Ideas and Institutional Change in Social Security: Conversion, Layering, and Policy Driftn

Daniel Béland, University of Calgary

Objectives. In recent years, social scientists such as Kathleen Thelen and Jacob Hacker have introduced new concepts to assist in the understanding of institutional change. Fostering some of these concepts, this article proceeds to augment the theoretical debate on institutional change in social science and policy research. A discussion of Social Security development in the United States advances the article’s main objective: to uncover the relationship between ideational processes and policy development. Methods. Qualitative and historical analysis is offered to examine three major policy episodes: the enactment of the 1939 amendments, the first mandate of the Nixon Administration (1969–1972), and the push for Social Se- curity privatization that emerged in the 1990s. Results. First, the analysis suggests that, through the process of institutional conversion, the 1939 amendments and the Nixon-era reforms altered the nature of Social Security. Second, the discussion on Social Security privatization stresses the impact of layering and policy drift on public and private pensions. Conclusions. The concepts of conversion, layering, and policy drift receive further empirical support through the presented analysis. Moreover, this article suggests that, for a full understanding of institutional change, a systematic analysis of ideational processes is necessary.

Scholars have long debated the nature of institutional change in policy processes. Although there is no consensus about what the main sources of policy change are, recent scholarship by researchers such as Kathleen Thelen and Jacob Hacker has provided social scientists working on public policy with useful analytical models to explore ‘‘how institutions evolve’’ (Thelen, 2004; Streeck and Thelen, 2005; Hacker, 2004). Yet, because the empirical evidence backing these models remains limited, there is ample room for empirical studies that could provide more ground to (or challenge) these models. Similarly, but back at the primary theoretical level, more scholarship is required on the effect that the relationship between institutional change and powerful economic, political, and ideological forces have on policy outcomes.

nDirect correspondence to Daniel Béland, Department of Sociology, University of Cal- gary, 2500 University Dr. NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, T2N 1N4 [email protected] cai. The author is willing to share all data with those wishing to replicate the study. The author thanks Shauna Kadyschuk, Angela Kempf, Robert L. Lineberry, and three anonymous reviewers for their comments.

SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, Volume 88, Number 1, March 2007 r2007 Southwestern Social Science Association

Contributing to the theoretical debate on institutional change, the following analysis will underline the relationship between ideational processes and policy development through a discussion of the political history of Social Security in the United States, with a specific focus on the 1939 amendments, the reforms enacted during the first mandate of the Nixon Administration, and the push for Social Security privatization that emerged in the 1990s. First, the analysis will suggest that the 1939 amendments and the Nixon-era reforms altered the nature of Social Security in what are two cases of institutional conversion. Second, looking at the debate over Social Security privatization, the discussion will underline the impact of layering and policy drift on pension institutions. Overall, this analysis will show how a systematic attention to ideational processes can shed more light on institutional change and, more precisely, on conversion, layering, and policy drift. Specifically, the analysis will ex- plain why one type of institutional change takes place rather than another, and discuss how ideas help in understanding the direction that such change may take.

The article is divided into four sections. The first will explore the concepts of conversion, layering, and policy drift at the center of the new theories of institutional change before showing how ideas can impact policy develop- ment. The last three sections will respectively explore the 1939 amendments, the Nixon-era reforms, and the debate over Social Security privatization. Because these episodes have already been documented in the existing his- torical literature, the analysis will remain concise, focusing mainly on the- oretically significant issues and processes. The conclusion will return to the literature on institutional change and underline the theoretical contribution of the article.

Institutional Change and Ideational Processes

Historical institutionalism is grounded in the assumption that a histor- ically constructed set of institutional constraints and opportunities affects the behavior of political actors and interest groups involved in the policy process (Immergut, 1998; Lecours, 2005; Orloff, 1993; Orren and Skowro- nek, 2004; Pierson, 1994; Steinmo, Thelen, and Longstreth, 1992; Weaver and Rockman, 1993). In contrast to sociological and rational choice insti- tutionalisms, historical institutionalism focuses on asymmetrical power re- lations as well as the impact of long-term institutional legacies on policy making (Hall and Taylor, 1996). Until recently, historical institutionalism had not paid much attention to institutional change (Clemens and Cook, 1999). This is especially true in the field of policy analysis, where the concept of path dependence has informed much of the historical institu- tionalist research (e.g., Pierson, 1994). In recent years, however, institu- tionalist scholars have begun to offer comprehensive theoretical accounts of

Ideas and Institutional Change in Social Security 21

how institutions change over time (Hacker, 2004; Orren and Skowronek, 2004; Streeck and Thelen, 2005; Thelen, 2003, 2004).1

As the title of her book suggests, Kathleen Thelen’s How Institutions Evolve sketches a systematic theory of institutional change (Thelen, 2004). One of the most powerful aspects of that book is the critique of the punc- tuated equilibrium model of institutional change. Punctuated equilibrium rests on the assumption that long episodes of institutional inertia follow rare critical junctures during which exogenous shocks provoke swift path-de- parting institutional transformations. Thelen does not reject the concepts of critical junctures and path dependence; rather, she convincingly argues that most forms of institutional change occur beyond such critical junctures and that in many contexts, endogenous mechanisms of change are more influ- ential than exogenous ones. This means that, in order to understand policy change better, social scientists should pay greater attention to incremental change occurring during long episodes of—relative—political stability.

In her book, Thelen identifies two main mechanisms of change: layering and conversion. On the one hand, layering involves ‘‘the grafting of new elements onto an otherwise stable institutional framework. Such amend- ments . . . can alter the overall trajectory of an institution’s development’’ (Thelen, 2004:35). The integration of private savings accounts into a tra- ditional pay-as-you-go pension system is a classic example of layering in the field of social policy (Thelen, 2003:277). On the other hand, conversion is about adopting new goals or bringing in new actors that alter the institu- tional role or the core objectives of an institution. The 1960s transformation of American social assistance programs into tools of racial equality is an example of social policy conversion (Thelen, 2003:229; see also Weir, 1992).

