IWS Documented News DAILY POSTINGS

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) Reform: An Overview of Proposals to Reduce the Growth in SSDI Rolls

William R. Morton, Research Associate

April 29, 2013

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43054.pdf

[full-text, 51 pages]

Summary

Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program provides benefits to insured workers with

disabilities under the full retirement age and their dependents based on an individual worker’s

earnings and work history in covered employment. Recently, some Members of Congress and the

public have expressed concern over the financial sustainability of the SSDI program. Between

1980 and 2011, the number of disabled-worker beneficiaries grew 196.6%, whereas the number

of workers insured for disability increased 50.9%. This increase in the ratio of disabled-worker

beneficiaries to insured workers, or prevalence rate, has placed pressure on the Disability

Insurance (DI) trust fund, which the Social Security Board of Trustees projects will be exhausted

in 2016.

Some of the increase in the SSDI prevalence rate stems from changes in the demographic

characteristics of the insured-worker population. According to the Social Security Board of

Trustees, the aging of the baby boom generation and a sharp rise in the number and incidence rate

of female insured workers helped to propel the prevalence rate upward between 1980 and 2011.

However, other factors may have also contributed to the growth in SSDI rolls. For example,

instances of high unemployment and the increasing relative value of SSDI benefits to low-income

workers may have induced more individuals to apply to the program. In addition, inconsistency in

the determination and adjudication process might have increased the likelihood of denied

claimants being awarded SSDI on appeal. Moreover, changes to federal policy that relaxed

certain program eligibility criteria and increased the value of disability benefits relative to

retirement benefits may have played a role in increasing the SSDI prevalence rate.

To assist lawmakers in addressing the sustainability of the program, this report provides an

overview of reform proposals designed to mitigate the growth in SSDI rolls. Most of the

proposals discussed in this report focus on reducing the inflow (incidence) of new beneficiaries

into the program. These proposals include implementing stricter SSDI eligibility criteria,

improving consistency in the disability determination and adjudication process, and incentivizing

employers to provide supported-work services for employees following the onset of disability

(i.e., rehabilitation, workplace accommodation, and a partial wage replacement). On the other

hand, some of the proposals seek to increase the outflow (termination) of beneficiaries from the

program. Proposals to reduce the current beneficiary population entail providing stronger

incentives for beneficiaries with some residual functional capacity to return to the labor force, as

well as increasing the number of continuing disability reviews (CDR) performed by the Social

Security Administration (SSA).

Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Background on SSDI ....................................................................................................................... 2

Eligibility ................................................................................................................................... 2

Benefits ...................................................................................................................................... 2

Determination and Adjudication Process .................................................................................. 3

Trends in the SSDI Program Since 1980 ......................................................................................... 4

Enrollment ................................................................................................................................. 4

Terminations .............................................................................................................................. 5

Program Size ............................................................................................................................. 8

Factors Behind the Growth in SSDI Rolls ..................................................................................... 10

Changes in the Demographic Characteristics of Insured Workers .......................................... 10

A Sharp Rise in the Number and Incidence Rate of Female Insured Workers .................. 11

A Shift in the Age Distribution of Inured Workers ............................................................ 11

Slightly Higher Work-Limiting Disability Rates............................................................... 12

Changes in the Economic Incentives to Apply for SSDI ......................................................... 13

A Rise in the Unemployment Rate .................................................................................... 13

An Increase in the Relative Replacement Wage ................................................................ 15

The Value of Health Care Benefits .................................................................................... 16

A Lack of Consistency in the Initial Determination Process ................................................... 17

Changes in Federal Policy ....................................................................................................... 18

The Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984 ..................................................................... 18

The Social Security Amendments of 1983 ........................................................................ 21

Overview of Reform Proposals...................................................................................................... 22

Stricter Eligibility Criteria ....................................................................................................... 22

Increase the Recency-of-Work Requirement ..................................................................... 23

Adjust the Age Categories for Vocational Factors............................................................. 24

Improved Program Administration .......................................................................................... 25

