Need-Tested Benefits: Technical Companion to Selected CRS Reports on Need-Tested Benefits Receipt by Families and Individuals

Need-Tested Benefits: Technical Companion to Selected CRS Reports on Need-Tested Benefits Receipt by Families and Individuals

Need-Tested Benefits: Technical Companion
to Selected CRS Reports on Need-Tested
Benefits Receipt by Families and Individuals
June 30, 2021
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R46824

link to page 3 link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 11 link to page 7 link to page 11
Need-Tested Benefits: Technical Companion

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
The Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) ......................................................... 2
The TRIM3 Microsimulation Model ............................................................................. 3
Addressing the Under-Reporting of Benefit Receipt................................................... 3
Federal Income Taxes ........................................................................................... 4
Annual Estimates of Income and Benefit Receipt ................................................................. 6
Underestimates of Refundable Tax Credits .......................................................................... 7
Use of Supplemental Poverty Measure Concepts.................................................................. 7

Figures
Figure 1. Distribution of the SPM Poverty Thresholds 2017................................................... 9

Tables
Table 1. Selected Post-TCJA Income Tax Provisions in Both 2018 and 2017 Dollars ................. 5

Contacts
Author Information ......................................................................................................... 9

Need-Tested Benefits: Technical Companion

Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the financial insecurity faced by some families and
individuals. For some, this insecurity reflects the economic impact of the pandemic; for others,
the insecurity preceded the pandemic. Congress responded to the economic fal out of the
pandemic through providing ad-hoc assistance to families and individuals, making (mostly)
temporary changes to existing programs.
To address how need-tested programs wil affect families and individuals once the temporary
measures expire, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has developed a series of reports that
describe selected need-tested programs under pre-pandemic policies and how they affected
families and individuals. Need-tested programs are those that require a family or individual to
meet a test of financial need to be eligible for benefits and receive them. The programs include
the following:
 programs that finance health care services through the Medicaid and State
Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP);
 nutrition assistance programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP), school meals programs, and the Special Supplemental Program
for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC);
 housing assistance programs that provide rental assistance vouchers or finance
occupants in public housing;
 refundable tax credits targeted toward lower income individuals and families,
such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Additional Child Tax
Credit (ACTC);
 cash assistance programs such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); and
 child care subsidies from the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF).
Some of the reports in this series focus on a subset of these programs.
Reports in this Series
CRS Report R45971, The Impact of the Federal Income Tax Code on Poverty
Add reference to “Who Receives Need-Tested Benefits”
Add reference to “Impact of Need-Tested Benefits on Poverty”
The reports in this series use augmented Census Bureau data on income and poverty in 2017. This
was done to provide a sense of how need-tested benefits would affect families and individuals
after the pandemic ends, should the economy continue to recover, and temporary policy changes
expire; however, the experiences in future years are unlikely to match those of 2017 exactly.
These reports use 2017 as an example of how a future year might look if the economy and
policies revert back to their pre-pandemic states—but is not a prediction of how need-tested
benefits would affect individuals and families in the future.
The underlying data used in the reports’ analyses are from the 2018 Annual Social and Economic
Supplement (ASEC) to the Current Population Survey (CPS). These data are enhanced with
additional data from the Transfer Income Model 3 (TRIM3) microsimulation model. TRIM3 is
funded primarily by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and maintained at
the Urban Institute.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 8 Need-Tested Benefits: Technical Companion

