Retirement Income Data: Improvements Could Better Support Analysis of Future Retirees' Prospects
Published: 2003-03-21T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Future demographic trends include a doubling of the nation's retiree population and only modest labor force growth, leading to concerns about retirement income adequacy for future generations. Credible projections of the effects of policy proposals on federal spending and future retirees' income are necessary. Because adequate data is critical to the analysis of retirement income and wealth, GAO was asked to identify data improvements that experts say are a priority for the study of retirement income and wealth, as well as factors limiting efforts to obtain the needed information.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Experts consulted by GAO cited priorities for improving retirement data that fit into two broad categories: (1) obtaining better data from employers on employee benefits and (2) obtaining better data by linking more individual and household surveys with administrative data (such as employer records, and Social Security earnings history records). Information from employers, such as documents describing the features of their pension plans, would enable analysts to forecast future retirement income of pension holders, based on the specific features of their pension plans and the likely distribution of pension income and wealth for different segments of the population. Linking individual and household surveys with administrative data creates new information, such as the demographic characteristics of employees whose pensions are affected by the formulas that employers use to calculate contributions or pension payments. Analysts attribute the shortcomings in retirement income data primarily to fragmentation of the responsibility for data collection and analysis, the burden of data collection on respondents, and confidentiality considerations that restrict access to these data. Fragmentation of responsibility occurs, in their view, because no single agency has a statutory mandate to collect or to analyze all the data needed to support a more comprehensive study of retirement income and wealth. With regard to respondent burden, some information on pension plans is no longer collected, in part, out of concern that it was an unnecessary burden on the firms having to submit it. Finally, certain kinds of data needed to make projections are not widely available to all analysts because of the confidentiality laws that authorize their collection.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Future demographic trends include  a doubling of the nation’s retiree  population and only modest labor  force growth, leading to concerns  about retirement income adequacy  for future generations. Credible  projections of the effects of policy  proposals on federal spending and  future retirees’ income are  necessary. Because adequate data  is critical to the analysis of  retirement income and wealth,  GAO was asked to identify data  improvements that experts say are  a priority for the study of  retirement income and wealth, as  well as factors limiting efforts to  obtain the needed information.
Experts consulted by GAO cited priorities for improving retirement data that  fit into two broad categories: (1) obtaining better data from employers on  employee benefits and (2) obtaining better data by linking more individual  and household surveys with administrative data (such as employer records,  and Social Security earnings history records). Information from employers,  such as documents describing the features of their pension plans, would  enable analysts to forecast future retirement income of pension holders,  based on the specific features of their pension plans and the likely  distribution of pension income and wealth for different segments of the  population. Linking individual and household surveys with administrative  data creates new information, such as the demographic characteristics of  employees whose pensions are affected by the formulas that employers use  to calculate contributions or pension payments.
Analysts attribute the shortcomings in retirement income data primarily to  fragmentation of the responsibility for data collection and analysis, the  burden of data collection on respondents, and confidentiality considerations  that restrict access to these data. Fragmentation of responsibility occurs, in  their view, because no single agency has a statutory mandate to collect or to  analyze all the data needed to support a more comprehensive study of  retirement income and wealth. With regard to respondent burden, some  information on pension plans is no longer collected, in part, out of concern  that it was an unnecessary burden on the firms having to submit it. Finally,  certain kinds of data needed to make projections are not widely available to  all analysts because of the confidentiality laws that authorize their  collection.
GAO recommends that the Internal  Revenue Service publish  tabulations of information filed in  IRS forms 5498, 1099R and W-2.
The Honorable Robert E. Andrews  Ranking Minority Member  Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations  Committee on Education and the Workforce  House of Representatives  The nation’s retiree population will double within the next few decades,  while at the same time the labor force will grow only modestly, potentially  stressing the national economy. In light of these demographic trends,  policymakers have been moved to consider how the future economy can  support the large retiree population, and whether retirement income levels  will be adequate in the future. To increase their understanding about  issues related to retirement, policymakers need credible projections of the  effects of their proposals on federal spending and on future retirees’  income. Analysts will be better able to develop accurate projections if they  have relevant, reliable, and timely data on patterns of saving and actual  retirement income and wealth.
Because adequate data will be so important to analysis of retirement  income and wealth for future retirees, including people in the “baby boom”  generation and later generations, you asked us to assess the adequacy of  data available for making such projections. In response to your request, as  agreed, we identified (1) data improvements that experts say are a priority  for the study of retirement income and wealth and (2) factors limiting  efforts to obtain the needed information.
To address these topics, we conducted a Web based survey of nearly 200  individuals with retirement income expertise, held a daylong meeting with  a diverse group of 11 retirement income experts, and interviewed  retirement income analysts and officials of the Departments of Labor  (Labor), Commerce, and Treasury. We conducted our work between  February and December 2002 in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards. (For more details about our scope and  methodology, see app. I.)
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Forecasting future retirement income needs—and how well they will be  met through current savings, pension plans, and Social Security benefits— is a challenge, in part because of the many variables involved. Although  Social Security is the primary source of income for many retirees, private  pensions and other sources of income serve as key supplements and help  retirees receive adequate income in retirement. In order to measure a  person’s current income and wealth, information is needed about many  items, including the person’s wage and nonwage income, home equity,  pension, and nonfinancial assets and liabilities. In addition, to project a  person’s future income and wealth, researchers need information such as  a person’s earnings history, whether he or she chooses to participate in the  pension plan offered by an employer, and how the person might respond  to changing incentives for saving and investing for retirement. Other  factors include whether the person chooses to accumulate savings apart  from retirement plans, how long the person remains in one job, whether  the person decides to cash out his or her retirement plan when changing  employment, level of indebtedness, and the availability of health insurance  during retirement. In addition, individuals’ retirement funds depend on  employer decisions, such as what kinds of pension plans and the  availability and cost of retiree medical and long-term care insurance. To  make estimates for people in different demographic groups, not just  aggregate estimates for entire generations, analysts need to know how  these factors vary based on individuals’ demographic characteristics.  Estimates of future income adequacy also rely heavily on projections of  macroeconomic factors, including estimates of future rates of inflation,  and rates of return on stocks and bonds and changes in home values.  Furthermore, retirement income data needs keep changing, in part, as a  result of trends in the pension industry and the labor force. The pension  industry provides a growing variety of pension products with different  features and legal structures. Forecasting pension income becomes more  complicated with, for example, firms’ converting of traditional pension  plans into new pension hybrid products such as cash balance plans. These  plans combine features of both defined benefit and defined contribution  plans, which adds to their complexity. Changes in employment patterns,  such as the decrease in the length of time employees spend in a single job,  will also have an effect on pension income.
The federal government collects a great deal of data pertinent to the  analysis of retirement income and wealth. Surveys of individuals and  households collected by or sponsored by the Census Bureau, the Federal  Reserve Board, BLS, and the National Institute on Aging are important  sources of information. Similarly, surveys of businesses by BLS provide  information about the pension and health care benefits firms offer their  employees. A great deal more information pertinent to the analysis of  retirement income and wealth is contained in the administrative  documents that businesses and individuals must provide to state and  federal agencies that administer governmental programs and enforce  regulations. For example, many private employers must file, on a Form  5500, annual reports concerning their employee benefit plans for the IRS,  Labor’s EBSA, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).  Many pieces of information concerning pensions and retirement savings  are also provided on forms that employers and financial institutions file  with the IRS.
In addition to the federal government’s collection of retirement income  related data, several private entities also conduct surveys that provide  useful information concerning retirement income. For example, the Health  and Retirement Study (HRS) conducted by the University of Michigan’s  Institute for Social Research, is a longitudinal survey of adults over the age  of 50. The information collected includes such topics as respondents’  physical and mental health, insurance coverage, financial status, family  support systems, labor market status, and retirement planning. The HRS is  supported primarily by the National Institute on Aging, with additional  funding over the years from the Social Security Administration, Labor’s  EBSA, the Department of Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary  for Planning and Evaluation, and the state of Florida. Also, private benefit  consulting firms and organizations, such as the Employee Benefit  Research Institute (EBRI), conduct surveys of employers concerning  pension plans.
Retirement income analysts currently use available retirement income and  wealth data to project future retirement income needs. For example, the  Social Security Administration has developed a forecasting model,  Modeling Income in the Near Term (MINT), to project demographic  changes, retirement income, and Social Security benefits generally for  persons born between 1931 and 1960. The Congressional Budget Office  has also developed the Congressional Budget Office Long-Term model to  study the range of possible outcomes for the balance of the Social Security  trust fund.
In a 1997 report, the National Research Council’s Panel on Retirement  Income Modeling reviewed the available sources of data on retirement  income and recommended several improvements. While the individual  recommendations covered various topics, many involved the collection of  additional information, as well as the establishment of an interagency task  force for coordination purposes. While some of the panel’s  recommendations have been adopted, others have not. For example, as  the panel recommended, the federal government has continued to support  longitudinal studies. However, Labor has not acted on the panel’s  recommendation that it establish an interagency task force on employer  data to plan collection of retirement income related data. In some  respects, less data are available than was the case when the report was  prepared. (See app. II for details.)