In a recent contribution on institutional change and social policy, Jacob Hacker borrows several concepts from Thelen in order to reinforce the argument that significant path-departing reforms may occur outside critical junctures and exogenous shocks (Hacker, 2004). Writing about social policy development in the United States, he argues that a series of low-profile processes have slowly transformed the nature of that country’s welfare re- gime. This argument contradicts the common wisdom that enduring policy legacies have favored strong institutional inertia in spite of powerful con- servative attacks (Pierson, 1994). Hacker argues that, in addition to layering and conversion, there is another crucial mechanism of change that can gradually transform the meaning and the role of existing institutional ar- rangements. Labeled policy drift, this third mechanism refers to the slow alteration of such arrangements due to changing socioeconomic circum- stances. For Hacker, new economic and social trends can make existing institutions become less and less adequate in the absence of significant

1To this list, one could add Paul Pierson’s Politics in Times (2004). Yet, this book focuses more on continuity than change, and only the fifth chapter is devoted to institutional change.

22 Social Science Quarterly

legislative reforms designed to adapt them to these changing circumstances. From this point of view, the inaction of policymakers who could take the necessary measures to sustain and enhance policy legacies in changing times constitutes a form of political behavior that can ironically lead to significant institutional transformations in a context of a rapid economic and social change. A major example of policy drift analyzed below is the current shift from pay-as-you-go to defined-contribution occupational pensions in the United States.

Thelen and Hacker have done much to improve our understanding of the politics of institutional change. Yet, they leave several questions unanswered. First, why does one type of institutional change take place rather than another? For example, although Hacker assumes that policy drift is likely to occur when obstacles to institutional revision are strong, his discussion about this crucial issue remains limited (Hacker, 2004). Second, authors such as Hacker and Thelen do not systematically address the following question: What factors explain the direction that policy drift and incremental change take? In his article on policy drift, Hacker essentially depicts policy drift as a conservative device that reinforces social inequality and increases economic insecurity. Yet, incremental change is not always conservative in nature, which means that one must explain the direction it takes. This article sug- gests that in order to answer these questions and understand institutional change fully, one must recognize the central role of ideational processes in politics and policy making. Because institutional change is generally related to the strategies of concrete social and political actors, understanding the effect of their ideas and assumptions on the social and economic world is essential for explaining the way in which these actors can bring about in- stitutional change in a particular policy area, and the form and orientation this change will take. As the analysis below suggests, the study of institu- tional change must take into account these actors’ beliefs and assumptions, which often take the form of a specific policy paradigm (Hall, 1993). For Peter Hall, a policy paradigm is ‘‘a framework of ideas and standards that specifies not only the goals of policy and kind of instruments that can be used to attain them, but also the very nature of the problems they are meant to be addressing’’ (Hall, 1993:279). Although policy paradigms are generally technical and low profile in nature, some of them can become known outside narrow expert and policy circles through the elaboration of widely mediated policy blueprints (Blyth, 2002).

Related to concrete economic and political conditions, paradigm shifts and more limited changes in social and economic assumptions can help explain the nature and the overall direction of policy change. Arguing that paying close attention to the ideas of those involved in institutional change is crucial, the following historical analysis provides more ground to the in- creasingly influential claim that ideas can shape the content of policy pro- posals and the perception of interests at the heart of political struggles (e.g., Blyth, 2002; Hansen and King, 2001; Lieberman, 2002; Weir, 1992). Yet,

Ideas and Institutional Change in Social Security 23

such a claim does not mean that ideational processes explain everything, and that traditional factors like electoral competition are irrelevant to the analysis of policy change. In fact, the analysis below will take electoral competition into account when exploring the sources of institutional change in American Social Security development. As evidenced below, the 1939 amendments and Nixon-era reforms were largely the product of the interaction between elect- oral competition and paradigm shifts affecting the socioeconomic or actuarial assumptions forming the background of policy debates and processes. As for the recent debate on Social Security privatization and related forms of layering and policy drift, they are unintelligible without a systematic understanding of the now mainstream conservative economic assumptions that shape the per- ception of interests at the center of the current struggles over public and private pension reforms in the United States. Overall, paying such close at- tention to changing policy ideas is necessary to explain the nature and the direction of institutional change across the three policy episodes.

Conversion, Phase 1: From Fiscal Conservatism to Family Protection

As enacted in 1935, Social Security constituted a federal social insurance scheme grounded in conservative actuarial assumptions. The policy para- digm that guided the elaboration of this program encouraged the emergence of a distinct set of principles regarding both general revenue financing and the contributory method. For President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Social Security could exist only as a self-supporting program (Altmeyer, 1965; Leff, 1983; Witte, 1963). Rejecting general revenue financing, Roosevelt backed the idea of a strict actuarial relationship between the contributions of work- ers and employers, on the one hand, and the level of social benefits, on the other hand. For him, the contractual model tied to the contributory method would grant ‘‘the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions.’’ Because of those ‘‘earned rights,’’ he argued, ‘‘no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program’’ (Schlesinger, 1959:308–09; see also Perkins, 1946:281–83). Overall, the domination of the president’s conservative fiscal paradigm meant that benefits would re- main relatively modest.

A significant episode underlines the central role of President Roosevelt’s fiscal conservatism in the months preceding the enactment of the Social Security Act. Unsatisfied with the first draft of the bill, President Roosevelt ordered his Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau Jr., to request that the Committee on Ways and Means modify the program’s tax schedule in order to avoid the possible use of general revenue financing after 1965 (Morgenthau, 1935:901–02). Following Morgenthau’s recommendations, the committee increased the initial tax rate and altered the tax schedule so that the rate would increase faster than anticipated, reaching a maximum of 6 percent in 1949 instead of 5 percent in 1957. As a result, the anticipated

24 Social Science Quarterly

size of the trust fund would increase by more than 300 percent (Béland, 2005:89).

Interestingly, a major political debate about the future size of this trust fund would only emerge more than a year after the signing of the Social Security Act in August 1935. This debate came about during the 1936 presidential campaign, as Republican candidate Alf Landon publicly at- tacked Social Security, which he labeled a ‘‘cruel hoax.’’ For Landon, the accumulation of a large reserve fund would lead to governmental mis- spending on the part of Democrats. ‘‘We have good spenders in Washington . . . . With this social security money alone running into billions of dollars, all restraint on Congress will be off’’ (Landon, 1936). As a result of this misspending, Landon claimed, money from the new federal payroll tax would not be used to pay Social Security benefits. Despite the defeat of Landon and the reelection of President Roosevelt in November 1936, the debate over Social Security funding did not dissipate.

Escalating the ongoing debate over Social Security funding was the August 1937 recession, which some economists argued was caused by the payroll tax that had taken effect in January of the same year (Berkowitz, 1983). To assess and contend with this controversial issue, the administration finally launched the Advisory Council on Social Security (1937). For the Chairman of the Social Security Board, Arthur Altmeyer, what became the 1937–1938 Advisory Council represented a major political opportunity for the presi- dent. ‘‘As a matter of fact, I think it is possible not only to offset these attacks on the Social Security Act, but really to utilize them to advance a socially desirable program, fully in accord with present fundamental prin- ciples underlying the Social Security Act and within our financial capacity’’ (Altmeyer, cited in McKinley and Frase, 1970:358).

