Getting More from Survey Income Measures: Empirically-based 

Recommendations for Improving Accuracy and Efficiency

John L. Czajka* and Gabrielle Denmead** 

*Mathematica Policy Research

1100 First Street, NE, 12th Floor

Washington, DC 20002-4221

jczajka@mathematica-mpr.com

**Consultant

Stafford, VA 22556

gabrielle.denmead@verizon.net

Recent comparative analyses of income measurement in major household surveys found substantial variation in the 

sources and distribution of income, and noted areas such as retirement income where survey data lag reality. The 

comparisons also found similar aggregates of income, earnings and transfers, despite very large differences in the 

number and detail of survey income questions. These findings suggested a range of opportunities for improvements, 

and this paper reports on follow-on research related to the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement (CPS ASEC), with recommendations for improving its estimates of income while reducing the overall 

number of questions.

Background

Comparisons of survey income data with benchmarks constructed from administrative records show that surveys 

tend to understate total income for most sources (see, for example, Vaughan 1993, Coder and Scoon-Rogers 1996). 

This suggests that when one survey is compared to another, the survey that captures more income is probably doing 

a better job of measurement. Of the five surveys examined by Czajka and Denmead (2008) that cover the general 

population and are conducted by the federal government, the CPS ASEC captured the most total income. Yet the

American Community Survey (ACS), working with a much more limited set of income questions, captured 98 

percent as much as the CPS ASEC, and if income was expressed per capita, to adjust for the fact that the ACS 

represented, on average, a population nine months earlier than the CPS ASEC, the difference between the two 

surveys was reduced to 0.2 percent. 

However, the performance of the two surveys was not identical for all categories of income sources. The CPS ASEC 

captured 2.8 percent more earned income (that is, wages and salaries plus self-employment income) than the ACS, 

and over nine percent more Social Security, but with only five broad questions, the ACS captured a combined total 

of eight percent more than the CPS ASEC from all other income sources. Furthermore, while the CPS ASEC and the 

ACS captured the same total income from the bottom quintile, the differences by source of income were even more 

sizeable than for all income levels. Specifically, the ACS captured 17 percent more earned income while the CPS 

ASEC captured 22 percent more Social Security and eight percent more of all other income sources. Lending 

support to the suggestion that the CPS ASEC may be picking up too little earnings from the bottom quintile, the 

Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), which was explicitly designed to improve income measurement 

for lower income families, captured 14 percent more earned income than the CPS ASEC over the same calendar 

year, 12 percent less Social Security, and 15 percent more for all non-Social Security unearned income. 

Findings from Czajka and Denmead (2008) strongly suggest that survey performance in capturing earned income is 

crucial to measuring income and poverty. Earnings comprised at least 82 percent of total income in the five Federal 

surveys, and over 90 percent of total income for those under 65. Yet the CPS ASEC obtains less information about 

work activity and sources of earnings than it does about Social Security, or property income or about an extensive 
list of program and transfer payments other than retirement (some of them now extremely rare) that comprise only 

three percent of total income and less than ten percent of the income of the poor. Other income surveys collect data 

separately on multiple jobs during the year, as well as multiple self-employment activities. The CPS ASEC collects 

detailed data only on the longest-duration work activity during the calendar year, be it a job or farm or non-farm 

self-employment, which is supplemented simply by a summary question to capture any other earnings. If interview 

topics were selected in order of significance in measuring income and poverty, the time allocated to earnings and to 

newer forms of retirement payments would be increased while questions on infrequent income sources were 

combined for an overall reduction in interview time.

The success of the ACS in measuring income with a small battery of questions strongly suggests that reducing the 

overall number of questions in the CPS ASEC and the SIPP while refocusing their content might have little adverse 

effect on the quality of data collected. It is quite possible that an improvement in data would be achieved if item 

nonresponse and attrition are lowered. The CPS ASEC will always have higher nonresponse rates than other surveys 

with identical questions, because it is a supplement to the basic monthly labor force survey. Some of the monthly 

survey respondents decline to participate in the ASEC, and their responses are wholly imputed. However, when 

Czajka and Denmead compared item nonresponse and the proportion of income allocated in the ACS to the CPS 

ASEC excluding the whole person imputes, they found substantially lower allocation rates for each ACS income 

source and for each income quintile. With minor exceptions, this pattern held across all individual sources within 

each income quintile. This finding raises the possibility that question simplification may also reduce item 

nonresponse. Additionally, fewer questions may also reduce respondent fatigue and elicit more accurate responses 

throughout the interview, improving the data for topics such as health insurance that are covered toward the end of 

the interview. 

The findings from Czajka and Denmead (2008) indicate that the measurement of earnings among low-income 

families in the CPS ASEC falls significantly short of the ACS and SIPP. Some reworking and expansion of the 

questions on income from employment appears to be in order along with an expansion and restructuring of the

questions on retirement income.

CPS ASEC Income by Source

The CPS ASEC collects data on 20 major sources of income, and the public use file provides both person-level and 

family-level measures of recipiency and dollar amounts for each of these sources. Where family-level measures 

were not provided, we constructed them. Four of the sources—retirement, survivor, and disability income plus a 

residual “other” income—are subdivided into additional, component sources based on a sequence of screeners 

followed by check lists. Others, such as Social Security, SSI, veterans benefits and unemployment benefits are 

addressed by multiple questions on individual sources (or bases of eligibility). We focus on the 20 major sources. 

The first section below examines receipt of these 20 sources among families and unrelated individuals. The second 

section looks at the amount of income received by source. The third section examines the additional detail collected 

for retirement, survivor, and disability income.

Receipt of Major Sources

Table 1 shows the percent of families and unrelated individuals receiving each of the 20 sources of income by 

poverty class. On a recipiency basis, the dominant source of income is earnings, comprised of wages and salaries 

and farm and non-farm self-employment income, followed by interest and Social Security income. Overall and 

within each poverty class, wage and salary earnings were the most common source, with the percent who received 

such income rising with the level of family income. In all, 74.8 percent of families (we use this term to include 

unrelated individuals as well) received wage and salary income in 2008, but this varied from a low of 41.5 percent 

among families below poverty to a high of 90.5 percent among families above 400 percent of poverty. Another 8.7 

percent of families had non-farm self-employment earnings while just 1.4 percent had farm earnings. Both types of 

self-employment earnings grew in frequency as family incomes rose.

