RETIREMENT 

SECURITY

Trends in Marriage 

and Work Patterns 

May Increase 

Economic 

Vulnerability for Some 

Retirees

Report to the Chairman, Special 

Committee on Aging, U.S. Senate

January 2014

GAO-14-33

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-33, a report to the 

Chairman, Special Committee on Aging, U.S. 

Senate

January 2014

RETIREMENT SECURITY

Trends in Marriage and Work Patterns May Increase 

Economic Vulnerability for Some Retirees

Why GAO Did This Study

Marriage has historically helped protect 

the financial health of couples and 

surviving spouses in old age. Based on

their marriage, and independent of 

their own work history, spouses may 

receive retirement and survivor income 

through Social Security and some 

employer-sponsored pension plans. 

Many of the federal requirements 

governing these benefits were 

developed at a time when family 

structures, work patterns, and 

pensions were very different from what 

they are today. In recent decades, 

marriage has become less common, 

more households have two earners 

rather than one, and many employers 

have shifted from DB plans to DC

plans. In light of these trends, GAO 

was asked to examine the issue of 

marriage and retirement security. 

Specifically, GAO examined: (1) the 

trends in and status of marriage and 

labor force participation in American 

households, (2) how those trends have 

affected spousal benefits and 

retirement savings behavior within 

households today, and (3) the 

implications of these trends for future 

retirement security. GAO analyzed 

nationally representative survey data 

including the Survey of Consumer 

Finances, the Survey of Income and 

Program Participation, and the Current 

Population Survey (CPS); conducted a

broad literature review; and 

interviewed agency officials and a 

range of experts in the area of 

retirement security.

GAO is making no recommendations.

GAO received technical comments on 

a draft of this report from the 

Department of Labor and the 

Department of the Treasury, and 

incorporated them, as appropriate.

What GAO Found

Over the last 50 years, the composition and work patterns of the American 

household have changed dramatically. During this period, the proportion of 

unmarried and never-married individuals in the population increased steadily as 

couples chose to marry at later ages and live together prior to marriage (see 

figure). At the same time, the proportion of single-parent households more than 

doubled. These trends were more pronounced for individuals with lower levels of 

income and education and for certain racial and ethnic groups. Over the same 

period, labor force participation among married women nearly doubled.

Marital Status over Time: 1960-2010*

*These statistics represent a snap shot of marital status at a particular point in time. Percentages 

within the not married sub-categories may not sum to the not married total due to rounding. 

Taken together, these trends have resulted in a decline in the receipt of spousal 

and survivor benefits and married women contributing more to household 

retirement savings. From 1960 through 2011, the percentage of women aged 62

and older receiving Social Security benefits based purely on their spouse’s (or 

deceased spouse’s) work record declined from 56 to 25. At the same time, the 

percentage of women receiving benefits based purely on their own work records 

rose from 39 to 48. Further, as of 2010, among married households receiving 

pensions, 40 percent had elected not to receive a survivor benefit. Rising labor 

force participation among married women enabled them to contribute more to 

household retirement savings. From 1992 to 2010, married women’s average 

contributions to household retirement savings increased from 20 to 38 percent. 

In the future, fewer retirees will receive spousal or survivor benefits from Social 

Security and private employer-sponsored pension plans, increasing 

vulnerabilities for some. Eligibility for Social Security spousal benefits among 

women is projected to decline, in part, because fewer women are expected to

qualify based on marital history and more are expected to qualify for their own 

benefit based on their own work record. For many women, this shift will be 

positive, reflecting their greater earnings and capacity to save for retirement. 

However, women with low levels of lifetime earnings and no spouse or spousal 

benefit may face greater risk of poverty in old age. For private plans, the shift 

from defined benefit (DB) to defined contribution (DC) plans increases the 

vulnerability of spouses because of different federal protections for spouses 

under these plans. DB plans are required to offer survivor benefits, which can 

only be waived with spousal consent. In contrast, DC plan participants generally 

do not need spousal consent to withdraw funds from the account.

View GAO-14-33. For more information, 

contact Charles Jeszeck at (202) 512-7215 or 

jeszeckc@gao.gov
Page i GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security

Letter 1 

Background 3

The Composition and Work Patterns of the Family Have Changed 

Dramatically in the Past 50 Years 12

Trends in Marriage and Work Patterns Have Resulted in Fewer 

Women Receiving Social Security Spousal Benefits and 

Married Women Contributing More to Household Savings 27

The Decline in Receipt of Spousal Benefits Is Likely to Increase 

Some Retirees’ Economic Vulnerability 36

Concluding Observations 50

Agency Comments 51

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methods 52

Appendix II Selected Social Security Policy Options That May Offset Effects of 

Changes in Marital Patterns 69

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 82

Tables

Table 1: Selected Federal Requirements Related to Spousal 

Benefits or Protections in Social Security Retirement 

Benefits, Defined Benefit and Defined Contribution Plans, 

and Individual Retirement Accounts 6

Table 2: Selected Social Security Retirement Benefit Types and 

Characteristics 8

Table 3: Data Sources Used for Each Reporting Objective 53

Table 4: Characteristics of Female Social Security Beneficiaries: 

2011 62

Table 5: Comparison of Wealth and Income Characteristics of 

Married Female Social Security Beneficiaries: 2011 63

Table 6: Characteristics of Households Currently Receiving 

Pension Income 65

Table 7: Characteristics of Working-age Households 66

Table 8: Selected Policy Options That Target Spouses and 

Survivors 70

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security

Table 9: Selected Policy Options That Target All Elderly, 

Regardless of Marital Status 76

Figures

Figure 1: Poverty Rate Estimates of the Population Age 65 and 

Older, by Marital Status and Sex, 2012 5

Figure 2: Estimated Percentage of Population Age 15 and Older 

by Marital Status: 1960-2010 14

Figure 3: Estimated Number of Unmarried Couples (in 

Thousands): 1996-2012 15

Figure 4: Among All Families, Estimated Percentage of SingleParent Families by Sex of Head of Household: 1970-

2012 16

Figure 5: Estimated Percentage of Married Individuals by Race 

and Gender over Time: 1960-2010 17

Figure 6: Estimated Percentage of Families Headed by a Single 

Parent by Race: 1970-2012 18

Figure 7: Among People Age 45-54, Estimated Percentage of 

Married Men and Women, and Unmarried Parents, by 

Highest and Lowest Income Quintiles: 1960-2010 19

Figure 8: Among People Age 18 and Older, Estimated Percentage 

of Married Men and Women, and Unmarried Parents, by 

Education Level: 1960-2010 20

Figure 9: Estimated Labor Force Participation Rates by Sex and 

Marital Status: 1960-2010 21

Figure 10: Estimated Labor Force Participation Rates among 

Women with Children of Different Ages: 1975-2010 22

Figure 11: Among Married Households, Estimated Percentage of 

Married Households in Which Both Husband and Wife 

Have Earnings, Only the Husband Has Earnings, and 

Only the Wife Has Earnings: 1967-2010 24

Figure 12: Among Mothers Who Worked prior to the Birth of Their 

First Child, Length of Time off Taken for Caregiving, by 

Year First Child Was Born 25

Figure 13: Percentage of All Women Age 62 or Older by Social 

Security Benefit Status over Time 28

Figure 14: Estimated Percentage of Women Ineligible for Social 

Security Spouse or Widow Benefits Because of Marital 

History among 50-59 Year Olds by Race: 1990 and 2009 29

Figure 15: Education Levels of Women Receiving Social Security 

Benefits Based on Their Own Work Record (Retired 
Page iii GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security

Worker), Their Spouse’s Work Record (Spouse-only) or 

Both (Dually-entitled/Spouse): 2011 31

Figure 16: Among Married Households Age 55-64 Years Old, 

Average Proportion of Household Retirement Savings 

(Defined Contribution Plans and Individual Retirement 

Accounts) Contributed by Each Spouse: 2010. 33

Figure 17: Among All Households Age 50-64, Percentage of 

Households with Retirement Savings (in Defined 

Contribution Plans and Individual Retirement Accounts) 

and Among Households with Savings, the Median Levels 

of Savings 2010 34

Figure 18: Projected Distribution of Social Security Beneficiary 

Type by Sex, Age 62 and Older: 2012 to 2040 39

Figure 19: Projected Distribution of Social Security Beneficiary 

Type for Women by Race, Age 62 and Older: 2012 to 

2040 41

Figure 20: Examples of Social Security Retirement and Survivor 

Income by Household Structure 44
Page iv GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security

Abbreviations

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

Census U.S. Census Bureau

CPS Current Population Survey

DB defined benefit

DC defined contribution

DOMA Defense of Marriage Act

ERISA Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974

Federal Reserve Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

IPUMS Integrated Public Use Microdata Series

IRA individual retirement account

IRC Internal Revenue Code

QDRO qualified domestic relations order

QJSA qualified joint and survivor annuity

QPSA qualified preretirement survivor annuity

MINT6 Modeling Income in the Near Term model, 

Version 6

SCF Survey of Consumer Finances

SIPP Survey of Income and Program Participation 

SSA Social Security Administration

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

January 15, 2014

The Honorable Bill Nelson

Chairman

Special Committee on Aging

United States Senate

Dear Chairman Nelson:

Historically, the institution of marriage has served to help protect the 

financial health of couples, especially couples and surviving spouses in 

old age. Indeed, based on their marriage, spouses may receive 

retirement and survivor income from Social Security and some employersponsored pension plans.1 More specifically, Social Security retirement 

benefits—the most common type of retirement income—are available to 

individuals who are spouses, widows/widowers, and in some cases 

former spouses, of workers who qualify for Social Security retirement 

benefits based on their work history. In addition, private sector defined 

benefit (DB) plans are required by federal law to include a survivor’s 

benefit for spouses.2

However, many of the policies governing spousal retirement benefits 

were developed at a time when family structures, labor force participation 

patterns, and retirement plans were very different than they are today. In 

recent decades, marriage has become less common, and for those who 

do marry, it is common for both spouses to work. Further, private sector 

 

1

Relevant federal laws governing these benefits include the Social Security Act, which 

governs the Social Security Old-Age and Survivors Insurance program (referred to in this 

report as Social Security retirement benefits), as well as the Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), which govern certain 

employer-sponsored pension plans. 

2

DB plans typically offer retirement benefits to a retiree in the form of an annuity that 

provides a monthly payment for life, the value of which is typically determined by a formula 

based on particular factors specified by the plan, such as salary or years of service. 

ERISA generally requires that covered DB plans pay benefits in the form of a qualified 

joint and survivor annuity (QJSA), unless certain waiver requirements are met, including 

the spouse’s written consent. 
 

Page 2 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

employers have shifted away from DB plans to defined contribution (DC) 

plans, which generally confer fewer benefits for spouses.3

Given these trends, the Senate Special Committee on Aging requested 

that GAO examine the issue of marriage and retirement security. 

Specifically, we examined (1) the trends in and status of marriage and 

labor force participation in American households, (2) how those trends 

have affected spousal benefits and retirement savings behavior within 

households today, and (3) the implications of these trends for future 

retirement security.

To address these questions, we analyzed several nationallyrepresentative datasets, conducted an extensive literature review, and 

consulted with a wide range of experts. Specifically, to understand trends 

in family structure and work patterns, we analyzed data from the 1996 

and 2008 panels of the Survey of Income and Program Participation 

(SIPP); the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS); and recent 

U.S. Census Bureau (Census) and Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 

publications, which report on analyses of nationally-representative 

datasets such as the Current Population Survey (CPS). To determine the 

characteristics of the population receiving Social Security spousal 

benefits, we analyzed the 2008 restricted-use version of the SIPP data—

known as the “Gold Standard” file—SIPP data that have been matched to 

administrative data on earnings and benefits from the Social Security 

Administration (SSA).4

 

3

Under DC plans, such as 401(k) plans, workers and employers may make contributions 

to individual accounts. In contrast to DB plans, DC plans are not generally required to offer 

a lifetime annuity and DC plans more often provide participants with a lump sum 

distribution as the only option.

To determine the characteristics of the population 

receiving spousal benefits through pensions, we used the 2010 version of 

the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF), conducted by the Board of 

Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve). We also 

used the 2010 SCF to analyze retirement savings behavior among 

working-age households. To project the distribution of Social Security 

beneficiary types for women into the future, officials from the Office of 

Retirement Policy at SSA provided GAO with projections based on 

4

The analysis of the restricted SIPP data was made possible through the use of the SIPP 

Synthetic Beta data, which was funded by the Census Bureau and SSA, with additional 

funding from NSF Grants #0427889 and #0339191. The Synthetic Data Server is funded 

through NSF grant SES-1042181.
 

Page 3 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

simulations they conducted with the Modeling Income in the Near Term 

model, Version 6 (MINT6). We conducted data reliability assessments of 

selected IPUMS, SIPP, SCF, and MINT6 data by conducting electronic 

data tests for completeness and accuracy, reviewing documentation on 

the dataset, or interviewing knowledgeable officials about how the data 

are collected and maintained and their appropriate uses. For the 

purposes of our analysis, we found the variables that we ultimately 

reported on to be sufficiently reliable.5 Lastly, to deepen our 

understanding of our data analyses and to understand the implications of 

demographic trends for retirement security, we conducted an extensive 

literature review and interviewed 49 experts from federal agencies, 

academia, advocacy groups, think tanks, and industry. We identified and 

interviewed experts who have specialized knowledge about spousal 

protections and retirement security in a specific area (e.g., law or social 

science), or who were recommended by one or more people or groups 

we had previously interviewed.6

We conducted this performance audit from September 2012 through 

January 2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence we obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

A number of financial benefits associated with the institution of marriage 

relate to the ability of a couple to pool resources, specialize, and share 

risk. Specifically, married people can pool resources and share costs of 

 

5

Because these data sources are probability samples, our results based on these data 

sources are estimates and subject to sampling error. In this report, sampling errors for 

estimates are presented along with their associated margins of error at the 95% 

confidence level. With the exception of the MINT projections, for which SSA does not 

typically produce confidence intervals, any differences between point estimates discussed 

in this report are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level unless otherwise 

noted. Please refer to appendix I for additional information on sampling error.

6

For additional details on our scope and methods, see appendix I. 

Background

Financial Benefits of 

Marriage
 

Page 4 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

household goods and services, which reduces the overall cost of items 

that do not need to be purchased individually and frees up resources for 

other types of investments. In addition, within married couples, even 

those in which both are working, each member can specialize in certain 

tasks, such as managing household finances. The financial benefits of 

marriage can carry over into retirement as couples continue to pool 

resources and assist each other as the risks of disability and deteriorating 

health increase.

Conversely, several factors contribute to the economic vulnerability of 

single retirees. First, single retirees living alone do not benefit from 

sharing the cost of living expenses and caregiving. According to the 

Census Bureau’s poverty measures, a single person age 65 or older 

needs 79 percent of the income of a two-person household.7 Moreover, 

unmarried individuals are more vulnerable to economic shocks, such as 

job loss, than their married counterparts. The unmarried, especially single 

parents, also tend to have fewer resources available to save for 

retirement during their working years. For example, a 2009 study shows 

that among all women age 35-54, never-married women with children had 

the lowest level of pension plan participation among all family types.8

 

7

Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Jessica C. Smith, U. S. Census 

Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2012, 

Current Population Reports, P60-245 (Washington, D.C.: September 2013).

Taken together, these factors are likely to contribute to the higher poverty 

rates observed among unmarried individuals age 65 or older 

(see fig. 1).

8

See Karen C. Holden and Angela Fontes, “Economic Security in Retirement: How 

Changes in Employment and Marriage Have Altered Retirement-Related Economic Risks 

for Women,” Journal of Women, Politics, & Policy, vol. 30 (2009), 173-197. 
 

Page 5 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Figure 1: Poverty Rate Estimates of the Population Age 65 and Older, by Marital 

Status and Sex, 2012

Note: All estimates in this figure have 95 percent confidence intervals within +/- 4.1 percentage 

points. Estimates of the poverty rates for married people have confidence intervals within +/- 0.6 

percentage points.

Federal law also confers a number of benefits and protections for married 

spouses or former spouses.9

 

9

Under the Internal Revenue Code, the federal income tax liability of a married couple 

may not be the same as that of two similarly-situated single taxpayers. Depending on the 

circumstances, there could be either a marriage penalty (married couple owes more tax) 

or a marriage bonus (married couple owes less tax). 

In the case of certain types of retirement 

income, spouses or former spouses may receive retirement and survivor 

income based exclusively on marriage, independent of their own work 

history. This report focuses on four main sources of retirement income: 

(1) Social Security retirement benefits, (2) defined benefit (DB) plans, (3) 

defined contribution (DC) plans, and (4) individual retirement accounts 
 

Page 6 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

(IRA).10

Table 1: Selected Federal Requirements Related to Spousal Benefits or Protections in Social Security Retirement Benefits, 

Defined Benefit and Defined Contribution Plans, and Individual Retirement Accounts

Each of these is subject to different federal requirements and 

provides varying types and levels of protections to spouses of workers 

who are eligible for Social Security, participate in an employer sponsored 

DB or DC plan, or own an IRA. Examples of these requirements are 

summarized in table 1 and described in greater detail below.

Marital Status at Retirement

Source of Retirement 

Income Married Widowed Divorced

Social Security 

Retirement Benefits

An eligible spouse is entitled to 

receive up to 50% of the retired 

worker’s benefit, unless the 

spouse is entitled to a higher 

benefit based on his or her own 

work history.

An eligible surviving spouse is 

entitled to receive up to 100% of 

the deceased worker’s benefit, 

unless the survivor is entitled to a 

higher benefit based on his or 

her own work history. a

If the marriage lasted at least 10 

years, an eligible divorced spouse 

is entitled to receive up to 50% of 

the divorced retired worker’s 

benefit (a surviving divorced 

spouse is entitled to receive up to 

100% of the deceased worker’s 

benefit), unless the spouse is 

entitled to a retired worker benefit 

that is higher.

a

Defined Benefit (DB) 

Plans

a, b

DB plans and some DC plans must provide benefits in the form of a 

qualified joint and survivor annuity (QJSA) or qualified preretirement 

survivor annuity (QPSA), meaning the spouse is entitled to receive 

annuity payments for his or her life should the participant spouse die 

either before or after retirement. The QJSA or QPSA may be waived 

only with the written consent of the spouse, witnessed by a plan 

representative or notary. For the QJSA, the survivor benefit must be 

at least half of the benefit payment the participant received during 

their joint lives.

Benefits provided to a former 

spouse will depend on the plan 

and the divorce settlement. A DB 

or DC plan may assign benefits to 

a spouse or former spouse 

pursuant to a divorce if the 

assignment is governed by a 

qualified domestic relations order 

(QDRO).

Defined Contribution (DC) 

Plans

DC plans that meet the following criteria are not required to offer 

QPSAs or QJSAsc : (1) the plan provides that 100% of the 

participant’s vested account balance is to be paid to the surviving 

spouse upon the death of the participant; (2) the participant does 

not elect a life annuity; and (3) the participant’s account does not 

include transfers from a plan subject to the standard QJSA/QPSA 

benefit rules (e.g., transfers from a money purchase or a DB plan). 

