Table 5.

Effect of the EITC on living arrangements and crowding

	CPS	ACS	FFCWS
Living Arrangements
Doubled up	−0.021**	−0.013***	−0.106***
	(0.007)	(0.003)	(0.014)
Living in multigenerational household	−0.021***	−0.004*	−0.046***
	(0.005)	(0.002)	(0.012)
Doubling up in someone else’s homea			−0.065***
			(0.014)
Named on the lease or mortgagea			0.094***
			(0.016)
Number of people in the household	−0.018	−0.022†	0.970***
	(0.017)	(0.012)	(0.047)
Number of adults in the household			−0.308***
			(0.032)
Number of children in the household			1.329***
			(0.033)
Household Crowding
Crowding		−0.021***
		(0.004)
Number of Observations	85,089	757,977	9,928

Notes: Standard errors, clustered at the state level, are shown in parentheses. Coefficients represent the effect of a $1,000 increase in the simulated EITC benefit on outcomes. The CPS and ACS models include demographic and state contextual characteristics; state, year, and number of child fixed effects; and state-specific time trends. FFCWS models include demographic and state contextual characteristics, year, and individual fixed effects. Each cell represents a separate regression. The sample is restricted to single mothers with less than a college degree and with at least one coresident child under the age of 19. The CPS and ACS are also restricted to mothers aged 19–45. Single mothers residing in public housing are excluded from the CPS and FFCWS.

Sources: Current Population Survey (CPS) 1990–2016. Census 1990/American Community Survey 2000–2016. Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS) 1998–2016.

^aInformation not asked in Year 1 of the FFCWS.

^†p < .10;

^*p < .05;

^**p < .01;

^***p < .001