In its 1938 report, the Advisory Council recommended a major reduction in the size of the trust fund through a change in the tax schedule and, more importantly, a major expansion of Social Security benefits (U.S. Advisory Council on Social Security, 1938). Shifting the focus of the program from fiscal conservatism to social adequacy and the protection of the family unit as a whole, the 1937–1938 Advisory Council advocated a more redistribu- tive vision of social insurance that implicitly contradicted the individualistic actuarial model adopted in 1935. J. Douglas Brown, who served as Chair of the Advisory Council, later summarized the nature of the paradigm shift that shaped the content of the 1939 amendments: ‘‘The Advisory Council of 1937–1938 shifted the whole concept of what became the OASDI program from a hybrid compromise between private savings and social insurance to a clear-cut concept of social insurance. The new focus became adequacy and the protection of the family unit’’ (Brown, 1972:136).2 The enactment of a

2The 1935 version of the program had a redistributive element in the form of a weighted benefit formula. According to this formula, federal old age insurance would offer higher replacement rates to lower-income workers.

Ideas and Institutional Change in Social Security 25

legislation grounded in this more redistributive yet low-profile policy paradigm became possible because the Roosevelt Administration accepted repudiating the strict social insurance model enacted in 1935—a decision that reflected the growing social and political opposition in the aftermath of the 1937 recession and the 1938 congressional elections (Polenberg, 1975).

To save his Social Security program, Roosevelt succumbed to pressures demanding the abandonment of fiscal conservatism. Reflecting this com- promise, Roosevelt finally asked Congress for reform in January 1939 (Roosevelt, 1939). Because the main political actors had already agreed to reduce the anticipated size of the trust fund in exchange for the increase in ‘‘family protection,’’ the legislative process proved to be unproblematic (Berkowitz, 1983). Against the financial imperatives imposed by the ad- ministration less than five years earlier, Social Security emerged as a much more redistributive program than the one established in 1935. No longer centered on actuarial equity and advance funding, the new version of the program included spousal and survivor benefits, two measures rooted in traditional gender roles (Berkowitz, 2001; Kessler-Harris, 1995; Mettler, 1998). These two measures favored income redistribution from singles to married couples (Berkowitz, 2001). From this perspective, it is not an ex- aggeration to talk about institutional conversion in the case of the 1939 amendments. Although the main actors involved in that ‘‘deal’’ remained quiet about the true scope of the reform they supported (Berko- witz, 1983), it represented a genuine paradigm shift in Social Security. This fact challenges the punctuated equilibrium model of policy development as the reform occurred well after the expansionist phase of the New Deal had ended. Furthermore, the 1939 reform underlines the role of ideas in institutional change, as there is clear evidence that the dominance of the family protection paradigm helped reshape some of the program’s core objectives. Finally, the intensification of electoral com- petition during President Roosevelt’s second mandate made the 1939 com- promise possible in the first place, as the weakened Democratic administration had little choice but to bargain with its opponents in order to preserve Social Security.

All in all, the emergence of a low-profile paradigm promoting economic redistribution and grounded in traditional gender roles paved the way to the 1939 amendments. In other words, a particular set of ideas largely explains the redistributive orientation of the institutional conversion that took place in 1939. Furthermore, these ideas, coupled with a changing electoral context and Republican pressures to shrink the trust fund, help explain why institutional conversion—and not layering or policy drift—occurred in that particular situation. Ultimately, new policy ideas enabled by a changing political environment made legislative action not only possible but unavoidable. This resulted in reform through formal institutional conversion.

26 Social Science Quarterly

Conversion, Phase 2: Social Security as a ‘‘Retirement Wage’’

In the United States, World War II favored a return to economic pros- perity and a strengthening of conservative forces in Congress. This situation resulted in a decade of relative legislative inaction in the field of Social Security reform, subsequently ushering in a gradual decline in the real value of benefits. Eventually, however, to offset the negative effects of inflation, the 1950s witnessed the enactment of several pieces of Social Security le- gislation that increased benefits (Achenbaum, 1986; Altmeyer, 1965; Béland, 2005; Tynes, 1996). Furthermore, the 1950s saw the enactment of a disability insurance scheme as part of Social Security (Berkowitz, 1987). Less than a decade later, in 1965, the enactment of Medicare, a program directly related to Social Security, represented another major step in the incremental expansion of the federal social insurance system (Corning, 1969; Marmor, 1973). Yet, as far as the old-age pension com- ponent of Social Security was concerned, the first mandate of the Nixon Administration constituted a major turning point that brought about a series of legislative actions gradually altering the very meaning of the program (Myles, 1988).

Similar to the context of reform in the late 1930s, intensified electoral competition in the 1970s also helped create conditions conducive to in- stitutional conversion. Seeking to reduce the capacity of Democrats in Congress to make electoral gains through ad hoc benefit increases, President Nixon pushed for the automatic indexation of Social Security (e.g., Nixon, 1971). In this context, Wilbur Mills (D-Arkansas) and other influential Democratic congressmen opposed this measure in order to maintain their capacity to claim credit for the ad hoc benefit increases (Weaver, 1988; Zelizer, 1998:312–46).3 To fight the apparent generosity of President Nix- on’s indexation proposal, Mills and his allies promoted the enactment of unprecedented benefit hikes that would significantly increase the real value of Social Security benefits. Three factors facilitated the adoption of these increases in the late 1960s and early 1970s. First, in the context of the Vietnam War, the Democratic leadership in Congress could include benefit hikes in major war-related bills, which President Nixon could not always afford to veto (e.g., Weaver, 1988:166). Second, the declining confidence in big business (Edsall, 1984:113) and occupational pensions (Hacker, 2002:145–53) increased support for more generous Social Security bene- fits while undermining possible conservative opposition to the expansion of a popular federal program that now included the middle class (Quadagno,

3Another factor undoubtedly motivating Wilbur Cohen to promote such potentially popular benefit increases was his plan to run for the presidency in 1972.

Ideas and Institutional Change in Social Security 27

1991).4 Third, a new ‘‘optimistic’’ actuarial paradigm repudiated the ac- tuarial conservatism that had prevailed since the New Deal.

