Proposal to Eliminate Collection of SIPP Data on Economic Well-Being

This is not a good idea. Data like these are essential in evaluating the effectiveness of government programs and for research into the design of better policy:

Census Bureau Survey Falling on Hard Times - Possible Loss of Data on Needy Protested. by D'Vera Cohn, Washington Post: A Commerce Department proposal to eliminate a Census Bureau survey on the economic well-being of U.S. residents is drawing fire from researchers and lawmakers concerned about losing a source of information about the impact of government social programs on needy families.

Under the Bush administration's proposed budget, the Survey of Income and Program Participation, which began collecting data two decades ago, could stop doing so in September. In its place, Census Bureau officials said they are designing a better and less expensive system that could begin to collect data in a year or two.

But more than 250 economists and social science researchers, including 2001 Nobel Economics Laureate George A. Akerlof, have signed a letter to be sent to Congress tomorrow stating that the survey provides unique data for evaluating government programs, and urging that it be fully funded. ...

At the recent confirmation hearing of Edward P. Lazear to be chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.) said it would be "a major step backwards" to drop the survey. The survey ... follows people for two to four years, asking about their use of welfare, unemployment insurance, Medicaid and other government programs.

But the Census Bureau cited problems that include delays in publishing data and difficulty in persuading people to answer the lengthy questionnaire. Howard R. Hogan, an associate director of the bureau, said the agency had been "sketching out plans" to redesign the survey when the tightened budget demanded that changes be made. ...

Defenders say the survey's problems are no worse than those of other surveys in an era when people increasingly refuse to answer questionnaires. They are suspicious the decision was driven by budget considerations, not data quality; they also question whether the government will be willing to fund a new program. "There are a ton of very important policy issues that we won't be able to look at without this survey," said Heather Boushey, an economist at the Center for Economic Policy and Research...

The money saved from better policy is far greater than the cost of these surveys and there are ways to overcome survey problems. Quoting Michael Murray's new econometrics text from a section discussing social experiments conducted in the 1970s and 1980s:

All of the large social experiments had to grapple with serious logistical and statistical problems. Do short-duration experimental programs tell us much about actual long-term programs? Do attrition bias and nonreporting bias invalidate the inferences from the experiments? Are the locations chosen for the experiments representative of the nation as a whole...? Researchers overcame enough of these problems by applying well-known statistical methods and by inventing new methods, so that all the experiments added richly to our understanding of the social policies they addressed.

The great social experiments of the 1970s and 1980s ... each has had a lasting positive impact on social policy. Despite this success, few additional social experiments have followed in the wake of these first efforts. The cost of social experiments is high-the NHIE cost almost $150 million-and government seldom funds such big ticket items in times of fiscal distress. But if we compare the $150 million cost of the NHIE with the $7 billion cost savings from knowing to use modest cost sharing in health insurance policies, we might conclude that additional social experiments can be worthwhile social investments.

Comments

[anne]

There are times now when we are so nutty I can scarcely imagine I am not imagining the nuttiness, and possibly I am though here it is seemingly written, or is it? Can you possibly imagine teaching ethics in such a swirl of policy nuttiness?

[save_the_rustbelt]

Perhaps we could borrow the money from Iraq?

[anne]

Yeah; a hundred billion here or there and lots could be done. The last Treasury Secretary, who became taken with Africa, wanted $4 million to provide clean water to most Ghana, a country with a fairly stable and benign political system and a people who care much for America. Africans friends mention this still.

[anne]

The human and material cost of this war will haunt us for years and years, and there is scant sign of understanding. Mention the war, and even if regretted we are told about leaving, not now not now not now.

[Holly W.]

When this administration wants to get rid of something, I just assume it's because they don't like what the information says about the US ... but gee, even the Heritage Foundation uses the SIPP to support their policies.

[anne]

No; the issue is not hiding away or opening the data, rather that the data is considered of little importance in program design for social benefit programs are of little concern and less likely to be generated by this Congress or Administration :)

[ilsm]

The administration knows nothing about the worth of the military industrial complex.

The war is small potatoes in the larger complex.

