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...

The short‐term effects of the earned income tax credit on health care expenditures among US adults

“…MEPS queries subjects about whether they received an EITC refund but not the amount, and numerous prior studies have shown that self-reported receipt of EITC and other welfare benefits is neither sensitive nor specific and may bias results. [37][38][39][40] We therefore assumed that all individuals received the refund for which they were eligible, which is analogous to an intentto-treat approach in a randomized controlled trial. Prior work has shown that approximately 80 percent of eligible individuals during this time period received their refunds, 41 which means that this technique suffers from a degree of misclassification.…”

Misreporting of Government Transfers: How Important Are Survey Design and Geography?

“…These studies reveal high rates of underreporting, showing that sometimes more than half of true Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients do not report receipt in the survey data. The errors are systematically related to other variables in the surveys, so that they severely bias studies of poverty and program receipt as well as analyses of the safety net and its effectiveness (see e.g., Bollinger and David 1997;Cerf Harris 2014;Meyer and Mittag 2019).…”

Wrapping it up in a person: Examining employment and earnings outcomes for Ph.D. recipients

“…Surveys have quality challenges as a result of declining respondent cooperation and participation (Meyer, Mok, & Sullivan, 2015). Studies show that underreporting in surveys (Call et al, 2013;Meyer & Mittag, 2015) impacts understanding of welfare and Medicaid participation, using administrative data to show the measurement differences. Using the sources together holds great promise to produce blended statistics.…”