Written spousal consent is required to designate a non-spousal 

beneficiary. DC plans that meet these criteria may allow the 

employee, during his or her lifetime, to make withdrawals from the 

account or roll over the balance into an IRA without spousal 

consent.d

 

10This report focuses on the retirement income of private sector workers and their 

spouses; the retirement income of public sector (federal, state, and local government) 

workers was beyond the scope of this review.

 
 

Page 7 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Marital Status at Retirement

Source of Retirement 

Income Married Widowed Divorced

Individual Retirement 

Accounts

There is no federal requirement to provide individual retirement 

account (IRA) benefits to a spouse unless he or she is a beneficiary.

In general, an IRA owner may, during his or her lifetime, make 

withdrawals from the account without spousal consent.d Upon the 

death of the IRA owner, any remaining assets are to be distributed 

to the designated beneficiary(ies), if any. If there are none, assets 

will be distributed in accordance with the terms of the IRA 

documents and applicable state inheritance laws.

Benefits provided to a former 

spouse will depend on the IRA 

documents and divorce 

settlement. An IRA owner may 

transfer IRA assets tax-free into 

an IRA for a spouse or former 

spouse under a divorce 

instrument. e

Source: GAO analysis of applicable federal laws and regulations.

d

Notes: The specific benefits or protections a person may receive may vary depending on the 

individual circumstances, and additional requirements may apply that are not described here.

This table is limited to the following types of retirement income: Old-Age and Survivors Insurance 

benefits under the Social Security Act, DC and DB plans subject to regulation under the Employee 

Retirement Income Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code, and IRAs subject to requirements of 

the Internal Revenue Code.

a

Other factors may affect the actual benefit amount. For example, actuarial reductions apply if 

workers/spouses claim benefits before full retirement age (which varies depending on the person’s 

year of birth), with different size reductions for workers and spouses. Delayed retirement credits apply 

if they wait to collect benefits until after full retirement age.

b

Special rules apply if a worker has been married more than once.

c

Some DC plans, such as money purchase plans, are required to comply with the same requirements 

as DB plans (i.e., provide a QJSA or QPSA, and require the spouse’s written consent to change this 

form of benefit).

d

Pre-retirement withdrawals from DC plans and IRAs may be subject to tax penalties.

e

Social Security: Social Security has been instrumental in reducing 

poverty among the elderly. From 1959 to 2007, the poverty rate for 

people age 65 and over decreased from about 35 percent to 9.7 percent, 

according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates. Experts have attributed 

much of this decline to the availability of Social Security benefits, which 

are also available to spouses and widows. Although Social Security is not 

meant to be the sole source of income for retirees, in 2011 nearly onequarter of married beneficiaries and 45 percent of unmarried elderly 

beneficiaries age 65 and older relied on Social Security for at least 90 

percent of their income, according to the Social Security Administration.

Although the Internal Revenue Code provides for certain advantages for a spouse who is a 

designated beneficiary, the IRA owner is not required to designate his or her spouse as a beneficiary. 

There is also no federal requirement that an IRA owner obtain spousal consent before designating a 

non-spouse beneficiary. However, in states with community property laws, the surviving spouse may 

be entitled to some of the IRA assets if he or she had not consented to the alternate beneficiary 

designation.
 

Page 8 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Table 2 below describes selected types of Social Security retirement 

benefits, eligibility criteria, and benefit levels for each type of benefit.11 In 

this report, spousal benefits refer to both spouse-only and duallyentitled/spouse benefits. Survivor benefits refer to both widow(er)-only 

and dually-entitled/widow(er) benefits. Over the course of retirement, 

individuals can receive different types of Social Security retirement 

benefits. For example, an individual may receive retired-worker benefits 

while their spouse is alive (because their retired-worker benefit exceeds 

50 percent of their spouse’s benefit) but when the spouse dies, may 

receive a dually-entitled widow(er) benefit because their own retiredworker benefit does not exceed 100 percent of their spouse’s benefit.12

Table 2: Selected Social Security Retirement Benefit Types and Characteristics

Basis for Benefit

Benefit Types Eligibility and Benefit Levela Own work 

history

Spouse’s 

work history 

Has own 

qualifying work 

history, but 

benefit based 

on the spouse’s 

work history is 

higher

Retired worker A retired worker is eligible for benefits based on his or 

her work record and receives a benefit amount based 

on lifetime earnings, among other factors.

X 

Spouse-only The spouse of a retired worker (including an eligible 

divorced spouse) is eligible to receive a benefit of up to 

50% of the retired worker’s benefit amount. Spouseonly beneficiaries do not qualify to receive benefits 

based on their own work record; for example, because 

they did not work at all or because they did not work 

long enough. 

X 

 

11See generally 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.

12Social Security spousal and survivor benefits may be offset in certain circumstances due 

to the Social Security Windfall Elimination Provision or the Government Pension Offset. 

For more information on these provisions, see GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential 

Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-

318SP (Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2011).
 

Page 9 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Basis for Benefit

Benefit Types Eligibility and Benefit Levela Own work history

Spouse’s 

work history 

Has own 

qualifying work 

history, but 

benefit based 

on the spouse’s 

work history is 

higher

Dually-entitled/spouse A dually-entitled spouse (including an eligible divorced 

spouse) has a qualifying work history but receives a 

benefit based on the work records of his or her spouse 

because the spouse’s benefit is higher. The benefit 

amount may be up to 50% of the retired worker’s 

benefit amount. 

X 

Widow(er)-only The widow(er) of a retired worker (including an eligible 

surviving divorced spouse) is eligible to receive a 

survivor benefit of up to 100% of the deceased retired 

worker’s benefit amount. Widow(er)-only beneficiaries 

do not qualify to receive benefits based on their own 

work record; for example, because they did not work at 

all or because they did not work long enough.

X 

Duallyentitled/widow(er)A dually-entitled widow(er) (including an eligible 

surviving divorced spouse) has a qualifying work 

history but receives a survivor benefit based on the 

work records of his or her spouse because the 

spouse’s benefit is higher. The benefit amount may be 

up to 100% of the deceased retired worker’s benefit 

amount.

X 

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by SSA and applicable federal laws and regulations.

Note: This table lists some of the benefits available under Social Security’s Old-Age and Survivors 

Insurance program. For the purposes of this report, this table does not describe other Social Security 

program benefits, such as those based on a worker’s disability or for dependent children. Divorced 

spouses and divorced survivors may qualify to receive all four types of spousal and survivor benefits 

based on a previous marriage to a retired worker if the marriage lasted at least 10 years. For a more 

comprehensive description of spouse and survivor benefits, see Alison M. Shelton and Dawn 

Nuschler, Congressional Research Service, Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and 

Survivors (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 5, 2010).

a

Defined benefit plans: DB plans typically offer benefits to a retiree in the 

form of an annuity that provides a monthly payment for life, the value of 

which is typically determined by a formula based on particular factors 

specified by the plan, such as salary and years of service. An annuity can 

help to protect a retiree against risks, including the risk of outliving one’s 

assets (longevity risk) and, when an inflation-adjusted annuity is provided, 

the risk of inflation diminishing one’s purchasing power. The Retirement 

Equity Act of 1984 required that DB plans provide benefits in the form of a 

qualified joint and survivor annuity (QJSA) or qualified preretirement 

SSA uses a formula to calculate a retired worker’s benefits, which typically takes into account the 

worker’s highest 35 years of earnings, and adjusts or “indexes” each year of earnings to account for 

changes in average wages since the year the earnings were received. Other factors, such as the age 

of the worker and/or the spouse or widow(er), may affect the actual benefit amount for each 

beneficiary.
 

Page 10 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

survivor annuity (QPSA), unless waived by the worker and his or her 

spouse.13

Defined contribution plans: Under DC plans, workers and employers 

may make contributions to individual accounts. The most common type of 

DC plan is the 401(k) plan, which typically allows workers to contribute a 

portion of their pretax compensation to the plan, and may also provide for 

after-tax or employer contributions, depending on the plan. In contrast to 

DB plans, DC plan sponsors are generally not required to offer a lifetime 

annuity and most plans do not offer an annuity option, according to a 

study conducted for the Department of Labor.

Some DB plans also give participants a choice to take lumpsum cash settlements, which could then be rolled over into an IRA, 

instead of taking a lifetime annuity.

14

Individual Retirement Accounts: Individual retirement accounts (IRAs), 

which may allow workers to receive favorable tax treatment for making 

contributions to an individual account,

Instead, at retirement, DC 

participants may take a lump sum or partial distribution, leave their money 

in the plan, roll their plan savings into an IRA, or purchase an annuity, 

depending on the options available under the plan.

15 and also generally accept rollover 

distributions from 401(k) and other retirement plans, are one of the fastest 

growing types of retirement assets in the United States, according to the 

Investment Company Institute, a national association of U.S. investment 

companies. As of the third quarter of 2013, IRA assets totaled 

approximately $6 trillion, accounting for 28 percent of U.S. retirement 

assets, according to the Investment Company Institute. 

In 2013, same-sex spouses became eligible for a number of federal 

benefits for the first time since the first state allowed same-sex marriages 

in 2004. In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a provision of 

the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which had established an oppositesex definition of “marriage” and “spouse” for any act of Congress or any 

 

13See 29 U.S.C. § 1055.

14See Michael J. Brien and Constantijn W.A. Panis, Annuities in the Context of Defined 

Contribution Plans, a study prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor, November 2011. 

In some limited circumstances, DC plans may be required to offer a QJSA or QPSA. 29 

U.S.C. § 1055(b)(1)(B)-(C). 

15See 26 U.S.C. § 408.

Same-Sex Marriages
 

Page 11 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

ruling, regulation, or interpretation by federal bureaus and agencies.16 As 

a result of DOMA, enacted in 1996, same-sex couples married under 

state law were not covered by some of the federal requirements 

described above; for example, sponsors of private-sector pensions 

regulated by ERISA were not required to offer survivor benefits to samesex spouses. At the time of this report’s issuance, the Executive Branch 

had issued some guidance and was in the process of determining what 

additional guidance to issue, or other actions to take, in response to the 

U.S. Supreme Court ruling.17

Today, working-age households face a host of challenges in saving for 

retirement. First, less than half (46 percent) of all workers age 16 and 

older participated in some form of employment-based pension plan in 

2012,18 raising concerns about the adequacy of retirement savings 

among future retirees. Second, employers have been moving from DB to 

DC plans. Further, many of the remaining DB plans now offer lump sums 

as one of the form-of-payment options under the plan;19 participants who 

elect a lump sum do so in lieu of a lifetime annuity. Some DB plan 

sponsors have also begun offering special, one-time lump sum elections 

to participants who are already retired and receiving monthly pension 

benefits;20

 

16United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013).

participants who accept such offers give up their lifetime 

17For example, on September 18, 2013, the Department of Labor issued guidance 

explaining its interpretation of the definitions of “spouse” and “marriage” under ERISA, in 

light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision. See Technical Release No. 2013-04. On August 

29, 2013, the Department of the Treasury and the IRS ruled that same-sex couples, 

legally married in jurisdictions that recognize their marriages, will be treated as married for 

federal tax purposes. The ruling applies regardless of whether the couple lives in a 

jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex marriage or a jurisdiction that does not recognize 

same-sex marriage. Rev. Rul. 2013-17, 2013-38 I.R.B. 201. In addition, according to SSA 

officials, the agency is processing some types of claims for members of same-sex married 

couples and paying benefits when they are due. SSA is also working with the Department 

of Justice to develop and implement additional policies and processing instructions related 

to the Windsor decision. 

18Craig Copeland, Retirement Plan Participation: Survey of Income and Program 

Participation (SIPP) Data, 2012, EBRI Notes, vol. 34, no. 8, Employee Benefit Research 

Institute (Washington, D.C.: August 2013).

19Sudipto Banerjee, “Annuity and Lump-Sum Decisions in Defined Benefit Plans: The 

Role of Plan Rules,” EBRI Issue Brief, no. 381 (January 2013).

20JPMorgan Chase & Co., Pension Pulse (New York, N.Y.: Fall 2012).

State of the U.S. 

Retirement System and 

Economy
 

Page 12 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

annuity. As a result of all of these trends and actions, those who do 

participate in an employer-sponsored plan have increasing responsibility 

to manage their pensions and other financial assets so that they have a 

sufficiently adequate income throughout retirement. However, recent 

research suggests that as life expectancy continues to increase, many 

Americans—including baby boomers, who are beginning to retire in 

greater numbers—may outlive their retirement assets.

The trends in the U.S. economy overall have exacerbated the challenges 

households face in saving for retirement. The 2007-2009 recession 

resulted in major stock indices falling dramatically, reducing retirement 

savings at a critical time for those in or near retirement. Further, the 

recession led to higher rates of unemployment among older workers. 

Prior GAO work has shown that long-term unemployment can reduce an 

older worker’s future retirement income in numerous ways, including 

reducing the number of years the worker can accumulate savings, 

prompting workers to claim Social Security retirement benefits early, and 

leading workers to draw down retirement savings to pay for living 

expenses during unemployment.21

Since 1960, marriage rates in the United States have been declining. 

From 1960 through 2010, the proportion of the population age 15 and 

above that is married declined from 68 to 54 percent (see fig. 2). Over the 

same period, the proportion of divorced individuals increased from 2 to 10 

percent, and the proportion of individuals who were never married 

 

21GAO, Unemployed Older Workers: Many Experience Challenges Regaining 

Employment and Face Reduced Retirement Security, GAO-12-445 (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 25, 2012).

The Composition and 

Work Patterns of the 

Family Have 

Changed 

Dramatically in the 

Past 50 Years

As Marriage Has Declined, 

Cohabitation and Single 

Parenthood Have 

Increased
 

Page 13 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

climbed from 22 to 31 percent.22 These statistics represent a snapshot at 

a particular point in time. Therefore, those who were unmarried at one 

point in time might marry at a later point in time and vice versa. One 

reason for the rising proportion of the never-married is that many people 

have begun getting married later in life. According to the Census Bureau, 

from 1960 through 2011, the median age of first marriage increased from 

an estimated 20 to 27 for women and 23 to 29 for men.

 

22Despite the growth in the proportion of the divorced population, the divorce rate has 

actually leveled off in recent years. According to data from the National Center for Health 

Statistics, the annual divorce rate for married women increased from 15 to 20 divorces per 

1,000 married women between 1970 and 1975 and remained at that level through the 

mid-1990s. However, for individuals 50 and older, the divorce rate between 1990 and 

2010 more than doubled. See Rose M. Kreider and Renee Ellis, U.S. Census Bureau, 

Number, Timing, and Duration of Marriages and Divorces: 2009, Current Population 

Reports, Household Economic Studies, P70-125 (Washington, D.C.: May 2011), and 

Susan L. Brown and I-Fen Lin, “The Gray Divorce Revolution: Rising Divorce Among 

Middle-Aged and Older Adults, 1990-2010” Journals of Gerontology Series B: 

Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, vol. 67 no. 6, 731-741 (2012).
 

Page 14 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Figure 2: Estimated Percentage of Population Age 15 and Older by Marital Status: 1960-2010

Note: All estimates in this figure have margins of error at the 95% confidence level that are less than 

or equal to 0.6 percentage points. These statistics represent a snap shot at a particular point in time. 

Therefore, those who were unmarried at one point in time might become married at a later point in 

time and vice versa. Percentages within the not married sub-categories may not sum to the not 

married total due to rounding.

Over the past two decades it has also become more common for single 

people to live together before they get married. Specifically, between 

1995 and 2006-2010, the percentage of women who cohabited as a first 

union increased from 34 to 48 percent, according to a study by the 

Department of Health and Human Services.23

 

23Casey E. Copen, Kimberly Daniels, and William D. Mosher, U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for 

Health Statistics, “First Premarital Cohabitation in the United States: 2006-2010 National 

Survey of Family Growth,” National Health Statistics Reports, Number 64 (Atlanta, GA: 

April 4, 2013).

Overall, the number of 

unmarried cohabiting couples climbed from 2.9 to 7.8 million from 1996 

through 2012, according to CPS estimates (see fig. 3). A significant 

proportion of these households have children under 18 years old. These 

households do not include same-sex partnerships. Due to limitations in 
 

Page 15 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

the way these data are collected, both the number of same-sex 

cohabitating couples and same-sex married couples are unclear.24

Figure 3: Estimated Number of Unmarried Couples (in Thousands): 1996-2012

Note: All estimates in this figure have margins of error at the 95% confidence level that are less than 

or equal to 300,000. It should be noted that the jump between 2006 and 2007 occurred because of a 

change in measurement: in 2007, the Census Bureau began asking a direct question in the CPS 

Annual Social and Economic Supplement about the presence of unmarried partners. According to 

Census Bureau analyses, the increase between 2009 and 2010 appears to reflect a true increase.

Along with the increase in unmarried couples with children over the last 

several decades, the percentage of single-parent families rose. In fact, 

according to CPS estimates, from 1970 through 2012, the proportion of 

single-parent families more than doubled, increasing from 13 to 32 

percent of all families. The vast majority of single-parent households were 

headed by women (see fig. 4).

 

24A federal interagency group, headed by the Office of Management and Budget, is 

investigating new methodologies for gathering and utilizing household relationship data in 

federal surveys, with a primary goal of improving statistics on same-sex couple 

households. While there is no established timetable, new question wording and survey 

formats are being assessed in large-scale field tests. If successful, they may be 

implemented more broadly. 
 

Page 16 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Figure 4: Among All Families, Estimated Percentage of Single-Parent Families by Sex of Head of Household: 1970-2012

Note: All estimates in this figure have margins of error at the 95% confidence level that are less than 

or equal to 0.4 percentage points. Note that the drop seen in 2007 occurs because of measurement 

changes in the CPS Annual Social and Economic Supplement. Prior to 2007, the data show all 

unmarried parents. Specifically, the data prior to 2007 include both unmarried parents who are 

cohabiting with the parent of at least one of their children, and “lone parents”—unmarried parents who 

are not cohabiting with the parent of any of their children. Starting in 2007, the data identify unmarried 

parents who are cohabiting with the parent of at least one of their children. These cohabiting parents 

were excluded from the data, so only lone parent families are shown in the chart starting in 2007. 

The decline in marriage has been more pronounced for certain racial and 

ethnic groups as well as income and education levels.25 Among racial and 

ethnic groups, blacks have experienced the greatest decline in marriage 

(see fig. 5). From 1960 through 2010, the percentage of married black 

men fell from 61 to 39 and the percentage of married black women fell 

from 60 to 33. Differences in marriage rates between blacks and other 

racial and ethnic categories persisted even after accounting for 

differences in income and education levels, and controlling for age.26

 

25Unless otherwise noted, throughout this report individuals in the white, black, and Asian 

racial and ethnic categories are non-Hispanic. 

Asians were the only group, among these racial and ethnic groups, to 

experience an uptick in marriage since 2000.

26See appendix I for further details on the data and our analyses.

The Decline in Marriage Is 

More Pronounced for 

Certain Demographic 

Groups
 

Page 17 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Figure 5: Estimated Percentage of Married Individuals by Race and Gender over Time: 1960-2010

Note: Individuals in the white, black, and Asian race categories may be Hispanic. Prior to 2003, 

individuals in the Current Population Survey were required to select only one race. Beginning in 2003, 

individuals were allowed to select multiple race groups. Starting in 2003, the race categories in this 

chart include only people who reported only a single race group. Percentage estimates in this figure 

have margins of error at the 95% confidence level that are less than or equal to 0.6 percentage points 

for whites; 2.4 percentage points for blacks; 4 percentage points for Asians; and 2.2 percentage 

points for Hispanics.