This report uses the year 2017 because as of June 2021 it was the latest year for which data were
available to CRS that corrected for the under-reporting of benefit receipt in selected need-tested
benefit programs using the TRIM3 microsimulation model. Additional y, the Urban Institute, in
partnership with CRS, enhanced the analytic capabilities of the 2017 data to address specific
policy issues.
The Annual Social and Economic Supplement
(ASEC)
The ASEC is a household survey of the noninstitutionalized population of the 50 states and the
District of Columbia conducted by the Census Bureau from February through April of each year.
Most of the sample is interviewed in March. The ASEC is a supplement to the Census Bureau’s
CPS, which is conducted monthly and is the source of official labor force statistics. The ASEC
includes questions related to household members’ demographic characteristics and family living
arrangement at the time of the survey, and work experience and income in the prior year.
Individuals living in Puerto Rico and the U.S. territories and institutionalized individuals are
excluded from the population covered by the ASEC. The institutionalized population includes
those persons residing in institutional group quarters such as adult correctional facilities, juvenile
facilities, skil ed-nursing facilities, other institutional facilities such as psychiatric hospitals and
in-patient hospice facilities, and members of the Armed Forces living on post without a civilian in
their household.
The ASEC is used by the Census Bureau to estimate the number and percentage of the population
living in poverty, under both the official poverty measure and Supplemental Poverty Measure
(SPM1), in its reports. The sample of the ASEC is large enough to make reliable estimates for the
nation as a whole and, at times, for some of the larger states. However, the sample is not large
enough to make state-level estimates for al states.
The 2018 ASEC captured information on the population as of February through April 2018, with
a retrospective look at income and work experience in the prior year—2017. The 2018 ASEC
included information on approximately 92,000 households.
Estimates were weighted from the sample information to make the ASEC representative of the
population of U.S. households. Because the estimates come from a sample, they are subject to
sampling error. Additional y, the information on the ASEC is based on respondents’ answers to
the survey questions, and nonresponse or incorrect responses can result in nonsampling error.2
Nonsampling error has been observed in the ASEC in several ways that may impact CRS
analyses. For example, research has found that need-tested benefits are commonly under-reported
on the ASEC. Respondents report fewer household members receiving need-tested benefits than

1 For a discussion of the SPM as used in these reports, see the “ Annual Estimates of Income and Benefit Receipt ”
section. For a more detailed discussion of the SPM, see CRS Report R45031, The Supplem ental Poverty Measure: Its
Core Concepts, Developm ent, and Use.
2 If some respondents to the ASEC answered the questions inaccurately, it would affect the estimates in this report.
While ASEC does not ask questions about federal taxes of its respondents, T RIM3 uses respondents’ self -reported
information on household and family composition to place people within that household into tax filing units.
Misreporting of household and family composition information might affect the accuracy of the tax information
estimated from T RIM3. Misreporting of income that is used in the tax calculation would also affect the estimates in this
report.
Congressional Research Service

2

Need-Tested Benefits: Technical Companion

are recorded by federal or state administering agencies. In addition, benefit amounts reported by
ASEC respondents typical y fal below the benefit amounts recorded in agency expenditure data.3
The ASEC itself does not ask survey respondents about taxes paid or refundable credits received
in the prior year. That information—important for determining a family’s or an individual’s SPM
poverty status—must be estimated. These CRS reports use estimates from the TRIM3
microsimulation model (discussed below) for these estimates. The Census Bureau uses a different
microsimulation model in its reports on SPM poverty.4
The TRIM3 Microsimulation Model
Microsimulation models of tax and transfer programs are composed of computer code that
mimics the rules of the tax code and benefit programs.5 The models determine whether an
individual, family, or other unit is eligible to be subject to a tax or eligible for a benefit and then
estimate the amount of the tax or benefit. This report uses TRIM3 to both address under-reporting
of need-tested benefits in the survey data and to estimate federal income tax liabilities under the
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA; P.L. 115-97) policies.
Addressing the Under-Reporting of Benefit Receipt
TRIM3 uses data from the ASEC to estimate the number of people eligible for benefits from
certain need-tested programs. It estimates benefit receipt based on a combination of information
on the number of people eligible and their characteristics, information from people who reported
benefit receipt on the survey, and information from administering agencies on the number of
people receiving benefits and their characteristics. In this CRS report series, TRIM3-adjusted data
are used for benefit receipt from SNAP, SSI, and TANF. These were the programs for which
TRIM3 had estimates available for 2017.
For housing assistance, TRIM3 makes no adjustment for misreporting on the ASEC. While the
number of persons in assisted households is not adjusted, this CRS report series uses TRIM3’s
estimates of the housing subsidy. Data on CCDF benefits are neither collected nor estimated by
the Census Bureau in conjunction with the ASEC. TRIM3 models receipt of child care subsidies
based on characteristics of the population and of those who receive CCDF subsidies.
The information on SNAP, SSI, TANF, housing assistance, and CCDF subsidies is available from
the Urban Institute on its TRIM3 public server. CRS downloaded this information, combined it
with the ASEC data, and conducted the analyses presented in this series of reports.
The estimates of Medicaid and State CHIP enrollment are based on assumptions developed by
CRS about the size and characteristics of the enrolled population. The size of the caseload was
based on reports of enrollment during 2017.6 At the time the estimates were developed, Medicaid
was transitioning between data systems, and there were no current data available on the
characteristics of those receiving Medicaid in that year. Therefore, the characteristics of the 2013

