches age 1
  • State reduces the TANF work requirement to 20 hours or less for single parents with children under age 6
  • State offers exemptions and/or extensions of the TANF benefit time limit for recipients who are pregnant
  • State offers exemptions and/or extensions of the TANF benefit time limit for recipients who are caring for a child under 6 months of age
  • State allows TANF participants to receive benefits for a maximum of 60 months in their lifetime without limits on continuous coverage

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program provides cash benefits to eligible, very low-income families. State TANF programs have established minimum work requirements and time-limited cash benefits, and have some flexibility in establishing the hours of work required and who is exempt from these requirements. 

Research shows that TANF work requirements have a negative impact on both parents and children.1, 2 

  • Working mothers who receive TANF experience an increase in depressive symptoms, which can be harmful to children’s well-being and development. They are also less likely to breastfeed and read to their children.1
  • One study found that children were 25 percent less likely to receive preventive care visits during periods when mothers received welfare while working compared to when mothers received welfare but did not work.2

Studies examining work-related TANF sanctions find that they exclude families who are otherwise eligible and in need of assistance.3

  • For every 100 families with children in poverty, only 23 receive cash benefits from TANF — a sharp decrease from 68 families when TANF was fully implemented in 1997 due to work requirements and other policies such as time limits.3  
  • One study found that TANF application sites with stringent work requirements had 50 percent fewer applicants than sites without these work requirements.3

Recent research indicates that policies supporting greater access to TANF benefits (e.g. 60 months of allowable benefits, reduced TANF work requirements for mothers of infants and young children) contribute to lower rates of maltreatment and placement of children in foster care.4

Resources: 

Back to Top

  • State has paid family leave for a minimum of 6 weeks with partial replacement of wages

Some states have established laws to allow employees to take paid time off to care for sick or disabled family members or a new child. The states currently providing paid family leave are funded through employee-paid payroll taxes and are administered through their respective disability programs.5

Paid family leave offers significant benefits for both parents and their children.6-9 

  • Paid family leave reduces maternal stress during and after pregnancy, which in turn promotes infant and child health and wellbeing.6, 7
  • Paid family leave also allows parents to increase the quality and quantity of time spent with newborn children and gives mothers more time to breastfeed,6 a practice that has important child health and developmental benefits.8, 9
  • Evidence suggests that a leave of at least 12 weeks would provide the greatest benefits for mother and child.10 

Research suggests that paid family leave has positive economic outcomes.11

  • Paid family leave can boost labor force participation. Women who report taking paid leave are more likely to be working nine months to a year after the birth of a child than are those who report taking no leave at all.11   
  • Women who report leaves of a month of more are 54 percent more likely to report wage increases in the year following the child’s birth than are women who do not take leave.11  
  • Women who return to work following a paid leave have a 39 percent lower likelihood of receiving public assistance and a 40 percent lower likelihood of SNAP receipt in the year after the child’s birth, compared to those who take no leave.11 

Research suggests that low-wage workers and families of color are disproportionately ineligible for leave benefits and encounter more barriers to using the benefits when they are eligible.5 However, when family leave is paid, a higher number of low-income and disadvantaged families will access the benefits, compared to when it is unpaid.12

Resources:  

Back to Top

  • State offers accrual of at least five paid sick days

Research shows that paid sick time not only supports workers but also benefits businesses and communities.  

  • Having paid sick days promotes workers’ health and avoids loss of productivity.13, 14 Without paid sick days, workers have to choose between going to work sick or losing much-needed pay. Employers who work sick could put the health of their coworkers and others at risk due to potential contagion. Research on paid sick days laws found that cities that required employers to provide paid sick time saw reductions in their flu infection rates; a nationwide paid sick law would decrease flu infections by 5 percent.14
  • Paid sick days also help businesses lower turnover and avoid higher health insurance costs. When there is workforce stability, businesses could reduce costs associated with frequent hiring.13 Moreover, compared to workers with paid sick days, those without paid sick days are twice as likely to seek emergency room care as they could not afford to take time away from work to see doctors during normal business hours.13 They are also 2.5 times more likely to take their children to emergency room visits.13 These expensive emergency trips could replace routine medical appointments, potentially leading to higher health insurance costs for businesses, higher costs of health care for families, and less adequate preventive care for parents and children.13, 15
  • Having paid sick days laws can help decrease the large paid sick days gaps between high- and low-wage workers. Among the top 10 percent of employees with highest compensation in private sectors, 87 percent have access to paid sick days, compared to only 27 percent of the workers in the bottom 10 percent.16 Given that low-wage workers are more vulnerable to wage loss, they feel forced to work sick. Paid sick days provides income security, while enabling workers to care for themselves and their families during illness.16 
Resources:   

