Older Americans: Inability to Repay Student Loans May Affect Financial Security of a Small Percentage of Retirees
Published: 2014-09-10T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Recent studies have indicated that many Americans may be approaching their retirement years with increasing levels of various kinds of debt. Such debt can reduce net worth and income, thereby diminishing overall retirement financial security. Student loan debt held by older Americans can be especially daunting because unlike other types of debt, it generally cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. GAO was asked to examine the extent of student loan debt held by older Americans and the implications of default.
This testimony provides information on: (1) the extent to which older Americans have outstanding student loans and how this debt compares to other types of debt, and (2) the extent to which older Americans have defaulted on federal student loans and the possible consequences of default. To address these issues, GAO obtained and analyzed relevant data from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances as well as data from the Department of the Treasury, the Social Security Administration, and the Department of Education. GAO also reviewed key agency documents and interviewed knowledgeable staff.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Comparatively few households headed by older Americans carry student debt compared to other types of debt, such as for mortgages and credit cards. GAO's analysis of the data from the Survey of Consumer Finances reveals that about 3 percent of households headed by those aged 65 or older—about 706,000 households—carry student loan debt. This compares to about 24 percent of households headed by those aged 64 or younger—22 million households. Compared to student loan debt, those 65 and older are much more likely to carry other types of debt. For example, about 29 percent carry home mortgage debt and 27 percent carry credit card debt. Still, student debt among older American households has grown in recent years. The percentage of households headed by those aged 65 to 74 having student debt grew from about 1 percent in 2004 to about 4 percent in 2010. While those 65 and older account for a small fraction of the total amount of outstanding federal student debt, the outstanding federal student debt for this age group grew from about $2.8 billion in 2005 to about $18.2 billion in 2013.
Available data indicate that borrowers 65 and older hold defaulted federal student loans at a much higher rate, which can leave some retirees with income below the poverty threshold. Although federal student loans can remain unpaid for more than a year before the Department of Education takes aggressive action to recover the funds, once initiated, the actions can have serious consequences. For example, a portion of the borrower's Social Security disability, retirement, or survivor benefits can be claimed to pay off the loan. From 2002 through 2013, the number of individuals whose Social Security benefits were offset to pay student loan debt increased about five-fold from about 31,000 to 155,000. Among those 65 and older, the number of individuals whose benefits were offset grew from about 6,000 to about 36,000 over the same period, roughly a 500 percent increase. In 1998, additional limits on the amount that monthly benefits can be offset were implemented, but since that time the value of the amount protected and retained by the borrower has fallen below the poverty threshold.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is not making recommendations. GAO received technical comments on a draft of this testimony from the Department of Education, the Department of the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve System. GAO incorporated these comments into the testimony as appropriate.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss the financial effect of student  loan debt on older Americans. This statement summarizes the work we  did at the request of Chairman Nelson and Chairman Harkin, Chair of the  Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. As recent  studies have shown, debt held by older Americans is increasing and may  affect financial security in retirement. A 2013 study reported that the  percentage of Americans 65 or older with some debt increased from  about 30 percent to about 43 percent from 1998 to 2010. The study also  found that the median amount of debt increased 56 percent, from about  $13,600 to $21,200. Further, for those 65 and older, the overall debt  ratio—total debt as a percentage of total household assets—doubled from  1998 to 2010, rising from 6.4 percent to 13 percent. Such debt reduces  net worth and income and can erode retirement security. The effect of  rising debt can be more profound for those who have accumulated few or  no financial assets.
Student loan debt can be especially problematic because unlike other  types of debt, it generally cannot be discharged in bankruptcy and can,  in the event of default on federal student loans, lead to reductions in  certain federal payments such as Social Security benefits. According to  data compiled by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the number of  Americans 50 and older with student loan debt increased from 3 million in  2005 to 6.9 million in 2012—an increase of 130 percent.
In light of these issues, we were asked to examine both the incidence of  student loan debt among older American households, and the  implications of defaulting on student loans for members of this population.  Specifically, we examined (1) the extent to which older Americans have  outstanding student loans and how this debt compared to other types of  debt, and (2) the extent to which older Americans have defaulted on  federal student loans and the possible consequences of default.
