Citation: 

Garner, T.I. (2003), “A Comparison of Economic Well-Being Measures Using SIPP and CE Data: Personal 

Assessments of Expenditures and Income,” 2003 Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, 

Government Statistics [CD-ROM], Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association: pp-pp. 
1

A COMPARISON OF ECONOMIC WELL-BEING MEASURES USING SIPP AND CE DATA: 

PERSONAL ASSESSMENTS OF EXPENDITURES AND INCOME 

 

Thesia I. Garner 

Division of Price and Index Number Research, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 

Washington, D.C. 20212 

KEY WORDS: Economic Well Being, 

Subjective Poverty, Expenditures, Minimum 

Needs, Consumer Expenditure Survey, 

Survey of Income and Program Participation 

INTRODUCTION 

About 25 years ago, the potential of collecting 

personal assessments of economic well-being 

using federal household surveys was recognized.

1

 Minimum income levels and evaluations of 

personal income were first collected in a federal 

household survey in 1979 as part of the Bureau 

of the Census Research Panel of the Income 

Survey Development Program (ISDP). Around 

the same time, the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(BLS) contracted with the Wisconsin Institute 

for Research on Poverty to study the BLS Family 

Budget Program (Watts 1980). The Expert 

Committee on Family Budgets recommended a 

basic shift toward a more populist or democratic 

framework than had previously been used. This 

framework would be based on the notion that 

ordinary people, as opposed to experts, know 

what they need in order to get along or prosper. 

The Committee made the recommendation that a 

new measure be developed that would result in 

stable and reproducible estimates of the levels 

reflected in popular concepts of these norms.2

 

 Based on a recommendation of the 

Expert Committee on Family Budgets, a 

minimum income question was asked in the 

Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) in 1982. 

The next time a minimum income question was 

asked in a federal household survey was in the 

Survey of Income and Program Participation 

(SIPP) Well-Being Module when data were 

collected in 1995. Also asked in this module 

was a question about minimum spending to meet 

basic needs. The minimum income question 

(MIQ) and minimum spending question (MSQ) 

 

1

 Vaughan (1996) provides an overview of the activities 

involving U.S. federal household surveys and the use of 

personal assessments of income needs and financial 

circumstances since the late 1970s. 2

 Other recommendations of the Expert Committee on Family 

Budget Revisions are reviewed by Johnson et al. (2001). 

These authors produce descriptive budgets derived from 

median total expenditures and compare them to budgets 

based on the earlier BLS family budget methodology. 

were the same as ones asked in the Survey of 

Consumer Finances conducted by Statistics 

Canada in the 1980’s (Morissette and Poulin 

1991). The Canadians introduced the minimum 

spending question as another version of the 

minimum income question. Minimum spending 

referred specifically to basic necessities and then 

defined these to include barely adequate food, 

shelter, clothing, and other essential items for 

daily living. 

 In the late 1990’s, the BLS, in 

conjunction with the Census Bureau, conducted 

cognitive testing on what respondents think 

when asked subjective well-being questions like 

the MIQ and MSQ. Based on this cognitive 

work (see Stinson 1998), and earlier findings of 

Morissette and Poulin (1991), lower thresholds 

were expected from the MSQ as compared to the 

MIQ since the MSQ is more specific in defining 

basic needs than is the MIQ. 

 Garner and Short (2003a, 2003b) used 

the minimum income and spending data from the 

SIPP to produce personal assessment thresholds 

for the U.S. and to ascertain levels of economic 

well-being using household before tax money 

income in the SIPP. They reported that 

thresholds based on the SIPP minimum income 

question are higher than those based on the 

minimum spending question, consistent with the 

findings of Morissette and Poulin. One might 

consider the higher threshold to represent a 

“social minimum standard,” while the lower 

would represent a “lower living standard.” A 

range of thresholds such as represented by these 

two was preferred by the Expert Committee 

(Watts 1980). 

 This study is an extension of the earlier 

Garner and Short research with data from the 

CE, in addition to those from the SIPP being 

analyzed. As in the previous studies, personal 

assessment thresholds are derived using the 

intersection method first introduced by Goedhart 

et al. (1977), but the model is simplified 

compared to that used by Garner and Short 

earlier (2002a). As before, data from the Basic 

Needs Module of the U.S. Survey of Income and 

Program Participation (SIPP), 1993 panel-wave 

nine, are used to estimate regression coefficients 

that relate minimum income or spending and 
2

actual before tax money household income. 