Back to Top

Profile benchmarks for strengthening family economic security

  • State established a state minimum wage that meets or exceeds $14.00/hour and is indexed to inflation for a family of three

Minimum wage laws in each state set an hourly wage threshold for workers. While the federal minimum wage requires that most hourly workers be paid at least $7.25 per hour, states can raise their own wage floors above the federal minimum.17

Research has shown that a higher minimum wage has benefits for young children and families.18-24  

  • There is some evidence that increasing the minimum wage reduces rates of child maltreatment reports, especially cases of neglect among young and school-aged children;18, 19 one researcher who found weaker evidence of the role of increasing the minimum wage on maltreatment cautions that some families whose incomes increase may become ineligible for public benefits (e.g., WIC and SNAP) which are associated with reductions in maltreatment.20 This barrier to family financial security can be addressed with policies that reduce benefit cliffs.21
  • A minimum wage increase has been found to be associated with increased birth weight22 and improved health of children 0 to 5 years.23 
  • An increase in the minimum wage may result in an increase in parental employment, particularly among parents of children ages 0-5.24 
Resources: 

Back to Top

  • State sets gross income eligibility limit at 200% FPL and does not have asset limits for SNAP

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the country’s largest food assistance program that serves more than 42 million people annually.25 Federal law sets SNAP’s gross income eligibility limit at 130 percent of the federal poverty line (FPL) and an asset cap at $2,250 for most households (the asset limit for families with seniors or individuals with a disability is $3,500).26 However, states can adopt less restrictive eligibility rules under a policy option called “Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility” (BBCE).27 With BBCE, low-income families receiving cash assistance from programs like Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) are automatically eligible for SNAP and do not have to pass SNAP’s income and asset tests separately.27  

Setting gross income eligibility limit at 200 percent FPL and having no asset limits through BBCE allow more low-income families to qualify for and benefit from SNAP, simplifying SNAP administration, and potentially reducing racial wealth gaps.28 

  • States with enhanced gross income eligibility thresholds still target low-income families that need the most help.29 Families who have higher gross incomes but have substantial living expenses such as childcare and housing take home insignificant net incomes, thereby meeting SNAP’s net income test of 100 percent FPL. Research shows that the majority of those families include children, seniors, and individuals with disability.29 Setting SNAP’s gross income threshold at 200 percent FPL turns the benefit cliff into a gentle slope, supporting working families that have high childcare and housing costs, while encouraging work.30, 31
  • Using BBCE helps reduce administrative costs for state agencies while promoting more continuous access to SNAP for families.27
  • Family SNAP benefits have been found to improve children’s birth weight, health, mental health, and early development.32, 33, 34, 35 One study examines how expansion of SNAP eligibility is associated with less foster care entry, which is partly due to a more stabilized economic conditions within the household (e.g., reductions in household poverty and food insecurity).36
  • Loss of SNAP benefits has been shown to be associated with a less nutritional diet for children.37 
  • Removing the asset limit enables low-income families to build up savings for the future which can cushion them during unexpected financial emergencies. Families in states with more relaxed asset limits are more likely to have a bank account and have a minimum of $500 in it.27 This policy benefit is particularly significant for families of color who have historically been disadvantaged in efforts to accumulate wealth due to discrimination.27 
Resources: 

Back to Top

  • State offers a refundable state Earned Income Tax Credit
  • State does not charge personal income tax for single-parent families of three below the federal poverty level

EITCs help decrease personal income tax liability, allowing low-income workers to keep more of their earnings. The amount of an EITC depends on tax filers’ income level, marital status, and number of dependent children.38 States have the option to make the credit refundable or non-refundable. With refundable EITCs, taxpayers receive payments from the state if their credits exceed their state income tax liability. In contrast, nonrefundable EITCs only offset state income tax liability, and taxpayers do not receive refunds for any excess credit amount.39

Research suggests that EITCs incentivize work, reduce poverty, and improve longer-term health and well-being of parents and children, including maternal mental health and healthy birthweight of infants.39-42 Recent research finds that the positive effects of EITCs are stronger or only associated with refundable EITCs and weaker or absent with non-refundable EITCs.39-41