Much of the data needed to assess retirement income and wealth are  subject to federal laws protecting the confidentiality of information  reported to the federal government. Laws limit the access to this  information. Without access, it is not possible to pull together data from  different sources to provide more complete information about individuals  or organizations. The success of data gathering efforts by federal agencies  and others relies on widespread trust that personal data will be kept  confidential, protected from disclosure, and used only for specified  purposes.
section_title: Experts Cited Need for Better Data and Better Data Set Linkage
paragraphs: Experts we consulted cited priorities for improving retirement data that fit  into two broad categories: (1) obtaining better data from employers on  employee benefits and (2) obtaining better data from individual and  household surveys by linking them with administrative data. The kinds of  information concerning employers and employer-sponsored benefit plans  that analysts sought included the features of their pension plans, such as  minimum and maximum allowable contributions, or formulas for  calculating benefits from defined benefit pension plans. Retirement  income experts believed these data would allow them to more accurately  measure or project retirement income and wealth now and in the future  and estimate effects of potential retirement policy changes. Linkage of  data from different sources creates new information by providing data  about individuals matched to other data about the individuals from a  second set of records, such as administrative records on pension plans.  Analysts are able to use general data on some employer-sponsored  pension plans and data on households and individuals. However, without  linkages between these types of data it is difficult to obtain information  about retirement offerings for specific households. As a result, analysis of  pension offerings by demographic groups is limited.
subsections: section_title: Experts Place Priority on Improvement in Data from Employers
paragraphs: Most of the experts responding to our survey on retirement income data  needs assigned better retirement income-related data from employers to  the high or highest priority category. (See app. III for results of the  survey.) In addition, the experts asserted that employers, rather than  employees, could provide more accurate information about pension plans.
Participants on our expert panel expressed interest in improving access to  the mandatory pension plan disclosure reports, such as summary plan  descriptions (SPD). (See app. IV for a summary of the expert panel’s  discussion.) Employers must provide these documents to employees who  participate in a plan (such as a pension plan) in order to provide them with  an understandably written description of their rights and benefits under  the plan. To improve projections of future retirement income and the  effects of policy options, panelists also expressed interest in data provided  to the IRS on forms such as 1099-R and 5498.
section_title: Employer Documents Are an Important Source of Information on Retirement Plans
paragraphs: Analysts responding to our survey, reported as their highest or high  priority, the kind of information reported on some employer-submitted  forms. Because pension plans vary widely, panel experts said they  especially needed details of employee pension plans, such as the type of  pension plan (defined benefit, defined contribution, or other), eligibility  for participation and benefits, the plan’s early retirement age, sources of  contributions to the plan, and the method by which the amount of the  contributions and benefits are calculated. Panelists believed this  information would help analysts project future private pension benefits  and the effects of proposed policy changes. Panel members also  recommended that such pension data be obtained directly from  employers, citing the need for accuracy as an important factor.
Inconsistencies have been found between employee and employer  provided data. One study, for example, compared employees’ reports  concerning the employer-sponsored pension plans they were participating  in, or that were available to them, with the information about those  pension plans obtained directly from the employers. It found significant  discrepancies between the two sets of data, large enough for the authors  to urge a great deal of caution in using the household survey data for  reliable information about the actual characteristics of employer- sponsored pension plans. For example, among employees whose  employers reported that they were covered by a defined benefit plan, only  56 percent of the employees thought that they had such a plan. Likewise,  there seemed to be high levels of error in other basic details about pension  plans, such as the eligibility date for early retirement.
Using employer-submitted forms as a source of information was suggested  as one way to increase the accuracy of pension data. Retirement income  experts agreed that the Form 5500 is an important source of pension  information available in government administrative records. Sponsors or  administrators of employee benefit plans subject to ERISA must file this  form annually. The Form 5500 was intended, in part, to measure  employers’ compliance with both the fiduciary and funding provisions laid  out in ERISA legislation. The Form 5500 filed for pension plans contains  useful aggregate information about plans. It provides information about  the financial condition of the plan, annual amounts contributed by  participants, and the plan’s income on investments. The form also provides  information on plan characteristics, such as plan type (defined benefit or  defined contribution), method of funding, and numbers of employees,  participants, and employees who are excluded from the plan for various  reasons.
While the Form 5500 provides aggregate data about plans, it does not  contain information useful for calculating individual’s contributions or  benefits. For example, it does not provide information on formulas for  calculating employer contributions to plans or for calculating retirees’  benefits. In addition, it does not provide any data for pension plans  outside the reporting requirements of ERISA, such as those for  governmental employers, certain nonqualified plans for highly  compensated people, simplified employee pension (SEP)  plans, or  savings incentive match plans for employees (SIMPLE). Reporting and  processing requirements also mean that data from Form 5500 reports may  not be available to researchers for up to 3 years after the plan year. Finally,  Labor officials find frequent errors in information submitted on the  forms.
Partly because of the limitations surrounding the Form 5500s, retirement  income experts are increasingly interested in access to the SPDs, which  are summaries of employers’ pension offerings. The requirements of  ERISA call for SPDs to include specific details about employee pension  plans, including the type of pension plan, eligibility requirements, normal  retirement age, vesting and disqualification rules, sources of  contributions to the plan, and method by which the amount of the  contribution is calculated. ERISA required employers to file SPDs and  documents, called “summaries of material modifications,” describing  changes to the plans with Labor. These were made publicly available at  Labor’s public disclosure room in Washington, D.C. The SPDs served many  purposes: (1) they were a source of information to employees about the  offerings included in their own pension plans, (2) they were a means of  informing Labor about what types of plans a company was offering so  Labor could perform monitoring and enforcement, (3) they also provided  researchers with a high level of detail on pension offerings. EBSA officials  noted, however, that the SPDs received by Labor were often out of date  and that it was costly to store them. In 1993 we agreed that Labor should  stop collecting paper copies of SPDs, and instead provide access to  electronic versions.
Labor no longer collects SPDs and public access to them has become  much more limited in the last 5 years. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997  (P.L. 105-34) amended ERISA so that employers no longer need to file  SPDs with Labor. Instead, Labor was authorized to request SPDs from  employers as needed, and uses this authority primarily to assist plan  participants and beneficiaries in obtaining copies, though it has authority  to request them for other purposes. However, since the law, Labor no  longer requires that SPDs be filed, and SPDs prepared after the Taxpayer  Relief Act are not publicly accessible, either for the general public or for  researchers looking to model pension behavior.
section_title: Tax Information Returns Are a Source of Information on Retirement Plans
paragraphs: Our expert panelists noted that some of the pension details they need can  be found in the administrative data provided by employers and others to  the IRS. In addition to its collection of income tax returns, the IRS also  collects “information” returns, such as the W-2, which contain details of  employee information that provides valuable details relevant to future  retirement income, such as wages, tax-deferred retirement contributions,  lump sum distributions, rollovers, and retirement asset balances. In  discussing pension data that the IRS has access to from its tax forms,  experts from our panel reported that information from the Forms W-2,  5498, or 1099-R could provide important pension details. These forms  provide detail on the extent of investments in retirement plans, such as the  amount of contributions made to an Individual Retirement Account (IRA)  or the amount of money contributed by the employee to deferred  compensation plans.
Form W-2 is a valuable source of pension data because it provides  information on whether the employer provides some form of qualified  retirement plan. The W-2 also includes amounts deducted from wages for  contributions to pension plans, as well as codes that provide more detail  on the different kinds of plans to which the contribution was made, such  as whether the plan is a SIMPLE, SEP, or some other kind of deferred  compensation plan. Besides giving more detailed information on deferred  compensation, the W-2 has another advantage in terms of the pension  information it provides: employers are required to submit one for every  employee. This requirement covers all workers for whom federal income  tax or Social Security tax is withheld, including those who do not earn  enough to be required to file individual income tax returns and those who  are not covered by any pension plan.
Form 5498 is a form that financial institutions are required to file for all  participants to report all contributions and the fair market value of their  IRA accounts. It includes valuable pension information, including IRA  contributions; rollover contributions; and SEP, SIMPLE, and Roth IRA  contributions. Experts from the panel stated that the pension information  from Form 5498 could be important in tracking an individual’s retirement  income balance with a specific custodial financial institution because it  provides information on the fair market value of those assets held by the  individual. While it does not give information on whether an employee  who has separated from an employer converts the IRA into another tax  protected IRA or pension account, this information should be reflected in  the employee’s federal income tax return.
Form 1099-R is another source of information for pension experts, which  could provide additional information on pension resources. Form 1099-R  is a statement filed by trustees concerning distributions to individuals  from pensions, annuities, retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, and IRAs.  However, in many cases the form does not indicate whether the  distributions are lump-sum distributions or rollovers into IRAs or other  qualified plans.
The IRS makes some tax information publicly available through its  Statistics of Income (SOI) program, which provides numerous tabulations  and articles from its analysis of tax return data. From a sample of Form  1040s, the SOI currently provides aggregate tabulations of information,  including taxable IRA distributions, deductible payments to an IRA,  payments to a self-employed retirement (Keogh) plan, and taxable  pensions and annuities. This information is provided as a sum total of  amounts accrued for the entire U.S. population that filed income tax  returns, and is also broken out in detail by income level. For example, for  the year 2000, the SOI provides taxable IRA distributions for about 9  million returns, with distributions totaling about $100 billion. While SOI  breaks down these totals by income brackets, the tables do not provide  other useful pension information such as pension accrual amounts by race  or ethnicity. These demographic characteristics could be added to the data  if individual tax return records were linked to the Census Bureau’s  detailed household survey records.
