2594 lines
No EOL
238 KiB
HTML
2594 lines
No EOL
238 KiB
HTML
<!doctype html>
|
|
<html lang="en" class="no-js">
|
|
<head>
|
|
<meta charset="UTF-8" />
|
|
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge,chrome=1" />
|
|
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1" />
|
|
<title>Poverty Status of Social Security Beneficiaries, by Type of Benefit</title>
|
|
<meta name="DCTERMS:dateCreated" content="2016-11" />
|
|
<meta name="DCTERMS:contentOffice" content="ORDP:ORES" />
|
|
<meta name="DCTERMS:contentOwner" content="publications@ssa.gov" />
|
|
<meta name="DCTERMS:coderOffice" content="ORDP:ORES:OD" />
|
|
<meta name="DCTERMS:coder" content="op.webmaster@ssa.gov" />
|
|
<meta name="DCTERMS:dateCertified" content="2025-01-01" />
|
|
<meta name="description" content="Social Security Administration Research, Statistics, and Policy Analysis" />
|
|
<meta property="og:site_name" content="Social Security Administration Research, Statistics, and Policy Analysis"/>
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/policy/styles/doc.css" />
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/policy/styles/global.css" />
|
|
<!-- SSA INTERNET HEAD SCRIPTS -->
|
|
<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.7.1.min.js" integrity="sha256-/JqT3SQfawRcv/BIHPThkBvs0OEvtFFmqPF/lYI/Cxo=" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>
|
|
<script src="/framework/js/ssa.internet.head.js"></script>
|
|
|
|
<script>(window.BOOMR_mq=window.BOOMR_mq||[]).push(["addVar",{"rua.upush":"false","rua.cpush":"false","rua.upre":"false","rua.cpre":"false","rua.uprl":"false","rua.cprl":"false","rua.cprf":"false","rua.trans":"SJ-3a3bb884-f513-47e3-a86c-84bab05e21dc","rua.cook":"true","rua.ims":"false","rua.ufprl":"false","rua.cfprl":"false","rua.isuxp":"false","rua.texp":"norulematch","rua.ceh":"false","rua.ueh":"false","rua.ieh.st":"0"}]);</script>
|
|
<script>!function(e){var n="https://s.go-mpulse.net/boomerang/";if("False"=="True")e.BOOMR_config=e.BOOMR_config||{},e.BOOMR_config.PageParams=e.BOOMR_config.PageParams||{},e.BOOMR_config.PageParams.pci=!0,n="https://s2.go-mpulse.net/boomerang/";if(window.BOOMR_API_key="LERZW-HECFS-R8H4E-23UQ7-ERMQB",function(){function e(){if(!o){var e=document.createElement("script");e.id="boomr-scr-as",e.src=window.BOOMR.url,e.async=!0,i.parentNode.appendChild(e),o=!0}}function t(e){o=!0;var n,t,a,r,d=document,O=window;if(window.BOOMR.snippetMethod=e?"if":"i",t=function(e,n){var t=d.createElement("script");t.id=n||"boomr-if-as",t.src=window.BOOMR.url,BOOMR_lstart=(new Date).getTime(),e=e||d.body,e.appendChild(t)},!window.addEventListener&&window.attachEvent&&navigator.userAgent.match(/MSIE [67]\./))return window.BOOMR.snippetMethod="s",void t(i.parentNode,"boomr-async");a=document.createElement("IFRAME"),a.src="about:blank",a.title="",a.role="presentation",a.loading="eager",r=(a.frameElement||a).style,r.width=0,r.height=0,r.border=0,r.display="none",i.parentNode.appendChild(a);try{O=a.contentWindow,d=O.document.open()}catch(_){n=document.domain,a.src="javascript:var d=document.open();d.domain='"+n+"';void(0);",O=a.contentWindow,d=O.document.open()}if(n)d._boomrl=function(){this.domain=n,t()},d.write("<bo"+"dy onload='document._boomrl();'>");else if(O._boomrl=function(){t()},O.addEventListener)O.addEventListener("load",O._boomrl,!1);else if(O.attachEvent)O.attachEvent("onload",O._boomrl);d.close()}function a(e){window.BOOMR_onload=e&&e.timeStamp||(new Date).getTime()}if(!window.BOOMR||!window.BOOMR.version&&!window.BOOMR.snippetExecuted){window.BOOMR=window.BOOMR||{},window.BOOMR.snippetStart=(new Date).getTime(),window.BOOMR.snippetExecuted=!0,window.BOOMR.snippetVersion=12,window.BOOMR.url=n+"LERZW-HECFS-R8H4E-23UQ7-ERMQB";var i=document.currentScript||document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],o=!1,r=document.createElement("link");if(r.relList&&"function"==typeof r.relList.supports&&r.relList.supports("preload")&&"as"in r)window.BOOMR.snippetMethod="p",r.href=window.BOOMR.url,r.rel="preload",r.as="script",r.addEventListener("load",e),r.addEventListener("error",function(){t(!0)}),setTimeout(function(){if(!o)t(!0)},3e3),BOOMR_lstart=(new Date).getTime(),i.parentNode.appendChild(r);else t(!1);if(window.addEventListener)window.addEventListener("load",a,!1);else if(window.attachEvent)window.attachEvent("onload",a)}}(),"".length>0)if(e&&"performance"in e&&e.performance&&"function"==typeof e.performance.setResourceTimingBufferSize)e.performance.setResourceTimingBufferSize();!function(){if(BOOMR=e.BOOMR||{},BOOMR.plugins=BOOMR.plugins||{},!BOOMR.plugins.AK){var n="false"=="true"?1:0,t="cookiepresent",a="eyd7g6aaiaaamjqacqdfqaaaabt3mown-f-4f12c8e43-clienttons-s.akamaihd.net",i="false"=="true"?2:1,o={"ak.v":"39","ak.cp":"1204614","ak.ai":parseInt("728289",10),"ak.ol":"0","ak.cr":5,"ak.ipv":6,"ak.proto":"h2","ak.rid":"14c9856d","ak.r":19138,"ak.a2":n,"ak.m":"dsca","ak.n":"essl","ak.bpcip":"2607:f378:40:6::","ak.cport":40630,"ak.gh":"23.60.168.62","ak.quicv":"","ak.tlsv":"tls1.3","ak.0rtt":"","ak.0rtt.ed":"","ak.csrc":"-","ak.acc":"","ak.t":"1739995853","ak.ak":"hOBiQwZUYzCg5VSAfCLimQ==vS25lGXKCRYt0cSPyn/ZScm7WAOu6Nq/mjdrIcZcpvQHPZsZaT47j6CEJKb1o3tnLZmHiRrKmnxTpLMxzDsTmhJQWyt8mukwm5AfGaAPpVC5/teuO7OBqVINNCukYAoaZ+sZiAri9GhoXjoO6oWg/MaPvFnxwwSKgOEs7CA3c/TNQD8PF92FZzUSGDsMljYV3YsN9Wtnkeem2Re7dY8PjRGxU0a9GkakJO2uCkMOao8KALE7G2Mg5X8Wrhfw3JORwJ95tWUyG3oDy2OAyKsoghYI8tFzEkUrcux5EwfBA0OVgmTjnUryc3zRlegD1lFgY+ygyN3uSgs1dubwivbC856ahvzSaZvM0NM6QroMp3iFZd+hzI2Z0fRp3YAsGQJ9s+bz3181NH9XAjXcEhYiKXFfSxNDyjR6jFac25gL9gw=","ak.pv":"98","ak.dpoabenc":"","ak.tf":i};if(""!==t)o["ak.ruds"]=t;var r={i:!1,av:function(n){var t="http.initiator";if(n&&(!n[t]||"spa_hard"===n[t]))o["ak.feo"]=void 0!==e.aFeoApplied?1:0,BOOMR.addVar(o)},rv:function(){var e=["ak.bpcip","ak.cport","ak.cr","ak.csrc","ak.gh","ak.ipv","ak.m","ak.n","ak.ol","ak.proto","ak.quicv","ak.tlsv","ak.0rtt","ak.0rtt.ed","ak.r","ak.acc","ak.t","ak.tf"];BOOMR.removeVar(e)}};BOOMR.plugins.AK={akVars:o,akDNSPreFetchDomain:a,init:function(){if(!r.i){var e=BOOMR.subscribe;e("before_beacon",r.av,null,null),e("onbeacon",r.rv,null,null),r.i=!0}return this},is_complete:function(){return!0}}}}()}(window);</script></head>
|
|
<body class="research">
|
|
<article itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle">
|
|
<meta itemprop="datePublished" content="2016-11" />
|
|
<meta itemprop="image" content="cover.jpg" />
|
|
<header>
|
|
<div id="hLogo"><a class="navLogo" href="/policy/index.html">Social Security</a><a class="navSearch" href="https://search.ssa.gov/search?affiliate=ssa">SEARCH</a></div>
|
|
<div id="hRedBar">
|
|
<div id="hDocInfo">
|
|
<h1 itemprop="headline">Poverty Status of Social Security Beneficiaries, by Type of Benefit</h1>
|
|
<div id="hByline">by <span itemprop="author">Benjamin Bridges and Robert V. Gesumaria</span><br>Social Security Bulletin, <abbr title="Volume">Vol.</abbr> 76 <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr> 4, 2016 (released November 2016)</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</header>
|
|
<nav>
|
|
<div id="breadcrumbs" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/BreadcrumbList">You are here: <span itemprop="itemListElement" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ListItem"><a href="/" itemprop="item"><span itemprop="name">Social Security Administration</span></a><meta itemprop="position" content="1" /></span> > <span itemprop="itemListElement" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ListItem"><a href="/policy/index.html" itemprop="item"><span itemprop="name">Research, Statistics & Policy Analysis</span></a><meta itemprop="position" content="2" /></span> > <span itemprop="itemListElement" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ListItem"><a href="/policy/docs/ssb/index.html" itemprop="item"><span itemprop="name">Social Security Bulletin</span></a><meta itemprop="position" content="3" /></span> > <span itemprop="itemListElement" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ListItem"><a href="index.html" itemprop="item"><span itemprop="name"><abbr title="Volume">Vol.</abbr> 76 <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr> 4</span></a><meta itemprop="position" content="4" /></span></div>
|
|
<div id="rspaUtil"><ul><li id="mail"><a class="js-ga-event" href="#" rel="nofollow" data-event="outbound-link" data-event-action="click" data-event-label="email-this">Email</a></li><li id="print"><a href="#" rel="nofollow">Save/Print</a></li></ul></div>
|
|
</nav>
|
|
<div class="innards">
|
|
<div class="introBox">
|
|
<p id="synopsis" itemprop="description">In this article, we examine the 2012 poverty status of Social Security adult type of benefit (<abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr>) groups using both the official poverty measure and the Supplemental Poverty Measure (<abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr>). For each <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group, we compare the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> estimate with the official poverty measure estimate. In addition, we estimate the effects of various features of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> on poverty rates, noting why <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> estimates differ from official estimates. For each poverty measure, we also compare poverty estimates across <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups. We find that for both poverty measures, retired-worker beneficiaries and aged spouse beneficiaries have lower poverty rates than aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)</span> beneficiaries and disabled-worker beneficiaries have. Compared with the official measure, the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> shows much higher poverty rates for each of the three groups of aged beneficiaries. For the disabled-worker group, switching from the official measure to the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> does not appreciably affect the poverty rate.</p>
|
|
<hr />
|
|
<div class="eightypercent">
|
|
<p>The authors are with the Office of Economic Analysis and Comparative Studies, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Office of Retirement and Disability Policy, Social Security Administration.</p>
|
|
<p><i>Acknowledgments:</i> We thank Irena Dushi, Mary Kemp, William Jimenez, Matt Messel, Patrick Purcell, and especially Michael Leonesio for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.</p>
|
|
<p>Contents of this publication are <a href="/policy/accessibility.html">not copyrighted</a>; any items may be reprinted, but citation of the <i>Social Security Bulletin</i> as the source is requested. The findings and conclusions presented in the <i>Bulletin</i> are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Social Security Administration. </p>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<h2>Introduction</h2>
|
|
<div class="abbrtable">
|
|
<table role="presentation">
|
|
<caption>Selected Abbreviations</caption>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:25%"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="1"></colgroup>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><abbr class="spell">BLS</abbr></td>
|
|
<td>Bureau of Labor Statistics</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><abbr class="spell">CE</abbr></td>
|
|
<td>Consumer Expenditure Survey</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr></td>
|
|
<td>Current Population Survey</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><abbr class="spell">FCSU</abbr></td>
|
|
<td>food, clothing, shelter, and utilities</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><abbr class="spell">FRA</abbr></td>
|
|
<td>full retirement age</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><abbr>LIHEAP</abbr></td>
|
|
<td>Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><abbr class="spell">MBR</abbr></td>
|
|
<td>Master Beneficiary Record</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><abbr>MOOP</abbr></td>
|
|
<td>medical out-of-pocket [expenses]</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><abbr class="spell">NSLP</abbr></td>
|
|
<td>National School Lunch Program</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><abbr class="spell">PHUS</abbr></td>
|
|
<td>Payment History Update System</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr></td>
|
|
<td>primary insurance amount</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><abbr class="spell">SER</abbr></td>
|
|
<td>Summary Earnings Record</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><abbr>SNAP</abbr></td>
|
|
<td>Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr></td>
|
|
<td>Supplemental Poverty Measure</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr></td>
|
|
<td>Social Security Administration</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><abbr class="spell">SSI</abbr></td>
|
|
<td>Supplemental Security Income</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr></td>
|
|
<td>type of benefit</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td><abbr>WIC</abbr></td>
|
|
<td>Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<p>There are numerous types of benefits (<abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr>s) paid under the <abbr>U.S.</abbr> Social Security program. Each benefit type has its own set of eligibility rules and, generally, its own benefit structure. An individual's current total income has no direct bearing on his or her eligibility for any <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> or on the benefit amount he or she receives. (One type of current income, earnings, can affect the benefit amount.) However, the different eligibility rules and benefit structures among the various Social Security benefit types are likely to be associated with sizable differences in poverty rates among <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups.<sup><a href="#mn1" id="mt1">1</a></sup> Many proposals to modify Social Security benefits affect some types of beneficiaries and not others. For example, there have been proposals to increase the widow's benefit to 75 percent of the couple's retired-worker benefits and proposals to raise the divorced wife's benefit to 75 percent of the ex-husband's benefit while he is still alive (Government Accountability Office 2012).<sup><a href="#mn2" id="mt2">2</a></sup> Policymakers are interested in knowing the poverty rates of the affected <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups.</p>
|
|
<p>The Census Bureau has published official estimates of poverty for more than 40 years.<sup><a href="#mn3" id="mt3">3</a></sup> In 2011, the Bureau began the annual publication of alternative estimates of poverty based on a new measure, the Supplemental Poverty Measure (<abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr>), which was intended to address shortcomings in the official measure of poverty. The <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> produces a different overall estimate of the number of poor people in the United States and substantially alters the composition of the population in poverty—much more aged poverty, more nonaged adult poverty, and much less child poverty.</p>
|
|
<p>In this article, we examine the 2012 poverty status of eight Social Security adult beneficiary groups using both of these poverty measures.<sup><a href="#mn4" id="mt4">4</a></sup> For each <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group, we compare the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> estimates with the official poverty measure estimates. We estimate the effects of various features of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> on poverty rates, noting why <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> estimates differ from official estimates.<sup><a href="#mn5" id="mt5">5</a></sup> For each poverty measure, we also compare poverty estimates across groups. The main data source for this article is the 2013 Current Population Survey (<abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>), a Census Bureau household survey, supplemented with exactly matched administrative records on benefits from the Social Security Administration (<abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr>). </p>
|
|
<p>Two of the <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups examined in this article, retired workers and disabled workers, are primary beneficiaries.<sup><a href="#mn6" id="mt6">6</a></sup> A primary beneficiary receives a benefit based on his or her own earnings in Social Security–covered employment. The other six <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups examined are composed of secondary beneficiaries—that is, beneficiaries who receive benefits based on the earnings record of another Social Security number holder.<sup><a href="#mn7" id="mt7">7</a></sup> Spouses of living primary beneficiaries constitute two of the secondary-beneficiary groups (aged spouses and child-in-care spouses). Surviving spouses constitute three other secondary-beneficiary groups (aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s,</span> child-in-care <span class="nobr">widow(er)s,</span> and disabled <span class="nobr">widow(er)s).</span> Disabled adult children constitute the final group of secondary beneficiaries.</p>
|
|
<p>The official poverty measure determines a family's poverty status by comparing a set of thresholds for families of different sizes and compositions with their before-tax cash income.<sup><a href="#mn8" id="mt8">8</a></sup> That measure was developed in the early 1960s by <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr>'s Mollie Orshansky (1963, 1965a, 1965b). The poverty thresholds associated with the official measure are the minimum amounts of such income that families of particular sizes and compositions need to be considered not poor.<sup><a href="#mn9" id="mt9">9</a></sup> When they were developed, the official thresholds represented the cost of a minimum food diet multiplied by three (to allow for expenditures on other goods and services). The thresholds have been kept constant in purchasing power over time by increasing their money values to keep pace with increases in the general price level.</p>
|
|
<p>Critics of the official measure point out that the official income or resource measure fails to account for noncash government benefits, taxes, medical out-of-pocket (<abbr>MOOP</abbr>) expenses, and work expenses. Those critics also point out that the official thresholds are a very narrow measure of necessary expenditures—that is, food—and are based on very old data.<sup><a href="#mn10" id="mt10">10</a></sup> They argue that the official thresholds also fail to adjust for geographic differences in the cost of living and that the official measure's unit of analysis (the Census-defined family) is too narrow.<sup><a href="#mn11" id="mt11">11</a></sup></p>
|
|
<p>In November 2011, the Census Bureau published its first report on the new <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> (Short 2011).<sup><a href="#mn12" id="mt12">12</a></sup> The <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> addresses numerous concerns of official-measure critics, and its intent is to provide an improved statistical picture of poverty. The <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> income or resource measure is cash income <i>plus</i> <span class="nobr">in-kind</span> government benefits (such as food stamps and housing subsidies) and refundable tax credits <i>minus</i> certain nondiscretionary expenses (taxes, <abbr>MOOP</abbr> expenses, and work expenses). The <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> thresholds are based on a broad measure of necessary expenditures—food, clothing, shelter, and utilities (<abbr class="spell">FCSU</abbr>)—and are based on recent, annually updated expenditure data. The <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> thresholds are adjusted for geographic differences in the cost of living. The <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> uses a broader unit of analysis that treats cohabiters and their relatives in a more satisfactory way.<sup><a href="#mn13" id="mt13">13</a></sup></p>
|
|
<p>This article consists of seven sections, including the introduction. In the second section, we present a detailed description of the eligibility rules and benefit structures of the various types of adult Social Security benefits. In the third section, we describe the various features of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> (unit, resource, and threshold measures) and contrast them with the corresponding features of the official measure. The fourth section discusses our primary data source. In the fifth and sixth sections, we present an empirical examination of the 2012 poverty status of adult beneficiary groups using both poverty measures. The final section provides a summary of our empirical findings.</p>
|
|
<p>Among the eight <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups we examine, the largest four are retired workers, disabled workers, aged spouses, and aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s.</span> We find that for both poverty measures, retired workers and aged spouses have the lowest poverty rates among the four large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups, well below the corresponding poverty rates for the total <abbr>U.S.</abbr> population. For example, the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rates for retired workers, aged spouses, and the total population are 13 percent, 13 percent, and 16 percent, respectively. For both measures, aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span> have higher poverty rates (<abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> rate of 20 percent), and disabled workers have even higher poverty rates (<abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> rate of 23 percent).</p>
|
|
<p>For aged beneficiaries, the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> shows much higher poverty rates than the official poverty measure does. We find that for the three aged <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups, switching from the official poverty measure to the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> increases estimated poverty rates by <span class="nobr">6–7</span> percentage points. For each of these <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups, the <abbr>MOOP</abbr> expense deduction is by far the most important <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> feature, increasing poverty rates by <span class="nobr">6–8</span> percentage points. For the disabled-worker <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group, switching from the official measure to the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> does not affect the poverty rate. This is because the large poverty-increasing effects of <abbr>MOOP</abbr> expenses (7 percentage points) and the higher <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> threshold level are offset by the poverty-decreasing effects of housing subsidies, food assistance, geographic cost-of-living adjustments, and the unit definition.</p>
|
|
<h2>Social Security Eligibility Rules and Benefit Structures</h2>
|
|
<p>This article examines eight adult <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups.<sup><a href="#mn14" id="mt14">14</a></sup> Retired workers and disabled workers are primary beneficiaries; the other six groups are secondary beneficiaries. Some beneficiaries are dually entitled to both a primary benefit and a (higher) secondary benefit. In sorting persons into our <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups, we assign all dually entitled beneficiaries to the appropriate secondary beneficiary group. Four of the eight <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups are large; in 2012, they collectively represented 97 percent of the beneficiaries we examine: retired workers (28 million), disabled workers (9 million), aged spouses (5 million), and aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span> (7 million).<sup><a href="#mn15" id="mt15">15</a></sup> The other four <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups are small, each containing <span class="nobr">100,000–800,000</span> beneficiaries. The small groups are child-in-care spouses, child-in-care <span class="nobr">widow(er)s,</span> disabled <span class="nobr">widow(er)s,</span> and disabled adult children. Minor child beneficiaries are not examined.<sup><a href="#mn16" id="mt16">16</a></sup></p>
|
|
<p>The two groups of primary beneficiaries, retired workers and disabled workers, receive monthly benefit amounts based on the primary insurance amount (<abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>) generated from their own work records. The <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr> is a function of an average of past earnings (higher earnings produce a higher <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>). The other beneficiary groups examined in this article are secondary beneficiaries. A secondary beneficiary is a person who receives a benefit because of his or her relationship to a retired worker, a disabled worker, a deceased insured person, or, in some cases, an insured ex-spouse not yet receiving benefits.<sup><a href="#mn17" id="mt17">17</a></sup> The benefit amount paid to a secondary beneficiary depends on the <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr> generated from the work record of the retired worker, the disabled worker, or the insured person. For many benefit types, the amount of the benefit received is permanently reduced if it is claimed before the full retirement age (<abbr class="spell">FRA</abbr>). For individuals born in 1937 or earlier, the <abbr class="spell">FRA</abbr> is 65. For those born from 1938 through 1943, the <abbr class="spell">FRA</abbr> for members of each birth cohort is 2 months older than that of the prior cohort, reaching 66 for those born in 1943. The <abbr class="spell">FRA</abbr> is 66 for all birth cohorts from 1943 through 1954.<sup><a href="#mn18" id="mt18">18</a></sup> Because members of later birth cohorts have older <abbr class="spell">FRA</abbr>s than those of earlier cohort members, the proportion of their <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr> that is payable at the earliest age of eligibility declines relative to that of earlier cohort members.</p>
|
|
<p>To receive a retired-worker benefit, a person must be at least 62 years old. The benefit amount for a retired worker who first receives benefits at the <abbr class="spell">FRA</abbr> is equal to the <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr>. The benefit is reduced if it is first received before the <abbr class="spell">FRA</abbr>, and it is augmented if it is first received after the <abbr class="spell">FRA</abbr>. To receive a disabled-worker benefit, a person does not have to be a certain age but does have to have a health problem severe enough to meet <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr>'s definition of disability. The benefit amount is equal to the disabled worker's <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr> and is not adjusted for the age at which the benefit is first received. At the <abbr class="spell">FRA</abbr>, a disabled worker is automatically reclassified as a retired worker.</p>
|
|
<p>Two of the secondary beneficiary groups examined in this article consist of spouses of living persons. An individual who is aged 62 or older and is married to a retired or disabled worker is eligible to receive an aged spouse benefit. Someone who is aged 62 or older and is divorced from a retired worker, a disabled worker, or a living insured person aged 62 or older is also eligible to receive an aged spouse benefit, as long as the marriage to the worker or insured person lasted 10 years or more. (Later in this article, we present separate poverty estimates for nondivorced and divorced aged spouse beneficiaries.) A person of any age who is married to a retired or disabled worker and who is caring for the worker's child is eligible to receive a child-in-care spouse benefit (the child must be younger than 16 or have a disability that began before age 22). The benefit amount for an aged spouse who first receives benefits at the <abbr class="spell">FRA</abbr> is equal to the <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr> multiplied by 0.5 (thus, a worker generally receives an amount twice as large as his or her spouse or ex-spouse); the benefit amount is reduced if first received before the <abbr class="spell">FRA</abbr>. For a child-in-care spouse benefit, the amount is equal to the <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr> multiplied by 0.5 and is not adjusted for the age at which the benefit is first received.</p>
|
|
<p>Three of the secondary beneficiary groups examined in this article consist of survivors of deceased insured persons. A <span class="nobr">widow(er)</span> aged 60 or older is eligible for an aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)</span> benefit. A divorced person who is aged 60 or older and whose ex-spouse is deceased is also eligible to receive an aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)</span> benefit, as long as the marriage to the ex-spouse lasted 10 years or more. (Later in this article, we present separate poverty estimates for nondivorced and divorced aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)</span> beneficiaries.) A <span class="nobr">widow(er)</span> of any age who is caring for the deceased spouse's child is eligible for a child-in-care <span class="nobr">widow(er)</span> benefit; divorced persons who survive their ex-spouses can qualify for child-in-care <span class="nobr">widow(er)</span> benefits. A <span class="nobr">widow(er)</span> aged <span class="nobr">50–59</span> and disabled is eligible for a disabled <span class="nobr">widow(er)</span> benefit; divorced persons who survive their ex-spouses can also qualify for disabled <span class="nobr">widow(er)</span> benefits.</p>
|
|
<p>An aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)</span> receives a benefit equal to his or her deceased spouse's <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr> if it is first received at the <abbr class="spell">FRA</abbr> (the secondary benefit is reduced if first received prior to the <abbr class="spell">FRA</abbr>).<sup><a href="#mn19" id="mt19">19</a></sup> A disabled <span class="nobr">widow(er)</span> receives a benefit equal to his or her deceased spouse's <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr> multiplied by 0.715, and a child-in-care <span class="nobr">widow(er)</span> receives a benefit equal to his or her deceased spouse's <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr> multiplied by 0.75; there is no age-at-first-receipt adjustment for either <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr>.</p>
