Skip to main content

Improving Information for Social Policy Decisions -- The Uses of Microsimulation Modeling Volume II, Technical Papers (1991) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:


Pages 113-117

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 113...
... They also support the need to conduct in-depth investigations of the quality of the March CPS and the administrative program data. APPENDIX: PERFORMANCE OF THE AFDC CALIBRATION PROCESS IN TRIM2 Iwo baseline files examined in the course of the validation experiment conducted by the Panel to Evaluate Microsimulation Models for Social Welfare Programs (see Cohen et al., Chapter 8, in this volume)
Read the entire page →
From page 114...
... The explanation for these results has to do with discrepancies between the simulated data on eligible units and the administrative data on recipients. First, the simulated eligible population from the March CPS invariably contains a higher proportion win earnings than are shown in the administrative data-15 percent versus 8 percent in 1987 and 13 percent versus 5 percent in 1983.
Read the entire page →
From page 115...
... Tabulations of various characteristics at the national level showed that the calibration was reasonably successful in reproducing the profile of the caseload shown in administrative records in many, but not all, instances. The problem for the calibration is that the simulation of AFDC eligibility from the March CPS produces two distinct groups: those eligible units who reported participation in AFDC to the CPS and those who did not.
Read the entire page →
From page 116...
... adminis~adve data.l6 Hence, even if the TRIM2 AFDC participation function automatically assigned participant status to all eligible reporters, which it does not, it would still have to draw Dom the pool of eligible nonreporters to reach the target caseload. The calibration process in 1987 produced a simulated participating caseload that resembled the administrative data on the dimensions of unit size, age of youngest child, sex, marital status, and race of head but not on the dimensions of relationship of head to youngest child, relationship of the 16 Ihe March CPS includes additional AFDC reporters about 10 percent of the administrative total who are simulated to be ineligible for the program by TRIM2 and hence are excluded from participaiion.
Read the entire page →
From page 117...
... The calibration was more successful in 1983, deviating substantially from the administrative profile of the AFDC caseload only on the dimensions of relationship of the unit head to the household head and gross income (see Table 2~. The discrepancies between the March CPS profile of simulated AFDC eligible units and the administrative profile of actual participants, which make it difficult to calibrate the simulation of participation in the APDC program, undoubtedly reflect problems with the March CPS data.
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • march cps
  • food stamp
  • microsimulation models
  • afdc unit
  • eligible units

  • simulation models
  • participation rates
  • marital status
  • microsimulation model
  • participation function

  • administrative records
  • administrative data
  • cps data
  • units eligible
  • baseline file

  • actual participants
  • unit head
  • afdc participation
  • simulated eligible
  • eligible reporters

  • units simulated
  • simulated participants
  • average monthly
  • baseline files
  • simulation model

  • monthly units
  • afdc benefits
  • simulated benefits
  • states simulated
  • population undercoverage


    • This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
    More information on Chapter Skim is available.