Thresholds based on the SIPP data are compared 

to before tax money income to determine income 

based poverty rates. 

As the MSQ refers to minimum 

spending, an additional exercise is conducted to 

compare estimated MSQ thresholds with actual 

expenditures. This is the first time such an 

exercise like this has been conducted. Such a 

comparison is not possible with the SIPP as 

expenditure data are not collected in that survey. 

Income data are not necessary for the estimation 

of the CE MIQ or MSQ thresholds; only the 

coefficient on income is necessary. This is an 

advantage as the income data in the CE are not 

fully complete, and missing data in the CE are 

not imputed while they are in the SIPP. 

 For this exercise, estimated SIPP based 

coefficients are applied to a sample of CE 

respondents and then weighted to derive 

population based thresholds. Since the SIPP and 

CE are designed to both represent the same U.S. 

population, the estimated thresholds should be 

the same. Differences would result due to 

differences in the samples and weights. CE 

quarterly Interview data for 1995 are used. 

Personal assessment or subjective 

thresholds and poverty rates are produced for the 

total population for 1995. (Results for 

demographic groups are available from the 

author.) For comparison, thresholds and poverty 

rates based on the official poverty measure are 

also presented using both the SIPP and CE. 

 

DATA and METHODS 

 Data from the U.S. Survey of Income 

and Program Participation (SIPP) and the 

Consumer Expenditure Survey Interview (CE) 

data are used for the study. First, SIPP data are 

used to estimate the relationship between 

minimum income and minimum spending and 

total before tax household income. Total beforetax household income is used for the estimation 

as this is the income that is compared to the 

official poverty thresholds which are used for 

comparison. Also the MIQ is asked with respect 

to before tax money income. The CE MIQ and 

MSQ thresholds are derived by applying the 

SIPP estimated coefficients that result from 

regression of minimum income and minimum 

spending on before tax money income and other 

demographic characteristics. 

 Two assumptions underlie the approach 

of applying the SIPP-estimated coefficients to 

the CE sample to derived MIQ and MSQ 

thresholds for the CE population. First, the SIPP 

and CE samples are drawn from the same U.S. 

population and there is no bias resulting from 

systematic attrition in SIPP (see Garner and 

Short 2003a for a discussion concerning this 

issue). Second, the relationships between 

minimum income and minimum spending and 

each of the explanatory variables in the MIQ and 

MSQ models are the same in both samples. 

 The SIPP data were collected from the 

1993 panel of households using the Topical 

Module on Basic Needs, the last in a series of 

nine modules. Data were collected from October 

1995 through January 1996. Household 

characteristics refer to the data collection period 

and total before tax money income is for the 

previous four months. Thus income would be 

reported as income for the last four months 

beginning in June 1995 for those interviewed in 

October 1995, and December 1995 for those 

interviewed in January 1996. The MSQ was 

asked of only half of the SIPP respondents to the 

Topical Module. The other half were asked a 

MIQ. 

 The minimum income question (MIQ) 

follows: 

To meet the expenses you 

consider necessary, what do 

you think is the minimum 

income, BEFORE TAX, a 

family like yours needs, on a 

yearly basis, to make ends 

meet (If you are not living with 

relatives, what are the 

minimum income needs, 

BEFORE TAX, of a individual 

like you?) 

 The minimum spending question 

(MSQ) follows: 

In your opinion, how much 

would you have to SPEND 

each year in order to provide 

the BASIC necessities for your 

family? By basic necessities I 

mean barely adequate food, 

shelter, clothing, and other 

essential items required for 

daily living? 

 The reference period for the MIQ and 

MSQ varied depending upon the preferences of 

respondents. The majority of respondents 

answered the MIQ in annual dollar values (67.8 

percent) while most responding to the MSQ 

answered in monthly (38.3 percent) or annual 

(53.7 percent) dollar values. 