Changing the Hearing Level Process from Inquisitorial to Adversarial ............................ 25

Update SSA’s Listing of Impairments ............................................................................... 27

Update SSA’s Occupational Information System .............................................................. 29

Increase the Number of CDRs Performed By SSA ........................................................... 30

Return-to-Work Incentives ...................................................................................................... 33

Increase Awareness of Return-to-Work Services .............................................................. 34

Benefit Offset .................................................................................................................... 36

Promote Supported-Work Policies .......................................................................................... 38

Experience Rate the Employer’s Portion of the Payroll Tax ............................................. 38

Employer-Sponsored Private Disability Insurance ........................................................... 41

Figures

Figure 1. SSDI Applications and Awards......................................................................................... 5

Figure 2. SSDI Disabled-Worker Termination Rates ....................................................................... 6

Figure 3. SSDI Disabled-Worker Beneficiaries and Their Dependents ........................................... 8

Figure 4. SSDI Disabled-Worker Prevalence Rates ......................................................................... 9

Figure 5. SSDI Applications and Awards During Instances of High Unemployment ................... 14

Figure 6. The Percent Distribution of Newly Awarded Disabled-Worker Beneficiaries ............... 20

Appendixes

Appendix. Acronyms ..................................................................................................................... 45

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 47

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary School Districts: School Year 2009-10 (Fiscal Year 2010) [30 April 2013]

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2013307

or

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013307.pdf

[full-text, 35 pages]

Description:

The report provides finance data for all local education agencies (LEAs) that provide free public elementary and secondary (PK-12) education in the United States. This report contains data on revenues and expenditures per pupil by school districts. Median per pupil revenue and expenditure data are reported by state. There are also discussions on the different types of school districts, and other resources that may be helpful in analyzing school district level data. 

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Census

COUNTY BUSINESS PATTERNS 2011 [30 April 2013]

http://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/

Press Release 30 April 2013

U.S. Businesses Show First Rise in Employment Since 2008 Led by Mining Sector, Census Bureau Reports

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/county_business_patterns/cb13-75.html

In 2011, total employment from all U.S. business sectors was 113.4 million, an increase of 1.5 million employees from 2010, according to new statistics released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. The mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction sector led the way with a 12.0 percent increase in employment from 2010 to 2011. This year is the first since 2008 in which U.S. businesses reported an increase in employment over the prior year.

There were 7.4 million U.S. businesses with paid employees for 2011, a loss of 42,585 establishments from 2010.  This is the fourth consecutive year of decline for the number of U.S. businesses.

These new findings released today are from County Business Patterns: 2011, which provides the only detailed annual information on the number of establishments, employees, and quarterly and annual payroll for nearly 1,200 industries covered at the national, state and county levels. The statistics are broken down according to employment-size classes (for example, number of establishments with one to four employees) and legal form of organization (for example, corporations and partnerships).

"The strength of this release is that we can measure the economic activity of businesses at the local level, including changes over time," said William Bostic, the Census Bureau's associate director for economic programs. "This year's County Business Patterns report is the first since the most recent recession to show a reversal in the downward trend of employment. The growth in employment combined with the increase in annual payroll is another indication of a recovering economy."

State and County Highlights

North Dakota showed the largest percentage rise in the number of establishments, total number of employees and total payroll for any state in 2011. There were 22,370 establishments in North Dakota in 2011, an increase of 538 (2.5 percent) from 2010. There were 306,064 employees in North Dakota in 2011, an increase of 11,157 (3.8 percent) from 2010. Annual payroll was at $12.3 billion, up $1.7 billion (16.5 percent) from 2010.

Among the top 50 counties in the United States ranked by number of establishments, Kings County, N.Y. (Brooklyn) had the largest percent increase in establishments and employment, with a gain of 1,625 establishments (3.4 percent) to 49,837 establishments, and a gain of 24,368 employees (5.0 percent) to 513,746 employees for 2011. 

Industry Sector Highlights

Other industry sectors that had an increase in employment included administrative and support and waste management and remediation services (4.6 percent), educational  services (3.4 percent), management of companies and enterprises (3.1 percent), and transportation and warehousing (2.4 percent).