The SOI staff are preparing an article on retirement related data available  from the IRS and, in doing so, will make some retirement related aggregate  data, including information from Forms 5498 and W-2, publicly available  for the first time. They told us that they are considering making this  information available as a part of regular SOI releases, but they currently  have no formal plans to do so. The SOI tabulations being prepared include  the fair market value of pension plans, broken down by 10-year cohorts.  Our expert panelists said that these kinds of aggregate data from IRS  forms could help them ensure that their analyses reflect accurate  information about retirement assets, such as the fair market value of IRA  accounts.
section_title: Experts Place Priority on Linking Data on Individuals to Administrative Data
paragraphs: Given different possible options for improving retirement income data,  retirement experts showed the greatest interest in increasing the  availability of, and expanding researchers’ access to, data sets on  individuals or households linked to administrative data sets. (For  characteristics of selected survey data sources, see table 3.) Eighty-one  percent of respondents assigned this as a high or highest priority. Data  linkage creates new information by matching data about individuals (using  names or taxpayer identification numbers) to a second set of records, such  as administrative records on pension plans, which provide additional  information. The linked data are then preserved as a new data set, with  personal identification information removed, that can generate new, fuller  information on the population. Linking existing sources of data can  provide detailed information with no additional respondent burden and at  a much lower cost than is associated with collecting new survey data.
Our expert panelists made several suggestions for linking individual and  household survey data with administrative data sources to help improve  the analysis of retirement income and projections of the effects of policy  changes on future retirement income. For example, they suggested  expanding linkage between the Survey of Income and Program  Participation (SIPP) and administrative data sources. SIPP is a survey of  households conducted by the Census Bureau providing wide-ranging  demographic information, including different age cohorts, which makes it  an attractive source of information when linked to administrative records.  It provides, for example, information about benefits households receive  from government programs. One component of this survey deals with  retirement and pension plan coverage, in which several pension and  retirement related questions are asked. However, it lacks definitive  information on features of respondents’ pension plans. Linking SIPP  information to administrative data sets is a powerful way to expand  information about how different groups will be covered in retirement. For  example, linked data sets can indicate the extent to which the availability  of various pension features differ for people in different age and  demographic groups. Such linkage can also indicate how much knowledge  respondents have about their pension plans and their retirement savings  options. Panelists said that linkage to SPDs, Form 5500 data, and Social  Security earnings and benefit histories would be especially valuable for  projecting retirement income for different demographic groups.
Survey data on individuals have already been linked to administrative data  sources in order to improve retirement income data. The Census Bureau is  already linking SIPP records with administrative data related to retirement  income, including Social Security earnings and benefit records. However,  many potential linkages are hampered by lack of access to needed  administrative data. For example, the University of Michigan Institute for  Social Research has linked information gathered from HRS survey  participants to SPDs gathered either from the employers or by Labor prior  to 1997. Unfortunately, this process was made more difficult, and the  information less satisfactory, because the HRS researchers could only  obtain about 50 percent of the SPDs they were seeking, in part, because  employers chose not to provide the SPDs. HRS researchers have also  experimented with linking respondent surveys to Social Security earning  histories for two-thirds of the respondents who permitted SSA to provide  the records.
section_title: Many Factors Limit Needed Retirement Income and Wealth Data
paragraphs: Experts we consulted believed that data needed for the study of  retirement income are not collected or made available because of factors  that include the fragmentation of data collection responsibility, the burden  of data collection on respondents, and confidentiality considerations that  restrict access. Fragmentation stems from no single agency having a  statutory mandate to collect and analyze all the data needed to support a  more comprehensive study of retirement income and wealth. Some  information is no longer collected out of concern that it was an  unnecessary burden on the firms having to submit it and because it was  only being used to a limited extent by the government. Finally, certain  kinds of data needed to make retirement income projections are not made  available because they contain information that must by law be carefully  protected against unauthorized disclosure and misuse.
subsections: section_title: Fragmented Retirement Data Responsibilities Contributes to Data Shortcomings
paragraphs: Although many federal agencies are involved in collecting and analyzing  retirement income and wealth data for a variety of different purposes, no  single agency is responsible for these activities. Instead, some agencies— including the Bureau of the Census, Labor, Federal Reserve Board, IRS,  and SSA—collect data needed for their specific purposes. For example,  the Census Bureau collects retirement income and wealth information on  individuals and households using the Current Population Survey (CPS)  and SIPP. Labor collects data on pensions for both ERISA enforcement  purposes and to track pensions for statistical purposes. The IRS collects  data from individuals and firms for tax enforcement purposes. Table 1  shows the major agencies involved in retirement income and wealth data  collection, the purpose of their data collection, and a brief description of  the information collected. None of these agencies is charged with  coordinating all retirement income data collection efforts or planning  improvements needed in data collection and analysis.
Agencies involved in the analysis of retirement income and wealth data  often limit their analysis to a portion of the retirement income and wealth  information. Panel members noted that many of the agencies place little or  no priority on a comprehensive analysis of retirement income and wealth  data. Instead, agencies focus their data collection and analysis on data  needed to address their mission. For example, Labor’s EBSA collects  information on compliance with ERISA regulations, including Form 5500  submissions. Although EBSA’s strategic plan includes retirement income  data analysis efforts, its principal focus is on enforcement of ERISA.  Similarly, the Bureau of the Census collects retirement related information  in the SIPP and other surveys but its analysis of this information is  primarily in the context of its income and poverty measurement mission.  The SSA’s MINT model uses an estimate of workers’ pensions based on  SIPP data from the Census Bureau, which generally relies on survey  responses, has been criticized for using inaccurate estimates of  nonearnings income, including retirement income. Because the Census  Bureau data provided to the SSA for the MINT was not gathered with it in  mind or coordinated for its use, the MINT model has had to use  simplifications and assumptions of these data which makes its final model  less useful for policy makers.
Despite this fragmentation, some agencies have attempted to increase  communication between federal agencies concerning data collection  efforts related to retirement income. For example, the BLS’ strategic goals  include improving the accuracy, efficiency, and relevancy of U.S.  economic statistics and enhancing coordination with other agencies. The  Census Bureau’s strategic goals likewise include an emphasis on providing  accurate, timely, and accessible information on the U.S. population and  economy, and to maintain relationships with agencies compiling  administrative record data. Both the Census Bureau and the BLS are  members of the Federal Interagency Forum on Aging Related Statistics,  which has a goal of improving both the quality and the use of aging related  data. In addition, BLS is one of three agencies that share responsibility for  leading the Inter-Departmental Committee on Employment-Related Health  Insurance Surveys. This committee of a dozen members was created in  1998 to improve coordination and reduce respondent burden by reducing  redundant requests for information.
section_title: Respondent Burden Considerations Limit Available Data
paragraphs: Members of our expert panel reported that respondent burden, as well as  requirements set up to limit respondent burden, could hinder agencies’  efforts to obtain retirement-related information. Panel members noted that  answering survey questions about retirement income and wealth could be  a substantial burden on respondents. They acknowledged that asking for  too much information could result in partial responses, erroneous  responses, or, in some cases, a reduction in the overall response rate.
However, efforts to reduce respondent burden may also limit the  collection of retirement information. Legislation requires OMB to review  surveys before they are used to collect data. The Paperwork Reduction  Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-13) and similar previous legislation is designed to  minimize the paperwork burden on the public while at the same time  recognize the importance of information to the successful completion of  agency missions. The act requires OMB to approve all existing and new  collections of information by federal agencies. In approving agency  collection efforts, OMB must weigh the burden to the public against the  practical utility of the information to the agency. Panel members noted  that agencies were reluctant to propose additional data collection unless  they could clearly establish that the benefit outweighed the perceived  burden. Panel members noted that efforts to reduce existing data  collection requirements sometimes result in a loss of information. For  example, the 1997 elimination of the requirement that firms routinely  submit SPDs was connected to an effort to reduce the respondent burden  on employers.
section_title: Privacy and Confidentiality Concerns Limit the Collection and Use of Retirement Data
paragraphs: While restrictions on the collection and use of retirement data are critical  for the protection of personal information, some panel members noted  that these restrictions also limit the availability of such information.  Several laws exist to protect individuals’ rights to privacy and protect the  confidentiality of personal and proprietary information held by federal  agencies. For example, laws set strict requirements to protect data  collected by the Census Bureau and to limit the use of taxpayer data.
Implementing such laws requires federal agencies to restrict access to data  they collect. For example, the Census Bureau’s data set that links the SIPP  with earnings and benefit records from SSA is not available to the public.  Protecting the confidentiality of such linked data sets is particularly  crucial because linked data sets may be more detailed or more sensitive  than the component data sets were before they were linked. Agency  officials must remove personal identifiers such as Social Security  numbers, names, and addresses. Even without these personal identifiers,  as more and more information is linked, the risks that individuals could be  identified increases. The computer files for these nonpublic data sets are  available only at a limited number of secure research data centers to  approved analysts working on approved projects. Outside analysts  working with these data sets must be sworn Census Bureau officers and  their work must serve, at least in part, to support the Census Bureau’s  mission. If analysts permitted to use these data combine any other data  with the restricted data, the combined data are subject to the Title 13  protections. Analysts are not allowed to make copies of the data or  remove data from the secure data center. Before taking any of the results  of their work from the center, Census Bureau staff must review the results  to ensure that they meet the agency’s requirements for confidentiality  protection. Thus, the results that can be taken out of the center are limited  to statistical results that do not disclose data for specific individuals. Also,  the external researchers must agree that the results of their work will be  available in the public domain and not maintained as proprietary  information.
