Number range CHAPTER**Reengineering the SIPP: The New Dynamics of
Economic Well-being System (DEWS)**

**U.S. Census Bureau, Suitland Maryland**

####### September 27, 2006 

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| This report is released to inform interested parties of ongoing       |
| research and to encourage discussion of the dynamics of economic      |
| well-being.                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| The views expressed on statistical, methodological, technical or      |
| operational issues are those of the author, not necessarily those of  |
| the U.S. Census Bureau**.**                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**[INTRODUCTION]{.underline}**

The comprehensive information about individual and household income and
program participation collected by the Survey of Income and Program
Participation (SIPP) is used by federal agencies to evaluate programs
and assess need. A major use of the SIPP has been to evaluate the
effectiveness of government programs and to analyze the impacts of
options for modifying them. The Social Security Administration (SSA),
for example, relies on SIPP data to project baby boomers' retirement
incomes and the likely timing of their retirement. The Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) uses SIPP data to evaluate the impact of
Welfare Reform and to measure the economic effect of disabling
conditions on children and adults.

The SIPP's longitudinal design has many advantages, but imposes
considerable burden on respondents and makes review and data processing
difficult and time consuming. The re-engineered system, to be known as
the dynamics of economic well-being system (DEWS), is expected to reduce
respondent burden and attrition and deliver data on a timely basis.
Although it will not supply the same level of detail as the SIPP, its
design must offer policymakers and researchers data that address the
same basic issues. Several options are now being considered for a new
system that will provide information on measuring the dynamics of
economic well-being.

The DEWS will take advantage of the advances that the Census Bureau has
made in acquiring and integrating administrative records with survey
data, in modeling local area estimates, and in developing new data
collection systems. The new system will eventually supplement data
collected from the new survey instrument with administrative records
from a variety of sources. The new system can also be used to identify a
population cohort that can be measured longitudinally or subsequently
surveyed for selected special topics.

**[SYSTEM GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND SCOPE]{.underline}**

The overall goals of the DEWS is to reengineer the current SIPP to
construct a streamlined system that can provide similar information at a
reduced cost, with improved data quality, improved timeliness, and
improved data accessibility. The system will be able to generate data
that can be used, in part, as SIPP data have been used, that is to
provide accurate and comprehensive information about the income and
program participation of individuals and households in the United
States. The DEWS will provide a nationally representative sample that
can be used to evaluate the annual and sub-annual dynamics of income,
the movements into and out of government transfer programs, and the
effect on family and social context of individuals and households. The
DEWS will provide this information in a timely manner and at reduced
cost through re-engineered survey design, improvements in processing
efficiency, and a focused content scope.

The scope of this plan includes those activities that must be undertaken
in order to develop the DEWS and to field a new survey instrument in
2009. The first requirement is to identify core elements to be included
in the new data system. In addition to identifying core data elements to
be included, several configurations of the data collection system are to
be examined.

###### COMMUNICATIONS PLAN

Policy makers, including several major federal agencies, need detailed
information on the dynamics of income, poverty, wealth, health insurance
coverage, program participation and other aspects of economic
well-being. SIPP has provided this information for the past two decades.
No other statistical program provides that level of detail. The Census
Bureau's plans for a re-engineered system to measure economic well-being
will continue to meet the highest priority needs of its historical
users, in a timelier manner at reduced cost. To ensure the involvement
of SIPP stakeholders, they will continue to be consulted on decisions
throughout the development process.

Census management will continuously meet with key stakeholders to assess
their priorities for the new system. The Census Bureau has presented
overviews of the new system to various audiences, including Council of
Professional Associations on Federal Statistics (COPAFS), Census
Advisory Committee of Professional Associations, the Congressional
Budget Office, Congressional committees, Congressional hearings, and key
federal stakeholders. Census staff have organized regular meetings with
federal staff and key outside researchers to assess their needs and
apprise them of the progress of the new system and will continue this
process during the evolution of the system.

**[SYSTEM OBJECTIVES]{.underline}**

The *Systems Development Team* was established to oversee the DEWS and
to define the major objectives that were integral to the design,
development, and implementation of the new system. The goals and
associated objectives are as follows:

> • Cost Reduction

-   optimal content design,

-   optimal data collection, and

-   optimal processing system.

• Improved Data Quality − Accuracy

-   test results and evaluation of test results incorporated into design
    and project plan,

-   lower attrition rates,

-   integrated quality assurance, and

-   reduce seam bias across panels.

