How do benefit adjustments for government transfer programs compare with their participants' inflation experiences?

McGranahan, Leslie ; Paulson, Anna L.

Introduction and summary

Millions of Americans rely on government transfer programs as a way to make ends meet during a temporary setback or as their main source of income during retirement. Whether individuals qualify for unemployment assistance, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Social Security, (1) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI), the level of benefits they will receive is affected by how the benefits are adjusted to deal with inflation--the general increase in prices for goods and services over time. Changes in benefit levels to address inflation--that is, cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs)--are determined by formulas that vary depending on the program in question. Adjustments to some programs' benefits are made automatically based on a government inflation index, while adjustments to others require legislative action.

COLAs can have a substantial impact on the welfare of transfer program participants. Those who receive benefits from a program for a long time are particularly affected by the formulas determining COLAs. In addition, COLAs can have a large impact on transfer program costs. For example, the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (chaired by Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson) recently proposed changing the way COLAs are made for Social Security benefits. By making Social Security COLAs using a chain-weighted Consumer Price Index (C-CPI), (2) as opposed to the current method that relies on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), benefits are expected to increase by about 0.3 percentage points less each year. This small change in the formula for determining the Social Security COLAs would significantly affect both the benefits received from the program and the program's costs. According to our calculations, if inflation measured by the CPI-W averaged 2.5 percent per year for the next 15 years, an individual receiving $25,000 in Social Security payments this year would receive 15 years from now an annual payment of $36,207. Under the chain-weighted formula, assuming inflation averaged 2.2 percent per year (0.3 percentage points less than under the current formula), the same individual would receive

15 years from now an annual payment of $34,650. According to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (2010, pp. 54, 65), if the proposed change in the method for calculating COLAs for Social Security were enacted, this change would lead to savings of $89 billion over the period 2012-20 and would reduce the Social Security shortfall by 26 percent over 75 years.

Major U.S. transfer programs target individuals with particular characteristics--for example, single mothers and the elderly. These individuals are likely to have different spending patterns than the average individual. However, programmatic COLAs are typically based on aggregate inflation measures. Since different groups of individuals purchase different goods and services, they may face a rise in their cost of living that differs from that of the average household. For example, the elderly spend more on health care than the general population, and commuters spend more on transportation. If health care costs increase more rapidly than aggregate prices, then the inflation experienced by the elderly will be greater than general inflation. Similarly, if gas costs and therefore the costs of transportation increase rapidly, then commuters will face inflation that is higher than that of the general population. COLAs for major transfer programs do not typically account for these differences in spending patterns.

In this article, we measure the inflation experienced by different groups of people. We focus on groups that are likely recipients of federal benefits: the elderly, single mothers, individuals with less than a high school diploma, the disabled, and the poor. We compute group-specific inflation measures for the period 1980-2010, using data on group spending patterns from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) Consumer Expenditure Survey in combination with item-specific inflation measures, also from the BLS. We then compare our group-specific inflation measures with the COLAs used for major transfer programs to evaluate whether program benefits that are adjusted using aggregate measures of inflation or using other means "keep up" with the inflation experienced by a specific group.

COLAs can affect the welfare of transfer program recipients in (at least) two ways: by determining the initial level of benefits that they receive and by determining how benefit payments grow during program participation. The latter is particularly important for programs like Social Security that individuals often participate in for a long time, and the former is a key factor of programs like TANF that individuals usually participate in for shorter periods.

We find that the elderly and, to a lesser extent, the disabled, the poor, and those with less than a high school diploma experienced higher inflation than the aggregate population from 1980 through 2010. Because the Social Security/SSI COLA is based on aggregate inflation, Social Security/SSI COLAs have been less than the price increases experienced by the elderly in most periods since 1980. More specifically, in 2010, Social Security benefits for an individual who had been on the program since 1980 would be 265 percent of their nominal 1980 value, while the cost of the items purchased by the average elderly household was 270 percent of their nominal 1980 value. Inflation faced by the disabled, while above aggregate inflation, has been slightly below the Social Security/SSI COLA because of nuances in COLA determination. Single mothers experienced lower inflation than the overall population during this period, but the inflation they faced was larger than the increases in benefits from the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program and TANF. Increases in welfare benefits from the AFDC and its successor program, TANF, in most states have been substantially below both aggregate inflation and the price increases faced by single mothers over the period 1980-2010. In addition, we find that the growth in benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP (formerly called the Food Stamp Program), has exceeded the inflation faced by single mothers, the disabled, the poor, and those with less than a high school diploma over the period 1980-2010, largely because of increases in benefit levels enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009.

During the recent recession and subsequent recovery, U.S. inflation has been atypically low. Also, during this period, there have been somewhat unusual COLAs for both Social Security/SSI benefits and SNAP benefits. Because this period is unique from both an inflation perspective and policy perspective, we break our analysis into two periods: 1980-2008 and 2008-10.

The rest of our article is organized as follows. In the next section, we discuss major U.S. transfer programs and report how benefits from these programs are adjusted for inflation. Then, we describe the characteristics of program recipients and compare them with the overall U.S. population. These comparisons are used to identify the groups whose inflation experiences we would like to investigate. Next, we compare the inflation experiences of these groups with the inflation experience of the aggregate U.S. population, and discuss how these comparisons were generated. We also compare group inflation experiences with programmatic COLAs. We highlight four programs in our analysis of COLAs: Social Security, SSI, TANF, and SNAP? Finally, we review our conclusions and briefly discuss them in the context of the policy debate concerning COLAs, which has chiefly revolved around the Social Security program.

COLAs for major transfer programs

The federal government transfers money to many different recipient populations through a large variety of targeted programs. Table 1 lists all of the federal government's transfer programs with total direct payments and indirect payments (which are largely payments made via states) to individuals that exceeded $10 billion in fiscal year 2010, according to the 2012 federal budget. This table also lists the outlays on the program, the number of beneficiaries served, the way in which benefits or expenditures are adjusted for changes in the price level, and a brief description of the eligibility criteria. There are 18 such programs, which served a total of 379 million recipients in 2010, indicating that the average American is served by more than one of these programs.

Combined, these programs cost the federal government $2.2 trillion in fiscal year 2010 and made up over 95 percent of all federal payments to individuals. These programmatic expenses represented approximately 60 percent of all federal government outlays in fiscal year 2010. (4) For some of these programs, in particular Medicaid and unemployment assistance, state governments also expend significant sums of money. The only state dollars that are included in table 1 are those that were funded by transfers from the federal government.

Inflation adjustment/benefit determination information is presented in table 1 (pp. 115-117). The inflation adjustment/benefit determination column explains in detail how program benefits are adjusted for inflation for an individual once he is already enrolled in the program. For many programs such as TANF and SNAP, the level of benefits upon initial enrollment is set using the same formula. For other programs, initial benefits are set using a different formula. For example, the initial Social Security benefit level depends on earnings over the recipient's working life.

The inflation adjustment/benefit determination column in table 1 shows that there are four main types of adjustments used by these programs. First, some programs adjust benefit levels based on an aggregate inflation index--either the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) or CPI-W. The programs in this category are Civil Service Retirement System, earned income tax credit (EITC), military retirement, Social Security (both Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance), SSI, and veterans service-connected compensation. (5) These tend to be the large income-transfer programs. The CPI-U and CPI-W are the two aggregate indexes released by the BLS. They are both consumer price indexes and as such represent changes in the cost of "market baskets" (6) consumed by different demographic groups. The CPI-W is calculated based on price increases for goods consumed by households for which at least half of household income comes from the earnings of workers in hourly wage or clerical jobs. This index represents about 32 percent of the U.S. population. The CPI-U is based on the market basket of all urban consumers; it represents 87 percent of the population. Second, some programs have benefits that are linked to price growth in a particular category. The programs in this category are child nutrition programs (in particular, the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs) and the Special Milk Program; SNAP; and tenant-based rental assistance (Section 8 housing assistance). These programs are supporting consumption in a specific category, and therefore, their benefits are linked to price growth in that category. Third, some programs have no inflation adjustment because benefits are in kind. These programs are hospital and medical care for veterans, Medicare (Parts A and B), Medicaid, and non-Section 8 housing assistance. While there is no explicit benefit adjustment, the value of the benefits increases as the cost of the underlying good increases. A final set of programs has benefits that are nominally fixed in value. Benefit amounts can be changed through legislation. These programs are student assistance, the refundable (additional) child tax credit, and TANF. Unemployment assistance, for which the increases in benefits are based on wage growth, does not fall into any of these categories. No programs are linked to the broad-based expenditure needs of the program's recipient population.

If we combine the program costs for the programs that link to the CPI-U and CPI-W, we find that about $960 billion in annual expenditures was linked to these indexes, representing about 28 percent of total federal expenditures for 2010.

In addition to indexing benefit levels to inflation, the federal government indexes eligibility criteria for many transfer programs to inflation. In many cases eligibility is based on federal poverty guidelines, which are indexed to the CPI-U. Also, many features of the tax code, such as personal exemptions and tax brackets, are indexed (Hanson and Andrews, 2008). (7)

Characteristics of program participants

Next, we are interested in finding out what percentage of the population benefits from these programs and which demographic groups are especially dependent on benefit payments. Benefit levels, and hence COLAs, are especially important to households that receive a large fraction of their income from federal government transfer programs. We divide the population in six different ways--by education, age, disability status, family structure, veteran status, and poverty status. We choose these six methods of segmenting the population because they are in keeping with program eligibility standards and because the groups based on these different division criteria are some of the groups that are highlighted in other research on transfer program participation (see, for instance, Meyer and Rosenbaum, 2001, and Haveman et al., 2003). In addition, we are interested in groups whose recipient status tends to be fairly persistent. Gaps between programmatic inflation adjustments and household expenditure growth will be more relevant if households benefit from programs over long periods so that the gaps are compounded over time. Because of this issue, we do not look at population groups based on work status because employment status has historically been fluid.