  • Research on the relationship between EITC and low birthweight shows that states that provide refundable EITCs have the greatest increases in birth weights and decreases in rates of low-weight births.40  
  • A recent study finds a significant association for single mothers with at least two children between refundable state EITCs and improvements in self-reported maternal general health, fewer days not in good physical health, and fewer days not in good mental health. In comparison, there was no evidence of benefits from non-refundable state EITCs.41
  • Research has found an association between states’ adoption of refundable EITCs and reduced rates of children’s entry into foster care.42 Additionally, an increase in refundable benefit amount is linked to declines in reported rates of child neglect.43

While a refundable EITC helps low-income families keep more of their income, taxing families below the poverty line does the opposite, increasing families’ economic hardship and risks to children.44   

  • Taxing single parents living below the federal poverty line makes it significantly more difficult for them to meet basic needs for their families, driving them deeper into poverty and negatively affecting child outcomes such as school achievement.44, 45, 46
  • State taxes on poor families results in these families paying a larger share of their income on taxes compared to more advantaged families.47
Resources: 

Back to Top

  • State offers a refundable state dependent care tax credit

The federal child and dependent care tax credit (CDCTC) reduces the amount of taxes that working families with child care expenses have to pay. To be eligible, families must incur expenses for the care of eligible children and other dependents in order to work or look for work.48 The federal CDCTC was nonrefundable from its inception in 1976 through 2020, but it was expanded and became temporarily refundable in 2021 as part of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA).48, 49 States can opt to offer refundable CDCTCs. 

Overall, evidence for the benefits of the refundable federal CDCTC applies to state CDCTCs. Offering refundable CDCTCs increases eligibility and benefits among families that are most vulnerable.  

  • Refundability benefits very low-income families.49-52 With non-refundable tax credits, only families with positive tax liability after all deductions receive benefits.49, 50 
  • Refundable CDCTCs promote work and the use of paid child care, which may allow families to use higher quality options.51, 52, 53
  • Making CDCTCs refundable would significantly increase eligibility among single-parent, Black and Hispanic/Latinx households, who are less likely to receive the non-refundable credit.49, 51 Analyses by Pepin (2022) find that approximately 5 percent of single parents would gain eligibility and receive an average benefit of $1,000 annually. Permanent refundability would also expand eligibility among Black, Hispanic/Latinx, and white households by about 3, 2, and 1 percentage points, respectively.51 All together, these findings suggest that CDCTC refundability would help reduce eligibility gaps for disadvantaged groups.51 
Resources:  

Back to Top

  • State offers a refundable Child Tax Credit

The federal Child Tax Credit (CTC) is a tax credit for families with dependent children that promotes family economic security, especially for those in lower income brackets.54 The amount of a CTC is determined mainly by taxpayers’ income level, tax liability, and number of children.55  

The federal CTC was established under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, providing a maximum credit of $2,000 per child with $1,400 being refundable.54 Similar to the federal CTC, state-level CTCs aim to relieve financial burdens for families with children.54

Although approximately 90 percent of children benefit from CTCs to some degree, research documents marked disparities in eligibility and benefits by income and race.55 The great majority of children in families in the bottom 10 percent of the nation’s income distribution receive no benefit or refund from the CTC (mostly due to the earnings test that limits the refundable portion of CTCs to 15 percent of the amount by which the taxpayer’s earned income exceeds $2,500).55 Most of tax filers in the bottom 30 percent receive only a partial credit while nearly all children in households in the top half of the income distribution qualify for the full credit amount.55 Additionally, only about half of Black and Hispanic/Latinx families receive the full CTC, compared to three-quarters of white (non-Hispanic) and Asian families.55  

Evidence for the benefits of the federal CTC suggests similar benefits for state CTCs. Research shows that expanding and making the federal CTC fully refundable provides greater financial stability for families, reduces poverty, improves children’s lives overall, and decreases the existing benefit disparities.56, 57, 43   

  • Refundable CTCs enhances income stability, especially for Black families and workers with less education.56 Studies have found that low-income families overwhelmingly spent CTC refunds on necessities like food, rent, and utilities.56  
  • Receiving additional income through refundable CTCs can help prevent hardship and stressors due to poverty.57, 58 More income is associated with better child outcomes such as higher educational achievement and earnings in adulthood, and better health.57 
  • When CTCs are fully refundable, families in the lowest income brackets would receive the same amount of benefits as those in families with higher incomes, decreasing current benefit disparities across income groups.56, 43
Resources: 

Back to Top

  • State keeps copayments for child care subsidies at or below 7% of family income for families of three at 150% FPL