 Data were collected from households; 

however, the MIQ and MSQ refer to a family 
3

situation. A household is defined in the SIPP as 

all the people who are living in a housing unit. A 

housing unit is defined as a living quarters with 

its own entrance and cooking facilities. A 

family, in contrast, is composed of all persons 

who are related by marriage, adoption, or other 

legal arrangement. 

 The CE sample for which thresholds are 

estimated include consumer units interviewed in 

the last calendar quarter of 1995 and/or first 

quarter of 1996. In the CE Interview, 

expenditures for the three months prior to the 

interview are collected during a single interview. 

Thus, the earliest reference period for the entire 

sample would be the three months prior to 

October 1995 or July 1995. The last set of 

interviews, conducted in March 1996, would 

refer to expenditures beginning in December 

1995 and ending in February 1996. These time 

periods were selected as they overlap, although 

not perfectly, the reference period for the SIPP 

Topical Module. For this study, as for official 

publication of expenditures, quarterly reports of 

expenditures are assumed to be independent. As 

most of the sample’s expenditures refer to 1995, 

results are assumed to be for 1995, the same as 

for the SIPP. 

 Expenditure data are collected from 

consumer units. Consumer units are defined 

slightly differently from households and 

families. A consumer unit comprises all 

members of a particular household who are 

related by blood, marriage, adoption, or other 

legal arrangements, a person living alone or 

sharing a household with others but who is 

financially independent, or two or more persons 

living together who use their income to make 

joint expenditure decisions. (See BLS 1997 for a 

more specific definition). For the time period 

under study, 96 percent of all consumer units 

(CU population weighted) were also households 

with no other consumer units present. 

 The intersection method is used to 

estimate the coefficients using the SIPP data 

with the resulting coefficients applied to the CE 

sample, and then weighted for the population. 

When one solves for the intersection, the income 

variable cancels out of the equation and only the 

income coefficient remains. Thus, no income 

data are needed from the CE when the 

coefficients are applied to produce the MIQ and 

MSQ thresholds. 

 The intersection method of producing 

subjective minimum thresholds was first 

introduced by Goedhart et al. (1977). The 

threshold (Y*) is calculated as the 

intersection of the relationship: 

min 0 1 2 2

3 3

ln( ) ln( )

... n n

Y a a Y az

az az ε

= + ++

++ +

 (1) 

with the line Ymin =Y for different 

characteristics, zn .The error term, ε , is assumed 

to satisfy the classical assumptions for 

simplicity. For this study, Ymin represents the 

answer to questions about the minimum income 

or spending dollar amount that the respondent 

thinks is needed for the family to make ends 

meet, or some variation of that question. And Y

is total household before tax income. Previous 

research indicates that a log-linear model fits 

data when Ymin represents the answer to a 

question about minimum income fairly well. In a 

plot of minimum income and spending by total 

before-tax household income from the SIPP, the 

log-linear relationship also holds. 

An underlying assumption for the 

intersection approach to estimate a minimum 

income and spending-based thresholds is that 

only those who have income that is at the 

minimum know what the “true” minimum is. 

Since that minimum is not known for a society a 

priori, data are collected from a sample 

representing the whole population. The 

predicted threshold based on equation (1) and the 

intersection of Ymin =Y is: 

2

0 22

1

*( ... )

... exp 1

n

n n

Yzz

a a z az

a

=

 + ++     − 

. (2) 

As the error term, ε , is not observable, 

there are different possible choices to deal with 

the term. The assumption here is not to include 

an error term with the result being a median 

prediction (see Garner and Short 2003a for a 

discussion of this issue.) Kapteyn et al. (1988) 

used the median prediction equation (2) as did 

other researchers using U.S. data (see Garner and 

De Vos 1995 for references). The median is 

chosen as the measure of central tendency for the 

subjective threshold as it is more robust to 

outliers than the mean and the median is the 

midpoint of the distribution, thus, making it 

perhaps more relevant for poverty discussions 

than the mean. This relationship is presented in 

Figure 1. 

An assumption underlying the approach 

is that every respondent gives the same meaning 

to the wording used in the MIQ and MSQ. In 

other words, the expression “necessary to make 

ends meet” and “basic necessities,” for example, 

is supposed to have the same welfare connotation 
4

for all respondents. Variations in responses 

would be expected when households have 

differing needs. Differences in responses could 

also result when they face different prices. 