|
|
<p>The final group of secondary beneficiaries examined in this article consists of those who receive disabled adult child benefits. These benefits are paid to the children of retired workers, disabled workers, or deceased insured persons. Disabled adult children are aged 18 or older and have a disability that began prior to age 22. The benefit amount is equal to the primary worker's <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr> multiplied by 0.5 (if the worker is alive) or equal to the primary worker's <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr> multiplied by 0.75 (if the insured person is deceased). The benefit amount is not adjusted for the age at which the benefit is first received.</p>
|
|
<p>Some secondary benefits require a person to be unmarried. Marriage generally prevents payment of an aged divorced spouse benefit, a <span class="nobr">widow(er)</span> benefit based on having a child in care, or a disabled adult child benefit. A remarried person cannot collect an aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)</span> benefit unless his or her current marriage occurred after age 60. For example, a woman who lost her first husband and who remarried before age 60 would not be eligible for an aged widow benefit on the first husband's record as long as she was married to her second husband. A married person cannot receive a disabled <span class="nobr">widow(er)</span> benefit unless the current marriage occurred after age 50 and after the disablement.</p>
|
|
<p>When a person's primary benefit exceeds his or her secondary benefit, only the primary benefit is paid. This feature of the law makes comparisons of demographic groups with <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups inappropriate. Divorced aged spouse beneficiaries are an important example. Most aged women with a marital status of divorced do not receive divorced aged spouse benefits. This is partly because many divorced women have earnings histories that entitle them to higher primary benefits.</p>
|
|
<p>Additional factors may further affect the benefit amounts certain beneficiaries receive. For instance, Social Security's earnings tests reduce benefits if earnings exceed certain thresholds. Also, the law specifies a maximum amount that can be paid to a family based on the earnings record of one primary beneficiary.</p>
|
|
<p>As stated earlier, a dually entitled beneficiary is a person who is entitled to a primary benefit and a <i>higher</i> secondary benefit. The primary benefit is paid in full but the secondary benefit is paid only in the amount by which it exceeds the primary benefit. Although a dually entitled beneficiary receives a primary benefit, his or her total Social Security benefit is equal to the full secondary benefit. An individual may be eligible for two or more secondary benefits, but he or she generally only receives the highest secondary benefit. In that case, an individual is not considered dually entitled unless he or she also is entitled to a primary benefit. Later in this article, we present separate estimates for dually entitled and not dually entitled beneficiaries in the aged spouse and aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)</span> <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups.</p>
|
|
<p>From a policy perspective, we believe it makes more sense to classify dually entitled persons into <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups as secondary beneficiaries. This is because a change in Social Security law that, for example, increases primary benefits would have no effect on the total benefit amounts received by many dually entitled beneficiaries. An increase in secondary benefits, however, would affect the total benefit amounts of all these dually entitled beneficiaries.</p>
|
|
<h2>Key Features of the Two Poverty Measures: Descriptions and Comparisons</h2>
|
|
<p>Measurement of poverty within the population has three critical elements:</p>
|
|
<ol>
|
|
<li><i>Unit</i> measures. Which individuals in a household can reasonably be expected to share resources?</li>
|
|
<li><i>Resource</i> measures. What should be counted as resources?</li>
|
|
<li><i>Threshold</i> measures. What minimum resources are required to be considered nonpoor?</li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
<p>In this section, we consider each of those elements in turn.<sup><a href="#mn20" id="mt20">20</a></sup> For the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> and official poverty estimates examined in this article, we use data from the public-use version of the 2013 Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> (which reports income information for calendar year 2012), supplemented with exactly matched administrative records from <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr>. For the remainder of this article, we refer specifically to the 2013 Annual Social and Economic Supplement when we mention the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>. In the following three subsections, we describe the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> and official-measure elements as they were implemented for the 2013 <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>. Box 1 summarizes the conceptual differences between the two poverty measures.</p>
|
|
<div class="textBox2 no-right-padding no-left-padding no-bottom-padding" id="box1">
|
|
<div class="title align-left no-right-margin no-left-margin"><span class="tableNumber">Box 1. </span>Poverty measure concepts: Official and Supplemental Poverty Measure (<abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr>)</div>
|
|
<div class="table no-margin">
|
|
<table class="textTable">
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:15em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:25em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:40em"></colgroup>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stubHeading" scope="col">Concept</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Official poverty measure</th>
|
|
<th scope="col"><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr></th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Unit definition</th>
|
|
<td>Conventional definition:<br>Families and unrelated individuals</td>
|
|
<td>Broadened definition:<br>All related individuals who live at the same address, including any cohabiters and their relatives and foster children</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Resource measure</th>
|
|
<td>Before-tax cash income</td>
|
|
<td>Cash income <i>plus</i> noncash transfers (such as food stamps and housing subsidies) and refundable tax credits <i>minus</i> income and payroll taxes, medical out-of-pocket expenses, and work expenses (includes childcare expenses)</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Threshold level for base two-adult/two-child unit</th>
|
|
<td>Three times the cost of a minimum food diet (from the Department of Agriculture), updated by the <abbr>U.S.</abbr> Consumer Price Index</td>
|
|
<td>33<sup>rd</sup> percentile of expenditures on food, clothing, shelter, and utilities (from recent Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys) multiplied by 1.2</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Threshold adjustments</th>
|
|
<td>Implicit equivalence scale that varies by family size, composition, and age of the family head</td>
|
|
<td>Explicit equivalence scale that varies by unit size and composition, but not by age of unit head; also, adjustments for differences in housing costs by (1) housing status (owner with a mortgage and so forth) and (2) geographic area</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
<tfoot>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="firstNote" colspan="3">SOURCE: Adapted from Short (2013), <a href="https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2013/demo/p60-247.html">http://www.census.gov<wbr>/prod<wbr>/2013pubs<wbr>/p60-247.pdf</a>.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tfoot>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<h3>Unit Measures</h3>
|
|
<p>The official measure uses the Census-defined family as its unit of analysis. This unit includes all persons residing together who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption; it treats all unrelated individuals aged 15 or older independently. Proponents of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> unit criticize the failure of the official unit to include all persons at an address who are likely to share resources. In particular, those proponents believe that the official-unit concept does not properly treat cohabiters and their relatives.</p>
|
|
<p>Proponents of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> believe that the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> unit better represents the unit that shares economic resources. The <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> unit includes all related persons at the same address, as well as any cohabiters and their relatives, and any coresident unrelated children who are cared for by the family (such as foster children).<sup><a href="#mn21" id="mt21">21</a></sup> Most persons whose <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> units differ from their official units are in <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> units that are larger than their official units. In larger units, there is more resource sharing that tends to reduce the number of people in poverty.</p>
|
|
<h3>Resource Measures</h3>
|
|
<p>The official resource measure is family before-tax money income.<sup><a href="#mn22" id="mt22">22</a></sup> Persons in families whose before-tax money income is less than the family's threshold are classified as poor. Proponents of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> believe that the official resource measure has the following major weaknesses:<sup><a href="#mn23" id="mt23">23</a></sup></p>
|
|
<ol>
|
|
<li>It does not reflect the effects of government benefit and tax programs that alter the resources available to families and, thus, their poverty status. Those programs are <span class="nobr">in-kind</span> public benefits, refundable tax credits, and payroll and income taxes.<sup><a href="#mn24" id="mt24">24</a></sup></li>
|
|
<li>It does not account for expenses that are necessary to hold a job and to earn income. Those expenses include transportation costs for getting to and from work and the costs of childcare for working families.<sup><a href="#mn25" id="mt25">25</a></sup></li>
|
|
<li>It also does not incorporate a deduction for <abbr>MOOP</abbr> expenses.<sup><a href="#mn26" id="mt26">26</a></sup></li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
<p>The <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> resource measure attempts to overcome the weaknesses of the official resource measure. The <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> resource measure is cash income <i>plus</i> refundable tax credits and any government <span class="nobr">in-kind</span> benefits that families can use to meet their basic needs, which are represented in the thresholds, <i>minus</i> taxes and other nondiscretionary expenses for critical goods that are not included in the thresholds (such as <abbr>MOOP</abbr> and work expenses). The importance of these various additions to and subtractions from cash income varies greatly across age groups.</p>
|
|
<h3>Threshold Measures</h3>
|
|
<p>The official measure uses a set of thresholds for families of different sizes and compositions. The threshold values depend on unit size, number of children, and age of the unit head (younger than 65; 65 or older). At the time they were developed, the official thresholds represented the cost of a minimum food diet multiplied by three (to allow for expenditures on other goods and services).<sup><a href="#mn27" id="mt27">27</a></sup> The thresholds are updated each year using the <abbr>U.S.</abbr> Consumer Price Index for all items.</p>
|
|
<p>Proponents of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> believe that the official threshold measure has the following major weaknesses:</p>
|
|
<ol>
|
|
<li>It is based on only one category of necessary expenditures; that is, food. The expenditure information used is more than 50 years old. The share of food in expenditures is much lower now than it was 50 years ago.<sup><a href="#mn28" id="mt28">28</a></sup> The threshold levels are fixed in real or inflation-adjusted dollars and do not reflect increases over time in real spending on basic needs.</li>
|
|
<li>It does not adjust for differences in shelter and utility expenditure needs resulting from differences in unit housing status. For example, homeowners with mortgages, on average, need to make sizable mortgage payments.<sup><a href="#mn29" id="mt29">29</a></sup></li>
|
|
<li>It does not adjust for geographic differences in the cost of living, which are often large.<sup><a href="#mn30" id="mt30">30</a></sup></li>
|
|
<li>It uses family size and composition adjustments that in some cases produce questionable results. For example, some single-parent families have higher thresholds than married-couple families of the same size, implying that children require more resources than adults in certain size families. Critics of the official threshold measure believe that the evidence used in setting thresholds for aged units and for one-person nonaged units is quite weak. In addition, the fact that the equivalence scales are implicit and not transparent is a substantial weakness.<sup><a href="#mn31" id="mt31">31</a></sup></li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
<p>The <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> threshold measure attempts to overcome the disadvantages of the official threshold measure and has the following properties:</p>
|
|
<ol>
|
|
<li><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> thresholds represent the amount needed for a basic set of goods that consists of <abbr class="spell">FCSU</abbr> and an additional amount allowed for other basic needs (household supplies, personal care, and nonwork-related transportation). The <abbr class="spell">FCSU</abbr> needs reflect expenditures on this basic bundle of goods around the 33<sup>rd</sup> percentile of the expenditure distribution, as reported in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (<abbr class="spell">BLS</abbr>) Consumer Expenditure Survey (<abbr class="spell">CE</abbr>).<sup><a href="#mn32" id="mt32">32</a></sup> The <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> thresholds for 2012 are based on <span class="nobr">2008–2012</span> data from the <abbr class="spell">CE</abbr>. To include other basic needs in the threshold, the <abbr class="spell">FCSU</abbr> needs are multiplied by 1.2.<sup><a href="#mn33" id="mt33">33</a></sup> Over time, the thresholds are not fixed in real or inflation-adjusted dollars. Each year, the thresholds are updated using the most recent <abbr class="spell">CE</abbr> data.</li>
|
|
<li><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> thresholds are adjusted for differences in shelter and utility expenditure needs resulting from differences in unit housing status.</li>
|
|
<li>The thresholds are adjusted for geographic differences in housing costs.</li>
|
|
<li>The threshold for units with two children (the base threshold) is derived from <abbr class="spell">CE</abbr> data as described in item 1 above. The thresholds for other unit types (differing in size and number of children) are then derived by applying an explicit equivalence scale to that base threshold.<sup><a href="#mn34" id="mt34">34</a></sup> Equivalence scales are measures of the relative cost of living for units of different sizes and compositions that are otherwise similar. For example, if a unit of two adults can live as well as a unit of two adults and two children while spending only <span class="nobr">three-fourths</span> as much, then relative to the reference unit of two adults and two children, the equivalence scale value for a two-adult unit is <span class="nobr">three-fourths</span>. For the purpose of poverty measurement, an equivalence scale is used to adjust the threshold value for the reference unit to provide corresponding thresholds for other unit types. We use a three-parameter equivalence scale, which is described later.</li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
<h2>Data</h2>
|
|
<p>The main data source for this article is the 2013 Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>, supplemented with exactly matched Social Security administrative records.<sup><a href="#mn35" id="mt35">35</a></sup> For each person in the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>, an attempt was made to find his or her administrative data (for more information about the matching procedures, see <a href="#appA">Appendix A</a>). <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> and the Census Bureau jointly developed this restricted-access data file, which can be used only for research purposes by persons authorized by the Census Bureau. Among the many socioeconomic and demographic variables included in the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> are official measure poverty variables, <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty variables, and Social Security income. All of the poverty-related variables used in this analysis are from the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>; we use existing <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> weights. The <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> does not include reliable information on types of Social Security benefits.</p>
|
|
<p>The administrative data are from two benefit files—the Master Beneficiary Record (<abbr class="spell">MBR</abbr>) and the Payment History Update System (<abbr class="spell">PHUS</abbr>)—and from one earnings file—the Summary Earnings Record (<abbr class="spell">SER</abbr>). In this article, we use <abbr class="spell">PHUS</abbr> and <abbr class="spell">MBR</abbr> files to determine benefit recipiency and type. Because the <abbr class="spell">SER</abbr> includes data for every person in the <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> record system, we use it to establish a person's match status. The presence of a <abbr class="spell">SER</abbr> record indicates a match between the person's <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> record and his or her <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> earnings and benefit records; this is a <i>match</i> person. Many match persons do not have <abbr class="spell">MBR</abbr> or <abbr class="spell">PHUS</abbr> records. Most were not eligible for benefits; some were eligible but had not applied for benefits. The absence of a <abbr class="spell">SER</abbr> record indicates failure to find a match between the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> record and <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr>'s earnings and benefit records; this is a <i>nonmatch</i> person.</p>
|
|
<p>Matches were found for 87 percent of persons aged 18 or older; match rates ranged from a low of 83 percent for those aged <span class="nobr">25–34</span> to a high of 91 percent for those aged <span class="nobr">70–79.</span><sup><a href="#mn36" id="mt36">36</a></sup> For persons aged 18 or older who report Social Security income in the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>, the match rate is 91 percent.</p>
|
|
<p>As stated earlier, this article presents estimates of poverty by type of Social Security adult beneficiary. Most of these beneficiaries are match persons, but some are nonmatch persons. In the following paragraphs, we briefly discuss how we identify match persons as Social Security beneficiaries and determine their <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr>. Then, we discuss the corresponding process for nonmatch persons.</p>
|
|
<p>For <i>match</i> persons, we use <abbr class="spell">PHUS</abbr> and <abbr class="spell">MBR</abbr> files to determine whether a person received Social Security benefits during 2012; that is, is a 2012 Social Security beneficiary. For match beneficiaries, we derive benefit type, divorced beneficiary status, and dual entitlement status from the <abbr class="spell">MBR</abbr> files. For further details, see <a href="#appB">Appendix B</a>. We use these derived variables to assign match Social Security beneficiaries to <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups.</p>
|
|
<p>For some match persons, there are discrepancies between the administrative record and the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> benefit information. For example, Table 1 shows that 6.4 million (or 14 percent) of the 46.4 million match persons aged 18 or older with <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> records as beneficiaries do not report Social Security income to the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>.<sup><a href="#mn37" id="mt37">37</a></sup> For disabled workers, the percentage not reporting Social Security income to the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> is a much higher 33 percent; the corresponding figures for retired workers, aged spouses, and aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span> are 10 percent, 10 percent, and 5 percent, respectively (not shown in the article's tables). All 46.4 million of these Social Security beneficiaries are included in our poverty analysis by <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr>. Under both poverty measures, the poverty rates for the 14 percent of match persons who have <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> records as beneficiaries but no <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported Social Security income are substantially higher than they are for the 86 percent who do report their Social Security income to the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>. For example, Table 2 shows respective <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rates for those two groups of 33 percent and 13 percent. In addition, there are 3.0 million match persons aged 18 or older who are not Social Security beneficiaries but who report Social Security income to the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> (Table 1).<sup><a href="#mn38" id="mt38">38</a></sup> These 3.0 million persons are not included in our poverty analysis by <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr>. Under both poverty measures, the poverty rates for this group of 3.0 million are markedly higher than those for the match beneficiaries who also report Social Security income to the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> (for example, <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rates of 20 percent versus 13 percent).</p>
|
|
<div class="table" id="table1">
|
|
<table>
|
|
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table 1. </span>Number of persons aged 18 or older by beneficiary status, data source, and match status, 2012 (in millions)</caption>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:27em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="3" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" class="stubHeading" id="c1">Social Security administrative data</th>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" id="c2">Total</th>
|
|
<th colspan="2" class="spanner" id="c3"><abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported Social Security income</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th id="c4" headers="c3">Yes</th>
|
|
<th id="c5" headers="c3">No</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" id="r1" headers="c1">Match persons</th>
|
|
<td headers="r1 c2">206.1</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 c3 c4">43.0</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 c3 c5">163.1</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" id="r2" headers="r1 c1">Administrative record indicates person is a beneficiary</th>
|
|
<td colspan="3"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub2" id="r3" headers="r1 r2 c1">Yes</th>
|
|
<td class="shaded" headers="r1 r2 r3 c2">46.4</td>
|
|
<td class="shaded" headers="r1 r2 r3 c3 c4">40.0</td>
|
|
<td class="shaded" headers="r1 r2 r3 c3 c5">6.4</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub2" id="r4" headers="r1 r2 c1">No</th>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r4 c2">159.7</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r4 c3 c4">3.0</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r4 c3 c5">156.7</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<th class="stub0" id="r5" headers="c1">Nonmatch persons</th>
|
|
<td headers="r5 c2">30.8</td>
|
|
<td class="shaded" headers="r5 c3 c4">4.4</td>
|
|
<td headers="r5 c3 c5">26.4</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
<tfoot>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="firstNote" colspan="4">SOURCE: Authors' calculations based on the public-use version of the 2013 <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>'s Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with data from matched Social Security administrative records.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="4">NOTES: Highlighted values indicate the populations covered in the poverty analysis by type of benefit.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="lastNote" colspan="4"><abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> = Current Population Survey.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tfoot>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div class="table" id="table2">
|
|
<table>
|
|
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table 2. </span><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rates of persons aged 18 or older, by beneficiary status, data source, and match status, 2012 (in percent)</caption>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:27em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="3" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" class="stubHeading" id="c1">Social Security adminstrative data</th>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" id="c2">Total</th>
|
|
<th colspan="2" class="spanner" id="c3"><abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported Social Security income</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th id="c4" headers="c3">Yes</th>
|
|
<th id="c5" headers="c3">No</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" id="r1" headers="c1">Match persons</th>
|
|
<td headers="r1 c2">13.8</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 c3 c4">13.7</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 c3 c5">13.8</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" id="r2" headers="r1 c1">Administrative record indicates person is a beneficiary</th>
|
|
<td colspan="3"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub2" id="r3" headers="r1 r2 c1">Yes</th>
|
|
<td class="shaded" headers="r1 r2 r3 c2">15.9</td>
|
|
<td class="shaded" headers="r1 r2 r3 c3 c4">13.2</td>
|
|
<td class="shaded" headers="r1 r2 r3 c3 c5">33.2</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub2" id="r4" headers="r1 r2 c1">No</th>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r4 c2">13.1</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r4 c3 c4">20.2</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r4 c3 c5">13.0</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<th class="stub0" id="r5" headers="c1">Nonmatch persons</th>
|
|
<td headers="r5 c2">25.9</td>
|
|
<td class="shaded" headers="r5 c3 c4">18.9</td>
|
|
<td headers="r5 c3 c5">27.0</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
<tfoot>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="firstNote" colspan="4">SOURCE: Authors' calculations based on the public-use version of the 2013 <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>'s Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with data from matched Social Security administrative records.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="4">NOTES: Highlighted values indicate the populations covered in the poverty analysis by type of benefit.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="lastNote" colspan="4"><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> = Supplemental Poverty Measure; <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> = Current Population Survey.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tfoot>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<p>For <i>nonmatch</i> persons, we use the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> to determine whether a person received Social Security benefits during 2012; that is, is a Social Security beneficiary. We designate all nonmatch persons with <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported Social Security income as Social Security beneficiaries. We impute <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> to these nonmatch beneficiaries. For nonmatch beneficiaries with an imputed <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> of aged spouse or aged <span class="nobr">widow(er),</span> we also impute divorced beneficiary status and dual entitlement status. For further details, see <a href="#appB">Appendix B</a>. These imputed variables are used solely to assign nonmatch Social Security beneficiaries to groups. Nonmatch Social Security beneficiaries consist of the 4.4 million <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported beneficiaries with an imputed <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> code (Table 1). We include them in our analysis of poverty by <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr>.</p>
|
|
<p>The 4.4 million nonmatch beneficiaries account for 8.6 percent of the 50.8 million (46.4 million plus 4.4 million) beneficiaries included in our poverty analysis. For the four large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups (retired workers, disabled workers, aged spouses, and aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s),</span> the corresponding figures are 7.3 percent, 12.8 percent, 7.1 percent, and 8.6 percent, respectively (not shown).<sup><a href="#mn39" id="mt39">39</a></sup></p>
|
|