Health care and social assistance added the most establishments, with 5,866 in 2011 (up 0.7 percent).  Construction showed the largest decline in establishments, losing 24,946 establishments (3.7 percent) in 2011, down to 657,738 overall.

The retail trade sector had the highest number of establishments (1.1 million). Next were professional, scientific and technical services (850,903); health care and social assistance (818,726); other services (except public administration) (722,398); construction (657,738); and accommodation and food services (649,011).

Annual Statistics for Puerto Rico and the Island Areas

Total number of establishments for Puerto Rico was 44,056 for 2011, a decrease of 1.4 percent from 2010.  Total annual payroll for Puerto Rico was $16.5 billion for 2011, an increase of 1.5 percent from 2010. Employment decreased to 673,677 in 2011, a loss of 0.7 percent from 2010.

Statistics for the individual Island Areas include:

• American Samoa reported a total of 479 establishments with a total annual payroll of $107.6 million. Employment rose 7.5 percent to 7,369 for 2011.
• Guam reported 3,379 establishments with an annual payroll of $1.3 billion. Employment rose 5.6 percent to 53,539 in 2011.
• The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands reported 1,237 establishments with an annual payroll of $153.3 million. Employment decreased to 10,450 in 2011, a loss of 1.1 percent.
• The U.S. Virgin Islands reported 2,725 establishments with an annual payroll of $1.1 billion. Employment increased 1.6 percent to 32,454 in 2011.

County Business Patterns excludes business owners who were self-employed, employees of private households, railroad employees, agriculture production workers and most government employees. Information on businesses without paid employees is released as part of the upcoming 2011 Nonemployer Statistics report. County Business Patterns data by five-digit ZIP codes will be released in May 2013.

-X-

County Business Patterns defines employment as all full- and part-time employees who were on the payroll during the pay period that includes March 12. Data are obtained from Census Bureau reports and administrative records from other federal agencies. Quality assurance procedures are applied to all phases of collection, processing and tabulation to minimize errors. The data are subject to error from miscoding and estimation for missing or misreported data. Values associated with each establishment are slightly modified to protect the confidentiality of the location. Further information about methodology and data limitations is available at <http://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/methodology.htm>

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

EMPLOYMENT COST INDEX - MARCH 2013 [30 April 2013]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.nr0.htm

or

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/eci.pdf

[full-text, 21 pages]

and

Supplemental Files Table of Contents

http://www.bls.gov/web/eci.supp.toc.htm

Compensation costs for civilian workers increased 0.3 percent, seasonally adjusted, for the 3-month

period ending March 2013, essentially unchanged from the 0.4 percent increase for the December 2012

3-month period.  Wages and salaries increased 0.5 percent for the current period compared to a

0.3 percent increase for the December 2012 period. Benefit costs decelerated to 0.1 percent in

March 2013, down from 0.6 percent in December 2012.

Civilian Workers

Compensation costs for civilian workers increased 1.8 percent for the 12-month period ending

March 2013, essentially unchanged from the March 2012 increase of 1.9 percent. Wages and salaries 

increased 1.6 percent for the current 12-month period. In March 2012 the increase was 1.7 percent.

Benefit costs increased 1.9 percent for the 12-month period ending March 2013, down from the

March 2012 increase of 2.7 percent.

               Benefits Data for Sales and Office Occupations Unavailable

BLS has discovered an error in the benefits data for March 2013 primarily affecting private industry

benefits data for sales and office occupations. As a result, benefits estimates for March 2013 have been

temporarily suppressed for sales and office occupations found in tables 3 and 12 of this news release.

Other benefit and compensation data may also be affected by this error. Details regarding the availability

of corrected data are at www.bls.gov/bls/eci_corrections_043013.htm.