In box 1, we describe the criteria we use for the inclusion of households in the groups listed there. As delineated in box 1, our definition of the disabled only includes those individuals who do not have a job rather than all individuals with a disability. In table 2, we present results showing what fraction of households in these groups were recipients of benefits from the different programs listed in table 1 (pp. 115-117). This information is calculated from wave 4 of the 2004 panel of the U.S. Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), corresponding to the January-April period of 2005. The results displayed in table 2 are consistent with the eligibility criteria outlined in table 1. For example, 49 percent of families headed by a single mother receive a benefit from the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, while only 2 percent of households without children report receiving a benefit from these programs. Similarly, the vast majority of the elderly households receive both Medicare and Social Security. BOX 1 Demographic group variable descriptions Variable Description Less than high Neither the reference person nor spouse school diploma completed high school. High school Reference person or spouse obtained a high graduate, no college school diploma; neither the reference person nor spouse pursued education beyond the high school level. Some college or more Reference person or spouse pursued education beyond the high school level. Elderly Reference person or spouse is at least 65 years old. Disabled Reference person or spouse is out of work because of a chronic health condition or disability. Single mother Reference person is an unmarried female aged 18-64 years old; the reference person's child who is younger than 18 years old lives in the household. Other parent Reference person aged 18-64 years old is either an unmarried male or a married male or female; the reference person's child who is younger than 18 years old lives in the household. Nonparent Reference person is aged 18-64 years old; the reference person has no children who are younger than 18 years old living with him or her in the household. Veteran Reference person or spouse served on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces at some point in his or her lifetime (currently active members of the Armed Forces are included). Poor Household's income was below the poverty line (adjusted for household size and composition) during the last month of reference period.

In table 3 (p. 122), we show the median and average numbers of transfer programs that members of these different groups participated in. The median household of the overall sample receives a benefit from one of these programs (table 3, final row). For many groups, the median household participates in no benefit programs--these groups are the households with some college or more, nonelderly households, nondisabled households, non-single-mother households, nonveteran households, and the nonpoor. By contrast, among a number of groups, the median household benefits from two programs--these groups are those with less than a high school diploma or only a high school diploma, the elderly, single-mother households, veteran households, and the poor. The median disabled household receives benefits from three programs. This suggests that program receipt is fairly concentrated. Given the overlapping eligibility criteria for many programs, this degree of concentration is not surprising. The pattern for average benefit receipt among the various demographic groups is quite similar to that for median benefit receipt. Our measure of the average number of cash transfer programs excludes those programs providing in-kind benefits. There is a notable gap between the average number of transfer programs and the average number of cash transfer programs used by single mothers and the elderly.

Next, we investigate what percentage of household income is received from the transfer programs listed in table 2. We do this in two steps. First, in table 4, we show the average benefit received from the different programs by demographic group. These are average monthly benefit amounts among all households in the group. In the final column of table 4, we sum cash transfer income across all the different programs. The elderly receive the largest transfers on average per month ($1,420), followed by the disabled ($1,059) and veterans ($999). Second, in table 5 (p. 124), we tabulate the percentage of total household income that is received from the different transfer programs. In this case, household income is defined as the sum of cash transfers, the value of Food Stamp Program (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits, and other income. While the average U.S. household receives 11 percent of its income from transfer programs (table 5, final row), some groups of households receive (on average) nearly half of their income from these programs. In both tables 4 and 5, we are not imputing values to in-kind assistance, such as Medicare and housing assistance, so these numbers underestimate true total transfer benefits.

We have looked at program participation, benefit levels, and income ratios. By examining transfer programs and their participants in this way, we find that there are certain demographic groups that are particularly dependent on transfer income. We choose to further investigate those groups whose average household (based on the data in table 3) receives benefits from two or more transfer programs (namely, those with less than a high school diploma, the elderly, the disabled, single mothers, and the poor) and also those groups whose ratio of average monthly transfer income to average total monthly income (based on the data in table 5) exceeds 25 percent (namely, those with less than a high school diploma, the elderly, the disabled, and the poor). By using these two different criteria, we end up focusing on the same groups, with the exception of single mothers, who receive 13 percent of their monthly income from transfer programs but are covered by 2.3 programs on average. This discrepancy arises because many single-mother households receive benefits from the child nutrition programs and Medicaid, which are in-kind programs and thus not included in our transfer income calculations. (8)

Group expenditure patterns and inflation rates

We next look at the expenditure patterns of households (or "consumer units") in these five groups: those with less than a high school diploma, the elderly, the disabled, single mothers, and the poor. More specifically, we use data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey to investigate whether their expenditure patterns conform to those of the general population. We measure these expenditure patterns by using merged data from the Diary and Interview portions of the survey over the period 1980-2009. (9) The unit of analysis in the Consumer Expenditure Survey is the consumer unit--a grouping defined as either a single individual who makes independent consumption decisions, a group of related individuals, or a group of individuals who live together and make joint consumption decisions. (10) We use the term "consumer unit" interchangeably with "household" throughout this article. We define a household as having less than a high school diploma if both the head and spouse have not graduated from high school. We define a household as elderly if either the head or spouse is aged 65 or over. We define a household as headed by a single mother if the household contains children younger than 18 and is headed by an unmarried female aged 18-64. We define a household as disabled if the head or spouse was not working during the past 12 months because he or she was "ill, disabled or unable to work," as stated in the Consumer Expenditure Survey's Codebook. Our definitions here are consistent with the definitions presented in box 1 (p. 119) that we used in our analysis of transfer program participation and the sources of transfer income in tables 2-5.

In table 6, panel A, we report 2009 expenditure shares for our groups of interest, their complements, and the overall population. The number 14.2 in the top row of the column labeled "food" means that among the entire population, 14.2 percent of all expenditures is on food items. We refer to these expenditure shares as the market baskets of households. For all expenditure categories except for housing, these market baskets are based on the out-of-pocket expenditures of households. For example, if a hospital visit was paid for by Medicaid, it would not be included in household expenditures, but if it was paid for directly by the household, it would be. Expenditure for owner-occupied housing is set equal to the estimated rental value of the property--in keeping with the methodology used by the BLS in the creation of the Consumer Price Index. Entries in panel A of table 6 are in bold if expenditure shares in a given category for a group differ from expenditure shares of the overall population by more than 1 percentage point.

We want to highlight differences in spending in three areas--food, transportation, and health. For food expenditure (table 6, panel A, first column), those with less than a high school diploma, the disabled, single mothers, and the poor all concentrate a higher percentage of expenditures on food than the average consumer. This is in keeping with other research that finds that lower-income households spend a higher portion of their expenditures on food and other necessities. For transportation (fifth column), we see lower expenditure than on average by those with less than a high school diploma, the elderly, the disabled, and the poor. These groups are less likely to have commuting expenses. We find that both the elderly and the disabled spent more on health than the average consumer (sixth column). This pattern is consistent with the weakened health status of these two demographic groups. The nonelderly, single mothers, and the poor spend less on health than the average consumer.

In table 6, panel B, we display annual 2009 expenditure levels by demographic group. We note that total expenditures, as shown in the final column, are higher for those groups that we would expect to have higher income on average. In particular, total expenditures are higher for those with a high school diploma than those without one, for the nonelderly than the elderly, for the nondisabled than the disabled, for non-single-mothers than single mothers, and for the nonpoor than the poor. In short, individuals in our groups of interest spend less on average than individuals in the remainder of the population.

We measure the inflation of a group as the weighted average of the price changes of the items purchased by households in that group, with the weights depending on the market basket of the group in question. For example, because the elderly spend more on health care than the nonelderly, the price changes in health items get a larger weight in the calculation of the inflation of the elderly than the nonelderly. Given the differences in consumption patterns shown in table 6, panel A (p. 125), we would expect to find differences in inflation experiences if price changes across categories differ dramatically.

For example, in a period of rapidly increasing oil prices, we would expect that the inflation experienced by households that commute less, such as the elderly and the disabled, would be lower than that experienced by commuting households, all else being equal.

Before calculating inflation experiences of different groups, we would like to develop some intuition for the results by displaying price changes of goods in different categories. In table 7, panels A and B, we show how prices have changed in the broad expenditure categories displayed in table 6, panels A and B. We show price changes for six different periods: 1980-2010, 1980-90, 1990-2000, 2000-10, 1980-2008, and 2008-10. As noted in the introduction and summary, we divide the period 1980-2010 into 1980-2008 and 2008-10 because of the unusual patterns of price changes and COLAs during the recent recession and subsequent recovery. All price changes are based on August-to-August inflation rates. Panel A of table 7 shows the total price change over the periods, while panel B shows average annual rates during the periods. For example, the 249 percent for food inflation over the period 1980-2010 in panel A of table 7 means that nominal food prices in August 2010 were 249 percent of their August 1980 level. In addition, the average annual rate of food inflation over the period 1980-2010 was 3 percent, as shown in panel B of table 7.

We see in both panels of table 7 that inflation rates have differed across the expenditure categories. For some categories, in particular health, education, and tobacco, price growth has been above the total price growth (as shown in the final column) during all three decades of the 1980-2010 period. In contrast, apparel inflation has been lower than the overall price growth during all three decades. Transportation price growth has been lower than or equal to total price growth in all of the periods we consider. Because of these patterns, we would expect groups that concentrate high portions of consumption on health, education, and tobacco to have experienced higher inflation than the average consumer, while groups that concentrate high portions of spending on apparel and transportation would have experienced lower inflation.

Now, we combine the expenditure share data and the price change data to calculate group inflation. We calculate group inflation in two ways. Our first inflation calculation is based on the annual market basket consumed by a particular group. The inflation rate for a group in a particular month is calculated as the year-over-year price change of the market basket consumed by that group in the prior year. For example, inflation for the elderly in August 2010 is equal to the price change between August 2009 and August 2010 of the market basket purchased by the elderly in 2009. (11) Put differently, inflation is the weighted average price change of the goods and services purchased by the elderly, with the weights being the elderly's expenditure shares (as displayed in table 6, panel A, p. 125). We label such calculations "annual-weighted inflation." This differs from the way in which the official CPI is calculated because the official CPI uses weights that are fixed over a period longer than a year and are derived from expenditures across multiple years. For example, the CPI from January 2006 through December 2007 is based on the 2003 and 2004 market basket. Our second inflation calculation follows the BLS's methodology as closely as we are able (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007). (12) For this second measure, we only tabulate inflation from 1987 onward because earlier inflation data would require the use of older Consumer Expenditure Survey data (in particular that for 1972-73) than we have used. We label such calculations "fixed-weighted inflation." (13)

In table 8, panel A, we show annual-weighted inflation calculations, and in panel B, we show fixed-weighted inflation calculations. We show cumulative inflation experiences based on inflation during the month of August. We choose August because many of the COLAs are based on year-over-year third-quarter inflation. In table 8, panel A (first row and first column of data), we show that for the overall population, prices were 255 percent of their August 1980 level in August 2010. This does not mean that a fixed set of goods that cost $100 in 1980 costs $255 in 2010 because our calculations of inflation are based on a market basket that is redetermined every year.