<p>The population of nonmatch <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported beneficiaries differs markedly from the population of match <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported beneficiaries. <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported beneficiaries numbering 43.0 million account for 20.8 percent of the total match population aged 18 or older of 206.1 million; that is, the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported benefit receipt rate is 20.8 percent within the match population. The <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported benefit receipt rate for the nonmatch population is quite a bit lower at 14.3 percent. For persons aged <span class="nobr">25–54,</span> the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported benefit receipt rates are higher for the nonmatch population than for the match population, but for persons aged 65 or older, the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported benefit receipt rates are much lower for the nonmatch population than for the match population (not shown). For individuals aged 18 or older, poverty rates are markedly higher for nonmatch <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported beneficiaries than for match <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported beneficiaries (for example, <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rates of 18.9 percent and 13.7 percent). For individuals aged <span class="nobr">25–61,</span> poverty rates are lower for the nonmatch <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported beneficiaries than for match <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported beneficiaries, but for those aged 62 or older, poverty rates are much higher for the nonmatch <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported beneficiaries than for the match <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported beneficiaries (not shown).</p>
|
|
<p>In <a href="#appC">Appendix C</a>, we compare our numbers of adult Social Security beneficiaries (match plus nonmatch) with corresponding estimates from a 1 percent sample of <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> administrative records (Tables <a href="#tableC1"><span class="nobr">C-1</span></a> and <span class="nobr"><a href="#tableC2">C-2</a>).</span> In general, the two sets of estimates are similar for <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups and subgroups. In <a href="#appD">Appendix D</a>, we present additional comparisons for the four largest <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups. <a href="#tableD1">Table <span class="nobr">D-1</span></a> shows average benefits by <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group and data source for persons reported as receiving benefits in both the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> and the <abbr class="spell">PHUS</abbr>. <a href="#tableD2">Table <span class="nobr">D-2</span></a> gives numbers of beneficiaries by match status and <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported Social Security benefit status. <a href="#tableD3">Table <span class="nobr">D-3</span></a> gives poverty rates for the same populations covered in <span class="nobr"><a href="#tableD2">Table D-2</a>.</span></p>
|
|
<h2>Official Poverty Measure and <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> Estimates: A Comparison</h2>
|
|
<p>In this section, we begin our empirical examination of the eight <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups. For each <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group, we compare the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> estimates with the official poverty measure estimates. For each measure, we also compare poverty estimates across <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups. In the following section, we estimate the effects of various features of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> on poverty levels, noting why <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> estimates differ from the official estimates.</p>
|
|
<p>As stated above, the sample for our analysis of poverty by <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> includes both match beneficiaries (with and without benefits reported in the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>) and nonmatch beneficiaries. <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> codes are used to assign beneficiaries to groups (for example, retired workers). Our poverty estimates for these groups depend solely on <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> variables such as income components and thresholds; we use the existing <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> weights. Thus, our poverty estimates for beneficiaries may be compared to those for other groups presented in recent papers published by the Census Bureau and <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> that examine official and <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty estimates for 2012 (Short 2013; Bridges and Gesumaria 2015a).</p>
|
|
<p>We begin this section by looking at poverty for the eight <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups. Next, we examine deep poverty and the distribution of beneficiaries by welfare-ratio intervals. Then, we examine movements into and out of poverty. Finally, we look at poverty for various subgroups within the <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups.</p>
|
|
<h3>Poverty by <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> Groups</h3>
|
|
<p>Table 3 gives numbers and percentages of beneficiaries in poverty for the eight <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups.<sup><a href="#mn40" id="mt40">40</a></sup> For both poverty measures, retired workers and aged spouses have the lowest poverty rates of the eight <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups; all of the poverty rates for these two <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups are well below the corresponding poverty rate for the total <abbr>U.S.</abbr> population. For example, the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> rates for retired workers and for the total population are 12.7 percent and 16.0 percent, respectively.<sup><a href="#mn41" id="mt41">41</a></sup> Aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span> have the next lowest poverty rates for both poverty measures (<abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> rate of 19.7 percent) followed by disabled workers and child-in-care <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span> (both with <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> rates of about 23.5 percent). Three small <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups (child-in-care spouses, disabled <span class="nobr">widow(er)s,</span> and disabled adult children) have the highest poverty rates (about <span class="nobr">31–38</span> percent).</p>
|
|
<div class="table" id="table3">
|
|
<table>
|
|
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table 3. </span>Number and percentage of Social Security beneficiaries in poverty under the two poverty measures, by <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group, 2012 (numbers in thousands)</caption>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:14em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="2" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="2" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:8em"></colgroup>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" class="stubHeading" scope="colgroup"><abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group</th>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" scope="colgroup">Total number</th>
|
|
<th colspan="2" class="spanner" scope="colgroup">Official poverty</th>
|
|
<th colspan="2" class="spanner" scope="colgroup"><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty</th>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" scope="colgroup">Percentage point difference <sup>a</sup> between <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> and official poverty rates</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th scope="col">Number</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Percent</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Number</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Percent</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Primary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<td colspan="6"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Retired workers</th>
|
|
<td>28,413</td>
|
|
<td>2,018</td>
|
|
<td>7.1</td>
|
|
<td>3,608</td>
|
|
<td>12.7</td>
|
|
<td>5.6</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Disabled workers</th>
|
|
<td>8,828</td>
|
|
<td>2,074</td>
|
|
<td>23.5</td>
|
|
<td>2,066</td>
|
|
<td>23.4</td>
|
|
<td>-0.1</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Secondary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<td colspan="6"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Aged spouses</th>
|
|
<td>4,922</td>
|
|
<td>354</td>
|
|
<td>7.2</td>
|
|
<td>662</td>
|
|
<td>13.4</td>
|
|
<td>6.3</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Child-in-care spouses</th>
|
|
<td>116</td>
|
|
<td>37</td>
|
|
<td>32.2</td>
|
|
<td>39</td>
|
|
<td>33.8</td>
|
|
<td>1.6</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span></th>
|
|
<td>7,262</td>
|
|
<td>952</td>
|
|
<td>13.1</td>
|
|
<td>1,432</td>
|
|
<td>19.7</td>
|
|
<td>6.6</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Child-in-care <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span></th>
|
|
<td>206</td>
|
|
<td>48</td>
|
|
<td>23.5</td>
|
|
<td>48</td>
|
|
<td>23.5</td>
|
|
<td>0.0</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Disabled <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span></th>
|
|
<td>230</td>
|
|
<td>72</td>
|
|
<td>31.2</td>
|
|
<td>71</td>
|
|
<td>31.0</td>
|
|
<td>-0.1</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Disabled adult children</th>
|
|
<td>771</td>
|
|
<td>276</td>
|
|
<td>35.8</td>
|
|
<td>290</td>
|
|
<td>37.6</td>
|
|
<td>1.9</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
<tfoot>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="firstNote" colspan="7">SOURCE: Authors' calculations based on the public-use version of the 2013 Current Population Survey's Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with data from matched Social Security administrative records.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="7">NOTES: Dually entitled beneficiaries are included in the appropriate secondary beneficiary group.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="7"><abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> = type of benefit; <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> = Supplemental Poverty Measure.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="lastNote" colspan="7">a. Percentage point differences do not necessarily equal the difference between rounded poverty rate values.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tfoot>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<p>Compared with the official poverty measure, the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> produces higher estimated poverty rates for aged beneficiaries (retired workers, aged spouses, and aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s).</span> For these <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups, the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> rates are <span class="nobr">5.6–6.6</span> percentage points higher than the official poverty rates. (As we show later, <abbr>MOOP</abbr> expenses—accounted for in the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> but not in the official measure—are very important for these aged groups.) On the other hand, the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> and official poverty rates are similar for disabled workers.</p>
|
|
<p>We refer to the ratio of a given unit's resources to its poverty threshold as a welfare ratio. We use the average welfare ratio of a group to indicate the average economic status of the group. For each of the four large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups (retired workers, disabled workers, aged spouses, and aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s),</span> the average <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> welfare ratios for the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poor <span class="nobr">(.48–.59;</span> not shown) are lower than the average official-measure welfare ratios for the official poor <span class="nobr">(.64–.67;</span> not shown).</p>
|
|
<h3>Deep Poverty by <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> Groups</h3>
|
|
<p>People in units with resources that amount to less than 50 percent of the unit threshold are said to be in deep <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> or deep official-measure poverty.<sup><a href="#mn42" id="mt42">42</a></sup> Table 4 gives numbers and percentages of people in deep poverty for the four large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups. For both deep poverty measures, retired workers and aged spouses have the lowest deep poverty rates (<abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> rates of 3.8 percent and 4.8 percent).<sup><a href="#mn43" id="mt43">43</a></sup> Aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span> have higher deep poverty rates for both measures (<abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> rate of 5.6 percent). For both deep poverty measures, disabled workers have the highest deep poverty rates (<abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> rate of 6.7 percent).</p>
|
|
<div class="table" id="table4">
|
|
<table>
|
|
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table 4. </span>Number and percentage of Social Security beneficiaries in deep poverty under the two poverty measures, by selected <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group, 2012 (numbers in thousands)</caption>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:14em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="2" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="2" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:8em"></colgroup>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" class="stubHeading" scope="colgroup"><abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group</th>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" scope="colgroup">Total number</th>
|
|
<th colspan="2" class="spanner" scope="colgroup">Official deep poverty</th>
|
|
<th colspan="2" class="spanner" scope="colgroup"><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> deep poverty</th>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" scope="colgroup">Percentage point difference <sup>a</sup> between <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> and official deep poverty rates</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th scope="col">Number</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Percent</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Number</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Percent</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Primary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<td colspan="6"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Retired workers</th>
|
|
<td>28,413</td>
|
|
<td>557</td>
|
|
<td>2.0</td>
|
|
<td>1,075</td>
|
|
<td>3.8</td>
|
|
<td>1.8</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Disabled workers</th>
|
|
<td>8,828</td>
|
|
<td>525</td>
|
|
<td>5.9</td>
|
|
<td>596</td>
|
|
<td>6.7</td>
|
|
<td>0.8</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Secondary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<td colspan="6"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Aged spouses</th>
|
|
<td>4,922</td>
|
|
<td>96</td>
|
|
<td>2.0</td>
|
|
<td>236</td>
|
|
<td>4.8</td>
|
|
<td>2.8</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span></th>
|
|
<td>7,262</td>
|
|
<td>227</td>
|
|
<td>3.1</td>
|
|
<td>404</td>
|
|
<td>5.6</td>
|
|
<td>2.4</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
<tfoot>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="firstNote" colspan="7">SOURCE: Authors' calculations based on the public-use version of the 2013 Current Population Survey's Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with data from matched Social Security administrative records.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="7">NOTES: "Deep poverty" describes individuals residing in units with resources that amount to less than 50 percent of the poverty threshold.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="7">Dually entitled beneficiaries are included in the appropriate secondary beneficiary group.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="7"><abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> = type of benefit; <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> = Supplemental Poverty Measure.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="lastNote" colspan="7">a. Percentage point differences do not necessarily equal the difference between rounded deep poverty rate values.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tfoot>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<p>For the large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups, the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> and official deep poverty measures give rather different results. The <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> shows considerably more deep poverty for aged beneficiaries (retired workers, aged spouses, and aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s)</span> than the official measure does. For those groups, the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> deep poverty rates are <span class="nobr">1.8–2.8</span> percentage points higher than the official deep poverty rates—proportionally large differences from official-measure estimates that range from 2.0 percent to 3.1 percent. For disabled workers, the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> deep poverty rate exceeds the official deep poverty rate by only 0.8 percentage points.</p>
|
|
<p>For each of the four large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups, the average <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> welfare ratios for the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> deep poor (−.12 to +.06; not shown)<sup><a href="#mn44" id="mt44">44</a></sup> are lower than the average official-measure welfare ratios for the official deep poor (.19 to .22; not shown).</p>
|
|
<h3>Distributions of People by Welfare-Ratio Classes and <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> Groups</h3>
|
|
<p>Table 5 shows the percentage distributions of people in the four large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups by welfare-ratio interval. People residing in units with welfare ratios less than 1.0 are in poverty, and those in units with welfare ratios of less than 0.5 are in deep poverty. For both poverty measures, disabled workers and aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span> have the lowest shares of people with welfare ratios of 2.0 or more. Compared with the official poverty measure, the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> shows a lower share of people with welfare ratios of 4.0 or more for all four large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups.</p>
|
|
<div class="table" id="table5">
|
|
<table>
|
|
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table 5. </span>Percentage distribution of Social Security beneficiaries by welfare-ratio <sup>a</sup> interval and selected <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group under the two poverty measures, 2012</caption>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:14em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="7" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" class="stubHeading" scope="colgroup"><abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group</th>
|
|
<th colspan="7" class="spanner" scope="colgroup">Welfare-ratio intervals</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th scope="col">Less than 0.50</th>
|
|
<th scope="col"><span class="nobr">0.50–0.99</span> <sup>b</sup></th>
|
|
<th scope="col"><span class="nobr">1.00–1.24</span> <sup>b</sup></th>
|
|
<th scope="col"><span class="nobr">1.25–1.49</span> <sup>b</sup></th>
|
|
<th scope="col"><span class="nobr">1.50–1.99</span> <sup>b</sup></th>
|
|
<th scope="col"><span class="nobr">2.00–3.99</span> <sup>b</sup></th>
|
|
<th scope="col">4.00 or more</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td> </td>
|
|
<th colspan="7" class="panel" scope="rowgroup">Official poverty</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Primary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<td colspan="7"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Retired workers</th>
|
|
<td>2.0</td>
|
|
<td>5.1</td>
|
|
<td>4.6</td>
|
|
<td>5.2</td>
|
|
<td>12.5</td>
|
|
<td>35.4</td>
|
|
<td>35.2</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Disabled workers</th>
|
|
<td>5.9</td>
|
|
<td>17.6</td>
|
|
<td>10.5</td>
|
|
<td>8.3</td>
|
|
<td>13.2</td>
|
|
<td>28.3</td>
|
|
<td>16.2</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Secondary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<td colspan="7"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Aged spouses</th>
|
|
<td>2.0</td>
|
|
<td>5.2</td>
|
|
<td>4.8</td>
|
|
<td>5.1</td>
|
|
<td>12.1</td>
|
|
<td>37.5</td>
|
|
<td>33.3</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span></th>
|
|
<td>3.1</td>
|
|
<td>10.0</td>
|
|
<td>9.7</td>
|
|
<td>11.8</td>
|
|
<td>17.8</td>
|
|
<td>31.5</td>
|
|
<td>16.1</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td> </td>
|
|
<th colspan="7" class="panel" scope="rowgroup"><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Primary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<td colspan="7"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Retired workers</th>
|
|
<td>3.8</td>
|
|
<td>8.9</td>
|
|
<td>7.9</td>
|
|
<td>8.0</td>
|
|
<td>14.4</td>
|
|
<td>35.5</td>
|
|
<td>21.6</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Disabled workers</th>
|
|
<td>6.7</td>
|
|
<td>16.7</td>
|
|
<td>13.9</td>
|
|
<td>10.9</td>
|
|
<td>16.9</td>
|
|
<td>25.7</td>
|
|
<td>9.2</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Secondary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<td colspan="7"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Aged spouses</th>
|
|
<td>4.8</td>
|
|
<td>8.7</td>
|
|
<td>9.1</td>
|
|
<td>8.8</td>
|
|
<td>14.1</td>
|
|
<td>34.2</td>
|
|
<td>20.3</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span></th>
|
|
<td>5.6</td>
|
|
<td>14.2</td>
|
|
<td>13.2</td>
|
|
<td>12.5</td>
|
|
<td>16.3</td>
|
|
<td>29.1</td>
|
|
<td>9.2</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
<tfoot>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="firstNote" colspan="8">SOURCE: Authors' calculations based on the public-use version of the 2013 Current Population Survey's Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with data from matched Social Security administrative records.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="8">NOTES: Dually entitled beneficiaries are included in the appropriate secondary beneficiary group.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="8">Row percentages sum to approximately 100.0.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="8"><abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> = type of benefit; <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> = Supplemental Poverty Measure.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="8">a. The ratio of unit resources to the unit poverty threshold.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="lastNote" colspan="8">b. Less than the lower bound of the next interval.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tfoot>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<h3>“Movements” Into and Out of Poverty by <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> Groups</h3>
|
|
<p>When the basis for poverty measurement changes, the composition of the population designated as poor also changes. We refer to redesignations in poverty status that are solely attributable to the switch to a different method for determining who is poor as <i>movements</i> into and out of poverty.<sup><a href="#mn45" id="mt45">45</a></sup></p>
|
|
<p>Table 6 gives percentages of people exiting poverty, staying in poverty, and entering poverty for the four large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups if the criteria change from the official poverty measure to the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr>. For each of the aged beneficiary groups (retired workers, aged spouses, and aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s),</span> switching to the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> moves about <span class="nobr">7–9</span> percent of people into poverty and only <span class="nobr">1–2</span> percent out of poverty. For disabled workers, switching to the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> moves about 7 percent of people into poverty and about 7 percent out of poverty.</p>
|
|
<div class="table" id="table6">
|
|
<table>
|
|
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table 6. </span>Percentage of Social Security beneficiaries defined as poor under the official measure and poverty-status effects of a shift to the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr>, by selected <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group, 2012</caption>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:14em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="5" style="width:8em"></colgroup>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stubHeading" scope="col"><abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Official poor <sup>a</sup></th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Exit poverty <sup>b</sup></th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Stay in poverty <sup>c</sup></th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Enter poverty <sup>d</sup></th>
|
|
<th scope="col"><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poor <sup>e</sup></th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Primary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<td colspan="5"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Retired workers</th>
|
|
<td>7.1</td>
|
|
<td>1.0</td>
|
|
<td>6.1</td>
|
|
<td>6.6</td>
|
|
<td>12.7</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Disabled workers</th>
|
|
<td>23.5</td>
|
|
<td>6.6</td>
|
|
<td>16.9</td>
|
|
<td>6.5</td>
|
|
<td>23.4</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Secondary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<td colspan="5"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Aged spouses</th>
|
|
<td>7.2</td>
|
|
<td>1.4</td>
|
|
<td>5.8</td>
|
|
<td>7.6</td>
|
|
<td>13.4</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span></th>
|
|
<td>13.1</td>
|
|
<td>2.0</td>
|
|
<td>11.1</td>
|
|
<td>8.6</td>
|
|
<td>19.7</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
<tfoot>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="firstNote" colspan="6">SOURCE: Authors' calculations based on the public-use version of the 2013 Current Population Survey's Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with data from matched Social Security administrative records.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="6">NOTES: Dually entitled beneficiaries are included in the appropriate secondary beneficiary group.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="6"><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> = Supplemental Poverty Measure; <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> = type of benefit.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="6">a. "Exit poverty" column plus "Stay in poverty" column.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="6">b. Official poor, but <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> nonpoor.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="6">c. Official poor and <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poor.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="6">d. Official nonpoor, but <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poor.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="lastNote" colspan="6">e. "Stay in poverty" column plus "Enter poverty" column.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tfoot>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<h3>Poverty of <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> Groups by Selected Characteristics</h3>
|
|
<p>We now examine poverty rates for selected subgroups of the four large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups. Tables <span class="nobr">7–9</span> show population counts and poverty rates for a number of beneficiary subgroups.</p>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">Worker beneficiaries by sex and marital status</span>. Men comprise 61 percent of retired workers and 53 percent of disabled workers, but only 3 percent of aged spouses and 3 percent of aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s.</span><sup><a href="#mn46" id="mt46">46</a></sup> Table 7 shows poverty estimates for retired and disabled workers by sex and marital status.</p>
|
|
<div class="table" id="table7">
|
|
<table>
|
|
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table 7. </span>Number and percentage of Social Security retired worker and disabled worker beneficiaries in poverty under the two poverty measures, by sex and marital status, 2012 (numbers in thousands)</caption>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:10em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="5" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:8em"></colgroup>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" class="stubHeading" id="c1">Marital status <sup>a</sup></th>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" id="c2">Total number</th>
|
|
<th colspan="2" class="spanner" id="c3">Official poverty</th>
|
|
<th colspan="2" class="spanner" id="c4"><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty</th>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" id="c5">Percentage point difference between <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> and official poverty rates</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th id="c6" headers="c3">Number</th>
|
|
<th id="c7" headers="c3">Percent</th>
|
|
<th id="c8" headers="c4">Number</th>
|
|