Private Industry Workers

Compensation costs for private industry workers increased 1.7 percent over the year. In March 2012 the

12-month increase was 2.1 percent. Wages and salaries increased 1.7 percent for the current 12-month

period. For the 12-month period ending March 2012, the increase was 1.9 percent. The increase in the

cost of benefits was 1.5 percent for the 12-month period ending March 2013, down from the

March 2012 increase of 2.8 percent.

Among occupational groups, compensation cost increases for private industry workers for the

12-month period ending March 2013 ranged from 1.6 percent for sales and office occupations and

service occupations to 1.9 percent for natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations.

Among industry supersectors, compensation cost increases for private industry workers for the current

12-month period ranged from 0.9 percent for leisure and hospitality to 2.2 percent for information.

State and Local Government Workers

Compensation costs for state and local government workers increased 1.9 percent for the 12-month

period ending March 2013. In March 2012 the increase was 1.5 percent. Wages and salaries increased

1.0 percent for the 12-month period ending March 2013, the same as the March 2012 change. Prior

values for this series, which began in June 1982, ranged from 1.0 percent to 8.5 percent. Benefit costs

increased 3.5 percent in March 2013, up from the March 2012 increase of 2.3 percent.

________________________

The Employment Cost Index for June 2013 is scheduled to be released on

Wednesday, July 31, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT)

AND MUCH MORE...including TABLES....

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Asian Development Bank (ADB)

Development Asia, April 2013

Deepening Divide: Can Asia Beat the Menace of Rising Inequality? [30 April 2013]

http://www.adb.org/publications/deepening-divide-can-asia-beat-menace-rising-inequality

or

http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/pub/2013/devasia14.pdf

[full-text, 60 pages]

Description

Beneath the gloss of Asia’s newfound prosperity lies an unsettling reality. Rising inequality has denied the benefits of Asia’s economic growth to many millions of its citizens. The problem is worsening as the region’s rich get richer much faster than the poor, who miss out on the income, education, and health care they need to lead fulfilling lives.

Asia isn’t the only region suff ering from a wealth gap, but unlike others it has failed so far to narrow the divide. Most of its large economies have shown rising income inequality since the 1990s, and rural poverty is outpacing urban poverty across much of the continent. If left unchecked, the consequences of this trend could be dire.

In this issue, Development Asia examines Asia’s widening inequality from many different perspectives. It looks at the role of globalization in producing inequality, and considers the disputed relationship between inequality and economic growth.

Contents

•Asia's Inequality Challenge

•Situation Report: A roundup of topical development news

•On the Record: What opinion makers are saying

•On the Web: Development sources and tools onliine

•The Wealth Gap

•Inequality Illustrated

•The Reformer: Palaniappan Chidambaram

•The Growth Conundrum

•Opinion: Now for the Hard Part by Justin Yifu Lin

•Less Unequal Than Others

•Raising Cambodia

•In Search of a Cure

•Slums Reconsidered

•Digital Dollars

•Review

•Results First

•Development Agenda

•Black & White

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Processes, and Effects

Clinton T. Brass, Coordinator, Specialist in Government Organization and Management

April 23, 2013

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34680.pdf

[full-text, 23 pages]

Summary

When federal agencies and programs lack appropriated funding, they experience a funding gap.

Under the Antideficiency Act, they must cease operations, except in certain emergency situations

or when law authorizes continued activity. Failure of the President and Congress to reach

agreement on interim or full-year funding measures occasionally has caused government

shutdowns, the longest of which lasted 21 days, from December 16, 1995, to January 6, 1996.

Government shutdowns have necessitated furloughs of several hundred thousand federal

employees, required cessation or reduction of many government activities, and affected numerous

sectors of the economy. This report discusses the causes, processes, and effects of federal

government shutdowns, including potential issues for Congress.

For questions concerning the impact of a shutdown on a specific agency or program,

congressional operations, or judicial operations, please call CRS at 7-5700. See also the “Key

Policy Staff” table at the end of this report.

For analysis of potential effects of a shutdown on the Department of Defense, see CRS Report

R41745, Government Shutdown: Operations of the Department of Defense During a Lapse in

Appropriations, by Pat Towell and Amy Belasco.