Over the 1980-2010 period, the highest levels of inflation have been experienced by the elderly, followed by the disabled, the poor, and those with less than a high school diploma, as shown in table 8, panel A (as well as in panel B over the 1987-2010 period). This pattern is due in part to the findings presented in panel A of table 6 (p. 125) that the elderly and the disabled spend more than on average in the health category, which had quickly growing prices, while those with less than a high diploma and the poor spend less than on average in the transportation category, which had slowly growing prices. This general pattern persists, more or less, across the different periods displayed in table 8, panel A. This finding is consistent with other research that has focused on the elderly as a group that has faced high inflation (Hobijn and Lagakos, 2005; and Amble and Stewart, 1994).

Based on the calculations using annual weights in panel A of table 8, we note that over the 30-year period from 1980 through 2010, inflation faced by the elderly has been 15 percentage points higher than that experienced by the overall population. Inflation faced by the elderly has been higher in each of the three decades displayed in panel A of table 8 as well. We generally find smaller gaps between the inflation of the poor, those with less than a high diploma, and the disabled and that of the overall population. We also find that single mothers have experienced slightly lower inflation than the overall population. The results using fixed weights, in panel B of table 8, are similar. Note that the numbers in the first row of panel B of table 8 are smaller than the numbers in the first row of panel A of table 8 because we are measuring cumulative inflation over a shorter period in panel B.

In the final column of both panels A and B of table 8, we show cumulative August-to-August inflation according to the official CPI-U. Our measure of inflation for "all" over the period 1987-2010 in panel B of table 8 (190 percent in the first row and first column of data) should be close to the official CPI-U over the same period (191 percent in the first row and final column) because for this data point we are using the same BLS data and methodology. We would expect our inflation measure for "all" over the period 1980-2010 in panel A of table 8 (255 percent in the first row and first column) to be lower than the official CPI-U over the same period (262 percent in the first row and final column) because we are updating market baskets more quickly than the CPI-U and taking into account the fact that households may change their behavior in response to rising prices by purchasing more of those goods and services whose prices are increasing less quickly.

Group inflation and program COLAs

Our next goal is to compare the inflation experiences of different groups to increases in benefit payments. Benefit payment increases arise either because a program has an explicit cost-of-living adjustment or because legislators enact increased benefit amounts. We focus on four programs--Social Security, SSI, TANF, and SNAP.

Social Security and SSI

We begin by looking at the Social Security and SSI COLA and the inflation experiences of the elderly and the disabled. Social Security and SSI benefits (for both the elderly and the disabled) have been indexed to the (seasonally unadjusted) CPI-W since 1975. Benefits for the Civil Service Retirement System, military retirement, and veterans service-connected compensation are all indexed in the same way.

In table 9, panel A, we show the increase in the CPI-W in the first column of data. The number 256 in the first row and first column of data means that, according to the CPI-W, prices in August 2010 were 256 percent of their nominal August 1980 value. In the next two columns, the numbers displayed for the various periods are the same as those measuring the inflation faced by the elderly and the disabled with annual weights and fixed weights in table 8, panels A and B, respectively.

From table 9, panel A, we see that for both annual-weighted and fixed-weighted inflation measures, the inflation experienced by the elderly has been almost always higher than the CPI-W, both over the entire period and for each of the three decades covered by the data. Over the entire 30-year period, based on annual weights, elderly inflation has been 14 percentage points above the CPI-W. For each of the three decades presented in the part of panel A of table 9 using annual weights, the gap has been between 2 percentage points and 5 percentage points. Because individuals tend to benefit from the program for a number of years (the life expectancy of an American 65 years old in 1980 was 16.4 additional years), (14) these decade-long gaps lead to declines in the purchasing power for the same individual. For the disabled, the inflation experienced by the group has also tended to be higher than aggregate inflation for both the annual-weighted and fixed-weighted measures, although to a lesser degree (for example, by 6 percentage points over the entire period for the annual-weighted measure). Like the elderly on Social Security Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, disabled individuals tend to benefit from the Social Security Disability Insurance and SSI programs for long durations--with the average stay on disability lasting over ten years (Rupp and Scott, 1995).

The comparison of inflation experiences of the elderly and the disabled with the actual COLAs implemented by the Social Security and SSI programs is more complicated. Over the period 1976-83, the Social Security/SSI COLAs were based on increases in the CPI-W from the first quarter of the prior year to the first quarter of the current year and became effective with June benefits paid to recipients in July. After 1983, the COLAs were based on increases in the CPI-W from the third quarter of the prior year to the third quarter of the current year and became effective with December benefits paid in January. Figure 1 shows August-over-August growth in the CPI-W, Social Security/SSI COLA, and inflation faced by the elderly. There are three notable features of the Social Security/SSI COLA relative to the CPI-W. First, CPI-W increases are reflected in the COLA with a lag because the COLA has been implemented one quarter after the price change is measured. Second, there was no COLA in 1983; in other words, benefits in August 1983 were the same as benefits in August 1982. This is due to the shift, beginning in 1983, from implementing COLAs in July to implementing COLAs in the following January (that is, the 1983 COLA was implemented in January 1984). Third, recent Social Security/SSI COLAs have been somewhat unusual. The COLA for 2008--first paid in January 2009--was 5.8 percent. Prices in 2008:Q3 were 5.8 percent above their 2007:Q3 level. The magnitude of this increase was in part due to the timing of the COLA determination. Energy prices spiked over the summer of 2008. For all of 2008, CPI-W inflation was 4.1 percent, but the COLA was based on the 2008:Q3 measurements. The COLA for 2009--first paid in January 2010--was zero because prices fell between 2008:Q3 and 2009:Q3 and the COLA cannot be negative. This fall was due in part to the temporary nature of the energy price spike. The COLA for 2010, payable in January 2011 (not shown in figure 1), was also zero because, although prices increased modestly (1.5 percent) between 2009:Q3 and 2010:Q3, they were still about half a percentage point below their 2008:Q3 level. In effect, recipients were compensated beginning in January 2009 for the inflation experienced between 2009:Q3 and 2010:Q3. Because of all these factors, the CPI-W and the Social Security/SSI COLA have differed modestly over this period.

We divide our comparison of the Social Security/ SSI COLA with elderly inflation into the periods 1980-2008 and 2008-10 because the forces at work in these two eras differ. In the 1980-2008 period, elderly inflation was above the Social Security/SSI COLA by 19 percentage points (see table 9, panel A, fifth row, p. 129). This is in part due to the following factors: the gap between elderly inflation and overall inflation, the lack of a COLA in 1983, and the fact that the price increases in 2008 had not yet been incorporated into the COLA. In 2008-10, the Social Security/ SSI COLA was higher than the inflation faced by the elderly. This is due to the large COLA in January 2009 and the fact that the January 2010 COLA could not be negative. The pattern for the disabled is similar, although the gap in the 1980-2008 period is smaller.

Overall, the inflation experienced by the elderly and the disabled has generally been higher than the price index used to adjust their most substantial income support benefits. However, the path for the actual Social Security/SSI COLA has differed from that for the index it tracks because of idiosyncrasies in the determination of the Social Security/SSI COLA.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Benefit payments for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (which replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children in 1997) are set by the states. States set maximum benefit payments for families of different compositions, and subtract some portion of family income to set the actual benefit payment for a given family. In table 9, panel B (p. 129), we compare nominal increases in maximum monthly AFDC/TANF benefits for a family of three in three states--Alabama, Connecticut, and Illinois--with the inflation experiences of single mothers, based on both annual and fixed weights. We choose these three states because one was a relatively high-benefit state in 1980 (Connecticut's maximum benefit was $475), one was a moderate-benefit state (Illinois's maximum was $288), and one was a low-benefit state (Alabama's maximum was $118). While states determine benefit levels, TANF payments are partially funded by federal block grants that have been fixed in nominal terms since they were established in 1996.

If we compare the increases in AFDC/TANF benefits with the inflation experiences of single mothers based on annual weights, we find that while single mothers were facing prices in 2010 that were 247 percent of their 1980 level, benefits in these three states were between 143 percent and 182 percent of their 1980 level (see table 9, panel B, first row, p. 129). Growth in the price of the market basket of single mothers was 65 percentage points above the growth in benefits in the state with the largest percentage growth in benefits among the three selected--Alabama. We also see large gaps, particularly for Connecticut and Illinois, when we investigate the 1987-2010 period and use fixed weights. These gaps between benefit growth and price growth are far larger than that between the Social Security/SSI COLA and elderly inflation, and represent substantial erosion in the purchasing power of program beneficiaries. These three states are fairly representative of the 50 states. In no state did the value of benefits keep up with the annual-weighted price increases faced by single mothers over the 1980-2010 period. This erosion in the real value of welfare benefits has been noted elsewhere (for example, Schott and Levinson, 2008). For 1990-2000 and 2000-10, growth in benefit payments in Alabama (the low-benefit state) slightly exceeded the price growth faced by single mothers (see table 9, panel B, third and fourth rows). However, the maximum benefit in Alabama had been unchanged between 1980 and 1990 (see table 9, panel B, second row).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

In figure 2, we show August-over-August increases in AFDC/TANF benefits in the three states, overall inflation (as measured by the CPI-W), and single-mother inflation. In most years, benefits have been unchanged, but there have been occasional changes. For the AFDC/TANF population, the duration of benefit receipt differs before and after the implementation of the TANF program in 1997, since federal funding for TANF recipients is limited to 60 months. Prior to welfare reform in 1996, over 50 percent of the caseload was expected to stay on the program for over a decade (Rupp and Scott, 1995). The real erosion in welfare benefits translates into both lower real benefits for individuals who enter AFDC/TANF at later dates and a decline in the purchasing power of benefits for an individual during her stay on AFDC/TANF.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

In panel C of table 9 (p. 129), we compare increases in monthly maximum benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly called the Food Stamp Program) with price increases faced by those with less than a high school diploma, the disabled, single mothers, and the poor--all based on both annual and fixed weights. Individuals in all of these groups are heavily represented among SNAP recipients (see the Food Stamp Program column in table 2, pp. 120-121). As noted in table 1 (pp. 115-117), SNAP maximum benefits are currently indexed to increases in the cost the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Thrifty Food Plan (TFP). In particular, benefits are based on the cost of a low-cost nutritious diet for a family of four with one child aged 6-8 and one child aged 9-11. June-to-June increases in prices are reflected in October SNAP benefits.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

In table 9, panel C (p. 129), we display increases in the cost of the TFP in the first column of data. The fourth through seventh columns of data display price increases for our groups of interest. The increases in the cost of the TFP are slightly above the annual-weighted price increases faced by single mothers over the 1980-2010 period, while the increases in the cost of the TFP are slightly below the inflation experienced by the other groups in panel C. For the 1980-90 period, when food price growth overall (as measured by the Consumer Price Index for food, or CPI-food, and displayed in the second column) was below total inflation (displayed in the third column), all groups experienced inflation that was higher than the growth in the cost of the TFP. This is by design, in that growth in benefits is meant to match increases in the price of food rather than increases in the cost of all items.