Interest was claimed by 47.4 percent of all families, but recipiency declined steeply with falling income. Only 14.1 

percent of families in poverty reported interest income compared to 72.1 percent of families above 400 percent of 

poverty. Interest was less common than Social Security income in the bottom three poverty classes even though 

Social Security income—reported by 25.1 percent of families—was only half as common as interest income among 
all families. Unlike earnings and interest, the receipt of Social Security income did not rise with relative income. 

Rather, the receipt of Social Security income peaked for those with income between 100 and 150 percent of poverty, 

and then declined with increasing income.

Two other sources of income were received by at least ten percent of families: dividends and retirement income . 

Dividends were not nearly as common as interest, being reported by only 15.4 percent of families, but they were the 

third most common source of income among families above 400 percent of poverty. Retirement income increased 

with rising income, then leveled off, but might show different levels and relation to income if defined contribution 

retirement and IRA payments were included.

Of the other less-common income sources, 12 in all, some increased with rising income, some decreased, and some 

were essentially flat. The only source that rose progressively with relative income was the combination of net rent, 

royalties, and estates or trusts. Unemployment or strike benefits rose to a peak among families between 200 and 250 

percent of poverty but then declined. Veterans’ payments also increased to a point but leveled off. Means-tested 

benefits would be expected to decline with rising income, and we see that pattern for Supplemental Security Income 

(SSI) and public assistance. Child support and financial assistance from others also declined with rising income but 

not as steeply as SSI and public assistance. 

Among the rarest income sources, worker’s compensation was claimed by only 0.4 percent of families among the 

poor, and on average by only one percent of families above 150 percent of poverty. Other income barely deviated 

from a frequency of one percent across all income levels. Disability income (which excludes Social Security 

Disability Insurance, SSI, and worker’s compensation) was almost as rare as worker’s compensation and other 

income, and alimony was the least common of all income sources, with little variation by income level. 

Income by Source

Another way to measure the relative importance of the 20 income sources is to compare their shares of total income. 

Table 2 shows the percentage distribution of total income by source for all families (and unrelated individuals) by 

poverty class. What is striking here is how little most sources contributed, on average, to the overall total income 

received by families at each level of relative income. Wage and salary earnings dominated all sources, of course, and 

while such earnings accounted for a greater share of total income at the upper end of the income distribution than at 

the lower end, the difference was not as great as the difference between wages and salaries and any other source of 

income except Social Security, which partially replaces earnings for the elderly. Wage and salary earnings 

accounted for 48.7 percent of the total income of the poor and 80 percent of the total income of families above 400 

percent of poverty. Social Security was next in importance, but it accounted for only 6.6 percent of total income 

among all families. Among the poor, however, Social Security income represented 22.6 percent of total income, and 

among the near poor (100 to 150 percent of poverty), where it peaked, Social Security provided 27.2 percent of total 

income. Among families above 400 percent of poverty, however, Social Security contributed only 3.2 percent of 

total income, less than contributed by retirement income.

While SSI provided only half a percent of all income, it accounted for 9.8 percent of the total income of poor 

families. Among the near poor, however, SSI was only 2.9 percent of total income, and its share declined rapidly as 

income rose. Of the remaining 17 major sources collected in CPS ASEC, only one accounted for as much as five 

percent of the income within any poverty class. Non-farm self-employment contributed 5.1 percent of the total 

income of families above 400 percent of poverty and between 3.5 and 4.4 percent of the income of all other poverty 

classes.

 

Among the poor, five other sources each provided roughly two percent of total income, but it is striking that none 

was higher. Each of these sources—unemployment or strike benefits, public assistance or welfare, educational 

assistance, child support, and financial assistance from others—declined in importance fairly steeply as income rose. 

At the upper end of the income distribution, only interest income (after wage and salary earnings, Social Security, 

non-farm self-employment, and retirement income) accounted for as much as two percent of total income. 

Alimony contributed no more than 0.13 percent of total income to any poverty class, and other income was nearly as 

unimportant, providing 0.3 percent of the income of the poor but between 0.1 and 0.2 percent of the income in every 
other poverty class. Other sources that provided less than one percent in every income class were farm selfemployment earnings, worker’s compensation, veterans’ payments, survivor’s income, and disability income.

Retirement, Survivor, and Disability Income: Additional Detail

For Social Security income, the CPS ASEC first establishes the receipt of such income and then establishes the 

reason for such receipt—that is, as a retirement, survivor, or disability benefit. For all other post-employment 

income, the CPS ASEC first establishes the reason rather than source. Three separate screeners ask if anyone in the 

household received income as the result of being retired, disabled, or a survivor, and only those who responded yes 

were asked who received such income, what was the source, and how much was received from each source. This 

approach does not appear to be as effective or efficient as first establishing the source—such as a former employer 

or retirement account. The hard distinction between survivor and retirement income and their separation in the 

interview sequence is also somewhat puzzling, since both are associated with retirement, and both (except within 

Social Security) may be received by the same person, from the same retirement system. As more and more 

employed married women age and become widowed, they are likely to receive survivor’s benefits in conjunction 

with their own retirement income. Even more importantly, the wording of the current questions on retirement and 

survivors payments is most suitable to identifying income from older defined benefit (pension) retirement systems, 

and the CPS ASEC appears not to capture what may be hundreds of billions of dollars in defined contribution and 

IRA payments.

Previously we examined receipt by source at the family level (more specifically, for families and unrelated 

individuals). Here we are more interested in the patterns of receipt at the person level so that we can determine how 

many individuals are receiving income from more than one source. 

For individuals identified as receiving retirement income other than Social Security, Table 3 gives the percentage 

with each of seven specific sources plus an “other” category. Respondents could list up to two sources for each adult 

in the household, so the percentages sum to more than 100 percent. The percentage of persons reporting only one 

versus two sources is shown at the bottom of the table. Table 4 shows the percentage distribution of retirement 

income by source—again, for persons by family poverty class. Because total income is the denominator, these 

percentages sum to exactly 100 percent. The percentage of total dollars reported by persons giving only one versus 

two sources is given at the bottom of the table. 

