NLSY79 APPENDIX 15:

RECIPIENCY EVENT HISTORIES

Update forthcoming. Please contact NLS User Services at usersvc@postoffice.chrr.ohio-state.edu for more information.

The manner in which information about program recipiency for NLSY79 respondents is collected changed in 1993, the first time all interviews were conducted with an electronic instrument using computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI). Information collected in 1993 and after takes the form of a more complete event history, without regard to skipped interviews. The CAPI variables have been combined with the PAPI variables in order to create an event history for each respondent for each of the five types of recipiency (AFDC, Food Stamps, SSI and other public assistance/welfare, unemployment compensation, and spousal unemployment compensation).

These event history variables are located within the RECIPIENCY record type on the main NLSY79 CD. For each type of recipiency, there is (1) a monthly indicator of receipt or non-receipt, (2) a monthly dollar value of the benefits, (3) a yearly indicator of receipt or non-receipt, and (4) a yearly dollar value of the benefits. In addition to these benefit-specific variables, there are also two yearly summary variables which indicate (1) whether or not the respondent has received any benefits from AFDC, Food Stamps, or SSI and other public assistance/welfare, and (2) the dollar value of benefits from all of these sources.

This appendix first contrasts the collection of information on recipiency in the PAPI years to that of the CAPI years. It then describes the creation and editing process for the recipiency event history variables.

• Program Recipiency in Paper-and-Pencil Interviews
• Program Recipiency in CAPI Interviews
• Variable Creation
• Edit Flags
• Fill Flags
  • New Fill Flags for 1998

Return to Table of Contents

PROGRAM RECIPIENCY IN PAPER-AND-PENCIL INTERVIEWS

In paper-and-pencil (PAPI) NLSY79 rounds (1992 and prior), information on R and spouse unemployment compensation, AFDC, Food Stamps and other welfare recipiency was gathered for the calendar year prior to the interview year only. For instance, someone interviewed in 1992 was asked about the months of recipiency in 1991 only. An average figure per week/month was then asked for the entirety of 1991. For example, if a respondent said s/he was receiving AFDC in March, April and May of 1991, and again in September and October of 1991, s/he was only asked for an average amount per month received during those months in 1991.

Data collected in this manner generates a complete event history only for respondents who were interviewed at each interview date. For those respondents, information would be present for each month benefits were received from January 1978 through December 1991 (the year before the 1992 interview). However, a respondent skipping one or more interviews would be missing information for each calendar year preceding missed interview years. For example, a respondent missing the 1985 and 1990 interviews would be missing recipiency information for calendar years 1984 and 1989.

Return to top

PROGRAM RECIPIENCY IN CAPI INTERVIEWS

Beginning with the 1993 CAPI survey, respondents are asked about recipiency in two different manners. First, if the respondent reported receiving benefits in December of the year before the last interview, s/he is then asked if s/he has received continuously since then. If the respondent answers "yes" to this question, s/he is then asked for an average dollar per month/week in each year that benefits were received. The respondent then begins the next section of the interview. Respondents answering "no" are then asked for the date that they first stopped receiving benefits. For these individuals, average dollar values are collected for each year within this initial spell. These respondents are then asked the same questions as the respondents who were not receiving benefits in December of the year preceding the last interview.

Respondents who were not receiving benefits in December of the year before the last interview are asked if they have received benefits at all since January of the last interview year. Individuals who report no recipiency since January of the last interview skip to the next section of the interview. If the respondent answers "yes," s/he is then asked for the date when the benefits first began. This is considered the first spell. Respondents are then asked if benefits have been received continuously since this start date. If the respondent answers "yes," receipt has been continuous, s/he is asked for the average dollar amount received per month/week. These respondents then proceed to the next section of the interview. If the respondent answers that receipt has not been continuous since this first start date, s/he is asked to report the first date s/he stopped receiving benefits. Average dollar figures per month/week are collected for each year within this first spell.