We graph annual August-over-August increases in SNAP benefits, the cost of the TFP, the cost of food (as measured by the CPI-food), and the price of the market basket consumed by the poor in figure 3. Two notable patterns emerge from the figure. First, TFP inflation is more volatile than overall food inflation (as measured by the CPI-food). This is due to greater weighting in the TFP toward vegetables, milk products, and fruit, whose prices tend to be less stable than those of other foods and food away from home (McGranahan, 2008; and Carlson et al., 2007). Second, SNAP benefit growth and TFP cost growth have differed quite substantially at times. In fact, over the period 1980-2010, these measures have been negatively correlated. This differential is due to the four-month lag in implementing benefit changes and to frequent policy changes in the methods of determining maximum benefits. The current method of indexing benefits was first put in place in October 1996, based on June 1996 prices. (15) Prior to that, inflation adjustments had been a done in a variety of different ways. Since the Food Stamp Act of 1964, food stamps have been indexed annually, indexed semiannually, and frozen. Benefits have been set from 99 percent to 103 percent of the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan. For example, from October 1992 until October 1996, food stamp benefits were set at 103 percent of the cost of the TFP. As another example, food stamp benefits were fixed between January 1981 and September 1982, and the benefit adjustment for October 1, 1982, was based on 21 months of price changes.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

By contrast, in 2010, the food stamp maximum was 123 percent of its 2008 level, although the cost of the TFP was 96 percent of its 2008 level in 2010 (table 9, panel C, sixth row, p. 129). This disparity is due to a provision of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 that set benefits beginning in April 2009 at 113.6 percent of the cost of the TFP as of June 2008. Because of the ARRA increase, SNAP benefit growth exceeded the inflation faced by all population groups over the entire 1980-2010 period--in particular, the 2008-10 period.

SNAP COLAs will also be unusual going forward. Under current legislation, SNAP benefits are set to remain at 113.6 percent of the June 2008 TFP cost until October 2013 unless food inflation is so high that 100 percent of the contemporaneous TFP cost exceeds 113.6 percent of the June 2008 TFP cost prior to that date. In other words, from now until October 2013, unless inflation is very high, there will be no benefit increases. In October 2013, benefits will revert to being set at 100 percent of the June 2012 TFP cost. Assuming total TFP inflation between June 2008 and October 2013 is less than 13.6 percent (about 2.6 percent per year), benefits will fall in October 2013. This schedule for future benefit adjustments has been changed twice since the passage of the ARRA. Originally, the provision was going to end whenever the TFP cost exceeded 113.6 percent of the June 2008 level. It was then set to end in March 2014 and is now set to end in October 2013. These changes in the timing of the added benefits' phaseout are akin to what has been seen in other periods where food stamp benefit adjustments were subject to frequent policy shifts. In general, the relationship of the cost of the TFP and maximum SNAP allotments has been influenced by policy decisions. This relationship was altered through the ARRA and through two additional pieces of legislation since the ARRA's passage, as well as numerous times prior to 2009.

Reviewing the four transfer programs

The relationship between the experience of program recipients and the computation of benefit levels has been quite different for Social Security and SSI, TANF, and SNAP. With the exception of a change in the timing of COLA determination between 1982 and 1983, the Social Security/SSI COLA has been calculated in a consistent manner. As a result, for the most part, the Social Security/SSI COLA has been close to the inflation measure, the CPI-W, it is intended to track. However, the inflation experiences of both the elderly and the disabled have been generally higher than the inflation of the population covered by the CPI-W.

The gap between the Social Security/SSI COLA and the inflation of the elderly and the disabled pales in comparison with the gap between the growth of TANF benefits and the inflation faced by single mothers. TANF beneficiaries have seen substantial declines in the purchasing power of their benefits. Although the inflation faced by single mothers has been moderately below inflation for the CPI-W population, the growth in TANF benefits has been far below the inflation faced by single mothers. This gap is so large because neither the block grants from the federal government to the states nor the state benefits themselves are indexed. As a result, the growth in nominal TANF benefits at the state level has been modest and uneven.

For SNAP benefit recipients, inflation over the entire period has been close to growth in the cost of the TFP in part because food inflation has been close to overall inflation. However, SNAP benefit growth and TFP cost growth have diverged because of policy decisions. SNAP benefit levels and the relationship between these benefit levels and the cost of the TFP have been policy levers that are frequently used. Because of a major increase in benefits enacted as part of the ARRA, benefit increases far exceed the inflation of the groups that depend on SNAP. However, the history of the ARRA benefits is also indicative of the frequency with which SNAP benefits ale altered--the timing of the phaseout of the added ARRA benefits has been changed twice since the ARRA passed.

Conclusion

We compare the inflation indexation used in government transfer programs with the inflation experiences of households that are dependent on those programs for income support.

We find that the inflation experienced by different demographic groups differs from aggregate inflation because of differences in consumption patterns across the demographic groups and differences in price changes across expenditure categories. Demographic groups that concentrate a higher portion of their spending in categories whose prices have grown rapidly over the past three decades, such as health care, have experienced higher inflation than demographic groups that concentrate a higher portion of their spending in categories whose prices have grown more slowly, such as transportation. Because of their high demand for health care and low commuting costs, elderly households have experienced the highest inflation of all the groups we investigate.

We also find that the evolution of transfer program benefits has differed substantially across the four programs we investigate. Social Security and SSI benefit growth has been moderately lower than the inflation experiences of the elderly and the disabled because of the consumption patterns of the elderly and the disabled. However, TANF benefit growth has been far below the inflation experienced by single mothers because of the absence a routine COLA for most state-level benefits; and SNAP benefit growth has diverged from the inflation experienced by its beneficiaries because of frequent changes in the way the SNAP COLA has been calculated.

Much of the policy debate concerning COLAs has revolved around the Social Security program. This is in part due to the high inflation experienced by the elderly and in part due to the fact that Social Security is the single largest income support program, representing 31 percent of all federal expenditures on payments to individuals in 2010. (16) Because the elderly have experienced higher inflation than the overall population, their inflation experiences have exceeded inflation as measured by the CPI-W, the index upon which increases in Social Security benefits are based. Given the gap between inflation experienced by the elderly and the Social Security COLA, the elderly have experienced a decline in their ability to purchase their preferred market basket, even in the presence of a fully indexed benefit. Using an alternative COLA that indexed Social Security benefits to the inflation faced by the elderly could eliminate this gap. However, such a policy change would be extremely costly. Researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Hobijn and Lagakos, 2003) estimated the potential costs of using a CPI based on the consumption patterns of the elderly to adjust Social Security benefits. According to this research, had an elderly-specific index been adopted in 1984, benefits would have been 3.84 percent higher than they actually were in 2001. The New York Fed researchers anticipated that changing to an elderly-specific index in 2003 would likely have increased future benefit levels and have rendered the Social Security trust fund insolvent five years sooner than projected at the time.

Alternatively, changing the Social Security COLA to one that led to more modest increases in benefits, as proposed by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, would magnify the gap between the inflation of the elderly and the Social Security COLA. (17) At the same time, such a change would relieve some budget pressures.

Past attempts to change the Social Security COLA to one that reflected the purchasing habits of the elderly have not gotten much traction. Legislation to change the Social Security COLA has been introduced in every Congress since the 105th in 1997-98, but this legislation has never made it to the floor of either chamber. Legislation has also been introduced in the current Congress. The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform's proposal to use a chain-weighted Consumer Price Index (in particular, the chain-weighted Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, or C-CPI-U) has not yet been incorporated into any legislative proposal, and such a change was not included in President Obama's 2012 budget proposals. However, this change has been incorporated into some of the broad-based proposals to address the federal deficit.

REFERENCES

Amble, Nathan, and Kenneth Stewart, 1994, "Experimental price index for elderly consumers," Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 117, No. 5, May, pp. 11-16.

Carlson, Andrea, Mark Lino, Wen Yen Juan, Kenneth Hanson, and P. Peter Basiotis, 2007, Thrifty Food Plan, 2006, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, report, No. CNPP-19, April.

Congressional Budget Office, 2010, "Using a different measure of inflation for indexing federal programs and the tax code," Economic and Budget Issue Brief, Washington, DC, February 24.

--, 1981, Indexing with the Consumer Price Index: Problems and Alternatives, report, Washington, DC, June.

Hanson, Kenneth, and Margaret Andrews, 2008, "Rising food prices take a bite out of food stamp benefits," Economic Information Bulletin, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, No. 41, December.

Haveman, Robert, Karen Holden, Kathryn Wilson, and Barbara Wolfe, 2003, "Social security, age of retirement, and economic well-being: Intertemporal and demographic patterns among retired-worker beneficiaries," Demography, Vol. 40, No. 2, May, pp. 369-394.

Hobijn, Bart, and David Lagakos, 2005, "Inflation inequality in the United States," Review of Income and Wealth, Vol. 51, No. 4, December, pp. 581-606.

--, 2003, "Social Security and the Consumer Price Index for the elderly," Current Issues in Economics and Finance, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Vol. 9, No. 5, May.

Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income, 2010, Individual Income Tax Returns 2008, IRS Publication, No. 1304 (Rev. 07-2010), Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Treasury, available at www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08inalcr.pdf.