To address these questions, we analyzed a number of nationally  representative datasets, reviewed relevant literature, examined relevant  federal laws and regulations, studied agency data and documents, and  interviewed relevant experts. Specifically, for the first question, we  extracted and analyzed data from the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of  Consumer Finances (SCF), a survey conducted once every 3 years that  gathers various economic and financial data at the household level. We  also obtained targeted data reflecting individual loans—but not  borrowers—from the Department of Education’s (Education) National  Student Loan Data System (NSLDS). Although Education maintains  borrower-level data, it was only able to provide us with aggregated data  by loan type during the course of our analyses. To answer the second  question, we reviewed additional data from the NSLDS, and obtained  data from the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) on payments  withheld from Social Security benefits and applied to defaulted federal  student loans through the Treasury Offset Program. To better understand  offset for older Americans, we matched the Treasury data with data from  the Social Security Administration’s Master Beneficiary Record on the  ages of these borrowers and the types of benefits they receive. In  addition, we interviewed Education officials and reviewed relevant  documentation regarding Education’s debt collection policies and  procedures; however, we did not audit their compliance with statutory  requirements related to these activities. We assessed the reliability of the  data sources by reviewing documentation and conducting testing of the  data and determined that they were sufficiently reliable for purposes of  this testimony. More details on our scope and methodology are included  in appendix 1.
We provided a draft of this testimony to the Department of Education, the  Department of the Treasury, the Social Security Administration, and the  Federal Reserve System for review and comment. They generally agreed  with our findings. We received technical comments from each agency  except the Social Security Administration, which had no comments, and  as appropriate, we incorporated these technical comments into this  testimony.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2013 to September  2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Since passage of the Higher Education Act of 1965, a broad array of  federal student aid programs, including loan programs, have been  available to help students finance the cost of postsecondary education.  Currently, several types of federal student loans administered by  Education make up the largest portion of student loans in the United  States. Four types of federal student loans are available to borrowers and  have features that make them attractive for financing higher education.  For example, borrowers are not required to begin repaying most federal  student loans until after graduation or when their enrollment status  significantly changes. Further, interest rates on federal student loans are  generally lower than other financing alternatives, and the programs offer  repayment flexibilities if borrowers are unable to meet scheduled  payments. As outlined in table 1, the four federal loan programs differ in  that interest rates may or may not be subsidized based on the borrower’s  financial need, loans may be designed to specifically serve  undergraduate or graduate and professional students, and loans may  serve to consolidate and extend the payment term of multiple federal  student loans.
Education administers federal student loans and is generally responsible  for, among other duties, disbursing, reconciling, and accounting for  student loans and other student aid, and tracking loan repayment.  Although no other federal agencies have a direct role in administering  student loans, other agencies may become involved in the event that a  borrower fails to make repayment. For example, Education may  coordinate with Treasury to withhold a portion of federal payments to  borrowers who have not made scheduled loan repayments. Such  payment withholding, known as administrative offset, can affect payments  to individuals by various federal agencies. Offsets of income tax refunds  would involve the Internal Revenue Service and offsets of Social Security  retirement or disability benefits would involve the Social Security  Administration.
Student loans are also available from private lenders, such as banks and  credit unions. Private loans differ from federal loans in that they may  require repayment to begin while the student is still in school, they  generally have higher interest rates, and the rates may be variable as  opposed to fixed. Unlike federal student loans, private student loans may  be more difficult to obtain for some potential borrowers because they may  require an established credit record and the cost of the loan may depend  on the borrower’s credit score. Private student loans are a relatively small  part of the student loan market, accounting for 10 to 15 percent of  outstanding student loan debt—about $150 billion—as of January 2012.