The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) is the largest federal funding source for child care subsidies, enabling low-income working families to access high-quality child care and aiming to improve the quality of care for all children.59 CCDF funding is distributed to states through a block grant called the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG).60 CCDBG allows states discretion within federal guidelines in setting policies such as subsidy payment rates and copayment amounts.59

In April 2024, rule change to the Development Fund requires states to cap family co-payments at 7 percent of total family income. States not in compliance by April 2024 may request a temporary waiver for an extension of the deadline in order to implement this policy. The new rule also encourages states to eliminate copayments for some families, including those with incomes at or below 150 percent of poverty; children in foster care; and families experiencing homelessness. Research shows that capping copayments helps ensure child care affordability for low-income families and families of color, thereby reducing disparities in care access. 

  • Affordable copayments help ensure that low-income families have money to meet other basic needs.61 A 2019 survey by the Bipartisan Policy Center/Morning Consult found that low-income families disproportionately struggle to afford child care, and the majority of them cut back on spending for necessities like food to pay for child care.62 A recent study that models the effects of limiting copayments to 7 percent or less for low-income families found a 30 percent reduction in poverty, even before accounting for expected increases in work hours.53 
  • Limiting copayments to 7 percent or less of family income is especially helpful in removing barriers to accessing child care for families of color.61 One study found that low-income Latinx families that have out-of-pocket care expenses spend a significant portion of their income on child care, with many spending as high as one-third of the family income.63  
Resources: 

Back to Top

  • State offers a minimum of 28 weeks of Unemployment Insurance benefits

Unemployment insurance (UI) is a joint state-federal program that provides temporary cash benefits to workers who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own.64 Although the U.S. Department of Labor oversees the UI system, states operate their UI program, and may establish requirements for eligibility, benefit amounts, and how long unemployed workers can receive UI benefits.64, 65

  • Unemployment benefits help families meet basic needs and maintain a relatively normal level of spending on necessities.66, 67 For example, a 2020 study on food insecurity among unemployed workers during the COVID-19 pandemic found that nearly one-third of the workers reported eating less and experiencing food insecurity due to financial constraints. However, receiving UI benefits of $600 per week under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (i.e., CARES Act) was associated with large declines in food insecurity.68  
  • UI can protect children from the harmful effects of financial instability and help keep workers and their families out of poverty.69 Analyses by the National Employment Law Project indicated that UI benefits, including temporary pandemic programs, prevented 4.7 million people (with 1.4 million children) from falling into poverty in 2020.70 
  • Research shows that UI buffers psychological stress related to job loss, especially among unemployed pregnant individuals, and is associated with better infant birthweight.71 Other benefits for children of UI include higher school achievement (shown in a sample that included children in the early grades) and reduced rates of abuse and neglect for extended UI.72 
  • There is evidence that UI is related to school achievement in a sample that includes children in the early grades.73
  • Recent research demonstrates that increased duration of UI benefits raises workers’ wages and job stability by increasing their ability to find better jobs.66, 67, 74 Many studies also suggest UI does not disincentivize employment.66
Resources: 

Back to Top

  • State funds a housing program that provides rental assistance to low-income families with children at 80% AMI/200% FPL or less to avoid eviction or homelessness

Almost 50 percent of all renters, and 80 percent of low-income renters have been found to be “cost burdened,” meaning they pay more than 30 percent of their income in rent.75 When families face unaffordable rents, they are more likely to experience housing instability and homelessness, which in turn increases young children’s risk of poor health, behavioral, and learning outcomes.76, 77, 78, 79, 80

  • Rental assistance has been shown to reduce poverty, housing instability, and homelessness while expanding opportunities for low-income families; children in families who receive rental assistance are more likely to live in lower-poverty neighborhoods and attend college.75, 81, 82  
  • Rental assistance improves adult health and mental health by lessening the stress related to possible eviction and housing instability,83  a change that may reduce children’s risk of social-emotional and behavior problems.84, 85
  • There is evidence that housing assistance (both vouchers and public housing) allows parents to spend more on their children (e.g., for child care, books, learning supplies, enrichment outings) and this increased investment contributes to children’s positive school, health, and social-emotional outcomes.86 
Resources: 