3 For a discussion of this, see Bruce D. Meyer, Wallace K.C. Mok, and James X. Sullivan, “Household Surveys in
Crisis,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 29, no. 4 (Fall 2015), pp. 199-226.
4 For a discussion of different methods of simulating taxes based on ASEC data, see Laura Wheaton and Kathryn
Stevens, The Effect of Different Tax Calculators on the Supplem ental Poverty Measure , Urban Institute, April 2016.
5 Documentation from T RIM3 can be found at http://trim3.urban.org/T 3Technical.php. For a discussion of
microsimulation and its use in policy analysis, see Gordon H. Lewis and Richard C. Michel, ed., Microsim ulation
Techniques for Tax and Transfer Analysis (Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 1990).
6 New York did not report its enrollment for April through December of the year. T herefore, it was assumed that New
York Medicaid enrollment remained constant.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 7 Need-Tested Benefits: Technical Companion

Medicaid caseload were used, with an adjustment to account for changes to the underlying age
distribution of the total population during the period from 2013 to 2017.
The Medicaid and CHIP estimates do not take the following into account:
 transitional Medicaid benefits for those families no longer receiving TANF cash
assistance due to increased income, increased employment, time limits, or other
reasons;
 eligibility via most waivers;
 eligibility via pathways that provide restricted (i.e., less than full scope) benefits;
 eligibility via the optional CHIP coverage of unborn children; and
 the financial benefit of Medicaid and CHIP to family income.
Federal Income Taxes
The Urban Institute, in partnership with CRS, modified TRIM3’s federal income tax module to
account for the major provisions of the TCJA affecting individual taxpayers. Thus, the
information in the model was revised to reflect the following:
 new tax brackets and marginal tax rates that apply;
 the suspension of the personal exemption and the increases in the standard
deduction;
 limitations on itemized deductions, including the limitation on the deductibility
of state and local taxes (SALT);
 revised rules for the child tax credit; and
 other changes to the federal individual income tax code.
TCJA Changes Not Modeled
A number of changes to federal income tax were not modeled. These include changes to the
treatment of alimony, changes to the mortgage interest deduction, and the elimination of the
individual mandate for health insurance. The treatment of alimony was not modeled because the
changes apply only to new or revised orders and wil not affect many cases in the near term.7
Limits on interest qualifying for the mortgage interest deduction were not modeled because there
are no data to inform the impact of these changes.8 Additional y, certain smal er changes are not
present in the simulation, such as the elimination of the deduction for bicycle commuting.9
Inflation Adjustment
The post-TCJA tax code parameters were deflated to 2017 dol ars to answer the question, “what if
the 2018 TCJA parameters were in place in 2017 and 2017 was the first year of their enactment?”
The adjustment was done using the chained Consumer Price Index for Al Urban Consumers (C-
CPI-U), because the TCJA requires the use of that price index rather than the CPI-U for future
price adjustments. Specifical y, the 2018 amounts were adjusted to 2017 dollars using the chained
CPI-U (see Table 1). Hence, the estimates in this report reflect the impact of the post-TCJA tax
code as if the first year of its enactment were 2017 (it actual y went into effect in 2018).