<th id="c9" headers="c4">Percent</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td> </td>
|
|
<th colspan="6" class="panelWithSub" id="r1">Retired workers</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td> </td>
|
|
<th colspan="6" class="subWithPanel" id="r2" headers="r1">Men</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" id="r3" headers="r1 r2 c1">Subtotal</th>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r3 c2">17,444</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r3 c3 c6">1,037</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r3 c3 c7">5.9</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r3 c4 c8">2,041</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r3 c4 c9">11.7</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r3 c5">5.8</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" id="r4" headers="r1 r2 c1">Married</th>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r4 c2">13,002</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r4 c3 c6">548</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r4 c3 c7">4.2</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r4 c4 c8">1,352</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r4 c4 c9">10.4</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r4 c5">6.2</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" id="r5" headers="r1 r2 c1">Divorced</th>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r5 c2">1,654</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r5 c3 c6">185</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r5 c3 c7">11.2</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r5 c4 c8">236</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r5 c4 c9">14.3</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r5 c5">3.1</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" id="r6" headers="r1 r2 c1">Widowed</th>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r6 c2">2,027</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r6 c3 c6">182</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r6 c3 c7">9.0</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r6 c4 c8">302</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r6 c4 c9">14.9</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r6 c5">5.9</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" id="r7" headers="r1 r2 c1">Never married</th>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r7 c2">762</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r7 c3 c6">122</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r7 c3 c7">16.0</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r7 c4 c8">152</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r7 c4 c9">19.9</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r2 r7 c5">3.9</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td> </td>
|
|
<th colspan="6" class="subpanel" id="r8" headers="r1">Women</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" id="r9" headers="r1 r8 c1">Subtotal</th>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r9 c2">10,968</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r9 c3 c6">981</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r9 c3 c7">8.9</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r9 c4 c8">1,567</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r9 c4 c9">14.3</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r9 c5">5.4</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" id="r10" headers="r1 r8 c1">Married</th>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r10 c2">6,236</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r10 c3 c6">289</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r10 c3 c7">4.6</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r10 c4 c8">656</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r10 c4 c9">10.5</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r10 c5">5.9</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" id="r11" headers="r1 r8 c1">Divorced</th>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r11 c2">1,906</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r11 c3 c6">274</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r11 c3 c7">14.4</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r11 c4 c8">329</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r11 c4 c9">17.2</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r11 c5">2.8</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" id="r12" headers="r1 r8 c1">Widowed</th>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r12 c2">2,052</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r12 c3 c6">272</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r12 c3 c7">13.2</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r12 c4 c8">390</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r12 c4 c9">19.0</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r12 c5">5.8</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" id="r13" headers="r1 r8 c1">Never married</th>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r13 c2">774</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r13 c3 c6">146</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r13 c3 c7">18.9</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r13 c4 c8">194</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r13 c4 c9">25.0</td>
|
|
<td headers="r1 r8 r13 c5">6.1</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td> </td>
|
|
<th colspan="6" class="panelWithSub" id="r14">Disabled workers</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td> </td>
|
|
<th colspan="6" class="subWithPanel" id="r15" headers="r14">Men</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" id="r16" headers="r14 r15 c1">Subtotal</th>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r16 c2">4,655</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r16 c3 c6">1,010</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r16 c3 c7">21.7</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r16 c4 c8">1,085</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r16 c4 c9">23.3</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r16 c5">1.6</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" id="r17" headers="r14 r15 c1">Married</th>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r17 c2">2,478</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r17 c3 c6">358</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r17 c3 c7">14.5</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r17 c4 c8">504</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r17 c4 c9">20.3</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r17 c5">5.8</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" id="r18" headers="r14 r15 c1">Divorced</th>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r18 c2">1,020</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r18 c3 c6">279</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r18 c3 c7">27.4</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r18 c4 c8">248</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r18 c4 c9">24.3</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r18 c5">-3.1</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" id="r19" headers="r14 r15 c1">Widowed</th>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r19 c2">168</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r19 c3 c6">31</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r19 c3 c7">18.7</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r19 c4 c8">30</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r19 c4 c9">17.7</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r19 c5">-1.0</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" id="r20" headers="r14 r15 c1">Never married</th>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r20 c2">990</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r20 c3 c6">341</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r20 c3 c7">34.5</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r20 c4 c8">304</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r20 c4 c9">30.7</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r15 r20 c5">-3.8</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td> </td>
|
|
<th colspan="6" class="subpanel" id="r21" headers="r14">Women</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" id="r22" headers="r14 r21 c1">Subtotal</th>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r22 c2">4,172</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r22 c3 c6">1,064</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r22 c3 c7">25.5</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r22 c4 c8">981</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r22 c4 c9">23.5</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r22 c5">-2.0</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" id="r23" headers="r14 r21 c1">Married</th>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r23 c2">2,082</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r23 c3 c6">275</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r23 c3 c7">13.2</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r23 c4 c8">349</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r23 c4 c9">16.7</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r23 c5">3.5</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" id="r24" headers="r14 r21 c1">Divorced</th>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r24 c2">1,092</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r24 c3 c6">430</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r24 c3 c7">39.4</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r24 c4 c8">336</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r24 c4 c9">30.7</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r24 c5">-8.7</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" id="r25" headers="r14 r21 c1">Widowed</th>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r25 c2">259</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r25 c3 c6">77</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r25 c3 c7">29.6</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r25 c4 c8">71</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r25 c4 c9">27.3</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r25 c5">-2.3</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" id="r26" headers="r14 r21 c1">Never married</th>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r26 c2">739</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r26 c3 c6">282</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r26 c3 c7">38.1</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r26 c4 c8">226</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r26 c4 c9">30.6</td>
|
|
<td headers="r14 r21 r26 c5">-7.5</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
<tfoot>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="firstNote" colspan="7">SOURCE: Authors' calculations based on the public-use version of the 2013 Current Population Survey's Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with data from matched Social Security administrative records.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="7">NOTES: Data do not include dually entitled beneficiaries.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="7">Subtotals of numbers of beneficiaries do not necessarily equal the sums of the rounded numbers for the component groups.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="7"><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> = Supplemental Poverty Measure.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="lastNote" colspan="7">a. Status at the time of Current Population Survey interview.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tfoot>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<p>For each sex, poverty rates for retired workers are markedly lower for married persons than for the various categories of nonmarried persons. The marital status information is from the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> and indicates status at the time of the interview. For nonmarried retired workers, poverty rates are higher for women than for men, but for married retired workers, poverty rates of men and women are similar. For retired workers, the switch to the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> increases poverty rates by <span class="nobr">3–6</span> percentage points.</p>
|
|
<p>For each sex, poverty rates for disabled workers are markedly lower for the married than for the divorced and never married. For disabled workers, the switch to the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> increases poverty rates for the married, but reduces poverty rates for the divorced, widowed, and never married.</p>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">Divorced and nondivorced beneficiaries</span>. Divorced spouse beneficiaries account for 8 percent of aged spouse beneficiaries (Table 8).<sup><a href="#mn47" id="mt47">47</a></sup> For both poverty measures, poverty rates for divorced spouses are quite high and are higher than those for nondivorced aged spouses (<abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> rates of 25.8 percent and 12.4 percent, respectively).</p>
|
|
<div class="table" id="table8">
|
|
<table>
|
|
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table 8. </span>Number and percentage of Social Security aged spouse and aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)</span> beneficiaries in poverty under the two poverty measures, by divorce and dual entitlement statuses, 2012 (numbers in thousands)</caption>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:14em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="2" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="2" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:8em"></colgroup>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" class="stubHeading" scope="colgroup">Divorce and dual entitlement status</th>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" scope="colgroup">Total number</th>
|
|
<th colspan="2" class="spanner" scope="colgroup">Official poverty</th>
|
|
<th colspan="2" class="spanner" scope="colgroup"><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty</th>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" scope="colgroup">Percentage point difference between <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> and official poverty rates</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th scope="col">Number</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Percent</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Number</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Percent</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td> </td>
|
|
<th colspan="6" class="panel" scope="rowgroup">Aged spouses</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Not divorced</th>
|
|
<td>4,542</td>
|
|
<td>245</td>
|
|
<td>5.4</td>
|
|
<td>564</td>
|
|
<td>12.4</td>
|
|
<td>7.0</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Divorced <sup>a</sup></th>
|
|
<td>379</td>
|
|
<td>109</td>
|
|
<td>28.7</td>
|
|
<td>98</td>
|
|
<td>25.8</td>
|
|
<td>-2.9</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Not dually entitled</th>
|
|
<td>1,998</td>
|
|
<td>154</td>
|
|
<td>7.7</td>
|
|
<td>288</td>
|
|
<td>14.4</td>
|
|
<td>6.7</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Dually entitled</th>
|
|
<td>2,924</td>
|
|
<td>200</td>
|
|
<td>6.8</td>
|
|
<td>374</td>
|
|
<td>12.8</td>
|
|
<td>6.0</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td> </td>
|
|
<th colspan="6" class="panel" scope="rowgroup">Aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span></th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Not divorced</th>
|
|
<td>6,550</td>
|
|
<td>859</td>
|
|
<td>13.1</td>
|
|
<td>1,285</td>
|
|
<td>19.6</td>
|
|
<td>6.5</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Divorced <sup>a</sup></th>
|
|
<td>712</td>
|
|
<td>93</td>
|
|
<td>13.0</td>
|
|
<td>147</td>
|
|
<td>20.6</td>
|
|
<td>7.6</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Not dually entitled</th>
|
|
<td>3,611</td>
|
|
<td>553</td>
|
|
<td>15.3</td>
|
|
<td>754</td>
|
|
<td>20.9</td>
|
|
<td>5.6</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Dually entitled</th>
|
|
<td>3,651</td>
|
|
<td>399</td>
|
|
<td>10.9</td>
|
|
<td>678</td>
|
|
<td>18.6</td>
|
|
<td>7.7</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
<tfoot>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="firstNote" colspan="7">SOURCE: Authors' calculations based on the public-use version of the 2013 Current Population Survey's Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with data from matched Social Security administrative records.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="7">NOTES: <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> = Supplemental Poverty Measure.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="lastNote" colspan="7">a. Refers to individuals receiving benefits as divorced persons; they may report a marital status other than divorced in the Current Population Survey.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tfoot>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<p>Divorced widowed beneficiaries account for about 10 percent of aged widowed beneficiaries. For both measures, poverty rates for divorced aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span> are similar to those of nondivorced aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span> (<abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> rates of 20.6 percent for the divorced and 19.6 percent for the nondivorced).</p>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">Dually entitled and not dually entitled beneficiaries</span>. Table 8 also shows that 2.9 million of 4.9 million aged spouses (about 60 percent) are dually entitled. For both measures, poverty rates for dually entitled spouses are a bit lower than the poverty rates for those who are not dually entitled (<abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> rates of 12.8 percent and 14.4 percent, respectively).</p>
|
|
<p>Dually entitled <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span> account for one half of aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s.</span> For both poverty measures, poverty rates for dually entitled aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span> are lower than the poverty rates for those who are not dually entitled (<abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rates of 18.6 percent and 20.9 percent, respectively).</p>
|
|
<p>The following differences contribute to lower poverty rates for the dually entitled. On average, dually entitled aged spouses and aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span> receive somewhat higher Social Security benefits than do their counterparts who are not dually entitled. In addition, dually entitled aged spouses and aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span> have higher lifetime earnings than do their not dually entitled counterparts.</p>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">Retired worker beneficiaries by disability conversion status</span>. Disabled-worker beneficiaries are automatically converted to retired-worker beneficiaries when they reach the <abbr class="spell">FRA</abbr>. In Table 9, we compare the poverty rates of these converted retired workers to the poverty rates of (1) nonconverted retired workers and (2) disabled workers.<sup><a href="#mn48" id="mt48">48</a></sup> We restrict our analysis to match beneficiaries.<sup><a href="#mn49" id="mt49">49</a></sup></p>
|
|
<div class="table" id="table9">
|
|
<table>
|
|
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table 9. </span>Number and percentage of Social Security primary beneficiaries in poverty under the two poverty measures, by <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group and disability conversion status, 2012 (match persons only; numbers in thousands)</caption>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:12em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="2" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="2" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:8em"></colgroup>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" class="stubHeading" scope="colgroup"><abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group and conversion status</th>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" scope="colgroup">Total number</th>
|
|
<th colspan="2" class="spanner" scope="colgroup">Official poverty</th>
|
|
<th colspan="2" class="spanner" scope="colgroup"><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty</th>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" scope="colgroup">Percentage point difference<sup>a</sup> between <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> and official poverty rates</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th scope="col">Number</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Percent</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Number</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Percent</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Retired workers</th>
|
|
<td colspan="6"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Converters</th>
|
|
<td>1,548</td>
|
|
<td>189</td>
|
|
<td>12.2</td>
|
|
<td>260</td>
|
|
<td>16.8</td>
|
|
<td>4.6</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Nonconverters</th>
|
|
<td>24,797</td>
|
|
<td>1,649</td>
|
|
<td>6.6</td>
|
|
<td>3,015</td>
|
|
<td>12.2</td>
|
|
<td>5.5</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Disabled workers</th>
|
|
<td>7,696</td>
|
|
<td>1,857</td>
|
|
<td>24.1</td>
|
|
<td>1,832</td>
|
|
<td>23.8</td>
|
|
<td>-0.3</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
<tfoot>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="firstNote" colspan="7">SOURCE: Authors' calculations based on the public-use version of the 2013 Current Population Survey's Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with data from matched Social Security administrative records.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="7">NOTES: Data do not include dually entitled beneficiaries.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="7"><abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> = type of benefit; <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> = Supplemental Poverty Measure.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="lastNote" colspan="7">a. Percentage point differences do not necessarily equal the difference between rounded poverty rate values.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tfoot>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<p>The poverty rates for converters are substantially higher than those for nonconverters are (<abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> rates of 16.8 percent and 12.2 percent, respectively).<sup><a href="#mn50" id="mt50">50</a></sup> However, poverty rates for converters are much lower than the rates for disabled-worker beneficiaries are (<abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> rates of 16.8 percent and 23.8 percent, respectively).<sup><a href="#mn51" id="mt51">51</a></sup> Switching to the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> increases poverty rates for converters and nonconverters by <span class="nobr">5–6</span> percentage points.</p>
|
|
<h2>Effects of Various Features of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> on the Poverty of <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> Groups</h2>
|
|
<p>The changes in measured poverty of the <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups can be attributed to specific features of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr>. We now consider the effects of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr>'s resource, threshold, and unit measures for the four large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups.</p>
|
|
<h3>Effects of Elements of the Resource Measure</h3>
|
|
<p>In the following three subsections, we (1) consider the effects of noncash transfers and refundable tax credits, (2) examine the effects of taxes and other nondiscretionary expenses, and (3) analyze the combined effect of all of these resource measure elements.</p>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">Noncash transfers and refundable tax credits</span>. For each of the six noncash <span class="nobr">(in-kind)</span> benefit or tax-credit programs, we compare <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty estimates with those that result when the benefits of the program are subtracted from the resource measure but the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> thresholds and <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> units are unchanged.<sup><a href="#mn52" id="mt52">52</a></sup> We view the change in poverty as the result of a specified change in the way poverty is measured.</p>
|
|
<p>Alternatively, we could interpret the change in poverty as the effect of a change in program policy for a given measure of poverty, namely, the effect on <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty of introducing the program. Our estimate of the change in resources that results when the program is introduced does not attempt to account for changes in resource components that are due to the program's behavioral (work effort, saving, and so forth) and interprogram effects. (An interprogram effect exists when program rules specify that the benefit amount of one program affects the benefit amount or tax liability amount of another benefit or tax program.) Our estimate of the change in resources simply equals the amount of program benefits.<sup><a href="#mn53" id="mt53">53</a></sup></p>
|
|
<p>Box 2 summarizes the derivation of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> resource concept. The <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> resource measure includes the following <span class="nobr">in-kind</span> benefit programs: (1) housing subsidies, (2) the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (<abbr>LIHEAP</abbr>), (3) the National School Lunch Program (<abbr class="spell">NSLP</abbr>), (4) the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or <abbr>SNAP</abbr> (formerly known as the Food Stamp Program), and (5) the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (<abbr>WIC</abbr>).<sup><a href="#mn54" id="mt54">54</a></sup> The <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> resource measure also includes the following refundable tax credits: the earned income tax credit and the additional federal childcare tax credit.<sup><a href="#mn55" id="mt55">55</a></sup></p>
|
|
<div class="textBox2" id="box2" style="margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;max-width:40em">
|
|
<div class="title align-left"><span class="tableNumber">Box 2. </span>Deriving <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> unit resources</div>
|
|
<div class="table">
|
|
<table class="textTable">
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:20em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:20em"></colgroup>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="center" colspan="2"><i><b><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> resources = money income from all sources—</b></i></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<td><b><i>Plus:</i></b>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Housing subsidies</li>
|
|
<li>Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (<abbr>LIHEAP</abbr>)</li>
|
|
<li>National School Lunch Program (<abbr class="spell">NSLP</abbr>)</li>
|
|
<li>Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (<abbr>SNAP</abbr>)</li>
|
|
<li>Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (<abbr>WIC</abbr>)</li>
|
|
<li>Refundable tax credits (such as earned income tax credits (<abbr class="spell">EITC</abbr>))</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</td>
|
|
<td><b><i>Minus:</i></b>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>Federal individual income taxes</li>
|
|
<li>State individual income taxes</li>
|
|
<li>Payroll taxes</li>
|
|
<li>Child support paid</li>
|
|
<li>Medical out-of-pocket (<abbr>MOOP</abbr>) expenses</li>
|
|
<li>Work expenses (includes childcare expenses)</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div class="footnote">SOURCE: Adapted from Short (2013), <a href="https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2013/demo/p60-247.html">http://www.census.gov<wbr>/prod<wbr>/2013pubs<wbr>/p60-247.pdf</a>.</div>
|
|
<div class="footnote">NOTE: <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> = Supplemental Poverty Measure.</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<p>Five <span class="nobr">in-kind</span> benefit programs and the refundable tax credit program are considered here. In Table 10, the top panel gives the percentage point decreases in the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rate attributed to each program for each of the large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups. For the aged <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups (retired workers, aged spouses, and aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s),</span> only two of the programs—<abbr>SNAP</abbr> and housing subsidies—have effects on <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty in excess of 0.2 percentage points. <abbr>SNAP</abbr> benefits and housing subsidies respectively reduce measured poverty rates by <span class="nobr">0.6–1.0</span> and <span class="nobr">0.8–1.1</span> percentage points for aged beneficiaries. <abbr>SNAP</abbr> benefits and housing subsidies target low-income aged and nonaged persons. Refundable tax credits, the <abbr class="spell">NSLP</abbr>, and <abbr>WIC</abbr> are intended to help low-income nonaged persons. <abbr>LIHEAP</abbr> is not large enough to have much effect on the poverty rate of aged beneficiaries. For the aged <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups, the sum of the six individual effects is modest <span class="nobr">(1.8–2.4</span> percentage points).</p>
|
|
<div class="table" id="table10">
|
|
<table>
|
|
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table 10. </span>Percentage point changes in the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rate attributed to individual additions to and subtractions from <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> resources, by selected <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group, 2012</caption>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:26em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="2" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="2" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" class="stubHeading" scope="colgroup"><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> resource addition or subtraction</th>