What could be done with that money?

Clinton enjoyed a percent or two of GDP less of it and it paid down the deficit with a little fiscal responsibility elsewhere.

[calmo]

The arrogance is blatant: the current program will be dropped in September and the replacement will be instituted in a "year or two". No respect for continuity, current practices, or any fundamental ideas of reform other than total replacement.
I suppose this is not surprising with a WH that has ignored/tampered with/dismissed the bureaucracy that is at the disposal of the government.
Karl asks: What good is a body that evaluates government policy?

[anon]

These data cost 40 million annually. Why might the administration need 40 million?

New ‘Office of Iranian Affairs’ Outlined in State Department Cable

The Bush administration this month “quietly orchestrated a major shift in U.S. policy toward Iran,” requesting $85 million for a plan “not just to contain Tehran’s nuclear ambitions but also to topple the Iranian government.” An unclassified State Department cable released this morning offers details on this new strategy. ... The cable announces a new Office of Iranian Affairs, and serves as a casting call for Iran and Persian language experts. It states that the U.S. is establishing positions in the United Arab Emirates...

United Arab Emirates. I wonder...

[Emmanuel]

It's simple: If you don't like the data, then eliminate data collection.

Put otherwise, there's no poverty when there's no data collected on poverty.

[cm]

When we have universal prosperity and everybody knows that, then who other than obsessed data gatherers and crunchers needs to dissect the fact to prove specious points to themselves over and over?

[cm]

Emmanuel: Right, does a falling tree in the forest make a sound when nobody is there to listen?

[Heather Boushey]

We need to put pressure on Congress to keep this unique and important survey. Today, we are delivering a letter to key Congressional committees with over 420 economists and researchers' signatures calling for Congress to fund the SIPP. This fight ain't over and you can help, too. Call your Senator or Representative and tell them what you think. We have posted information on how to call in and talking points (along with information about the data itself) on our website at http://www.ceprdata.org/savesipp/savesipp.html

Economists' voices can be relevant and important to public debate, but to do that, we need our data.

[calmo]

I hear you anony.
United Arab Emirates. I wonder...
I hear something. This: the histrionic gesture for a particular audience (Iran)“quietly orchestrated [until this] a major shift in U.S. policy toward Iran, ...not just to contain Tehran’s nuclear ambitions but also to topple the Iranian government.”
It states that the U.S. is establishing positions in the United Arab Emirates...
But the public is far behind (like those children) on making out the case that these Arabs are the good ones. They need an example. An illustration. Something...
You figure W will drop in for an unscheduled visit now that he is on tour?
The things we don't know.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/04/opinion/04sat2.html?ex=1299128400&en=f92c61d31b81f25e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

March 4, 2006

Discovering What Happens Next

The White House has a sorry history of withholding information that the public and Congress need to make informed policy judgments. A proposal in President Bush's new budget would take that damaging tendency one step further by eliminating a government survey that captures the real-world impact of welfare reform, Medicaid, child-support enforcement and many other policies and programs.

Started by the Census Bureau in 1984, this study, called the Survey of Income and Program Participation, questions thousands of the same people every four months for two to four years and gathers details about their lives, including their use of government aid. It is particularly valuable for the way it uncovers the actual effects of government programs and the way people move in and out of them. Most other polls simply capture data at a given point in time.

Take welfare reform, for example. Rather than evaluating it simply by the number of people on welfare before and after, researchers using the survey have isolated the factors — social, economic and personal — that have allowed some men and women to successfully leave welfare for work and the factors that caused others to fall into deeper poverty. Such information is vital to build on what works, to amend what doesn't and to allocate scarce government resources accordingly.

Getting rid of the survey this year, as the new budget proposes, would make it very difficult to study the fallout from deep cuts in food stamps, child care, Medicaid and other programs for the poor that Congress passed and Mr. Bush signed last month. That would be great for politicians who don't want to be held accountable. But it would be a big loss for anyone who wants government to work well.

[anne]

Of course, just at a time when social benefit programs are under sharp attack, no programs more so than Medicaid, we decide not to collect data to show what may be the effects of the attacks. Of course.