7 Based on email to CRS from senior fellow at the Urban Institute, November 14, 2018.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

4

Need-Tested Benefits: Technical Companion

Table 1. Selected Post-TCJA Income Tax Provisions in Both 2018 and 2017 Dollars
2018 TCJA
2018 TCJA
Parameter
Parameter
in 2018 Dollars
in 2017 Dollars

Starting Point (Lower Limit) of Marginal Tax Brackets by Tax Filing Status
Married Filing Jointly
10%
$0
$0
12%
19,050
18,632
22%
77,400
75,703
24%
165,000
161,383
32%
315,000
308,096
35%
400,000
391,233
37%
600,000
586,849
Head of Household
10%
0
0
12%
13,600
13,302
22%
51,800
50,665
24%
82,500
80,692
32%
157,500
154,048
35%
200,000
195,616
37%
500,000
489,041
Single
10%
0
0
12%
9,525
9,316
22%
38,700
37,852
24%
82,500
80,692
32%
157,500
154,048
35%
200,000
195,616
37%
500,000
489,041
Standard Deduction by Filing Status
Married Filing Jointly
24,000
23,474
Head of Household
18,000
17,605
Single
12,000
11,737
Other Major Provisions
Child Credit Amount
2,000
1,956
Maximum ACTC
1,400
1,369
ACTC Refundability Threshold
2,500
2,445
Source: CRS; U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics; and the Internal Revenue Code.
Notes: These adjustments do not reflect the statutory inflation adjustment of these tax provisions. Instead, they
reflect the actual 2018 dol ar levels’ purchasing power in 2017 dol ars. ACTC = Additional Child Tax Credit.
Congressional Research Service

5

Need-Tested Benefits: Technical Companion

Annual Estimates of Income and Benefit Receipt
The estimates of eligibility, receipt, and benefit amounts in this series of CRS reports are
general y based on program rules. Many of the need-tested programs examined here determine
eligibility and benefits on a monthly basis. The number of people who received benefits at any
point over the course of the year is by definition greater than the number of people receiving
benefits in any one month.
The estimates in these reports general y reflect receipt of one or more benefits at any point during
2017. This includes those who received benefits in only 1 month and those who received benefits
for al 12 months of the year. Because these estimates are for those who ever received benefits in
a year, they tend to be higher than the number of recipients reported by administrative data using
monthly or monthly average participation numbers. In addition, benefit amounts are those
received during the year. (They are not annualized benefits.)
The information on refundable tax credits from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the
Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC) represents the amounts earned during the year, which are
paid to families once a year when they receive their tax refunds—general y in the following year.
For example, tax credits earned in 2017 would general y be received in 2018 when taxpayers filed
their 2017 federal income tax returns (it does not reflect tax credits accrued in 2016 refunds that
were actual y paid and received by families and individuals in 2017). This comports to the way
the refundable tax credits are considered in analyses of family income and the SPM measurement
of poverty that is used in this CRS report series.
In examining benefit amounts received by families, al non-medical in-kind benefits were
monetized and several assumptions were made in that process. For example, in the case of child
care subsidies, TRIM3 estimated benefit levels were based on maximum reimbursement rates in
the state.
In the case of housing assistance, the benefits provided by the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
(HCV) program, the project-based Section 8 rental assistance programs, and the public housing
program were al calculated the same way, using an approximation of the method used for
calculating the maximum benefit a family could receive under the Section 8 HCV program. This
approach is tied to the market cost of housing and is commonly used by researchers and policy
analysts. However, the public housing and project-based Section 8 rental assistance programs
provide affordable rental units to families rather than the vouchers provided by the Section 8
HCV program for use in the private market. While the dollar value of a voucher is fairly clear, the
dollar value of an affordable rental unit is less so; thus, this approach may over- or underestimate
the dollar value of the benefit received by a resident of public housing or project-based Section 8
rental assistance housing. For the purpose of measuring the value of housing assistance for
poverty status using the SPM, the value of housing is capped.
These CRS reports also place a dollar value on only non-medical, non-cash benefits. Putting a
dollar value on medical coverage (e.g., Medicaid) has vexed policy analysts for decades. These
reports wil not attempt to choose one valuation method over another, and thus the value of
Medicaid and CHIP are excluded.10