• Improved Data Quality − Timeliness

-   finalized core design components by 2007,

-   release data faster than SIPP, and

-   information products and services disseminated in alignment with
    customer and stakeholder needs.

• Improved Data Quality − Accessibility

-   publicly available microdata files,

-   information products and services disseminated in alignment with
    customer and stakeholder needs, and

-   strategic partnership with stakeholders.

An inter-divisional project group was established to oversee each of
these objectives. Below is the progress to date for each group.

I. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS

A. [Administrative Records and Survey Data Prototype
Development]{.underline}

> The *Prototype Development Group* is responsible for all phases of the
> design and development of integrated current and proposed survey and
> administrative records-based prototype systems and resulting data
> sets. Prototype development is a continuing process that will evolve
> along with the entire system. The early prototypes will be used mainly
> to determine disclosure issues associated with creating a Public Use
> File containing administrative records data. Of particular importance
> in this activity is the evaluation of the use of administrative
> records as a measure of data quality and for use in edits and
> imputations. At every phase of development, the Census Bureau's
> Disclosure Review Board will review the resulting data files.
>
> The initial survey records/administrative data prototype was a
> combination of one year of data from the March 2001 Annual Social and
> Economic Supplement (ASEC) of the Current Population Survey (CPS) and
> Medicaid data from the 2001 MSIS. The second prototype consisted of
> two years of ASEC data and Medicare data[^1] from the MEDB extract
> file. The third prototype, currently under development, will be 2004
> wave 1 SIPP matched to demographic, public housing assistance, and
> industry codes administrative data.

B. [Administrative Records to SIPP Assessment]{.underline}

> The *Administrative Records to SIPP Assessment Group* is involved in
> ongoing evaluations to determine the current availability of
> administrative data sources that have sufficient national coverage and
> can be obtained in a consistent and timely manner for inclusion in the
> new survey processing. These evaluations are iterative, and will
> continue as the design progresses and the new survey content becomes
> more solidified. As a first step the group attempted to align core
> variables from 1993 SIPP Panel longitudinal file with currently
> available administrative records data including identifying the
> variable(s), defining the coverage of the data source, and determining
> the lag between when the administrative data are collected and when
> they are available at the Census Bureau. Using this 1993 file as a
> starting point is advantageous because it limits the scope and the
> number of items to those previously used for longitudinal data
> analysis. Typical match rates for administrative data to survey data
> are in the low 90 percent range. Examples, by core section, are
> discussed below.

#  **Health Insurance**

• *Medicare* The majority of SIPP items align with a current

administrative records source and a national-level file is available in
April of each calendar year.

• *Medicaid* SIPP Medicaid items align with a current national-level

> administrative records source. However, there is a 3-year lag in
> obtaining this data. There are no administrative data sources for
> Medicaid state expansion or other types of public health insurance.
>
> Assets

##                   •    *Asset ownership,* All aggregate SIPP asset items align with current Internal *gross income,* Revenue Service (IRS) administrative records sources *and net income* IRS 1040, 1099-INT, and 1099-DIV. These national-level 

##  files have negligible delays in delivery to Census. 

##  However, obtaining access may be a time and resource 

intensive activity

###  Labor Force

• *Total earnings* Total earnings from a job(s) or income (loss) from a

> business(es) align with administrative data available from the IRS
> 1040. Access to these data have the same constraints as for assets.

########  Demographics

• *Demographic* Data from the Census Numident and the Person

*characteristics* Characteristics File (PCS), both national files, are
available for some respondent characteristics (e.g., age, Hispanic
origin, race, sex, U.S. citizenship).

> Many programs are administered at the state level. At the current
> time, our access to state data to address receipt of these programs is
> limited. However, this is an area that we will look at closely to
> determine which state partnerships can be developed in order to obtain
> the necessary data files in the future.

##### Administrative Records and Public Use Data Research

As previously indicated, identifying and mitigating any disclosure
issues associated with creating microdata based on a combination of
administrative records and survey data is an important area of ongoing
research. The data user community indicated that it is critical that
they have access to public use microdata from the DEWS without having to
travel to a Census Bureau Research Data Center. Therefore, the Census
Bureau is working with the National Academy of Sciences to have the
Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT) convene a panel of experts in
the fields of survey methods research, administrative records, data
linkage techniques, income measurement, social welfare program policy
analysis, and confidentiality protection. The charge of this expert
panel will be to provide an evaluation, as well as their final
recommendations, (in the form of a published report) addressing: (1) the
costs/benefits of various strategies for data linkage, (2) the
accessibility of relevant administrative records, (3) the operational
feasibility of linking administrative records and survey data, (4) the
quality and usefulness of the linked data, and (5) strategies for
providing public access to the linked data while protecting the
confidentiality of individual respondents as it relates to the DEWS.