However, despite the government’s efforts to protect the information they  collect from misuse, surveys of the public and Census Bureau interviewers  indicate that people are apprehensive about the government’s use of  personal information. In a survey conducted both before and after (or just  prior to) the 2000 Census of Population and Housing, about half of the  respondents (51 percent before and 50 percent during) indicated they  thought the Census Bureau’s promise of confidentiality could be trusted,  down from about 79 percent in 1990. A smaller, but still substantial  proportion of the workers conducting census interviews and providing  those promises to respondents also indicated a lack of trust in the Census  Bureau’s assurances. A 1998 study indicated that 16.7 percent of Census  Bureau interviewers and 32.2 percent of non-Census Bureau interviewers  believed that the Bureau would give individual survey data to government  agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central  Intelligence Agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the  IRS. Federal law prohibits the Census Bureau from sharing information  about individuals with these agencies. Census Bureau information about  particular individuals or businesses is only available for statistical  purposes, not for law enforcement purposes.
Public distrust of federal agencies’ use of their personal information can  undermine people’s willingness to participate in federal surveys,  potentially making the information collected less reliable. An article in  the Journal of Official Statistics noted that in the 1990s the rate at which  people refused to participate had risen for six surveys conducted by the  Census Bureau. For questions about types of income in the March 1999  CPS survey, for example, the percentage of respondents providing data for  particular items ranged from 33 percent to 78 percent. Low response rates  can undermine analysts’ statistical projections if the individuals who  choose not to respond differ in important respects from those who provide  data. If the remaining respondents are dissimilar to the population being  surveyed, conclusions about the population may not be reliable. For  example, if those who chose not to respond have higher incomes,  estimates of the populations’ income may not be reliable. Statisticians  make adjustments that can mitigate this problem, but the lower response  rates are, the more uncertainties remain.
Federal agencies and researchers continue to explore options to maximize  data usefulness without compromising respondent privacy and  confidentiality. For example, the Census Bureau has received permission  from the IRS to link the survey records to additional items from IRS and  SSA records. In addition, the Census Bureau has recently increased the  number of its research data centers where approved analysts working on  approved projects can access confidential data.
Researchers continue to explore statistical techniques for providing more  information from survey data sets while reducing the risks that  confidential information will be compromised. One well-known technique  for doing this, “top coding,” involves reporting in data files only that an  individual respondent’s income, for example, exceeds the “top code”  amount, not the actual value. In this way, so many individuals are included  in the high-income group that their identities cannot be determined. More  sophisticated techniques include the use of methods to substitute artificial  records containing estimated values based on knowledge of the real data.  These simulated subjects are assigned number values selected to ensure  that relationships between important variables are preserved. This allows  people to remain anonymous to the researchers using the data. However,  pension experts state that this method can only accommodate certain  kinds of variables and, therefore, complex relationships between variables  may not be maintained.
Recent legislation may enable the Census Bureau and BLS to link their  data on businesses for statistical purposes. In December 2002, the  Congress enacted the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical  Efficiency Act of 2002 as part of the E-Government Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-  347). This act permits designated statistical agencies to share information  concerning businesses for statistical purposes, but not information  concerning individuals or households. It authorizes three agencies—the  Census Bureau, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and BLS—to share data  on businesses with one another for statistical purposes.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: With the proportion of retirees to workers expected to increase  dramatically over the next couple of decades, important decisions lie  ahead. Access to retirement income data needed to inform those decisions  has actually decreased in some respects, despite the recommendations of  the 1997 National Research Council’s Panel on Retirement Income  Modeling. Although many sources of useful retirement income data  remain, retirement analysts we consulted cited shortcomings. They noted,  for example, that data shortcomings persist when no one federal agency is  responsible for coordinating efforts to fill retirement income data needs.
Indeed, several such data needs could be met with information the federal  government already possesses or to which it already has access. For  example, Labor has the authority to obtain existing documents describing  the features of private pension plans. However, though it has this  authority, it gives employers in its National Compensation Survey a choice  about whether to provide them to support Labor’s BLS statistical studies  of pension plans. To encourage voluntary participation in the survey,  Labor does not make them available to other agencies, outside analysts or  the general public. The Census Bureau gathers or collects information  about some general features of private pension plans through surveys of  households and individuals but has not yet had the opportunity to  corroborate and supplement this data using information from respondents’  employers available through Labor. While information on pension and  individual retirement accounts is gathered through forms collected by the  IRS, the data are not regularly tabulated or linked to survey data, and thus,  are not available for the study of pensions.
While improvements in data are essential for more reliable forecasts of  retirement income, protecting respondents’ information and minimizing  the burden data collection efforts impose on firms and individuals are also  crucial. To sustain programs for compiling statistics about firms and  individuals, respondents must be able to trust that their personal  information will not be misused. Finding an appropriate balance between  providing wider access to data to support policy analysis and keeping data  secure is a persistent and evolving challenge that policymakers must  continually address. In addition, federal agencies need to consider both  the federal cost of these efforts and the financial and nonfinancial costs  imposed on respondents in comparison with the benefits expected from  improvements in data. While taking into account these cost  considerations, respondent concerns about increased reporting burden,  and agency concerns about maintaining confidentiality, the Congress, and  the Departments of Labor and the Treasury could take the next steps to  help fill some of the data needs.
section_title: Matter for Congressional Consideration
paragraphs: To facilitate plan participants’, beneficiaries’, and analysts’ timely access  to information about employer-provided pension plans, the Congress  should consider directing the Secretary of Labor to obtain from plan  administrators electronic filings of all SPDs and summaries of material  modifications required by ERISA and make them publicly available in  electronic form.
section_title: Recommendations
paragraphs: To help provide the data needed to inform important policy decisions  concerning retirement programs, the Secretary of Labor should direct the  Bureau of Labor Statistics to prepare a plan to improve data for analyzing  retirement income and wealth in coordination with OMB, the Federal  Reserve Board, IRS, and the agencies represented in the Federal  Interagency Forum on Aging Related Statistics, including the Census  Bureau, SSA, and the National Institute on Aging. The plan should include  cost-effective strategies to    make better use of existing statistics by linking survey and administrative  data,  improve access to linked data consistent with privacy and confidentiality  legislation, and  improve data collected from employers related to retirement income and  wealth.
For plans in place before these new filing requirements go into effect, and  where it is cost-effective, the Secretary of Labor should use existing  authority to obtain copies of summary plan descriptions and summaries of  material modifications in cases where analysts working on federally  conducted or federally sponsored research seek SPDs for statistical  purposes. This should assist analysts of retirement income in obtaining  information about the features of employer-sponsored benefit plans that  are not electronically available.
To help analysts improve analyses of retirement plan finances, the Internal  Revenue Service should publish on an annual basis aggregate tabulations,  such as those prepared in the Statistics of Income Bulletin, of information  filed on IRS Forms 5498, 1099-R, and W-2.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Commerce,  Labor, the Treasury, and the IRS and received technical comments from all  four. In response we modified the draft as appropriate. We also provided a  draft of this report to the 11 members of our expert panel and modified the  draft as appropriate in response to their comments. Commerce had no  major comments on the report (see app. VI). Labor agreed on the need for  access to accurate data but did not agree with our recommendations to the  Secretary of Labor (see app. VII).
Regarding our recommendation to collect electronic copies of SPDs,  Labor concluded that this is at odds with the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997,  which eliminated requirements that SPDs be regularly filed with Labor.  Although Labor still has authority to request SPDs, it had indicated in final  regulations concerning SPDs that it generally intended to limit the  exercise of its authority to requesting SPDs on behalf of participants and  beneficiaries. Labor also indicated that there was little public interest in  the SPDs. Although there was not substantial public demand for paper  copies of SPD’s in Labor’s Public Disclosure Room in Washington, D.C., in  the last decade there has been a great increase in policymakers’ demand  for better data on retirement income in light of the rapid future increase in  the retiree population. Although in both 1993 and 1995 we supported  elimination of paper filing requirements, we also endorsed electronic  access to SPDs. We continue to believe that it is time to phase in a  requirement that SPDs be filed electronically. The costs involved should  be considerably less than those incurred filing and storing paper copies of  the documents. The burden imposed on plan administrators would not be  unreasonable. Labor estimated in 1998, for example, that it would cost an  average of $1.55 to provide SPDs for health benefit plans to each plan  participant, of which $1.00 was the estimated cost of materials and  postage. Cognizant of the shortcomings of many SPDs, experts we  consulted nonetheless indicated that better access to SPDs is a top priority  for improving retirement income data.  Accordingly, we changed our  recommendation to a Matter for Consideration for the Congress to direct  the Secretary of Labor to obtain from plan administrators electronic filings  of all SPDs and summaries of material modifications required by ERISA  and make them publicly available in electronic form.
Regarding our recommendation that BLS prepare a plan to improve data  for analyzing retirement income and wealth, Labor indicated that past  efforts to coordinate improvements in retirement income data have not  been successful due to privacy concerns, and other issues. They stated  that the type of planning and coordination we envisioned usually is the  purview of OMB’s Office of Statistical Policy, and that BLS could  participate in that coordination.  Furthermore, the extra demands placed  on staff would not be negligible. In our view, the need for improvements in  retirement income data warrants renewed efforts to address the priorities  identified by the experts we consulted. The recommendations of these  experts focused primarily on improved use of existing data to support  policy analysis, and not on additional data collection. We recognize OMB’s  role overseeing information collection and developing policies to improve  government statistics. However, this does not preclude efforts by other  agencies to take the lead in developing plans for improvements focused on  data within specific subject areas such as retirement income. Because  OMB does not have the retirement income focus needed to coordinate in  this way, we have retained our original recommendation.  That  recommendation specifically identifies OMB as one of the agencies that  should be involved in the development of a plan, and the plan should be  developed in a manner consistent with OMB’s policy.
