You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • State Earned Income Tax Credit policies and intimate partner homicide in the USA, 1990–2016

Article Text

Article menu

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Brief report
State Earned Income Tax Credit policies and intimate partner homicide in the USA, 1990–2016
  1. Caitlin A Moe1,2,
  2. Avanti Adhia2,3,
  3. Stephen J Mooney1,2,
  4. Heather D Hill4,
  5. Frederick P Rivara2,3,
  6. Ali Rowhani-Rahbar1,2
  1. 1Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington, USA
  2. 2Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
  3. 3Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA
  4. 4Public Policy & Governance, University of Washington Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs, Seattle, Washington, USA
  1. Correspondence to Caitlin A Moe, Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, WA 98195, USA; cmoe2{at}uw.edu

Abstract

Economic insecurity is a risk factor for intimate partner homicide (IPH). The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is the largest cash transfer programme to low-income working families in the USA. We hypothesised that EITCs could provide financial means for potential IPH victims to exit abusive relationships and establish self-sufficiency. We conducted a national, quasiexperimental study of state EITCs and IPH rates in 1990–2016 using a difference-in-differences approach. The national rate of IPH decreased from 1.9 per 100 000 adult women in 1990 to 1.3 per 100 000 in 2016. We found no statistically significant association between state EITC generosity and IPH rates (coefficient indicating change in IPH rates per 100 000 adult female years for additional 10% in amount of state EITC, measured as the percentage of federal EITC: 0.02, 95% CI −0.03 to 0.08). Financial control associated with abuse and current EITC eligibility rules may prevent potential IPH victims from accessing the EITC.

  • violence
  • epidemiology
  • policy
  • public health

https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2020-043675

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @caitlinmoe_

    • Contributors CAM conducted analyses and was lead author. AA, SJM, HDH, FR and AR-R reviewed and edited manuscript drafts and provided conceptual and methodological support. AR-R oversaw analyses.

    • Funding This study was funded by a cooperative agreement with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1U01CE002945).

    • Competing interests AR-R is on the editorial board of Injury Prevention.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Ethics approval This study was approved by the University of Washington’s Institutional Review Board.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.