Company or union pensions were the dominant source of retirement income at every poverty level, accounting for 

58.0 percent of recipients and 43.7 percent of total income. State or local government pensions were next in 

frequency, representing 23.0 percent of recipients and 29.4 percent of total income. What may be more notable is 

that 97.3 percent of recipients reported only a single source of retirement income, and the income reported by these 

recipients was 95.0 percent of the total retirement income (excluding Social Security).

We observed similar patterns for survivor and disability income, with company or union pensions dominant, state or 

local government pensions next in frequency and share of total income, and the vast majority of recipients reporting 

only a single source. We also found that two of the sources of survivor income—worker’s compensation and estates 

or trusts—were picked up elsewhere. Estates and trusts accounted for nearly 14 percent of the total survivor income.

Worker’s compensation was negligible as a source of survivor’s income but is repeated as a source of disability 

income, where it accounted for 7.4 percent of the reported income. Unless these two sources are being doublecounted, it is surprising how often respondents who previously answered no to these sources later responded yes.

Comparative Estimates: CPS ASEC, SIPP, and ACS

A comparison of CPS ASEC, SIPP, and ACS income estimates is informative about the income measures in all 

three surveys. We established in previous work that the CPS ASEC falls short of the SIPP for all sources of 

retirement income but particularly for the newer forms of such income -- payments from defined contribution 

(401(k), 403(b), etc.) retirement plans and from any type of IRA (traditional, Roth, SEP or SIMPLE) retirement 

account . We have since found that the ACS produces considerably less pension and retirement account income than 

SIPP as well—but somewhat more than the CPS ASEC (Czajka and Denmead 2011). Earlier, Czajka and Denmead 

(2008) found evidence that aggregate CPS ASEC earnings were smaller than both SIPP and the ACS among lowincome families in 2002, but an update of those findings is needed. Clearly, none of the three surveys is superior to 
the others across the board. A comparison of the three surveys on as many sources as possible will identify the 

relative strengths and weaknesses of all three surveys.

 

Our analysis uses the 2009 ACS, which sampled households in all 12 months of the calendar year. Respondents 

were asked to report their income for the previous 12 months (that is, January 2008 through December 2008 for 

households sampled in January 2009 and progressing to December 2008 through November 2009 for households 

sampled in December 2009. Thus the reported incomes span 23 months (January 2008 through November 2009) 

centered on December 2008. The Census Bureau applied an inflation adjustment to convert reported incomes from 

this rolling reference period to calendar year 2009. For the public use file the Census Bureau provides unadjusted 

data and an average adjustment factor. Users can approximate but not exactly replicate the Census Bureau’s 

adjustment. Poverty ratios reported on the public use file incorporate the monthly adjustment factors. Because the 

Consumer Price Index (CPI) trended downward over part of this period, the average adjustment factor was slightly 

less than 1.0, which means that reported incomes were deflated.1

The ACS collects income for eight sources. To compare estimates of income across the three surveys, we converted 

the more detailed CPS ASEC and SIPP income sources to the ACS sources by combining sources to the extent 

possible. In a few cases, a CPS ASEC or SIPP income category combined sources that were in different ACS 

categories, so it was not possible to align the survey sources perfectly. Sources that were captured in the CPS ASEC 

and SIPP but not the ACS were assigned to a separate category. Sources exclusive to the CPS ASEC or SIPP were 

excluded from the comparative tables.

Income by ACS Sources

Table 5 compares the ACS, SIPP, and the CPS ASEC with respect to the percent of families and unrelated 

individuals receiving each of the eight ACS income sources plus a ninth source that applies only to the latter two 

surveys. The fraction of families reporting wage and salary earnings was highest in the ACS—2.8 percent higher 

than the CPS ASEC, which was marginally higher than the SIPP. Self-employment was much higher in the ACS 

than the CPS ASEC, but was highest in SIPP, some 61.8 percent higher than in the CPS and nearly 40 percent 

higher than in the ACS. For every other source but the aforementioned wages and salaries, the SIPP had a 

substantially higher percentage of families reporting receipt than either of the other surveys, and for the sources 

captured only in the SIPP and CPS ASEC, SIPP’s recipiency rate was three times that of the CPS ASEC. Looking in 

turn at the ACS, ACS found more families than CPS ASEC with wages and salaries, with self-employment, with 

pensions and with public assistance or welfare. ACS and SIPP had nearly identical fractions reporting public 

assistance or welfare, over a million families more than in CPS ASEC. However, ACS found fewer recipients than 

the CPS ASEC for Social Security, SSI, property income (interest, dividends, rent, royalties, and income from 

estates or trusts) and for all other income sources. The biggest difference was in property income, where fewer than 

half as many families reported receipt in the ACS as in the CPS ASEC and fewer than a third as many as in the 

SIPP.

Aggregate income tells a different story than recipiency, however. Even without the small amounts captured 

for sources not present in the ACS, the survey captured marginally more total income than the CPS ASEC, while 

SIPP captured 8.2 percent less (Table 6). Wage and salary earnings in the ACS were slightly lower than in the CPS 

ASEC, but SIPP was 15 percent lower. Self-employment earnings were 18 percent higher in the ACS than the CPS 

ASEC but 79 percent higher in the SIPP. The results for interest and related sources are a complete reverse of what 

we saw for recipiency. Here the ACS was 16 percent higher than the CPS ASEC despite fewer than half as many 

recipients while SIPP was much lower (only 37 percent of the CPS ASEC amount) despite finding 44 percent more 

recipients. For the remaining sources, the ACS was sometimes higher and sometimes lower than the CPS ASEC, 

while SIPP was generally higher. Surprisingly, the ACS obtained 85 percent more welfare income than the CPS 

 

1 CPS ASEC aggregate income was lower in calendar year 2009 than 2008, but this was due to the recession. 

The CPS ASEC has no comparable adjustment up or down for inflation, and there were no negative COLA 

adjustments to e.g., Social Security or other retirement payments.
ASEC while the SIPP obtained 56 percent more than the CPS ASEC, suggesting there must be an explanation other 

than frequent interviews for the two surveys’ comparative success in capturing welfare income. 