Since the 1970s, the percentage of single-parent families has increased 

dramatically (see fig. 6). Specifically, from 1970 through 2012 (and from 

1980 through 2012 in the case of Hispanics), the percentage of singleparent families climbed for every race and ethnicity category depicted in 

the figure, with the highest growth among whites (an increase of 17 

percentage points, for a 170 percent increase in the percentage). 

However, over the entire period, the rate of single parenthood was 

highest among black families and continues to be more than double the 

rate of white families.
 

Page 18 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Figure 6: Estimated Percentage of Families Headed by a Single Parent by Race: 1970-2012

Note: Individuals in the white and black race categories may be Hispanic. Prior to 2003, individuals in 

the Current Population Survey were required to select only one race. Beginning in 2003, individuals 

were allowed to select multiple race groups. Starting in 2003, the race categories in this chart include 

only people who reported only a single race group. Percentage estimates in this figure have margins 

of error at the 95% confidence level that are less than or equal to 1.8 percentage points. Note that the 

drop seen in 2007 occurs because of measurement changes in the CPS Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement. Specifically, the data prior to 2007 include both unmarried parents who are cohabiting 

with the parent of at least one of their children, and “lone parents”—unmarried parents who are not 

cohabiting with the parent of any of their children. Starting in 2007, the data identify unmarried 

parents who are cohabiting with the parent of at least one of their children. These cohabiting parents 

were excluded from the data, so only lone parent families are shown in the chart starting in 2007. 

The decline in marriage and rise in single parenthood over this period 

were also more pronounced among low-income and less-educated 

populations. Over the period from 1960 through 2010 the percentage of 

married, 45- to 54-year-olds in the highest income quintile declined 

slightly for men (see fig. 7). In contrast, over the same period, the 

percentage of married, 45- to 54-year-old men and women in the lowest 

income quintile declined markedly.

Similarly, the percentage of single parents among 45- to 54-year-old men 

and women in the highest income quintile remained flat, while there was a 

steep rise in the percentage of single parents in the lowest income 

quintile during this timeframe. For education, among individuals age 18 

years and older, the decline in the percentage of married individuals was 

steeper for those with less than a high school diploma than for those with 

4 or more years of college. Conversely, the rise in single parenthood was 
 

Page 19 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

steeper for women and men without a high school diploma in comparison 

to their counterparts with 4 or more years of college (see fig. 8). 

Nonetheless, the rate of single parenthood among college-educated 

women was greater than that of men with less than a high school diploma 

for most of the period, reflecting the higher rate of single parenthood 

among women overall.

Figure 7: Among People Age 45-54, Estimated Percentage of Married Men and Women, and Unmarried Parents, by Highest 

and Lowest Income Quintiles: 1960-2010

Note: Percentage estimates in this figure have margins of error at the 95% confidence level that are 

less than or equal to 1.7 percentage points. “Parents who are currently unmarried” refers to adults 

with their own children in the home and whose current marital status is divorced, separated, widowed, 

or never married.
 

Page 20 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Figure 8: Among People Age 18 and Older, Estimated Percentage of Married Men and Women, and Unmarried Parents, by 

Education Level: 1960-2010

Note: Percentage estimates in this figure have margins of error at the 95% confidence level that are 

less than or equal to 1.3 percentage points. “Parents who are currently unmarried” here refers to any 

adult with their own children in the home whose current marital status is divorced, separated, 

widowed, or never married.

Labor force participation among married and single men and women 

changed substantially over the past 50 years (see fig. 9). In 1960, labor 

force participation rates among the four groups (married men, single men, 

married women, and single women) ranged from 89 percent for married 

men to 32 percent for married women. The variation in workforce 

participation rates between single men (70 percent) and single women 

(59 percent) was not as wide, but was still substantial. Since then, the 

differences in labor force participation rates for these four groups have 

narrowed. In 2010, the rate was 76 percent for married men, 67 percent 

for single men, 63 percent for single women, and 61 percent for married 

women. However, as figure 9 shows, the labor force participation rates of 

married women have leveled off since the mid-nineties, and have 

Married Women Are 

Participating in the Labor 

Force at Higher Rates and 

Are Taking Less Time Off 

for Caregiving
 

Page 21 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

declined for single women, single men, and married men over the last 

decade.27

Figure 9: Estimated Labor Force Participation Rates by Sex and Marital Status: 

1960-2010

Note: Percentage estimates in this figure have margins of error at the 95% confidence level that are 

less than or equal to 1.2 percentage points. The categories for single men and single women include 

all unmarried people, including those who are divorced, widowed, or who were never married.

Labor force participation rates for women with children followed a similar 

trajectory to those of married women. From 1975 through 2010, labor 

force participation rates for women with children under age 3 grew from 

34 to 61 percent (see fig. 10).28

 

27While this report focuses on the effects of rising labor force participation among married 

women, policy analysts are increasingly concerned about the steady decline in men’s 

labor force participation overall, which has been more pronounced among unmarried men 

in recent years.

For women with children under age 6, the 

rate grew from 39 to 64 percent. As in the case of married women, labor 

28We obtained data for labor force participation rates among women with children of 

varying ages from the BLS report, Women in the Labor Force: A Databook, U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, Report 1040 (February 2013). This report presented data on labor force 

participation rates of mothers with children starting in 1975.
 

Page 22 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

force participation rates for each of these groups have remained relatively 

level since the mid-1990s.29

Figure 10: Estimated Labor Force Participation Rates among Women with Children of Different Ages: 1975-2010

Note: Children are “own” children and include sons, daughters, stepchildren, and adopted children. 

Not included are nieces, nephews, grandchildren, and other related and unrelated children.

Percentage estimates in this figure have margins of error at the 95% confidence level that are less 

than or equal to 1.8 percentage points.

a

As a result of married women’s increasing labor force participation, the 

proportion of married couples with two earners has risen—along with the 

wives’ contributions to household income. The proportion of households 

Data for 1994 and subsequent years are not directly comparable with data for 1993 and earlier 

because of the introduction of a major redesign of the Current Population Survey.

 

29Several legislative changes related to maternal employment may have played a role in 

the rising labor force participation of mothers in the 1970s through the 1990s. These 

included 1976 changes to the federal tax code that permitted working families with a 

dependent child to take a tax credit for child care costs, a 1978 amendment to Title VII of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy or 

childbirth, and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, which requires covered 

employers to provide, at minimum, up to 12 weeks of unpaid parental leave for eligible 

employees. See Lynda Laughlin, U.S. Census Bureau, “Maternity Leave and Employment 

Patterns of First-Time Mothers: 1961-2008,” Current Population Reports, Household 

Economic Studies, P70-128 (October 2011). 
 

Page 23 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

in which both the husband and wife contributed to their household’s 

income rose from 44 percent in 1967 to 60 percent in 1994 (see fig. 11). 

The proportion remained at 60 percent through 2000, after which it 

declined to 54 percent by 2010. Part of this is likely explained by the 

stagnation in married women’s labor force participation rates over that 

period, but part of this also may be due to the rise in the percentage of 

married households in which only the wife works. Since 1967, the 

proportion of married households in which the wife was the sole earner 

rose more than threefold—from 2 to 7 percent. At the same time, the 

proportion of married households in which the husband was the sole 

earner declined from 36 to 19 percent. Women’s contributions to family 

income also grew steadily over this period. According to the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, from 1970 through 2010, women’s median contribution to 

household income rose from 27 to 38 percent. Further, from 1987 through 

2010, the percentage of households in which the wives’ earnings 

exceeded their husband’s rose from 24 to 38 percent.30

 

30U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Women in the Labor Force: A Databook, BLS Reports, 

Report 1040 (Washington, D.C.: February 2013). 
 

Page 24 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Figure 11: Among Married Households, Estimated Percentage of Married Households in Which Both Husband and Wife Have 

Earnings, Only the Husband Has Earnings, and Only the Wife Has Earnings: 1967-2010

Note: Married households in which neither spouse works and married households in which additional 

earners contribute to family income are not depicted in this figure, and comprise the remainder of the 

100 percent of all married households. Percentage estimates in this figure have margins of error at 

the 95% confidence level that are less than or equal to 0.5 percentage points.

As working women’s contributions to household income have grown, 

women have also tended to take less time out of the workforce to raise 

children. Since the 1960s, working women have left the workforce for 

progressively shorter intervals to care for their first born children. For 

children born in the late 1960s, 36 percent of working mothers took 4 

years or more off to care for their first born and 56 percent took less than 

6 months off (see fig. 12). For children born from 2000 through 2004, 14 
 

Page 25 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

percent of working women took 4 years or more off and 65 percent took 

less than 6 months off.31

Figure 12: Among Mothers Who Worked prior to the Birth of Their First Child, Length of Time off Taken for Caregiving, by 

Year First Child Was Born

Note: Percentages within the “less than 4 years” category may not sum to the “less than 4 years” total 

due to rounding. This figure comprises mothers age 20 through 62 who worked prior to the birth of 

their first child. The employment history data were collected in Wave 1 of the 2008 SIPP, which took 

place in 2008. There is some potential overlap between the categories of spell length exceeding 6 

 

31In addition to caring for children, many women also bear responsibility for caring for an 

elderly person or a disabled adult, which can affect women’s participation in the workforce. 

Some researchers have argued that today’s generation of middle-aged women faces a 

significant caretaking burden, providing financial and practical support for elderly parents 

at an age when many workers should be contributing heavily to their own retirement 

funds. Due to changes in the SIPP survey questions about caretaking responsibilities, we 

were unable to examine trends over time in the percentage of women who take time out 

from the workforce to care for elderly or disabled adults. However, our analysis of the 

2008 SIPP shows that in 2008, approximately 5 percent of women age 50-62 had taken at 

least 6 months off of work to care for an elderly or disabled adult.
 

Page 26 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

months. The SIPP data precisely identify women in the category “Less than 6 months.” However, 

there is less precision in the other categories. This is because if a woman reports that she has taken 

off 6 months or more, she is asked to provide the start and end date for each spell out of the 

workforce; however, the SIPP data only provide the start and end year of each spell, so we do not 

know the month in which each spell started and ended. Therefore, there is potential for overlap in the 

categories of timeframes. For example, a woman whose spell started in January 2000 and ended in 

February 2001 – a 13-month spell – would be grouped in the “1-2 years” category. But a woman 

whose spell started in December 2000 and ended in January 2002 – also a 13-month spell – would 

be grouped in the “2-3 years” category. Margins of error at the 95% confidence level for estimates of 

the percent of women taking off less than 6 months are less than or equal to 5.6 percentage points, 

for each bar. Margins of error for estimates of the percent of women taking off 4 or more years are 

less than or equal to 4.8 percentage points, for each bar. Margins of error for estimates of the percent 

of women taking off periods between 6 months and 3 years range from 0.4 to 2.0 percentage points.

Note that these estimates are less reliable—the standard errors can be as high as 30 percent of the 

estimates for the earliest childbirth cohort, although they are always less than 15 percent of the 

estimates for estimates from 1980 and later. For women who had their first child between 2005 and 

2007, 73 percent took less than 6 months off from work. For these women, we could not report on 

longer periods of time out of the workforce because insufficient time had passed between when their 

first child was born and when the data were collected. 

 

It is also noteworthy that the women represented in figure 12—those who 

were working prior to the birth of their first child—comprised a growing 

proportion of new mothers over this period, according to analysis by the 

Census Bureau. Specifically, an estimated 60 percent of women who had 

their first child between 1960 and 1965 had worked for at least 6 months 

or more continuously prior to having children. In contrast, an estimated 75 

percent of women who had their first child between 2000 and 2005 had 

worked for 6 or more months continuously prior to childbirth.32

 

32Lynda Laughlin, U.S. Census Bureau, “Maternity Leave and Employment Patterns of 

First-Time Mothers: 1961-2008,” Current Population Reports, Household Economic 

Studies, P70-128 (October 2011).
 

Page 27 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Fewer women are receiving Social Security spousal benefits today than in 

the past.33

 

33This section primarily focuses on women’s receipt of spousal benefits because only a 

small percentage of men (less than 1 percent as of 2012) currently receive Social Security 

spousal benefits. If women’s wages continue to rise relative to men’s, men’s receipt of 

spousal benefits may rise in the future. See Objective 3 for further discussion of projected 

receipt of future benefits by sex and benefit type. All statistics in this section of the report 

pertaining to the Social Security beneficiary categories of spouse-only, dually-entitled 

spouse, widow-only, and dually-entitled widow include divorced spouses who are eligible 

for spousal and survivor benefits because they were married for at least 10 years.

In 1960, nearly one-third of all women over age 62 received 

spousal benefits based exclusively on their spouse’s work record, 

according to SSA data (see fig. 13). In 2011, 9 percent of women 

received them. Similarly, the proportion of women over age 62 receiving 

widow (i.e., survivor) benefits based exclusively on their spouse’s work 

record declined from 23 to 16 percent over the same period. At the same 

time, as women’s workforce participation and earnings have risen, the 

percentage of women receiving benefits based solely on their own work 

record increased from about 39 to 48 percent. However, women’s 

average Social Security retired worker benefit is approximately threequarters of men’s average retired worker benefit due to women’s lower 

median lifetime earnings relative to men’s. Specifically, according to SSA, 

in 2012, the average retired worker benefit was $1,417 per month for men 

and $1,103 per month for women.

Trends in Marriage 

and Work Patterns 

Have Resulted in 

Fewer Women 

Receiving Social 

Security Spousal 

Benefits and Married 

Women Contributing 

More to Household 

Savings

Fewer Women Are 

Receiving Social Security 

Spousal Benefits
 

Page 28 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Figure 13: Percentage of All Women Age 62 or Older by Social Security Benefit Status over Time

In addition to the effect of rising labor force participation, the decline in 

women’s receipt of spousal benefits is partly due to the decline in 

marriage. Specifically, the proportion of women who are not eligible to 

receive Social Security spousal benefits because they were either never 

married, or divorced after less than 10 years of marriage—the length of 

time required for eligibility for Social Security divorced spouse benefits—

has increased over the last two decades. According to analysis by SSA 

researchers, among women age 50-59, the percentage who were not 

eligible to receive Social Security spouse or widow benefits based on 

marital history doubled from 8 to 16 percent from 1990 to 2009 (see fig. 

14).34 However, this growth varied greatly by race. For blacks, the rise in 

ineligibility for spousal or widow benefits has been more dramatic, 

growing from 13 to 34 percent from 1990 to 2009.35

 

34Howard M. Iams and Christopher R. Tamborini, “The Implications of Marital History 

Change on Women’s Eligibility for Social Security Wife and Widow Benefits, 1990-2009,” 

Social Security Bulletin, vol. 72, no. 2 (2012).

In contrast, among 

whites and Hispanics, the rates of ineligibility grew less—by 8 and 6 

percentage points, respectively.

35ibid.
 

Page 29 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Figure 14: Estimated Percentage of Women Ineligible for Social Security Spouse or 

Widow Benefits Because of Marital History among 50-59 Year Olds by Race: 1990 

and 2009

Note: In this figure, women ineligible for Social Security spouse or widow benefits because of marital 

history include women who were never married or who were divorced without any 10-year marriage 

at the time of the survey. For each category above, the difference between the proportion of women 

ineligible for Social Security spouse or widow benefits because of marital history in 1990 and 2009 

was statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

The growth in ineligibility also varied by income, and the differences in 

eligibility rates by income grew over time, according to our analysis of 

SIPP data.36

 

36Despite the high correlation between race, education and income, the differences in 

eligibility between blacks and other racial and ethnic categories persisted even after 

accounting for differences in income and education levels, according to our analysis of 

SIPP data.

Within the lowest income quintile, from 1996 to 2008, the 

percentage of 50-59 year-old women who were married or had been 

married for at least 10 years declined from an estimated 78 to 65 percent. 

In contrast, among women in the same age range, but in the highest 
 

Page 30 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

income quintile, the percentage who were married or had been married 

for at least 10 years declined from an estimated 97 to 94 percent.37 38

Today’s female spouse-only beneficiaries differ from female beneficiaries 

with a qualifying work record in terms of race, education, and family size, 

but not in terms of their wealth. Spouse-only beneficiaries are less likely 

to be black than women receiving benefits based exclusively on their own 

work record (retired worker beneficiaries). Dually-entitled beneficiaries, in 

contrast, are more likely to be white than their counterparts receiving 

retired worker or spousal benefits. Spouse-only beneficiaries are also less 

likely to be college educated (see fig. 15). In fact, 63 percent of spouseonly beneficiaries have less than a college education. At the same time, 

39 and 51 percent of retired worker and dually-entitled beneficiaries have 

less than a college education, respectively.

 

37Here we are presenting data for women age 50-59 for comparability with the data 

reported by Iams et al. Similar trends are seen among women age 55-64. Among women 

age 55-64 in the lowest quintile of income, the percentage who were married or had been 

married for at least 10 years declined from an estimated 85 percent in 1996 to an 

estimated 73 percent in 2008. Among women age 55-64 in the highest quintile of income, 

the percentage who were married or had been married for at least 10 years declined from 

an estimated 97 to 95 percent.

38These estimates represent a lower bound of the number of women who have been in a 

marriage for at least 10 years. The SIPP marital history module provides the year in which 

each marriage starts and—for those marriages that have ended in death or divorce—the 

year in which each marriage terminates. Because the month of the marriage start / end 

date is not provided, the length of the marital spell is imprecise. For example, consider a 

person who married in the year 2000 and divorced in the year 2010. The estimated length 

of the marriage spell is 10 years. However, if the person married in the second half of the 

start year (say, December 2000) and divorced in the first half of the termination year (say 

January 2010), the actual length of the marriage spell would be less than 10 years – in 

this example, 9 years and two months. To avoid this problem, we defined a 10-year 

marriage as one in which the termination date minus the start date is at least 11 years. 

With this more conservative definition, we avoid including any marriages that fall short of 

10 years—but we also exclude some marriages that are exactly 10 years. These 

estimates are therefore a lower bound of the number of people who have 10-year 

marriages.
 

Page 31 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Figure 15: Education Levels of Women Receiving Social Security Benefits Based on Their Own Work Record (Retired 

Worker), Their Spouse’s Work Record (Spouse-only) or Both (Dually-entitled/Spouse): 2011

Note: Widows were excluded from the sample of retired workers so that we could compare a similar 

set of female beneficiaries (i.e., all non-widows).

Among married women, spouse-only beneficiaries have significantly more 

children (an average of 3.1 vs. 2.4 and 2.8 among retired-worker and 

dually-entitled beneficiaries, respectively). In terms of earnings and 

wealth, married spouse-only beneficiaries have lower lifetime household 

earnings than their married counterparts who receive retired-worker 

benefits or are dually-entitled, but have comparable levels of total net 

worth, home ownership, and home equity.39

 

39The lack of statistically significant differences may be the result of data limitations 

associated with the small sample size available in the SIPP Gold Standard Data. See 

appendix I for more details on our data and the analyses.
 