All respondents who report completing a first spell since January of the last interview are asked if they started receiving benefits again since the first spell ended. Information on up to five spells is collected in the manner described above. If there are more than five spells, the respondent is asked about the first five and the most recent. The flow of questions within these sections is illustrated in Figure A15.1.

Figure A15.1 Flow of Program Recipiency Questions in CAPI Interviews

In interviews following the initial CAPI interview (1993 in most cases), respondents are asked to verify the last month they reported receiving benefits (if any). They are then asked about any recipiency since their date of last interview. With CAPI, the retrospective recipiency event history is collected from the date of the last interview, providing a more continuous longitudinal record, even for respondents who skip interviews.

Return to top

VARIABLE CREATION

PAPI Interviews
For most of the PAPI years, the yearly and monthly receipt/non-receipt variables are taken directly from responses, and the average monthly value of benefits is used for each month that the respondent reports receiving benefits. For unemployment compensation, weekly averages were collected. This weekly average was multiplied by four and then used as the monthly average. However, there are two main exceptions to this. First, the Food Stamp program underwent a change in 1979. Prior to this, recipients were allowed to purchase food stamps at a price below their market value. Because the 1979 interview asked respondents about recipiency in 1978, respondents who reported receiving food stamps were asked how much they paid for the food stamps in addition to the dollar value of the food stamps received in the last month they received benefits in 1978. The net transfer for 1979 is estimated by subtracting the dollar amount paid from the dollar value received. In all subsequent years, respondents were only asked for the dollar value received in the last month of the previous year that benefits were received.

The second exception concerns SSI and other forms of public assistance/welfare. The series of questions pertaining to public assistance/welfare and SSI has undergone some changes since the beginning of the survey. Initially, in 1979, respondents were asked in a single question if they had received income from any of the sources mentioned above. Respondents were also asked which months benefits were received and the average amount received each month. They were then asked to identify from which sources they received benefits. However, it is not possible to identify how much of this amount is attributable to each source if more than one source was reported.

From 1980 through 1984, the question was divided into two separate ones. Respondents were first asked if they had received any benefits from SSI in the preceding year. They were then asked which months benefits were received and the average amount received each month. A second set of questions asked respondents if they had received public assistance/welfare in the preceding year and, if so, in which months and the average amount received each month.

The format of the questions was changed once again in 1985 and has remained the same since then. As with the initial interview in 1979, respondents were asked if they had received any benefits from SSI, public assistance/welfare. They were then asked which months benefits were received and the average amount received each month. However, unlike the 1979 interview, respondents were not asked to identify the source of the benefits.

Because the responses from 1985 through 1992 contain the least amount of information, the other responses need to be converted to resemble responses to the single question asked in those years. Thus, if the respondent reported receiving benefits from either SSI or public assistance/welfare in answer to the separate questions, then the response to the single question becomes yes. The same methodology was used in determining recipiency in each month. If benefits were reported from both questions, then the amount received that month was determined to be the sum of the averages.

CAPI Interviews
Due to the way PAPI interviews collected data (for the calendar year prior to the survey year), information on recipiency is available beginning with January of 1978. Designating this to be month 1 of the monthly event history, all start and stop dates can be identified by their month number. This may be easily calculated using the following algorithm: month_# = (year - 1978) x 12 + month. For instance, June of 1993 would be: (1993 - 1978) x 12 + 6 = 186. Once all start and stop dates have been calculated, the event history for each individual can be created.

To illustrate this, consider Case 1 from Table A15.1. This respondent was not interviewed in 1992 which means that her/his event history from the PAPI years would contain information up through December of 1990. Thus, the beginning month of the CAPI event history would be January of 1991 (month 157). According to the example, this respondent was receiving benefits in December of 1991 and continued to do so until June of 1991 (month 162) and then received no further benefits. The event history would then be formed by placing ones into months 157 - 162 and zeros into months 163 - 186. The dollar amount variable would be created similarly; the dollar value reported for average benefits in 1991, 135, would be placed into months 157 - 162 and zero would be placed into months 163 - 186. This same logic can be applied to each respondent, regardless of the number of reported spells of recipiency: placing ones into all months within a spell (from start_spell(i) to stop_spell(i) ) and zeros into all months outside of spells (1 + stop_spell(i) to start_spell(i+1) -1).

