Resources of supplemental security income recipients

In order to receive payments under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, an aged, blind, or disabled person's countable resources must fall below specified limits. The current limits are +2,000 for an individual and +3,000 for a couple. In 1987, when the data were collected for this study, these limits were +1,800 for an individual and +2,700 for a couple. This study found that the resource levels of most SSI recipients were well below the 1987 limits. A majority of SSI recipients had less than +100 in countable resources, and only about 12 percent of SSI recipients had more than +1,000 of resources. These low levels of resources ensure that relatively few recipients become ineligible for SSI payments because of resource accumulation. The most common forms of countable resources held by SSI recipients were cash, checking accounts, and savings accounts.     

A study of Supplemental Security Income awardees

Since its enactment in 1974, the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program has had a stable caseload of about 4 million recipients. Hidden by this unchanging total is the fact that nearly 9 million persons were served by the program from 1974 to 1986. This study explores some SSI program dynamics by following a group of SSI awardees for a period of 4 years from the initial receipt of award in 1981. Many of these awardees had previous contact with the program either through a previous award or a denial. About 60 percent of the awardees were eligible at the end of the 4-year period. Most persons who became ineligible did so within the first 6 months after the award.     

Two Cheers for Paperwork: The Value and Burden of Federal Reporting

In principle, reporting by state and local governments to thefederal government is essential to the design and implementationof national policy. In practice, reporting often engenders resentmentof federal intrusion and is often dismissed as a waste of stateand local resources. Is reporting useless? Does it strengthenthe federal government at the expense of state and local governments?We asked federal, state, local, and site officials about thevalue and burden of five specific reporting systems in elementaryand secondary education. Common assumptions about reportingdid not correspond to respondent reactions. Both value and burdencascade through the intergovernmental system, reaching policymakersin all governments. Although critics seldom discriminate betweentypes of reporting, we found that reporting designed to improvecompliance with federal standards evoked different judgmentsof value and burden than reporting designed for assistance.These results suggest some new approaches to federal policygoverning the collection of information and to the design ofindividual reporting systems.     

Chicago political economy: A public choice perspective

George J. Stigler (Ed.), Chicago studies in political economy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988. Pages xviii + 641.