|
|
<th colspan="2" class="spanner" scope="colgroup">Primary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<th colspan="2" class="spanner" scope="colgroup">Secondary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th scope="col">Retired workers</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Disabled workers</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Aged spouses</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span></th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td> </td>
|
|
<th colspan="4" class="panel" scope="rowgroup">Poverty-reducing components</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Additions</th>
|
|
<td colspan="4"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Refundable tax credits</th>
|
|
<td>-0.2</td>
|
|
<td>-0.9</td>
|
|
<td>-0.1</td>
|
|
<td>-0.1</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Housing subsidies</th>
|
|
<td>-0.9</td>
|
|
<td>-2.9</td>
|
|
<td>-0.8</td>
|
|
<td>-1.1</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row"><abbr>LIHEAP</abbr></th>
|
|
<td>-0.1</td>
|
|
<td>-0.2</td>
|
|
<td>-0.2</td>
|
|
<td>-0.2</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row"><abbr class="spell">NSLP</abbr></th>
|
|
<td>0.0</td>
|
|
<td>-0.2</td>
|
|
<td>0.0</td>
|
|
<td>0.0</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row"><abbr>SNAP</abbr> (formerly the Food Stamp Program)</th>
|
|
<td>-0.6</td>
|
|
<td>-2.9</td>
|
|
<td>-0.9</td>
|
|
<td>-1.0</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row"><abbr>WIC</abbr></th>
|
|
<td>0.0</td>
|
|
<td>-0.1</td>
|
|
<td>0.0</td>
|
|
<td>0.0</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td> </td>
|
|
<th colspan="4" class="panel" scope="rowgroup">Poverty-increasing components</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Subtractions</th>
|
|
<td colspan="4"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Federal income tax</th>
|
|
<td>0.1</td>
|
|
<td>0.3</td>
|
|
<td>0.1</td>
|
|
<td>0.2</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Payroll taxes</th>
|
|
<td>0.2</td>
|
|
<td>0.5</td>
|
|
<td>0.1</td>
|
|
<td>0.1</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">State income tax</th>
|
|
<td>0.1</td>
|
|
<td>0.1</td>
|
|
<td>0.1</td>
|
|
<td>0.2</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Child support paid</th>
|
|
<td>0.0</td>
|
|
<td>0.3</td>
|
|
<td>0.0</td>
|
|
<td>0.0</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row"><abbr>MOOP</abbr> expenses</th>
|
|
<td>5.9</td>
|
|
<td>6.9</td>
|
|
<td>7.3</td>
|
|
<td>8.4</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Work expenses</th>
|
|
<td>0.5</td>
|
|
<td>1.1</td>
|
|
<td>0.2</td>
|
|
<td>0.3</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Combined effect of all <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> additions and subtractions <sup>a</sup></th>
|
|
<td>4.8</td>
|
|
<td>1.5</td>
|
|
<td>5.8</td>
|
|
<td>6.8</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
<tfoot>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="firstNote" colspan="5">SOURCE: Authors' calculations based on the public-use version of the 2013 Current Population Survey's Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with data from matched Social Security administrative records.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5">NOTES: Dually entitled beneficiaries are included in the appropriate secondary beneficiary group.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5"><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> = Supplemental Poverty Measure; <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> = type of benefit; <abbr>LIHEAP</abbr> = Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program; <abbr class="spell">NSLP</abbr> = National School Lunch Program; <abbr>SNAP</abbr> = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; <abbr>WIC</abbr> = Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; <abbr>MOOP</abbr> = medical out-of-pocket.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="lastNote" colspan="5">a. Because of interaction effects and the rounding of component values, the combined-effect values do not equal the sum of the individual changes.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tfoot>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<p>For disabled workers, the effects of these programs are considerably larger. <abbr>SNAP</abbr> benefits and housing subsidies each reduce measured poverty by 2.9 percentage points. Refundable tax credits reduce the poverty rate by 0.9 percentage points. The sum of the six individual effects is a sizable 7.2 percentage points.</p>
|
|
<p>Government cash transfers such as Social Security benefits and Supplemental Security Income (<abbr class="spell">SSI</abbr>) payments are included as resources by both the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> and the official poverty measure.<sup><a href="#mn56" id="mt56">56</a></sup> In <a href="#appF">Appendix F</a>, we examine the effects of including these cash transfers as resources on official and <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rates.</p>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">Taxes and other nondiscretionary expenses</span>. For each expense element, we compare <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rates with the poverty rates that result when we use <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> resources <i>plus</i> the expense-element amount as our resource measure but continue to use the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> thresholds and <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> units. We view the change in poverty as the result of a specified change in the way poverty is measured.</p>
|
|
<p>The following six expenses are deducted in deriving <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> unit resources: (1) federal individual income tax (after nonrefundable credits), (2) payroll taxes <span class="nobr">(Old-Age,</span> Survivors, Disability, and Health Insurance tax payments by employees and the self-employed <i>plus</i> federal employee retirement payroll deductions), (3) state individual income tax,<sup><a href="#mn57" id="mt57">57</a></sup> (4) child support paid, (5) <abbr>MOOP</abbr> expenses, and (6) work expenses (including childcare expenses).<sup><a href="#mn58" id="mt58">58</a></sup></p>
|
|
<p>The relative impact of various types of expenses on household resources tends to vary by age. For instance, payroll taxes and work expenses affect working families. Child support payments mostly come from nonaged persons. Low-income aged units typically have no or low income-tax liabilities.</p>
|
|
<p><abbr>MOOP</abbr> expenses are very important for aged persons but are also important for those who are nonaged. <abbr>MOOP</abbr> expenses include health insurance premiums <i>plus</i> out-of-pocket expenses for one's own medical care (hospital visits, medical providers, dental services, prescription medicine, vision aids, and medical supplies) and over-the-counter health-related products.<sup><a href="#mn59" id="mt59">59</a></sup> Subtracting <abbr>MOOP</abbr> expenses from income, as with taxes and work expenses, better identifies the amount of income that the unit has available to purchase the basic bundle of goods included in the threshold.</p>
|
|
<p>The bottom panel of Table 10 gives the percentage point increases in the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rates attributable to each expense item for each of the four large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups. <abbr>MOOP</abbr> expenses have the largest effect by far; subtracting <abbr>MOOP</abbr> expenses in calculating the resource measure increases the measured poverty rates by <span class="nobr">5.9–8.4</span> percentage points. For disabled workers, the poverty-rate increase attributed to work expenses is 1.1 percentage points; the poverty-rate increases attributed to work expenses for aged <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups range from 0.2 to 0.5 percentage points.</p>
|
|
<p>For the large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups, <span class="nobr">94–98</span> percent of <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr>-poor beneficiaries are members of <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> units with <abbr>MOOP</abbr> expenses. Average <abbr>MOOP</abbr> expenses for those units amount to about 30 percent of their unit's <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty threshold for disabled workers and aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s,</span> 45 percent for retired workers, and 62 percent for aged spouses (not shown).</p>
|
|
<p>For the four large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups, the sums of the six individual expense effects range from about 7 percentage points for retired workers to about 9 percentage points for disabled workers and aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s.</span></p>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">All resource elements</span>. Here we compare the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rates with the poverty rates that result when we replace the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> resource measure with the official resource measure but use the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> thresholds and <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> units. We see in Table 10 that for aged beneficiaries, using the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> resource measure increases the poverty rates by 4.8 percentage points or more. For disabled workers, the corresponding increase is modest (1.5 percentage points).</p>
|
|
<p>The combined effect of all the differences between the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> resource measure and the official resource measure on poverty need not equal the sum of the effects of the 12 individual differences. This is because there are interaction effects. For example, deducting either <abbr>MOOP</abbr> expenses or work expenses from the resource measure may move a person into poverty; this increase in poverty would be reflected in <i>both</i> the <abbr>MOOP</abbr> expense effect and the work expense effect.<sup><a href="#mn60" id="mt60">60</a></sup> The net interaction effect equals the combined resource effect <i>minus</i> the sum of the 12 individual effects. For the four large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups, the interaction effects are small (0.0 to −0.6 percentage points).</p>
|
|
<h3>Effects of Elements of the Threshold Measure</h3>
|
|
<p>We now examine the effects of various elements of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> threshold measure; that is, housing-status adjustments, geographic adjustments, threshold level, and equivalence scales. In addition, we consider the combined effect of the various elements of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> threshold measure. These effects on the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rates for the four large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups are given in Table 11 (in percentage points).</p>
|
|
<div class="table" id="table11">
|
|
<table>
|
|
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table 11. </span>Percentage point changes in the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rate attributed to individual features of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> threshold, by selected <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group, 2012</caption>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:23em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="2" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="2" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" class="stubHeading" scope="colgroup">Threshold feature</th>
|
|
<th colspan="2" class="spanner" scope="colgroup">Primary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<th colspan="2" class="spanner" scope="colgroup">Secondary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th scope="col">Retired workers</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Disabled workers</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Aged spouses</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span></th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Housing-status adjustment</th>
|
|
<td>-2.0</td>
|
|
<td>-1.5</td>
|
|
<td>-3.0</td>
|
|
<td>-3.9</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Geographic adjustment</th>
|
|
<td>0.2</td>
|
|
<td>-1.7</td>
|
|
<td>-0.3</td>
|
|
<td>-0.6</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Threshold level</th>
|
|
<td>1.7</td>
|
|
<td>3.1</td>
|
|
<td>1.6</td>
|
|
<td>2.7</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Equivalence scale</th>
|
|
<td>1.1</td>
|
|
<td>-0.6</td>
|
|
<td>1.8</td>
|
|
<td>-0.1</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Combined effect of all <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> threshold features <sup>a</sup></th>
|
|
<td>1.3</td>
|
|
<td>-0.6</td>
|
|
<td>1.1</td>
|
|
<td>-1.0</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
<tfoot>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="firstNote" colspan="5">SOURCE: Authors' calculations based on the public-use version of the 2013 Current Population Survey's Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with data from matched Social Security administrative records.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5">NOTES: Dually entitled beneficiaries are included in the appropriate secondary beneficiary group.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5"><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> = Supplemental Poverty Measure; <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> = type of benefit.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="lastNote" colspan="5">a. Because of interaction effects and the rounding of component values, the combined-effect values do not equal the sum of the individual changes.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tfoot>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">Housing-status adjustments</span>. The <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> thresholds depend on a unit's housing status, which can be one of three types: owner with mortgage, owner without mortgage, and renter. The adjustments are based on <abbr class="spell">CE</abbr> data. All thresholds for units that have owners without mortgages are 14 percent lower than they would be if the thresholds did not depend on housing status. Correspondingly, thresholds for units that have owners with mortgages and renters are respectively 3 percent and 1 percent higher than they would be if the thresholds did not depend on housing status.<sup><a href="#mn61" id="mt61">61</a></sup></p>
|
|
<p>To estimate the effect of housing-status adjustments, we remove them from the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> thresholds and compare the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rates with the poverty rates that result when we use the modified thresholds. We find that the housing-status adjustment <i>decreases</i> the poverty rates of aged beneficiaries (retired workers, aged spouses, and aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s)</span> by <span class="nobr">2.0–3.9</span> percentage points.<sup><a href="#mn62" id="mt62">62</a></sup> For each of these three <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups, about 60 percent of persons who would be defined as poor in the absence of this adjustment reside in units that have owners without mortgages; the adjustment markedly lowers their thresholds and moves many of them out of the poverty population. The adjustment decreases the poverty rates of aged beneficiaries in units that have owners without mortgages by <span class="nobr">4.1–7.6</span> percentage points. For aged beneficiaries who are in units that have owners with mortgages and for those in units that have renters, there are small increases (usually less than 1 percentage point) in poverty rates (not shown).</p>
|
|
<p>The decrease in the poverty rate of disabled workers (1.5 percentage points) is smaller than the decreases for the three aged beneficiary groups. Only about 30 percent of disabled workers who are poor in the absence of the housing-status adjustment reside in units that have owners without mortgages.</p>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">Geographic adjustments</span>. The <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> thresholds are adjusted to reflect geographic differences in housing costs. The adjustment factors depend on housing-status group and area rent levels. Rent data for more than 300 areas are from the American Community Survey.<sup><a href="#mn63" id="mt63">63</a></sup> Among beneficiaries in the four large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups, the smallest and largest geographic-adjustment factors are 0.80 and 1.56, respectively; the factors average about 1.0 for all <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups (not shown).</p>
|
|
<p>We remove the geographic adjustments from the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> thresholds and compare <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rates with the poverty rates that result when we use those modified thresholds.<sup><a href="#mn64" id="mt64">64</a></sup> The geographic adjustment decreases the poverty rate of disabled workers by 1.7 percentage points (Table 11). Among aged beneficiaries, the adjustment decreases the poverty rate of aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span> by 0.6 percentage points and has little effect on the poverty rates of retired workers and aged spouses. For each of the four large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups, the adjustment increases poverty rates of beneficiaries in the Northeast and West (by <span class="nobr">2–4</span> percentage points; not shown) and decreases poverty rates in the Midwest and South (by <span class="nobr">1–4</span> percentage points; not shown). For all four large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups, the adjustment decreases poverty rates substantially for beneficiaries living outside of metropolitan statistical areas.</p>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">Threshold level</span>. With no housing-status adjustment and no geographic adjustment, the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> threshold for the two-adult/two-child unit for 2012 would have been $24,959.<sup><a href="#mn65" id="mt65">65</a></sup> The two-adult/two-child unit official threshold for 2012 was $23,283. Thus, for this base unit, the official threshold is 93.28 percent of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> threshold.</p>
|
|
<p>To estimate the effect of the threshold-level difference, we remove that difference by multiplying each unit's <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> threshold by 0.9328. We then compare <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rates with the poverty rates that result when we use these modified thresholds. This change <i>increases</i> the poverty rates for retired workers, disabled workers, aged spouses, and aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span> by 1.7, 3.1, 1.6, and 2.7 percentage points, respectively.</p>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">Equivalence scales</span>. There are important differences between the official poverty measure and <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> equivalence scales. Equivalence scales are measures of the relative expenditure needs for units of different sizes and compositions. Both scales depend on unit size and number of children, but the scales depend on those two factors in somewhat different ways, as we will show. The implicit official-measure scale also depends on the age of the unit head; one-person and two-person units with aged heads have lower scale values than corresponding units with nonaged heads.</p>
|
|
<p>The <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> three-parameter equivalence scale has the following properties:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>a child always costs less than an adult;</li>
|
|
<li>the scale always exhibits economies of scale in consumption;</li>
|
|
<li>the scale does not depend on the age of the unit head; and</li>
|
|
<li>for one-person nonaged units, the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr>-scale value is rather different from the official-measure scale value.<sup><a href="#mn66" id="mt66">66</a></sup></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
<p>To estimate the total effect of using the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> equivalence scale on the poverty rates of the <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups, we incorporate the official-measure equivalence scale into the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> thresholds.<sup><a href="#mn67" id="mt67">67</a></sup> We find that using the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> equivalence scale increases the poverty rates of retired workers and aged spouses by 1.1 and 1.8 percentage points, respectively, decreases the rate for disabled workers by 0.6 percentage points, and has little effect on the rate for aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s.</span></p>
|
|
<p>For units in which the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr>-scale value is greater than the official-scale value, using the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> scale increases thresholds and thus increases poverty rates. Correspondingly, using the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> scale decreases poverty rates for units for which the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr>-scale value is less than the official-scale value. Table 12 shows the ratios of <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr>-scale value to official-scale value for the various unit types. The ratio of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr>-scale value to the official-scale value exceeds 1.00 for two-person units with aged heads; for retired workers and aged spouses, these two-person units account for most of the poverty-rate increases. The ratio of scale values is less than 1.00 for one-person units with nonaged heads; for disabled workers, these one-person units account for most of the decrease in poverty.</p>
|
|
<div class="table" id="table12">
|
|
<table>
|
|
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table 12. </span>Ratio of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> equivalence-scale value to the official poverty measure equivalence-scale value, by unit size, age of the unit head, and number of children</caption>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:18em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="8" style="width:4em"></colgroup>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" class="stubHeading" scope="colgroup">Unit size and age of head <sup>a</sup></th>
|
|
<th colspan="8" class="spanner" scope="colgroup">Number of children</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th scope="col">0</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">1</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">2</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">3</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">4</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">5</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">6</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">7</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">One person</th>
|
|
<td colspan="8"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Younger than age 65</th>
|
|
<td>0.90</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Aged 65 or older</th>
|
|
<td>0.98</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Two people</th>
|
|
<td colspan="8"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Unit head younger than age 65</th>
|
|
<td>0.99</td>
|
|
<td>1.03</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Unit head aged 65 or older</th>
|
|
<td>1.10</td>
|
|
<td>1.03</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Three people</th>
|
|
<td>1.30</td>
|
|
<td>1.11</td>
|
|
<td>1.05</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Four people</th>
|
|
<td>1.20</td>
|
|
<td>1.08</td>
|
|
<td>1.00</td>
|
|
<td>0.95</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Five people</th>
|
|
<td>1.17</td>
|
|
<td>1.07</td>
|
|
<td>1.01</td>
|
|
<td>0.95</td>
|
|
<td>0.92</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Six people</th>
|
|
<td>1.15</td>
|
|
<td>1.08</td>
|
|
<td>1.03</td>
|
|
<td>0.98</td>
|
|
<td>0.93</td>
|
|
<td>0.91</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Seven people</th>
|
|
<td>1.11</td>
|
|
<td>1.05</td>
|
|
<td>1.02</td>
|
|
<td>0.97</td>
|
|
<td>0.94</td>
|
|
<td>0.90</td>
|
|
<td>0.91</td>
|
|
<td>. . .</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Eight people</th>
|
|
<td>1.09</td>
|
|
<td>1.04</td>
|
|
<td>1.01</td>
|
|
<td>0.97</td>
|
|
<td>0.94</td>
|
|
<td>0.91</td>
|
|
<td>0.88</td>
|
|
<td>0.86</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
<tfoot>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="firstNote" colspan="9">SOURCE: Authors' calculations.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="9">NOTES: <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> = Supplemental Poverty Measure; . . . = not applicable.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="lastNote" colspan="9">a. Ratios for units with three or more persons do not depend on the age of the unit head.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tfoot>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">All threshold elements</span>. To get the combined effect of adjustments for housing and geographic area, threshold level, and equivalence scale on the poverty rates of the large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups, we replace the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> threshold with the official-measure threshold for each <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> unit. The official-measure thresholds depend on <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> unit size, number of children, and whether the unit head is aged (65 or older). We then compare the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rate with the poverty rate that results when we use the modified thresholds but continue to use the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> resource measure and <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> units.</p>
|
|
<p>We find that using the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> thresholds increases the respective poverty rates of retired workers and aged spouses by 1.3 and 1.1 percentage points, and decreases the respective rates of disabled workers and aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span> by 0.6 and 1.0 percentage points (<a href="#table11">Table 11</a>).<sup><a href="#mn68" id="mt68">68</a></sup></p>
|
|
<h3>Effects of Unit Definition</h3>
|
|
<p>We now compare the official-measure poverty of <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups with the poverty that results when we use the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> unit but use the official resource and thresholds concepts.<sup><a href="#mn69" id="mt69">69</a></sup> For aged beneficiaries (retired workers, aged spouses, and aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s),</span> Table 13 shows that replacing the official unit with the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> unit produces very small decreases in poverty rates (0.1 to 0.3 percentage points). For disabled workers, the corresponding decrease is decidedly larger (1.7 percentage points).</p>
|
|
<div class="table" id="table13">
|
|
<table>
|
|
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table 13. </span>Percentage point changes in the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rate attributed to features of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr>, by selected <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group, 2012</caption>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:18em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="2" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="2" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" class="stubHeading" scope="colgroup"><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> element</th>
|
|
<th colspan="2" class="spanner" scope="colgroup">Primary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<th colspan="2" class="spanner" scope="colgroup">Secondary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th scope="col">Retired workers</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Disabled workers</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Aged spouses</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span></th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">All resource features</th>
|
|
<td>4.8</td>
|
|
<td>1.5</td>
|
|
<td>5.8</td>
|
|
<td>6.8</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">All threshold features</th>
|
|
<td>1.3</td>
|
|
<td>-0.6</td>
|
|
<td>1.0</td>
|
|
<td>-1.0</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Unit</th>
|
|
<td>-0.3</td>
|
|
<td>-1.7</td>
|
|
<td>-0.3</td>
|
|
<td>-0.1</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Combined effect of all features <sup>a</sup></th>
|
|
<td>5.6</td>
|
|
<td>-0.1</td>
|
|
<td>6.3</td>
|
|
<td>6.6</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