Back to Top

Back to EC Profiles

References:
  1. Herbst, C. (2017). Are parental welfare work requirements good for disadvantaged children? Evidence from age-of-youngest-child exemptions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 36(2), 327–357. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21971  ↩︎
  2. Holl, J. L., Oh, E. H., Yoo, J., Amsden, L. B., & Sohn, M. W. (2012). Effects of welfare and maternal work on recommended preventive care utilization among low-income children. American Journal of Public Health, 102(12), 2274–2279. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300803  ↩︎
  3. Pavetti, L. (2018). TANF studies show work requirement proposals for other programs would harm millions, do little to increase work. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/tanf-studies-show-work-requirement-proposals-for-other-programs   ↩︎
  4. Ginther, D. K., & Johnson-Motoyama, M. (2022). Associations between state TANF policies, Child Protective Services involvement, and foster care placement. Health Affairs, 41(12), 1744-1753. https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2022.00743  ↩︎
  5. Romig, K., & Bryant, K. (2021). A national paid leave program would help workers, families. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/economy/a-national-paid-leave-program-would-help-workers-families  ↩︎
  6. Lichtman-Sadot, S., & Bell, N. P. (2017). Child health in elementary school following California’s paid family leave program. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 36(4), 790–827. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28991423/  ↩︎
  7. Bullinger, L. R. (2019). The effect of paid family leave on infant and parental health in the United States. Journal of Health Economics, 66, 101-116. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31150953/  ↩︎
  8. Woodward, L. J., & Liberty, K. A. (2005). Breastfeeding and child psychosocial development. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development, 1-6. https://www.child-encyclopedia.com/breastfeeding/according-experts/breastfeeding-and-child-psychosocial-development  ↩︎
  9. Quinn, P. J., O’Callaghan, M., Williams, G. M., Najman, J. M., Andersen, M. J., & Bor, W. (2001). The effect of breastfeeding on child development at 5 years: A cohort study. Journal of Pediatrics and Child Health, 37(5), 465-469. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11885710/  ↩︎
  10. Whitney, M. D., Holbrook, C., Alvarado, L., & Boyd, S. (2023). Length of maternity leave impact on mental and physical health of mothers and infants, a systematic review and meta-analysis. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 27(8), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-022-03524-0  ↩︎
  11. Houser, L., & Vartanian, T.P. (2012). Pay matters: The positive economic impacts of paid family leave for families, businesses and the public. Center for Women and Work, School of Management and Labor Relations, Rutgers University. https://nationalpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/pay-matters-2.pdf   ↩︎
  12. Rossin-Slater, M., & Uniat, L. (2019). Paid family leave policies and population health. Health Affairs. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hpb20190301.484936/full/ ↩︎
  13. National Partnership for Women & Families. (2020). Paid sick days are good for businesses. https://www.nationalpartnership.org/our-work/resources/economic-justice/paid-sick-days/paid-sick-days-good-for-business-and-workers.pdf ↩︎
  14. Michel, Z. Z. (2017). The business benefits of paid sick time. Center for Law and Social Policy. https://www.clasp.org/sites/default/files/public/resources-and-publications/publication-1/Business-Case-for-HFA-3.pdf ↩︎
  15. Schuster, M. A., & Chung, P. J. (2014). Time off to care for a sick child–why family-leave policies matter. The New England Journal of Medicine, 371(6), 493-495. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25099574/  ↩︎
  16. Gould, E., & Schieder, J. (2017). Work sick or lose pay? The high cost of being sick when you don’t get paid sick days. Economic Policy Institute. https://files.epi.org/pdf/130245.pdf  ↩︎
  17. U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Minimum wage. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage  ↩︎
  18. Schneider, W., Bullinger, L. R., & Raissian, K. M. (2021). How does the minimum wage affect child maltreatment and parenting behaviors? An analysis of the mechanisms. Review of Economics of the Household, 20(4), 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-021-09590-7 ↩︎
  19. Raissian, K. M., & Bullinger, L. R. (2017). Money matters: Does the minimum wage affect child maltreatment rates? Children and Youth Services Review, 72, 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.09.033  ↩︎
  20. Livingston, M. D., Woods-Jaeger, B., Spencer, R. A., Lemon, E., Walker, A., & Komro, K. A. (2022). Association of state minimum wage increases with child maltreatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(21-22), NP21411-NP21421. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34865561/ ↩︎