10 A seminal National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report issued in 1995 examining potential changes in the
measurement of family well-being for poverty analysis stated that after two decades of study of how to treat medical
care needs and resources up to that point, “there is still no agreement on the best approach to use.” (See Constance F.
Citro and Robert T . Michael, eds., Measuring Poverty. A New Approach, [Washington, DC: National Academy Press,
1995], pp. 223-224.) Two and half decades after that study, this is still the case. T he research SPM, the concepts of
Congressional Research Service

6

Need-Tested Benefits: Technical Companion

Underestimates of Refundable Tax Credits
As mentioned above, the ASEC does not ask respondents about their federal income tax liabilities
nor receipt of federal income tax benefits such as the refundable tax credits (EITC and ACTC).
Thus, federal income tax liabilities and benefits are al estimated by computer (microsimulation)
models.
As this series of CRS reports shows, refundable tax credits are among the largest of the need-
tested benefit programs in terms of both number of people receiving them and their dollar
amounts. Yet, estimates of the refundable tax credits based on ASEC population and income data
are underestimated. The underestimating of ASEC-based estimates of refundable tax credits has
been documented.11 Research suggests that one cause of these underestimates may be that
families with children where multiple adults file an income tax return have a strategic incentive to
choose which adult wil claim the children on his or her return.12 This might not be fully captured
by the tax calculators.
Use of Supplemental Poverty Measure Concepts
This series of CRS reports uses the concepts of the research SPM. The measurement of poverty is
an ongoing topic of research.13 The official poverty measure was developed in the 1960s, and it is
limited in analyzing the impact of federal need-tested benefits on poverty. Particularly relevant
for this analysis, the official measure measures poverty using pre-tax money income to compare
to the poverty thresholds. Thus, the only two programs that affect poverty status using the official
measure are SSI and TANF. These two programs accounted for $53 bil ion and $6 bil ion,
respectively, of the income received by families from non-medical need-tested benefits programs
in 2017. The official poverty measure does not take into account taxes (and tax benefits, like the
refundable credits) and their impact on disposable income. It also does not take into account

which these CRS reports use, as of April 2021 does not directly value medical benefits. Rather, the SPM deducts out -
of-pocket medical expenses from family resources.
Since the study, several approaches have been discussed. In fall 2010, HHS asked NAS to convene a panel to examine
“the state of the science in the development and implementation of a new measure of medical care risk as a companion
measure to the new Supplemental Poverty Measure.” (See Michael J. O'Grady and Gooloo S. Wunderlich, eds.,
Medical Care Econom ic Risk: Measuring Financial Vulnerability from Spending on Medical Care [Washington, DC:
National Academies P ress, 2012]). A subsequent National Academy study on reducing child poverty proposed an
approach that would value medical insurance at a value at least that of the basic health insurance plan offered under the
Affordable Care Act. (See Sanders Korenman, Dahlia K. Remler, and Rosemary T . Hyson, Accounting for the Im pact
of Medicaid on Child Poverty, background paper for the Committee on Building an Agenda to Reduce the Number of
Children in Poverty by Half in 10 Years, Board of Children, Youth and Families o f the National Academy of Sciences,
revised December 1, 2017).
11 For example, see Laura Wheaton and Kathryn Stevens, The Effect of Different Tax Calculators on the Supplemental
Poverty Measure, Urban Institute, April 2016,
12 For a discussion of this effect, see David Splinter, Jeff Larrimore, and Jacob Mortenson, Whose Child Is This?
Shifting Of Dependents Am ong EITC Claim ants Within The Sam e Household , National T ax Journal 2017, 70:4, pp.
737-758, at https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2017.4.02. See also Maggie R. Jones and Amy B. O'Hara, Do Doubled-Up
Fam ilies Minim ize Household-Level Tax Burden? National T ax Journal 2016, 69:3, pp. 613-640, at http://dx.doi.org/
10.17310/ntj.2016.3.05.
13 For example, a federal interagency working group released in January 2021 a report including recommendations for
further modifying the measurement of poverty. See Interagency T echnical Working Group on Evaluating Alternative
Measures of Poverty, Final Report, January 2021, at https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/
2021/demo/EvaluatingAlternativeMeasuresofPoverty_08Jan2021.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 11 Need-Tested Benefits: Technical Companion