Looking across poverty classes, we see that the ACS found more income among the poor than the CPS ASEC, 

attributable to higher amounts of earnings (both wage and salary and self-employment), welfare, and pensions 

(Table 7). The ACS also found slightly more income above 400 percent of poverty, attributable to larger amounts of 

each income source except wage and salary earnings and Social Security. However, we also see evidence of a 

problem with the ACS data in that the additional welfare income relative to the CPS ASEC grew rapidly as income 

rose. Above 400 percent of poverty, the ACS found 11 times as much welfare income as the CPS ASEC. We would 

have guessed that this growing difference was due to imputation—specifically, that the Census Bureau imputed 

welfare benefits without conditioning adequately on other reported income. We see the same phenomenon for SIPP 

in comparison to the CPS ASEC except that the high-income welfare recipients are not nearly as prominent as they 

are in the ACS. Additional evidence does not support this interpretation, however. The allocation rate for welfare 

income among families above 400 percent of poverty was only 14 percent, which is lower than in any other income 

class. In the CPS ASEC, 59 percent of the welfare income among families above 400 percent of poverty was 

allocated, but the total welfare income among these families was still very small. The high welfare income among 

higher income families in the ACS seems to be a reporting problem rather than an allocation problem, but there is 

nothing in the description of this item in the ACS questionnaire that would seem to invite misreports by higher 

income respondents.2

Perhaps there is another explanation either in editing or processing, which only the Census 

Bureau can determine.

Looking across poverty classes at SIPP, we see that SIPP found less total income than the CPS ASEC in every 

poverty class, with the lowest ratio (89.1 percent) among families above 400 percent of poverty but the highest (99.5 

percent) among families between 250 and 400 percent of poverty (Table 8). For the poor, SIPP found less (92.4 

percent) total income than the CPS ASEC, and although wage and salary earnings were about the same, there were 

virtually no self-employment earnings despite the 79 percent higher self-employment income overall. We have no 

explanation for this finding, which merits further investigation. SIPP pension income among the poor was 27 

percent lower than the CPS ASEC, again despite the 39 percent higher overall pension income. Similarly, Social 

Security income was 23 percent lower among the poor in the SIPP than in the CPS ASEC despite SIPP’s marginally 

higher total Social Security income. Besides wage and salary earnings, the only sources for which SIPP was higher 

than the CPS ASEC among the poor were interest, dividends and related income and what the ACS classifies as 

other sources. At the upper end of the income distribution, SIPP captured only 82 percent as much wage and salary 

earnings as the CPS ASEC. For this poverty class, SIPP also had lower amounts than the CPS ASEC for interest, 

dividends and related income and for the sources defined as other in the ACS. Topcoding could play a role, as the 

CPS top codes for earnings are designed to reproduce the non top-coded total earnings whereas SIPP’s top codes 

may not be designed this way. Yet there are four sources for which SIPP had higher amounts than CPS ASEC in the 

high income category: self-employment earnings, welfare, pensions, and the sources not mentioned in the ACS but 

reported in the CPS ASEC and SIPP.

One other pattern of note concerns Social Security and SSI. Overall, SIPP captured 35 percent more SSI than the 

CPS ASEC and about the same amount of Social Security. Between 100 and 250 percent of poverty, SIPP captured 

less Social Security benefits than the CPS ASEC but 54 to 95 percent more SSI benefits than the CPS ASEC. A 

possible explanation for these reverse results is that some respondents misreported their Social Security income as 

SSI. We note, however, that Social Security is listed ahead of SSI on the questionnaire, which would seem to make 

this type of confusion unlikely. Furthermore, earlier research with SIPP records linked to Social Security records 

shows a tendency only in the reverse direction—that is, SSI recipients reporting their benefits as Social Security 

(Koenig 2003).

 

2 The item reads “Any public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare office.”
Recommendations 

The CPS ASEC instrument devotes nearly equal attention to each of 20-some sources of income, seeking an annual 

total for each source. The sources vary widely in how much they contribute to total income, however. The current 

approach gives disproportionate attention to sources that contribute little to total income. As we demonstrated, a 

handful of sources account for around 95 percent of the aggregate income reported in each of the six relative income 

classes that we used in this study. The ASEC instrument could be refocused, expanding and strengthening data 

collection for the few important income sources and combining and simplifying questions on the remaining income 

sources for an overall improvement in data with a shorter interview.

We believe that the overall importance of earnings (wages and salaries and self-employment) as the primary source 

of income at all income levels demands that the collection of earnings be as strong as the Census Bureau can make 

it. By asking detailed information for only one work activity (the longest duration) during the year, whether it is a 

job, self-employment or a business, and lumping together without detail all other sources of earned income, the 

instrument seems likely to fall short of full effectiveness. It is not uncommon for people to change from one fulltime job to another during the year, to change from full-time to part-time status or the reverse, to work more than 

one job at the same time, to start a small business (self-employment) while still working for someone else, to have 

multiple businesses sequentially or simultaneously, and for lower-income workers or certain sectors such as 

construction, to have erratic employment. The instrument could be substantially strengthened by collecting data 

comparable to that currently collected for the longest main job for at least three or four work activities, before going 

to the summary "all other sources of earnings", and ordering these from current to earliest. If additional information 

on the longest job (rather than the most current, if it extended back into the calendar year) is desired, the longest job 

held during the year could be established after first identifying all or at least the major jobs. In addition, in asking 

about earnings, the questions should make clear that the income being requested is prior to all deductions, including 

not only taxes but contributions to retirement accounts, health insurance premiums and flexible spending accounts, 

dependent care, and transportation benefits.

In the area of self-employment, it is important to distinguish between the salary that a business owner draws and the 

profit received due to ownership. A business owner may have paid himself a good salary from a business that lost 

money during the year. If the salary is not captured, the owner’s actual income may be substantially understated. It 

is also important to recognize the existence of self-employment income that is earned without owning a business, 

and to expand the definition of self-employment in the CPS ASEC beyond business ownership, to include 

compensation from someone other than one’s employer. The term “consulting” is not mentioned anywhere in the 

income questions of the three surveys, but perhaps it should be, as consulting provides a source of income to 

professionals who are retired or between jobs, as well as to supplement full-time employment. Periodic consulting 

does not require a business, and the term is one that respondents would recognize. 