Additionally, the Census Bureau's administrative records staff are
currently collaborating with other federal agencies on several projects
involving SIPP data, administrative records, and public use data. A
brief synopsis of these initiatives follows:

1.  [Understanding and Increasing the Utility of SIPP/SSA Data through
    the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Long-Term Retirement, Health
    and Disability Modeling as well as Developing a PUF based on a
    combination of SIPP and SSA]{.underline}

> [Data.]{.underline}

The Census Bureau, SSA, and CBO are collaborating in the development of
a Public Use File (PUF) containing SIPP data linked to SSA
administrative data (including SSA files that contain Federal tax
information). A long-term modeling effort that began in 1999 has already
generated several new tools for studying policy issues such as Social
Security and Medicare. This project extends this work by estimating
individual-level models of retirement decisions, marital transition,
patterns of husband-wife matching across demographic and economic
characteristics, labor force participation; developing methods for
projecting individual earnings for future cohorts of workers and
retirees; as well as studying the relationship between health,
disability, and earnings.

The project involves 4 parts:

A.  Build the Gold Standard - this involves extracting variables from
    all the panels, standardizing them, and then merging on the
    administrative data. From SSA, we receive and merge Average Indexed
    Monthly Earnings (AIME - a summary measure of lifetime earnings used
    to calculate SSA retirement and disability benefits), the PIA
    (Primary Insurance Amount - derived from AIME), the MBA (monthly
    benefit amount), and the TOB (type of benefit - reason for getting
    benefits). Jointly from IRS and SSA , we receive and merge total
    earnings between 1937 and 1951, and annual earnings from 1951
    to 2003. From 1951 to 1977, annual earnings are capped at the FICA
    max. Beginning in 1978, total earnings are uncapped. These earnings
    data come from the W-2 forms filed by employers and NOT from the IRS
    Form 1040.

B.  Synthesize SIPP and IRS/SSA data. An extensive set of programs that

> synthesize all approximately 500 variables from the Gold Standard file
>
> were created.

C.  Test analytic validity. After synthesizing, running regressions and
    calculating other statistics of interest, comparisons are made
    between the synthetic and original data. If the two sets of data are
    not comparable,

> re-evaluation and re-synthesizing are required.

D.  Test for disclosure risk. Sam Hawala of SRD and a John Abowd
    graduate student at the Cornell RDC have attempted to re-identify
    respondents in the public use SIPP files, so far unsuccessfully.
    IRS, SSA, and Census DRB must agree to a public use file release.

> 2\. [SIPP−School Enrollment and Financing]{.underline}
>
> The goal of this project is to improve the quality of the School
> Enrollment and Financing topical module data by linking to a PUF of
> the Integrated Post-Secondary Education Data system (IPEDS), a survey
> conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). This
> SIPP topical module records were matched with IPEDS and
> characteristics of the SIPP respondent's post secondary school (size,
> tuition, percent minority, etc.) were obtained and added to the
> topical module file.

3.  [SIPP for SSA Beneficiaries Study]{.underline}

> This project administered the Wave 6 instrument from the 2001 SIPP
> panel to a separate sample of current Supplemental Security Income
> (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) beneficiaries.
> The instrument contains the core items, and the topical module items
> on assets, liabilities, and eligibility; medical expenses and
> utilization of health care by adults and children; work-related
> expenses; and child support paid. The sample is selected randomly by
> ZIP code by the SSA using sampling guidance provided by the Census
> Bureau, and is designed to yield approximately 1000 interviews for
> each SSA program. This project supplies a micro-data file to SSA,
> supplementing existing SIPP beneficiary lists.

The collective results of the CNSTAT panel and these initiatives will
form the basis for a DEWS data dissemination strategy that will meet the
needs of the data user community while ensuring the confidentiality of
our respondents.