Rather than assuming that wages would not increase in the future, deci- sionmakers embraced a ‘‘dynamic’’ actuarial paradigm that produced consid- erable projected windfalls instead of the after-the-fact windfalls traditionally generated by conservative assumptions (Derthick, 1979:349–57). What made the actuarial situation of the early 1970s unique was that ‘‘policymakers could use these projected windfalls in addition to the after-the-fact windfalls still available at the time’’ (Béland, 2005:134). Supported by economists from the Brookings Institution and Social Security Commissioner Robert Ball, these new assumptions made room for major benefit hikes without the enactment of potentially unpopular short-term tax increases. Consequently, the emer- gence of this low-profile actuarial paradigm facilitated the enactment of mas- sive benefit increases by reducing their perceived fiscal and political cost (Derthick, 1979; Weaver, 1988). This is true because the new actuarial as- sumptions helped Democratic members of Congress provide a rationale for their ambitious benefit increases, which appeared more reasonable in the mirror of such assumptions. All in all, the new actuarial paradigm largely explains the progressive direction of the institutional conversion that reshaped Social Security during President Nixon’s first mandate.

Considering these factors and the Democratic push for major benefit increases before the enactment of automatic indexation, Congress approved a series of benefit hikes that extended far beyond the inflation rate: 13 percent in 1967, 15 percent in 1969, 10 percent in 1971, and 20 percent in 1972 (Weaver, 1988). These ad hoc increases boosted the average replace- ment rate for Social Security before Congress finally enacted automatic indexation in 1972.5 According to John Myles, the changes adopted be- tween 1969 and 1974 transformed Social Security into a ‘‘retirement wage’’ program similar to the social insurance schemes adopted in western Europe during the postwar era (Myles, 1988).

As in 1939, intense electoral competition and a low-profile paradigm shift led to a genuine form of institutional conversion in Social Security, thus favoring a rapid expansion of the program. During President Nixon’s first mandate, optimistic actuarial ideas facilitated the triumph of the liberal expansionist agenda, thereby affecting the direction of change. The conver- gence of ideational and electoral factors created a unique opportunity for significant legislative revision, leading to a genuine form of institutional conversion, rather than a more indirect form of change such as policy drift.

4On the growing popularity of Social Security in the postwar era, see Brain (1991). 5For example, between only 1969 and 1971, the real value of benefits (i.e., net of inflation)

increased by 23 percent. After indexation became effective in 1974, however, high inflation rates coupled with cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) further augmented the real value of benefits. As an illustration, in 1975 the average replacement rate for Social Security reached 55.9 percent. This figure was up from 33.5 percent in 1965 and 40.3 percent in 1967 (Myers, 1993:363).

28 Social Science Quarterly

Therefore, like the genesis of the 1939 amendments, this episode underlines the relationship between ideational processes, electoral competition, and institutional change in Social Security development.

Layering, Policy Drift, and Social Security Privatization

By the mid-1970s, the combined effects of inflation, high unemployment, and a flawed indexation system favored the emergence of a fiscal crisis in Social Security (Light, 1995; Snee and Ross, 1978). Considering the pop- ularity of this program and the powerful constituencies it created (Campbell, 2003; Pierson, 1994), major direct cutbacks were excluded from the legis- lative agenda and, in 1977, Congress enacted payroll tax hikes coupled with indirect benefit cuts such as the alteration of the indexation formula (‘‘de- coupling’’), which only affected future retirees—later known as the ‘‘notch babies’’ (Pierson and Weaver, 1993:117). Several years later, new legislative actions became necessary as enduringly high inflation and unemployment rates created a second fiscal crisis in Social Security (Kingson, 1984). After making several strategic mistakes (Stockman, 1986), President Reagan fi- nally put together the Greenspan Commission, which reached a last-minute agreement over the measures necessary to ‘‘save’’ Social Security (National Commission on Social Security Reform, 1983). A combination of modest tax hikes and benefit cuts, the 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act also included a gradual increase in retirement age that would take place between 2000 and 2022 (Light, 1995). Overall, the amendments did not alter the nature and the institutional goals of Social Security.

In the aftermath of the 1983 amendments, conservative actors rejecting the redistributive nature of Social Security began sketching a long-term political strategy that could undermine support for the program, leading to Social Security privatization, which refers to the shift from defined benefits and pay-as-you-go financing to defined contributions and advanced funding taking the shape of personal savings accounts (Quadagno, 1999; Teles, 1998). It is impossible to understand the core objectives of this strategy and the direction that the Social Security debate would take after 1990 without analyzing the financial paradigm that guides conservative efforts to privatize that federal program. Related to the old liberal support for individualism and market forces against economic redistribution, this financial paradigm seeks to increase personal responsibility and financial investment at the expense of ‘‘big government’’ security. More concretely, this policy para- digm states that investing payroll money in equity is beneficial to the econ- omy as well as to future retirees. This is true because privatization would create higher ‘‘return rates’’ than the current pay-as-you-go program (e.g., Ferrara and Tanner, 1998). Rejecting the redistributive logic of Social Se- curity, conservatives argue that this new federal savings scheme would stimulate economic growth by increasing national savings rates. As opposed

Ideas and Institutional Change in Social Security 29

to the family protection and the actuarial paradigms leading, respectively, to the 1939 and the early 1970s reforms, the new financial paradigm is as- sociated with a high-profile public discourse that is ever present in con- temporary media reports and political debates. More recently, the ideas at the center of this paradigm have been featured prominently in George W. Bush’s Ownership Society blueprint (Béland, 2005).

To transform Social Security in the sense of this individualistic and mar- ket-oriented financial paradigm, a number of conservative experts and pol- iticians argued that only incremental changes in private benefits coupled with a relentless ideological campaign against Social Security could lead to its partial or full privatization. Ironically described as a ‘‘Leninist Strategy’’ (Butler and Germanis, 1984), this long-term approach to Social Security reform includes institutional layering, as conservatives support the multi- plication of defined-contribution schemes like 401(k)s, which constitutes the explicit model for Social Security privatization (Teles, 1998).6 By pro- moting the expansion of these schemes through new tax provisions, con- servatives and their allies in Congress have helped create a massive retirement savings system at odds with the pay-as-you-go and the defined- benefit logics inherent to Social Security (Hacker, 2002).7

The development of tax-deferred 401(k) voluntary savings schemes began in the late 1970s, intensifying during the 1980s and 1990s. Conservatives hold the development of these schemes as proof that the existing Social Security program is obsolete and that privatization would bring efficiency to the program, as well as higher returns to the vast majority of workers (Teles, 1998). From this perspective, layering is an instrument of conservative pol- icy change that favors the promotion of specific policy ideas aimed at con- vincing citizens and interest groups that it is in their interest to support Social Security privatization and the related financial paradigm.8 The dom- ination of this paradigm coupled with the exceptional financial perform- ances of the mid-1990s contributed to the construction of the economic interests of the financial industry, which generally supported privatization.9

6Personal savings have had a long-standing presence as a major component of the Amer- ican pension system. Recent conservative efforts have only aimed at encouraging their growth in order to reduce the reliance on Social Security and defined-benefit pensions.