Page 32 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

With women’s rising workforce participation and earnings, married women 

are contributing more to household account-based retirement savings, but 

their share of contributions varies with the work patterns of the household. 

Between 1992 and 2010, married women’s contributions to household 

account-based retirement savings (accumulated in DC plans, IRAs, and 

Keoghs) increased from 20 to 38 percent, on average, according to our 

analysis of SCF data.40 However, the proportion of households with any 

retirement savings and the average proportion of the wives’ contributions 

varied depending on whether the husband, wife, or both were working. In 

2010, dual-earner households were the most common type of households 

among 55- to 64-year-olds, comprising 45 percent of married households 

for that age group that year (see fig. 16). These households were more 

likely to have account-based retirement savings than households with 

only one spouse working. Further, among dual-earner households with 

account-based retirement savings (either in DC plans, IRAs, our Keoghs), 

wives contributed 44 percent of the household’s account-based 

retirement savings, on average.41 For households with some accountbased retirement savings in which wives were the sole earners, wives 

contributed 68 percent of the household’s account-based retirement 

savings. In contrast, wives contributed much lower shares of retirement 

savings—14 percent, on average—in households in which the husband 

was the sole earner.42

 

40Household DC plan and IRA assets include the balance of all defined contribution, IRA 

(Roth, traditional, and rollover), and Keogh accounts held by all members of the primary 

economic unit, as defined by the Survey of Consumer Finances. DB plans are not 

included in this measure of household savings.

41This finding is consistent with recent results by Irena Dushi and Howard Iams. Using 

SIPP data from 2009, they find that in households in which both spouses contributed to a 

DC plan, the wife’s contribution comprised around 42 percent of the total family 

contribution. See Irena Dushi and Howard M. Iams, “Pension Plan Participation Among 

Married Couples,” Social Security Bulletin, vol. 73, no. 3 (2013).

42The type of household (male sole earner, female sole earner, and dual-earner) reflects 

the employment status of both household members at a particular point in time. Therefore, 

it is not surprising that we observe a portion of retirement savings contributions from the 

non-working spouse, which could reflect their labor force participation in prior years.

Married Women’s 

Contributions to 

Household Account-Based 

Retirement Savings 

Approach Men’s in DualEarner Households
 

Page 33 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Figure 16: Among Married Households Age 55-64 Years Old, Average Proportion of 

Household Retirement Savings (Defined Contribution Plans and Individual 

Retirement Accounts) Contributed by Each Spouse: 2010.

Note: Married households in which neither spouse works are not depicted in this figure (and comprise 

the remainder of the 100 percent of all married households). All estimates in this figure have 95 

percent confidence intervals within +/- 8.1 percentage points of the estimates themselves. Household 

retirement savings include the balance of all defined contribution, IRA (Roth, traditional, and rollover), 

and Keogh accounts held by all members of the primary economic unit, as defined by the Survey of 

Consumer Finances. DB plans are not included in this measure of household savings.

Single-headed households, in contrast, continue to lag behind their 

married counterparts both in terms of having DC plans or IRAs and in the 

level of retirement savings. For the population of all households age 50-

64, 60 percent have some DC, IRA, or Keogh savings, according to our 

analysis of SCF data. However, this varies widely by marital status. 

Specifically, in 2010, an estimated 71 percent of married households age 

50-64 years old had DC, IRA, and Keogh savings, while only 39 percent 

and 48 percent of male and female single-headed households had 
 

Page 34 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

retirement savings, respectively (see fig. 17).43

Figure 17: Among All Households Age 50-64, Percentage of Households with 

Retirement Savings (in Defined Contribution Plans and Individual Retirement 

Accounts) and Among Households with Savings, the Median Levels of Savings 

2010

Moreover, the median 

levels of savings among single-headed households were much lower than 

for married households in this age category in 2010. For married 

households with retirement savings, the median savings level was 

$122,560. In contrast, among single men with retirement savings, the 

median savings level was $50,000. Among single women with retirement 

savings, the median level of savings was $32,800.

Note: Median savings are expressed in 2010 dollars. All percentage estimates in this figure have 95 

percent confidence intervals within +/- 4.8 percentage points of the estimate itself. All median dollar 

estimates in this figure have 95 percent confidence intervals within +/- 13,071 dollars of the estimate 

itself. Household retirement savings include the balance of all defined contribution, IRA (Roth, 

traditional, and rollover), and Keogh accounts held by all members of the primary economic unit, as 

defined by the Survey of Consumer Finances. DB plans are not included in this measure of 

household savings.

 

43Due to limitations with our sample size, we expanded the analysis of individuals age 55-

64 to include individuals in households age 50-54. See appendix I for more details on our 

analyses and data limitations.
 

Page 35 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Over the last decade, over one-third of married households receiving 

income from pensions opted not to receive a spousal survivor benefit.44

Several other factors were related to couples’ likelihood of opting out of a 

survivor benefit. Couples with longer marriages were less likely to opt out, 

possibly reflecting a greater sense of financial responsibility for the 

surviving spouse among long-lasting marriages. Households in the lowest 

net worth quintile are more likely to opt out of the survivor benefit than 

wealthier households. This finding may reflect the fact that households 

with limited wealth may be unable to afford the benefit reduction that 

There are many reasons why households might decide to opt out of 

receiving a survivor benefit. For example, a spouse might not be 

expected to outlive the individual receiving the pension (the participant). 

Alternatively, the spouse that is expected to survive the spouse receiving 

the pension might have access to his or her own retirement income. 

According to our analyses of SCF data, the decision to opt out differed 

depending on whether the pension participant was the wife or the 

husband. Specifically, in 2010, 62 percent of men opted for a survivor 

benefit for their spouse while 38 percent of women did. Men’s higher 

likelihood of choosing survivor benefits could reflect their expectations 

that their wives are more likely to outlive them, or it could reflect that 

married women are more likely than married men to need the security of 

a survivor benefit because of less access to other sources of retirement 

income.

 

44For purposes of this section of the report, pension income is defined based on the 

structure of the SCF data on current benefits from pensions. Specifically it refers to any 

income from a pension—from a current or past job or a disability benefit—that is not an 

account plan, such as a 401(k) plan, where the participant can take the whole balance as 

one payment. In addition, a survivor benefit includes any type of spousal benefit provided 

after the participant’s death, regardless of the duration of the benefit received, amount of 

benefit received, or payment method (lump sum or annuity). Survivor benefits from taxqualified defined benefit plans are required to be in the form of a qualified joint and 

survivor annuity, unless the participant (with the spouse’s consent) chooses to receive an 

alternate form of benefit, such as a single life annuity. For the purposes of this report, due 

to limitations in the SCF data, a survivor benefit may also include households that have 

chosen to annuitize their defined contribution plan savings or households that are 

receiving an annuity from a divorce settlement under a qualified domestic relations order 

(QDRO). According to our estimates, between 2001 and 2010, the proportion of married 

households that opted out of a survivor benefit ranged from 35 to 44 percent. However, 

the differences over this period were not statistically significant. 

Over One-Third of Married 

Households Receiving 

Income from Pensions 

Opted Not to Receive a 

Survivor Benefit
 

Page 36 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

comes with a survivor benefit.45 Lastly, households with higher levels of 

assets in DC plans or IRAs were less likely to opt out, perhaps an 

indicator of the household’s level of financial literacy and preparedness 

overall or simply that, with other retirement savings, the household did not 

need the higher benefit payment that would result from the couple opting 

out.46

Looking forward, fewer women will likely receive Social Security spousal 

benefits because of their declining eligibility based on marital history or 

increased earnings relative to their husbands, according to SSA 

 

45Typically, a joint and survivor annuity provides a smaller monthly payment while the 

participant is alive, to allow for payments to the spouse upon the participant’s death. A 

single life annuity can provide a higher monthly payment because it lasts only for the life of 

the participant.

46This finding was significant at the 90 percent confidence level. These results were 

generally consistent with what has been found in past work by outside researchers. See, 

for example, Richard W. Johnson, Cori E. Uccello, and Joshua H. Goldwyn, “Who 

Forgoes Survivor Protection in Employer-Sponsored Pension Annuities?” The 

Gerontologist, vol. 45, no 1, 26-35 (2005).

The Decline in 

Receipt of Spousal 

Benefits Is Likely to 

Increase Some 

Retirees’ Economic 

Vulnerability

Shifts in Marriage and 

Labor Force Participation 

Mean Fewer Future 

Retirees Are Expected to 

Receive Social Security 

Spousal Benefits
 

Page 37 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

projections.47 More specifically, eligibility for spousal benefits is projected 

to decline for two reasons. First, the population of women who never 

marry is projected to more than double in the future. Of women born from 

1936 to 1945, 4 percent are projected to never have married by age 70. 

In contrast, of women born from 1966 to 1975, 10 percent are projected 

to have never married by age 70.48 Second, due to the trend toward 

shorter marriages, fewer elderly divorcees will likely have had a marriage 

that lasted at least 10 years—an eligibility requirement for divorced 

spousal benefits. For women who had their first marriage in the early 

1960’s, 83 percent of marriages lasted at least 10 years, whereas 75 

percent of comparable marriages that occurred in the early 1990’s lasted 

this long, according to Census Bureau estimates.49

Additionally, due to women’s increased lifetime earnings relative to men, 

fewer women who are eligible for spousal benefits based on their marital 

history will receive them because they will be eligible for retired worker 

 

47This section primarily focuses on women’s receipt of spousal benefits because only a 

small percentage of men (less than 1 percent as of 2012) currently receive Social Security 

spousal benefits. If women’s wages continue to rise relative to men’s, men’s receipt of 

spousal benefits may rise in the future. Additionally, the Social Security benefit projections 

presented in this report are based on a model that was developed prior to the U.S. 

Supreme Court’s June 2013 decision holding a provision of the Defense of Marriage Act to 

be unconstitutional. See United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013). Consequently, 

the estimates are based on heterosexual marriages exclusively and do not incorporate 

trends among same-sex married couples.

48Barbara A. Butrica and Karen E. Smith, “The Retirement Prospects of Divorced 

Women”, Social Security Bulletin, vol. 72, no. 1 (2012). 

49Rose M. Kreider and Renee Ellis, U.S. Census Bureau, Number, Timing, and Duration 

of Marriages and Divorces: 2009, Current Population Reports, Household Economic 

Studies, P70-125, (Washington, D.C.: May 2011).
 

Page 38 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

benefits based on their own work record.50 Compared to current retirees, 

more of today’s working-age women are likely to receive Social Security 

benefits based exclusively on their own work history, known as retired 

worker benefits. Whereas in 1960, 39 percent of women age 62 and older 

received retired worker benefits, SSA projects that this will increase from 

46 percent in 2012 to 62 percent in 2040 (see fig. 18). This increase will 

largely be driven by the employment and earnings patterns of married 

and widowed women. Over the same period, the proportion of women 

who are expected to receive benefits based exclusively on marriage—

known as spouse-only benefits—is projected to decline from 8 to 2 

percent.51

 

50The overall labor force participation rate is actually projected to decline gradually for 

both men and women. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, women’s labor 

force participation is expected to decline from its peak of 60 percent in 1999 to 53 percent 

in 2040. Men’s labor force participation is expected to fall to 64.8 percent in 2040. See 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Women in the Labor Force: A Databook, Report 1040 

(Washington, D.C.: February 2013) for historical data. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

provided the 2040 projected data to GAO in a separate analysis. However, the pay gap 

between men and women is also expected to continue to narrow, further decreasing the 

gap between women’s and men’s lifetime earnings. For example, according to projections 

by the Center for Retirement Research, wives born from 1966 to 1975 are expected to 

earn about 68 percent of their husbands’ earnings, more than double the ratio for wives 

born from 1931 to 1935. See April Yanyuan Wu, Nadia S. Karamcheva, Alicia H. Munnell, 

and Patrick Purcell, “How Does Women Working Affect Social Security Replacement 

Rates?” Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, Issue in Brief, no. 13-10 

(Chestnut Hill, MA: June 2013).

At the same time, the proportion of women who are expected 

to receive benefits based on both work history and marriage—known as 

dually-entitled/spouse benefits—is projected to decrease from 15 to 8 

percent. In contrast with today, proportionately more married men are 

projected to receive survivor benefits in the future due to their decreased 

earnings relative to their wives. SSA projects that the proportion of men 

who will receive retired worker benefits will drop by 3 percentage points—

from 95 to 92 percent—between 2012 and 2040. At the same time, the 

proportion of men who are expected to receive survivor benefits based on 

their marriage to higher-earning wives is projected to increase from 3 to 6 

percent (see fig. 18).

51For all Social Security beneficiary projections in this section of the report, the categories 

of spouse-only, dually-entitled spouse, widow(er)-only, and dually-entitled widow(er) 

include divorced spouses who are eligible for spousal and survivor benefits because they 

were married for at least 10 years.
 

Page 39 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Figure 18: Projected Distribution of Social Security Beneficiary Type by Sex, Age 62 and Older: 2012 to 2040

Note: Due to limitations of the data, the 2012 projections exclude beneficiaries older than 86. As a 

result, the 2012 data for widows differs from the 2010 data shown in figure 13.

Despite these changes, survivor benefits are expected to continue to play 

an important role for many women. Although the proportion of widows 

whose benefits will be based solely on marriage—known as widow-only—

is projected to decrease from 6 to 2 percent by 2040, SSA projects that 

the proportion of women who will be dually-entitled widows will remain 

stable at about one-quarter of all female beneficiaries through 2040 (see 

fig. 18). This is in part due to the fact that many women who qualify for 

retired-worker benefits while their husbands are alive (because their 

retired-worker benefit exceeds 50 percent of their spouse’s benefit) will 

become dually-entitled as widows because their own retired-worker 

benefit does not exceed 100 percent of their husband’s benefit. For 

example, another analysis projects that two-thirds of wives born from 

1966 to 1975 will receive widow benefits rather than their own retired 
 

Page 40 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

worker benefit when widowed, reflecting women’s lower average lifetime 

earnings relative to their husbands.52

In general, the trend away from women receiving spousal benefits is 

projected to occur across racial and ethnic groups, with the largest shift 

occurring among black women. According to SSA analyses among 

whites, blacks, and Hispanics, as of 2012, proportionally, black women 

were already the most likely to receive retired worker benefits (see fig. 

19). Furthermore, between 2012 and 2040, black women are projected to 

experience the highest growth in this category. In addition, the 

proportions of dually-entitled/spouse white and black women are 

projected to decrease by about half between 2012 and 2040, with a small 

decrease among Hispanic women. Moreover, the proportion of women 

who are expected to receive widow-only benefits is projected to decrease 

for all three groups and, by 2040, differ by no more than two percentage 

points. Unlike these trends, the projections for dually-entitled widows 

diverge by race. More specifically, the proportion of white dually-entitled 

widows is projected to increase by 12 percent, while blacks will likely see 

a 35 percent decrease. These projections do not suggest any change 

among Hispanic dually-entitled widows.53

 

52See Barbara A. Butrica and Karen E. Smith, “The Impact of Changes in Couples’ 

Earnings on Married Women’s Social Security Benefits,” Social Security Bulletin, vol. 72, 

no. 1 (2012). However, as explained in greater detail below, as couples’ earnings become 

more similar, the Social Security survivor benefit replaces a smaller proportion of the 

couples’ Social Security income received by the household when both spouses were alive. 

53There are no substantial differences by race in the type of benefits men received in 2012 

or are projected to receive in 2040. 
 

Page 41 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Figure 19: Projected Distribution of Social Security Beneficiary Type for Women by Race, Age 62 and Older: 2012 to 2040

Note: Due to limitations of the data, the 2012 projections exclude beneficiaries older than 86.

As the population that is ineligible for spousal and survivor benefits based 

on marital history—i.e., those who are not married or divorced without a 

marriage of at least 10 years—is projected to increase, the proportion of 

people who will depend entirely on their own earnings and savings in 

retirement is expected to increase as well. For many elderly, women in 

particular, this shift is likely to be positive, reflecting their higher earnings 

and greater capacity to save for retirement. However, elderly with low 

levels of lifetime earnings, who have no spouse, or who do not receive a 

spousal benefit—a group that is disproportionately represented by black 

women—are expected to have correspondingly lower retirement 

Current Trends Suggest a 

Growing Proportion of the 

Elderly Will Be at Risk of 

Living in Poverty During 

Retirement
 

Page 42 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

benefits.54 As a result, a growing proportion of the elderly—especially 

black women—may be at risk of living in poverty in retirement due to the 

higher cost of living and lower income associated with being single. As 

our past work has shown, elderly married individuals have higher levels of 

median household income and lower poverty rates than those who are 

never married, divorced, or widowed.55

Additionally, even some of those elderly who are eligible to receive 

spousal benefits may be more economically vulnerable after the death of 

one spouse due to the trend toward spouses having more similar 

earnings than in the past. More specifically, the more similar two spouses’ 

earnings, the less likely the survivor is to receive a widow(er) benefit. As 

seen in figure 20, three hypothetical couples with the same level of 

preretirement income, but with different earnings ratios, will have very 

different levels of survivor benefits.

Furthermore, in 2040, the median 

income levels of this expanding group of never married elderly will 

continue to be lower than that of their married counterparts, according to 

SSA projections.

56 The survivor in the one-earner 

couple receives $1,859 per month—or two-thirds of the previous 

household benefit at retirement, as determined by the Social Security 

benefit formula.57

 

54For example, the median household income in 2010 for women 65 and older was 

$27,610 for black women, $32,820 for Hispanic women, $33,590 for white women, and 

$41,960 for Asian women. For men the incomes ranged from $35,310 for black men to 

$47,530 for Asian men. See GAO, Retirement Security: Women Still Face Challenges, 

The survivor in the dual-earner couple with unequal 

earnings receives 60 percent of the previous household benefit. In 

contrast, the survivor of the dual-earner couple with equal earnings 

receives just 50 percent of the previous household benefit—significantly 

less than at least one measure of what a single person needs to live on 

GAO-12-699 (Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2012).

55The median household income in 2010 for married women 65 and older was $46,990. 

The next highest income level for women was $25,320, for divorced women. For married 

men the median income was $49,720 and the next highest level was $35,080 for 

separated men. See GAO-12-699. 

56The preretirement income used in this example is the annual equivalent of the average 

indexed monthly earnings used to calculate Social Security benefits.

57In general, the widow(er) of a retired worker is eligible to receive a survivor benefit that 

equals 100% of the deceased retired worker’s benefit amount, assuming that the 

widow(er) claims this benefit at the full retirement age—which varies depending on the 

worker’s date of birth. Widow(er)s may claim benefits as early as age 60, although the 

amount is reduced accordingly.
 

Page 43 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

relative to what a couple needs.58 Moreover, the proportion of dual-earner 

wives who are projected to not receive a survivor benefit—because of 

their relatively high earnings compared to their deceased husbands’—is 

expected to increase from 18 percent of wives who were born from 1936 

to 1945 to 34 percent for wives born from 1966 to 1975.59

 

58DeNavas-Walt et al., Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage.

The lower level 

of survivor benefits generally may affect women for a longer period of 

time than men, due to women’s longer life expectancy. However, working 

women’s increased earnings and personal savings may potentially offset 

the lower level of survivor benefit, mitigating this issue to some extent.