With respect to our recommendation regarding provision of SPDs before  new electronic filing requirements go into effect, Labor stated that the  need to protect the confidentiality of survey data may hamper wider  access to SPDs.  BLS, for example, assures respondents to its National  Compensation Survey that their identities will be kept confidential. The  Secretary’s authority to request SPDs is delegated to EBSA. If BLS were to  obtain SPDs from EBSA it would have to reveal the identity of its  respondents and therefore would have to obtain their consent.  We  conclude that the need for improvements in retirement income data  warrants Labor’s use of its existing authority to obtain SPDs for analysts  engaged in federally conducted or federally sponsored research.  Arrangements could be developed through which BLS and other statistical  agencies could both obtain SPDs and protect the identity of respondents.  They could, for example, request SPDs from a larger number of employers  without identifying which employers were being surveyed. This is the kind  of improved access to data that we envisioned BLS could take the lead in  identifying in coordination with other agencies.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor, the  Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the  Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. We will also make copies  available to others on request. In addition, the report will be available at  no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov/.
If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact Barbara  Bovbjerg at (202) 512-7215, Robert Parker at (202) 512-9750. See appendix  VIII for other contacts and staff acknowledgments.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To identify information that experts say is a priority for improving data for  the study of retirement income and wealth, we conducted a Web based  survey of experts in the field and convened an 11 member panel of experts  to discuss opportunities for improving these data. We used the Web based  survey instrument to survey 276 experts in retirement income data. Before  implementing the survey, we contacted respondents via email and asked  them to participate. Out of our initial list of 326 experts, 27 declined to  participate, with the majority citing busy schedules or lack of sufficient  expertise as their reasons. In addition, we concluded that we had  inaccurate or out-of-date E-mail addresses for 23 of the experts.
We studied available research and interviewed experts in order to develop  a questionnaire of options to improve retirement income. The  questionnaire asked respondents to indicate the priority (from highest to  lowest) they would place on 22 actions to improve retirement income  data. Respondents were asked to rate each action independently, without  making comparisons between the actions. We pretested the content and  format of the questionnaire with 6 experts in the area of retirement  income. The questionnaire was then refined and posted on our Web site  and an E-mail message informed participants of its availability. This E-mail  message also contained a unique user name and password that allowed  each respondent to log on and fill out his or her own questionnaire.
As of December 12, 2002, 190 of the experts responded to the survey (a  69% response rate). Eighteen percent of respondents indicated that they  were affiliated with federal agencies, about half were affiliated with  colleges and universities, 24 percent were affiliated with other nonprofit  organizations, and the remaining 9 percent were affiliated with for profit  or other organizations.
Our preliminary results of the survey identified two areas for improvement  that respondents most often cited as having the highest priority: (1)  matching survey and administrative data and (2) employer data. We used  these areas to serve as the principal topics at a 1-day expert panel meeting  at our headquarters on September 10, 2002. The 11 panelists included 5  federal officials with responsibilities related to retirement income data, 3  university based analysts, and 3 from private not-for-profit agencies.
Barbara Bovbjerg, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security  Issues, and Robert Parker, Chief Statistician, moderated the discussion.  (For a summary of the panel’s discussion and a list of panelists, see app.  IV.)
To identify factors limiting the availability of information needed for the  study of retirement income and wealth, we reviewed documents obtained  from and interviewed officials at the Department of Labor’s (Labor)  Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA), and Bureau of Labor  Statistics (BLS), the Census Bureau, the Treasury Department’s Office of  Tax Analysis, the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) Statistics of Income  Division, the National Institute of Health’s National Institute on Aging, and  the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) Office of Research, Evaluation,  and Statistics. We also attended conferences related to retirement income  analysis sponsored by the Retirement Research Consortium and the  Society of Actuaries and interviewed analysts at the Urban Institute, The  Brookings Institution, the Employee Benefit Research Institute, and the  National Research Council.
The scope of our work did not include an evaluation of estimated costs  and benefits of specific proposals for improving retirement income data.  We did not independently verify the federal funding figures provided to us  by longitudinal survey administrators or agencies sponsoring the surveys.
section_title: Appendix II: Status of Recommendations From the 1997 Report of the Panel on Retirement Income Modeling
paragraphs: Below are recommendations concerning retirement income data needs  excerpted from the 1997 report of the National Research Council’s Panel  on Retirement Income Modeling followed by summaries on the status of  each as of December 2002.  1. Continue support of longitudinal studies  Recommendation: Existing panel surveys of middle-aged and older  people should receive continued government support. Longitudinal data  from these surveys are essential to analyze retirement and savings  decisions and determine behavioral responses to changes in public and  private sector policies. Such analyses in turn are essential to develop  better models for forecasting the likely effects of alternative policy  proposals on retirement income security. In particular, the Health and  Retirement Study (HRS) and Asset and Home Dynamics Among the Oldest  Old (AHEAD) surveys should receive continued support. These surveys  should be refreshed periodically with new cohorts in order to offer insight  into how behavior changes over time.
Status: As shown in table 2, the amounts of federal support for three  major longitudinal surveys have been sustained. The HRS and AHEAD  studies, which are now jointly funded, have increased after taking the  effects of inflation in account.
The National Institute on Aging continues to fund the HRS and AHEAD  studies. Supplemental funding also comes from SSA. Both the AHEAD and  HRS studies have been refreshed with new cohorts. In 1998, interviews  began for a cohort of people born from 1924 to 1930 and a cohort of  people born from 1942 to 1947.
The National Science Foundation continues to fund the PSID. Additional  support comes from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute  on Child Health and Human Development, and the Departments of Health  and Human Services, Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development  (HUD), and Labor.
Labor sponsors the National Longitudinal Survey (NLS) through BLS. The  NLS is conducted under contract with researchers at Ohio State  University, the University of Chicago, the Census Bureau and the  University of Wisconsin. In addition to Labor funding, financial support  has come from agencies including the National Institute of Child Health  and Human Development, the National Institute on Aging, the National  Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and  Alcoholism, and the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Education.
Recommendation: Panel surveys of middle-aged and older people should  experiment with methods to develop measures of families’ total  expenditures and expenditures on housing and medical care. Such  consumption measures are important for projections of economic well  being in retirement.
Status: The HRS and AHEAD surveys provide on a longitudinal basis  respondents’ estimates of many categories of expenditures including  housing expenditures, total out-of-pocket medical expenditures, and total  expenditures, total expenditures relative to income, as well as information  on savings preferences. Labor’s Consumer Expenditure Survey provides  cross-sectional rather than longitudinal data on many types of  expenditures, including housing expenditures, and medical expenditures,  and total expenditures and related income. The American Housing Survey,  sponsored by HUD, provides detail on housing expenditures . The  proposed American Community Survey also would provide limited detail  on housing expenditures. The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS)  provides extensive data on medical expenditures.  3. Gather more data on younger people  Recommendation: Panel surveys of younger people, such as the National  Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), should include detailed  questionnaire modules on pension coverage, wealth, health status, and  retirement- and savings-related expectations. Such information is needed  to fully understand life-cycle behavior and to track the disparities in  income and wealth that are evident by middle age.
Status: The NLSY asks about the total amount of retirement savings,  amounts contributed, and amounts withdrawn, and pension coverage. It  also provides information about assets and debt and limited information  about health (height, weight, and general evaluation of health), but not  retirement or savings expectations.
In 1995-99 interviews, the National Longitudinal Survey of Young Women  (NLSYW) asked respondents the extent to which they agreed or disagree  with statements such as “Work is the most meaningful part of life” and  “People who don’t retire when they can afford to are foolish.” The NLSYW  also asked respondents about the availability of a retirement or pension  plans in 1978 and in each round from 1978, 1983, through 1999. The 1991  and 1995-99 rounds of the survey included more detailed questions on  amounts in retirement plans, formula for calculating benefits for defined  benefit plans provided by current and previous employers, vesting status,  and expectations about retirement, such as expected amounts of benefits.  4. Collaborate to improve data quality and utility  Recommendation: Agencies and researchers involved in retirement  income-related panel surveys of individuals, and other surveys as  appropriate (such as the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) and the  Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP)), should collaborate  regularly in reviewing questionnaire content and data collection practices  to identify ways to improve data quality and utility. For example, the  bracketing technique used in HRS and AHEAD that has been  demonstrated to reduce nonresponse to important items should be  adopted in other surveys. Also, such surveys might include a common core  of questions on specific topics. The National Institute on Aging should  facilitate such collaborative efforts.
Status: Federal agencies collaborate through entities such as (1) the  Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics, originally  established by the National Institute on Aging, National Center for Health  Statistics, and Census Bureau and (2) the Inter-Departmental Committee  on Employment-Related Health Insurance Surveys, headed by the BLS,  National Center for Health Statistics, and the Agency for Healthcare  Research and Quality. The Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology  and the Interagency Committee on Confidentiality and Data Access have  coordinated research on techniques such as the bracketing technique are  now widely used and researchers do collaborate on questionnaire design.  In addition, the Census Bureau and other statistical agencies seek  comments from a wide range of researchers on the content of questions  before fielding survey instruments. For example, the Interagency  Committee on the SIPP, which consists of representatives of interested  federal agencies, and the American Statistical Association’s Survey  Research Methods Section SIPP Working Group, which consists of federal  and non-federal analysts, both advise the Census Bureau on that survey.  5. Establish interagency task force on employer data  Recommendation: Labor should establish an interagency task force on  employer data to specify an integrated plan for collecting retirement  income-related information. The plan should specify short-term and long- term goals that consider user needs, resource constraints, and the  problems of obtaining information from employers due to such factors as  low response rates, locating the appropriate respondents, and  confidentiality concerns. The task force should involve researchers,  private benefit consultants, and representatives of public and private  employers in its work.