7The following quote underlines the rapid growth of 401(k)s during the 1980s and 1990s: ‘‘Although enabled by legislation in 1978, 401(k) plans effectively were not adopted until the Internal Revenue Service issued clarifying rules in 1981. Since then, they have grown re- markably and become the primary vehicle for retirement saving. In 1996, 33 percent of all private pension assets, 33 percent of all pension plans, and 45 percent of all active pension participants were in 401(k)s. The $104 billion in 401(k) contributions represented 61 per- cent of all pension contributions and 38 percent of National Income and Product Account (NIPA) personal saving that year. Benefits paid from 401(k)s represented 38 percent of total pension benefits disbursed’’ (Engelhardt, 2001:1).

8On the argument that ideas shape the perception of economic interests, see Blyth (2002). 9By the late 1990s, however, the support for Social Security privatization within the

financial industry had already started to decline as tangible legislative proposals showed the administrative problems related to this policy alternative (Rose and Celarier, 1999).

30 Social Science Quarterly

The push for Social Security privatization also broadly represents yet another facet of the conservative crusade against ‘‘big government,’’ which has be- come increasingly influential in the United States since the 1970s.

Although conservatives failed to convince members of Congress to enact Social Security privatization legislation in the 1990s (Derthick, 2001; Weaver, 2005), impressive stock market performances did help them push this policy alternative onto the agenda (Teles, 1998). Yet, popular support for Social Security remained strong, and conservatives failed to convince the majority of citizens that privatization would serve their interests (Cook, Barabas, and Page, 2002). In his 1999 State of the Union Address, President Clinton openly rejected privatization; but, considering the ideological weight of the financial paradigm, he felt compelled to propose the creation of new tax-sponsored savings accounts alongside Social Security (Clinton, 1999). Even though this initiative went nowhere in the context of the Lewinsky scandal (Weaver, 2005), it underlines the central role of layering in the politics of Social Security.

Nevertheless, the politics of Social Security in the United States is also about what Jacob Hacker calls policy drift (Hacker, 2004). As employers increasingly support the development of defined-contribution pensions in order to replace costly defined-benefit schemes, private pensions are drifting away from the logic inherent to Social Security. Related to cost-saving strategies on the part of employers, this form of policy drift is transforming private benefits despite the absence of path-breaking legislative actions: economic and managerial logics favor the transformation of the contract between workers and employers in the sense of a model of protection strik- ingly similar to policy alternatives labeled as Social Security privatization. Although the long-term impact of this form of policy drift on Social Se- curity is unknown, it exacerbates the growing clash between this program and tax-sponsored private pensions (Hacker, 2002; Klein, 2003).10 This tendency is in itself a significant form of institutional change through policy drift, despite the absence of legislation on Social Security privatization.11

Interestingly, the financial paradigm mentioned above is promoting the multiplication of defined-contribution pension schemes, as they implicitly serve as models for Social Security privatization. To a certain extent, this paradigm thus contributes to the individualistic and financial orientation of contemporary policy drift.

All in all, one could argue that although the powerful constituencies created by the postwar expansion of Social Security created major political

10In 2003, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) ‘‘insured about 29,500 single-employer defined benefit plans, down from an all-time high of 112,000 plans in 1985. This decline primarily reflects a large number of terminations among small plans’’ (PBGC, 2003:11).

11Furthermore, in the context of growing income inequality, more income is earned above the Social Security earnings cap, which, in the long run, is weakening the program’s fiscal foundation.

Ideas and Institutional Change in Social Security 31

obstacles to privatization, the enduring influence of the financial paradigm and the incremental development of personal savings accounts in the private sector have transformed the American pension system in a profound way. Through layering and policy drift, the private, yet government-regulated, pension institutions have changed significantly since the 1980s. In turn, these trends strongly affect the perception of Social Security, a program whose postwar expansion was directly related to the development of tax- sponsored, defined-benefit pension schemes in the private sector (Hacker, 2002; Klein, 2003). With the decline of these schemes and the multipli- cation of defined-contribution plans and savings accounts, the defined-ben- efit model at the foundation of Social Security seems more and more marginal institutionally (Hacker, 2004). Only time will tell if layering, policy drift, and the ideological campaign of the right will succeed in mak- ing Social Security privatization appear unavoidable. As President Bush’s doomed 2005 privatization crusade demonstrates, institutional obstacles to privatization remain formidable (Béland, 2005). The Bush Administration’s failure to directly reform Social Security could encourage conservative pol- iticians and policy experts to ‘‘invest’’ even more in layering and policy drift, two major sources of incremental change in the contemporary American pension system. In short, the development of Social Security itself remains path dependent. Such path dependence subsequently encourages conserva- tives to support alternative forms of institutional change, such as layering and policy drift.

This remark points to the reason why layering and policy drift have dominated the contemporary pension reform scene in the United States. Because obstacles to formal institutional revision and conversion are strong, indirect change is the only option for political and economic actors seeking to implement conservative ideas. From that perspective, the tension between the conservative paradigm and blueprint on the one hand, and enduring institutional obstacles on the other hand, explains why conservatives have promoted layering and policy drift so extensively in order to reshape the American pension system. As for the conservative direction of contemporary policy change (i.e., individualizing protection and shifting economic risks onto workers), it reflects the imperatives of the financial paradigm that has become increasingly prominent in American policy debates since the early 1990s. High-profile conservative ideas prepare the ground for low-profile and indirect, yet conservative, change.