certain noncash government benefits, such as food benefits from SNAP or the value of housing
benefits.
There are numerous other differences between the official and SPM measures of poverty. (For
more information, see Table 1 in CRS Report R45031, The Supplemental Poverty Measure: Its
Core Concepts, Development, and Use.) Thus, the definitions used in this series of CRS reports
differ from other usages. For example, see the following:
 Family. This CRS report series uses the term family to describe what technical y
the Census Bureau cal s the SPM unit. This differs from the way the Census
Bureau official y defines family in its other reports, including the definition used
in the official poverty measure. The Census Bureau’s usual definition of family is
individuals living together and related by birth, marriage, or adoption. The SPM
unit—and family as used in this CRS report series—also includes unmarried
partners and their relatives, co-resident unrelated children, and foster children.
This updated definition is used because it better represents the economic unit in
which individuals share resources to meet their needs.
 Income. This CRS report series uses the term income in the same way that the
Census Bureau uses resources in its SPM reports. It is a measure of disposable
income that includes cash money income plus non-medical noncash benefits (i.e.,
food and housing assistance). It also subtracts federal and state tax liabilities
accrued during the year, but adds to income the value of refundable tax credits
(EITC and ACTC). The SPM income concept also subtracts from income
imputed work expenses, reported out-of-pocket medical expenses, and net child
care expenses (after accounting for subsidies from the CCDF).
In addition, this CRS report series uses the SPM poverty thresholds—rather than the ones used in
the official measure or the federal poverty level (FPL) that is used for determining program
eligibility14—when determining an individual or family poverty status. For a family with two
adults and one child, the official poverty threshold that the Census Bureau used to count the
number of people living in poverty was $19,730. The FPL used by some programs to determine
eligibility for such a family was $20,420.
The construction of the poverty thresholds is more complex under the SPM than under the official
measure. The official measure’s poverty thresholds vary by family size and age of family
members. The SPM poverty thresholds vary by number of adults, number of children, and a large
set of additional factors, including the housing status of a family (i.e., owner, owner with a
mortgage, renter) and geographic adjustments for differences in housing costs. Under the SPM,
the poverty thresholds for a family with two adults and one child varied in 2017, from a low of
$13,695 to a high of $27,800. The median threshold was $18,499.
Figure 1 shows the distribution of the SPM poverty thresholds for two adults and one child for
2017. It shows that 19% of al SPM units of this type had an SPM poverty threshold between
$19,000 and $19,999. However, it also shows a second peak of this distribution at a higher dollar
level: about 10% of SPM units had thresholds between $23,000 and $23,999. Of the SPM units
with thresholds in that range, 45% were in New York and 27% were in California, states where a
large share of the population lives in areas with high housing costs. Al SPM units with two adults
and one child and SPM poverty thresholds over $26,000 lived in California. Conversely, of al

14 For a discussion of the differences in the official poverty measure used for counting individuals and families living in
poverty and the FPL used for program eligibility purposes, see CRS Report R44780, An Introduction to Poverty
Measurem ent.
Congressional Research Service

8

Need-Tested Benefits: Technical Companion

SPM units with two adults and one child and SPM poverty thresholds from $13,000 to $13,999,
24% were in Kentucky, 17% were in Mississippi, and 9% were in Tennessee.
Figure 1. Distribution of the SPM Poverty Thresholds 2017

Source: CRS, based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
The estimates in this CRS report series of the number of individuals living in poverty using the
SPM wil differ from those published in Census Bureau reports. The CRS estimates use TRIM3-
adjusted data for SNAP, housing assistance, SSI, TANF, and net child care expenditures (after
CCDF subsidies), and the refundable tax credits rather than those used by the Census Bureau for
2017. The Census Bureau data do not take into account adjustments for under-reporting of benefit
receipt from major need-tested programs. For programs where TRIM3-adjusted data were
unavailable—the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), WIC, and school
meal programs—the Census Bureau data were used in the determination of SPM poverty status.

Author Information

Gene Falk
Jameson A. Carter
Specialist in Social Policy
Research Assistant

Congressional Research Service

9

Need-Tested Benefits: Technical Companion

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46824 · VERSION 1 · NEW
10