To illustrate more completely how each respondent's event history was created, Table A15.1 depicts four additional hypothetical cases. Cases 2 and 4 represent respondents who receive continuously after their start dates; Case 3 depicts a respondent who reports no benefit receipt; and Case 5 represents a respondent who reports two completed spells of recipiency. Table A15.2 presents the event histories which would result if the information had been given by the respondents portrayed in Table A15.1.

Table A15.1 Five Hypothetical CAPI Cases

Table A15.2 Resultant Event Histories

In each CAPI interview, information is collected for all time up to the interview date. Because all respondents are not interviewed in the same month, the resultant event histories would be of unequal length. In order to avoid this, a -4 is placed into each monthly indicator and dollar value from the month following the interview month to December of the interview year. These -4's function merely as place savers and will be replaced by information collected in the next interview, or by -5's if the respondent is not interviewed. For example, if the respondent represented by Case 1 is interviewed in September of 1994 and reports no benefit receipt since the last year, then the -4's for July to December of 1993 become 0's and -4's are placed in the months and dollar values for October to December of 1994. These new -4's would later be replaced by information from the 1996 interview.

Handling Don't Knows and Refusals
In PAPI years when the respondent did not know whether s/he had received benefits in the previous year, a "-2" was placed in all months and dollar values for that year. For respondents who refused to answer this question, "-1" was entered into all months and dollar values for that year.

In CAPI years, when asked for the start or stop date of a spell, a respondent could respond "don't know." When the respondent does not know (or refuses to answer) the start date of a spell of recipiency, s/he is then asked approximately how many months/weeks s/he received benefits and how much s/he received in the last month/week s/he received benefits. If a respondent does not know the start date and there are valid responses for these questions (i.e., responses greater than zero), the start date is set at the first possible point of the unfilled event history and "-2" is placed into the number of months that the respondent reports receiving. For example, if a respondent last interviewed in 1990 and being interviewed in 1993 responds that s/he has received benefits since January of the last interview year but does not know when s/he started receiving, the start date is set at January of 1990. If this same respondent reports that s/he received benefits for six months and received $200 the last month s/he received benefits, then "-2" would be filled into the January through June of 1990 receipt/non-receipt variables and $200 would be filled into the dollar values for these months. The receipt/non-receipt and dollar value monthly variable for July 1990 through the interview date would then be filled with zeros. If the respondent does not know the stop date but has reported a start date, the same logic is employed using the reported start date.

Return to top

EDIT FLAGS

The dollar values elicited by the questions in the recipiency section of the questionnaires were meant to be monthly (weekly in the case of unemployment compensation) averages. However, some of the responses appear to be unrealistically high or low. When responses seem unreasonably high, one of the most likely reasons is that the respondent has reported a total value as opposed to a monthly/weekly average. When the event histories were created, all reported dollar values were first tested for their plausibility. Values which were determined to be "wrong" were then edited. The following describes the process by which the reported values were tested and assigned a yearly edit flag. Although the meaning of the edit flags is the same in PAPI years as in CAPI years, the editing process was slightly different for the two. Edit flag meanings are summarized in Table A15.3.

Table A15.3 Edit Flag Values for Recipiency Data

PAPI Years
For each year, average values were collected for each program's recipiency rates. From the average values, an "acceptable" range was constructed. In general, this range is constructed by setting the lower bound to be a fraction of the average and the upper bound to be a multiple of the average. Table A15.4 reports the ranges which were used in each year for each program. All dollar values which fell within the ranges defined in the table below were assumed to be correctly reported. These observations were left unedited and assigned an edit flag of "0." Reported values which fell below the lower bound were denoted with an edit flag of "1," but they were left unedited as there is no obvious explanation for these low figures.