59Barbara A. Butrica and Karen E. Smith, “The Impact of Changes in Couples’ Earnings 

on Married Women’s Social Security Benefits,” Social Security Bulletin, vol. 72, no. 1 

(2012).
 

Page 44 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Figure 20: Examples of Social Security Retirement and Survivor Income by 

Household Structure

Notes: Estimates assume that (1) the monthly equivalent of these annual earnings equals the 

individual’s average indexed monthly earnings used to calculate Social Security benefits; (2) all 

individuals retire at age 66 in 2013; and (3) there are no cost of living adjustments reflected after the 

initial benefit is taken at retirement.

In addition to the differences in benefit levels among widow(er)s 

mentioned above, figure 20 also illustrates how retirement benefits can 

vary while both spouses are alive, for couples with different relative 

earnings.60

 

60GAO previously reported on this topic in GAO, Social Security: Issues Involving Benefit 

Equity for Working Women, 

Namely, a one-earner couple receives a higher total 

GAO/HEHS-96-55 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 10, 1996).
 

Page 45 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

retirement benefit than a dual-earner couple with the same level of 

household preretirement income. In figure 20, the total monthly benefit for 

the one-earner couple is $2,789. By contrast, the dual-earner couples 

receive $2,314, or 17 percent less. As the proportion of one-earner 

couples continues to decline, however, this disparity will become less and 

less common.

Past GAO work has identified a number of options suggested by experts 

to improve the retirement security of populations vulnerable to poverty by 

changing the Social Security eligibility rules or benefit structure, although 

each option has limitations.61 Some of these options focus specifically on 

modifying benefits for spouses and survivors, while others would affect 

broader populations of vulnerable individuals, and may also benefit those 

affected by changing marital patterns. For example, one option would 

change the eligibility requirements for divorced spousal benefits by 

reducing the required length of marriage from 10 to 7 years, with the goal 

of helping more of the divorced elderly remain out of poverty. Another 

option would increase benefit amounts for widow(er)s from the current 

maximum of 67 to 75 percent of the combined amount the couple had 

received, with the aim of preventing poverty among widow(er)s.62

 

61Appendix II provides a detailed summary of these policy options. We reviewed GAO’s 

prior work and selected these options from among a larger list of policy options presented 

in three prior GAO reports. We selected these policy options based on either their specific 

focus on spousal or survivor benefits or their broader focus on elderly populations that are 

vulnerable to poverty. See also 

This 

option could be targeted specifically toward low-income survivors by 

capping the surviving spouse’s benefit amount at the average retired 

worker benefit. However, concerns have been raised that these options 

GAO-12-699; GAO, Social Security: Options to Protect 

Benefits for Vulnerable Groups When Addressing Program Solvency, GAO-10-101R 

(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 7, 2009); and GAO, Retirement Security: Women Face 

Challenges in Ensuring Financial Security in Retirement, GAO-08-105 (Washington, D.C.: 

Oct. 11, 2007). The listed options are not intended to be exhaustive. In this report, we are 

not recommending or endorsing the adoption of any particular policy option. Rather, we 

identify them as potential options for policymakers to consider, along with other relevant 

proposals, as they address retirement security issues.

62The current maximum of 67 percent applies to the survivor of a couple that had 

previously received a retired-worker benefit plus spouse-only or plus a dually-entitled 

spouse benefit, i.e., 150 percent of the retired worker’s benefit. Upon the death of one 

spouse, the surviving spouse receives 100 percent of the retired-worker benefit, which 

equals 67 percent of the prior total household benefit. As an example, see the one-earner 

couple in figure 20 above.

Some Social Security 

Policy Options May Offset 

Effects of Changes in 

Marital Patterns
 

Page 46 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

may not effectively target other economically vulnerable groups like lowincome Social Security retired worker recipients who never married. 

Further, both of these options could provide benefits to higher-income 

elderly who may not be particularly economically vulnerable.

Other reform options target the vulnerable population of low-income 

people who do not qualify for spousal or survivor benefits, such as those 

who never marry, and who would otherwise receive retired worker 

benefits. Retired worker benefits are generally calculated on the basis of 

a worker’s average indexed monthly earnings for the worker’s highest 35 

years of earnings. While Social Security’s benefit structure is progressive, 

meaning that its retirement benefits replace a higher percentage of 

earnings for lower-income workers, a lifetime low-wage worker would still 

have correspondingly low benefits. Furthermore, the current benefit 

formula does not distinguish between low average wages caused by low 

lifetime earnings or low average wages caused by years of 

unemployment. One set of proposed options aims to increase benefit 

adequacy for lifetime low wage workers by increasing the level of the 

Special Minimum Primary Insurance Amount (also referred to as the 

“Special Minimum Benefit”)—a minimum Social Security benefit that is 

based on the number of years a worker has spent in Social Securitycovered employment. The Special Minimum Benefit is paid to an eligible 

retired worker if it is higher than the benefit amount computed using the 

typical Social Security benefit formula based on the worker’s highest 35 

years of earnings.63 Increasing the Special Minimum Benefit could help 

more elderly avoid poverty.64

 

63The Special Minimum Primary Insurance Amount provision was added by the Social 

Security Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-603, § 101, 86 Stat. 1329, 1333-35 

(codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 415(a)(1)(C)(i)).

However, it is difficult to effectively target 

lifetime low earners with this option because it is possible for high-wage 

earners who work part-time or sporadically to accumulate 11 years of 

64Currently, fewer beneficiaries qualify for the Special Minimum Benefit every year 

because it is indexed to price inflation, which has risen less than regular initial Social 

Security benefits, which are indexed to wage inflation. As a result, the Special Minimum 

Benefit does not necessarily ensure that individuals who have spent many years in Social 

Security-covered employment will have an income above the poverty line. As of 2012, the 

maximum possible Special Minimum Benefit was $9,487 annually. In 2012, the federal 

poverty guideline was $11,170 for a single person. See Alison M. Shelton, Congressional 

Research Service, Social Security: The Minimum Benefit Provision, R41518 (Washington, 

D.C.: May 24, 2012).
 

Page 47 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

covered employment—the minimum required under current law to qualify 

for the Special Minimum Benefit.

In addition to revising the Special Minimum Benefit, another option targets 

those who have shorter periods of covered employment because they 

were providing care to a family member and do not qualify for spousal 

benefits. More specifically, this option could change the Social Security 

benefit structure to provide earnings credits to caregivers (known as 

caregiver credits) during years in which they do not have earnings 

because they were providing care to children or elderly relatives. 

However, according to experts, this option may not reach its target 

population either because, for example, low-income people are less likely 

to take time out of the labor market to provide care for a family member. 

Consequently, people who have relatively higher incomes may benefit 

more from the creation of caregiver credits.

These policy options have costs that would place greater strains on the 

Social Security trust funds, which are already projected to have 

significantly depleted assets by 2033, at which time claimants would only 

receive 77 percent of their entitled benefits. The cost each option might 

impose varies depending on several factors, including: (1) the number of 

additional beneficiaries that would become eligible, (2) whether other 

additional adjustments—such as including a minimum work requirement 

for divorced spouses—would be included, and (3) their potential to offset 

the new costs.

The administrative burdens associated with implementing such changes 

are also important factors. For example, caregiver credits would be 

complex to administer due to the challenges associated with verifying that 

care was provided to a qualifying person and the amount of care that was 

provided.
 

Page 48 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

The transition in private employer plan sponsorship from DB to DC plans 

has increased the vulnerability of spouses due to differences in the level 

of spousal protections between these retirement plans. While over half of 

U.S. workers do not participate in employer-sponsored pension plans,65

To address this vulnerability, some policy analysts have suggested 

strengthening spousal protections in DC plans.

those with spouses who do participate may have different federal 

protections depending on whether their spouse participates in a DB or DC 

plan. In DB plans, current law requires spousal consent if the participant 

wishes to waive the survivor annuity for his or her spouse. In contrast, 

under DC plans, there is generally no federal requirement to provide an 

annuity option and participants do not need spousal consent to withdraw 

funds from the account—either before or at retirement. While spouses are 

generally required to be the default beneficiary of the remaining account 

balance upon the death of the participant, there is no protection against 

the assets being invested unwisely, inadvertently spent down too quickly, 

or simply withdrawn fully upon a job change and rolled into an IRA, with a 

change in beneficiary. In a worst case scenario, the spouse who 

participates in the DC plan could withdraw all the assets and spend them 

in ways that do not provide for the couple’s retirement security. While the 

increases in dual-earner couples and women’s coverage under DC plans 

have the potential to mitigate these concerns by providing alternative 

sources of retirement income, spouses with lower or no earnings may 

remain vulnerable.

66

 

65Copeland, “Retirement Plan Participation”. 

For example, requiring 

spousal consent for a participant to roll over a DC plan account to an 

IRA—which is not required to make the spouse the beneficiary of the 

account balance upon the owner’s death—or to cash out the account 

altogether, would allow spouses a level of input similar to the legal 

provisions governing DB plans. However, according to some experts, the 

administrative burden of obtaining spousal consent for such modifications 

to DC plans would impose administrative costs on plan sponsors and 

66We identified these policy options for DB and DC plans through interviews and 

consultations with retirement policy experts representing a range of perspectives and from 

different types of organizations including government, academia, advocacy groups, and 

the private sector. The listed options are not intended to be exhaustive and we are not 

recommending or endorsing the adoption of any particular policy option. Rather, we 

identify them as potential options for policymakers to consider, along with other relevant 

proposals, as they address retirement security issues. 

The Shift Away from 

Defined Benefit Plans Also 

Increases the Economic 

Vulnerability of Elderly 

Spouses
 

Page 49 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

could slow down the retirement process. For example, one expert 

explained that DC plan benefit elections can be done electronically and in 

a matter of days. In contrast, DB plan elections typically take about 30 

days, in part because the pen and paper process of obtaining notarized 

spousal consent in order to elect something other than a qualified joint 

and survivor annuity (QJSA) holds up the process.67 Additionally, one 

agency official we interviewed questioned the need for DC plans to adopt 

spousal consent features, pointing out that spousal protections under DB 

plans were instituted to protect nonworking spouses at a time when 

women generally did not have the same level of access to and 

participation in retirement plans as they do today.68

Despite their relatively greater level of spousal protections, some policy 

advocates have also proposed revising spousal provisions that apply to 

DB plans. First, similar to the concern that the Social Security survivor 

benefit amount is too low, one expert has suggested increasing the 

minimum amount for DB survivor annuities from 50 percent to at least 

two-thirds of the prior annuity amount. Such a change would help 

surviving spouses better maintain their standard of living. However, such 

a change would entail lowering the initial annuity amount, which may be a 

hardship for some retirees and could deter some participants from 

electing the QJSA. Another policy option would seek to remedy the 

unequal treatment of widow(er)s under DB QJSAs. Typically, in a QJSA, 

the amount of the annuity that the couple receives while both spouses are 

alive does not change if the worker’s spouse dies first. In other words, the 

worker would see no change in DB household income if widowed. On the 

other hand, if the worker dies first, the annuity amount that the surviving 

spouse receives may be reduced to as little as 50 percent of the prior 

amount. To remedy this imbalance, two experts have suggested paying 

the widow(er) a predetermined amount, regardless of which spouse dies 

 

67In order to help ease the administrative burden of documenting spousal consent in DB

plans, Internal Revenue Service regulations allow electronic acknowledgement or 

notarization but still require the signature of the spouse to be witnessed in the physical 

presence of the plan representative or notary public to avert coercion and fraud. However, 

one expert we interviewed believes that notaries have not yet begun using this method to 

document spousal consent because they have not yet found a viable way to implement it. 

See also GAO, Private Pensions: Revised Electronic Disclosure Rules Could Broaden 

Use and Better Protect Participant Choice, GAO-13-594 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 13, 

2013).

68However, while women are closing the pension gap and saving more for retirement, they 

still generally lag behind men. See GAO-12-699. 
 

Page 50 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

first. This “symmetric” joint and survivor annuity option is currently 

available for plan sponsors to offer, but they generally have not done so. 

Accordingly, one version of this policy option would be to make this option 

the normal form of benefit for married participants, requiring spousal 

consent to opt for a different form of payment. A symmetric joint and 

survivor annuity has the advantage of requiring a smaller benefit 

reduction on account of the survivor benefit than a standard joint and 

survivor annuity, which could lead to more participants taking this option.

However, one agency official noted that employers expressed concern 

that beneficiaries with this option might not report the death of their 

spouse to avoid incurring any benefit reduction.

Over the last 50 years, major societal changes in the United States have 

had important consequences for how Americans live, work, and save for 

retirement. Indeed, unlike in decades past, fewer people are getting 

married, and those who do often marry later in life and for shorter periods. 

These trends have consequences for economic security because 

unmarried individuals are unable to take advantage of the economic 

benefits and efficiencies of marriage and may therefore be at greater risk 

of poverty in old age. Moreover, these trends have disproportionately 

occurred within the nation’s most vulnerable populations—low-income, 

less-educated, and some minorities. If these trends continue, many 

Americans’ economic security—both in their working years and in old 

age—could further deteriorate.

While marriage rates overall have declined, the role women play in the 

labor market has expanded. As a result, women have become major 

contributors to household income and household retirement savings. For 

many households, these gains could enhance economic security in old 

age. However, low-wage workers who never marry or were not married 

long enough to qualify for Social Security spousal benefits may not be 

able to accrue sufficient retirement savings to offset the lack of a spousal 

benefit in old age. Even within two-earner households, the Social Security 

survivor benefit declines as earnings for both spouses become more 

similar. Survivors are therefore likely to depend on other forms of 

retirement income to maintain their standard of living prior to their 

spouse’s death. Further, the shift to DC plans—which typically offer fewer 

protections for spouses and fewer possibilities for participants to annuitize 

within their plans—will likely result in more retirees outliving their assets.

These trends and their consequences raise important questions for 

existing programs, such as Social Security, and current protections for 

Concluding 

Observations
 

Page 51 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

spouses in pension plans. As part of any future reform efforts in these 

areas, it will be important for policy makers to consider these trends in 

order to minimize poverty and ensure retirement security among the 

elderly.

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Labor, the 

Department of the Treasury, and the Social Security Administration for 

review and comment. While none of the agencies provided official 

comments, the Department of Labor and the Department of the Treasury 

provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days after the date of this 

letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Secretary of 

Labor, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Commissioner of Social 

Security. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s 

website at www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about 

this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or jeszeckc@gao.gov. 

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 

Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made 

key contributions to this report are listed in appendix III. 

Sincerely yours,

Charles A. Jeszeck

Director

Education, Workforce, and Income Security

Agency Comments
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methods

Page 52 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

To analyze trends in marriage and labor force participation and their 

implications for retirement security, we examined: (1) the trends in and 

status of marriage and labor force participation in the American 

household; (2) how those trends have affected spousal benefits and 

retirement savings behavior within households; and (3) what the 

implications of these trends are for retirement security. This appendix 

provides a detailed account of the information and methods we used to 

answer these questions. Section 1 describes the key information sources 

pertaining to analyses we conducted for each reporting objective. 

Sections 2 and 3 provide additional information on the characteristics of 

the individuals and households we analyzed for Objective 2.

To address our objectives, we obtained information from a variety of 

sources. We obtained and analyzed data from: (1) U.S. Census Bureau 

(Census) and Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports; (2) the Integrated 

Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) data consisting of decennial 

Census data and American Community Survey data; (3) the Survey of 

Income and Program Participation (SIPP) public use and restricted Gold 

Standard data,1 (4) the Current Population Survey; (5) the Survey of 

Consumer Finances (SCF); (6) SSA’s Modeling Income in the Near Term 

model; and (7) SSA’s actuarial estimates. Table 3 summarizes the data 

sources used to address each objective. To inform our data analyses for 

all three objectives, we obtained additional information from (1) prior GAO 

reports and the academic literature on trends in marriage, labor force 

participation, and retirement income; (2) relevant federal laws and 

regulations, and (3) a range of experts in the area of retirement security. 

This section provides a description of the information sources, how we 

used them, and the steps we took to ensure their reliability.

 

1

The analysis of the Gold Standard SIPP data was made possible through the use of the 

SIPP Synthetic Beta data, which was funded by the Census Bureau and the Social 

Security Administration (SSA), with additional funding from NSF Grants #0427889 and 

#0339191.The Synthetic Data Server is funded through National Science Foundation 

(NSF) grant SES-1042181. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methods

Section 1: Information 

Sources
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methods

Page 53 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Table 3: Data Sources Used for Each Reporting Objective

Objective Data sources

Objective 1: Trends in marriage and labor 

force participation 

• Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics reports

• Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (consisting of decennial Census data and 

American Community Survey data)

• Survey of Income and Program Participation public-use data

Objective 2: Receipt of spousal benefits and 

household retirement savings behavior 

• Survey of Income and Program Participation public-use and restricted-use Gold 

Standard data

• Survey of Consumer Finances

Objective 3: Implications of these trends for 

future retirement security

• Modeling Income in the Near Term model

• SSA actuarial estimates

Source: GAO.

To understand trends in marital status, single parenthood, and labor force 

participation over time, which are reported in Objective 1 of the report, we 

compiled and analyzed data from a number of published Census and BLS 

reports. The data in these reports draw upon Census and BLS surveys 

including: the U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports; the 

Survey of Income and Program Participation; and the Annual Social and 

Economic Supplements, Current Population Survey.

To understand the relationship between income and education and trends 

in marriage and single-parenthood from 1960 to 2010, in Objective 1 we 

analyzed the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS). IPUMS 

consists of more than fifty high-precision samples of the American 

population drawn from fifteen federal censuses and from the American 

Community Surveys of 2000-2011. Together these samples constitute a 

rich source of quantitative information on long-term changes in the 

American population. IPUMS assigns uniform codes across all the 

samples and provides documentation for each data set.

In our analysis of IPUMS data (Figures 7 and 8), the data points for years 

1960, 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000 are from the decennial Census, and 

data points for the year 2010 are from the American Community Survey.

For all our analyses of IPUMS data, we used person weights. To estimate 

standard errors, we followed procedures recommended by IPUMS 

methodological guidance papers. We applied the appropriate design 

factors provided in Census Bureau publications for each year of data, 

taking into account the population subsamples on which we conducted 

our analysis.

Census and BLS reports

Integrated Public Use 

Microdata Series (IPUMS)

Weights and Standard Error 

Calculations in IPUMS Data
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methods

Page 54 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

To answer parts of Objectives 1 and 2, we analyzed data collected 

through the SIPP, a nationally representative survey conducted by 

Census that collects detailed information on marital history and 

caregiving, among many other areas. Specifically, we used the data to 

analyze trends in (1) the characteristics of women that do not have a 

marriage that would qualify them for Social Security spousal benefits and 

(2) women’s time spent out of the workforce providing childcare. The 

SIPP survey is conducted in a series of national panels, each of which is 

collected for multiple years. Within each panel, the data are collected in a 

series of “waves” which take place in 4 month cycles. Within each wave, 

Census administers a core survey consisting of questions that are asked 

at every interview, and several modules relating to a particular topic. We 

used data from the core survey, the topical module on marital history, and 

the topical module on employment history from two SIPP panels, the 

1996 and 2008 panels. The 1996 panel, which was collected between 

April 1996 and March 2000, contained approximately 40,000 interviews at 

the beginning of the survey. The 2008 panel, which was collected 

between September 2008 and December 2012, contained approximately 

52,000 interviews at the beginning of the survey. For both panels, the 

topical module on employment history was administered in Wave 1, and 

the topical module on marital history was administered in Wave 2. In each 

wave, we analyzed data from the fourth interview month. For the 1996 

panel, the Wave 1 data was collected between March and June of 1996, 

and the Wave 2 data was collected between July and October of 1996. 