Older Americans—that is, Americans in or approaching retirement—may  hold student loans for a number of reasons. For example, because such  loans may have a 10- to 25-year repayment horizon, older Americans  may still be paying off student loan debt that they accrued when they  were much younger. They may also have accrued student loan debt in  the course of mid- or late-career re-training and education. In addition,  they may be holding loans taken out for the education of their children,  either through co-signing or through Parent PLUS loans.
section_title: Relatively Few Households Headed by Individuals 65 and Over Hold Student Loan Debt, but the Amount They Owe May Be Significant
paragraphs: According to the 2010 SCF, households headed by older individuals are  much less likely than those headed by younger individuals to hold student  loan debt. As of 2010, about 3 percent of surveyed households headed  by people 65 and older—representing approximately 706,000  households—reported some student loan debt. This compares to 24  percent for households headed by those under 65—representing about  22 million households. The decrease in the incidence of student loan  debt is even more marked for households headed by the oldest  individuals—only 1 percent of those aged 75 or over reported such debt.  Although few older Americans have student debt, a majority of  households headed by those 65 and older reported having some kind of  debt, most commonly home mortgage debt, followed by credit card and  vehicle debt. While the incidence of all debt types declines for households  headed by those 65 and over, the incidence of student loan debt declines  at a much faster rate. For example, the incidence of student loan debt for  the 65-74 age group is less than half of that for the 55-64 age group—4  percent compared to 9 percent. In contrast, the incidence of any type of  debt for the older age group is only about 17 percent less than the  younger age group—65 percent compared to 78 percent.
While relatively few older Americans have student debt, data from the  SCF suggest that the size of such debt among older Americans may be  comparable to that of younger age groups. Among all age groups, the  median balances of student and other types of debt are dwarfed by  median balances of home mortgage debt. Estimates of median student  debt balances for the various age groups range from about $11,400 to  about $15,500. Median mortgage debt, in contrast, ranges from about  $58,000 to $136,000 among the same groups. Among households  headed by those 65 and older, the estimated median student debt was  about $12,000, and among those 64 and younger, about $13,000.  However, given the small number of older households with student loans,  it is important to note that the estimate of student debt for the 65 and  older age category is a general approximation.
From 2004 to 2010, an increasing percentage of households in all SCF  age groups have taken on student loan debt (see fig. 1). During the same  period, the percentage of households headed by individuals 65 to 74 who  had some student loan debt increased from just under 1 percent in 2004  to about 4 percent in 2010—more than a four-fold increase. The  percentage of households having student loan debt in the two youngest  age household categories—those 18 to 34 and those 35 to 44—were and  remain much larger. Their rate of increase in that type of debt from 2004  to 2010 was comparatively modest—about 40 percent and 80 percent,  respectively.
Data from Education’s NSLDS also indicates substantial growth in  aggregate federal student loan balances among individuals in all age  groups, especially older Americans. Aggregate federal student loan debt  levels more than doubled overall, rising from slightly more than $400  billion in 2005 to more than $1 trillion dollars in 2013 (see fig. 2). The total  outstanding student debt for those 65 and older was and remains a small  fraction of total outstanding federal student debt. However, debt for this  age group grew at a much faster pace—from about $2.8 billion in 2005 to  about $18.2 billion in 2013, more than a six-fold increase.
Although the Direct PLUS Loan program offers parents of dependent  undergraduate students the opportunity to borrow to finance their  children’s education, data from Education suggests that most federal  student loan debt held by older Americans was not incurred on behalf of  dependents, but primarily for their own education. About 27 percent of  loan balances held by the 50 to 64 age group was for their children, while  about 73 percent was for the borrower’s own education (see fig. 3). For  age groups 65 and over, the percentages of outstanding loan balances  attributable to the borrowers’ own education are even higher. For those  aged 65-74, 82 percent of the outstanding student loan balances was for  the individual’s own education, and for the 75 and older group, this was  true of 83 percent. Because information on the age of the loans was not  readily available to us, we do not know the extent to which the debt of  older Americans is attributable to recently originated loans or loans  originated many years ago during their prime educational years.
section_title: Older Borrowers Hold Defaulted Federal Student Loans at a Higher Rate and Default Can Have Serious Consequences
subsections: section_title: Older Borrowers Hold Defaulted Federal Student Loans at a Higher Rate, Especially for Their Own Education
paragraphs: Although older borrowers hold a small portion of federal student loans,  they hold defaulted loans at a higher rate than younger borrowers.  Individuals 65 or older held 1 percent of outstanding federal student loans  in fiscal year 2013 (see fig. 4). However, 12 percent of federal student  loans held by individuals age 25 to 49 were in default, while 27 percent of  loans held by individuals 65 to 74 were in default, and more than half of  loans held by individuals 75 or older were in default.
