Papers written by Author(s): 'Bruce Meyer'
The following papers contain search terms that you selected. From the papers listed below, you can navigate to the PDF, the profile page for that working paper, or see all the working papers written by an author. You can also explore tags, keywords, and authors that occur frequently within these papers.
See Working Papers by Tag(s), Keywords(s), Author(s), or Search Text
Click here to search again
Frequently Occurring Concepts within this Search
Viewing papers 1 through 3 of 3
-
Working PaperUsing Linked Survey and Administrative Data to Better Measure Income: Implications for Poverty, Program Effectiveness and Holes in the Safety Net
October 2015
Working Paper Number:
CES-15-35
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, 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.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperMISCLASSIFICATION IN BINARY CHOICE MODELS
May 2013
Working Paper Number:
CES-13-27
We derive the asymptotic bias from misclassification of the dependent variable in binary choice models. Measurement error is necessarily non-classical in this case, which leads to bias in linear and non-linear models even if only the dependent variable is mismeasured. A Monte Carlo study and an application to food stamp receipt show that the bias formulas are useful to analyze the sensitivity of substantive conclusions, to interpret biased coefficients and imply features of the estimates that are robust to misclassification. Using administrative records linked to survey data as validation data, we examine estimators that are consistent under misclassification. They can improve estimates if their assumptions hold, but can aggravate the problem if the assumptions are invalid. The estimators differ in their robustness to such violations, which can be improved by incorporating additional information. We propose tests for the presence and nature of misclassification that can help to choose an estimator.View Full Paper PDF
-
Working PaperErrors in Survey Reporting and Imputation and Their Effects on Estimates of Food Stamp Program Participation
April 2011
Working Paper Number:
CES-11-14
Benefit receipt in major household surveys is often underreported. This misreporting leads to biased estimates of the economic circumstances of disadvantaged populations, program takeup, and the distributional effects of government programs, and other program effects. We use administrative data on Food Stamp Program (FSP) participation matched to American Community Survey (ACS) and Current Population Survey (CPS) household data. We show that nearly thirty-five percent of true recipient households do not report receipt in the ACS and fifty percent do not report receipt in the CPS. Misreporting, both false negatives and false positives, varies with individual characteristics, leading to complicated biases in FSP analyses. We then directly examine the determinants of program receipt using our combined administrative and survey data. The combined data allow us to examine accurate participation using individual characteristics missing in administrative data. Our results differ from conventional estimates using only survey data, as such estimates understate participation by single parents, non-whites, low income households, and other groups. To evaluate the use of Census Bureau imputed ACS and CPS data, we also examine whether our estimates using survey data alone are closer to those using the accurate combined data when imputed survey observations are excluded. Interestingly, excluding the imputed observations leads to worse ACS estimates, but has less effect on the CPS estimates.View Full Paper PDF
1
Total Results: 3