Thresholds would increase when the average 

total before-tax income of the entire population 

increases; an income coefficient closer to one 

reflects a more relative measure. The regression 

intersection approach allows one to control for 

differences in responses due to reference group 

effects. Differences due to differing needs and 

prices would remain. 

450

Ymin Ymin=Y

Y*min Y

Ymin=f(Y)

Figure 1. The Subjective Line Based on the Regression Intersection Approach Reported minimum

Actual total income

The approach followed in this study is 

only one that has been used by researchers when 

estimating thresholds based on personal 

assessments of individuals in households or 

families. See Vaughan (2003) for an approach 

based on medians without controlling for 

reference group effects. 

RESULTS 

 Regression results (contact author for 

details) reveal that the MIQ model fits the data 

better than the MSQ model. The adjusted R2

s 

are 0.335 and 0.24 respectively. Responses to the 

MIQ are more sensitive to income than are 

responses to the MSQ are revealed by the Ln(Y) 

coefficient. As expected, needs increase as the 

number of children increases. They are also 

greater with increases in the age of the reference 

person, for owners, and for households living in 

what are considered higher costs areas (the 

Northeast and West). 

 The SIPP and CE weighted samples are 

quite similar with the distributions of households 

and consumer units by characteristics. However 

there are a few differences. The population 

means suggest, however, that applying the SIPPbased model coefficients to the CE is a useful 

exercise. 

 Annualized expenditure outlays and 

total before tax money income means are 

presented in Table 1, along with official poverty 

thresholds, and the MIQ and MSQ thresholds 

(medians). For official poverty, each SIPP 

household and CE consumer unit were assigned 

the unit’s official threshold based on the age of 

the reference person in single and couple 

families, and the numbers of people and children 

for other households. 

Table 1. Annualized CE Outlays, SIPP Before Tax Money 

Income, and Estimated Median Minimum Value Thresholds

(Population Weighted Consumer Units or Households) 

 

Annual 

Estimate

Consumer Expenditure Survey 

Total Expenditure Outlays $30,417

Food, Shelter, Utilities, Clothing 14,930

MIQ Thresholds Using SIPP Coefficients 21,663

MSQ Thresholds Using SIPP Coefficients 14,723

Official 11,527

Survey of Income and Program Participation 

Before Tax Money Income-MIQ Sample $42,344

Before Tax Money Income-MSQ Sample 43,932

MIQ Threshold 22,185

MSQ Threshold 15,210

Official based on MIQ Weighted Sample 11,355

Official based on MSQ Weighted Sample 11,460

 The MSQ thresholds are about 68-69 

percent of the MIQ thresholds. This is slightly 

higher than the ratio found in the work of 

Morissette and Poulin (1991) for Canada. 

Vaughan (1993, 2003) estimates that the Gallup 

poverty threshold (also a median) is about 72 

percent of the Gallup get-along threshold.3

 The 

Gallup thresholds are based on and are not 

model-based. The MIQ thresholds are about 90 

percent higher than the official poverty threshold 

while the MSQ is only about 30 percent higher. 

 CE total expenditure outlays are on 

average 70 percent of before tax money income 

from the SIPP. Bundle one (food, shelter and 

utilities for primary residence, and apparel) 

 

3

 The Gallup poverty question is: “People who have income 

below a certain level can be considered poor. That level is 

called the ‘poverty line.’ What amount of weekly income 

would you use as a poverty line for a family of four 

(husband, wife, and two children) in this community?” The 

Gallup get-along question is: “What is the smallest amount of 

money a family of four (husband, wife and two children) 

needs each week to get along in this community?” The getalong question was asked in Gallup Polls from 1947-89 and 

again in 1992. The Gallup poverty question was asked in 

1989 and 1992 (Vaughan 1993, 2003; Citro and Michael 

1995). 
5

expenditures represent about half of all 

expenditure outlays. 

 The CE MSQ threshold is not 

statistically significantly different than 

expenditure outlays for bundle one; the ratio is 

1.01. The ratio of the CE MSQ to SIPP MSQ 

threshold is 1.03. 