According to Education data, older borrowers are in default on federal  student loans for their children’s education less frequently than they are in  default on federal student loans for themselves. Specifically, in fiscal year  2013, 17 percent of Parent PLUS loans held by borrowers ages 65 to 74  were in default, while 30 percent of loans for their own education were in  default.
section_title: Delinquent Borrowers Have Considerable Time to Begin Repaying Federal Student Loans before Facing Collection Actions, which May Include Withholding Federal Payments
paragraphs: Delinquent borrowers—those who have missed one or more payments— have more than a year to resume payments or negotiate revised terms  before facing collection procedures. During the initial year of delinquency  for Direct Loans, Education and the loan servicers make a number of  attempts to help borrowers arrange for payments and avert default (see  fig. 5). After the loan has been delinquent for 425 days (approximately  14 months), Education determines whether to take actions intended to  recover the money it is owed. These actions can have serious financial  consequences for the borrower. For example, Education may charge  collection costs up to 25 percent of the interest and principal of the  loan. Interest on the debt continues to accumulate during the  delinquency and default period. In addition, Education may garnish  wages or initiate litigation. Education may also send the loan to a  collection agency. The defaulted debt may also be reported to consumer  reporting agencies, which can result in lower credit ratings for the  borrower. Lower credit ratings may affect access to credit or rental  property, increase interest rates on credit, affect employers’ decisions to  hire, or increase insurance costs in some states.
At 425 days, Education may also begin the process to send newly  defaulted loans to Treasury to recover the debt by withholding a portion of  federal payments—known as offset. Federal payments subject to offset  include wages for federal employees, tax refunds, and certain monthly  federal benefits, such as Social Security retirement and disability  payments. Each year, Education prepares a list of newly defaulted loans  for Treasury offset. In 2014, newly defaulted debt must have been more  than 425 days delinquent before the July deadline so that it can be sent to  Treasury in December. If the debt becomes 425 days delinquent after the  cutoff, it would be sent the following December (2015). Thus, the  defaulted debt is sent to Treasury 3 to 15 months after 425 days of  delinquency—between 17 and 29 months from the last date of payment  on the loan (see fig. 6). According to Education officials, loans that have  not been paid off are annually recertified as being eligible for offset.
After a defaulted loan is certified as eligible for offset to Treasury, certain  payments, such as any available tax refunds, are offset immediately,  without prior notice to the debtor. Borrowers with monthly benefits  available for offset are informed by mail that their benefits will be offset in  60 days and again 30 days before the offset is taken, allowing borrowers  an additional 2 months to resume payment on their loan before offset  occurs. Treasury assesses a fee for each offset transaction, which is  subtracted from the offset payment. Other federal agencies may charge  additional fees for each transaction depending on the type of payment  being offset. For fiscal year 2014, Treasury’s fee was $15 per offset and  other agency fees were up to $27.
Federal tax refunds are the source for more than 90 percent of offset  collection for federal student loan debt. Offsets from Social Security  benefits represented roughly $150 million in 2013 or less than 7 percent  of the more than $2.2 billion in federal payments offset by Treasury.
The number of borrowers, especially older borrowers, who have  experienced offsets to Social Security retirement, survivor, or disability  benefits to repay defaulted federal student loans has increased over  time. In 2002, the first full year during which Social Security benefits  were offset by Treasury, about 31,000 borrowers were affected. Of  those borrowers, about 19 percent (6,000) were 65 or older. From 2002  through 2013, the number of borrowers whose Social Security benefits  were offset has increased roughly 400 percent, and the number of  borrowers 65 and over increased roughly 500 percent (see fig. 7). In  2013, Social Security benefits for about 155,000 people were offset and  about 36,000 of those were 65 and over.
The majority of Social Security benefit offsets for federal student loan  debt are from disability benefits rather than retirement or survivor  benefits. In 2013, 70.6 percent of defaulted borrowers (105,000) whose  Social Security benefits were offset received disability benefits (see fig.  8). That year, about $97 million was collected through offset from  disability benefits. For borrowers 65 and over, the majority of Social  Security offsets are from retirement and survivor benefits because Social  Security disability benefits automatically convert to retirement benefits at  the beneficiary’s full retirement age, currently 66. About 33,000  borrowers age 65 and over had Social Security retirement or survivor  benefits offset in 2013 to repay defaulted federal student loans.