McGranahan, Leslie, 2008, "Food inflation and the consumption patterns of U.S. households," Chicago Fed Letter, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, No. 255, October.

McGranahan, Leslie, and Anna Paulson, 2006, "Constructing the Chicago Fed Income Based Economic Index--Consumer Price Index: Inflation experiences by demographic group: 1983-2005," Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, working paper, No. WP 2005-20, revised November 2006.

Meyer, Bruce D., and Dan T. Rosenbaum, 2001, "Welfare, the earned income tax credit, and the labor supply of single mothers," Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 116, No. 3, August, pp. 1063-1114.

National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, 2010, "The moment of truth," report, Washington, DC, December, available at www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission. gov/files/documents/TheMomentotTruth12_1_2010.pdf.

Rupp, Kalman, and Charles G. Scott, 1995, "Length of stay on the Supplemental Security Income disability program," Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 58, No. 1, Spring, available at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/ v58nl/v58nlp29.pdf.

Schott, Liz, and Zachary Levinson, 2008, "TANF benefits are low and have not kept pace with inflation," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, report, November 24, available at www.cbpp.org/pdf/11-24-08tanf.pdf.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007, "Chapter 17. The Consumer Price Index (Updated 06/2007)," in BLS Handbook of Methods, Washington, DC, available at www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/homch17.pdf.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2011, Washington, DC, available at www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/ 2011 edition.html.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2011, FY 2010 Annual Performance Report, Washington, DC, March, available at http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=fy2010apr.pdf.

White House, Office of Management and Budget, 2011 a, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2012, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, available at www. whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Analytical_Perspectives.

--, 2011b, Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2012, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, available at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals.

NOTES

(1) Social Security is officially referred to as the federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Program, or OASDI.

(2) Chain-weighting is a method of measuring inflation that takes into account the fact that people tend to buy less of things whose prices have increased a lot and instead buy more of substitutes whose prices have risen less. Different inflation measures are discussed in more detail later in this article.

(3) Social Security and SSI are administered by the U.S. Social Security Administration; TANF is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; and SNAP is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.

(4) These are our calculations based on data from White House, Office of Management and Budget (2011a, b).

(5) These adjustments are automatic except for the case of veterans' benefits. Congress enacts legislation every year that sets the COLA for veterans' benefits equal to that for Social Security benefits. This legislation tends to pass unanimously.

(6) Market baskets refer to evolving selections of goods and services purchased by individuals that are used to track inflation in an economy or specific market.

(7) For alternative discussions on the use of indexation in the federal government, see Congressional Budget Office (1981, 2010).

(8) Our criteria do not lead us to look at the expenditure patterns of veterans. However, even if we had wanted to do so, we would not have been able to. The only question related to veteran status in the Consumer Expenditure Survey is one that asks the amount of income from workers' compensation and veterans' benefits combined. Workers' compensation is a larger program paying out $55 billion in annual benefits in 2007 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010) versus $32 billion in veterans service-connected compensation (see table 1 on pp. 115-117 of this article for more on the latter). We do not include workers' compensation in the list of programs discussed in this article because it is largely funded by private insurance carriers and employers' self-insurance and not by the federal government.

(9) In McGranahan and Paulson (2006), we detail how the data are merged to create these expenditure patterns.

(10) For the official BLS definition of "consumer unit," see www.bls. gov/cex/csxfaqs.htm#q3.

(11) Doing the calculation in this way ensures that the inflation measure is not influenced by seasonal patterns in expenditures or prices.

(12) We cannot perfectly mirror the BLS's calculation because we lack some of the information needed to do so. Area information is missing in the public use data. In addition, some prices are not publicly released.

(13) These weights are not fixed over the entire sample, but they are fixed for longer than a year.

(14) See www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus2009tables/Table024.pdf.

(15) The current method of indexing SNAP (food stamp) benefits was enacted in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. See www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legislation/ timeline.pdf for details on the Food Stamp Program's evolution.

(16) This is our calculation based on data from White House, Office of Management and Budget (2011b).

(17) It would be worthwhile to compare the Social Security COLA with increases in elderly inflation by using the type of chain-weighted measures that the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform has proposed. While chain-weighted inflation experienced by the elderly will most likely be lower than the measures of elderly inflation we present, the rapid increases in health care costs will still lead to chain-weighted inflation experienced by the elderly being greater than chain-weighted aggregate inflation.