For the 2008 panel, the Wave 1 data was collected between August and 

November of 2008, and the Wave 2 data was collected between 

December 2008 and March 2009.

For all of the SIPP analyses, we used SIPP individual-level weights to 

compute point estimates. Because our analysis of the SIPP public use 

data involves merging data for individuals from multiple waves, we chose 

not to use SIPP replicate weights, as the replicate weight analysis 

becomes complex and computationally burdensome under these 

circumstances. Instead we used Stata’s survey data analysis package to 

declare a survey design for the data, using the following survey design 

variables from the SIPP data: GHLFSAM (half-sample code) to indicate 

the primary sampling unit, and GVARSTR (variance stratum code) to 

indicate the strata. GAO internal analysis has shown that using these 

survey design variables yields estimated standard errors that are very 

similar to those produced using the SIPP replicate weights.

To analyze the characteristics of women who had not attained a marriage 

that would qualify them for Social Security spousal benefits, we used 

Survey of Income and 

Program Participation

Weights and Standard Error 

Calculations in SIPP

SIPP Analysis of Women with 

Qualifying Marriages
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methods

Page 55 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

information from the marital history modules of the 1996 and 2008 SIPP 

panels. We classified a woman as attaining a qualifying marriage if she 

either a) was currently married at the time of the survey, or b) was not 

currently married, but had previously been in a marriage that lasted for at 

least 10 years. We used data from the marital history module on the start 

and end date of marriages to determine whether a marriage had lasted at 

least 10 years. Because the public use data does not contain the month 

of marriage, we could not know precisely how long each person had been 

married. For women whose marriages were close to the 10-year mark, we 

had to choose between making our classification err on the side of overly 

inclusive or overly exclusive. We chose to define a marriage as lasting at 

least 10 years if the difference between the year of marriage termination 

and the year of initiation was at least 11. This means that we did not 

include any women whose marriage was less than 10 years. However, 

we did exclude some women whose marriage was exactly 10 years. For 

example, a woman who married in January 2000 and divorced in 

February 2010 would have a 10 year marriage, but our classification 

excluded her. We made this choice to avoid incorrectly including women 

with marriages less than 10 years. For example, if we defined our 

classification using the rule that the difference between the termination 

date and the start date was 10 years, we would include women who 

married in December 2000 and divorced in January 2010—a marriage 

that lasted 9 years and 2 months.

We analyzed the characteristics of men and women who had attained a 

marriage that would qualify them for Social Security spousal benefits by 

comparing qualifying marriage rates across different demographic groups 

(specifically, across different age, racial and ethnic groups, education 

level, and income categories.) In addition, to examine whether the 

relationship between race and qualifying marriage rates remained when 

controlling for income and education, we also ran several multivariate 

regressions on women age 55-64. We ran probit regressions of the 

probability of attaining a qualifying marriage for women on race with 

controls for income and education. We also ran probit regressions of the 

probability of attaining a qualifying marriage on race interacted with 

income, and on race interacted with education. These regressions show 

the negative relationship between a person being in the “black” race 

category and attaining a qualifying marriage remains statistically 

significant, even with controls for income and education, in both 1996 and 

2008. Similarly, we ran probit regressions of the probability of being 

currently married on race with controls for education and income, and we 

also ran probit regressions of the probability of being currently married on 

race interacted with income, and on race interacted with education, for 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methods

Page 56 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

women age 55-64 in 1996 and 2008. These regressions show that the 

negative relationship between a person being in the “black” race category 

and being currently married remained significant with controls for 

education and income.

To analyze women’s time spent out of the workforce providing childcare, 

we used data from the 2008 SIPP employment history module, combined 

with data from the fertility history module. We used the fertility history 

module to obtain information about whether an individual had ever had a 

child. This was necessary because we were looking at a person’s lifetime 

employment, and many older people who have taken time out of the 

workforce for childcare in the past do not currently have children living 

with them. We restricted this analysis to women age 20-62 who had 

worked for at least 6 months prior to the birth of their first child. We set 

this age range because the SIPP “time off for caregiving” questions were 

only asked for people in this age range. We also restricted the analysis to 

women whose first child was born in 2004 or earlier. This restriction was 

made so that all women in the analysis would have given birth at least 4 

years before the survey interview. We then examined the length of time 

women took out of the workforce, during their first spell out of the 

workforce. We restricted our analysis to the first spell out of the workforce 

in order to mitigate the impact of older women being more likely to have 

had multiple children, and therefore multiple spells out of the workforce, 

compared to younger women. We created five categories for time spent 

out of the workforce. The top category was “4 or more years”. We made 

this the top category so that all women in the analysis were interviewed at 

least 4 years since the birth of their first child, and therefore would have 

had the opportunity to have taken off 4 or more years.

For our analysis in Objective 2 comparing the characteristics of women 

who receive Social Security spouse-only benefits with those receiving 

retired-worker benefits or dually-entitled spouse benefits, we used the 

2008 SIPP restricted-use Gold Standard data. We used the Gold 

Standard SIPP data because, despite its advantages, the SIPP publicuse data has one main limitation for our analysis. As with most survey 

data, SIPP public-use data are self-reported. This can be problematic for 

the reporting of data on income sources and the type of Social Security 

benefits individuals receive. For example, respondents might incorrectly 

report that they receive a spousal benefit, when in fact they are receiving 

a retired-worker benefit. To mitigate this problem, we used the 2008 SIPP 

Gold Standard data. Census created this file by extracting variables from 

the SIPP panels conducted in 2008 and merging SSA-provided 

administrative data including the Summary Earnings Records, Detailed 

SIPP Analysis of Time Spent 

Out of the Workforce to 

Provide Childcare

SIPP Analysis Comparing 

Characteristics of Female 

Beneficiaries
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methods

Page 57 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Earnings Records, and the Master Beneficiary Record. Census refers to 

these data as the Gold Standard because they represent the available 

confidential micro-data that would be used for analysis by an authorized 

researcher working in a restricted-access facility. 

To answer part of Objective 2, we analyzed data from the 2010 SCF. 

Specifically, we used the data to analyze (1) the decision to opt out of a 

survivor benefit among married households with pension income, and (2) 

retirement savings behavior among married and single-headed 

households. The SCF is a triennial, nationally representative survey from 

the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal 

Reserve). The 2010 SCF surveyed 6,482 households about their 

pensions, incomes, labor force participation, asset holdings and debts, 

use of financial services, and demographic information. For the purposes 

of this report, a household refers to the primary economic unit within a 

household, which the SCF refers to as a family. To estimate the age, 

marital status, net worth, income, and participation in a DC or DB plan, 

we relied on variable definitions used for Federal Reserve publications 

using the SCF and consulted with an agency official.2

To analyze the decision to opt out of a survivor benefit, we conducted 

both comparisons of means and cross-tabulations, and ran some simple 

regression analyses using the SCF. Our regression analyses were logit 

models which predicted the probability of a person choosing a survivor 

benefit as a function of net worth and total retirement liquid assets (in 

separate regressions). In our regression of survivor benefit choice on net 

worth, we grouped net worth into quartiles, and constructed categorical 

variables for each quartile. We included retirement liquid assets as a 

continuous variable.

The SCF is subject to non-sampling error and non-response, which can 

influence the accuracy of point and variance estimates. To address this, 

the Federal Reserve provides a set of implicate data—which contain 

information about imputed variables—and a replicate weight file, which 

permits users of the SCF microdata to obtain more accurate variance 

estimates. We followed Federal Reserve guidance and used both the 

 

2

See Jess Bricker, et al., “Changes in U.S. Family Finances from 2007 to 2010: Evidence 

from the Survey of Consumer Finances,” Federal Reserve Bulletin, vol. 98, no. 2 (June 

2012).

Survey of Consumer 

Finances
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methods

Page 58 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

implicate data and the replicate weights when constructing our point 

estimates and standard error estimates, both in our univariate analyses 

and in our regression analyses.

To project the distribution of Social Security beneficiary types for women 

into the future for Objective 3, officials from the Office of Retirement 

Policy at the Social Security Administration (SSA) provided GAO with 

projections based on simulations they conducted with the Modeling 

Income in the Near Term model, Version 6 (MINT6). This model is used 

to make projections related to individuals’ retirement income, marital 

trends, Social Security benefits, and poverty. The MINT6 is built from 

Census survey data and Social Security’s own administrative records.3

The Office of the Chief Actuary at the Social Security Administration 

provided GAO with the data used in Objective 3, figure 20, which 

presents examples of Social Security Retirement and Survivor Income 

benefit levels for households with different hypothetical earnings 

configurations (i.e. one-earner couples, dual-earner couples with unequal 

earnings, and dual-earner couples with equal earnings).

Estimates from the surveys described above are subject to sampling error 

because these surveys are probability samples based on random 

selections. Since each possible sample could have provided different 

estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of the sample 

results as 95 percent confidence intervals. These intervals would contain 

the actual population values for 95 percent of the samples that could have 

been drawn. In this report, we report all percentage or other numerical 

estimates along with their 95 percent confidence intervals. In addition, 

any differences between point estimates presented in this report are 

statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level unless otherwise 

noted.

 

3

For more information on the MINT6, see Karen E. Smith, Melissa M. Favreault, Barbara 

A. Butrica, and Philip Issa, Final Report: Modeling Income in the Near Term Version 6, 

The Urban Institute (December 2010).

Modeling Income in the 

Near Term

Social Security Actuarial 

Estimates

Sampling Error
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methods

Page 59 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

For the IPUMS, SIPP public-use and Gold Standard data, SCF and 

MINT6 data described above, we conducted a data reliability assessment 

of selected variables by conducting electronic data tests for completeness 

and accuracy, reviewing documentation on the dataset, or interviewing 

knowledgeable officials about how the data are collected and maintained 

and their appropriate uses. When we learned that particular fields were 

not reliable or were not consistently reported, we did not use them. For 

the purposes of our analysis, we found the variables that we ultimately 

reported on to be sufficiently reliable.

Nonetheless, our analysis of nationally representative survey data had 

several limitations. The SCF and other surveys that are based on selfreported data are subject to several other sources of non-sampling error, 

including the inability to get information about all sample cases; difficulties 

of definition; differences in the interpretation of questions; respondents’ 

inability or unwillingness to provide correct information; and errors made 

in collecting, recording, coding, and processing data. These non-sampling 

errors can influence the accuracy of information presented in the report, 

although the magnitude of their effect is not known.

We also encountered limitations specific to our study. First, in using the 

2008 SIPP Gold Standard Data to analyze the characteristics of female 

Social Security beneficiaries, we were unable to analyze information for 

approximately 6 percent of the female respondents age 62 and over who 

did not provide their Social Security numbers because Census uses the 

SSN to match the information respondents provide in the SIPP survey 

with the information from administrative files.4

 

4

An additional 1,091 of the 42,803 women in the SIPP data did not have SSNs. These 

women, however, did not have a birth date in the SIPP data, so we do not know what 

proportion of them were age 62 and over and might have been receiving Social Security 

benefits and therefore excluded from our analysis. To the extent that women who did not 

have SSNs differ systematically from women included in the analysis, this represents a 

potential source of bias. 

Second, in using the SCF 

to evaluate changes in the retirement savings behavior of households, we 

were unable to analyze the decisions of households to opt out of the 

survivor benefit prior to 2001 due to changes in the SCF questionnaire. In 

addition, in using the SCF to analyze near-retirement households, we 

widened the age range we examined from 55-64 to 50-64 in some 

instances to improve the precision of our estimates.

Data Reliability and 

Limitations
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methods

Page 60 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

To gain an understanding of the trends in marriage and labor force 

participation and their implications for retirement security, we conducted 

an extensive literature review and interviewed a range of experts. To 

identify existing studies, we used online research software to search 

through databases of scholarly and peer-reviewed materials for 

information on these topics, including articles, journals, reports, and 

studies dating back to 2002. In addition, we reviewed articles that were 

collected during the previous GAO study on women’s retirement security 

that contained relevant information and reviewed articles that were 

suggested to us by the experts we interviewed.5

To supplement the literature review, we conducted interviews with 

experts. To ensure that we obtained a balanced perspective, we 

interviewed 49 experts with a range of perspectives and from 21 different 

types of organizations including government, academia, advocacy 

groups, think tanks and industry. We also consulted several of these 

experts on technical issues related to our analysis. We identified and 

interviewed experts who have specialized knowledge about spousal 

protections and retirement security in a specific area of expertise (e.g.,

law or social science), or who were recommended by one or more people 

or groups we had previously interviewed. Specifically, we interviewed 

federal agency officials at the Departments of the Treasury and Labor, the 

Social Security Administration, the Census Bureau, and the Office of 

Management and Budget; academic experts and subject-matter experts 

at Drexel University, the Employee Benefit Research Institute, Syracuse 

University, and the Urban Institute; and industry experts and advocates 

from AARP, the American Benefits Council, Global Policy Solutions, the 

Institute for Women’s Policy Research, the Investment Company Institute, 

Mercer, the National Women’s Law Center, the National Gay and Lesbian 

Task Force, the National Hispanic Council on Aging, the Pension Rights 

Center, and the Women’s Institute for a Secure Retirement.

The articles we cited in 

the report were reviewed for methodological adequacy by at least two 

GAO analysts with expertise in social science methods.

To identify the policy options that may address retirement security issues 

under Social Security and private employer-sponsored plans, we 

reviewed past GAO reports and interviewed experts. For the Social 

 

5

GAO, Retirement Security: Women Still Face Challenges, GAO-12-699 (Washington, 

D.C.: July 2012).

Literature Review and 

Interviews
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methods

Page 61 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Security options, we reviewed GAO’s prior work in this area.6 We 

selected options that focus on either spousal or survivor benefits or, more 

broadly, on elderly populations that are vulnerable to poverty. We 

identified policy options that would seek to address spousal protections in 

private employer-sponsored DB and DC plans through interviews with 

retirement policy experts representing a range of perspectives and from 

different types of organizations including government, academia, 

advocacy groups, and the private sector. The Social Security, DB, and 

DC policy options listed in this report are not intended to be exhaustive 

and we are not recommending or endorsing the adoption of any particular 

policy option. Rather, we identified them as potential options for 

policymakers to consider, along with other relevant proposals, as they

address retirement security issues. In addition, for this report, we did not 

conduct an independent analysis of the potential legal effects of these 

policy options.

To compare the characteristics of female Social Security beneficiaries in 

Objective 2, we used a sample of beneficiaries from the SIPP Gold 

Standard data set. Table 4 provides descriptive information on the 

population of the beneficiaries we analyzed by categories of beneficiaries, 

including (1) all female Social Security beneficiaries (including widows); 

(2) retired-worker, non-widow beneficiaries; (3) spouse-only beneficiaries; 

and (4) dually-entitled workers. We removed the widows from the sample 

of retired workers so that we could compare a similar set of female 

beneficiaries (i.e. all non-widows).

Table 5 provides information on the wealth and income characteristics of 

all female Social Security beneficiaries that were married at the time of 

the survey. Again, by restricting the sample to women who are in similar 

life circumstances (i.e. married), we can obtain a more accurate picture of 

the wealth and income levels of spouse-only beneficiaries (who are by 

definition married), relative to their married counterparts in the retiredworker and dually-entitled categories.

 

6

See GAO, Retirement Security: Women Still Face Challenges, GAO-12-699 

(Washington, D.C.: July 2012); GAO, Social Security: Options to Protect Benefits for 

Vulnerable Groups When Addressing Program Solvency, GAO-10-101R (Washington, 

D.C.: December 2009); and GAO, Retirement Security: Women Face Challenges in 

Ensuring Financial Security in Retirement, GAO-08-105 (Washington, D.C.: October 

2007).

Section 2: Analysis of 

the Characteristics of 

Social Security 

Spousal Beneficiaries
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methods

Page 62 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Table 4: Characteristics of Female Social Security Beneficiaries: 2011

 

All female Social 

Security beneficiaries

(including widows)

Retired workers 

(excluding widows)a Spouse-only

Dually-entitled 

spouse

 Mean or 

Percent

Standard 

error

Mean or 

Percent

Standard

error

Mean or 

Percent

Standard 

error

Mean or 

Percent

Standard 

error

Age (years) 71.7 0.06 68.2 0.12 70.6 0.28 69.4 0.22

Marital status (percent)

Never married 4 0.3 10 1 0 — 0 — 

Married 47 0.5 68 1 95 1 91 1 

Divorced 13 0.5 22 1 5 1 9 1 

Widowed 36 0.5 — — 0 — 0 — 

Number of 

children 2.7 0.02 2.2 0.03 3.1 0.09 2.8 0.06

Race and ethnicity (percent)

White, NonHispanic 81 0.4 79 1 81 2 90 1 

Black, NonHispanic 9 0.2 10 0.5 3 1 3 1 

Hispanic 6 0.3 7 1 11 2 4 1 

Other, NonHispanic 4 0.2 4 0.4 5 1 3 1 

Education level (percent)

No high school 

diploma 13 0.5 8 1 20 2 8 1 

High school 

diploma 37 0.7 31 1 43 2 43 2 

Some college 30 0.6 34 1 19 2 30 1 

Bachelor’s degree 

or higher 20 0.5 27 1 18 2 19 1 

Individual lifetime 

earnings (2012 $) $721,333 $7,982 $1,110,413 $15,580 $162,206 $12,747 $395,176 $11,507

Household 

lifetime earnings 

(2012 $) $1,737,804 $42,050 $2,449,516 $102,672 $2,307,574 $118,324 $2,734,215 $82,496

Own home 

(percent) 84 0.5 85 1 87 2 91 1 

Observationsb 6701 2443 627 853

Source: GAO analysis of SIPP Gold Standard data.

Note: Due to federal confidentiality requirements intended to protect the privacy of survey 

respondents, Census is not permitted to release maximum and minimum values of variables from the 

SIPP restricted Gold Standard data.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methods

Page 63 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

a

We removed the widows from the sample of retired workers so that we could compare a similar set 

of female beneficiaries (i.e. all non widows) since the spouse-only and dually-entitled spouse 

beneficiary categories by definition do not include widows.

b

Some variables had a lower number of observations, due to lower response rates for particular 

segments of the SIPP survey.

Table 5: Comparison of Wealth and Income Characteristics of Married Female Social Security Beneficiaries: 2011

 

Married retired workers 

(excluding widows) Married spouse-only

Married dually-entitledspouse

 

Percent

Standard 

error Percent

Standard 

error Percent

Standard 

error

Own home 94 1 89 2 93 1 

Total net worth categories

Less than or equal to $150,000 28 1 32 2 23 2 

Greater than $150,000 through $300,000 21 1 17 1 20 2 

Greater than $300,000 through $450,000 13 1 15 1 15 1 

Greater than $450,000 through $600,000 8 1 7 1 8 1 

Greater than $600,000 30 1 29 2 34 2 

Home equity categories 

Less than or equal to $75,000 27 1 32 2 22 1 

Greater than $75,000 through $150,000 24 1 22 2 26 2 

Greater than $150,000 through $225,000 15 1 12 2 15 1 

Greater than $225,000 through $300,000 11 1 10 1 12 1 

Greater than $300,000 23 1 23 2 25 2 

Household lifetime earnings categories

Less than or equal to $750,000 5 1 11 1 4 1 

Greater than $750,000 through 

$1,500,000 10 1 21 2 7 1 

Greater than $1,500,000 through 

$2,250,000 17 1 26 2 22 2 

Greater than $2,250,000 68 1 42 2 68 2 

Observations 1594 580 764

Source: GAO analysis of SIPP Gold Standard data.

