Overview of the Final Report of the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment. Footnotes


1.  These correspond to 95%, 120%, and 140% of the official poverty line for a family of four ($4,000 in 1971 dollars).  The relationship of these levels to the poverty line was preserved throughout the experimental period by adjusting the dollar guarantee levels regularly according to increases in the Consumer Price Index, as in the poverty line itself.

2.  The last two variants were introduced because a declining tax rate schedule provides less of a work disincentive than a constant tax rate plan with the same guarantee and breakeven level and therefore needs a smaller cash transfer budget.

3.  Under the 1981 AFDC amendments, there is a limit on total non-AFDC income at 150% of the state needs standard.  On the basis of the poverty lines and state needs standards of 1980, the breakeven level at 150% of the need standard is below the poverty line in all but 15 states.

4.  All citations are to the Final Report of The Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment (denoted Final Report), Washington, D.C.:  U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983.

5.  It is important to note that the subsidy was available for a wide range of training or education, including liberal arts courses.  However, for simplicity, the remainder of the paper refers to this treatment as the counseling/training subsidy treatment.

6.  Projected income and expected expenses were typically based on the most recently verified monthly data, which were assumed to hold true in future months.

7.  Unemployed means out of work but looking for a job.  Out of the labor force means not working and not looking for a job.

8.  The difference, again, is whether they are looking for a job or not.

9.  The reader is reminded that, for simplicity, the term "marital stability" is used in this overview, but legal marriage was not a condition of eligibility for SIME/DIME couples.

10.  Essentially, earlier marital dissolutions counted more heavily in the analysis than later dissolutions.  For example, suppose two groups of families had the same proportion of dissolutions over the course of the experiment, but in one group all dissolutions were observed near the beginning of the experiment, whereas in the other the dissolutions occurred toward the end.  The estimation methodology correctly attributes to the first group a higher rate of marital dissolution.

11.  Final Report, Volume 1, Part V, Chapter 11.

12.  Ibid.