  21. Koball, H. (2021). Growing pains: How benefit cliffs can derail government support. Spotlight on Poverty and Opportunity. https://spotlightonpoverty.org/spotlight-exclusives/growing-pains-how-benefit-cliffs-can-derail-government-support/  ↩︎
  22. Wehby, G.L., Dave, D.M. and Kaestner, R. (2020). Effects of the minimum wage on infant health. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 39: 411-443. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22174   ↩︎
  23. Wehby, G. L., Kaestner, R., Lyu, W., & Dave, D. M. (2022). Effects of the minimum wage on child health. American Journal of Health Economics, 8(3), 412-448. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/719364?journalCode=ajhe  ↩︎
  24. Godøy, A., Reich, M., Wursten, J., and Allegretto, S. (2021). Parental labor supply: Evidence from minimum wage changes (IRLE Working Paper No. 103-19). Institute for Research on Labor and Employment. https://irle.berkeley.edu/publications/working-papers/parental-labor-supply-evidence-from-minimum-wage-changes/   ↩︎
  25. Hunger + Health & Feeding America. (n.d.) SNAP-eligible households. https://hungerandhealth.feedingamerica.org/explore-our-work/programs-target-populations/snap-eligible-households/  ↩︎
  26. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2023). A quick guide to SNAP eligibility and benefits. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/a-quick-guide-to-snap-eligibility-and-benefits  ↩︎
  27. Rosenbaum, D. (2019). SNAP’s “broad-based categorical eligibility” supports working families and those saving for the future. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/snaps-broad-based-categorical-eligibility-supports-working-families-and ↩︎
  28. Anders, J., & Rafkin, C. (2022). The welfare effects of eligibility expansions: Theory and evidence from SNAP. Available at SSRN 4140433. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4140433  ↩︎
  29. Mintz, D. (2021). Louisiana should make SNAP work better for working people. Louisiana Budget Project. https://www.labudget.org/2021/11/louisiana-should-make-snap-work-better-for-working-people/ ↩︎
  30. Schanzenbach, D. W. (2019). Exploring options to improve the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 686(1), 204-228. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716219882677  ↩︎
  31. Louisiana Budget Project. (2022). Raising SNAP’s gross income limit supports work. https://www.labudget.org/2022/03/raising-snaps-gross-income-limit-supports-work/ ↩︎
  32. Schanzenbach, D. W., & Thorn, B. (2019). Food support programs and their impacts on very young children. Health Policy Brief, Health Affairs. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hpb20190301.863688/ ↩︎
  33. de Cuba, S. A. E., Bovell-Ammon, A. R., Cook, J. T., Coleman, S. M., Black, M. M., Chilton, M. M., … & Frank, D. A. (2019). SNAP, young children’s health, and family food security and healthcare access. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 57(4), 525-532. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31542130/  ↩︎
  34. McIntyre, L., Williams, J. V., Lavorato, D. H., & Patten, S. (2013). Depression and suicide ideation in late adolescence and early adulthood are an outcome of child hunger. Journal of Affective Disorders, 150(1), 123-129. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23276702/  ↩︎
  35. Schanzenbach, D. W. (2023). Understanding SNAP: An overview of recent research. Food Policy, 114, 102397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102397  ↩︎
  36. Austin, A. E., Naumann, R. B., Shanahan, M. E., & Frank, M. (2023). State expansion of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program eligibility and rates of foster care entries. Child Abuse & Neglect, 145, 106399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106399  ↩︎
  37. Sanjeevi, N., Freeland-Graves, J. H., & Sachdev, P. K. (2021). Association of loss of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits with food insecurity and dietary intake of adults and children. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 114(2), 683-689. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33876182/   ↩︎
  38. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2023). Earned income tax credit overview. https://www.ncsl.org/human-services/earned-income-tax-credit-overview  ↩︎
  39. Urban Institute. (n.d.). State earned income tax credits. https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/state-earned-income-tax-credits ↩︎
  40. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of the Associate Director for Policy and Strategy. (2022). Earned income tax credits. https://web.archive.org/web/20230109150757/https://www.cdc.gov/policy/opaph/hi5/taxcredits/index.html    ↩︎
  41. Qian, H., & Wehby, G. L. (2021). The effects of refundable and nonrefundable state earned income tax credit programs on health of mothers of two or more children. Women’s Health Issues, 31(5), 448-454. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34052090/  ↩︎
  42. Rostad, W. L., Ports, K. A., Tang, S., & Klevens, J. (2020). Reducing the number of children entering foster care: Effects of state earned income tax credits. Child Maltreatment, 25(4), 393-397. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31973550/  ↩︎
