Taking into account all of the features of a data source, including not only its accuracy but also its cost and ease of access, it appears that no single source can be declared "preferred." The inability to find a preferred data source is inevitable given the differences in the desired uses of data, the constraints imposed by budgets for data collection, and the access limitations to data. The fact that UI wage data are inexpensive, timely to obtain, and available at the state level, for example, implies that they will continue to be a focal data set for state-level evaluations of welfare reform. But our review raises a number of serious questions about UI data. In the remainder of this paper, we highlight selected issues that we believe need further attention in the hopes of encouraging future research on at least some of them.
Certain questions related to welfare reform can only be answered with nationally representative data sets, such as the CPS or SIPP. While Moore et al. (1990) and Roemer (1999a) conclude that income, especially labor earnings, are measured well in the CPS and SIPP, there are, in our view, several important questions that remain with respect to income and employment measurements for low-income populations with national surveys. The questions are as follows:
- First, none of these studies, to our knowledge, focus on the reporting of income by disadvantaged, welfare-eligible, and/or welfare-prone populations.
- Second, as noted in Primus et al. (1999), participation in welfare programs is underreported in the CPS (and the SIPP). Moreover, this underreporting appears to have increased over time. This is a troubling problem, especially as one looks to the future when TANF programs become state specific, with different names.
Recommendation 1: We would like to see further work on the sources of antipoverty program underreporting and its origins in nationally representative survey data.
Plans are under way for some of the needed work. Professor Hotz is a principal investigator on a project recently approved by the U.S. Census Bureau to match data from UI wage records and administrative data on AFDC/TANF participation for the California subsamples of several waves of the SIPP.(32) The work of this project should yield some more recent information on both the welfare participation underreporting and income reporting issues. This study--or comparable ones done with matches of the SIPP with administrative data for the subsamples from other states--also may provide some insight into the impact of changes in family structure on income reporting for welfare leavers by exploiting the (limited) panel structure of the SIPP.
Further research also is needed on the use of UI wage records to measure the income of low-income and welfare-prone populations. While the Kornfeld and Bloom (1999) evaluation suggested that UI wage data and survey data produced similar estimates of the impact of a social program (i.e., JTPA-funded training programs) on earnings and employment, their study also found that average earnings of JTPA-eligible individuals were consistently lower than those based on survey data. Furthermore, the study by Hill et al. (1999) also found that UI wage data produced substantially lower estimates of earnings than did tax returns data for a welfare-based population drawn from the California AFDC caseload. Learning more about the quality of this data source for measuring income is extremely important because UI wage data presumably will continue to be a core resource in state and local evaluations of the effects of welfare reform.
Several issues related to UI wage data appear to need further scrutiny. First, the studies by Burgess and his coauthors raises important concerns about the "coverage" of UI and tax returns, particularly for the low-income population.
Recommendation 2: It would be extremely useful to follow the helpful lead of the various Burgess studies to closely examine the coverage and trends in coverage of low-income populations with UI data. Such an examination could be aided by using a match of UI data with respondents in a national survey, such as the SIPP, so that one could learn more about the demographic characteristics of individuals (and households) that report labor market earnings on a survey that are not recorded in UI wage records data.
- States may be able to augment UI data used for evaluation of welfare reform by collecting supplemental information on the degree to which employers are designating workers as independent contractors. Additional work at the state level to assess the overall coverage of UI data also would be valuable.
Second, more work is needed to understand the extent to which UI wage data provide a misleading measure of the earnings available to low-income households .This problem arises in short- and long-term follow-up analyses of earnings for welfare samples drawn from state caseloads. One can use UI data to measure subsequent earnings for individuals who were in assistance units as long as they remain on welfare. However, as noted by Rolston (1999), one may not be able to accurately measure household income after assistance units leave the rolls because it is difficult to keep track of the identities of household members. The evidence provided in the Meyer and Cancian (1998) and Hill et al. (1999) studies suggest that this may be a serious problem.
Recommendation 3: To learn more about family well-being, it will be necessary to continue to rely on targeted follow-up surveys to monitor samples of welfare leavers. Unfortunately surveys are expensive. We recommend that a pilot study be undertaken to devise a survey that is designed just to obtain Social Security numbers of other adults in a household, which can then be used to obtain UI wage earnings for these family members.
- It might be useful for state TANF agencies to analyze the methods that their JTPA agencies use to gather follow-up earnings data on terminees from their programs. Such follow-up assessments are required under JTPA, and many states have contracted with firms and/or universities to gather these follow-up data.
- Tax returns data also may be useful to learn more about whether the discrepancies between UI wage data and income measures from tax returns noted in that study are the result of differences in family composition and the "composition" of income reported on tax returns.
A third issue relates to the possibility that wage earnings are missed because individuals move out of the state from which UI wage data are drawn or because workers earn part of their income in other states. Again, comparisons of UI wage data with data from federal tax returns may help us to assess the importance of this problem and, more importantly, the biases that it imparts on measures of individual and household income. To learn more, it may be useful to take a closer look at what is known about the interstate mobility of disadvantaged and welfare-prone populations, such as the work done on movements of welfare populations in response to "welfare magnets," as in Meyer (1999) and the citations therein, and the implications this mobility has for the coverage of low-income workers in UI data.
"01.pdf" (pdf, 472.92Kb)
"02.pdf" (pdf, 395.41Kb)
"03.pdf" (pdf, 379.04Kb)
"04.pdf" (pdf, 381.73Kb)
"05.pdf" (pdf, 393.7Kb)
"06.pdf" (pdf, 415.3Kb)
"07.pdf" (pdf, 375.49Kb)
"08.pdf" (pdf, 475.21Kb)
"09.pdf" (pdf, 425.17Kb)
"10.pdf" (pdf, 424.33Kb)
"11.pdf" (pdf, 392.39Kb)
"12.pdf" (pdf, 386.39Kb)
"13.pdf" (pdf, 449.86Kb)