Discussion

This article has offered a dynamic understanding of Social Security de- velopment in the United States. Far from maintaining the same institutional path since its enactment in 1935, Social Security has changed over time in major ways. In 1939, the program became far more distributive than

32 Social Science Quarterly

originally conceived. During the Nixon era, increases in benefits trans- formed a relatively modest public pension scheme into a genuine income maintenance program. Since the 1990s, politically meaningful changes in government-regulated private benefits have not formally altered Social Se- curity; rather, they have reshaped the economic and institutional environ- ment of this federal program, thus altering its status and meaning in American society. As evidenced above, the first two episodes of institutional change described here correspond to what Kathleen Thelen labels institu- tional conversion, a process by which the major objectives of a policy are transformed. Concerning the third episode, it is clearly a case of layering, as conservatives supported the development of private savings schemes like 401(k)s alongside Social Security in order to weaken institutional support for that program and persuade the population that financial investment is the best way to ‘‘save’’ Social Security. Yet, consistent with the scholarship of Jacob Hacker, this article argues that policy drift is a core aspect of the new politics of Social Security. Namely, the absence of formal reform, coupled with the presence of social and economic change, combine to reshape oc- cupational pensions closely related to Social Security.

Beyond the more dynamic view of Social Security development and the new empirical evidence supporting the concepts of layering, conversion, and policy drift, this article contributes to our understanding of institutional change through a discussion about the role of ideas in public policy. What is crucial to understand here is that ideational processes can become a major source of institutional change, at least as far as Social Security development is concerned. More specifically, the analysis of ideational processes helps answer two questions raised in the theoretical section. The first question concerns the factors that explain why one type of policy change takes place rather than another. Regarding this issue, the discussion about the late 1930s and the early 1970s episodes shows that the convergence between the for- mulation of new policy ideas and the intensification of electoral competition are conducive to institutional revision and conversion. During both epi- sodes, intensifying electoral competition and the influence of ideas neces- sitating legislative revision reinforced one another to create the conditions for genuine institutional conversion. As for the more current situation, the growing influence of the financial paradigm in the context of strong in- stitutional obstacles to Social Security privatization this paradigm supports have transformed layering and policy drift into the main sources of con- servative policy change in American pension policy. Here, layering and policy drift become the main instruments of policy change for conservatives precisely because the legislative revision of Social Security that their financial paradigm supports remains elusive.

The second question deals with the direction that policy change takes. In 1939, as well as in the late 1960s and early 1970s, a paradigm shift con- cretely affected the overall direction of the institutional conversion that, on both occasions, affected Social Security. In 1939, the ‘‘family protection’’

Ideas and Institutional Change in Social Security 33

paradigm grounded in traditional gender roles helped reconstruct Social Security as a redistributive program. Three decades later, a change in the actuarial paradigm (i.e., the shift from conservative to ‘‘dynamic’’ assump- tions) made generous benefit hikes easier to implement for members of Congress. This resulted in a major expansion of Social Security. As for the current layering process involving the multiplication of private savings ac- counts, the financial paradigm dominant among conservatives provides a strong ideological rationale for this process and for the crusade against the redistributive logic of Social Security. Consequently, the analysis of the three episodes backs the claim that ideas play an instrumental role in determining the overall direction of policy change. Finally, such an analysis underlines the distinction between high- and low-profile policy ideas. As evidenced above, the ‘‘family protection’’ and the actuarial paradigms that respectively impacted the 1939 and the early 1970s reforms represented a set of low- profile policy ideas hardly debated outside expert and bureaucratic circles. In contrast, the contemporary financial paradigm has become a highly debated set of assumptions linked to a prominent policy blueprint: George W. Bush’s Ownership Society.

As this article suggests, recognizing the central role of ideas in processes of institutional change identified by Kathleen Thelen and Jacob Hacker does not mean that ideas are the only locus of policy development. In the first two episodes analyzed above, for example, electoral competition between the two main parties and/or between the presidency and Congress represented a major driving force for institutional change. Furthermore, in the case of the recent debate on Social Security privatization, the economic interests of employers and the financial industry constitute a key aspect of the political process. Yet, because these interests are constructed through ideational pro- cesses related to the financial paradigm, there is a close relationship between the politics of ideas and the politics of interests. In the future, scholars conducting research on institutional change should recognize the enduring weight of ideational processes in conversion, layering, and policy drift while paying attention to electoral struggles and the perception of economic in- terests that can weigh so heavily on policy making.

REFERENCES

Achenbaum, W. Andrew. 1986. Social Security: Visions and Revisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Altmeyer, Arthur J. 1965. The Formative Years of Social Security. Madison, WI: Wisconsin University Press.

Béland, Daniel. 2005. Social Security: History and Politics from the New Deal to the Privat- ization Debate. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Berkowitz, Edward D. 1983. ‘‘The First Social Security Crisis.’’ Prologue 15(3):133–49.

34 Social Science Quarterly

———. 1987. Disabled Policy: America’s Programs for the Handicapped. New York: Cam- bridge University Press.

———. 2001. ‘‘Family Benefits in Social Security: A Historical Commentary.’’ Pp. 19–46 in Melissa M. Favreault, Frank J. Sammartino, and C. Eugene Steuerle, eds., Social Security and the Family: Addressing Unmet Needs in an Underfunded System. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Blyth, Mark. 2002. Great Transformations: Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brain, Charles M. 1991. Social Security at the Crossroads: Public Opinion and Public Policy. New York: Garland Publishing.

Brown, J. Douglas. 1972. An American Philosophy of Social Security. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Butler, Stuart, and Peter Germanis. 1984. ‘‘Achieving Social Security Reform: A Leninist Strategy.’’ Cato Journal 3:547–56.

Campbell, Andrea Louise. 2003. How Policies Make Citizens: Senior Citizen Activism and the American Welfare State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Clemens, Elisabeth S., and James M. Cook. 1999. ‘‘Politics and Institutionalism: Explaining Durability and Change.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 25:441–66.

Clinton, William. 1999. State of the Union Address. Washington, DC: The White House, Office of the Press Secretary.

Cook, Fay Lomax, Jason Barabas, and Benjamin I. Page. 2002. ‘‘Invoking Public Opinion: Policy Elites and Social Security.’’ Public Opinion Quarterly 66:235–64.

Corning, Peter A. 1969. The Evolution of Medicare . . . from Idea to Law. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Social Security Administration, Office of Research and Statistics, Research Report 29. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Derthick, Martha. 1979. Policymaking for Social Security. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

———. 2001. ‘‘The Evolving Old Politics of Social Security.’’ Pp. 193–214 in Martin A. Levin, Marc K. Landy, and Martin Shapiro, eds., Seeking the Center: Politics and Policymaking at the New Century. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Edsall, Thosmas. 1984. The New Politics of Inequality. New York: W.W. Norton.

