Survey Of Income And Program Participation Sipp

Data from the SIPP were used to construct a sample to supplement the analyses from the CPS. The goal in employing the SIPP is twofold. First, it provides validation of the results obtained using the CPS. Second, given that the SIPP allows identification of the nature of a respondent's disability, some questions regarding the importance of the type of disability can be addressed. The samples from the SIPP have been constructed to match those from the CPS as closely as possible (e.g., regarding variable definitions, etc.).12 While providing more detail related to the respondent's disability, the SIPP does not provide as long or as large a data set with which to study labor market experience. Table 1.3 provides sample size details for the SIPP samples constructed

Table 1.3 Sample Sizes for SIPP Data Files

Disabled

Nondisabled

Labor force

Labor force

Year

Total

All

participants

Employed

All

participants

Employed

1986

18,290

2,102

759

650

16,188

12,036

11,191

1987

33,884

3,939

1,470

1,297

29,945

22,278

20,932

1988

34,284

3,995

1,476

1,324

30,289

22,623

21,579

1989

16,274

1,826

651

579

14,448

10,949

10,505

1990

34,010

3,788

1,404

1,233

30,222

22,771

21,629

1991

51,140

5,596

1,998

1,755

45,544

34,392

32,328

1992

76,496

8,231

2,936

2,570

68,265

52,105

48,582

1993

73,831

8,112

2,839

2,442

65,719

49,861

46,694

1994

50,384

5,495

1,881

1,680

44,889

34,338

32,529

1995

23,753

2,610

918

829

21,143

16,313

15,550

1996

57,625

5,865

2,049

1,871

51,760

41,158

39,357

1997

46,914

4,706

1,584

1,470

42,208

33,718

32,558

for each year. Due to the sampling structure of the SIPP, the sample sizes varied from just over 16,000 to over 76,000. However, as Figure 1.3 illustrates, the representation of the disabled within the whole sample and within the working subsample has remained consistent, although slightly declining over the period.13 In addition, there does not seem to be any shift in the trends during the ADA phase-in period.

The percentages of the sample and of workers indicating a work-limiting disability are slightly higher in the SIPP than in the CPS. This occurs for two reasons. SIPP respondents are given two opportunities to answer a disability question positively. In addition, since the sample came from Wave 2 (the second survey within a panel), the respondent is reminded if he or she indicated a disability in Wave 1 (the first survey), increasing the chances for a positive response (also see Kruse and Schur 2002). The percentages reflected in Figure 1.3 are consistent with those found by other researchers using the SIPP (e.g., DeLeire 2000; Kruse and Schur 2002).

The nature of a person's disability is placed into one of 30 different categories (including '' other''). In order to be able to include controls for type of disability, these categories were combined to correspond to the groupings used by the Social Security Administration.14 Aggregation was necessary due to category size limitations; the four groups included as controls were: 1) musculoskeletal systems and special

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment