TABLE 6.

Estimated ITT effects of Food Stamps exposure between conception and age 5 on well-being indices, by mobility

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)
	Share of movers	Human capital		Economic self-sufficiency		Neighbourhood quality
		Stayers	Movers	Stayers	Movers	Stayers	Movers
%In utero–age 5	0.0085 (0.0031)	0.0113 (0.0031)	0.0064 (0.0021)	0.0062 (0.0029)	0.0031 (0.0019)	0.0156 (0.0035)	0.0085 (0.0031)
FE county, survey year	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
$Ct{y}_{60}\times$ linear cohort	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
State × birth year FE	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Number of observations	17,400,000	5,182,000	12,200,000	5,182,000	12,200,000	5,182,000	12,200,000
Number of cells	4,272,000	2,101,000	3,567,000	2,101,000	3,567,000	2,101,000	3,567,000
Number of counties	3,000	2,700	3,000	2,700	3,000	2,700	3,000
MDV	0.712	−0.115	0.068	−0.0228	0.0533	−0.152	0.0679
R2	0.18	0.283	0.181	0.0662	0.0425	0.538	0.301

Notes: We use the same sample as in Table 3 to study the effects of Food Stamps exposure on the incidence of mobility and differences in effects between stayers and movers. The data are collapsed into cells at the birth-county × birth-year × birth-month × survey-year level, and the reported coefficient is on the exposure variable: the share of months between conception and age 5 that a cohort is exposed to Food Stamps based on when the program began in the cohort’s county of birth. Standard errors clustered by county of birth are reported in parentheses. In the first column, the outcome is the share of individuals in a cell who are observed in the 2000–13 Census/ACS to be in a different county than the one in which they were born (i.e. the share of movers). Stayers are those who are observed to be in the same county as the one in which they were born. The subsequent columns present estimates from our main exposure model (equation 3) for our four outcome indices separately for these two subgroups.