The Earned Income Tax Credit and Nonresident Fathers’ Contributions to their Children
Using data from the Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study, this paper finds that a more generous Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is associated with increased informal cash and in-kind support from nonresident fathers who live with other children, suggesting positive spillover effects that support expanding EITC eligibility to nonresident parents.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
In the United States, a significant number of children grow up with a parent living outside their home. When a father does not live with his child, the family often faces greater financial hardship, and the child's well-being can suffer. To help these families, the government has long relied on a system of formal child support, where a court orders the non-resident parent to pay a set amount of money. However, research shows that many fathers struggle to meet these rigid court orders, often due to unstable jobs or low wages. Beyond the courtroom, fathers also provide support in other ways: they might give cash directly to the mother without a court order, or they might buy clothes, food, and other necessities for the child. These informal contributions are often deeply valued by families because they go straight to the child rather than being processed through the state. At the same time, the government offers a tax credit called the Earned Income Tax Credit, which gives extra money to low-income working families. While this credit is designed to help parents living with their children, it can also reach fathers who live with a different child, or even those who live alone but work. The question researchers wanted to answer was whether this extra money from the tax credit helps fathers support the children they do not live with, or if the money stays entirely within the household where the father currently resides.
A team of researchers set out to investigate this connection by looking at data from thousands of families across the United States over more than a decade. They focused on fathers who were not living with the child they were being asked about, known as the focal child. The researchers examined how the size of the tax credit a father could receive in his specific state and year related to the money and goods he provided to his non-resident child. They distinguished between three types of support: formal payments made through the court system, informal cash given directly to the mother, and in-kind support like buying diapers or paying for activities. The study also paid close attention to the father's current living situation, specifically whether he was living with another child of his own, and whether he owed any past-due child support payments to the state.
The researchers found that the tax credit did not change how much fathers paid through the formal court system. This makes sense because court orders are usually fixed amounts that are automatically taken from a paycheck, so a tax refund does not easily alter those payments. However, the study uncovered a different story for informal support. When a father lived with another child, such as a biological child from a new relationship, a larger tax credit was associated with him giving more informal cash to his non-resident child. Specifically, for every one hundred dollars increase in the potential tax credit, these fathers provided an additional sixty-two dollars in informal cash support over the course of a year. This effect was not seen in fathers who did not live with any children, nor was it seen in fathers who lived with a child that was not their own, such as a stepchild or a relative's child. The support seemed to flow most strongly when the father was the intended recipient of the tax credit, living with his own biological child.
The study also revealed a significant barrier that stops this extra money from reaching children. When a father owed past-due child support, the positive link between the tax credit and informal support disappeared. In fact, for fathers with arrears, a larger tax credit was actually associated with less informal cash support. The researchers suggest this happens because the government often seizes tax refunds from fathers who owe back payments to cover the cost of public assistance provided to the child's mother. If the father's refund is taken by the state, he has no extra money left to give to his non-resident child, and the intended benefit of the tax credit for his current household is also lost.
These findings suggest that the tax credit can act as a bridge, allowing resources to flow from a father's current household to his non-resident child, but only under specific conditions. The effect is strongest when the father is living with his own child and is not blocked by debt to the state. The researchers note that this is not a guaranteed outcome for every family, but rather a pattern observed in the data that points to a positive side effect of a policy designed for a different purpose. The results imply that if the government wants to ensure that tax credits help all children, including those living apart from a parent, it may need to change how it handles tax refunds for fathers who owe money. Without such changes, the potential benefit of the credit for the non-resident child, and even for the child living with the father, may be lost to state collection efforts.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.