All three surveys would benefit from revisions to their income questions to reflect recent shifts in sources of 

retirement income, especially the increasing importance of IRAs as a source of regular distributions, even if such 

distributions occur as infrequently as once a year. One suggestion applicable to all three surveys is to use the terms 

distribution, withdrawal, and payment in referring to the income taken from retirement accounts generally, to restrict 

the term pension income to monthly payments from defined benefit retirement systems, and to drop the regular 

versus lump sum distinction and restrict excluded lump sums to unique or one-time payments. The CPS ASEC and 

SIPP could consider the approach used in the Survey of Consumer Finances, in which respondents are asked to 

identify up to six different retirement plans or accounts and then answer questions on each one. As retirement 

accounts multiply, such an approach may become increasingly necessary as a way of ensuring fuller reporting of 

income from these sources.

For the CPS ASEC we recommend combining and simplifying the separate questions on retirement, survivor, and 

disability benefits from defined benefit pension systems, adding separate questions on distributions for current 

income from defined contribution and IRA retirement accounts, and combining all other non-pension disability 

income including worker’s compensation under a separate question. 

Currently, the CPS ASEC asks separately about retirement, survivor, and disability benefits, and for each one asks 

for many of the same sources—including six types of employers that provide defined benefit pensions. This 

contrasts with the approach used for Social Security and veterans benefits, where the respondent is first asked if 
anyone in the household received any Social Security or veterans’ payments and later asks for the reason, which for 

Social Security includes retirement, disability, or any of several specific types of dependent or survivor benefits. We 

recommend that the approach used for Social Security be used for other types of employment-related retirement, 

survivor, and disability pensions. That is, the questionnaire should first establish whether anyone in the household 

received one or more defined benefit pensions from a previous employer of the respondent, spouse or other relative, 

then for each determine which of the six types of employer (company or union, federal, state, local, U.S. military, or 

Railroad Retirement) is the source, the amount, and the reason (retirement, disability, survivor or dependents 

benefit). Separate questions should be asked on payments (other than rollovers) from defined contribution and IRA 

retirement accounts, including type of account, and the amount withdrawn during the previous year. Specific types 

should at least include 401(k)s, 403(b)s, Roths (now possible within private sector retirement plans), and SEP, 

SIMPLE and traditional IRAs. Keoghs should not be listed, since they are very infrequent. This question should 

include annuities purchased or provided from defined contribution retirement plans. The other items in the current 

retirement/survivor/disability sequence are annuity pay-outs from life insurance, payments from estates or trusts, 

worker’s compensation, Black Lung benefits, accident or disability insurance, and state temporary sickness benefits. 

Worker’s compensation is currently collected elsewhere in the questionnaire but the very small other disabilityrelated income sources, including the minuscule amounts of their survivors benefits, could be folded into that 

question as a single "other" source. Of the remaining sources, the only ones of any size are annuities and paid-up life 

insurance, and income from estates or trusts. Estimates from the 2007 SCF indicate that two-thirds of income from 

annuities and paid-up life insurance will be accounted for by purchases from retirement plans. The balance of this 

item, and payments from estates and trusts could be grouped with other property income, which already includes 

estate and trust income not captured in the survivor question.

 

In conjunction with our recommendations regarding the collection of income from retirement accounts we note that 

the CPS ASEC asks respondents to include IRAs when reporting interest and does not explicitly ask respondents to 

exclude stocks and mutual funds held in retirement accounts when reporting dividends. This implies a potential 

double-count of interest and dividends held in retirement accounts since they are also included in current or 

subsequent distributions. Additionally, we recommend updating the possible sources of interest to include widely 

held instruments such as bond funds, tax-exempt municipal bond funds and treasuries, in place of savings bonds or 

checking accounts. 

The dividend question on stocks or mutual funds does not mention capital gain distributions that are paid 

automatically by mutual funds for tax reasons. These annual (usually year-end) distributions may be as large or 

larger than the annual dividend payments. Absent more detailed instructions, respondents may interpret dividends to 

include or exclude capital gain distributions, or may not think of them at all. We recommend that the Census Bureau 

revise the wording of the question on dividends to clarify whether capital gain distributions are to be reported.3

Questions on rent ask the gross amount and the net amount after expenses, but the instrument itself does not clarify 

what should be counted as expenses, nor whether net rent should be assessed on a cash flow basis, or according to 

the rules, including use of depreciation, that apply on the tax return. Absent more detailed instructions from the 

interviewer, respondents may interpret expenses differently or simply not think of all the components that should be 

included. We recommend that the Census Bureau provide clearer instructions on what to count as expenses so that 

net rent is measured more consistently across households. In a related area, we recommend that possible sources of 

property income be expanded to specifically mention not only residential and business rental properties, but other 

business investments, to improve the capture of income other than dividends from investment in or ownership of 

businesses.

TANF and public assistance generally are among the most poorly reported sources of income in the CPS ASEC, but 

our analysis shows that they are one of three sources with more than half of the recipient families reporting at most

one other source of income. The question sequences for both Social Security and for SSI have separate sections on 

 

3 Census Bureau descriptions of CPS money income state explicitly that capital gains are not included (see, for 

example, Ruser et al., 2004), but this is not communicated to respondents. Furthermore, pension payments and

withdrawals from IRAs and 401(k)s implicitly include capital gains as well as earnings prior to distribution. 
benefits received on behalf of children, asked after the questions for each household member. The questions in these 

sections go back to identify any children not already mentioned, on whose behalf benefits are received. Only six 

percent of Social Security recipients are under 18, and only 16 percent of SSI recipients. In contrast, about threequarters of the recipients of TANF are children, and the fraction of families receiving TANF in which no adults are 

recipients (child-only cases) has ranged from 42 to 46 percent over the last five years. We recommend that the 

Census Bureau add a section, modeled after the Social Security and SSI child sections, specifically on TANF for 

children, to be asked after the public assistance question. Additionally, recent match studies between the CPS ASEC 

and administrative records from Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly the Food 

Stamp Program) may provide helpful information on the characteristics of non-reporters, and this information may 

be useful in redesigning the CPS ASEC questions.