For analysis of the government’s contractual rights and how it could use these in the event of a

shutdown, see CRS Report R42469, Government Procurement in Times of Fiscal Uncertainty, by

Kate M. Manuel and Erika K. Lunder.

For discussion of funding gaps, see CRS Report RS20348, Federal Funding Gaps: A Brief

Overview, by Jessica Tollestrup.

For an annotated list of historical documents and other resources related to past government

shutdowns, see CRS Report R41759, Past Government Shutdowns: Key Resources, by Jared

Conrad Nagel and Justin Murray.

Contents

Budget Negotiations and Choices .................................................................................................... 1

Causes of Federal Shutdowns .......................................................................................................... 2

OMB and Agency Shutdown Processes ........................................................................................... 5

Effects of a Federal Government Shutdown .................................................................................... 8

Effects on Federal Officials and Employees.............................................................................. 8

Executive Branch ................................................................................................................ 9

Legislative Branch............................................................................................................. 10

Judicial Branch .................................................................................................................. 11

Examples of Excepted Activities and Personnel ..................................................................... 11

Effects on Government Operations and Services to the Public ............................................... 13

Illustrations from FY1996 Shutdowns .............................................................................. 13

Effects on Mandatory Spending Programs ........................................................................ 15

More Recent Prospective Statements and Analyses .......................................................... 16

Potential Issues for Congress ......................................................................................................... 17

Quality and Specificity of Agency Planning ........................................................................... 17

Availability of Updated Agency Shutdown Plans ................................................................... 18

Possible National Security Implications .................................................................................. 19

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 20

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 20

Key Policy Staff ............................................................................................................................. 20

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

(Work in Progress): The Official Blog of the U.S. Department of Labor

http://social.dol.gov/blog/

This Blog has been around since January 2010. It is used not nearly enough.

·         Categories

• Auto
• Automotive industry
• Child Labor
• Disabilities
• Education
• Green Jobs
• Jobs
• Labor Day 2010
• Open Government
• Retirement
• Safety
• Secretary Solis
• Uncategorized
• Unemployment
• Veterans
• Web Apps
• White House Council of Automotive Communities and Workers
• Women
• Workforce Development
• Workforce Investment
• Workplace Rights

The following are the blogs from the last month.

Workers’ Memorial Day: Honoring Those Who Left Us Too Soon

by Seth Harris on April 29, 2013 · 0 comments

Building a Skills Infrastructure by Investing in Community Colleges

by Seth Harris April 26, 2013

Giving a Hand Up to Minimum-Wage Workers

by Seth Harris April 25, 2013

Breaking Down Barriers to Employment, For All Workers

by Jane Oates and Kathy Martinez April 24, 2013

Union credit card policies and procedures

by John Lund April 22, 2013  

Real People, Real Impact

by Kathy Martinez April 18, 2013

Taking Open Government to the Next Level

by Carl Fillichio April 18, 2013

Pad Your Nest Egg: 5 Simple Tips Every Worker Should Know

by Phyllis Borzi April 17, 2013

The Family and Medical Leave Act: 20 Years of Working for Working Families

by Mary Beth Maxwell April 17, 2013

Streamlining Services for Displaced Workers

by Seth Harris April 11, 2013

The DOL Budget: Investing in Workers, Skills and a Thriving Middle Class

by Seth Harris April 10, 2013

The Faith-Based Argument for Raising the Minimum Wage

by Phil Tom April 9, 2013

Closing the Equal Pay Gap: 50 Years and Counting

by Latifa Lyles April 9, 2013

Gender and Pay Equality: Join the Conversation

by admin April 8, 2013

Renewing Our Commitment to Promote Safe Mines

by Joseph Main April 8, 2013

Partnering to Rebuild the Economy

by Seth Harris April 5, 2013

Helping Students Realize the American Dream, Helping the American Economy Grow

by Seth Harris April 4, 2013

Tools to Help Businesses Grow

by Jane Oates April 4, 2013

Fueling Corporate Accountability

by Mary Beth Maxwell March 29, 2013

Comprehensive Immigration Reform: a Moral and Economic Imperative

by Seth Harris March 28, 2013

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

Prevalence of Mental Illness in the United States: Data Sources and Estimates

Erin Bagalman, Analyst in Health Policy

Angela Napili, Information Research Specialist

April 24, 2013

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43047.pdf

[full-text, 11 pages]