The amount of money collected from Social Security benefit offsets to  repay defaulted federal student loans has also increased, but the average  amount offset on a monthly basis per borrower has remained relatively  stable. Treasury collected about $24 million in offsets from Social Security  benefits in 2002, about $108 million in 2012, and about $150 million in  2013. However, over this period, the average amount offset on a monthly  basis per borrower rose only slightly, from around $120 in the early 2000s  to a little over $130 in 2013.
section_title: Adjusting Current Limits for Offset Can Keep Monthly Benefits Above the Poverty Threshold, but Reduce Collections to Pay Defaulted Federal Student Loans
paragraphs: Although there are statutory limits under the Debt Collection Improvement  Act of 1996 (DCIA) on the amount that Treasury can offset from monthly  federal benefits, the current limits may result in monthly benefits below  the poverty threshold for certain defaulted borrowers. Social Security  benefits are designed to replace, in part, the income lost due to  retirement, disability, or death of the worker. The DCIA set a level of  $750 per month below which monthly benefits cannot be offset. In 1998,  the amount of allowable offset was effectively modified under regulations,  to the lesser of 15 percent of the total benefit or the amount by which the  benefit exceeds $750 per month, thus creating a standard more favorable  to defaulted borrowers. For example, a borrower with a Social Security  benefit of $1,000 per month would have an offset of $150, because that is  the lesser of 15 percent of the benefit—$150—and the amount of the  benefit over $750, which is $250. This offset would leave the borrower  with a monthly benefit of $850, which is below the poverty threshold for  2013. The statutory limit of $750 for an offset was above the poverty  threshold when it was set, in 1998. The offset limits have not changed  since 1998, and the $750 limit represented about 81 percent of the  poverty threshold for a single adult 65 and over in 2013. If the $750 limit  had been indexed to the changes in the poverty threshold since 1998, in  2013 it would have increased by 43 percent or to about $1,073 (see fig.  9). Borrowers with benefits below this amount would not have been offset.
Indexing monthly benefit offset limits to the poverty threshold can prevent  some older borrowers from having offsets, but would also reduce  Education’s recoveries from Social Security offsets. If the offset limit had  been indexed to match the rate of increase in the poverty threshold, in  2013, 68 percent of all borrowers whose Social Security benefits were  offset for federal student loan debt would have kept their entire benefit,  including 61 percent of borrowers 65 and older. An additional 15 percent  of all borrowers and borrowers age 65 and older would have kept more of  their benefits in that year. However, indexing the offset limit would have  reduced the amount collected from Social Security benefits by  approximately 60 percent or $94 million in 2013, representing about 4.2  percent of all dollars offset from all sources by Treasury for student loan  debt in that year.
In conclusion, student loan debt and default are problems for a small  percentage of older Americans. As the amount of student loan debt held  by Americans age 65 and older increases, the prospect of default implies  greater financial risk for those at or near retirement—especially for those  dependent on Social Security. Most of the federal student loan debt held  by older Americans was obtained for their own education, suggesting that  it may have been held for an extended period, accumulating interest over  time. The Social Security retirement or survivor benefits of about 33,000  Americans age 65 and older were reduced through offset to meet  defaulted federal student loan obligations in 2013. Because the statutory  limit at which monthly benefits can be offset has not been updated since it  was enacted in 1998, certain defaulted borrowers with offsets are left with  Social Security benefits below the poverty threshold. As the baby  boomers continue to move into retirement, the number of older Americans  with defaulted loans will only continue to increase. This creates the  potential for an unpleasant surprise for some, as their benefits are offset  and they face the possibility of a less secure retirement.