Engelhardt, Gary V. 2001. Have 401(k)s Raised Household Saving? Evidence from the Health and Retirement Study. Aging Studies Program Paper 24. Syracuse, NY: Center for Policy Research, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University.

Ferrara, Peter, J., and Michael D. Tanner. 1998. Common Cents, Common Dreams: A Lay- man’s Guide to Social Security Privatization. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.

Hacker, Jacob S. 2002. The Divided Welfare State: The Battle Over Public and Private Social Benefits in the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

———. 2004. ‘‘Privatizing Risk Without Privatizing the Welfare State: The Hidden Politics of Social Policy Retrenchment in the United States.’’ American Political Science Review 98(2):243–60.

Hall, Peter A. 1993. ‘‘Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State: The Case of Eco- nomic Policymaking in Britain.’’ Comparative Politics 25(3):275–96.

Ideas and Institutional Change in Social Security 35

Hall, Peter A., and Rosemary C. R. Taylor. 1996. ‘‘Political Science and the Three Insti- tutionalisms.’’ Political Studies XLIV:936–57.

Hansen, Randall, and Desmond King. 2001. ‘‘Eugenic Ideas, Political Interests, and Policy Variance: Immigration and Sterilization Policy in Britain and the U.S.’’ World Politics 53:237–63.

Immergut, Ellen M. 1998. ‘‘The Theoretical Core of the New Institutionalism.’’ Politics and Society 26:5–34.

Kessler-Harris, Alice. 1995. ‘‘Designing Women and Old Fools: The Construction of the Social Security Amendments of 1939.’’ Pp. 87–106 in Linda K. Kerber, Alice Kessler-Harris, and Kathryn Kish Sklar, eds., U.S. History as Women’s History. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.

Kingson, Eric R. 1984. ‘‘Financing Social Security: Agenda-Setting and the Enactment of the 1983 Amendments to the Social Security Act.’’ Policy Studies Journal 13(1): 131–55.

Klein, Jennifer. 2003. For All These Rights: Business, Labor, and the Shaping of America’s Public-Private Welfare State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Landon, Alf. 1936 ‘‘Text of Gov. Landon’s Milwaukee Address on Economic Security.’’ New York Times August 27:31.

Lecours, André, ed. 2005. New Institutionalism: Theory and Analysis. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Leff, Mark H. 1983. ‘‘Taxing the ‘Forgotten Man’: The Politics of Social Security Finance in the New Deal.’’ Journal of American History 70(2):359–79.

Lieberman, Robert C. 2002. ‘‘Ideas, Institutions, and Political Order: Explaining Political Change.’’ American Political Science Review 96(4):697–712.

Light, Paul C. 1995. Still Artful Work: The Continuing Politics of Social Security Reform. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Marmor, Theodore R. 1973. The Politics of Medicare. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Co.

McKinley, Charles, and Robert W. Frase. 1970. Launching Social Security: A Capture-and- Record Account, 1935–1937. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Mettler, Suzanne. 1998. Dividing Citizens: Gender and Federalism in New Deal Public Policy. Cornell, NY: Cornell University Press.

Morgenthau Jr., Henry. 1935. Hearings Before the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives on H.R. 4120. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Myers, Robert J. 1993. Social Security, 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Pension Research Council/ University of Pennsylvania Press.

Myles, John. 1988. ‘‘Postwar Capitalism and the Extension of Social Security into a Re- tirement Wage.’’ Pp. 265–84 in Margaret Weir, Ann Schola Orloff, and Theda Skocpol, eds., The Politics of Social Policy in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

National Commission on Social Security Reform. 1983. Report of the National Commission on Social Security Reform. Washington, DC: National Commission on Social Security Reform.

Nixon, Richard. 1971. ‘‘Special Message to the Congress on Social Security (September 25, 1969).’’ Pp. 740–45 in Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, Nixon, 1969. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

36 Social Science Quarterly

Orloff, Ann S. 1993. The Politics of Pensions: A Comparative Analysis of Canada, Great Britain and the United States, 1880–1940. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Orren, Karen, and Stephen Skowronek. 2004. The Search for American Political Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

PBGC. 2003. Pension Insurance Data Book 2003. Washington, DC: PBGC.

Perkins, Frances. 1946. The Roosevelt I Knew. New York: Vikings.

Pierson, Paul. 1994. Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment. New York: Cambridge University Press.

———. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Pierson, Paul, and, R. Kent Weaver. 1993. ‘‘Imposing Losses in Pension Policy.’’ In R. Kent Weaver and Bert Rockman, eds., Do Institutions Matter? Government Capabilities in the U.S. and Abroad. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Polenberg, Richard. 1975. ‘‘The Decline of the New Deal, 1937–1940.’’ Pp. 246–65 in John Braeman, Robert H. Bremner, and David Brody, eds., The New Deal: The National Level. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.

Quadagno, Jill. 1991. ‘‘Interest-Group Politics and the Future of the U.S. Social Security.’’ Pp. 36–58 in John Myles and Jill Quadagno, eds., States, Labor Markets, and the Future of Old-Age Policy. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

———. 1999. ‘‘Creating a Capital Investment Welfare State.’’ American Sociological Review 64(1):1–10.

Roosevelt, Franklin D. 1939. ‘‘Annual Message to the Congress, January 4, 1939.’’ Vol 8, p. 7 in Samuel I. Rosenman, ed., Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt. New York, Random House.

Rose, Darby, and Michelle Celarier. 1999. ‘‘Where’s the Payoff? Wall Street Spent Millions to Promote the Privatization of Social Security—An Idea Going Increasingly Awry.’’ Investment Dealers Digest August 9. Available at hhttp://www.davidlanger.com/articles/misc/ iddigest.8.9.99.htmli. Schlesinger, Arthur. 1959. The Coming of the New Deal. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

Snee, John, and Mary Ross. 1978. ‘‘Social Security Amendments of 1977: Legislative History and Summary of Provisions.’’ Social Security Bulletin 41(3):3–20.

Steinmo, Sven, Kathleen Thelen, and Frank Longstreth, eds. 1992. Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stockman, David A. 1986. The Triumph of Politics: How the Reagan Revolution Failed. New York: Harper and Row.

Streeck, Wolfgang, and Kathleen Thelen, eds. 2005. Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Teles, Steven. 1998. ‘‘The Dialectics of Trust: Ideas, Finance, and Pension Privatization in the US and the UK.’’ Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management. New York.

