Using Linked Survey and Administrative Data to Better Measure Income: Implications for Poverty, Program Effectiveness and Holes in the Safety Net

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in ABSTRACTWe examine the consequences of underreporting of transfer programs in household survey data for several prototypical analyses of low-income populations. We focus on the Current Population Survey (CPS), the source of official poverty and inequality statistics, but provide evidence that our qualitative conclusions are likely to apply to other surveys. We link administrative data for food stamps, TANF, General Assistance, and subsidized housing from New York State to the CPS at the individual level. Program receipt in the CPS is missed for over one-third of housing assistance recipients, 40 percent of food stamp recipients, and 60 percent of TANF and General Assistance recipients. Dollars of benefits are also undercounted for reporting recipients, particularly for TANF, General Assistance and housing assistance. We find that the survey data sharply understate the income of poor households, as conjectured in past work by one of the authors. Underreporting in the survey data also greatly understates the effects of anti-poverty programs and changes our understanding of program targeting, often making it seem that welfare programs are less targeted to both the very poorest and middle income households than they are. Using the combined data rather than survey data alone, the poverty reducing effect of all programs together is nearly doubled while the effect of housing assistance is tripled. We also re-examine the coverage of the safety net, specifically the share of people without work or program receipt. Using the administrative measures of program receipt rather than the survey ones often reduces the share of single mothers falling through the safety net by one-half or more. Abstract We examine the consequences of underreporting of transfer programs in household survey data for several prototypical analyses of low-income populations. We focus on the Current Population Survey (CPS), the source of official poverty and inequality statistics, but provide evidence that our qualitative conclusions are likely to apply to other surveys. We link administrative data for food stamps, TANF, General Assistance, and subsidized housing from New York State to the CPS at the individual level. Program receipt in the CPS is missed for over one-third of housing assistance recipients, 40 percent of food stamp recipients and 60 percent of TANF and General Assistance recipients. Dollars of benefits are also undercounted for reporting recipients, pa...

Unequal unions? A comparative decomposition of income inequality in the European Union and United States

“…The CPS ASEC suffers from severe underreporting of means-tested transfers; thus, incomes are underestimated in many households in the bottom half of the income distribution. Prior research shows, for example, that between 40 and 60 percent of transfers from the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), SNAP and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programmes are not captured in the survey data (Meyer and Mittag, 2015; Parolin, 2017). To address this, we apply benefit imputations from the Transfer Income Model, version 3 (TRIM3) model developed by the Urban Institute.…”

Combining Administrative and Survey Data to Improve Income Measurement

“…As pointed out in the introduction, studies of various welfare programs have found shockingly high error rates in the report of program receipt in different surveys and programs. For example, sixty percent of welfare recipients in the CPS and the same share of pension recipients in the ACS fail to report receipt (Meyer and Mittag 2019a;O'Hara et al 2016 rate varies from just above 0.5% for cash welfare in the SIPP to just above 2% for SNAP in the ACS. Figure 2 summarizes these results.…”

the General Equilibrium Incidence of the Earned Income Tax Credit

“…To calculate model implied wage and labor changes, I combine the data described above and the elasticities from the Section 5 results. I calculate and report the model 44 At every point in the earnings distribution, I find self reported amounts are less than from the TRIM model (Meyer et al, 2015;Meyer and Mittag, 2019). For the Empirical 1993 Incidence results, I take the simple average of the two measures for welfare usage; using the self reported amount is more conservative while the TRIM implies larger effects.…”