Note: Due to federal confidentiality requirements intended to protect the privacy of survey 

respondents, Census is not permitted to release maximum and minimum values of variables from the 

SIPP Gold Standard data. Some variables had a lower number of observations, due to lower

response rates for particular segments of the SIPP survey. Some within group percentages do not 

total 100 due to rounding.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methods

Page 64 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

To understand the characteristics of married households that opt not to 

receive a survivor benefit for Objective 2, we analyzed a sample of 

married households currently receiving pension income from the SCF 

data. To identify these households, we used three questions from the 

SCF survey. Specifically, we selected households that:

• Responded to “Is anyone in the household receiving pension benefits 

currently?” with “Yes”; 

• Responded to “Is this pension currently an account plan, such as a 

401(k), where you could take the whole balance as one payment if 

you wanted to?” with “No;” and

• Responded to “Is this a payment or account from a current job, past 

job, a disability or military benefit, former spouse’s pension, or 

something else?” with either “Current job pension of respondent or 

spouse/partner,” “Past job pension of respondent or spouse/partner 

(except military)” or “Disability.” 

Among the households that are currently receiving pension benefits, we 

identified households that opted for a survivor benefit by using an 

additional question from the SCF survey. Specifically, we selected 

households that:

• Responded to “If you were to die, what percent of this current 

retirement payment would your spouse/partner continue to receive?” 

with “Start at a later time, no indication of reduced benefit,” “Start at a 

later time, indication of reduced benefit,” “Lump sum payout,” “Full 

amount for limited period,” “Full amount, no time limit or time period 

not specified,” or “other.” 

To ensure that we categorized these households appropriately, we 

consulted an official at the Federal Reserve.

Table 6 presents descriptive information on the characteristics of married 

households currently receiving pension income (presented in the third 

column) as well as on all households currently receiving pension income 

(presented in the middle column). 

Section 3: Analysis of 

the Characteristics of 

Married Households 

that Opt Out of 

Survivor Benefits
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methods

Page 65 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Table 6: Characteristics of Households Currently Receiving Pension Income

Percentage of all 

households

Percentage of all married 

households

Age of household head

Under 45 years old 2% 2%

45-54 years old 5% 5%

55-64 years old 22% 26%

65-69 years old 17% 22%

70-79 years old 33% 30%

80 years and older 21% 15%

Marital status 

Married 54% 100%

Living with partner 2% 0% 

Separated 1% 0% 

Divorced 13% 0% 

Widowed 26% 0% 

Never married 4% 0% 

Current length of marriage

0-10 years NA 12%

11-20 years NA 10%

21-40 years NA 35%

Over 40 years NA 42%

Age of spouse/partner 

18-34 years old NA 1%

35-44 years old NA 2%

45-54 years old NA 12%

55-64 years old NA 32%

65-69 years old NA 20%

70-79 years old NA 25%

80 years and older NA 7%

Race/ethnicity of household head 

White non-Hispanic 83% 85%

Black 11% 8%

Hispanic 2% 3%

Other 3% 3%

Education of household head 

No high school 

diploma/GED

10% 9%
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methods

Page 66 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Percentage of all 

households

Percentage of all married 

households

High school diploma or GED 36% 32%

Some college 17% 18%

College degree or more 38% 41%

Household income bracket 

< $25,000 21% 7%

$25,000-$49,999 32% 30%

$50,000-$74,999 21% 24%

$75,000-$99,999 10% 13%

$100,000 - $249,999 14% 22%

$250,000 or greater 2% 4%

Household net worth bracket 

< $50,000 18% 10%

$50,000 - $199,999 28% 25%

$200,000 - $399,999 20% 23%

$400,000 - $999,999 21% 26%

$1,000,000 - $1,999,999 9% 11%

$2,000,000 or greater 4% 5%

Source: GAO analysis of 2010 Survey of Consumer Finances data.

Table notes: Due to limitations in the SCF data, households in the above analysis include both 

households that are currently receiving retirement income from a defined benefit plan or have chosen 

to annuitize their defined contribution benefits. The estimates presented in this table have 95 percent 

confidence intervals that are within +/- 2.10 percentage points of the estimate itself. Some within 

group percentages do not total 100 due to rounding.

To understand the savings behavior of working-age households for 

Objective 2, we analyzed a sample of working-age households from the 

SCF data. Table 7 presents descriptive information on all of the workingage households and married households in this sample.

Table 7: Characteristics of Working-age Households

Percentage of all 

households

Percentage of all married 

households

Age of household head

18-34 years old 27% 19%

35-44 years old 23% 26%

45-54 years old 27% 31%

55-64 years old 23% 25%
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methods

Page 67 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Percentage of all 

households

Percentage of all married 

households

Marital status 

Married 51% 100%

Living with partner 9% 0% 

Separated 3% 0% 

Divorced 14% 0% 

Widowed 3% 0% 

Never married 19% 0% 

Age of spouse/partner 

18-34 years old NA 24%

35-44 years old NA 27%

45-54 years old NA 30%

55-64 years old NA 17%

65-69 years old NA 1%

70-79 years or older NA 0%

Race/ethnicity of household head 

White non-Hispanic 68% 74%

Black 15% 8%

Hispanic 13% 13%

Other 5% 5%

Education of household head 

No high school diploma/GED 10% 9%

High school diploma or GED 31% 30%

Some college 20% 18%

College degree or more 39% 43%

Household type 

Married 51% 100%

Living with partner 9% 0% 

Female single-headed 24% 0% 

Male single-headed 16% 0% 

Labor force participation a 

Male 1-earner household 29% 27%

Female 1-earner household 23% 6%

2-earner household 39% 64%

0-earner household 9% 4%

Household income bracket 

< $25,000 24% 10%
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methods

Page 68 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Percentage of all 

households

Percentage of all married 

households

$25,000-$49,999 27% 20%

$50,000-$74,999 18% 21%

$75,000-$99,999 11% 16%

$100,000 - $249,999 16% 26%

$250,000 or greater 4% 7%

Household net worth bracket 

< $50,000 49% 34%

$50,000 - $199,999 23% 26%

$200,000 - $399,999 11% 14%

$400,000 - $999,999 9% 13%

$1,000,000 - $1,999,999 4% 6%

$2,000,000 or greater 4% 7%

Balance of retirement savings accounts b

<$25,000 68% 55%

$25,000 - $49,999 7% 9%

$50,000 - $99,999 7% 10%

$100,000 - $249,999 8% 13%

$250,000 - $499,999 4% 7%

$500,000 - $999,999 2% 4%

$1,000,000 or more 1% 2%

Source: GAO analysis of 2010 Survey of Consumer Finances data.

Table notes: The estimates presented in this table have 95 percent confidence intervals that are 

within +/- 1.06 percentage points of the estimate itself. Some within group percentages do not total 

100 due to rounding.

a

The type of households (male sole earner, female sole earner, and dual-earner) reflects the 

employment status of both household members at a particular point in time. Therefore, it is not 

surprising that we observe a portion of retirement savings contributions from the non-working spouse, 

which could reflect his or her labor force participation in prior years.

b

Includes the balance of all defined contribution, IRA (Roth, regular, and rollover), and Keogh

accounts held by all members of the primary economic unit, as defined by the Survey of Consumer 

Finances.
Appendix II: Selected Social Security Policy 

Options That May Offset Effects of Changes in 

Marital Patterns

Page 69 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

This appendix provides a summary of Social Security policy options, 

suggested by experts and cited in past GAO reports, to improve the 

retirement security of vulnerable populations.1 The options listed are not 

intended to be exhaustive, and each selected policy option may include 

multiple proposals. In this report, we are not recommending or endorsing 

the adoption of any particular policy option. Rather, we identify them as 

potential options for policymakers to consider, along with other relevant 

proposals, as they address retirement security issues. Table 8 presents 

options that focus specifically on modifying benefits for spouses and 

survivors. Table 9 presents other options that would affect broader 

populations of vulnerable individuals, including those who do not qualify 

for spousal or survivor benefits, such as the never-married.

 

1

The policy options described in this appendix have been suggested by experts including 

agency officials and retirement security researchers and were compiled directly from prior 

GAO reports. For this report, we did not conduct an independent analysis of the possible 

legal effects of each policy option.

Appendix II: Selected Social Security Policy 

Options That May Offset Effects of Changes 

in Marital Patterns
Appendix II: Selected Social Security Policy 

Options That May Offset Effects of Changes in 

Marital Patterns

Page 70 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Table 8: Selected Policy Options That Target Spouses and Survivors

Selected 

policy 

options

Reduce the 

minimum marriage 

duration required 

for divorced 

spouse and 

survivor benefits

Increase spousal 

benefits for 

divorced 

spouses 

Increase 

survivor 

benefits 

Reduce spousal 

benefits & 

increase 

survivor 

benefits 

Increase 

benefits for 

disabled 

surviving 

spouses

Adopt earnings 

sharing

See GAO 

reports

GAO-08-105, 

GAO-10-101R, 

GAO-12-699

GAO-12-699 GAO-08-105, 

GAO-10-101R, 

GAO-12-699

GAO-08-105 GAO-12-699 GAO-10-101R

Targeted 

group

This option targets 

divorced spouses 

whose marriages 

lasted less than 10 

years and therefore 

do not qualify for 

divorced spouse and 

survivor benefits.

This option targets 

divorced spouses 

who were married 

for at least 10 

years and who 

qualify for 

divorced spouse 

and survivor 

benefits.

This option 

targets 

widow(er)s. 

This option 

targets 

widow(er)s. 

This option 

targets disabled 

surviving 

spouses. 

This option targets 

divorced spouses 

whose marriages 

lasted less than 10 

years and therefore 

do not qualify for 

spouse or survivor 

benefits, and whose

incomes while 

married were lower 

than their spouses. 

An earnings sharing 

approach is often 

proposed as an 

alternative to existing 

spousal and survivor 

benefits.
Appendix II: Selected Social Security Policy 

Options That May Offset Effects of Changes in 

Marital Patterns

Page 71 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Selected 

policy 

options

Reduce the 

minimum marriage 

duration required 

for divorced 

spouse and 

survivor benefits

Increase spousal 

benefits for 

divorced 

spouses 

Increase 

survivor 

benefits 

Reduce spousal 

benefits & 

increase 

survivor 

benefits 

Increase 

benefits for 

disabled 

surviving 

spouses

Adopt earnings 

sharing

What 

happens 

now

Currently, a divorced 

spouse can receive 

benefits based on a 

retired worker’s 

earnings record if 

the marriage lasted 

at least 10 years.

Currently, 

divorced spouses 

who qualify for 

spousal benefits 

receive a benefit 

equal to up to 50 

percent of the 

worker’s benefits. 

Divorced spouses 

who qualify for 

widow/widower 

benefits receive a

benefit of up to 

100 percent of the 

deceased worker’s 

benefits.

Currently, a 

surviving 

spouse at full 

retirement age 

or older 

typically 

receives 100 

percent of the 

worker’s basic 

benefit 

amount. This 

decreases 

household 

income upon 

the death of 

one spouse by 

about one-third 

if the couple’s 

retirement 

benefits had 

been based on 

one spouse’s 

work history, 

and up to 50 

percent if both 

spouses had 

been receiving 

retired worker 

benefits.

Currently, a 

surviving spouse 

at full retirement 

age or older 

typically receives 

100 percent of 

the worker’s 

basic benefit 

amount. This 

decreases 

household 

income upon the 

death of one 

spouse by about 

one-third if the 

couple’s 

retirement 

benefits had 

been based on 

one spouse’s 

work history and 

up to 50 percent 

if both spouses 

had been 

receiving retired 

worker benefits. 

Dual-earner 

couples 

experience a 

proportionally 

greater decrease 

in benefits upon 

the death of a 

spouse than 

single-earner 

couples 

experience. 

Researchers 

have expressed 

concern about 

whether this 

decline in total 

household 

benefits is too 

large to maintain 

the survivor’s 

previous 

standard of living.

Currently, to 

qualify for 

disabled 

surviving spouse 

benefits, disabled 

surviving 

spouses must be 

at least age 50 

and have 

become disabled 

not later than 7 

years after the 

spouse’s death 

or 7 years after 

last being eligible 

for mothers or 

father’s benefits 

or widow(er)’s 

benefits based 

upon a disability. 

In addition, 

disabled 

surviving 

spouses younger 

than the full 

retirement age 

generally receive 

lower benefits 

than those who 

wait to receive 

their benefits until 

the full retirement 

age. 

Under the current 

system, a spouse 

who has not worked 

or who has low 

earnings can be 

entitled to a benefit 

equal to as much as 

one-half of the retired 

worker’s full benefit. 

The total benefit 

received by the 

couple would be 150 

percent of the 

worker’s benefit.

If the spouse is 

divorced, he or she 

can still get benefits 

based on a retired 

worker’s earnings 

record if the marriage 

lasted at least 10 

years, and the spouse 

is unmarried and at 

least 62 years old.
Appendix II: Selected Social Security Policy 

Options That May Offset Effects of Changes in 

Marital Patterns

Page 72 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Selected 

policy 

options

Reduce the 

minimum marriage 

duration required 

for divorced 

spouse and 

survivor benefits

Increase spousal 

benefits for 

divorced 

spouses 

Increase 

survivor 

benefits 

Reduce spousal 

benefits & 

increase 

survivor 

benefits 

Increase 

benefits for 

disabled 

surviving 

spouses

Adopt earnings 

sharing

Selected 

reform 

options

Experts have 

recommended 

expanding eligibility 

for divorced spousal 

benefits to require a 

minimum of 7 years 

of marriage. 

Additionally, some 

experts have 

suggested marriage 

years could also be 

accumulated across 

multiple marriages. 

One Social Security 

reform proposal 

suggests that 

reducing the 

required marriage 

duration could be 

combined with a 

minimum work 

requirement for the 

divorced spouse. 

Combining at least 7 

years of marriage 

with a minimum of 3 

years of work would 

mimic the standard 

10-year work 

requirement for 

Social Security 

retirement benefits.

Experts have 

suggested raising 

benefits for 

divorced spouses 

to 75 percent of 

the former 

spouse’s benefit 

while the former 

spouse is still 

alive. Upon the 

death of the 

former spouse, the 

surviving divorced 

spouse would 

receive the full 

widow(er)’s benefit 

of 100 percent.

Experts have 

proposed 

calculating this 

new benefit in 

different ways. 

For example, 

the surviving 

spouse could 

receive 75 

percent of the 

couple’s 

retired-workers 

benefit but the 

benefit would 

be capped at 

the maximum 

earner’s 

benefit or at 

the benefit of 

the “lifelong 

average 

earner.” This 

option could 

also be 

targeted 

specifically 

toward lowincome 

survivors, for 

example, by 

including a 

cap.

Some experts 

have proposed 

an increase in 

survivor benefits 

be paired with a 

decrease in 

spousal benefits, 

from one-half the 

retired worker’s 

benefit to onethird.

Experts have 

proposed raising 

benefits for 

disabled 

surviving 

spouses to 100 

percent of the 

deceased

spouse’s benefit. 

It would also 

remove the 7 

year limitation 

and the age 50 

requirement. 

Lastly, it would 

make divorced 

spouses who are 

disabled eligible 

for benefits on 

the same basis 

as disabled 

surviving 

spouses. 

Earnings sharing, as 

proposed by experts, 

would combine 

married individuals’ 

annual earnings and 

evenly divide them 

between the two 

spouses for each year 

of marriage when 

calculating 

individuals’ Social 

Security retirement 

benefits. Each spouse 

would accrue an 

individual benefit, 

even if only one of 

them worked. 

Divorced spouses 

whose marriages 

lasted less than 10 

years would be 

entitled to the 

individual benefits 

accrued during the 

marriage. This option 

is also seen as a way 

to equalize benefits 

received by dualearner married 

couples with those of 

single-earner couples.
Appendix II: Selected Social Security Policy 

Options That May Offset Effects of Changes in 

Marital Patterns

Page 73 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Selected 

policy 

options

Reduce the 

minimum marriage 

duration required 

for divorced 

spouse and 

survivor benefits

Increase spousal 

benefits for 

divorced 

spouses 

Increase 

survivor 

benefits 

Reduce spousal 

benefits & 

increase 

survivor 

benefits 

Increase 

benefits for 

disabled 

surviving 

spouses

Adopt earnings 

sharing

Some 

potential 

effects on 

the elderly

More divorced 

elderly would qualify 

for spousal benefits. 

For example, one 

study estimated that 

lowering the 

marriage-duration 

requirement from 10 

to 7 years would 

increase benefits for 

about 8 percent of all 

divorced women age 

62 and over in the 

year 2030. 

Proponents of this 

option note that 

reducing the 

marriage 

requirement from 10 

to 7 years would 

reflect current trends 

for shorter 

marriages. However, 

this option could 

benefit higherincome elderly who 

are not economically 

vulnerable.

Divorce can result 

in a substantial 

loss of assets and 

income. Some 

experts argue that 

a 50 percent 

benefit is not 

enough to keep 

divorced spouses 

from falling into 

poverty. It has 

been estimated 

that increasing the 

benefit rate for 

divorced spouses 

to 75 percent 

would lower the 

poverty rate 

among divorced 

spouses from 30 

percent to 11 

percent.

Increasing 

survivor 

benefits could 

help 

widow(er)s 

maintain their 

standard of 

living. However 

this option 

would not 

address benefit 

adequacy for 

those who do 

not qualify for 

spousal or 

survivor 

benefits.

Increasing 

survivor benefits 

could help 

widow(er)s 

maintain their 

standard of living. 

It would also 

smooth 

household 

benefit levels 

before and after 

widowhood. 

However, 

decreasing 

spousal benefits 

could have a 

negative impact 

on the couple 

while both 

spouses are alive 

and would not 

address benefit 

adequacy for 

those who do not 

qualify for 

spousal or 

survivor benefits.

This option would 

increase benefits 

for a very 

vulnerable 

population. Both 

divorce and 

widowhood can 

result in a 

decrease in 

retirement 

security. Further, 

disabled 

surviving 

spouses, 

including those 

who have been 

divorced, cannot 

work and may 

have no partner 

to depend on for 

support. In 

addition, 

disability issues 

affect a high 

number of 

divorced 

spouses, making 

them more 

vulnerable to 

income 

insecurity. One 

study estimated 

that more than 

one-fifth of all 

divorced spouses 

had health 

problems that 

meet disability 

criteria 

established by 

SSA. 