Chairman Nelson, Ranking Member Collins, and Members of the  Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to  respond to any questions that you may have at this time.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please  contact me at (202) 512-7215 or jeszeckc@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this statement. GAO staff who made key contributions  to this testimony are listed in appendix II.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: To understand the extent to which older Americans have outstanding  student loans and how this debt compares to other types of debt, we  relied primarily on data from the Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of  Consumer Finances (SCF), a survey that is conducted once every 3  years and gathers detailed information on the finances of U.S. families.  SCF data is publicly available and was extracted from the Federal  Reserve Board’s website. Specifically, we analyzed data from the 2004,  2007, and 2010 SCF to provide a range of information, including an  overview of the percentage of families, by age of head of household, with  student debt over time. An important limitation of the data is that debt,  including student loans, is reported at the household level. As a result, the  SCF survey responses represent the debt of the entire household, not  just the head of household. Therefore, it is possible that for some  households headed by older Americans, the reported student debt is  actually held by children or other dependents that are still members of the  household, rather than the older head of household.
The NSLDS is a comprehensive national database maintained by the Department of  Education that is used to readily access student aid data and track money appropriated as  aid for postsecondary students. The database includes data on the various federal student  loan programs. this testimony. The NSLDS data we obtained allows us to count federal  student loans and loan balances, but not the number of borrowers.  Although Education maintains borrower-level data, we were only able to  obtain aggregated data by loan type during the course of our analyses.  These summary tables reported that about 1,000 of the more than 6  million Parent PLUS loans outstanding in fiscal year 2013 were to  borrowers under the age of 25. According to Education, these cases  resulted from a reporting issue where the date of birth of the Parent PLUS  borrower was the reported as being the same as that of the student. We  excluded these Parent PLUS loans from our analysis.
To understand the extent to which older Americans defaulted on federal  student loans and the possible consequences of such a default, we relied  on a number of data sources and agency documents related to federal  student loans. To determine the extent to which older Americans have  defaulted on federal student loans, we used data from the NSLDS  summary tables we received from Education. To evaluate the  consequences of default, we reviewed federal law, regulations, and  agency documents describing the collection process for defaulted federal  student loans, including offset of federal benefit payments through the  Treasury Offset Program (TOP). We interviewed officials at Education  involved in managing defaulted federal student loans, and we interviewed  officials at Treasury, Education, and the Social Security Administration  about the process for offsetting Social Security retirement, survivor, and  disability benefits through the TOP. In addition, we interviewed Education  officials and reviewed relevant documentation regarding Education’s debt  collection policies and procedures; however, we did not audit their  compliance with statutory requirements related to these activities.
To describe the extent of Treasury offset of Social Security Administration  benefits for federal student loan debt, we used data on offset payments  from the TOP for fiscal years 2001 through 2014. We assessed the  reliability of this data by reviewing data documentation, conducting  electronic testing on the data, and interviewing Treasury staff about the  reliability of this data. Because the TOP data does not include the age of  borrowers or the type of Social Security benefits that were offset, we  obtained such information for relevant borrowers from the Social Security  Administration’s Master Beneficiary Record using a match on Social  Security numbers. We assessed the reliability of the data by reviewing  data documentation, obtaining the computer code used to match  borrowers to the Master Beneficiary Record, and interviewing the staff at  the Social Security Administration who conducted the match. We  determined that the data elements we used were sufficiently reliable for  the purposes of this testimony. For about 0.25 percent of borrowers, we  were unable to determine the borrower’s age, and we excluded these  borrowers from age-based analyses. For about 4.3 percent of offset  payments, we were unable to determine the type of benefit, and we  excluded these payments from the analysis of the type of benefit that was  offset. To evaluate the extent to which Social Security benefits would  have been offset if the $750 limit below which benefits are not offset had  been adjusted for changes in the poverty threshold, we analyzed TOP  data to impute the amount of a monthly Social Security benefit payment  from the size of the offset that was taken from that payment. We then  applied a modified set of rules for calculating an offset amount to the  imputed benefit, changing the $750 limit to $1,072.50—the adjusted  amount for the limit had it been indexed to the poverty threshold—to  estimate, for 2013, whether the monthly benefit payment would have  been offset had the offset limit increased at the rate of the poverty  threshold.
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Michael Collins (Assistant  Director), Michael Hartnett, Margaret Weber, Christopher Zbrozek, and  Lacy Vong made key contributions to this testimony. In addition, key  support was provided by Ben Bolitzer, Ying Long, John Mingus, Mimi  Nguyen, Kathleen van Gelder, Walter Vance, and Craig Winslow.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.