 Thresholds for two-adult two-child 

consumer units, with the reference person less 

than age 65, and the children less than 18, are 

often used as the reference family for the 

derivation of thresholds for consumer units with 

other sizes and number of children present. For 

this consumer unit type, official thresholds are 

about 83 percent of the MSQ threshold. The 

MSQ threshold is 99.5 percent of the threshold 

based on a basic needs budget for the same 

family type with one working parent produced 

by Renwick4

 (1998; also see Renwick and 

Bergmann 1993), 91 percent of the Gallup 

poverty threshold, and 81 percent of the Renwick 

threshold for the family with two working 

parents. The MIQ threshold is 99.8 percent of 

the Gallup get-along threshold. The MIQ 

threshold is 73 percent of the Prevailing Family 

Standard,5

 based on the Expert Committee on 

Family Budgets recommendations (Watts 1980), 

and reported by Johnson et al. (2001) in 1995 

dollars. The MIQ is 82 percent of the mean of 

the market basket based budgets across the U.S. 

reported by Bernstein et al. (2000) in 1995 

dollars. 6

 Percentages of consumers units from 

the CE and households from the SIPP below 

various thresholds are presented in Figure 2. 

The before tax income measure of resources, 

compared to the different thresholds results in 

lower rates than obtained using CE outlays. This 

is not surprising as the money income measure 

 

4

 Renwick and Bergmann (1993) used a categorical approach 

to define a poverty budget which they referred to as a basic 

needs budget (BNB) and produced these for 1989. Renwick 

(1998) updated the BNBs to 1996. The BNBs are based on 

adequacy standards. 

5

 The Prevailing Family Standard would be the median 

expenditures of two-parent families with two children. 

Johnson et al. (2001) produced these using an expenditures 

outlays definition. The budget did not include the payment of 

income taxes or allocations for savings. The median 

expenditure for this family in 1995 dollars is $38,789. 

6

 These authors identified items that they deemed necessary 

for a working family to maintain “a safe and decent standard 

of living” (p.4) and produced a budget for a two-parent twochild family living in Baltimore. Family budgets were also 

presented for various states, and regions. The simple average 

of the budgets presented for two-parent two-child families is 

$34,470 in 1995 dollars. 

accounts for more than the CE expenditures 

outlays measure. 

Using the SIPP, MIQ and MSQ poverty 

rates are higher than when the official threshold 

is used along with before tax money income. 

Higher rates result in all cases when the CE 

outlays data are used. 

 Implicitly the MIQ and MSQ thresholds 

are adjusted for differences in the costs of living 

by region. This is because consumer units would 

be expected to respond to the MIQ and MSQ 

based on the cost of living they face in their 

immediate area. Consumer units and households 

living in the Northeast are worse off relative to 

those living in other regions when the MIQ and 

MSQ thresholds are assumed. This is in contrast 

to official poverty results that indicate the 

highest poverty for the South. Higher thresholds 

are indicated for the Northeast and West by the 

results from the SIPP and CE, and are reflected 

in the published experimental measures that have 

been accordingly adjusted for prices (see Short et 

al. 1999). 

CONCLUSION 

Differences in economic well-being result if one 

uses expenditure outlays as opposed to income, 

and when different well-being thresholds are 

assumed. Higher well being results with SIPP 

income as opposed to CE expenditure outlays. 

Higher well being also results if official poverty 

thresholds are assumed. However, official 

thresholds have been criticized as inadequate. 

This is supported by the results presented using 

the MIQ and MSQ for both the SIPP and CE 

weighted samples. These results reveal that 

minimum spending needs appear to reflect, on 

average, what consumers actually spend on food, 

shelter, utilities, and clothing. 

 In order to better understand the 

relationship between spending needs and actual 

spending, it is recommended that the MSQ be 

asked in the CE. This would enable the 

estimation of the regression of minimum 

spending on total spending. 