The CPS ASEC asks separate questions to collect unemployment compensation, supplemental benefits, and strike 

benefits. These questions could be combined into a single question, followed by a list of possible benefit types if a 

more precise attribution is desired.

Child support, alimony, and financial assistance from others form a set of related sources that could be combined or 

at least approached through a common screener. SIPP estimates presented in this paper indicate that the aggregate 

income from child support is three times the aggregate income from the other two sources combined. Little 

information would be lost by creating a single source, in other words.

Lastly, we are puzzled by the inclusion of educational assistance in CPS money income. Families will not have such 

income unless they have educational expenses, and the latter will generally exceed the amount of assistance, so the 

net impact of the assistance is at best a wash. More importantly, the poverty threshold does not include the 

educational expenses that the assistance is intended to help offset, so the effect of the assistance on measured 

poverty is to raise relative income when in fact the receipt of educational assistance implies that the family has fewer 

resources to devote to necessities. We recommend that educational assistance be removed from CPS money income 

although there may be other, good reasons to continue to collect this variable.

References

Coder, John, and Lydia Scoon-Rogers. Evaluating the Quality of Income Data Collected in the Annual Supplement 

to the March Current Population Survey and the Survey of Income and Program Participation. Housing and 

Household Economic Statistics Division, U.S. Census Bureau, July 1996, www.sipp.census.gov/sipp/ 

workpapr/wp215.pdf.

Czajka, John L., and Gabrielle Denmead. “What We’re Missing: How to Obtain Better Estimates of Retirement 

Income in Our Major Household Surveys.” Paper presented at the Association for Public Policy Analysis and 

Management Fall Research Conference, November 3-5, 2011, Washington, DC.

Czajka, John L., and Gabrielle Denmead. “Income Data for Policy Analysis: A Comparative Assessment of Eight 

Surveys.” Final report. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, December 2008.

Fisher, T. Lynn. “Measuring the Relative Importance of Social Security Benefits to the Elderly.” Social Security 

Bulletin, vol. 67, no. 2, 2007.

Koenig, Melissa L. “An Assessment of the Current Population Survey and the Survey of Income and Program 

Participation Data Using Social Security Administrative Data.” Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology, 

2003 Research Conference papers, pp. 129-137.

Ruser, John, Adrienne Pilot, and Charles Nelson. Alternative Measures of Household Income: BEA Personal 

Income, CPS Money Income, and Beyond. Presented to the Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee, 

December 14, 2004.

Vaughan, Denton R. “Reflections on the Income Estimates from the Initial Panel of the Survey of Income and 

Program Participation (SIPP).” Studies in Income Distribution No. 17. Washington, DC: Social Security

Administration, May 1993.
Acknowledgment

The work presented herein draws on research being performed under contract to the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Census Bureau. The 

authors are grateful for their support.
Table 1. Percent of Families and Unrelated Individuals Receiving Each Source of Income in 2008,

by Family Income as a Percent of Poverty: 2009 CPS ASEC

Family Income as Percent of Poverty

100% to 150% to 200% to 250% to

Income Source < 100% < 150% < 200% < 250% < 400% 400% + Total

Wage and salary earnings 41.53 57.35 66.75 75.66 82.69 90.52 74.76

Non-farm self-employment earnings 6.05 6.58 6.72 7.43 8.19 11.43 8.66

Farm self-employment earnings 0.59 0.78 0.79 1.12 1.50 2.04 1.38

Unemployment or strike benefits 3.97 5.58 6.21 7.35 7.23 5.10 5.74

Worker's compensation 0.38 0.69 1.03 0.89 1.19 1.03 0.92

Social Security 21.01 40.84 35.65 29.25 25.30 18.39 25.13

Supplemental Security Income 11.42 6.83 4.25 2.70 1.92 0.90 3.73

Public assistance or welfare 5.60 2.19 1.23 0.56 0.33 0.05 1.29

Veterans' payments 0.65 1.50 1.48 2.14 2.61 2.53 2.03

Survivor's incomea

0.69 1.88 2.60 2.45 2.67 2.27 2.14

Disability incomea

0.67 1.07 1.53 1.30 1.18 1.09 1.11

Retirement incomea

1.70 5.57 10.43 13.74 15.56 15.13 11.73

Interest 14.07 24.29 32.78 37.86 50.65 72.09 47.40

Dividends from stocks or mutual funds 2.60 4.12 6.39 8.18 13.06 29.67 15.45

Net rent, royalties, estates, or trusts 1.50 2.40 3.04 3.40 5.25 11.15 6.13

Educational assistance 4.62 5.21 5.56 5.59 5.41 5.00 5.16

Child support 4.96 4.72 4.72 4.46 3.83 2.22 3.66

Alimony income 0.26 0.24 0.23 0.41 0.44 0.33 0.33

Financial assistance from others 3.82 2.89 2.00 1.85 1.17 0.65 1.68

Other incomeb

0.99 0.95 0.89 0.86 0.99 1.08 1.00

a Separate amounts from as many as two sources are reported in the public use file.

b Additional income, which may be from one of the preceding sources, identified in a recipiency flag.
Table 2. Percentage Distribution of Total Income by Source in 2008,

by Family Income as a Percent of Poverty: 2009 CPS ASEC

Family Income as Percent of Poverty

100% to 150% to 200% to 250% to

Income Source < 100% < 150% < 200% < 250% < 400% 400% + Total

Total Income 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Wage and salary earnings 48.70 55.42 63.12 69.91 75.68 79.96 76.72

Non-farm self-employment earnings 4.14 4.43 3.69 3.65 3.48 5.12 4.66

Farm self-employment earnings 0.09 0.25 0.20 0.18 0.32 0.53 0.45

Unemployment or strike benefits 1.90 1.33 1.05 1.19 0.68 0.27 0.48

Worker's compensation 0.30 0.25 0.32 0.23 0.21 0.10 0.14

Social Security 22.55 27.19 21.55 14.54 8.98 3.16 6.58

Supplemental Security Income 9.83 2.89 1.41 0.79 0.33 0.07 0.46

Public assistance or welfare 2.38 0.38 0.18 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.07