Leslie McGranahan is a senior economist and Anna L. Paulson is a vice president and director of financial research in the Economic Research Department at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. The authors thank Bruce Meyer for helpful discussions and Daniel DiFranco, Lori Timmins, and Nathan Marwell for excellent research assistance. TABLE 1 Government transfer programs with payments exceeding $10 billion, fiscal year 2010 Outlays for payments to individuals Beneficiaries (in millions of (annual average Program dollars) in thousands) Child nutrition programs 16,430 34,889 (not including Women, Infants, and Children program and Commodity Supplemental Food Program) and Special Milk Program Civil Service Retirement System 69,407 2,523 Earned income tax credit 54,712 21,743 (refundable portion) (a) Hospital and medical care 38,216 5,639 for veterans (b) Housing assistance (c) 49,959 3,200 Tenant-based rental assistance/ 17,987 2,100 housing choice vouchers (Section 8) (c) Medicaid 272,771 59,339 Medicare: Hospital Insurance 250,223 46,906 (Part A) Medicare: Supplemental Medical 268,945 43,569 Insurance (Part B) Military retirement 50,585 2,212 Refundable (additional) 22,659 18,160 child credit (d) Social Security: Disability 123,507 9,822 Insurance Social Security: Old-Age and 576,578 43,110 Survivors Insurance Student assistance-U.S. Department 46,768 20,638 of Education and other (primarily Pell Grants and subsidized Stafford Loans) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 70,492 40,302 Program (officially known as the Food Stamp Program until October 1, 2008, and still commonly referred to by this name) Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 43,886 7,522 Temporary Assistance for 21,936 4,594 Needy Families (e) Unemployment assistance 158,263 11,429 Veterans service-connected 43,377 3,498 compensation Inflation adjustment/ benefit Program determination Eligibility Child nutrition programs Beneficiaries Children in (not including Women, Infants, receive low-cost school or child and Children program and or free care from Commodity Supplemental Food nutritionally families with Program) and Special Milk Program balanced incomes at or breakfasts and below 130 lunches. percent of the Payments to a FPL are eligible state depend on for free meals; changes in the those from Food Away from families with Home series in incomes between the CPI-U. 130 percent and 185 percent of the FPL are eligible for reduced price meals. Civil Service Retirement System CPI-W Retired federal (July-Sept.) government determines workers. cost-of- living adjustment. Earned income tax credit Thresholds and Low-income (refundable portion) (a) maximum credit working are adjusted by individuals and CPI-U (for the families. For 12-month period single parent ending August families with 31). two children, annual income must be below $40,363; for single individuals, annual income must be below $13,460 (2010 tax year). Hospital and medical care In kind. No Individuals who for veterans (b) maximum benefit actively served level. in the military (priority to those with service- connected disabilities and low income). Housing assistance (c) In kind. For Income below public housing limits that are rental payment area specific equal to 30 (30 percent, 50 percent of percent, and 80 monthly adjusted percent of income. median). Tenant-based rental assistance/ Benefit amount Income below housing choice vouchers equal to the some percentage (Section 8) (c) difference (between 50 between 30 percent and 80 percent of percent) of adjusted local area household income median. Housing and the public- authorities can housing- have additional authority- criteria. At determined least 75 percent payment standard of new (90 percent to households must 110 percent of have income at the fair market or below 30 rent, or FMR). percent of the FMR is set by area median. the federal government as average gross rents (including utilities) for medium-quality apartments. Medicaid In kind. No States are maximum benefit required to level. serve pregnant women and children under six years old with income below 133 percent of the FPL, children aged six to 19 up to 100 percent of the FPL, and Supplemental Security Income recipients. States can include other groups. Medicare: Hospital Insurance In kind. No Free if aged 65 (Part A) premium for most years or older beneficiaries. and individual or spouse is receiving Social Security or if under 65 and receiving Social Security disability benefits. Nonqualifying individuals aged 65 or older can pay for Part A coverage. Medicare: Supplemental Medical Monthly Anyone eligible Insurance (Part B) premiums, for Medicare deductibles, and Part A can pay a co-insurance premium and amounts are enroll in Part adjusted by the B. federal government, as determined by formula. Premium is required to be the amount needed to cover 25 percent of estimated program costs for enrollees aged 65 years and older. Military retirement CPI-W Retired members (July-Sept.) of the military determines (no specific age cost-of-living requirement). adjustment. Refundable (additional) Child credit = Tax filers with child credit (d) $1,000 nominal; children under no automatic 17 years old adjustment. Set whose tax legislatively. liability is not Has been large enough to increased on fully discharge occasion- the $1,000 per Economic Growth child credit (or and Tax Relief the amount Reconciliation remaining after Act of 2001 phaseouts) can doubled the get the credit. It will additional child return to $500 credit. Child in 2013. credit is reduced by 5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) for married filers with AGI over $110,000 and single parents with AGI over $75,000. The maximum additional child tax credit is limited to 15 percent of earnings above a threshold ($3,000 in 2010; historically this threshold was indexed for inflation using CPI-U). Social Security: Disability CPI-W Individuals who Insurance (July-Sept.) worked in Social determines Security-covered automatic employment for a cost-of-living sufficient adjustment. amount of time, are under retirement age, and are unable to perform any substantial work for at least one year. Social Security: Old-Age and CPI-W Individuals who Survivors Insurance (July-Sept.) contributed to determines the program for automatic 40 quarters or cost-of-living more and who adjustment. have reached the minimum retirement age (62 years old). Surviving spouses and children of contributors are also eligible. Student assistance-U.S. Department Maximum loan Pell Grants for of Education and other (primarily amounts are students with Pell Grants and subsidized nominally fixed, family annual Stafford Loans) but periodically income below adjusted. $45,000 (most with family annual income below $20,000). Subsidized Stafford Loans based on "financial need:' Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Changes in the Household gross Program (officially known as the cost of items monthly income Food Stamp Program until (using the at or below 130 October 1, 2008, and still Consumer Price percent of the commonly referred to by this name) Index) in a FPL; net income "market basket" (net of based on the allowances) Thrifty Food below 100 Plan (TFP) from percent of the June determine FPL; and assets benefit levels below $2,000 (or starting in below $3,000 if October. Revised one person is TFP originally aged 60 years or relied on prices older or is paid by disabled). low-income households. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 led to unusual adjustments. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) CPI-W Aged (65 years (July-Sept.) old or older), determines blind, or automatic disabled with cost-of-living assets below adjustment. $2,000 per individual or $3,000 per couple. Benefit phases out with income. Benefit fully phased out for those with monthly income (net of allowances) greater than $694 per individual and $1,031 per couple. Temporary Assistance for Maximum benefits Families with Needy Families (e) have been fixed dependent at nominal children and levels since pregnant women 1996 in many with income and jurisdictions. assets below a Legislated state-determined changes in threshold. others. No Phases out at inflation about 75 percent adjustment in of FPL in grants to average state. states. Households subject to work requirements and time limits. Unemployment assistance Benefits set at Recently a fraction of unemployed weekly wage up workers who are to a maximum. In unemployed 36 through no fault jurisdictions, of their own, maximum benefit earned levels qualifying automatically wages, and are adjust according actively seeking to weekly wages work. of covered employees. In remainder, maximum benefits are set at a fixed dollar amount that can be changed by legislation. Veterans service-connected CPI-W Veterans who are compensation (July-Sept.) at least 10 determines percent disabled cost-of-living as a result of adjustment. Not military automatic. Needs service, and legislative their survivors. approval. Typically granted unanimously. (a) The number of earned income tax credit (EITC) beneficiaries is based on the number of tax returns with refundable EITC for tax year 2008 (see Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income, 2010, table 2.5). (b) The number of beneficiaries of hospital and medical care for veterans is based on the total number of patients from www.va.gov/vetdata/Utilization.asp. (c) Housing assistance and tenant-based rental assistance beneficiary estimates are from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (2011). Tenant-based rental assistance/housing choice vouchers (Section 8) is a subcategory of housing assistance. (d) The number of refundable (additional) child credit beneficiaries is based on number of tax returns with additional child tax credit for tax year 2008 (see Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income, 2010, table A). (e) The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families caseload data for 2010 are from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/caseload/ caseload20lO.htm, This program became the successor to the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program in 1997 Notes: CPI-U means Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. CPI-W means Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. FPL means federal poverty line. See note 6 for the definition of market basket. In some cases, there are minor differences between the coverage of the cost and beneficiary numbers. Sources: Outlays data from White House, Office of Management and Budget (2011 b), table 11.3; beneficiaries data for most programs from White House, Office of Management and Budget (2011 a), table 27-5; and some beneficiaries data, inflation adjustment/benefit determination data, and eligibility data from various government sources. TABLE 2 Percentage of households receiving government transfer program benefits, by demographic group National Percent School Lunch of and Breakfast sample Programs (a) percent Less than high school diploma 7.65 24.90 High school graduate, no college 22.66 14.18 Some college or more 69.69 6.74 Elderly 20.64 1.47 Nonelderly 79.36 11.99 Disabled 6.20 16.59 Nondisabled 93.80 9.37 Single mother 7.23 49.28 Other parent 25.70 19.51 Nonparent 46.44 2.02 Veteran 18.32 3.05 Nonveteran 81.68 11.33 Poor 11.93 28.58 Nonpoor 88.07 7.27 All groups 100.00 9.82 Civil Service Earned Retirement income System tax credit (b) percent Less than high school diploma 0.74 9.15 High school graduate, no college 1.73 8.40 Some college or more 1.96 5.99 Elderly 6.45 0.62 Nonelderly 0.61 8.52 Disabled 0.55 5.64 Nondisabled 1.90 6.91 Single mother 0.10 30.49 Other parent 0.15 