Status: According to officials at the Department’s EBSA, Labor has not  made this a priority because its resources are limited.  6. Gather more data on benefit plan offerings  Recommendation: The employer data collection plan should include  short-term and long-term goals for obtaining improved information on the  distribution across employers of all benefit plan offerings (including  pensions, health insurance, disability insurance, retiree health insurance,  life insurance). Comprehensive baseline information is a priority need,  along with a plan for regular updating. Needed data elements include  benefit plan characteristics and costs, employer characteristics (e.g.,  number of employees, financial characteristics, wage structure), and  workforce characteristics (e.g., age structure) for public and private  employers and the self-employed.
Status: Labor’s BLS has increased the amount of information gathered  through its National Compensation Survey, which includes components  that had been gathered through the Employee Benefits Survey, the  Employment Cost Index survey, and the Occupational Compensation  Survey. The Employee Benefits Survey did not provide tabulations of the  estimated percentage of establishments providing specified types of  benefits, but the National Compensation Survey does. The survey includes  components for state and local government employers, medium and large  private employers, and small private employers, but not federal employers  or the self-employed. The survey provides data on number of employees,  employer and employee costs, wage structure, and the characteristics of  retirement benefit plans. It does provide data on the employer’s cost of  providing defined benefit and defined contribution retirement programs. It  does not provide information on financial characteristics of plans (such as  assets and liabilities) and does not provide information on the age  structure of the workforce.
In addition, the MEPS, sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research  and Quality, provides additional data on health insurance plans.  7. Redesign and enhance employee benefits survey.
Recommendation: The employer data collection task force should give  priority to redesigning and enhancing existing data collection systems on  employer benefit offerings and related topics. Such systems include the  Employee Benefits Survey, which currently provides information for broad  categories of employe but not for employe, and the Form 5500 data  series, which serves regulatory purposes and currently has limited  research use. Consideration should be given to improving the Form 5500  series, including:    making the data more timely and accessible (e.g., on-line);   linking records over time to provide panel data;    merging the Form 5500 benefit plan information with the kind of employer  financial characteristics found in the Compustat database;    working to standardize the reporting for health care and disability plans, so  that they can be added to the Form 5500 database; and  finding ways to add information about benefit plan features to the database,  perhaps by abstracting analytically useful information from the narrative plan  descriptions that are filed with the Form 5500.
Status: The Employee Benefits Survey (now part of the National  Compensation Survey) continues to provide data for categories of  employers, not categories of employees. It provides data by employer  industry group, employer employment size group, employee union status,  employee occupational group, and employer geographic location. BLS has  begun providing aggregate estimates for all private employers, rather than  only providing data separately for small private employers, and large  private employers, as it did in the past. However, the survey does not  cover federal, military, agricultural, fishing, forestry, or private household  employers.
Data from IRS Form 5500 continues to become available well after the end  of the reporting year. (Data for 1998 or the 1998-99 reporting year became  available in 2002.) In part, this is because the IRS deadline for submitting  the forms is 7 months after the end of the reporting year. For example, for  a firm with a 1998 reporting year beginning December 15, 1998, and ending  December 14, 1999, the Form 5500 was due July 31, 2000. In addition,  Labor takes several months to review and edit the returns before making  them publicly available. Labor makes Form 5500 data files available to  researchers and policy analysts, but its Web site does not include links to  the data. A private firm provides a Web site with images of the completed  forms, but not compiled data sets. Labor does not link Form 5500 reports  by firm to facilitate longitudinal analysis. Linking these consolidated  reports of publicly held companies with Form 5500 data is difficult  because these reports can cover only parts of a company, more than one  company, or privately held companies. Some researchers have linked  these data for selected firms.
Labor no longer requires that it receives the summary plan descriptions  regularly, and as a result the public no longer has access rights to new or  revised versions. Labor does, however, incorporate some data from these  plans in its National Compensation Survey data. This includes, for  example, information on normal retirement ages and formulas for  calculating employer contributions to pension plans.  8. Gather more data on labor demand for older workers  Recommendation: The employer data collection plan should include  short-term and long-term goals for obtaining information on labor demand  for older workers and the factors that may affect that demand. Needed  data elements include employment patterns of older workers,  compensation and benefit costs by age, and worker productivity by age.  Very little information on these topics is currently available, and some  raise difficult measurement issues. A reasonable short-term goal is to  sponsor case studies of employers that can help identify important  variables and feasible means of collecting them on a larger scale.
Status: The Health and Retirement Study and other surveys provide much  data on employment patterns and salary and wages of older workers. Little  has been done, however, concerning compensation and benefits costs or  productivity by age.  9. Conduct longitudinal survey of employers and their workers  Recommendation: The employer data collection task force should  consider the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of a panel survey, which is  periodically refreshed that collects detailed information on employers and  their workers. Such a survey should cover the full universe, including  private for profit, nonprofit, and government employers, and the self- employed. Longitudinal data from an employer-based survey are needed to  analyze the factors that affect employer decisions about recruitment and  retention of older workers and benefit plan offerings and how these  decisions, in turn, affect workers.
Status: Such a task force has not been formed and no survey like the one  the panel recommended has been undertaken. BLS has developed a  longitudinal database of business establishments, the “LDB”, based on  data from states’ unemployment insurance programs, and the Census  Bureau continues to maintain a longitudinal establishment database  covering all private nonagricultural establishments. Neither of these  databases includes data on pensions or other retirement plans. The BLS  database provides data on employees’ hours and wages. The Census  Bureau database also provides data on employment and wages, and  periodically includes data on employer contributions to pension plans and  health insurance. To some extent the HRS links data from individuals and  their employers on a longitudinal basis, but it tracks the individuals, not  the firms over time. The E-Government Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-347) may  facilitate collaboration between the Census Bureau and BLS and could  provide for linking National Compensation Survey (NCS) data on  retirement plans to the Census Bureau’s data on business establishments.  10. Gather more data from employers of HRS/AHEAD          sample members  Recommendation: HRS and AHEAD should develop and implement a  plan for obtaining information on a continuing basis on the pension and  health insurance offerings of the employers of the HRS/AHEAD sample  members.
Status: Data from HRS sample members’ employers is available. Similar  efforts have been undertaken with other surveys, such as the National  Longitudinal Study of Mature Women.  11. Match panel survey responses and key administrative records  Recommendation: Matched files of panel survey responses and key  administrative records should be regularly produced for retirement- income-related policy analysis and projection purposes. Examples include  exact matches of survey records and Social Security earnings histories and  benefit records, Medicare and Medicaid records, and the National Death  Index. The added information in matched files is obtainable at low  marginal cost and is essential for analysis of retirement and savings  decisions and the effect of medical care use and expenditures on  retirement security.
Status: Some matches between administrative data and panel survey data  have been achieved. HRS investigators have completed matches between  HRS and Social Security earnings and benefit record data, National Death  Index data, and Medicare records. These are available on a restricted basis  to selected researchers and policy analysts.
The Census Bureau has matched SIPP data with Social Security earnings  records and extracts from individuals’ IRS tax return data. The Census  Bureau’s Longitudinal Employer Household Dynamics (LEHD) project is  exploring options for more extensive matches between Form 5500 data  from employers and Census Bureau survey data on establishments.  Recently finalized Treasury regulations give the Census Bureau access to  specified IRS tax return records to support SIPP and LEHD data linkage  efforts.
Also, researchers at the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI)  linked survey data to state Medicaid records in order to develop state  specific projections of Medicaid expenditures.  12. Increase researchers’ access to exact match files safeguarding        confidentiality  Recommendation: Agencies should collaborate on the development and  oversight of matched data sets for individuals and employers, with input  from researchers on content. They should also vigorously explore creative  solutions for providing research access to exact match files that safeguard  the confidentiality of individual responses. Possible solutions include: (1)  developing public use files that contain summary variables derived from  the administrative records portion of the matched file (2) requiring  researchers to sign nondisclosure agreements with significant penalties for  violations; and (3) providing researchers with access to matched files on  site at secure data centers.
Status: Access to linked data sets remains quite limited. Access to HRS  linked data for example, is typically made available via a rigorous  application process resulting in a data use agreement with the University  of Michigan. To date, none of the linked data sets are available in  encrypted public use files. However, according to HRS researchers, “The  HRS, in conjunction with several other funded projects, has established a  secure data facility to broaden access to the restricted datasets. We are  exploring ways to eventually implement a system for encrypted online  delivery of sensitive data files, as well as extend access to our restricted  data.” (One such method is the further use of data centers, which provide  access to restricted information, including linked data sets, for approved  researchers working on data sets. For more information on data centers,  see page 19).  13. Fund regular evaluation of data quality  Recommendation: Budgets for retirement income-related surveys should  include sufficient resources for regular evaluation of data quality.  Evaluation methods include reinterviewing sub-samples of respondents to  measure consistency of reporting; experimentation with alternative  question wording to identify possible reporting problems; and comparing  survey estimates with administrative records to determine the  completeness and accuracy of survey reporting, taking care to adjust for  differences in definitions and other aspects of the two sources.