<tfoot>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="firstNote" colspan="5">SOURCE: Authors' calculations based on the public-use version of the 2013 Current Population Survey's Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with data from matched Social Security administrative records.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5">NOTES: Dually entitled beneficiaries are included in the appropriate secondary beneficiary group.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5"><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> = Supplemental Poverty Measure; <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> = type of benefit.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="lastNote" colspan="5">a. Because of interaction effects and the rounding of component values, the combined-effect values do not equal the sum of the individual changes.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tfoot>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<p>The majority of disabled workers stay in the same unit; that is, their <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> unit is the same as their official-measure unit. However, about 8 percent end up in a new unit; that is, in a <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> unit that differs from their official unit.<sup><a href="#mn70" id="mt70">70</a></sup> Approximately 98 percent of these <span class="nobr">new-unit</span> disabled workers end up in larger <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> units.<sup><a href="#mn71" id="mt71">71</a></sup> Replacing the official unit with the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> unit moves about <span class="nobr">one-fourth</span> of these <span class="nobr">new-unit</span> disabled workers out of the poverty population; a small proportion moves into the poverty population. In larger units, there is more resource sharing and more economies of scale, which tend to reduce the number of people in poverty.</p>
|
|
<h3>Combined Effects of All Elements of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr></h3>
|
|
<p>As shown earlier (<a href="#table3">Table 3</a>), compared with the official poverty measure, the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> shows much more poverty for aged beneficiaries. For the three aged <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups, the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rates are <span class="nobr">5.6–6.6</span> percentage points higher than the official rates. Our analysis shows that for aged beneficiaries, the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> resource features account for most of these differences. The effect of <abbr>MOOP</abbr> expenses <span class="nobr">(5.9–8.4</span> percentage points) dominates the combined resource effect (<a href="#table10">Table 10</a>).</p>
|
|
<p>For disabled workers, the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> and official poverty rates are similar. This is because the large poverty rate–increasing effects of <abbr>MOOP</abbr> expenses (6.9 percentage points) and of the threshold level (3.1 percentage points) are offset by the combined poverty rate–decreasing effects of housing subsidies, <abbr>SNAP</abbr> benefits, housing-status adjustments, geographic cost-of-living adjustments, and the unit definition.</p>
|
|
<h2>Summary of Empirical Findings</h2>
|
|
<p>In this section, we first provide an overview of our comparisons of official poverty measure and <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> rate estimates. Then, we summarize our analysis of the effects of the various features of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> on the poverty rates of the four large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups.</p>
|
|
<h3>Comparison of Official Poverty Measure and <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> Estimates</h3>
|
|
<p>For both poverty measures, retired workers and aged spouses have the lowest poverty rates among the four large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups, well below the corresponding poverty rates for the total <abbr>U.S.</abbr> population. For example, the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> rates for retired workers, aged spouses, and the total population are 12.7 percent, 13.4 percent, and 16.0 percent, respectively. Aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span> have the next lowest poverty rates for both measures (<abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> rate of 19.7 percent). For both poverty measures, disabled workers have even higher poverty rates (<abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> rate of 23.4 percent).</p>
|
|
<p>For the large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups, the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> and official poverty measures give quite different results. Compared with the official poverty measure, the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> shows much more poverty for aged beneficiaries, with differences of <span class="nobr">5.6–6.6</span> percentage points. On the other hand, the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> and official poverty rates are quite similar for disabled workers.</p>
|
|
<p>The four small <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups all have high poverty rates for either measure. Child-in-care spouses, disabled <span class="nobr">widow(er)s,</span> and disabled adult children have poverty rates even higher than those for disabled workers (<abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> rates of <span class="nobr">31–38</span> percent versus 23 percent).</p>
|
|
<p>For both poverty measures, rates for divorced aged spouses are quite high (<abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> rate of 25.8 percent) and are much higher than those for nondivorced aged spouses (<abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> rate of 12.4 percent). On the other hand, for both poverty measures, the rates for divorced aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span> (<abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> rate of 20.6 percent) are similar to those of nondivorced aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span> (<abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> rate of 19.6 percent).</p>
|
|
<h3>Effects of <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> Features on the Poverty of Large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> Groups</h3>
|
|
<p>For the three aged <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups, switching from the official poverty measure to the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> increases poverty rates by <span class="nobr">5.6–6.6</span> percentage points. For each of these three <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups, the <abbr>MOOP</abbr> expenses deduction is by far the most important <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> feature, increasing poverty rates by <span class="nobr">5.9–8.4</span> percentage points. Two other significant features (housing-status adjustments and threshold level) are offsetting; threshold level effects increase poverty rates by <span class="nobr">1.7–2.7</span> percentage points, but housing-status adjustments decrease poverty rates by <span class="nobr">2.0–3.9</span> percentage points. Equivalence-scale effects increase poverty rates for retired workers and aged spouses.</p>
|
|
<p>For the disabled worker <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group, switching from the official measure to the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> does not affect the poverty rate. The large poverty rate–increasing effects of <abbr>MOOP</abbr> expenses (6.9 percentage points) and of the threshold level (3.1 percentage points) are offset by the combined poverty rate–decreasing effects of housing subsidies, <abbr>SNAP</abbr> benefits, housing-status adjustments, geographic adjustments, and the unit definition.</p>
|
|
<h2 id="appA">Appendix A: Matching Procedure</h2>
|
|
<p>Matches were determined using the Census Bureau's Person Identification Validation System (<abbr class="spell">PVS</abbr>). See Wagner and Layne (2014) for a description of the <abbr class="spell">PVS</abbr>.</p>
|
|
<p>For each <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> person, the <abbr class="spell">PVS</abbr> compares selected <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> variables (such as name and date of birth) with the corresponding variables of persons in the Census Bureau's reference file to determine the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> person's Social Security Number (<abbr class="spell">SSN</abbr>). For this match, the <abbr class="spell">PVS</abbr> uses information on name, date of birth, sex, address, household members, and <abbr class="spell">SSN</abbr>. For sample members, the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> collects information on name, date of birth, sex, household members, and address, but not on <abbr class="spell">SSN</abbr>. For members of the <abbr>U.S.</abbr> population, the Census Bureau's reference file contains information from <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr>'s Numerical Identification System (Numident) file (supplemented by information from the Internal Revenue Service) on name, date of birth, sex, address, and <abbr class="spell">SSN</abbr>.</p>
|
|
<p>The matching process is not perfect. In addition to the failure to find matches, some of the matches are incorrect.</p>
|
|
<h2 id="appB">Appendix B: Determination of Beneficiary Status and <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> Code</h2>
|
|
<p>Because all persons in the <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> administrative record system have <abbr class="spell">SER</abbr> records, the presence or absence of a <abbr class="spell">SER</abbr> record in our data file indicates a person's match status. The presence of a <abbr class="spell">SER</abbr> record indicates a match between the person's <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> record and his or her <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> earnings and benefit records; this is a <i>match</i> person. The absence of a <abbr class="spell">SER</abbr> record indicates failure to find a match between the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> and <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> earnings and benefit records; this is a <i>nonmatch</i> person.</p>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">Match persons</span>. The <abbr class="spell">PHUS</abbr> record gives the amount of Social Security benefits paid to a person during calendar year 2012, but does not contain any information on <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr>, divorced beneficiary status, or dual entitlement status. The timing of <abbr class="spell">PHUS</abbr> income flows matches that of the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>, which gives income amounts for calendar year 2012.</p>
|
|
<p>The <abbr class="spell">MBR</abbr> indicates whether a person was entitled to Social Security benefits for 1 or more months of calendar year 2012. Sometimes benefits for 2012 were not paid until a later year. For example, a person may not have been awarded disabled-worker benefits until 2013, but his or her entitlement is based on a disability that began in 2012. The <abbr class="spell">MBR</abbr> contains information on <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr>, divorced beneficiary status, and dual entitlement status.</p>
|
|
<p>We use the <abbr class="spell">PHUS</abbr> record to determine whether a person is a Social Security beneficiary in 2012 and that person's <abbr class="spell">MBR</abbr> to determine his or her <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr>, divorced beneficiary status, and dual entitlement status (as of December 2012 in the great majority of cases).</p>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">Nonmatch persons</span>. We considered alternative procedures to address failures to match. One approach would be to eliminate the nonmatch persons from our analysis sample and to reweight the match persons to reach <span class="nobr">age-sex</span> group controls for the noninstitutional <abbr>U.S.</abbr> population. Because we found that the population of nonmatch <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported beneficiaries differs markedly from the population of match <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported beneficiaries in terms of benefit receipt rates and poverty rates, we decided not to use the reweighting approach. Rather, our chosen approach keeps nonmatch persons in the analysis and uses the existing <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> weights for both match and nonmatch persons. These are the weights used in recent Census Bureau publications (Short 2013; DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, and Smith 2013) and in a recent article by Bridges and Gesumaria (2015a) that examine official and <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty estimates for 2012. We designate all nonmatch persons with <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported Social Security income as 2012 beneficiaries and impute their <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr>.</p>
|
|
<p>Our imputation method follows. For match Social Security beneficiaries who also have <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported Social Security income, we tabulate distributions of <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> codes for these persons by selected <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> variables that are correlated with <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> values. The <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> variables used are age, marital status, sex, and reason for receiving Social Security income (namely, retired; disabled—adult or child; spouse; widowed; dependent child; surviving child; on behalf of dependent, surviving, or disabled child; and other—adult or child). The <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> has two variables (<abbr class="spell">resnss1</abbr> and <abbr class="spell">resnss2</abbr>) that record reasons for receiving Social Security. All <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported beneficiaries have a value for <abbr class="spell">resnss1</abbr>, but only 3 percent have a value for <abbr class="spell">resnss2</abbr>; thus, all of the imputations use <abbr class="spell">resnss1</abbr>. Although <abbr class="spell">resnss1</abbr> is quite useful in our imputation procedure, among match Social Security beneficiaries we find that agreement between <abbr class="spell">resnss1</abbr> codes and the <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> codes from the <abbr class="spell">MBR</abbr> is far from perfect. We tabulate the set of <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> correlates of <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> for each of the eight reasons for receiving Social Security income; thus, we have eight tables. Our tables for disabled and retired beneficiaries contain more age classes (10 and seven, respectively) than the other six tables do (one or two of each). The marital status categories are married (including separated), divorced, widowed, and never married. Sex is used in only three of the tables (those for retired, disabled, and other beneficiaries). For each combination of <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> variable values, our tables give percentage or probability distributions of persons with each <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> (adult or child). We then draw randomly from these percentage distributions to assign <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> to these nonmatch beneficiaries. This procedure also assigns divorced beneficiary status (divorced beneficiary or not divorced beneficiary) and dual entitlement status (dually entitled or not dually entitled) for aged spouses and aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s.</span></p>
|
|
<h2 id="appC">Appendix C: Our Estimates Compared to Estimates from the 1 Percent Continuous Work History Sample</h2>
|
|
<p>Table <span class="nobr">C-1</span> gives weighted numbers of beneficiaries by <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr>. The first column shows our estimated numbers of (match plus nonmatch) beneficiaries. As described in the text of this article, these numbers are derived from the matched <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-<abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> administrative record data file; they are also shown in <a href="#table3">Table 3</a>. The second column shows estimated numbers of beneficiaries derived from a large Social Security administrative record file, the 1 percent Continuous Work History Sample (<abbr class="spell">CWHS</abbr>).</p>
|
|
<div class="table" id="tableC1">
|
|
<table>
|
|
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table <span class="nobr">C-1.</span> </span>Number of Social Security beneficiaries: Estimates based on two alternative data sources, by <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group, 2012 (numbers in thousands)</caption>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:16em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="3" style="width:12em"></colgroup>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stubHeading" scope="col"><abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Present study: <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> with <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> data from <abbr class="spell">MBR</abbr>, <abbr class="spell">PHUS</abbr>, and <abbr class="spell">SER</abbr> files</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">1 percent <abbr class="spell">CWHS</abbr> file</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Present-study estimate divided by <abbr class="spell">CWHS</abbr> estimate</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub2" scope="rowgroup">Total</th>
|
|
<td>50,748</td>
|
|
<td>53,072</td>
|
|
<td>0.96</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Primary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<td colspan="3"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Retired workers</th>
|
|
<td>28,413</td>
|
|
<td>30,138</td>
|
|
<td>0.94</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Disabled workers</th>
|
|
<td>8,828</td>
|
|
<td>8,813</td>
|
|
<td>1.00</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Secondary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<td colspan="3"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Aged spouses</th>
|
|
<td>4,922</td>
|
|
<td>4,995</td>
|
|
<td>0.99</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Child-in-care spouses</th>
|
|
<td>116</td>
|
|
<td>116</td>
|
|
<td>1.00</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span></th>
|
|
<td>7,262</td>
|
|
<td>7,783</td>
|
|
<td>0.93</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Child-in-care <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span></th>
|
|
<td>206</td>
|
|
<td>160</td>
|
|
<td>1.29</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Disabled <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span></th>
|
|
<td>230</td>
|
|
<td>224</td>
|
|
<td>1.03</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Disabled adult children</th>
|
|
<td>771</td>
|
|
<td>843</td>
|
|
<td>0.91</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
<tfoot>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="firstNote" colspan="4">SOURCES: Authors' calculations based on the public-use version of the 2013 <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>'s Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with data from matched Social Security administrative records; 1 percent <abbr class="spell">CWHS</abbr>.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="4">NOTES: Dually entitled beneficiaries are included in the appropriate secondary beneficiary group.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="lastNote" colspan="4"><abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> = type of benefit; <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> = Current Population Survey; <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> = Social Security Administration; <abbr class="spell">MBR</abbr> = Master Beneficiary Record; <abbr class="spell">PHUS</abbr> = Payment History Update System; <abbr class="spell">SER</abbr> = Sumary Earnings Record; <abbr class="spell">CWHS</abbr> = Continuous Work History Sample.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tfoot>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<p>In general, our <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-<abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> numbers are similar to the <abbr class="spell">CWHS</abbr> numbers. For adult beneficiaries (the eight <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> categories combined), the ratio of our beneficiary number to the <abbr class="spell">CWHS</abbr> number is 0.96. For seven of the eight <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups (including all four of the large groups), that ratio is in the <span class="nobr">0.91–1.03</span> range.</p>
|
|
<p>Listed below are some conceptual differences between our beneficiary estimates and the <abbr class="spell">CWHS</abbr> estimates.</p>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">Geographic coverage—</span></p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-<abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr>: Only the 50 states and the District of Columbia.</li>
|
|
<li><abbr class="spell">CWHS</abbr>: The 50 states, the District of Columbia, outlying areas, <abbr>U.S.</abbr> citizens employed abroad by <abbr>U.S.</abbr> employers, persons employed on <abbr>U.S.</abbr> oceanborne vessels, and unknown residence.</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">Institutionalized population—</span></p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-<abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr>: Not included.</li>
|
|
<li><abbr class="spell">CWHS</abbr>: Includes some institutionalized persons.<sup><a href="#mn72" id="mt72">72</a></sup></li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">Timing—</span></p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-<abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr>: Adults who receive benefits sometime during calendar year 2012.</li>
|
|
<li><abbr class="spell">CWHS</abbr>: Adults who are entitled to benefits for the month of December 2012.</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
<p>In addition, the small <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> categories in the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> are subject to considerable sampling error.</p>
|
|
<p>Table <span class="nobr">C-2</span> gives numbers of beneficiaries for subgroups of the four large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups. Again, our beneficiary numbers are similar to the <abbr class="spell">CWHS</abbr> numbers. The ratios of our beneficiary estimates to the <abbr class="spell">CWHS</abbr> numbers range from 0.87 to 1.02.</p>
|
|
<div class="table" id="tableC2">
|
|
<table>
|
|
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table <span class="nobr">C-2.</span> </span>Number of Social Security beneficiaries: Estimates based on two alternative data sources, by selected <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group and selected beneficiary characteristics, 2012 (numbers in thousands)</caption>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:12em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="3" style="width:12em"></colgroup>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stubHeading" scope="col"><abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group and characteristic</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Present study: <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> with <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> data from <abbr class="spell">MBR</abbr>, <abbr class="spell">PHUS</abbr>, and <abbr class="spell">SER</abbr> files</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">1 percent <abbr class="spell">CWHS</abbr> file</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Present-study estimate divided by <abbr class="spell">CWHS</abbr> estimate</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Primary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<td colspan="3"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="rowgroup">Retired workers</th>
|
|
<td colspan="3"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub2" scope="row">Men</th>
|
|
<td>17,444</td>
|
|
<td>18,523</td>
|
|
<td>0.94</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub2" scope="row">Women</th>
|
|
<td>10,968</td>
|
|
<td>11,615</td>
|
|
<td>0.94</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="rowgroup">Disabled workers</th>
|
|
<td colspan="3"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub2" scope="row">Men</th>
|
|
<td>4,655</td>
|
|
<td>4,670</td>
|
|
<td>1.00</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub2" scope="row">Women</th>
|
|
<td>4,172</td>
|
|
<td>4,144</td>
|
|
<td>1.01</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Secondary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<td colspan="3"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="rowgroup">Aged spouses</th>
|
|
<td colspan="3"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub2" scope="row">Not divorced</th>
|
|
<td>4,542</td>
|
|
<td>4,558</td>
|
|
<td>1.00</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub2" scope="row">Divorced</th>
|
|
<td>379</td>
|
|
<td>437</td>
|
|
<td>0.87</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub2" scope="row">Not dually entitled</th>
|
|
<td>1,998</td>
|
|
<td>2,124</td>
|
|
<td>0.94</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub2" scope="row">Dually entitled</th>
|
|
<td>2,924</td>
|
|
<td>2,871</td>
|
|
<td>1.02</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="rowgroup">Aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span></th>
|
|
<td colspan="3"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub2" scope="row">Not divorced</th>
|
|
<td>6,550</td>
|
|
<td>6,989</td>
|
|
<td>0.94</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub2" scope="row">Divorced</th>
|
|
<td>712</td>
|
|
<td>793</td>
|
|
<td>0.90</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub2" scope="row">Not dually entitled</th>
|
|
<td>3,611</td>
|
|
<td>3,903</td>
|
|
<td>0.93</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub2" scope="row">Dually entitled</th>
|
|
<td>3,651</td>
|
|
<td>3,880</td>
|
|
<td>0.94</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
<tfoot>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="firstNote" colspan="4">SOURCES: Authors' calculations based on the public-use version of the 2013 <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>'s Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with data from matched Social Security administrative records; 1 percent <abbr class="spell">CWHS</abbr>.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="4">NOTES: Dually entitled beneficiaries are included in the appropriate secondary beneficiary group.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="lastNote" colspan="4"><abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> = type of benefit; <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> = Current Population Survey; <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> = Social Security Administration; <abbr class="spell">MBR</abbr> = Master Beneficiary Record; <abbr class="spell">PHUS</abbr> = Payment History Update System; <abbr class="spell">SER</abbr> = Summary Earnings Record; <abbr class="spell">CWHS</abbr> = Continuous Work History Sample.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tfoot>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<h2 id="appD">Appendix D: Additional Comparisons</h2>
|
|
<p>Table <span class="nobr">D-1</span> shows average benefit amounts reported in the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> and the <abbr class="spell">PHUS</abbr> for persons in the four large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups who have benefits reported in both of these sources. For aged spouses, the ratio of the amount reported in the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> to the amount reported in the <abbr class="spell">PHUS</abbr> is 1.34. For the other three large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups, the ratio ranges from 0.96 to 1.05.</p>
|
|
<div class="table" id="tableD1">
|
|
<table>
|
|
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table <span class="nobr">D-1.</span> </span>Social Security beneficiaries: Mean annual benefit amounts reported in <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> and <abbr class="spell">PHUS</abbr> for persons with benefits reported in both sources, by selected <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group, 2012</caption>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:14em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="3" style="width:8em"></colgroup>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stubHeading" scope="col"><abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group</th>
|
|
<th scope="col"><abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> ($)</th>
|
|
<th scope="col"><abbr class="spell">PHUS</abbr> ($)</th>
|
|
<th scope="col"><abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> amount divided by <abbr class="spell">PHUS</abbr> amount</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Primary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<td colspan="3"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Retired workers</th>
|
|
<td>14,876</td>
|
|
<td>15,035</td>
|
|
<td>0.99</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Disabled workers</th>
|
|
<td>13,518</td>
|
|
<td>14,154</td>
|
|
<td>0.96</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Secondary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<td colspan="3"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Aged spouses</th>
|
|
<td>9,434</td>
|
|
<td>7,023</td>
|
|
<td>1.34</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span></th>
|
|
<td>14,440</td>
|
|
<td>13,739</td>
|
|
<td>1.05</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