12.81 Nonparent 0.94 2.69 Veteran 5.06 3.49 Nonveteran 1.08 7.51 Poor 0.11 12.06 Nonpoor 2.04 6.03 All groups 1.81 6.82 Hospital and Food Stamp medical care Program for veterans percent Less than high school diploma 22.72 0.63 High school graduate, no college 11.42 1.13 Some college or more 4.07 1.10 Elderly 5.18 1.67 Nonelderly 7.68 0.91 Disabled 32.00 1.86 Nondisabled 5.52 1.02 Single mother 31.10 0.28 Other parent 5.37 0.88 Nonparent 5.31 1.03 Veteran 2.39 4.77 Nonveteran 8.24 0.24 Poor 34.08 0.91 Nonpoor 3.52 1.09 All groups 7.16 1.07 Tenant-based rental assistance/housing Housing choice vouchers assistance (Section 8) percent Less than high school diploma 3.45 2.12 High school graduate, no college 2.16 1.39 Some college or more 0.90 0.61 Elderly 1.35 0.87 Nonelderly 1.39 0.91 Disabled 6.68 5.00 Nondisabled 1.03 0.63 Single mother 6.47 5.22 Other parent 0.46 0.29 Nonparent 1.12 0.58 Veteran 0.55 0.38 Nonveteran 1.57 1.02 Poor 5.85 4.23 Nonpoor 0.78 0.45 All groups 1.38 0.90 Military Medicaid Medicare retirement percent Less than high school diploma 47.34 41.71 0.18 High school graduate, no college 27.35 34.86 1.09 Some college or more 13.06 19.40 1.72 Elderly 14.86 95.63 3.24 Nonelderly 19.97 6.14 1.00 Disabled 56.10 49.84 1.24 Nondisabled 16.46 22.94 1.48 Single mother 54.47 3.49 0.04 Other parent 23.78 2.66 0.75 Nonparent 12.50 8.48 1.29 Veteran 9.53 43.34 6.85 Nonveteran 21.03 20.41 0.25 Poor 50.86 18.72 0.06 Nonpoor 14.59 25.41 1.65 All groups 18.92 24.61 1.46 Social Social Security: Security: Old-Age and Disability Survivors Insurance Insurance percent Less than high school diploma 10.35 36.21 High school graduate, no college 7.42 31.48 Some college or more 4.14 17.97 Elderly 5.85 91.14 Nonelderly 5.23 4.56 Disabled 48.69 15.62 Nondisabled 2.49 22.88 Single mother 3.20 2.04 Other parent 2.16 1.65 Nonparent 7.24 6.56 Veteran 6.34 42.00 Nonveteran 5.14 18.04 Poor 7.37 12.71 Nonpoor 5.08 23.74 All groups 5.36 22.43 Temporary Supplemental Assistance Security for Needy Income Families percent Less than high school diploma 16.08 4.01 High school graduate, no college 7.66 2.38 Some college or more 2.78 0.90 Elderly 6.49 0.30 Nonelderly 4.49 1.78 Disabled 33.22 6.31 Nondisabled 3.03 1.16 Single mother 8.56 9.11 Other parent 2.35 1.43 Nonparent 5.04 0.84 Veteran 2.28 0.31 Nonveteran 5.49 1.74 Poor 15.18 7.09 Nonpoor 3.51 0.72 All groups 4.90 1.48 Veterans service Unemployment connected assistance compensation percent Less than high school diploma 2.37 1.20 High school graduate, no college 2.27 1.43 Some college or more 1.77 2.16 Elderly 0.46 3.16 Nonelderly 2.31 1.59 Disabled 1.33 3.77 Nondisabled 1.97 1.79 Single mother 1.86 0.36 Other parent 2.68 1.27 Nonparent 2.18 1.97 Veteran 1.37 9.47 Nonveteran 2.06 0.22 Poor 2.66 0.68 Nonpoor 1.83 2.08 All groups 1.93 1.92 (a) The Survey of Income and Program Participation asks households specifically about their participation in the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, but federal budget sources used for table 1 cover the broader category of child nutrition programs and the Special Milk Program. (b) Earned income tax credit (EITC) data are missing for about 12 percent of the sample. Notes: For descriptions of the demographic group variables, see box 1 on p. 119. The sample is limited to metropolitan-based households in which the head is at least 18 years old. There is insufficient detail in the Survey of Income and Program Participation to measure the participation in or the benefit value from the refundable (additional) child credit and student assistance, which appear in table 1, as well as distinguish between Medicare Parts A and B. The single mother, other parent, and nonparent households sum to less than 100 percent in the first column of data because the elderly are excluded from these demographic groups (see box 1). Source: Authors' calculations based on data from wave 4 of the 2004 panel of the U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, corresponding to the January-April period of 2005. TABLE 3 Median and average government transfer program participation, by demographic group Median Average number of number of programs programs Less than high school diploma 2 2.33 High school graduate, no college 2 1.67 Some college or more 0 0.94 Elderly 2 2.40 Nonelderly 0 0.91 Disabled 3 2.93 Nondisabled 0 1.11 Single mother 2 2.31 Other parent 0 0.97 Nonparent 0 0.63 Veteran 2 1.48 Nonveteran 0 1.17 Poor 2 2.11 Nonpoor 0 1.09 All groups 1 1.23 Average number of cash transfer programs Less than high school diploma 1.05 High school graduate, no college 0.77 Some college or more 0.45 Elderly 1.23 Nonelderly 0.39 Disabled 1.53 Nondisabled 0.51 Single mother 0.87 Other parent 0.32 Nonparent 0.35 Veteran 0.81 Nonveteran 0.52 Poor 0.93 Nonpoor 0.52 All groups 0.57 Notes: For descriptions of the demographic group variables, see box 1 on p. 119. For our measure of participation in cash transfer programs, we exclude programs that supply in-kind benefits to recipients, such as Medicare and housing assistance. We include the Food Stamp Program in our measure of cash transfer program participation. Source: Authors' calculations based on data from wave 4 of the 2004 panel of the U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, corresponding to the January-April period of 2005. TABLE 4 Average monthly income from government transfer programs, by demographic group Social Security Supplemental (Old-Age, Security Survivors, Income and Disability (federal and Insurance) state amounts) dollars Less than high school diploma 455.35 90.35 (611.98) (258.84) High school graduate, 455.27 47.66 no college (732.86) (202.83) Some college or more 289.34 19.58 (643.91) (160.29) Elderly 1,233.30 32.37 (780.44) (159.48) Nonelderly 107.23 31.09 (375.16) (186.23) Disabled 637.41 228.13 (831.69) (479.31) Nondisabled 319.95 18.35 (650.05) (130.50) Single mother 88.75 63.44 (329.08) (267.67) Other parent 51.62 18.98 (278.61) (173.82) Nonparent 140.88 32.76 (421.72) (176.53) Veteran 675.05 16.74 (910.42) (184.27) Nonveteran 264.40 34.63 (572.84) (180.14) Poor 120.97 74.81 (269.19) (209.13) Nonpoor 369.25 25.47 (698.72) (176.06) All groups 339.63 31.35 (667.15) (181.03) Food Civil Service Stamp Military Retirement Program retirement System dollars Less than high school diploma 45.89 1.02 6.56 (111.76) (28.04) (83.20) High school graduate, 25.48 12.22 25.18 no college (92.61) (132.26) (230.00) Some college or more 8.80 28.51 40.93 (53.08) (250.17) (347.98) Elderly 5.56 47.97 116.48 (34.01) (314.48) (544.01) Nonelderly 17.98 16.15 13.47 (77.14) (184.95) (207.59) Disabled 54.62 17.44 11.51 (121.48) (174.55) (244.42) Nondisabled 12.83 23.07 36.27 (65.05) (221.05) (315.34) Single mother 88.22 0.61 0.94 (155.40) (32.04 (29.57) Other parent 16.29 11.89 3.22 (80.69) (153.39) (106.85) Nonparent 7.99 20.93 21.10 (44.04) (212.64) (258.95) Veteran 4.30 113.56 111.65 (36.93) (484.52) (571.63) Nonveteran 17.91 2.34 17.48 (75.92) (59.28) (209.44) Poor 82.97 0.35 0.23 (152.48) (18.04 (8.11) Nonpoor 6.27 25.75 39.41 (42.56) (232.52) (331.60 All groups 15.42 22.72 34.73 (70.61) (218.45 (311.46) Temporary Unemployment Assistance assistance for Needy (state and Families (and supplemental other welfare unemployment amounts) benefits) dollars Less than high school diploma 15.90 22.23 (92.88) (216.13) High school graduate, 16.68 22.60 no college (325.50) (187.05) Some college or more 4.80 17.91 (122.36) (178.24) Elderly 1.51 4.58 (29.75) (75.29) Nonelderly 10.11 23.13 (209.80) (202.11) Disabled 39.73 11.34 (487.77 (118.46) Nondisabled 6.26 19.83 (147.16) (186.91) Single mother 46.77 19.76 (457.54) (166.08) Other parent 7.54 27.08 (70.06) (229.13) Nonparent 5.83 21.47 (199.26) (190.94) Veteran 1.94 14.49 (34.82) (160.84 Nonveteran 9.77 20.38 (206.69) (188.10 Poor 25.27 18.22 (110.17) (128.83) Nonpoor 6.05 19.45 (195.44) (189.61) All groups 8.34 19.30 (187.42) (183.42) Veterans service- Earned connected income compensation tax credit (a) dollars Less than high school diploma 9.02 15.24 (160.42) (54.00) High school graduate, 8.14 13.09 no college (100.04) (47.53) Some college or more 12.89 9.09 (140.12) (40.30) Elderly 20.36 0.74 (193.29) (10.59) Nonelderly 9.22 13.24 (113.32) (48.37) Disabled 42.51 7.89 (306.90) (38.15) Nondisabled 9.47 10.74 (113.21) (43.78) Single mother 3.93 49.36 (86.11) (64.32) Other parent 6.60 20.48 (99.37) (59.33) Nonparent 11.49 3.55 (123.76) (24.70) Veteran 55.32 5.16 (284.90) (31.09) Nonveteran 1.69 11.66 (56.67) (45.49) Poor 2.39 19.76 (38.54) (59.93) Nonpoor 12.75 9.16 (141.90) (40.19) All groups 11.52 10.55 (133.87) (43.44) Total cash transfer income dollars Less than high school diploma 672.86 (708.69) High school graduate, 632.78 no college (899.31) Some college or more 432.53 (863.42) Elderly 1,419.88 (954.03) Nonelderly 248.08 (641.03) Disabled 1,058.50 (1,100.43) Nondisabled 460.97 (833.35) Single mother 361.78 (732.37) Other parent 175.15 (535.64) Nonparent 263.42 (666.16) Veteran 998.80 (1,237.90) Nonveteran 397.04 (725.66) Poor 350.06 (418.38) Nonpoor 522.60 (912.58) All groups 499.98 (866.00) (a) Earned income tax credit (EITC) data are missing for about 12 percent of the sample. Notes: Standard deviations are in parentheses. For descriptions of the demographic group variables, see box 1 on p. 119. The sample is limited to metropolitan-based households in which the head is at least 18 years old. Total cash transfer income is based on about 88 percent of the households for which EITC data are available. Total cash transfer income includes the value of food stamp benefits. Values to in-kind assistance, such as Medicare and housing assistance, are not imputed. There is insufficient detail in the Survey of Income and Program Participation to measure the participation in or the benefit value from the refundable (additional) child credit and student assistance, which appear in table 1. Source: Authors' calculations based on data from wave 4 of the 2004 panel of the U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, corresponding to the January-April period of 2005. TABLE 5 Transfer income as a share of total income, by demographic group Average total Average total monthly income monthly transfer income (including cash (cash transfers and transfers and food stamp benefits) food stamp benefits) dollars Less than high 672.86 2,150.75 school diploma (708.69) (1,846.15) High school graduate, 632.78 3,070.68 no college (899.31) (2,806.11) Some college or more 432.53 5,435.51 (863.42) (5,641.29) Elderly 1,419.88 3,061.06 (954.03) (3,340.13) Nonelderly 248.08 5,023.68 (641.03) (5,325.44) Disabled 1,058.50 2,384.28 (1,100.43) (2,587.10) Nondisabled 460.97 4,756.69 (833.35) (5,122.98) Single mother 361.78 2,785.72 (732.37) (2,496.91) Other parent 175.15 6,363.32 (535.64) (6,258.03) Nonparent 263.42 4,767.55 (666.16) (5,021.33) Veteran 998.80 5,118.47 (1,237.90) (5,054.67) Nonveteran 397.04 4,495.14 (725.66) (5,019.67) Poor 350.06 737.42 (418.38) (581.62) Nonpoor 522.60 5,184.78 (912.58) (5,146.49) All groups 499.98 4,601.77 (866.00) (5,031.05) Transfer income as a share of total income (percent) Less than high 31 school diploma High school graduate, 21 no college Some college or more 8 Elderly 46 Nonelderly 5 Disabled 44 Nondisabled 10 Single mother 13 Other parent 3 Nonparent 6 Veteran 20 Nonveteran 9 Poor 47 Nonpoor 10 All groups 11 Notes: Standard deviations are in parentheses. For descriptions of the demographic group variables, see box 1 on p.119. The calculations in this table are based on the results in table 4. Source: Authors' calculations based on data from wave 4 of the 2004 panel of the U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, corresponding to the January-April period of 2005. TABLE 6 Expenditure shares and annual expenditure