Earnings sharing 

could increase 

benefits for divorced 

elderly. However, this 

option would not do 

much to improve 

benefits for 

economically 

vulnerable 

beneficiaries, in part, 

because it is not well 

targeted. For 

example, SSA’s 

simulations found that 

earnings sharing 

would decrease 

benefits for the 

majority of future 

retirees, although 

benefits for some 

would increase.
Appendix II: Selected Social Security Policy 

Options That May Offset Effects of Changes in 

Marital Patterns

Page 74 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Selected 

policy 

options

Reduce the 

minimum marriage 

duration required 

for divorced 

spouse and 

survivor benefits

Increase spousal 

benefits for 

divorced 

spouses 

Increase 

survivor 

benefits 

Reduce spousal 

benefits & 

increase 

survivor 

benefits 

Increase 

benefits for 

disabled 

surviving 

spouses

Adopt earnings 

sharing

Other 

possible

implications

The extent to which 

this option would 

increase Social 

Security costs 

depends on how 

many people would 

become eligible with 

a shorter marriage 

requirement and the 

way the option is 

designed. For 

example, not 

including a 

corresponding work 

requirement would 

increase costs more 

because people who 

have no work history 

would also be 

eligible.

This benefit 

increase would 

increase costs, 

thereby 

decreasing 

solvency.

Increasing 

benefits would 

increase costs 

and decrease 

solvency. The 

extent to which 

this option 

increases 

costs depends 

on how much 

greater the 

benefit amount 

is across all 

eligible 

survivors. 

Capping the 

amount of the 

increase based 

on income 

could help limit 

costs. This 

option could 

also be 

complex to 

administer, in 

part because it 

uses a 

“couple’s 

benefit” as a 

baseline for 

calculating 

survivor 

benefits. Since 

such a benefit 

does not 

currently exist 

in the Social 

Security 

system this 

could be 

problematic, 

for example, in 

cases where 

one of the 

spouses dies 

before retiring. 

In addition, 

there are many 

complicated 

This option could 

provide savings 

to the Social 

Security system 

to partially or fully 

offset the costs of 

the increased 

survivor benefits.

This benefit 

increase would 

decrease 

solvency 

because it would 

increase costs. 

See above.

Because earnings 

sharing would 

increase benefits for 

some but decrease 

them for others, its 

net impact on Social 

Security’s solvency is 

unclear. The extent to 

which this option 

increases SSA’s 

workload depends on 

the number of newlyeligible people who 

would receive 

benefits. Some 

additional 

administrative effort 

and cost would also 

be required to 

transition from the 

current system’s 

spousal benefit to an 

earnings sharing 

approach, in part 

because of the need 

to verify marriage and 

divorce data.
Appendix II: Selected Social Security Policy 

Options That May Offset Effects of Changes in 

Marital Patterns

Page 75 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Selected 

policy 

options

Reduce the 

minimum marriage 

duration required 

for divorced 

spouse and 

survivor benefits

Increase spousal 

benefits for 

divorced 

spouses 

Increase 

survivor 

benefits 

Reduce spousal 

benefits & 

increase 

survivor 

benefits 

Increase 

benefits for 

disabled 

surviving 

spouses

Adopt earnings 

sharing

rules for 

survivors 

because of an 

existing 

provision, 

called the 

widow(er)’s 

limit, that caps 

benefit

amounts for 

some 

survivors. 

Benefit 

increases 

expected

under this 

option could be 

negated by this 

provision.

Source: GAO analysis of prior GAO reports.
Appendix II: Selected Social Security Policy 

Options That May Offset Effects of Changes in 

Marital Patterns

Page 76 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Table 9: Selected Policy Options That Target All Elderly, Regardless of Marital Status 

Selected 

policy 

options

Increase the 

minimum benefit

Provide caregiver 

credits

Reduce work 

requirements for 

eligibility

Supplement benefits 

for low-income single 

workers

Provide an 

additional Social 

Security benefit to 

the oldest old 

See GAO 

reports

GAO-08-105, 

GAO-10-101R, 

GAO-12-699

GAO-08-105, 

GAO-10-101R, 

GAO-12-699

GAO-10-101R GAO-10-101R GAO-10-101R, 

GAO-12-699

Targeted 

group

The guaranteed 

minimum benefit 

option targets lifetime 

low earners.

Caregiver credits seek 

to improve benefit 

adequacy for workers, 

primarily women, who 

have shorter earnings 

records because they 

spent time providing 

care for children or 

elderly relatives and do 

not qualify for spousal 

benefits.

This option targets 

workers with low 

lifetime earnings 

due to short work 

histories, as 

opposed to those 

with long histories 

of low earnings.

This option targets lowincome workers who 

never married or were 

not married long enough 

to qualify for spousal 

benefits.

Providing longevity 

insurance targets the 

oldest Social 

Security 

beneficiaries.
Appendix II: Selected Social Security Policy 

Options That May Offset Effects of Changes in 

Marital Patterns

Page 77 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Selected 

policy 

options

Increase the 

minimum benefit

Provide caregiver 

credits

Reduce work 

requirements for 

eligibility

Supplement benefits 

for low-income single 

workers

Provide an 

additional Social 

Security benefit to 

the oldest old 

What 

happens 

now

A “special minimum” 

benefit provision was 

enacted in 1972 for 

workers with 11 or 

more covered years 

of employment. 

However, because 

the minimum benefit 

amount has not kept 

pace with wage 

growth, few people 

still qualify for the 

benefit. For workers 

not eligible for the 

special minimum 

benefit, benefits are 

generally calculated 

on the basis of a 

worker’s average 

indexed monthly 

earnings during the 

35 years in which 

they were the highest. 

While the benefit 

structure is 

progressive, a lifetime 

minimum- or lowwage worker would 

still have 

correspondingly low 

benefits. The current 

benefit formula does 

not distinguish 

between low average 

wages caused by low 

lifetime earnings or 

low average wages 

caused by years of 

unemployment.

Under the current 

system, Social Security 

eligibility and benefit 

amounts for retired 

workers depend on the 

amount of time a worker 

spends in covered 

employment. Time 

spent out of covered 

employment as a 

caregiver may reduce 

benefits for workers, 

and others may not 

work enough to earn the 

required 40 credits 

generally required to be 

eligible for benefits. 

Under current law, 

workers generally 

must accrue 40 

credits—about 10 

years of earnings—

in covered 

employment to be 

eligible for Social 

Security retirement 

benefits based on 

their own work 

record. 

In 2009, the benefit 

formula replaced 90 

percent of the first $744 

of a worker’s average 

indexed monthly 

earnings (AIME), 32 

percent of the AIME 

between $745 and 

$4,483, and 15 percent 

of the AIME above 

$4,483, up to a cap. A 

worker’s AIME is 

calculated based on a 

worker’s highest 35 

years’ earnings, after 

earnings have been 

indexed for wage growth 

over time.

As people grow 

older, they risk 

outliving their other 

resources, become 

less able to work, 

and become more 

dependent on Social 

Security benefits for 

their income. While 

Social Security 

benefits are intended 

to replace lost 

wages and are 

adjusted annually to 

reflect price inflation, 

they are not meant 

to be the sole source 

of retirement 

income. However, 

the value of other 

income sources, 

such as pensions 

and annuities, may 

be eroded by 

inflation over time.
Appendix II: Selected Social Security Policy 

Options That May Offset Effects of Changes in 

Marital Patterns

Page 78 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Selected 

policy 

options

Increase the 

minimum benefit

Provide caregiver 

credits

Reduce work 

requirements for 

eligibility

Supplement benefits 

for low-income single 

workers

Provide an 

additional Social 

Security benefit to 

the oldest old 

Selected 

reform 

options

Experts have 

suggested several 

options for increasing 

the minimum benefit. 

The amount and 

structure of the 

benefit varies among 

proposals, but most 

minimum benefit 

options are designed 

to address benefit 

adequacy by 

providing a retirement 

benefit equal to some 

multiple of the federal 

poverty level, with the 

multiple based on 

years worked in 

covered employment. 

For example, one 

option would provide 

a minimum benefit 

equal to 120 percent 

of the federal poverty 

level for a minimumwage earner who had 

worked for 30 years. 

Another option would 

provide a minimum 

benefit equal to 100 

percent of the federal 

poverty level for a 30-

year worker and 111 

percent of the poverty 

level for a 40-year 

worker. 

Experts have suggested 

a caregiver credit 

option, which can be 

designed in different 

ways. One design 

allows a specified 

amount of caregiving 

time, such as 3 or 4 

years, to count as 

covered employment, 

and assigns a wage to 

that time. For example, 

an average wage for all 

workers could be 

assigned or a wage 

linked to an individual 

beneficiary’s prior 

earnings could be used. 

Another design would 

exclude a limited 

number of caregiving 

years from the benefit 

calculation so that 

instead of averaging 

earnings over 35 years, 

earnings would be 

averaged over fewer 

years. A final design 

supplements caregivers’ 

retired worker benefits 

directly, regardless of 

whether they took time 

out of the workforce for 

caregiving. For 

example, an incometested supplement could 

be given to increase 

retired worker benefits 

by 75 percent for those 

who have one child and 

80 percent for those 

with two or more 

children. Both parents of 

a child would be eligible 

for this supplement, as 

long as the total 

household income did 

not exceed 125 percent 

of the federal poverty 

level.

Experts have 

suggested reducing 

the work 

requirements for 

Social Security 

retirement benefit 

eligibility, which 

would enable 

people who have 

shorter earnings 

histories to receive 

benefits. Benefit 

amounts would be 

calculated under 

the existing 

formula, which uses 

the worker’s 

average indexed 

monthly earnings 

during the 35 years 

in which he or she 

earned the most, 

even if there were 

no earnings from 

covered 

employment during 

some of those 

years.

Experts have suggested 

supplementing benefits 

for low-income single 

workers by adjusting the 

formula used to calculate 

Social Security 

retirement benefits. In 

one proposal, the first 

threshold in the benefit 

formula would be 

adjusted or 

supplemented so that it 

increased by one-half, 

from $744 to $1,116 in 

2009, for eligible 

beneficiaries. The benefit 

amount would be capped 

to prevent eligible 

workers from receiving 

higher benefits than 

those who just miss 

qualifying for the 

supplement.

To be eligible for the 

supplement, a worker’s 

AIME must be lower than 

a multiple of the existing 

formula’s first threshold, 

such as 150 percent or 

300 percent. For 

example, if the multiple 

were set at 300 percent, 

a worker whose AIME 

was less than $2,232 (3 x 

$744) in 2009 would 

qualify. To receive the

supplement, a worker 

must have at least 30 

years of covered 

employment and the 

worker cannot be eligible 

for spousal benefits, nor 

can anyone else claim 

spousal benefits based 

on that worker’s earnings 

record. 

Experts have 

suggested that 

providing longevity 

insurance addresses 

concerns about 

benefit adequacy by 

increasing Social 

Security retirement 

benefits for 

beneficiaries who 

reach an advanced 

age. For example, 

Social Security 

recipients over the 

age of 80 or 85 

could receive an 

additional benefit, 

such as an extra 5 

percent on top of 

their regular benefit. 

Longevity insurance 

seeks to reduce the 

risk that the very old 

fall into poverty by 

increasing their 

Social Security 

benefits.

This option could be 

targeted specifically 

toward low-income 

beneficiaries, or 

provided to all those 

who reach an 

advanced age. Work 

history could be an 

additional condition 

for eligibility. For 

example, one 

longevity insurance 

proposal would 

increase benefits for 

people who have low 

benefits at age 82 

and have at least 20 

years of covered 

employment. It 

would provide a 

minimum benefit 
Appendix II: Selected Social Security Policy 

Options That May Offset Effects of Changes in 

Marital Patterns

Page 79 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Selected 

policy 

options

Increase the 

minimum benefit

Provide caregiver 

credits

Reduce work 

requirements for 

eligibility

Supplement benefits 

for low-income single 

workers

Provide an 

additional Social 

Security benefit to 

the oldest old 

equal to 70 percent 

of the federal 

poverty level for a 

20-year worker and 

increases the benefit 

for each additional 

year of work. 

Another proposal 

would increase 

benefits by 10 

percent at age 85 for 

30-year workers 

whose benefits are 

lower than 75 

percent of the 

average benefit all 

workers receive.
Appendix II: Selected Social Security Policy 

Options That May Offset Effects of Changes in 

Marital Patterns

Page 80 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Selected 

policy 

options

Increase the 

minimum benefit

Provide caregiver 

credits

Reduce work 

requirements for 

eligibility

Supplement benefits 

for low-income single 

workers

Provide an 

additional Social 

Security benefit to 

the oldest old 

Some 

potential 

effects on 

the elderly

A guaranteed 

minimum benefit 

could help keep more 

elderly, lifetime lowearners out of poverty 

by increasing their 

monthly income. 

However, it is difficult 

to target lifetime low

earners effectively. 

For example, 

requiring a long work 

history is problematic 

because low earners 

often have recurring 

periods of 

unemployment and 

cannot satisfy such a 

requirement. Thus, 

the target population 

may not be reached if 

a lifetime of work is 

required to earn the 

benefit. However, if a 

lifetime of work is not 

required, some 

people outside the 

target population 

would also benefit, 

e.g., higher-wage 

workers who worked 

for a short period of 

time.

Caregiver credits seek 

to improve benefit 

adequacy for workers, 

primarily women, who 

have shorter earnings 

records because they 

spent time providing 

care for children or 

elderly relatives and do 

not qualify for spousal 

benefits because they 

never married or were 

not married long enough 

to qualify for them. For 

various reasons, 

implementing this option 

may not reach the target 

population. For 

example, low-income 

people are less likely to 

be able to take time off 

from work. Therefore, 

people who have 

relatively higher 

incomes may benefit 

more from the creation 

of caregiver credits.

Reducing the 

Social Security 

work requirement is 

an option that 

targets workers 

with low lifetime 

earnings due to 

short work 

histories, as 

opposed to those 

with long histories 

of low earnings. 

According to SSA 

officials, many 

people fall just 

short of the 40 

credits requirement 

because they have 

intermittent work 

histories. However, 

officials also said 

many of those 

people may already 

be eligible for 

spousal benefits, 

resulting in few 

people benefiting 

from this option. In 

addition, agency 

officials and experts 

said benefits based 

on such short work 

histories are likely 

to be very low and 

questioned the 

effectiveness of this 

option in 

addressing benefit 

adequacy. 

The benefit supplement 

option targets lifetime low 

earners who never 

married or were not 

married long enough to 

qualify for spousal 

benefits. Low-income 

single and divorced 

women are expected to 

benefit most from this 

option. 

Women, who tend to 

live longer than men, 

would be more likely 

to receive this extra 

benefit. Older 

women may need 

extra benefits as 

income and assets 

may have been used 

to care for a 

deceased spouse or 

to pay for increasing 

medical costs. An 

additional benefit 

may be particularly 

helpful for lowincome women. 

While this could be 

an effective option 

for addressing 

concerns about

benefit adequacy for 

the very old, unless 

this option is 

specifically targeted 

toward low-income 

beneficiaries, most 

of the benefits would 

accrue to higherincome people 

because they tend to 

live longer. In 

addition, this option 

could create 

disincentives to save 

for retirement or 

incentives to spend 

down resources 

before beneficiaries 

become old enough 

to qualify for the 

longevity increase. 
Appendix II: Selected Social Security Policy 

Options That May Offset Effects of Changes in 

Marital Patterns

Page 81 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Selected 

policy 

options

Increase the 

minimum benefit

Provide caregiver 

credits

Reduce work 

requirements for 

eligibility

Supplement benefits 

for low-income single 

workers

Provide an 

additional Social 

Security benefit to 

the oldest old 

Other 

possible 

implications

Cost implications of 

this option depend on 

the number of work 

years required for 

eligibility, since that 

requirement will 

directly influence the 

number of people 

who would qualify for 

benefit increases. A 

shorter work 

requirement will result 

in more people being 

eligible, and thus 

costs will be higher. 

Additionally, the 

multiple of the federal 

poverty level used 

can have a significant 

impact on cost.

Because caregiver 

credits increase 

benefits, they have cost 

implications for Social 

Security’s solvency. The 

extent to which this 

option affects solvency 

depends largely on who 

would be eligible to 

receive the credit: one 

or both parents, all 

caregivers, or just those 

who have low incomes. 

Extending eligibility to a 

greater number of 

people will increase 

costs. In addition, the 

number of years that 

credits may be received 

and the wage assigned 

to those years will 

impact costs.

Caregiver credits would 

be complex to 

administer. A key issue 

is how to verify that care 

was provided to a 

qualifying person. While 

a birth certificate could 

be used to document 

child care, elder care 

would be more 

burdensome to 

document. Measuring 

time off and verifying 

that caregiving actually 

occurred would also be 

difficult.

Because this option 

increases the 

number of people 

receiving benefits, it 

has cost 

implications for 

Social Security’s 

solvency. The 

number of credits

required will directly 

influence the 

number of people 

who would be 

newly eligible for 

benefits. A shorter 

work requirement 

will result in more 

people being 

eligible. However, 

because few 

people are actually 

expected to receive 

benefits under this 

option, and those 

who do are 

expected to receive 

modest benefits, 

the impact of a 

reduced work 

requirement on 

program solvency 

is unlikely to be 

very large. 

Furthermore, 

because few 

people are 

expected to gain 

eligibility under this 

option, the impact 

on SSA’s workload 

is likely to be small.

The extent to which this 

option would decrease 

Social Security’s 

solvency would depend 

largely on the number of 

people who would be 

eligible for it. A key factor 

that directly influences 

the number of eligible 

beneficiaries is the 

multiple that would be 

applied to a worker’s 

AIME, ranging from 150 

percent to 300 percent. 

Another factor that could 

influence cost is the way 

“single” is defined for 

purposes of determining 

eligibility.

Moreover, determining 

an individual’s single 

status could be 

administratively complex 

because people’s marital 

statuses change over 

time and could change 

after an initial 

determination is made, 

for example, from single 

to married.

Providing longevity 

insurance would 

increase Social 

Security program 

costs. Key factors 

that influence costs 

include the age at 

which the benefit 

increases, the 

amount of the 

increase, and 

whether all 

beneficiaries or only 

low-income ones are 

eligible to receive 

the benefit. In 

addition, costs could 

increase if life 

expectancy 

continues to 

increase in the 

future.

While this option 

would be easy to 

administer, adding 

measures to improve 

targeting would 

increase 

administrative 

complexity.

Source: GAO analysis of prior GAO reports.
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 82 GAO-14-33 Marriage Trends and Retirement Security 

Charles Jeszeck, (202) 512-7215 or jeszeckc@gao.gov

Michael Collins, Assistant Director; Jennifer Cook, Erin M. Godtland, 

Rhiannon Patterson, and Ryan Siegel made significant contributions to 

the report. In addition, James Bennett, Benjamin Bolitzer, Michelle Bracy, 

Amy Buck, David Chrisinger, Sarah Cornetto, Hedieh Fusfield, Maria 

Gaona, Mark Glickman, Jennifer Gregory, Kathy Leslie, Gene 

Kuehneman, Courtney LaFountain, Avani Locke, Grant Mallie, Ashley 

McCall, Sheila McCoy, Thomas McCool, Liam O’Laughlin, Carol D. 

Petersen, Mark Ramage, Marylynn Sergent, Frank Todisco, and Shana 

Wallace made valuable contributions.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(131204)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.