Veterans' payments 0.39 0.64 0.44 0.65 0.65 0.32 0.41

Survivor's incomea

0.41 0.46 0.48 0.51 0.58 0.41 0.45

Disability incomea

0.51 0.49 0.54 0.37 0.29 0.18 0.24

Retirement incomea

0.99 1.49 2.78 3.87 4.76 3.86 3.85

Interest 0.98 0.75 1.04 1.12 1.37 2.70 2.23

Dividends from stocks or mutual funds 0.34 0.22 0.30 0.34 0.56 1.43 1.12

Net rent, royalties, estates, or trusts 0.08 0.17 0.23 0.25 0.40 1.12 0.87

Educational assistance 2.16 1.44 1.16 0.91 0.78 0.38 0.57

Child support 2.25 1.13 0.80 0.69 0.42 0.14 0.31

Alimony income 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.07

Financial assistance from others 1.56 0.80 0.47 0.55 0.28 0.09 0.21

Other incomeb

0.31 0.17 0.13 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.11

a Separate amounts from as many as two sources are reported in the public use file.

b Additional income, which may be from one of the preceding sources, identified in a recipiency flag.
Table 3. Percentage Distribution of Persons 15 and Older with Retirement Income Other Than

Social Security in 2008 by Source, by Family Income as a Percent of Poverty: 2009 CPS ASEC

Family Income as Percent of Poverty

100% to 150% to 200% to 250% to

Source < 100% < 150% < 200% < 250% < 400% 400% + Total

Company or union pension 62.37 64.51 69.18 70.22 63.00 49.82 57.98

Federal government retirement 4.00 6.98 5.56 4.85 7.74 9.51 8.02

US military retirement 0.64 1.40 1.81 2.50 4.17 9.66 6.25

State or local government retirement 18.56 16.13 17.78 16.43 19.45 28.08 22.97

US Railroad Retirement 0.73 2.05 2.44 1.41 1.32 0.57 1.08

Regular payments from annuities or 

paid-up insurance policies 2.30 1.50 1.13 1.52 0.89 0.86 1.01

Regular payments from IRA, Keogh, 

or 401(k) accounts 5.12 3.17 1.55 2.86 3.58 3.42 3.28

Other or don't know 7.52 4.34 1.84 1.99 1.53 2.10 2.11

One source only 98.79 99.93 98.72 98.21 98.31 96.00 97.31

Two sources 1.24 0.07 1.28 1.79 1.69 4.00 2.69
Table 4. Percentage Distribution of Retirement Income Other Than Social Security in 2008 by Source,

by Family Income as a Percent of Poverty: 2009 CPS ASEC

Family Income as Percent of Poverty

100% to 150% to 200% to 250% to

Source < 100% < 150% < 200% < 250% < 400% 400% + Total

Company or union pension 55.55 52.00 56.02 57.32 53.02 38.98 43.69

Federal government retirement 3.92 9.83 9.41 9.74 12.16 13.29 12.67

US military retirement 1.48 4.19 3.11 3.79 5.03 10.03 8.32

State or local government retirement 20.07 20.30 24.54 22.04 23.70 32.19 29.42

US Railroad Retirement 0.85 3.71 4.38 2.48 1.90 0.48 1.05

Regular payments from annuities or 

paid-up insurance policies 2.71 1.81 0.44 1.24 0.52 0.56 0.61

Regular payments from IRA, Keogh, 

or 401(k) accounts 8.79 2.92 0.87 1.78 2.72 2.46 2.47

Other or don't know 6.63 5.24 1.24 1.61 0.95 2.00 1.79

One source only 97.85 99.90 97.37 98.10 97.79 93.69 95.00

Two sources 2.15 0.10 2.63 1.90 2.21 6.31 5.00
Table 5. Comparison of ACS, SIPP, and CPS ASEC with Respect to the Percentage of Families

and Unrelated Individuals Receiving Each Source of Income in 2009

Percent of Families with Ratio of Ratio of

Each Source by Survey ACS to SIPP to

CPS CPS CPS

Income Source ACS SIPP ASEC ASEC ASEC

Wage and salary earnings 75.22 72.72 73.19 1.028 0.994

Self-employment earnings 10.24 14.19 8.77 1.168 1.618

Interest, dividends, net rental income, royalty 

income, or income from estates and trustsa

21.06 67.83 47.23 0.446 1.436

Social Security or Railroad Retirement 24.84 29.41 25.39 0.978 1.158

Supplemental Security Income 3.27 6.07 3.67 0.893 1.657

Public assistance or welfare 2.40 2.41 1.36 1.770 1.779

Retirement, survivor, or disability pensionsb

15.42 19.93 13.60 1.134 1.466

Any other sources of income received regularlyc

14.08 19.02 15.75 0.894 1.208

Other sources of income not explicitly mentioned 

in the ACS and received regularly, as reported in 

CPS and SIPPd

0.00 6.36 2.04 0.000 3.116

a SIPP income from estates and trusts is included with pension income below.

b The ACS instructions mention benefits from companies and unions, federal, state, and local governments,

and the U.S. military. They also ask the respondent to include regular income from annuities and IRA or

Keogh retirement plans but do not mention 401(k) plans. Both the CPS ASEC and SIPP include 401(k) plans.

c Other sources named in the ACS question are Veterans' payments, unemployment compensation, child

support, and alimony. The instructions add all other regular payments such as Armed Forces transfer payments,

assistance from private charities, and regular contributions from persons not living in the household.

d Other sources collected in both the CPS and SIPP but not named specifically in the ACS include income

from paid-up life insurance (but combined with annuities so we include this source with pensions), workers'

compensation, Black Lung benefits, and sources identified as other income. It is possible that ACS

respondents might include Black Lung benefits among retirement, survivor, or disability pensions.
Table 6. Comparison of ACS, SIPP, and CPS ASEC with Respect to Aggregate Dollars

of Income in 2009 for Comparable Sources

Millions of Dollars of Ratio of Ratio of

Income by Survey ACS to SIPP to

CPS CPS CPS

Income Source ACS SIPP ASEC ASEC ASEC

Total Income (sum of sources) 8,058,115 7,365,466 8,021,524 1.005 0.918

Wage and salary earnings 6,081,541 5,219,581 6,130,675 0.992 0.851

Self-employment earnings 429,367 652,802 364,255 1.179 1.792

Interest, dividends, net rental income, royalty 

income, or income from estates and trustsa

397,816 126,015 341,983 1.163 0.368

Social Security or Railroad Retirement 497,359 585,394 581,105 0.856 1.007

Supplemental Security Income 35,444 52,717 39,168 0.905 1.346

Public assistance or welfare 11,276 9,506 6,085 1.853 1.562

Retirement, survivor, or disability pensionsb

428,229 491,540 353,175 1.213 1.392

Any other sources of income received regularlyc

177,085 167,951 183,734 0.964 0.914

Other sources of income not explicitly mentioned 

in the ACS and received regularly, as reported in 

CPS and SIPPd

0.00 59,961 21,344 0.000 2.809

a SIPP income from estates and trusts is included with pension income below.