  43. Davis, A., & Butkus, N. (2023). States are boosting economic security with Child Tax Credits in 2023. Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. https://itep.org/states-are-boosting-economic-security-with-child-tax-credits-in-2023/  ↩︎
  44. Oliff, P., Mai, C., & Johnson, N. (2012). The impact of state income taxes on low-income families in 2011. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/the-impact-of-state-income-taxes-on-low-income-families-in-2011 ↩︎
  45. Furman, J. (2014). Poverty and the tax code. Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/32/poverty-and-the-tax-code/ ↩︎
  46. Duncan, G. J., Morris, P. A., & Rodrigues, C. (2011). Does money really matter? Estimating impacts of family income on young children’s achievement with data from random-assignment experiments. Developmental Psychology, 47(5), 1263. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3208322/  ↩︎
  47. Wiehe, M., Davis, A., Davis, C., Gardner, M., Gee, L. C., & Grundman, D. (2018). Who pays: A distributional analysis of the tax systems in all 50 states. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. https://itep.org/whopays/  ↩︎
  48. Internal Revenue Service. (2023). Topic no. 602 – Child and dependent care credit. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc602 ↩︎
  49. Pepin, G. (2021). Making the child care tax credit permanently refundable could benefit low-income families. W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. https://doi.org/10.17848/pb2021-35 ↩︎
  50. Rodgers, L. P. (2018). Give credit where? The incidence of child care tax credits. Journal of Urban Economics, 108, 51-71. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094119018300792  ↩︎
  51. Pepin, G. (2022). How would a permanently refundable child and dependent care credit affect eligibility, benefits, and incentives? Public Finance Review, 50(1), 33-61. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/10911421221092053?journalCode=pfrb ↩︎
  52. Maag, E. (2017). What would a refundable child care credit mean? Tax Policy Center. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/what-would-refundable-child-care-credit-mean ↩︎
  53. Hartley, R. P., Mattingly, M. J., Waldfogel, J., & Wimer, C. (2022). Paying for childcare to work? Evaluating the role of policy in affordable care and child poverty. Social Service Review, 96(1), 34-72. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/718635  ↩︎
  54. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2023). Child tax credit overview. https://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/child-tax-credit-overview.aspx  ↩︎
  55. Goldin, J., & Michelmore, K. (2021). Who benefits from the child tax credit? (NBER Working Paper No. 27940). National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w27940 ↩︎
  56. Hardy, B. L. (2022). Child tax credit has a critical role in helping families maintain economic stability. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/child-tax-credit-has-a-critical-role-in-helping-families-maintain-economic    ↩︎
  57. Cox, K., Marr, C., Sherman, A., & Hingtgen, S. (2021). If Congress fails to act, monthly child tax credit payments will stop, child poverty reductions will be lost. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/if-congress-fails-to-act-monthly-child-tax-credit-payments-will-stop-child  ↩︎
  58. Pilkauskas, N. V., Michelmore, K., & Kovski, N. (2023). The 2021 Child Tax Credit, the living arrangements and housing affordability of families with low incomes (NBER Working Paper No. 31339). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w31339  ↩︎
  59. Office of Child Care. (2022). OCC Fact Sheet. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/occ/fact-sheet ↩︎
  60. Banghart, P., King, C., Bedrick, E., Hirilall, A., & Daily, S. (2019). State priorities for Child Care and Development Block Grant funding increase: 2019 national overview. Child Trends. https://web.archive.org/web/20220816131129/https://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/CCDBGFunding_ChildTrends_October2019.pdf ↩︎
  61. Gomez, A. L., & Hardy, A. (2021). Capping the co-pay: A state-by-state analysis. The Center for Law and Social Policy. https://www.clasp.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/2021_cappingcopaysstate_updated_0.pdf ↩︎
  62. Smith, L., Suenaga, M., & Campbell, M. (2020). Demystifying child care affordability. Bipartisan Policy Center. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/demystifying-child-care-affordability/ ↩︎
  63. Crosby, D., Mendez, J., & Barnes, A. (2019). Child care affordability is out of reach for many low-income Hispanic households. National Research Center on Hispanic Children & Families. https://www.hispanicresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Hispanic-Center-Child-Care-Affordability-October-2019-FINAL.pdf ↩︎
  64. Office of Unemployment Insurance, U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Unemployment Insurance fact sheet. https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/docs/factsheet/UI_Program_FactSheet.pdf ↩︎
  65. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2021). Policy basics: Unemployment insurance. https://www.cbpp.org/research/economy/unemployment-insurance ↩︎