Figure 2. CE Outlays or SIPP Before Tax Money 

Income Less than Threshold: 1995

12.4

19.2

38.7

9.8 14.8

26.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

official MSQ MIQ

CE Outlays SIPP Before Tax Income

% Distribution of Consumer 

Units 

or Households
6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Special appreciation is extended to Kathleen 

Short of the Census Bureau for her work with the 

SIPP data. Appreciation is also extended to 

Patricia Ruggles, discussant for the JSM session 

and to Denton Vaughan and Dan Weinberg for 

providing helpful comments and suggestions. I 

thank Linda Stinson, Clyde Tucker, and others 

within the Bureau of Labor Statistics for their 

guidance in exploring the “whys” and “hows” of 

minimum income and spending. All views 

expressed in this paper are mine and do not 

reflect the views or policies of the BLS or the 

views of other staff therein. I accept 

responsibility for all errors. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Bernstein, J., Brocht, C., and SpadeAguilar, M., 2000. How Much Is Enough? Basic 

Family Budgets for Working Families. Economic 

Policy Institute, Washington, D.C. 

 Citro, C.F., Michael, R.T. (Eds.), 1995. 

Measuring Poverty: A New Approach. National 

Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

 Garner, T.I., De Vos, K., 1995. Income 

Sufficiency v. Poverty: Results from the United 

States and the Netherlands. Journal of 

Population Economics 8, 117--134. 

 Garner, T.I. and Short, K.S., 2003a. 

Personal Assessments of Minimum Income and 

Expenses: What Do They Tell US About 

‘Minimum Living’ Thresholds and Equivalence 

Scales? In: Y. Amiel and J. A. Bishop (Eds), 

Inequality, Welfare and Poverty: Theory and 

Measurement. Volume 9, Elsevier Science: The 

Netherlands, 191-243. 

 Garner, T.I. and Short, K.S., 2003b. 

Subjective Poverty Measurement: Minimum 

Income and Minimum Spending. Paper 

presented at the ASSA-SGE Session, Annual 

Meetings, Washington, D. C., January 3. 

 Goedhart, T., Halberstadt, V., Kapteyn, 

A., van Praag, B.M.S., 1977. The Poverty Line: 

Concept and Measurement. Journal of Human

Resources 12, 503--520. 

 Johnson, D. S., Rogers, J.M. and Tan, 

L., 2001. A Century of Family Budgets in the 

United States. Monthly Labor Review, May, 28--

45. 

Kapteyn, A., Kooreman, P., Willemse, 

R., 1988. Some Methodological Issues in the 

Implementation of Subjective Poverty 

Definitions. Journal of Human Resources 23, 

222--242. 

 Morissette, R., Poulin, S., 1991. Income 

Satisfaction Supplement: Summary of Four 

Survey Years, English language version. 

Statistics Canada: Canada. 

 Renwick, T. J., 1998. “Basic Needs 

Budgets Revisited: Does the U.S. Consumer 

Price Index Overestimate the Changes in the 

Cost of Living for Low-Income Families?” 

Feminist Economics 4(3), 129--142. 

 Renwick, T. J. and Bergmann, B.R., 

1993. “A Budget-Based Definition of Poverty 

with an Application to Single-Parent Families,” 

Journal of Human Resources 28(1), 1--24. 

 Short, K., Garner, T.I., Johnson, D.S., 

Doyle, P., 1999. Experimental Poverty 

Measures: 1990 to 1997, U.S. Census Bureau, 

Current Population Reports, Consumer Income, 

P60-205. U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, D.C. 

Stinson, L., 1998. Subjective 

Assessments of Economic Well-Being: Wave II, 

Cognitive Interviews, Final Report. U.S. 

Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

Office of Research and Evaluation, Washington, 

D.C. 

 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1997. 

Consumer Expenditure Survey, 1994-95, Bulletin 

2492. U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, D.C. 

 Vaughan, D.R. 1993. Exploring the Use 

of the Public’s Views to Set Income Poverty 

Thresholds and Adjust Them Over Time. Social 

Security Bulletin 56, 22--46. 

 Vaughan, D.R., 2003. Exploring the 

Use of the Views of the Public to Set Income 

Poverty Thresholds and Adjust Them Over 

Time, Census Bureau web site. 

 Vaughan, D.R., 1996. Self-Assessments 

of Income Needs and Financial Circumstances: 

Two Decades of Seeking a Place in Federal 

Household Surveys, in: The Proceedings of the 

Government and Social Statistics Section. 

American Statistical Association, Alexandria, 

VA., pp. 100-105. 

 Watts, H.W., 1980. Special Panel 

Suggests Changes in BLS Family Budget 

Program. Monthly Labor Review 103, 3--10.