<tfoot>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="firstNote" colspan="4">SOURCE: Authors' calculations based on the public-use version of the 2013 <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>'s Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with data from matched Social Security administrative records.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="4">NOTES: Dually entitled beneficiaries are included in the appropriate secondary beneficiary group.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="lastNote" colspan="4"><abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> = Current Population Survey; <abbr class="spell">PHUS</abbr> = Payment History Update System; <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> = type of benefit.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tfoot>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<p>For the four large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups combined, Table <span class="nobr">D-2</span> shows that 12 percent of our (match plus nonmatch) Social Security beneficiaries do not show any Social Security income in the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>. Although the Social Security income of many of these Social Security beneficiaries is not included in their reported family income, other Social Security beneficiaries may misreport their Social Security income as <abbr class="spell">SSI</abbr> payments or as Social Security income of another family member. The failure to include Social Security income in the family's <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported income increases measured poverty. For disabled workers, the percentage of Social Security beneficiaries not showing Social Security income in the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> is a high 29 percent; the corresponding figures for retired workers, aged spouses, and aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span> are 9 percent, 10 percent, and 5 percent, respectively.</p>
|
|
<div class="table" id="tableD2">
|
|
<table>
|
|
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table <span class="nobr">D-2.</span> </span>Number and percentage of Social Security beneficiaries, by match status, <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported benefit data status, and selected <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group, 2012</caption>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:14em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:9em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="2" style="width:9em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:9em"></colgroup>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" class="stubHeading" scope="colgroup"><abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group</th>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" scope="colgroup">All persons</th>
|
|
<th colspan="2" class="spanner" scope="colgroup">Match persons</th>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" scope="colgroup">Nonmatch persons</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th scope="col">With <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported benefits</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Without <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported benefits</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td> </td>
|
|
<th colspan="4" class="panel" scope="rowgroup">Numbers (thousands)</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub2" scope="row">Total</th>
|
|
<td>49,424</td>
|
|
<td>39,350</td>
|
|
<td>5,900</td>
|
|
<td>4,174</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Primary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<td colspan="4"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Retired workers</th>
|
|
<td>28,413</td>
|
|
<td>23,814</td>
|
|
<td>2,530</td>
|
|
<td>2,068</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Disabled workers</th>
|
|
<td>8,828</td>
|
|
<td>5,155</td>
|
|
<td>2,541</td>
|
|
<td>1,132</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Secondary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<td colspan="4"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Aged spouses</th>
|
|
<td>4,922</td>
|
|
<td>4,099</td>
|
|
<td>475</td>
|
|
<td>348</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span></th>
|
|
<td>7,262</td>
|
|
<td>6,281</td>
|
|
<td>355</td>
|
|
<td>626</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td> </td>
|
|
<th colspan="4" class="panel" scope="rowgroup">Percentages</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub2" scope="row">Total</th>
|
|
<td>100.0</td>
|
|
<td>79.6</td>
|
|
<td>11.9</td>
|
|
<td>8.4</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Primary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<td colspan="4"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Retired workers</th>
|
|
<td>100.0</td>
|
|
<td>83.8</td>
|
|
<td>8.9</td>
|
|
<td>7.3</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Disabled workers</th>
|
|
<td>100.0</td>
|
|
<td>58.4</td>
|
|
<td>28.8</td>
|
|
<td>12.8</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Secondary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<td colspan="4"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Aged spouses</th>
|
|
<td>100.0</td>
|
|
<td>83.3</td>
|
|
<td>9.6</td>
|
|
<td>7.1</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span></th>
|
|
<td>100.0</td>
|
|
<td>86.5</td>
|
|
<td>4.9</td>
|
|
<td>8.6</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
<tfoot>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="firstNote" colspan="5">SOURCE: Authors' calculations based on the public-use version of the 2013 <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>'s Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with data from matched Social Security administrative records.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5">NOTES: Dually entitled beneficiaries are included in the appropriate secondary beneficiary group./td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5">Subtotals of numbers of beneficiaries do not necessarily equal the sums of the rounded numbers for the component groups./td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5">Row percentages sum to approximately 100.0./td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="lastNote" colspan="5"><abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> = Current Population Survey; <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> = type of benefit.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tfoot>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<p>For both poverty measures and all <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups, the poverty rates for our Social Security beneficiaries without Social Security income reported in the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> are much higher than are those for our Social Security beneficiaries with <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported Social Security income (Table <span class="nobr">D-3).</span></p>
|
|
<div class="table" id="tableD3">
|
|
<table>
|
|
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table <span class="nobr">D-3.</span> </span>Official and <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rates of Social Security beneficiaries, by match status, <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported benefit status, and selected <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group, 2012 (in percent)</caption>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:14em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:9em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="2" style="width:9em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:9em"></colgroup>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" class="stubHeading" scope="colgroup"><abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group</th>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" scope="colgroup">All persons</th>
|
|
<th colspan="2" class="spanner" scope="colgroup">Match persons</th>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" scope="colgroup">Nonmatch persons</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th scope="col">With <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported benefits</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Without <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported benefits</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td> </td>
|
|
<th colspan="4" class="panel" scope="rowgroup">Official poverty</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Primary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<td colspan="4"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Retired workers</th>
|
|
<td>7.1</td>
|
|
<td>5.5</td>
|
|
<td>21.3</td>
|
|
<td>8.7</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Disabled workers</th>
|
|
<td>23.5</td>
|
|
<td>19.4</td>
|
|
<td>33.8</td>
|
|
<td>19.2</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Secondary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<td colspan="4"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Aged spouses</th>
|
|
<td>7.2</td>
|
|
<td>5.6</td>
|
|
<td>20.5</td>
|
|
<td>7.7</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span></th>
|
|
<td>13.1</td>
|
|
<td>11.0</td>
|
|
<td>37.7</td>
|
|
<td>20.2</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td> </td>
|
|
<th colspan="4" class="panel" scope="rowgroup"><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Primary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<td colspan="4"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Retired workers</th>
|
|
<td>12.7</td>
|
|
<td>10.3</td>
|
|
<td>28.6</td>
|
|
<td>16.1</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Disabled workers</th>
|
|
<td>23.4</td>
|
|
<td>18.8</td>
|
|
<td>34.0</td>
|
|
<td>20.7</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr class="topPad1">
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Secondary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<td colspan="4"></td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Aged spouses</th>
|
|
<td>13.4</td>
|
|
<td>11.7</td>
|
|
<td>28.0</td>
|
|
<td>14.1</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span></th>
|
|
<td>19.7</td>
|
|
<td>17.6</td>
|
|
<td>47.6</td>
|
|
<td>25.5</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
<tfoot>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="firstNote" colspan="5">SOURCE: Authors' calculations based on the public-use version of the 2013 <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>'s Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with data from matched Social Security administrative records.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5">NOTES: Dually entitled beneficiaries are included in the appropriate secondary beneficiary group.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="lastNote" colspan="5"><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> = Supplemental Poverty Measure; <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> = Current Population Survey; <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> = type of benefit.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tfoot>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<h2 id="appE">Appendix E: <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> Data for Components of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> Resource Measure</h2>
|
|
<p>In this section, we provide information on the sources of the dollar values for the various <span class="nobr">in-kind</span> benefits, taxes and refundable tax credits, and other nondiscretionary expense items given in the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>/Annual Social and Economic Supplement data file. We begin by discussing <span class="nobr">in-kind</span> benefits and taxes and refundable tax credits.</p>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">Housing subsidies</span>. The <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> collects information on recipiency but not on amounts received. To estimate amounts of such assistance, the Department of Housing and Urban Development program rules are applied to <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> households.</p>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (<abbr>LIHEAP</abbr>)</span>. The <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> collects information on amounts received.</p>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">National School Lunch Program (<abbr class="spell">NSLP</abbr>)</span>. The <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> collects information on recipiency but not on amounts received. To value benefits, the Census Bureau uses the amount of the cost per lunch from the Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service.</p>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (<abbr>SNAP</abbr>)</span>. The <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> collects information on amounts received.</p>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (<abbr>WIC</abbr>)</span>. The <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> collects information on recipiency but not on amounts received. To value the benefits, the Census Bureau uses program information from the Department of Agriculture.</p>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">Taxes and refundable tax credits</span>. The <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> does not collect information on taxes and refundable tax credits but relies on a tax calculator to simulate them. The calculator is a computer program that incorporates the main features of federal and state tax laws. These simulations also use a statistical match of the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> to the Internal Revenue Service's Statistics of Income microdata file of tax returns.</p>
|
|
<p>We conclude by discussing other necessary expenses that are subtracted from resources.</p>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">Child support paid</span>. The <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> collects information on amounts paid.</p>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">Medical out-of-pocket (<abbr>MOOP</abbr>) expenses</span>. The <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> collects information on amounts paid for (1) health insurance premiums; (2) over-the-counter health-related products; and (3) medical care (hospital visits, medical providers, dental services, prescription medicine, vision aids, and medical supplies). Caswell and O'Hara (2010) conclude that <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> estimates of <abbr>MOOP</abbr> expenditures compare favorably to estimates from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (<abbr>MEPS</abbr>) and the Survey of Income and Program Participation (<abbr>SIPP</abbr>). The <abbr>MEPS</abbr>, in particular, devotes considerably more effort to collecting <abbr>MOOP</abbr> expenditures than does the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>.</p>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">Work-related expenses (excludes childcare expenses)</span>. The <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> does not collect information on work-related expenses (travel to work, tools, uniforms, and so forth). Information on amounts of work expenses from the most recent <abbr>SIPP</abbr> is used to estimate those expenses for workers in the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>.</p>
|
|
<p class="noindent"><span class="h4">Childcare expenses</span>. The <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> collects information on amounts of such expenses (any type of childcare while parents are at work).</p>
|
|
<h2 id="appF">Appendix F: Effects on <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> and Official-Measure Poverty of Including Social Security Benefits and <abbr class="spell">SSI</abbr> in Resource Measures</h2>
|
|
<p>We can view the change in poverty rates as the result of a specified change in the way that poverty is measured. Alternatively, we could view the change in poverty rates as the effect of a change in program policy for a given measure of poverty; namely, the effect on poverty of introducing the program. Our estimate of the change in resources that is the result of the introduction of the program does not attempt to take into account changes in resource components that are due to the program's behavioral effects (saving, work effort, and so forth).</p>
|
|
<p>Table <span class="nobr">F-1</span> shows that including the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported amounts of Social Security benefits in <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> resources produces very large decreases in <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rates for disabled workers (35.0 percentage points), retired workers (40.1 percentage points), aged spouses (45.7 percentage points), and aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span> (50.1 percentage points). Including the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>-reported amounts of Social Security benefits in the official resource measure reduces the official poverty rates by smaller numbers of percentage points (29.7 percentage points for disabled workers, 34.5 percentage points for retired workers, 39.0 percentage points for aged spouses, and 48.1 percentage points for aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s).</span></p>
|
|
<div class="table" id="tableF1">
|
|
<table>
|
|
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table <span class="nobr">F-1.</span> </span>Percentage point changes in the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> and official poverty rates attributed to including Social Security benefits and <abbr class="spell">SSI</abbr> in resources, by selected <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> group, 2012</caption>
|
|
<colgroup span="1" style="width:12em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="2" style="width:9em"></colgroup>
|
|
<colgroup span="2" style="width:9em"></colgroup>
|
|
<thead>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th rowspan="2" class="stubHeading" scope="colgroup">Resource inclusion</th>
|
|
<th colspan="2" class="spanner" scope="colgroup">Primary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
<th colspan="2" class="spanner" scope="colgroup">Secondary beneficiaries</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th scope="col">Retired workers</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Disabled workers</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Aged spouses</th>
|
|
<th scope="col">Aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span></th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</thead>
|
|
<tbody>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td> </td>
|
|
<th colspan="4" class="panel" scope="rowgroup">Official poverty</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Social Security benefits</th>
|
|
<td>-34.5</td>
|
|
<td>-29.7</td>
|
|
<td>-39.0</td>
|
|
<td>-48.1</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row"><abbr class="spell">SSI</abbr></th>
|
|
<td>-0.4</td>
|
|
<td>-4.6</td>
|
|
<td>-0.5</td>
|
|
<td>-0.9</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td> </td>
|
|
<th colspan="4" class="panel" scope="rowgroup"><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty</th>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row">Social Security benefits</th>
|
|
<td>-40.1</td>
|
|
<td>-35.0</td>
|
|
<td>-45.7</td>
|
|
<td>-50.1</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<th class="stub0" scope="row"><abbr class="spell">SSI</abbr></th>
|
|
<td>-0.7</td>
|
|
<td>-6.6</td>
|
|
<td>-0.9</td>
|
|
<td>-1.3</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tbody>
|
|
<tfoot>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="firstNote" colspan="5">SOURCE: Authors' calculations based on the public-use version of the 2013 Current Population Survey's Annual Social and Economic Supplement, with data from matched Social Security administrative records.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="note" colspan="5">NOTES: Dually entitled beneficiaries are categorized according to the appropriate secondary beneficiary group.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
<tr>
|
|
<td class="lastNote" colspan="5"><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> = Supplemental Poverty Measure; <abbr class="spell">SSI</abbr> = Supplemental Security Income; <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> = type of benefit.</td>
|
|
</tr>
|
|
</tfoot>
|
|
</table>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<p>Including <abbr class="spell">SSI</abbr> payment amounts in <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> resources reduces <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rates by 6.6 percentage points for disabled workers and by <span class="nobr">0.7–1.3</span> percentage points for the aged <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups. Including <abbr class="spell">SSI</abbr> payment amounts in the official resource measure reduces the official poverty rates by smaller numbers of percentage points (4.6 percentage points for disabled workers and <span class="nobr">0.4–0.9</span> percentage points for the aged <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups).</p>
|
|
<div id="notes">
|
|
<h2>Notes</h2>
|
|
<p> <a href="#mt1" id="mn1">1</a> Weaver (1997) examined the poverty status of most adult beneficiary groups for 1990 and 1993. Bailey and Hemmeter (2014) presented estimates of the official poverty status of disability beneficiaries for 2010.</p>
|
|
<p> <a href="#mt2" id="mn2">2</a> Also see Iams and Sandell (1998), Diamond and Orszag (2004), Weaver (2010), and Congressional Budget Office (2012).</p>
|
|
<p> <a href="#mt3" id="mn3">3</a> For a recent example, see DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, and Smith (2013).</p>
|
|
<p> <a href="#mt4" id="mn4">4</a> We examine almost all adult beneficiary groups.</p>
|
|
<p> <a href="#mt5" id="mn5">5</a> In previously published articles (Bridges and Gesumaria 2013, 2015b, 2015a), we examined the poverty of the aged (65 or older), the nonaged adult population <span class="nobr">(18–64),</span> and children (under 18).</p>
|
|
<p> <a href="#mt6" id="mn6">6</a> These groups do not include dually entitled beneficiaries.</p>
|
|
<p> <a href="#mt7" id="mn7">7</a> These groups include dually entitled beneficiaries.</p>
|
|
<p> <a href="#mt8" id="mn8">8</a> There are two slightly different versions of the official poverty measure: (1) poverty thresholds, which are relatively detailed and are used primarily for statistical purposes; and (2) poverty guidelines, which are a simplified version of the thresholds and are used primarily for administrative purposes. In this article, we use the term “official poverty measure” to denote the poverty threshold measure. For a discussion of the two measures, see the Institute for Research on Poverty (2013).</p>
|
|
<p> <a href="#mt9" id="mn9">9</a> All members of a family unit are assigned the same poverty status; that is, poor or not poor.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt10" id="mn10">10</a> The share of food in expenditures has decreased markedly over time.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt11" id="mn11">11</a> An extensive discussion of such criticisms appears in Citro and Michael (1995).</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt12" id="mn12">12</a> Subsequently, the Census Bureau released <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> reports in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt13" id="mn13">13</a> For a discussion of the evolution of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr>, see Bridges and Gesumaria (2015a).</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt14" id="mn14">14</a> This section draws heavily on Weaver (1997). For more detail, see <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> (n.d.).</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt15" id="mn15">15</a> As described in the following section, titled “Data,” these numbers of beneficiaries are estimated from our main analysis file (the 2013 <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>/Annual Social and Economic Supplement), supplemented with exactly matched <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> administrative record data on benefits.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt16" id="mn16">16</a> In the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>, Social Security income of persons younger than 15 is included in the income of family members aged 15 or older (mainly parents).</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt17" id="mn17">17</a> A person achieves insured status by working enough in Social Security–covered employment. There are three types of insured status (fully insured, disability insured, and currently insured). No primary or secondary benefit can be paid unless the worker, on whose earnings record the benefit is based, has the appropriate insured status. Which status is appropriate depends on the <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> and is not discussed here. Persons will simply be referred to as insured, without being more specific.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt18" id="mn18">18</a> The <abbr class="spell">FRA</abbr> for members of each birth cohort from 1955 through 1960 is 2 months older than that of the prior cohort, reaching 67 for those born in 1960 or later.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt19" id="mn19">19</a> An aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)</span> may have his or her benefit capped at an amount below the <abbr class="spell">PIA</abbr> if the deceased insured person received retired-worker benefits before the <abbr class="spell">FRA</abbr>. An aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)</span> or a disabled <span class="nobr">widow(er)</span> has his or her benefit increased if the deceased insured person earned credits for delaying retirement past the <abbr class="spell">FRA</abbr>.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt20" id="mn20">20</a> This section draws heavily on Short (2013).</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt21" id="mn21">21</a> For a detailed discussion of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> and official unit measures, see Provencher (2011).</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt22" id="mn22">22</a> Money income in the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> consists of (1) earnings; (2) unemployment compensation; (3) workers' compensation; (4) Social Security benefits; (5) Supplemental Security Income payments; (6) public assistance (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and general assistance); (7) veterans' payments; (8) survivor benefits; (9) disability benefits; (10) pension or retirement income; (11) interest; (12) dividends; (13) rents, royalties, and estates and trusts; (14) educational assistance; (15) alimony; (16) child support; (17) financial assistance from outside of the household; and (18) other income.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt23" id="mn23">23</a> For a critique of the resource-based <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr>, see Meyer and Sullivan (2012). Those authors favor a consumption-based poverty measure. Wimer and Manfield (2015) suggest that the failure of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> resource measure to include an annuity value of assets causes a substantial overstatement of the poverty of the aged.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt24" id="mn24">24</a> Some of these are large. For example, fiscal year 2011 federal outlays for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) amounted to about $80 billion or 2.1 percent of all federal outlays. Federal expenditures for refundable tax credits and for housing subsidies were about $80 billion and $40 billion (Falk 2012). All three of these programs are designed to assist the low-income population. Federal outlays for Supplemental Security Income and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families were about $56 billion and $17 billion; both of these <i>cash</i> benefit programs are also designed to assist the low-income population.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt25" id="mn25">25</a> More than 80 percent of people are members of <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> units with work expenses. For those units, such expenses can be substantial; unit work expenses on average amount to 15 percent of <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty thresholds.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt26" id="mn26">26</a> More than 95 percent of people are members of <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> units with <abbr>MOOP</abbr> expenses. For those units, <abbr>MOOP</abbr> expenses can be large; unit <abbr>MOOP</abbr> expenses on average amount to 21 percent of <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty thresholds. In addition, there is great dispersion around this average; a minority of units have very high <abbr>MOOP</abbr> expenses relative to their poverty thresholds.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt27" id="mn27">27</a> For families of three or more persons, the multiplier is 3. However, for families of two persons, the multiplier is 3.7. Without using a food plan and a multiplier, the thresholds for unrelated individuals were set at 80 percent of the corresponding thresholds for two-person families with no children. See Fisher (1992).</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt28" id="mn28">28</a> In 2012, food expenditures accounted for about 30 percent of the bundle of necessary expenditures that form the basis of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> thresholds.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt29" id="mn29">29</a> In determining <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> thresholds for 2012, the expenditure needs of units that have owners with mortgages are estimated to be 20 percent larger than those of units that have owners without mortgages.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt30" id="mn30">30</a> For 2012, the geographic-adjustment factors used in the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> ranged from 0.80 for the lowest-cost area to 1.56 for the highest-cost area.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt31" id="mn31">31</a> See Citro and Michael (1995). Our following discussion of the properties of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> threshold includes some discussion of equivalence scales.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt32" id="mn32">32</a> To be more precise, “expenditures around the 33<sup>rd</sup> percentile” is the average of expenditures within the 30<sup>th</sup>–36<sup>th</sup> percentile portion of the expenditure distribution. For a discussion of the choice of the 33<sup>rd</sup> percentile, see Citro and Michael (1995) and the Interagency Technical Working Group on Developing a Supplemental Poverty Measure (2010).</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt33" id="mn33">33</a> For a discussion of the choice of this multiplier, see Citro and Michael (1995) and the Interagency Technical Working Group on Developing a Supplemental Poverty Measure (2010).</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt34" id="mn34">34</a> In this article, the terms “adults” and “children” are used in two slightly different ways.</p>