Status: Several studies using the recommended methods have been  conducted, with mixed results. The Census Bureau conducted a study  comparing estimates of various types of 1990-96 incomes in SIPP and CPS  to benchmark data estimated by the Census Bureau from the personal  income estimates in the National Income and Product Accounts. The study  found disparities between the survey based Census estimates and the  administrative record based personal income estimates that could not be  explained by differences in definitions. For 1996, the aggregate wages and  salary estimate based on CPS survey data was 102 percent of the  benchmark based on administrative records and the CPS social security  and railroad retirement benefit payments data were 92 percent of the  benchmark. In contrast, the study found more substantial disparities for  several other types of income. The aggregate CPS data for property  income was 71 percent of the benchmark, and CPS data for pension  income was 77 percent of the benchmark. The study is being replicated  with data for 1999. Other studies have noted definitional and quality  differences between estimates of personal savings from the Flow of Funds  Accounts and National Income and Product Accounts. Another study  compared estimates of wealth from the SCF, PSID, and SIPP.
The Department of Treasury’s Office of Tax Analysis has compared  estimates of pension plan participation and contributions with estimates  from the Census Bureau survey data. The Office of Tax Analysis linked W- 2 data with Statement of Income (SOI) data from Form 1040. The results  from this data set matched results from Census Bureau surveys, except for  low-income households. The tax records obviously don’t include nonfilers,  but in addition, by design, the SOI sample includes relatively few low- income filers (in the order of 1 in 5,000 filers), but all filers in the highest  income brackets. The Census Bureau surveys such as the SIPP over  sample low income households and have much less data for the highest  income households. For most income brackets, however, the data match  quite well, according to Treasury officials.
The Census Bureau periodically assesses the quality of CPS data by  reinterviewing a subsample of respondents, but none of the reinterviewing  has covered questions on income for at least the last 4 years, according to  the Census Bureau quality assurance staff.
The Census Bureau has also studied the accuracy of respondent data by  matching income data in the March CPS with selected income detail on  individual IRS income tax returns and SSA earnings and benefit records. A  similar effort is underway using 1999 data.
One of the components of the BLS’s National Compensation Survey is a  program of re-interviews of a sub-sample of respondents to verify and  clarify survey data, including data on retirement plans.
HRS investigators have compared employee responses about retirement  income to employer provided data and Social Security records and found  wide discrepancies. It is unclear to what extent these result from  respondents’ limited knowledge of their pensions or data errors.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Survey on Retirement Income Data Needs and List of Respondents
paragraphs: Questionnaire  1. Data on households and individuals: Please indicate the priority you would place on taking the following actions to improve  retirement income data.
Highest  priority (percent) priority (percent) priority (percent)
Low  priority  (percent)
Lowest  priority  (percent) opinion (percent)
Increase support for longitudinal studies of  individuals over 50 years of age, such as the HRS  Expand longitudinal studies of retirement savings of  younger individuals (age 50 or below)  Increase support for other studies of households  and individuals' retirement and wealth, such as the  SIPP, and the SCF  Improve measurement of family and household  consumption expenditures in surveys such as the  CEX and in panel surveys such as HRS  2. Data on employers and employee benefits: Please indicate the priority you would place on taking the following actions to improve  retirement income data.
Highest  priority (percent) priority (percent) priority (percent)
Low  priority  (percent)
Lowest  priority  (percent) opinion (percent)
subsections: section_title: List of Respondents to the Survey
paragraphs: Henry J. Aaron  The Brookings Institution  Julie Agnew  College of William and Mary  Joseph M. Anderson  Capital Research Associates  Kenneth Apfel  University of Texas at Austin  Vickie Bajtelsmit  Colorado State University  Dean Baker  Center for Economic and Policy Research  Laurel Beedon  Public Policy Institute, AARP  Dan Beller  Employee Benefits Security Administration  Keith A. Bender  University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee  Mark C. Berger  University of Kentucky  B. Douglas Bernheim  Stanford University  Merton C. Bernstein  Washington University  Joydeep Bhattacharya  Iowa State University  Robert B. Blancato  Matz, Blancato & Associates, Inc.
Henning Bohn  University of California - Santa Barbara  Christopher M. Bone  Actuarial Science Associates  Barry P. Bosworth  The Brookings Institution  Linda Smith Brothers  University of Wisconsin - Madison  Charlie Brown  University of Michigan  Richard V. Burkhauser  Cornell University  Gary Burtless  The Brookings Institution  John Y. Campbell  Harvard University  William J. Carrington  Welch Consulting  Yung-Ping Chen  University of Massachusetts Boston  Constance F. Citro  National Research Council  Robert L. Clark  North Carolina State University  Denise M. Clark  Feder Semo Clark & Bard, P.C.
Joao Cocco  London Business School  Lee Cohen  Social Security Administration  Steven B. Cohen  Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality|  Department of Health and Human Services  Courtney C. Coile  Wellesley College  Christopher Cornwell  University of Georgia  Julia Lynn Coronado  Federal Reserve Board  Angus Deaton  Princeton University  Jeff Dominitz  Carnegie Mellon University  Karen Dynan  Federal Reserve Board  Ryan D. Edwards  Stanford University  Douglas W. Elmendorf  Federal Reserve Board  Gary V. Engelhardt  Syracuse University  Eric M. Engen  American Enterprise Institute  William E. Even  Miami University  Jeff Faux  Economic Policy Institute  Karen W. Ferguson  Pension Rights Center  Jonathan Barry Forman  University of Oklahoma  Leora Friedberg  University of Virginia  Robert B. Friedland  Georgetown University  Don Fullerton  University of Texas at Austin  William G. Gale  The Brookings Institution  Ron Gebhardtsbauer  American Academy of Actuaries  Thomas Glass  Glass & Co. CPAs  Jagdeesh Gokhale  Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland  Carol Gold  Internal Revenue Service  Nancy M. Gordon  Census Bureau, Department of Commerce  Brian Graff  American Capital Strategies  Matthew Greenwald  Matthew Greenwald & Associates, Inc.
Lijia Guo  University of Central Florida  Alan L. Gustman  Dartmouth College  Steven Haider  RAND  Brian Headd  Small Business Administration  Roger Hickey  Institute for America’s Future  Catherine Hill  National Academy of Social Insurance  Richard Hinz  World Bank (formerly, Department of Labor)
Lorrie L. Hoffman  University of Central Florida  Karen C. Holden  University of Wisconsin-Madison  Sarah Holden  Investment Company Institute  Kevin M. Hollenbeck  W.E. Upjohn Institute  Martin Holmer  Policy Simulation Group  Marjorie Honig  City University of New York  M. Cindy Hounsell  Women’s Institute for a Secure Retirement  Warren Hrung  Department of the Treasury  Edwin C. Hustead  The Hay Group  Robert M. Hutchens  Cornell University  Howard M. Iams  Social Security Administration  David C. John  Heritage Foundation  Richard W. Johnson  Urban Institute  David Joulfaian  Department of the Treasury  F. Thomas Juster  University of Michigan  Arthur B. Kennickell  Federal Reserve Board  Surachai Khitatrakun  University of Wisconsin-Madison  Kilolo Kijakazi  Center on Budget and Policy Priorities  Geoffrey Kollmann  Congressional Research Service  Sophie M. Korczyk  Analytical Services  Marvin H. Kosters  American Enterprise Institute  Douglas L. Kruse  Rutgers University  Ronald Lee  University of California, Berkeley  Jeffrey B. Liebman  Harvard University  David A. Macpherson  Florida State University  Brigitte C. Madrian  University of Chicago  Joyce Manchester  Social Security Administration  Charles F. Manski  Northwestern University  Ann A. McDermed  North Carolina State University  Andrew Metrick  University of Pennsylvania  Daniel J. Mitchell  Heritage Foundation  Olivia S. Mitchell  University of Pennsylvania  H. Fred Mittelstaedt  University of Notre Dame  Catherine Phillips Montalto  Ohio State University  James H. Moore  Social Security Administration  Kathryn L. Moore  University of Kentucky  Brent R. Moulton  Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce  James Musumeci  Southern Illinois University at Carbondale  Randall J. Olsen  Ohio State University  Van Doorn Ooms  Committee for Economic Development  Peter R. Orszag  The Brookings Institution  Beverly J. Orth  William M. Mercer, Inc  Michael Packard  Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation  Michael G. Palumbo  Federal Reserve Board  Constantijn W. A. Panis  RAND  Jonathan A. Parker  Princeton University  Donald O. Parsons  George Washington University  Cynthia D. Perry  Massachusetts Institute of Technology  Pamela J. Perun  Urban Institute  Joseph S. Piacentini  Employee Benefits Security Administration  James Poterba  Massachusetts Institute of Technology  Elizabeth T. Powers  University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign  Patrick J. Purcell  Congressional Research Service  John W. R. Phillips  Social Security Administration  Anna M. Rappaport  William M. Mercer, Inc.