levels, by demographic group, 2009 Food Alcohol Housing percent A. Expenditure shares All groups 14.2 1.0 47.0 Less than high school diploma 16.9# 0.7 49.0# High school graduate or more 14.0 1.0 46.9 Elderly 12.8# 0.8 50.7# Nonelderly 14.6 1.1 46.1 Disabled 15.5# 0.9 47.6 Nondisabled 14.2 1.0 47.0 Single mother 16.2# 0.6 46.4 Non-single-mother 14.2 1.0 47.0 Poor 17.7# 0.6 48.8# Nonpoor 13.8 1.0 46.3 B. Annual expenditure levels dollars All groups 5,953.04 418.46 15,945.73 Less than high school 4,219.20 181.01 10,109.88 diploma High school graduate or more 6,129.29 442.73 16,627.81 Elderly 4,918.05 291.25 12,892.66 Nonelderly 6,210.37 450.25 16,734.21 Disabled 4,490.78 251.34 10,982.11 Nondisabled 6,038.42 427.79 16,273.70 Single mother 5,151.09 176.77 13,589.02 Non-single-mother 6,002.77 433.59 16,079.56 Poor 4,030.79 139.37 9,365.43 Nonpoor 6,279.70 475.71 17,140.13 Apparel Transportation Health percent A. Expenditure shares All groups 3.6 16.3 6.9 Less than high school diploma 5.1# 14.5# 6.0 High school graduate or more 3.5 16.4 6.9 Elderly 2.6# 12.8# 12.1# Nonelderly 3.8 17.1 5.6# Disabled 3.0 13.3# 9.2# Nondisabled 3.6 16.4 6.7 Single mother 5.7# 16.1 3.9# Non-single-mother 3.5 16.3 7.0 Poor 4.6# 12.1# 5.3# Nonpoor 3.6 16.9 7.1 B. Annual expenditure levels dollars All groups 1,497.62 6,799.08 2,864.70 Less than high school 1,265.06 3,616.19 1,488.12 diploma High school graduate or more 1,527.19 7,175.54 3,026.18 Elderly 987.28 4,915.88 4,634.74 Nonelderly 1,623.92 7,284.50 2,409.67 Disabled 881.97 3,873.81 2,685.55 Nondisabled 1,535.58 6,994.20 2,876.99 Single mother 1,801.10 5,132.33 1,248.73 Non-single-mother 1,480.77 6,892.67 2,955.63 Poor 1,052.20 2,754.12 1,203.07 Nonpoor 1,616.72 7,683.72 3,214.68 Personal Personal care care Entertainment products services percent A. Expenditure shares All groups 5.6 0.7 0.7 Less than high school diploma 3.7# 0.8 0.5 High school graduate or more 5.7 0.7 0.7 Elderly 4.9 0.7 0.7 Nonelderly 5.8 0.7 0.7 Disabled 5.3 0.7 0.5 Nondisabled 5.6 0.7 0.7 Single mother 5.3 1.1 0.8 Non-single-mother 5.6 0.7 0.7 Poor 4.5# 0.9 0.5 Nonpoor 5.8 0.7 0.7 B. Annual expenditure levels dollars All groups 2,344.95 296.82 280.20 Less than high school 920.51 200.47 134.30 diploma High school graduate or more 2,508.43 306.57 297.42 Elderly 1,874.34 263.19 283.33 Nonelderly 2,466.00 304.78 279.41 Disabled 1,528.30 199.74 143.13 Nondisabled 2,399.50 302.36 289.29 Single mother 1,691.69 338.73 242.95 Non-single-mother 2,381.88 294.02 282.29 Poor 1,024.09 197.34 112.59 Nonpoor 2,630.88 324.46 316.15 Reading materials Education Tobacco percent A. Expenditure shares All groups 0.2 2.4# 0.8 Less than high school diploma 0.1 0.6# 1.6 High school graduate or more 0.3 2.5 0.7 Elderly 0.4 0.4# 0.5 Nonelderly 0.2 2.8 0.9 Disabled 0.2 0.6# 2.1# Nondisabled 0.2 2.5 0.7 Single mother 0.2 1.7 1.4 Non-single-mother 0.3 2.4 0.8 Poor 0.2 3.1 1.3 Nonpoor 0.3 2.3 0.8 B. Annual expenditure levels dollars All groups 103.36 997.30 331.52 Less than high school 29.50 139.03 392.84 diploma High school graduate or more 112.10 1,099.01 324.30 Elderly 142.05 148.26 199.95 Nonelderly 93.40 1,215.81 365.37 Disabled 60.40 175.63 597.32 Nondisabled 106.22 1,052.22 313.81 Single mother 54.94 533.27 447.16 Non-single-mother 106.09 1,023.76 325.07 Poor 37.03 701.43 295.78 Nonpoor 120.65 1,057.52 354.17 Miscellaneous Total percent A. Expenditure shares All groups 0.7 100.0 Less than high school diploma 0.6 100.0 High school graduate or more 0.7 100.0 Elderly 0.7 100.0 Nonelderly 0.6 100.0 Disabled 1.2 100.0 Nondisabled 0.6 100.0 Single mother 0.8 100.0 Non-single-mother 0.6 100.0 Poor 0.6 100.0 Nonpoor 0.6 100.0 B. Annual expenditure levels dollars All groups 272.49 38,105.27 Less than high school 138.17 22,834.29 diploma High school graduate or more 288.32 39,864.87 Elderly 276.57 31,827.53 Nonelderly 271.50 39,709.19 Disabled 334.45 26,204.51 Nondisabled 268.87 38,878.95 Single mother 248.45 30,656.22 Non-single-mother 273.76 38,531.86 Poor 134.76 21,048.01 Nonpoor 287.33 41,501.81 Notes: For descriptions of the demographic group variables, see box 1 on p. 119. Expenditure for owner-occupied housing is set equal to the estimated rental value of the property-in keeping with the methodology used by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics in the creation of the Consumer Price Index. Each row's values may not sum to the value in the final column (labeled "total") because of rounding. In panel A, the expenditure shares of specific groups are in bold if they differ from the expenditure shares of the overall population by more than one percentage point. Source: Authors' calculations based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey. Note: In panel A, the expenditure shares of specific groups are in bold if they differ from the expenditure shares of the overall population by more than one percentage point is indicated with #. TABLE 7 Inflation, by expenditure category, 1980-2010 Food Alcohol Housing Apparel percent A. Cumulative price changes 1980-2010 249 255 265 128 1980-90 151 149 159 134 1990-2000 127 135 131 103 2000-10 130 127 127 93 1980-2008 245 246 268 128 2008-10 101 104 99 100 B. Annual average inflation 1980-2010 3 3 3 1 1980-90 4 4 5 3 1990-2000 2 3 3 0 2000-10 3 2 2 -1 1980-2008 3 3 4 1 2008-10 1 2 0 0 Transportation Health Entertainment percent A. Cumulative price changes 1980-2010 230 514 216 1980-90 143 218 157 1990-2000 127 159 126 2000-10 126 148 109 1980-2008 246 482 217 2008-10 94 107 100 B. Annual average inflation 1980-2010 3 6 3 1980-90 4 8 5 1990-2000 2 5 2 2000-10 2 4 1 1980-2008 3 6 3 2008-10 -3 3 0 Personal Personal care care Reading products services materials percent A. Cumulative price changes 1980-2010 200 273 282 1980-90 159 158 175 1990-2000 120 135 138 2000-10 105 128 117 1980-2008 197 266 273 2008-10 101 103 103 B. Annual average inflation 1980-2010 2 3 4 1980-90 5 5 6 1990-2000 2 3 3 2000-10 0 3 2 1980-2008 2 4 4 2008-10 1 1 2 Education Tobacco Miscellaneous percent A. Cumulative price changes 1980-2010 786 1,133 505 1980-90 249 256 227 1990-2000 177 212 159 2000-10 178 209 140 1980-2008 715 823 484 2008-10 110 138 104 B. Annual average inflation 1980-2010 7 8 6 1980-90 10 10 9 1990-2000 6 8 5 2000-10 6 8 3 1980-2008 7 8 6 2008-10 5 17 2 Total percent A. Cumulative price changes 1980-2010 262 1980-90 158 1990-2000 131 2000-10 126 1980-2008 263 2008-10 100 B. Annual average inflation 1980-2010 3 1980-90 5 1990-2000 3 2000-10 2 1980-2008 4 2008-10 0 Note: All price changes are based on August-to-August inflation rates. Source: Authors' calculations based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index Database. TABLE 8 Cumulative inflation experiences, by demographic group Less then High school high school graduate All diploma or more Elderly percent A. Annual weights 1980-2010 255 261 255 270 1980-90 156 157 156 160 1990-2000 129 130 129 132 126 128 126 128 1980-2008 255 262 255 269 2008-10 100 100 100 100 B. Fixed weights 1987-2010 190 194 190 198 1987-90 114 115 114 115 1990-2000 131 131 131 133 2000-10 127 129 127 129 1987-2008 190 195 190 198 2008-10 100 100 100 100 Single Nonelderly Disabled Nondisabled mother percent A. Annual weights 1980-2010 253 262 255 247 1980-90 156 158 156 155 1990-2000 129 129 129 127 126 128 126 125 1980-2008 253 260 255 247 2008-10 100 100 100 100 B. Fixed weights 1987-2010 188 197 190 187 1987-90 114 115 114 114 1990-2000 131 133 131 130 2000-10 126 129 127 126 1987-2008 189 197 190 187 2008-10 100 100 100 100 Non-single- Official mother Poor Nonpoor CPI-U percent A. Annual weights 1980-2010 256 262 254 262 1980-90 156 158 156 158 1990-2000 130 129 129 131 126 129 126 126 1980-2008 256 261 254 263 2008-10 100 100 100 100 B. Fixed weights 1987-2010 190 195 189 191 1987-90 114 115 114 115 1990-2000 131 132 131 131 2000-10 127 129 126 126 1987-2008 190 195 189 191 2008-10 100 100 100 100 Notes: For descriptions of the demographic group variables, see box 1 on p. 119. CPI-U means Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. The cumulative inflation experiences are based on inflation during the month of August. Please see the text for further details on inflation based on annual and fixed weights. The different weighting methodologies do not apply to the calculations for the official CPI-U, which is created by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics using one weighting methodology. Sources: Authors' calculations based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index Database and Consumer Expenditure Survey. TABLE 9 Consumer Price Index, benefit adjustments, and inflation experiences of select demographic groups A. Social Security and SSI and the elderly and the disabled Social Official Security/ CPI-W Elderly Disabled SSI COLA percent Annual weights 1980-2010 256 270 262 265 1980-90 155 160 158 152 1990-2000 130 132 129 133 2000-10 126 128 128 131 1980-2008 257 269 260 250 2008-10 100 100 100 106 Fixed weights 1987-2010 189 198 197 198 1987-90 115 115 115 113 1990-2000 130 133 133 133 2000-10 126 129 129 131 1987-2008 190 198 197 187 2008-10 100 100 100 106 B. AFDC/TANF and single mothers AFDC/TANF AFDC/TANF AFDC/TANF maximum in maximum in maximum in Official Alabama Connecticut Illinois CPI-W percent Annual weights 1980-2010 182 143 150 256 1980-90 100 137 127 155 1990-2000 139 99 103 130 2000-10 131 106 114 126 1980-2008 182 143 150 257 2008-10 100 100 100 100 Fixed weights 1987-2010 182 124 126 189 1987-90 100 119 107 115 1990-2000 139 99 103 130 2000-10 131 106 114 126 1987-2008 182 124 126 190 2008-10 100 100 100 100 Single mother percent Annual weights 1980-2010 247 1980-90 155 1990-2000 127 2000-10 125 1980-2008 247 2008-10 100 Fixed weights 1987-2010 187 1987-90 114 1990-2000 130 2000-10 126 1987-2008 187 2008-10 100 C. SNAP and the disabled, single mothers, poor, and those with less than a high school diploma Thrifty Food Official Single Plan CPI-food CPI-W Disabled mother percent Annual weights 1980-2010 250 249 256 262 247 1980-90 149 151 155 158 155 1990-2000 128 127 130 129 127 2000-10 131 130 126 128 125 1980-2008 260 245 257 260 247 2008-10 96 101 100 100 100 Fixed weights 1987-2010 202 193 189 197 187 1987-90 120 117 115 115 114 1990-2000 128 127 130 133 130 2000-10 131 130 126 129 126 1987-2008 210 190 190 197 187 2008-10 96 101 100 100 100 SNAP Less than (food stamp) high school monthly Poor diploma maximum percent Annual weights 1980-2010 262 261 320 1980-90 158 157 158 1990-2000 129 130 129 2000-10 129 128 157 1980-2008 261 262 259 2008-10 100 100 123 Fixed weights 1987-2010 195 194 246 1987-90 115 115 122 1990-2000 132 131 129 2000-10 129 129 157 1987-2008 195 195 200 2008-10 100 100 114 Notes: For descriptions of the demographic group variables, see box 1 on p.119. CPI-W means Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers; CPI-food means the Consumer Price Index for all food. COLA means cost-of-living adjustment. SSI means Supplemental Security Income. AFDC means Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and TANF means Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. SNAP means Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamp Program). The Thrifty Food Plan is the basis for food stamp allotments. Please see the text for further details on inflation based on annual and fixed weights. The different weighting methodologies only apply to the inflation calculations for the demographic groups. Sources: Authors' calculations based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index Database and Consumer Expenditure Survey; and data on benefit determination from the U.S. Social Security Administration (panel A), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (panel B), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (panel C).