b The ACS instructions mention benefits from companies and unions, federal, state, and local governments,

and the U.S. military. They also ask the respondent to include regular income from annuities and IRA or

Keogh retirement plans but do not mention 401(k) plans. Both the CPS ASEC and SIPP include 401(k) plans.

c Other sources named in the ACS question are Veterans' payments, unemployment compensation, child

support, and alimony. The instructions add all other regular payments such as Armed Forces transfer payments,

assistance from private charities, and regular contributions from persons not living in the household.

d Other sources collected in both the CPS and SIPP but not named specifically in the ACS include income

from paid-up life insurance (but combined with annuities so we include this source with pensions), workers'

compensation, Black Lung benefits, and sources identified as other income. It is possible that ACS

respondents might include Black Lung benefits among retirement, survivor, or disability pensions.
Table 7. Ratios of ACS to CPS ASEC Aggregate Dollars by Source of Income in 2009, Mapped to ACS Sources,

by Family Income as a Percent of Poverty

Family Income as Percent of Poverty

100% to 150% to 200% to 250% to

Income Source < 100% < 150% < 200% < 250% < 400% 400% + Total

Total Income 1.037 0.981 0.955 0.936 1.005 1.013 1.005

Wage and salary earnings 1.117 1.076 1.055 0.973 1.019 0.979 0.992

Self-employment earnings 1.201 1.052 1.000 1.203 1.157 1.196 1.179

Interest, dividends, net rental income, royalty 

income, or income from estates and trustsa

0.775 0.897 0.804 0.972 0.958 1.201 1.163

Social Security or Railroad Retirement 0.914 0.832 0.734 0.757 0.874 0.921 0.856

Supplemental Security Income 0.813 0.761 0.860 0.867 1.022 1.471 0.905

Public assistance or welfare 1.266 1.675 1.775 2.145 3.605 11.085 1.853

Retirement, survivor, or disability pensionsb

1.632 1.489 1.218 1.130 1.094 1.247 1.213

Other sources of income explicitly mentioned in 

the ACS and received regularlyc

0.984 0.741 0.718 0.735 0.878 1.196 0.964

Other sources of income not explicitly mentioned 

in the ACS and received regularly, as reported in 

CPS and SIPPd

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

a SIPP income from estates and trusts is included with pension income below.

b The ACS instructions mention benefits from companies and unions, federal, state, and local governments, and the U.S. military.

They also ask the respondent to include regular income from annuities and IRA or Keogh retirement plans but do not mention

401(k) plans. Both the CPS ASEC and SIPP include 401(k) plans.

c Other sources named in the ACS question are Veterans' payments, unemployment compensation, child support, and alimony.

The instructions add all other regular payments such as Armed Forces transfer payments, assistance from private charities, and

regular contributions from persons not living in the household.

d Other sources collected in both the CPS and SIPP but not named specifically in the ACS include income from paid-up life

insurance (but combined with annuities so we include this source with pensions), worker's compensation, Black Lung benefits,

and sources identified as other income. It is possible that some ACS respondents might include Black Lung benefits among

retirement, survivor, or disability pensions.
Table 8. Ratios of SIPP to CPS ASEC Aggregate Dollars by Source of Income in 2009, Mapped to ACS Sources,

by Family Income as a Percent of Poverty

Family Income as Percent of Poverty

100% to 150% to 200% to 250% to

Income Source < 100% < 150% < 200% < 250% < 400% 400% + Total

Total Income 0.924 0.978 0.988 0.925 0.995 0.891 0.918

Wage and salary earnings 1.007 0.954 0.986 0.887 0.928 0.819 0.851

Self-employment earnings 0.008 0.974 1.274 1.324 1.623 1.956 1.792

Interest, dividends, net rental income, royalty 

income, or income from estates and trustsa

0.701 0.644 0.450 0.540 0.577 0.336 0.368

Social Security or Railroad Retirement 0.772 0.905 0.857 0.946 1.118 1.075 1.007

Supplemental Security Income 0.993 1.676 1.952 1.537 1.326 1.070 1.346

Public assistance or welfare 1.386 1.446 2.033 1.656 2.077 2.781 1.562

Retirement, survivor, or disability pensionsb

0.733 1.396 1.231 1.164 1.339 1.441 1.392

Other sources of income explicitly mentioned in 

the ACS and received regularlyc

1.094 0.962 1.028 0.835 0.986 0.812 0.914

Other sources of income not explicitly mentioned 

in the ACS and received regularly, as reported in 

CPS and SIPPd

1.387 1.501 1.393 1.539 1.927 4.070 2.809

a SIPP income from estates and trusts is included with pension income below.

b The ACS instructions mention benefits from companies and unions, federal, state, and local governments, and the U.S. military.

They also ask the respondent to include regular income from annuities and IRA or Keogh retirement plans but do not mention

401(k) plans. Both the CPS ASEC and SIPP include 401(k) plans.

c Other sources named in the ACS question are Veterans' payments, unemployment compensation, child support, and alimony.

The instructions add all other regular payments such as Armed Forces transfer payments, assistance from private charities, and

regular contributions from persons not living in the household.

d Other sources collected in both the CPS and SIPP but not named specifically in the ACS include income from paid-up life

insurance (but combined with annuities so we include this source with pensions), worker's compensation, Black Lung benefits,

and sources identified as other income. It is possible that some ACS respondents might include Black Lung benefits among

retirement, survivor, or disability pensions.