Robert R. Reed III  University of Kentucky  Cordelia W. Reimers  Hunter College  John E. Sabelhaus  Congressional Budget Office  Andrew A. Samwick  Dartmouth College  Thomas R. Saving  Texas A & M University  Patricia L. Scahill  Ernst & Young LLP  Sylvester J. Schieber  Watson Wyatt Worldwide  Robert F. Schoeni  University of Michigan  James H. Schultz  Brandeis University (retired)
John C. Scott  American Benefits Council  Lois B. Shaw  Institute for Women’s Policy Research  Stuart A. Sirkin  Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation  Jonathan S. Skinner  Dartmouth College  Timothy A. Smeeding  Syracuse University  Karen E. Smith  Urban Institute  Paul Smith  Department of the Treasury  Ralph Smith  Congressional Budget Office  Frank P. Stafford  University of Michigan  Norman Stein  University of Alabama  Thomas L. Steinmeier  Texas Tech University  C. Eugene Steuerle  Urban Institute  Ann Huff Stevens  Yale University  Annika E. Sundén  Boston College  Richard M. Suzman  National Institute on Aging  Kenn B. Tacchino  Widener University  Albert Teplin  Federal Reserve Board (Retired)
section_title: Appendix IV: Views of GAO’s Expert Panel on Retirement Income Data Needs
paragraphs: This appendix provides the summary of discussion by members of an  expert panel that we convened on retirement income data needs on  September 10, 2002. The panel consisted of 11 nationally recognized  experts who, during a day-long meeting, discussed the issues the federal  government should address in order to improve the quality of retirement  income data statistics. All the ideas presented in this appendix may not  represent the view of every member of the panel. Moreover, these ideas  should not be considered to be our views.
Members of Our Expert Panel  The following individuals were members of our expert panel on retirement  income data:    Eric Engen, Resident Scholar, The American Enterprise Institute    Melissa Favreault, Research Associate, The Urban Institute    Nancy Gordon, Associate Director for Demographic Programs, US Census    Alan Gustman, Professor of Economics, Dartmouth College    Richard Hinz, Chief Economist and Director of Policy and Research, EBSA,  Department of Labor (now at the World Bank)
Howard Iams, Director, Division of Policy Evaluation, Office of Policy, Social  Security Administration  John Sabelhaus, Unit Chief, Long-Term Modeling Group, Congressional  Budget Office    Dallas Salisbury, President, Employee Benefit Research Institute  Jack VanDerhei, Associate Professor, Department of Risk, Insurance &  Healthcare Management, Fox School of Business and Management, Temple  University    William Wiatrowski, Chief, Compensation Data Analysis and Planning  Division, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor    Robert Willis, Professor of Economics, Institute for Social Research,  The panel members discussed a number of issues the federal government  needs to address in order to improve the quality of retirement income  statistics. Specifically, panelists discussed actions and strategies the  federal government could undertake related to (1) improving matching of  survey and administrative data, (2) improving access to administrative  data, and (3) improving the quality of employer data.
subsections: section_title: Need for Better Matched Data
paragraphs: Panelists said that a significant amount of the needed information about  American workers and pension behavior is already being collected in  government and private surveys and government administrative reports.  While no one single survey or report collects all the pension information  panels expressed interest in, they said that some household surveys could  be linked with administrative report data from employers. Specifically,  panelists discussed the following:    The Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) a household survey  conducted by the Bureau of the Census, has information on demographic  characteristics, labor force participation, and detailed information on income,  including some basic pension information. The SIPP does not gather detailed  information about the characteristics of these pensions.
Summary Plan Descriptions (SPD), prepared by employers as required under  ERISA, provide detailed information about the characteristics of the pension  plans that they provide to their employees.  In the past, the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), which is primarily a  household survey conducted by the University of Michigan, has matched  survey data from households who permitted the Social Security  Administration to provide Social Security earnings records and benefit  records, the National Death Index, and to Medicare records for those  individuals who are Medicare eligible. HRS records also have been matched to  SPDs obtained either from Labor or from employers.
The panelists were interested in the information available from the 1979  National Longitudinal Survey, which is sponsored by the Bureau of Labor  Statistics and gathers a wide range of information over a long time period.  Panelists felt that this information could be potentially be useful because the  participants, who initially participated as youth, are now approaching  retirement age, which would give researchers access to a lifetime of data.  In addition to matching currently being done, some panelists said that they  were interested in matching existing pension information to other sources of  employer information and public financial data, such as information from  reports filed with the SEC and available, for example, from Compustat.
Limitations on Access to Data  Members of our expert panel felt that there are several sources of  administrative data that could give researchers valuable information,  especially those that could be linked, but legal and logistic restrictions and  limitations prevent access to some of this pension data. Specifically,  panelists discussed different types of limitations to access.
The Federal Code Title 13, Section 9 sets very specific limitations on the  access to any data identifying individuals gathered by the Census Bureau and  any data that are linked to Census data has the Title 13 limitation “attached” to  it as a result.  Individual records from the IRS have some access restrictions similar to those  of the Census Bureau except that legislation allows specified agencies access  to certain tax return records.
As a result of amendments to ERISA legislation SPDs are no longer routinely  collected by Labor.
Fragmented Retirement Data Responsibilities Contributes to Data  Shortcomings    The responsibility for gathering and analyzing pension data is fragmented  between different government agencies. There is no central agency  responsible for retirement data – it is fragmented between the Pension Benefit  Guaranty Corporation, Labor and IRS. As a result, individual agencies do not  have the incentive to provide access to information or to collect statistics for  research purposes.
While Labor’s regulations specify that employers must supply SPDs if  requested, it does not specify that employers must have a copy of the SPDs. As  a result, researchers who request SPDs from employers are frequently told  that the Plan Administrator has the documents. The Plan Administrators in  turn tell researchers that they have no authority for providing them to anyone  except plan participants.
Since 1980, OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has provided  government wide leadership and oversight of efforts to reduce the burden on  respondents to government information collection, including statistical  surveys”. This “reduction” effort has meant that some research data previously  collected in administrative reports has been eliminated.
Other Suggestions for Improving Access to Data  The expert panelists made many suggestions for improving access to  pension data. More specifically, panelists discussed the following:  It was suggested that agencies with access to data, such as Labor, take  advantage of improvements in technology to require and provide electronic  copies of Form 5500s and SPDs.
Panel experts suggested that some sort of license be issued for research  vehicles (such as the SCF, the SIPP and the HRS) to have legal access to  employer pension information, provided that they take measures to ensure  confidentiality.
Panelists suggested creating more research data centers to match otherwise  restricted data, including Census Bureau data. They suggested changing  legislation so that the Census Bureau’s data would not make everything  subject to Title 13. The Census Bureau, however, is concerned about possible  reidentification issues.
Panelists suggested studying more closely the Census Bureau’s results in its  experimentation with the development of “synthetic data” in the LEHD  program, a technique in which many relationships between variables are  maintained in a data set, but in a manner that makes it impossible to identify  specific individuals. Panelists also cautioned, however, that in many cases  these techniques are not workable and researchers will need access to the  original survey data.
Restricted Access Sites Have Provided Some Increased  Opportunities for Access to Survey Records and Matched Files  Experts discussed research data centers, operated by several Federal  agencies and private survey organizations, as an effective technique to  make data not available because of confidentiality restrictions more  available to researchers, but with certain restrictions. While the data  centers provide opportunities for conducting research with survey records  or matching records between surveys or with administrative records,  experts said that there are limitations to the data centers, which make data  much more difficult to access. Specifically, panelists discussed the  following:    Restricted access sites are a useful means of allowing confidential information  to be accessed by researchers, subject to certain restrictions.
A federal storage data center where a number of federal data sets could be  brought together could allow agencies to share some otherwise inaccessible  information.
Data centers could aid the work that researchers are doing by storing research  already conducted in the data center.
The Census Bureau, which operates Research Data Centers in eight locations  throughout the country, allows researchers with pre-approved projects to use  confidential economic and demographic survey data, such as SIPP, for which  either no public-use version is available, or the public-use version does not  contain the information required by the researcher. While researchers can  access these data at the centers, they are not allowed to remove individual  records from the data center. This restriction prohibits researchers from  matching Census Bureau data with data sets available to researchers, unless  those data are imported into the data center.
BLS has a similar data center located in Washington, D.C. in which data  extracted from SPDs collected as part of the National Compensation Survey  are stored. As with the Census Bureau centers, there are limitations on who  can access this information and restrictions on removing data from the data  center.
Because confidential data cannot be removed from either the BLS or the  Census Bureau data centers, it is currently not possible for researchers to  match data sets from the two agencies.
section_title: More Employer Information Needed on the Value and Provisions of Employer-Provided Pensions
paragraphs: There was wide agreement on the panel that greater access to employer  information was needed to accurately capture the value and provisions of  employer-provided pensions. More specifically, panelists discussed the  following:    Employee-provided information about pensions is not a viable source because  individuals often do not have a good understanding of the value or  characteristics of pensions. In addition, agencies expressed concern about the  impact of additional questions on nonresponse, and it may be difficult to  obtain OMB approval for adding questions to statistical surveys or to  administrative reports.
Valuable information on the value and characteristics of employer pension  information is already collected by the Department of Labor on the Form  5500s.
Through the LEHD program, the Census Bureau has been trying to link  together employer information with data from surveys.
Agencies have concerns about maintaining the privacy and confidentiality of  data. For example, there was concern that linking SIPP information about  individuals with Form 5500 files or summary plan descriptions could facilitate  the reidentification of individual data reported to the Census Bureau. As a  result, those linked data would be available only within the data centers.
section_title: Appendix V: Characteristics of Selected Surveys for Analysis of Retirement Income and Wealth
paragraphs: Below is a table highlighting some of the features of selected surveys  pertinent to the analysis of retirement income and projection of future  retirees’ income.
section_title: Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Commerce
section_title: Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Labor
section_title: Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Timothy Fairbanks, Nicholas Larson, Lynn Musser, Emily Pickrell, and  Roger Thomas also contributed to this report.