|
|
<p class="secondpara">In calculating equivalence-scale values and thresholds values, all persons younger than age 15 and dependent persons aged <span class="nobr">15–17</span> are counted as children; all persons aged 18 or older and nondependent persons aged <span class="nobr">15–17</span> are counted as adults.</p>
|
|
<p class="secondpara">In all other parts of the article, the term “children” signifies persons younger than age 18 and the term “adults” denotes persons aged 18 or older. The term “nonaged adults” denotes persons aged <span class="nobr">18–64.</span></p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt35" id="mn35">35</a> The 2013 <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>/Annual Social and Economic Supplement is a household sample survey of the <abbr>U.S.</abbr> civilian noninstitutionalized population; it also includes military personnel who live in a household with at least one civilian adult. The number of interviewed households was about 75,000. Approximately 8,000 households were not interviewed because there were no available participants.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt36" id="mn36">36</a> These are weighted match rates.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt37" id="mn37">37</a> Many of these 14 percent fail to report their Social Security income to <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> interviewers. In addition, for some persons, their Social Security income may be reported by another member of their <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> family unit or may be reported incorrectly as Supplemental Security Income payments.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt38" id="mn38">38</a> Some of these persons may incorrectly report their Supplemental Security Income or another family member's Social Security income as their Social Security income.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt39" id="mn39">39</a> For the four small <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups (child-in-care spouses, child-in care <span class="nobr">widow(er)s,</span> disabled <span class="nobr">widow(er)s,</span> and disabled adult children), the corresponding figures range from 12 percent to 17 percent.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt40" id="mn40">40</a> For the large <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups, average sample weights range from <span class="nobr">1,730–1,841.</span> For the other four <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups, average sample weights range from <span class="nobr">1,381–1,781.</span></p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt41" id="mn41">41</a> Short (2013) examines official and <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty using the 2013 <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>. She presents sampling error measures for estimates of population counts, poverty counts, poverty rates, and so forth for various population subgroups. The Short sampling error measures for a population subgroup should provide approximations of these sampling error measures for a population subgroup of similar size in our study.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt42" id="mn42">42</a> For official-measure deep poverty, before-tax cash income is the resource measure.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt43" id="mn43">43</a> For the total population, the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> deep poverty rate is 5.2 percent.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt44" id="mn44">44</a> Nondiscretionary expenses (mainly <abbr>MOOP</abbr> expenses) cause three of these average <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> welfare ratios to be negative.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt45" id="mn45">45</a> This terminology is somewhat different from that ordinarily used in the poverty literature, in which movements into and out of poverty are attributable to changes in a unit's financial resources.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt46" id="mn46">46</a> Men account for almost 60 percent of disabled adult children but less than 6 percent of the child-in-care spouses, child-in-care <span class="nobr">widow(er)s,</span> and disabled <span class="nobr">widow(er)s.</span></p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt47" id="mn47">47</a> Divorced spouse beneficiaries are persons who receive aged spouse benefits as divorced spouses. Their <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> marital status is sometimes other than divorced.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt48" id="mn48">48</a> Our converted retired workers include only those who converted at the <abbr class="spell">FRA</abbr>. Some disabled workers convert prior to the <abbr class="spell">FRA</abbr>. About 7 percent of disabled workers who converted in 2010 were early converters (Stephens and Thomas 2011).</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt49" id="mn49">49</a> For match beneficiaries, we used <abbr class="spell">MBR</abbr> information to determine conversion status. We had no satisfactory way to determine conversion status for nonmatch beneficiaries.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt50" id="mn50">50</a> Married beneficiaries constitute a smaller percentage of converters than of nonconverters, and married persons tend to have lower poverty rates than nonmarried persons.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt51" id="mn51">51</a> On average, converters receive somewhat higher Social Security benefits than disabled workers do. In addition, married beneficiaries constitute a larger percentage of converters than of disabled workers.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt52" id="mn52">52</a> For example, we compute the effect on the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rate of adding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (<abbr>SNAP</abbr>) benefits to the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> resource measure for disabled workers in the following way:</p>
|
|
<ol>
|
|
<li>We subtract the value of each <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> unit's <abbr>SNAP</abbr> benefits from its <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> resource measure.</li>
|
|
<li>For each unit, we then compare that modified resource measure to the unit's <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> threshold to determine the modified poverty status of its members.</li>
|
|
<li>We then calculate the percentage of disabled workers whose modified poverty status is poor; that is, we calculate the modified poverty rate. For this case, the modified poverty rate is 26.3 percent.</li>
|
|
<li>Finally, we compare the modified poverty rate with the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rate. For disabled workers, the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rate is 23.4 percent.</li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
<p class="secondpara">The inclusion of <abbr>SNAP</abbr> benefits in the resource measure reduces the poverty rate by 2.9 percentage points (23.4 minus 26.3).</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt53" id="mn53">53</a> These program benefit amounts usually incorporate behavioral and interprogram effects.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt54" id="mn54">54</a> For housing subsidies, the <abbr class="spell">NSLP</abbr>, and <abbr>WIC</abbr>, the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> collects information on recipiency but not on amounts received. In estimating the amounts of those benefits, the Census Bureau uses information from other government agencies. The sources of the dollar values for the various <span class="nobr">in-kind</span> benefits, taxes, and other nondiscretionary expense items given on the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> data file are discussed in <a href="#appE">Appendix E</a>. For more details, see Short (2013) and references cited therein.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt55" id="mn55">55</a> The <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> does not collect information on taxes and refundable tax credits. The Census Bureau applies a tax-calculating computer program to the <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> to simulate taxes and tax credits. See <a href="#appE">Appendix E</a>.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt56" id="mn56">56</a> Other government cash transfers included as resources by both the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> and the official poverty measure are (1) unemployment insurance, (2) workers' compensation, and (3) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and general assistance.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt57" id="mn57">57</a> These amounts represent state income taxes after credits. Some amounts are negative.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt58" id="mn58">58</a> The <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr> does not collect information on work expenses. The Census Bureau uses information from another household survey to estimate work expenses. See <a href="#appE">Appendix E</a>.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt59" id="mn59">59</a> Respondents reported their premium and nonpremium <abbr>MOOP</abbr> expenses in the 2013 <abbr class="spell">CPS</abbr>.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt60" id="mn60">60</a> The interaction effect is not the same as the interprogram effect discussed earlier.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt61" id="mn61">61</a> With no geographic adjustment, basic thresholds for two-adult/two-child units are $25,784 for owners with mortgages; $21,400 for owners without mortgages; and $25,105 for renters. With no geographic adjustment and no housing-status adjustment, the threshold for the two-adult/two-child unit would be 1.2 × $20,799, or $24,959: $25,784, $21,400, and $25,105 are 103 percent, 86 percent, and 101 percent of $24,959. See <abbr class="spell">BLS</abbr> (2013).</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt62" id="mn62">62</a> Preliminary thresholds are multiplied by geographic-adjustment factors to obtain final thresholds. Those factors depend on housing-status group and on area rent. The inclusion of housing-status group in the calculation of geographic-adjustment factors can have small effects on the poverty rates for <abbr class="spell">TOB</abbr> groups. We include such effects as part of the effects of the geographic-adjustment factors and not as part of the effects of the housing-status adjustment.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt63" id="mn63">63</a> For a given housing-status group, the geographic adjustment factor is derived by multiplying an area's rent-index value by the group's share of housing expenditures (shelter plus utilities) in its threshold and adding that product to the group's nonhousing share. The rent index is the ratio of the area's rent to the national average rent.</p>
|
|
<p class="secondpara">This calculation of adjustment factors can also be stated in algebraic form:</p>
|
|
<p class="secondpara">Factor<i><sub><abbr class="spell">ah</abbr></sub></i> = HousingShare<i><sub>h</sub></i> × (Rent<i><sub>a</sub></i> / Rent<i><sub>n</sub></i>) + (1 – HousingShare<i><sub>h</sub></i> ), where <i>a</i> denotes geographic area, <i>h</i> denotes housing-status group, and <i>n</i> denotes national. See Renwick (2011).</p>
|
|
<p class="secondpara">Rent-index values range from about 0.61 to 2.10. For units that have owners with mortgages, owners without mortgages, and renters, the shares of expenses for housing in the thresholds are .504, .402, and .491, respectively (<abbr class="spell">BLS</abbr> 2013).</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt64" id="mn64">64</a> Renwick (2011) made those comparisons for an earlier year.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt65" id="mn65">65</a> Derived from the <abbr class="spell">BLS</abbr> (2013).</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt66" id="mn66">66</a> The three-parameter scale values are calculated as follows:</p>
|
|
<ol>
|
|
<li><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> unit with one or two adults and no children—<br>unadjusted-scale value = [number of adults]<sup>0.5</sup></li>
|
|
<li><abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> unit with one adult and one or more children (mostly single-parent units)—<br>unadjusted-scale value = [1 + 0.8 + 0.5(number of children – 1)]<sup>0.7</sup></li>
|
|
<li>All other <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> units—<br>unadjusted-scale value = [number of adults + 0.5(number of children)]<sup>0.7</sup></li>
|
|
</ol>
|
|
<p class="secondpara">In calculating equivalence-scale values, all persons aged 18 or older and nondependent persons aged <span class="nobr">15–17</span> are counted as adults; all persons younger than age 15 and dependent persons aged <span class="nobr">15–17</span> are counted as children.</p>
|
|
<p class="secondpara">In equation 2, the first child is treated as 80 percent of an adult; each additional child is treated as 50 percent of an adult. In equation 3, each child is treated as 50 percent of an adult. The numbers of adult equivalents are given by the expressions inside the brackets. For example, for a two-adult/two-child unit, equation 3 shows that the number of adult equivalents is three.</p>
|
|
<p class="secondpara">Economies of scale require that whenever an additional equivalent adult is added to an <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> unit, the unit's equivalence-scale value divided by the number of adult equivalents decreases. The exponents outside the brackets are the economy-of-scale factors. The smaller exponent (0.5) exhibits greater economies of scale than does the larger exponent (0.7).</p>
|
|
<p class="secondpara">The Census Bureau then adjusts all unadjusted-scale values proportionally so that the adjusted-scale value for the two-adult/two-child unit equals 1. The base threshold level for the two-adult/two-child unit is then multiplied by the adjusted-scale values in deriving threshold values for the other unit types.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt67" id="mn67">67</a> We incorporate the official-measure equivalence scale into the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> thresholds as follows. For each poverty measure, the equivalence-scale value is set equal to 1.00 for a two-adult/two-child unit. For each unit type, we compute the ratio of the official measure–scale value to the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr>-scale value, where unit type is defined by unit size, number of children, and whether the unit head is aged 65 or older. We next multiply each unit's <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> threshold by the ratio of scale values to obtain modified thresholds.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt68" id="mn68">68</a> The net interaction effect equals the combined threshold effect <i>minus</i> the sum of the four individual threshold effects. For retired workers, disabled workers, aged spouses, and aged <span class="nobr">widow(er),</span> the interaction effects are 0.3, 0.1, 0.9, and 0.9 percentage points, respectively.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt69" id="mn69">69</a> Note that here, we compare the official-measure poverty rate with the poverty rate that results when we change a specified feature of the official measure. In all of our previous estimates of poverty effects, we compare the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> poverty rate with the poverty rate that results when we change a specified feature of the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr>. For the case of unit definition, the approach used here is considerably easier to implement than our usual approach.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt70" id="mn70">70</a> Only <span class="nobr">1–3</span> percent of retired workers, aged spouses, and aged <span class="nobr">widow(er)s</span> end up in new units.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt71" id="mn71">71</a> For the remaining disabled workers whose unit changes, their <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> unit and their official unit are of the same size but differ in membership.</p>
|
|
<p><a href="#mt72" id="mn72">72</a> We used representative payee codes to identify some beneficiaries who reside in institutions. We excluded these beneficiaries from the <abbr class="spell">CWHS</abbr> numbers; they represent about 1 percent of all adult beneficiaries.</p>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<div id="references">
|
|
<h2>References</h2>
|
|
<p>Bailey, Michelle Stegman, and Jeffrey Hemmeter. 2014. “Characteristics of Noninstitutionalized <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> and <abbr class="spell">SSI</abbr> Program Participants, 2010 Update.” Research and Statistics Note <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr> <span class="nobr">2014-02.</span> Washington <abbr class="spell">DC</abbr>: Social Security Administration, Office of Retirement and Disability Policy, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics. <a href="/policy/docs/rsnotes/rsn2014-02.html">https://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/rsnotes/rsn2014-02.html</a>.</p>
|
|
<p><abbr class="spell">BLS</abbr>. See Bureau of Labor Statistics.</p>
|
|
<p>Bridges, Benjamin, and Robert V. Gesumaria. 2013. “The Supplemental Poverty Measure (<abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr>) and the Aged: How and Why the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> and Official Poverty Estimates Differ.” <i>Social Security Bulletin</i> 73(4): <span class="nobr">49–69.</span> <a href="/policy/docs/ssb/v73n4/v73n4p49.html">https://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v73n4/v73n4p49.html</a>.</p>
|
|
<p>———. 2015a. “The Supplemental Poverty Measure (<abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr>) and Children: How and Why the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> and Official Poverty Estimates Differ.” <i>Social Security Bulletin</i> 75(3): <span class="nobr">55–75.</span> <a href="/policy/docs/ssb/v75n3/v75n3p55.html">https://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v75n3/v75n3p55.html</a>.</p>
|
|
<p>———. 2015b. “The Supplemental Poverty Measure (<abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr>) and Nonaged Adults: How and Why the <abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr> and Official Poverty Estimates Differ.” <i>Social Security Bulletin</i> 75(2): <span class="nobr">57–82.</span> <a href="/policy/docs/ssb/v75n2/v75n2p57.html">https://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v75n2/v75n2p57.html</a>.</p>
|
|
<p>Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. <i>Supplemental Poverty Measure (<abbr class="spell">SPM</abbr>) Thresholds</i>. Washington, <abbr class="spell">DC</abbr>: Department of Labor. <a href="https://www.bls.gov/pir/spmhome.htm">http://www.bls.gov/pir/spmhome.htm</a>.</p>
|
|
<p>Caswell, Kyle J., and Brett O'Hara. 2010. “Medical Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Poverty, and the Uninsured.” <abbr class="spell">SEHSD</abbr> Working Paper <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr> <span class="nobr">2010-17.</span> Washington, <abbr class="spell">DC</abbr>: Census Bureau, Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division. https://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/research/Caswell-OHara-SGE2011.pdf.</p>
|
|
<p>Citro, Constance F., and Robert T. Michael (<abbr title="editors">eds.</abbr>). 1995. <i>Measuring Poverty: A New Approach.</i> Washington, <abbr class="spell">DC</abbr>: National Academy Press.</p>
|
|
<p>Congressional Budget Office. 2012. <i>Policy Options for the Social Security Disability Insurance Program</i>. <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-congress-2011-2012/reports/43421-DisabilityInsurance_print.pdf">https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-congress-2011-2012/reports/43421-DisabilityInsurance_print.pdf</a>.</p>
|
|
<p>DeNavas-Walt, Carmen, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Jessica C. Smith. 2013. <i>Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2012</i>. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, <span class="nobr">P60-245.</span> Washington, <abbr class="spell">DC</abbr>: Government Printing Office. <a href="https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2013/demo/p60-245.html">http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-245.pdf</a>.</p>
|
|
<p>Diamond, Peter A., and Peter R. Orszag. 2004. <i>Saving Social Security</i>. Washington, <abbr class="spell">DC</abbr>: Brookings Institution Press.</p>
|
|
<p>Falk, Gene. 2012. <i>Low-Income Assistance Programs: Trends in Federal Spending.</i> <abbr class="spell">CRS</abbr> Report for Congress, R41823. Washington, <abbr class="spell">DC</abbr>: Congressional Research Service (June 13). http://greenbook.waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/greenbook.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/2012/documents/RL41823_gb.pdf.</p>
|
|
<p>Fisher, Gordon M. 1992. “The Development and History of the Poverty Thresholds.” <i>Social Security Bulletin</i> 55(4): <span class="nobr">3–14.</span> <a href="/policy/docs/ssb/v55n4/v55n4p3.pdf">https://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v55n4/v55n4p3.pdf</a>.</p>
|
|
<p>Government Accountability Office. 2012. <i>Retirement Security: Women Still Face Challenges</i>. <span class="nobr"><abbr class="spell">GAO</abbr>-12-699.</span> Washington, <abbr class="spell">DC</abbr>: <abbr class="spell">GAO</abbr>.</p>
|
|
<p>Iams, Howard M., and Steven H. Sandell. 1998. “Cost-Neutral Policies to Increase Social Security Benefits for Widows: A Simulation for 1992.” <i>Social Security Bulletin</i> 61(1): <span class="nobr">34–43.</span> <a href="/policy/docs/ssb/v61n1/v61n1p34.pdf">https://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v61n1/v61n1p34.pdf</a>.</p>
|
|
<p>Institute for Research on Poverty. 2013. <i>What are Poverty Thresholds and Poverty Guidelines?</i> Madison, <abbr title="Wisconsin">WI</abbr>: University of Wisconsin-Madison (September). http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq1.htm.</p>
|
|
<p>Interagency Technical Working Group on Developing a Supplemental Poverty Measure. 2010. <i>Observations from the Interagency Technical Working Group on Developing a Supplemental Poverty Measure</i>. Washington, <abbr class="spell">DC</abbr>: Census Bureau (March). <a href="https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/supplemental-poverty-measure.html">https://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/research/SPM_TWGObservations.pdf</a>.</p>
|
|
<p>Meyer, Bruce D., and James X. Sullivan. 2012. “Identifying the Disadvantaged: Official Poverty, Consumption Poverty, and the New Supplemental Poverty Measure.” <i>Journal of Economic Perspectives</i> 26(3): <span class="nobr">111–135.</span> <a href="https://www.hoffmannworkcomp.com/social-security-benefits/">http://www.dicdoha.net/sites/default/files/MeyerSullivanJEP2012.pdf</a>.</p>
|
|
<p>Orshansky, Mollie. 1963. “Children of the Poor.” <i>Social Security Bulletin</i> 26(7): <span class="nobr">3–13.</span> <a href="/policy/docs/ssb/v26n7/v26n7p3.pdf">https://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v26n7/v26n7p3.pdf</a>.</p>
|
|
<p>———. 1965a. “Counting the Poor: Another Look at the Poverty Profile.” <i>Social Security Bulletin</i> 28(1): <span class="nobr">3–29.</span> <a href="/policy/docs/ssb/v28n1/v28n1p3.pdf">https://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v28n1/v28n1p3.pdf</a>.</p>
|
|
<p>———. 1965b. “Who's Who Among the Poor: A Demographic View of Poverty.” <i>Social Security Bulletin</i> 28(7): <span class="nobr">3–32.</span> <a href="/policy/docs/ssb/v28n7/v28n7p3.pdf">https://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v28n7/v28n7p3.pdf</a>.</p>
|
|
<p>Provencher, Ashley J. 2011. “Unit of Analysis for Poverty Measurement: A Comparison of the Supplemental Poverty Measure and the Official Poverty Measure.” <abbr class="spell">SEHSD</abbr> Working Paper <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr> <span class="nobr">2011-22.</span> Washington, <abbr class="spell">DC</abbr>: Census Bureau, Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division. https://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/research/Provencher_JSM.pdf.</p>
|
|
<p>Renwick, Trudi. 2011. “Geographic Adjustments of Supplemental Poverty Measure Thresholds: Using the American Community Survey <span class="nobr">Five-Year</span> Data on Housing Costs.” <abbr class="spell">SEHSD</abbr> Working Paper <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr> <span class="nobr">2011-21.</span> Washington, <abbr class="spell">DC</abbr>: Census Bureau, Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division. http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/supplemental/research/Renwick_GeographicAdjustmentsJuly2011_WEA.pdf.</p>
|
|
<p>Short, Kathleen. 2011. <i>The Research Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2010.</i> Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, <span class="nobr">P60-241.</span> Washington, <abbr class="spell">DC</abbr>: Government Printing Office (November). <a href="https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2011/demo/p60-241.html">http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-241.pdf</a>.</p>
|
|
<p>———. 2013. <i>The Research Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2012.</i> Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, <span class="nobr">P60-247.</span> Washington, <abbr class="spell">DC</abbr>: Government Printing Office (November). <a href="https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2013/demo/p60-247.html">http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-247.pdf</a>.</p>
|
|
<p>Social Security Administration. <abbr>n.d.</abbr> <i>Online Social Security Handbook.</i> <a href="/OP_Home/handbook/handbook-toc.html">https://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/handbook/handbook-toc.html</a>.</p>
|
|
<p>Stephens, Michael L., and Chelsea A. Thomas. 2011. “Short-Range Actuarial Projections of the <span class="nobr">Old-Age,</span> Survivors, and Disability Insurance Program, 2010.” Actuarial Study <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr> 121. Baltimore, <abbr title="Maryland">MD</abbr>: Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary. <a href="/OACT/NOTES/pdf_studies/study121.pdf">https://www.socialsecurity.gov/<abbr title="O ACT">OACT</abbr>/NOTES/pdf_studies/study121.pdf</a>.</p>
|
|
<p>Wagner, Deborah, and Mary Layne. 2014. “The Person Identification Validation System (<abbr class="spell">PVS</abbr>): Applying the Center for Administrative Records Research and Applications' (<abbr class="spell">CARRA</abbr>) Record Linkage Software.” <abbr class="spell">CARRA</abbr> Working Paper <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr> <span class="nobr">2014-01.</span> Washington, <abbr class="spell">DC</abbr>: Census Bureau, Center for Administrative Records Research and Applications. https://www.census.gov/srd/carra/<abbr class="spell">CARRA</abbr>_<abbr class="spell">PVS</abbr>_Record_Linkage.pdf.</p>
|
|
<p>Weaver, David A. 1997. “The Economic Well-Being of Social Security Beneficiaries, with an Emphasis on Divorced Beneficiaries.” <i>Social Security Bulletin</i> 60(4): <span class="nobr">3–17.</span> <a href="/policy/docs/ssb/v60n4/v60n4p3.pdf">https://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v60n4/v60n4p3.pdf</a>.</p>
|
|
<p>———. 2010. “Widows and Social Security.” <i>Social Security Bulletin</i> 70(3): <span class="nobr">89–109.</span> <a href="/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p89.html">https://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p89.html</a>.</p>
|
|
<p>Wimer, Christopher, and Lucas Manfield. 2015. “Elderly Poverty in the United States in the 21<sup>st</sup> Century: Exploring the Role of Assets in the Supplemental Poverty Measure.” <abbr class="spell">CRR</abbr> Working Paper <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr> <span class="nobr">2015-29.</span> Chestnut Hill, <abbr title="Massachusetts">MA</abbr>: Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. <a href="https://crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/wp_2015-29.pdf">http://crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/wp_2015-29.pdf</a>.</p>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</article>
|
|
<footer><div id="footer">
|
|
<div class="important-info"><h4>Important Information:</h4>
|
|
<ul><li><a href="/agency/">About Us</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="/accessibility/">Accessibility</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="/foia/">FOIA</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="/open/">Open Government</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="/agency/glossary/">Glossary</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="/privacy/">Privacy</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="https://oig.ssa.gov/report/">Report Fraud, Waste or Abuse</a></li>
|
|
<li><a href="/agency/websitepolicies.html">Website Policies</a></li></ul>
|
|
</div>
|
|
<p class="align-center margin-top">This website is produced and published at U.S. taxpayer expense.</p>
|
|
</div></footer>
|
|
<!-- SSA INTERNET BODY SCRIPTS -->
|
|
<script src="/policy/js/rspa.doc.js"></script>
|
|
<script src="/policy/js/rspa-shared.js"></script>
|
|
<script src="/framework/js/ssa.internet.body.js"></script>
|
|
</body></html> |