Summary

Determining how many people have a mental illness can be difficult, and prevalence estimates

vary. While numerous surveys include questions related to mental illness, few provide prevalence

estimates of diagnosable mental illness (e.g., major depressive disorder as opposed to feeling

depressed, or generalized anxiety disorder as opposed to feeling anxious), and fewer still provide

national prevalence estimates of diagnosable mental illness. This report briefly describes the

methodology and results of three large surveys (funded in whole or in part by the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services) that provide national prevalence estimates of

diagnosable mental illness: the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R), the National

Comorbidity Survey Replication Adolescent Supplement (NCS-A), and the National Survey on

Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). The NCS-R and the NCS-A have the advantage of identifying

specific mental illnesses, but they are a decade old. The NSDUH does not identify specific mental

illnesses, but it has the advantage of being conducted annually.

Between February 2001 and April 2003, NCS-R staff interviewed more than 9,000 adults aged 18

or older. Analyses of NCS-R data have yielded different prevalence estimates. One analysis of

NCS-R data estimated that 26.2% of adults had a mental illness within a 12-month period

(hereinafter called 12-month prevalence). Another analysis of NCS-R data estimated the 12-

month prevalence of mental illness to be 32.4% among adults. A third analysis of NCS-R data

estimated the 12-month prevalence of mental illness excluding substance use disorders to be

24.8% among adults. The 12-month prevalence of serious mental illness was estimated to be

5.8% among adults, based on NCS-R data.

Between February 2001 and January 2004, NCS-A staff interviewed more than 10,000

adolescents aged 13 to 17. Using NCS-A data, researchers estimated the 12-month prevalence of

mental illness to be 40.3% among adolescents. Some have suggested that the current approach to

diagnosing mental illness identifies people who should not be considered mentally ill. The 12-

month prevalence of serious mental illness was estimated to be 8.0% among adolescents, based

on NCS-A data.

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) is an annual survey of approximately

70,000 adults and adolescents aged 12 years or older in the United States. According to the 2011

NSDUH, the estimated 12-month prevalence of mental illness excluding substance use disorders

was 19.6% among adults aged 18 or older; this estimate was stable between 2008 and 2011. The

estimated 12-month prevalence of serious mental illness (excluding substance use disorders) was

5.0% among adults. Although the NSDUH collects information related to mental illness (e.g.,

symptoms of depression) from adolescents aged 12 to 17, it does not produce estimates of mental

illness for that population.

The prevalence estimates discussed in this report may raise questions for Congress. Should

federal mental health policy focus on adults or adolescents with any mental illness (including

some whose mental illnesses may be mild and even transient) or on those with serious mental

illness? Should substance use disorders be addressed through the same policies as other mental

illnesses? Members of Congress may approach mental health policy differently depending in part

on how they answer such questions.

Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Estimating Prevalence of Mental Illness.......................................................................................... 2

National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R) ....................................................................... 3

Prevalence of Any Mental Illness Among Adults ...................................................................... 4

Prevalence of Serious Mental Illness Among Adults ................................................................ 4

National Comorbidity Survey Replication Adolescent Supplement (NCS-A) ................................ 5

Prevalence of Any Mental Illness Among Adolescents ............................................................. 5

Prevalence of Serious Mental Illness Among Adolescents ........................................................ 6

National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) ...................................................................... 6

Prevalence of Any Mental Illness Among Adults ...................................................................... 7

Prevalence of Serious Mental Illness Among Adults ................................................................ 7

Concluding Comments .................................................................................................................... 7

Tables

Table 1. Examples of Survey Instruments Assessing Mental Illness ............................................... 3

Contacts

Author Contact Information............................................................................................................. 8