II\. **SURVEY CONTENT, METHODOLOGY, AND DESIGN**

> A. [Survey Content]{.underline}
>
> The *Content Group* will determine the variables collected in the new
> DEWS survey instrument. The group is using the 1993 SIPP Panel
> longitudinal research file as the starting point. Additional variables
> will be added and/or current variables eliminated based on the outcome
> of stakeholder meetings and Census analytical requirements. Another
> source of information on core data usage was a survey conducted by the
> Census Bureau which indicated that 91 percent of users access
> demographic and household composition variables, 73 percent access
> labor force and transfer program variables, 65 percent access job and
> business earnings, and 60 percent access other sources of income.
> Other factors, such as budget constraints, and the final survey
> methodology---including mode of data collection (which is discussed in
> the next section), will also impact the final survey content.
>
> Because there have been changes in SIPP core content since this 1993
> longitudinal file, a brief synopsis of each section of the 1993
> longitudinal file follows:
>
> ***Labor force participation and income*** (e.g., current employment
> status, weeks worked, weeks spent looking for work or on layoff); if
> ***employed by a job or jobs***---the number and name of each
> employer, type of business or industry, the type of work, the
> frequency and amount of pay. If ***owned a business or
> businesses***---the type of business and work, the number of hours
> worked per week, the total number of employees; r***eceipt and***
>
> ***amounts from general income sources*** (e.g., retirement, pension,
> disability, Social Security, Medicare, Supplemental Security Income
> (SSI)); ***public and private health insurance coverage***; ***asset
> ownership and income***; and, ***school enrollment and assistance***.
>
> A series of matrices have been developed to help organize the content
> discussion. Input was solicited from three areas in order to derive
> the final survey content---they are: key stakeholders, Census data
> analysts, and administrative records staff. The goal of these matrices
> is to provide a complete picture of the user's needs and current
> availability of data. Of particular importance in this information
> compilation is an assessment of which data items need collection
> sub-annually and which do not. As will be noted later, many sub-annual
> data items will be collected within the Event History Calendar (EHC).

Because of budget restrictions and concerns about respondent burden, our
vision is that the new survey will also serve as a screening device for
future topic surveys. In other words, two or three questions about child
well-being in the new survey could identify the universe of respondents
for a follow-on survey on the well being of children. Once established,
the core content of the new survey should remain constant.

#### Methodology and Survey Design

####   {#section .unnumbered}

> In conjunction with the Content Group, the *New Survey Group* is
> leading the development of the sample frame, structure, and components
> for a new data collection instrument. The group is developing
> potential options under the following assumptions:
>
> • The system will collect data covering at least three years and have
> the ability to provide sub-annual data for that period.

-   Timeliness of the data file release is critical.

>  Sampling, estimation, and disclosure-proofing strategies can be
> developed to support any options being considered.
>
> 1\. **Level of Detail**
>
> The historical precedent set by the SIPP program is that of detailed
> data on a core set of questions, with topical modules of a broad and
> varied scope added for each wave of interviewing. This scope and
> detail contributed to the complexity of the instrument, the length of
> the interview, and subsequent high attrition rates, all of which we
> hope to reduce with the new survey. The goal of reducing the content
> detail will be to produce a more streamlined survey that will be less
> costly and reduce respondent burden.
>
> 2\. **Periodicity and Question Format**

The current SIPP program administers three waves or interviews in each
year. The interview rotation design means that data are collected in
each of the 12 months of the calendar year in order to level field
resource requirements. This requires a constant level of
production-readiness which encumbered the preparatory and the
post-collection processes, contributing to data products that were not
timely and were also error-prone.

> After consideration of the existing 4 month, a six month, or an annual
> recall period and the costs associated with each, it was decided to
> consider a single annual survey contact in the household with a
> reference period long enough to capture retrospective information on
> sub-annual dynamics. However, this requires a non-traditional approach
> to obtain these month-to-month transitionssuch as an EHC. Research
> has shown that EHCs improve the accuracy of life event reporting by
> facilitating a more natural conversational framework and by
> emphasizing the inter-relationships of events.[^2]
>
> To accomplish this, discussions are ongoing with the University of
> Michigan, who developed the EHC for the Panel Survey of Income
> Dynamics (PSID). While we believe this approach ultimately holds the
> most promise for the DEWS data collection instrument because of the
> improved accuracy of the transition estimates as well as cost savings
> (in terms of interviewing costs), this methodology deviates from
> current Census Bureau methodologyin terms of both instrument
> development[^3] and interviewing procedures. Therefore, it is
> imperative that we pursue this option carefully.
>
> In addition to PSID, several other surveys are using the EHC approach.
> These include:
>
> • National Survey of Family Growth − CDC/NCHS
>
> • National Survey of Adolescent Health (AddHealth) − University of
> North Carolina
>
> • Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey − UCLA
>
> • English Longitudinal Study of Ageing − NatCen UK, University College
> London, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies
>
> • Health and Retirement Study − University of Michigan (National
> Institute on Ageing)
>
> • 1998 National Retrospective Demographic Survey (EDER) − Mexican
> Census Bureau (INEGI)