  66. Gwyn, N. (2022). Historic unemployment programs provided vital support to workers and the economy during pandemic, offer roadmap for future reform. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/economy/historic-unemployment-programs-provided-vital-support-to-workers-and-the-economy  ↩︎
  67. Karabarbounis, M. (2022). Unemployment insurance: Economic lessons from the last two recessions (Economic Brief No. 21-26). The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2021/eb_21-26 ↩︎
  68. Raifman, J., Bor, J., & Venkataramani, A. (2020). Unemployment insurance and food insecurity among people who lost employment in the wake of COVID-19. medRxiv: The Preprint Server for Health Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.28.20163618 ↩︎
  69. Hardy, B., Hill, H. D., & Romich, J. (2019). Strengthening social programs to promote economic stability during childhood. Social Policy Report, 32(2), 1-36. https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sop2.4 ↩︎
  70. National Employment Law Project. (2021). Unemployment insurance kept 4.7 million people out of poverty in 2020. https://www.nelp.org/publication/unemployment-insurance-kept-4-7-million-people-out-of-poverty-in-2020/ ↩︎
  71. Kessler, D., & Hevenstone, D. (2022). The impact of unemployment benefits on birth outcomes: Quasi-experimental evidence from European linked register data. PloS One, 17(3), e0264544. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0264544 ↩︎
  72. Kukla-Acevedo, S., & Heflin, C. M. (2014). Unemployment insurance effects on child academic outcomes: Results from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 47, 246-252. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-55927-008  ↩︎
  73. Brown, D., & De Cao, E. (2020). Child maltreatment, unemployment, and safety nets. Unemployment, and Safety Nets (January 2020). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3543987 ↩︎
  74. Farooq, A., Kugler, A. D., & Muratori, U. (2022). Do unemployment insurance benefits improve match and employer quality? Evidence from recent U.S. recessions (NBER Working Paper No. 27574). National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w27574 ↩︎
  75. The Congressional Research Service. (2023). Pandemic relief: The Emergency Rental Assistance Program. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46688  ↩︎
  76. Clair, A. (2019). Housing: An under-explored influence on children’s well-being and becoming. Child Indicators Research, 12(2), 609-626. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12187-018-9550-7 ↩︎
  77. Fantuzzo, J. W., LeBoeuf, W. A., Chen, C. C., Rouse, H. L., & Culhane, D. P. (2012). The unique and combined effects of homelessness and school mobility on the educational outcomes of young children. Educational Researcher, 41(9), 393-402. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/0013189X12468210  ↩︎
  78. Clark, R. E., Weinreb, L., Flahive, J. M., & Seifert, R. W. (2019). Infants exposed to homelessness: Health, health care use, and health spending from birth to age six. Health Affairs, 38(5), 721-728. https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00090  ↩︎
  79. Ziol-Guest, K. M., & McKenna, C. C. (2014). Early childhood housing instability and school readiness. Child Development, 85(1), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12105 ↩︎
  80. Holme, J. J. (2022). Growing up as rents rise: How housing affordability impacts children. Review of Educational Research, 92(6), 953-995. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221079416 ↩︎
  81. Fischer, W., Acosta, S., & Gartland, E. (2021). More housing vouchers: Most important step to help more people afford stable homes. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/more-housing-vouchers-most-important-step-to-help-more-people-afford-stable-homes  ↩︎
  82. Fischer W., Rice D., & Mazzara, A. (2019). Research shows rental assistance reduces hardship and provides platform to expand opportunity for low-income families. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/research-shows-rental-assistance-reduces-hardship-and-provides-platform-to-expand  ↩︎
  83. Acharya, B., Bhatta, D., & Dhakal, C. (2022). The risk of eviction and the mental health outcomes among the US adults. Preventive Medicine Reports, 29, 101981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101981  ↩︎
  84. Denary, W., Fenelon, A., Schlesinger, P., Purtle, J., Blankenship, K. M., & Keene, D. E. (2021). Does rental assistance improve mental health? Insights from a longitudinal cohort study. Social Science & Medicine, 282, 114100. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34144434/ ↩︎
  85. Brown, S. R., Thurber, A., & Shinn, M. (2023). Mothers’ perceptions of how homelessness and housing interventions affect their children’s behavioral and educational functioning. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 93(3), 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000670 ↩︎
  86. Newman, S., & Holupka, C. S. (2021). Effects of assisted housing on children’s healthy development. Housing Policy Debate, 1-25. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10511482.2021.1931927 ↩︎

Back to Top

Back to EC Profiles

Last Updated August 16, 2024