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................... 8

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

Institute for Workplace Studies----------------- Professor Samuel B. Bacharach

School of Industrial & Labor Relations-------- Director, Institute for Workplace Studies

Cornell University

16 East 34th Street, 4th floor---------------------- Stuart Basefsky

New York, NY 10016 -------------------------------Director, IWS News Bureau

________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

Inflation-Indexing Elements in Federal Entitlement Programs

Dawn Nuschler, Coordinator, Specialist in Income Security

April 24, 2013

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42000.pdf

[full-text, 23 pages]

Summary

In recent years, various proposals have been discussed in the context of ways to reduce federal

budget deficits. One of the proposals, for example, is the use of a different measure of consumer

price change to index various provisions of federal programs, including cost-of-living

adjustments (COLAs). For example, under current law, the Social Security COLA is based on the

Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). Under the

proposal, the Social Security COLA would be based instead on the Chained Consumer Price

Index for All Urban Consumers (Chained CPI-U or C-CPI-U). Because the goal of the Chained

CPI-U is to better reflect how consumers change their buying habits in response to changes in

prices, supporters of the proposal argue that it is a more accurate measure for computing COLAs

and making other automatic program adjustments. Opponents, however, view the proposal as a

backdoor way of reducing benefits because the Chained CPI-U typically has risen more slowly

than either the CPI-W or the traditional CPI-U. Some observers point out that the Chained CPI-U

is published as a preliminary value that is subject to revision over a period of up to two years, and

that it may not accurately reflect the cost of living for certain groups, such as the elderly

population.

The current discussion of a potential change in the way the Social Security COLA is computed

raises questions about indexing in other federal entitlement programs. The purpose of this report

is to identify key indexing elements in major federal entitlement programs under current law and

present the information in a summary table. As shown here, indexing affects more than benefit

levels paid to individuals through COLAs. Indexing also affects, for example, federal payments to

providers and eligibility criteria for some programs. In addition, the report provides a brief

description of the measures of consumer price change used to index various elements of these

programs under current law, as well as the alternative measure of consumer price change (the

Chained CPI-U) that has been proposed for computing Social Security COLAs and making

inflation adjustments to other federal programs.

This report does not evaluate the best measure of consumer price change for making automatic

inflation adjustments in federal entitlement programs. In addition, broader issues, such as the

technical aspects of different measures of consumer price change, potential implications of using

an alternative measure of price change to index various elements of major federal entitlement

programs, and the indexing of other items (for example, the federal poverty threshold and

parameters of the tax code) are beyond the scope of this report.

For technical information on how the Chained CPI-U is constructed and reported by the U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, see CRS Report RL32293, The Chained Consumer Price Index: What

Is It and Would It Be Appropriate for Cost-of-Living Adjustments?, by Julie M. Whittaker. For

information on how Social Security benefits could be affected by using the Chained CPI-U to

compute annual COLAs, see CRS Report R42086, Using a Different Cost-of-Living Measure for

Social Security Beneficiaries: Some Policy Considerations, by Christine Scott.

Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Current and Proposed Measures of Consumer Price Change .......................................................... 2

Policy Considerations ...................................................................................................................... 3

For Additional Reading .................................................................................................................. 19

Tables

Table 1. Key Inflation-Indexing Elements in Major Federal Entitlement Programs ....................... 6

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 20

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 20

________________________________________________________________________

This information is provided to subscribers, friends, faculty, students and alumni of the School of Industrial & Labor Relations (ILR). It is a service of the Institute for Workplace Studies (IWS) in New York City. Stuart Basefsky is responsible for the selection of the contents which is intended to keep researchers, companies, workers, and governments aware of the latest information related to ILR disciplines as it becomes available for the purposes of research, understanding and debate. The content does not reflect the opinions or positions of Cornell University, the School of Industrial & Labor Relations, or that of Mr. Basefsky and should not be construed as such. The service is unique in that it provides the original source documentation, via links, behind the news and research of the day. Use of the information provided is unrestricted. However, it is requested that users acknowledge that the information was found via the IWS Documented News Service.