To begin design of a survey instrument that incorporates an EHC to
obtain sub-annual estimates of events with typically short term spells,
the potential content have been assigned to various conceptsthose that
do no require sub-annual reporting to create meaningful estimates (e.g.,
assets) and those that do (e.g., receipt of and amount of means-tested
welfare programs).

> 3\. **Mode**

Traditionally, SIPP has relied on personal visits by field staff to
establish and maintain rapport with the sample cohort, although over the
life of a longitudinal panel, telephone interviews are encouraged in
order to minimize costs. The mode for the new data collection system is
highly dependent on the complexity of the questionnaire, the budget, and
the desired response rate.

> 4\. **Sample Source and Size**
>
> There are several options for generating a sample frame[^4], each with
> different characteristics and advantages. These options include:

• sampling from the Master Address File (MAF) with

auxiliary data from another source (ex: ACS or

administrative records);

>  sampling directly from ACS interviewed cases;
>
>  using the existing SIPP sample[^5] already identified and
> unduplicated.
>
> The sample size will be determined by the level of reliability
> required for specific estimates as well as the survey's budget. The
> sample size required to produce only reliable national estimates is
> much smaller than what would be needed to produce reliable state
> estimates even for only the largest states.
>
> 5\. **Following Movers**

All of the options being discussed involve following movers. The
methodology will be similar to what is currently being done in the SIPP.

> 6\. **Survey Design**

The current SIPP design includes an oversample for low-income
households. This may still be a requirement for the DEWS, but could
shift to oversampling of other subgroups (the elderly, families with
children, or race/Hispanic subgroups). For any oversampled group,
auxiliary data are needed to determine which cases are in the oversample
group. If oversampling is based on a characteristic that changes over
time, greater sampling efficiencies will be possible by interviewing
within the shortest time possible following the sample selection. For
example, sampling directly from ACS will likely result in the highest
oversampling efficiency, while sampling from the MAF will be a little
less efficient.

> The current SIPP design is clustered into Primary Sampling Units
> (PSUs) for efficiencies in field representative workloads. In order to
> continue with this PSU type design, the sampling frame will need to
> contain a sufficient number of cases within those sampled areas in
> order to ensure equitably sized workloads or, alternatively, the size
> of the PSUs will need to be adjusted.

Finally, the coverage of the frame will need to be taken into account in
evaluating the alternatives sources for the sample.

#### Post Data-Collection Processing

> The *Data Processing Team* has been formed and is charged with
> developing a new SAS-based system to process the DEWS data and create
> and disseminate the internal and public use data products. Information
> concerning team membership and specific tasks are being developed.

III\. **DATA PRODUCTS**

> The primary product of the DEWS, as currently planned, is a series of
> micro-data files that will be publicly released in a timely manner.
> Our original intention was to create a two-year retrospective file
> based on an existing demographic survey and enhanced with current
> administrative data to be released in December 2008. However, comments
> received at the June 8, 2006 stakeholder meeting at the Brookings
> Institute indicated that this file would be of little value to users.
> Therefore, we are re-evaluating the initial data product from the
> DEWS.
>
> The *Data Products Group* will work in parallel with the Survey
> Content, Survey, and Data Processing groups to determine the actual
> data products produced from the new system. This determination will be
> based primarily on the needs of our data users, both internal and
> external and any disclosure issues identified by the Census Bureau's
> Disclosure Review Board. While the Data Products Group has been
> established, work in earnest will not commence until the survey
> methodology is more clearly defined. It is, however, currently
> expected that data products will include all of the following: typical
> public use microdata files, restricted internal files available at the
> Census Bureau and RDCs, and public use files containing synthetic data
> components.
>
> Money was allocated in the 2007 House mark for continued data
> collection for 2004 Panel during FY 2007. Therefore, Waves 9 and 10,
> and Wave 11 if funding permits, core will be collected. As the table
> in Attachment A shows, the last data set of deliverables from the 2004
> SIPP Panel will be released in 2007 and early 2008 ( December,
> January, and February for the Wave 8 topical modules). In addition,
> the Census Bureau will continue to produce analytical reports
> evaluating the 2004 SIPP Panel. Current SIPP P70 reports can be found
> on the Census website at
> [[http://www.sipp.census.gov/sipp/p70/p70s.html.]{.underline}](http://www.sipp.census.gov/sipp/p70/p70s.html.)
> This collection includes a series of report on the Dynamics of
> Economic Well-being (e.g., P70-105, P70-100).

IV\. **STAKEHOLDER SUPPORT**

Stakeholder support is crucial to the success of this new system. We
envision this as a collaborative effort between the Census Bureau and
its many stakeholders during the lifetime of the project. Meetings with
each individual agency to determine its needs are ongoing. As the
development of the system progresses, we will continue to have
inter-agency meetings to discuss our progress as well as any content
issues for inclusion or deletion from the survey that have arisen.

**[CONCLUSION]{.underline}**

During the life of the development of and eventual maintenance of this
project, the structure of the interview, whether it requires personal
visit interviewing, the number of re-interviews, whether movers are
followed, and the requirement to measure program participation and
eligibility must be balanced with cost and sample size considerations.
In addition, the timeliness and utility of data production and release
with respect to collection will be areas needing continuous attention
and review. Among the objectives for this re-engineering are
improvements in the timeliness of data releases with respect to data
collection, and improvement of processing efficiency by simplifying the
structure of the files and the data collection.

Attachment A

2004 SIPP Panel Data Products Release Dates

  ---------- ------------ --------------------------------------- ----------
  **Wave**   **Core       Topical Module ™                        **TM
             Release                                              Release
             Date**                                               Date**

  1          01/2007      Recipiency History                      02/2007

                          Employment History                      02/2007

  2          03/2007      Work Disability History                 03/2007

                          Marital History                         03/2007

                          Fertility History                       03/2007

                          Household Relationships                 03/2007

                          Migration History                       03/2007

                          Education and Training History          03/2007

  3          05/2007      Medical Expenses/Utilization of Health  06/2007
                          Care                                    

                          Work-related Expenses                   06/2007

                          Child Support Paid                      06/2007

                          Child Well-being                        10/2006

                          Assets, Liabilities, and Eligibility    06/2007

  4          08/2007      Annual Income and Retirement Accounts   01/2007

                          Taxes                                   01/2007

                          Work Schedule                           09/2007

                          Child Care                              09/2007

  5          09/2007      Adult Well-being                        04/2007

                          School Enrollment and financing         07/2007

                          Child Support Agreement                 06/2007

                          Support for Non-household Members       07/2007

                          Functional Limitations and Disability  06/2007
                          Adult                                   

                          Functional Limitations and Disability  06/2007
                          Child                                   

                          Employer Provided Health Benefits       07/2007

  6          10/2007      Assets, Liabilities, and Eligibility    11/2007

                          Medical Expenses/Utilization of Health  11/2007
                          Care                                    

                          Work-related Expenses                   11/2007

                          Child Support Paid                      11/2007

  7          11/2007      Annual Income and Retirement Accounts   09/2007

                          Taxes                                   09/2007

                          Retirement and Pension Plan Coverage    01/2008

                          Informal Care-giving                    12/2007

  8          01/2008      Welfare Reform                          01/2008

                          Child Well-being                        02/2008

                          Child Care                              02/2008

  9          02/2008                                              

  10         03/2008                                              

  11         05/2008                                              

  12         08/2008                                              
  ---------- ------------ --------------------------------------- ----------

[^1]: Medicaid data was dropped from the second prototype because the
    time lag for availability of the MSIS is too long.

[^2]: Wiebe, E. and Landis, K. [Evaluation of an Electronic Event
    History Calendar]{.underline}, RTI.

[^3]: All data collection instruments must be in a format that will
    successfully interact with our case management systems. The EHC
    developed for the PSID is a visual basic interface with an ACCESS
    database. The interaction of this type of instrument is currently
    being tested at the Census Bureau to determine the implications to
    either case management or ROSCO.

[^4]: These options will be discussed more fully in the sample design
    section of this document.

[^5]: The 2000 sample redesign selected enough SIPP cases to cover the
    10-year period between decennial censuses. The SIPP sample cases
    that have not been sent to the field are available for the dynamics
    of economic well-being system.