Thelen, Kathleen. 2003. ‘‘How Institutionalism Evolves: Insights from Comparative Historical Analysis.’’ Pp. 208–40 in James Mahoney and James Rueschemeyer, eds., Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ideas and Institutional Change in Social Security 37

———. 2004. How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tynes, Sheryl R. 1996. Turning Points in Social Security: From ‘‘Cruel Hoax’’ to ‘‘Sacred Entitlement.’’ Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

U.S. Advisory Council on Social Security. 1938. Final Report. Washington, DC: Social Security Board.

Weaver, R. Kent. 1988. Automatic Government: The Politics of Indexation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

———. 2005. ‘‘Public Pension Reform in the United States.’’ Pp. 230–51 in Giuliano Bonoli and Toshimitsu Shinkawa, eds., Ageing and Pension Reform around the World: Ev- idence from Eleven Countries. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Weaver, R. Kent, and Bert Rockman, eds. 1993. Do Institutions Matter? Government Cap- abilities in the U.S. and Abroad. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Weir, Margaret. 1992. Politics and Jobs. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Witte, Edwin E. 1963. The Development of the Social Security Act. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Zelizer, Julian E. 1998. Taxing America: Wilbur D. Mills, Congress, and the State, 1945–1975. New York: Cambridge University Press.

38 Social Science Quarterly

338

Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services | www.familiesinsociety.org | Copyright 2005 Alliance for Children and Families

The passage of the Social Security Act has been heralded as one of the United State’s greatest policy successes. However, the current focus is less on preserving Social

Security’s social welfare benefits for all workers and more on its long-term financing and maximizing individual ben- efits, which reflects a difference in the fundamental values underlying Social Security. This shift is most vividly illus- trated by President Bush’s decision to make the privatiza- tion of Social Security for younger workers a central focus of his second-term domestic agenda. Yet Social Security is indeed the safety net for many older adults, especially women and people of color. It is credited with removing more individuals from poverty than all other governmental programs combined. The more than threefold decline in

poverty among the older population over a 40-year period is due largely to Social Security. In 1959, the poverty rate among adults age 65 and older was 35.9% compared with 10.2% today (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, 2004a ). Yet even with this policy success, approximately 3.6 million older Americans still fell below the official federal poverty line in 2003, and an additional 2.2 million older adults were classi- fied as near poor (income between the poverty level and 125% of this level; U.S. Census Bureau, 2004a). A dispro- portionate number of these older Americans living in poverty are women. Indeed, the stark reality is that almost 70% of poor older adults are women, in particular women of color and those older than 85 years and living alone (Fitzpatrick & Entmacher, 2000).

Reducing Poverty Among Older Women: Social Security Reform and Gender Equity Judith G. Gonyea & Nancy R. Hooyman

ABSTRACT

The authors document the higher poverty rate of older women, especially women of color, com-

pared with older men—a pattern created and maintained by the intersection of the structural

factors of age, race, and marital status. They then review how the U.S. Social Security program

generally benefits older women and reduces their late-life economic vulnerability. A persistent

gender inequity, however, is that women are more likely to disrupt their paid employment to

meet family care responsibilities, which may increase the number of zero-earnings years and

reduce the amount paid into Social Security. Current proposals to privatize the Social Security

system are critiqued in terms of their gender inequities. Three relatively revenue-neutral propos-

als that could increase Social Security’s protection against poverty and differentially affect low-

income women are briefly discussed.

DIVERSITY

This article is part of “The Future of Social Work With Older Adults,” a special issue of Families in Society with guest editor Carol Austin. www.familiesinsociety.org

Gonyea & Hooyman | Reducing Poverty Among Older Women: Social Security Reform and Gender Equity

339

As the nation’s older population has continued to grow, along with a dramatically increasing federal deficit, conflict- ing viewpoints have emerged regarding public or collective responsibility for income security in old age. Moreover, the level of this debate has intensified with the growing realiza- tion that members of the baby boomer generation will soon begin to enter the ranks of the 65-plus population. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that by 2030, the time at which the youngest members of the baby boomer generation will turn 65, the percentage of the older population will reach 20% (i.e., 1 of every 5 Americans; U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). Much of the current debate about privatizing Social Security has, therefore, been framed around the program’s financial solvency and returns on individual investment. Less atten- tion has been focused on the inadequacies of Social Security to protect low-income individuals from moving into poverty in old age. However, both issues—the long-term fis- cal balance and the antipoverty effectiveness of Social Security—are critical to promoting older women’s eco- nomic security.

We begin with an examination of the experience of poverty among older Americans. We not only highlight gender differences in the risk of late-life poverty but also examine how the poverty risk varies within the female pop- ulation based on structural characteristics such as age, socioeconomic class, race, and marital status. The ways in which women’s domestic and labor force roles contribute to their late-life economic vulnerability and the salience of Social Security to their lives are explored. Current propos- als to privatize Social Security are critiqued in terms of their gender inequities. In contrast, we argue for both the pro- tection of Social Security’s core principles and expansion of its antipoverty protection.

The Differential Risk of Poverty in Old Age

Lack of attention to the plight of older adults who are liv- ing in poverty may reflect a growing societal view that older adults are faring better financially relative to other age groups in the United States, particularly children. As noted, the poverty rate for persons 65 and older was 10.2% in 2003, which is lower than the 10.8% rate for working age adults and the 17.6% rate for children (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004a). It is increasingly recognized, however, that the annual cross-sectional poverty statistics produced by the Current Population Survey (CPS) do not present a com- plete picture of the economic status of older Americans (Wu, 2003). Using longitudinal data from the national Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), for example, Wu (2003) tracked the poverty status of the same individuals from 1981 to 1992.

To explore the phenomenon of persistent poverty, Wu asked two important questions: (a) Do older persons face a greater risk than younger persons in falling into poverty for a long period, and (b) Do older adults compared with

young adults experience more difficulty escaping from poverty after they enter it? His findings reveal that the poverty experience does, in fact, vary by life stage. During a 5-year period (1988–1992), 24.3% of the 65-plus popula- tion experienced poverty for at least 1 year and 5.6% were poor for all 5 years; in contrast, 20.1% of the under-65 pop- ulation were poor for at least 1 year and only 3.6% lived in poverty throughout the 5 years. During the 12-year period (1981–1992), only 35.2% of the 65-plus population who spent 1 year in poverty escaped from economic hardship compared with 40.3% of the under-65 population. Wu concluded that “the majority of older adults who spent more than four consecutive years in poverty will stay in poverty for a long time, and some of them will remain poor until death” (2003).

The PSID longitudinal data reinforce a finding consis- tently documented in the CPS cross-sectional data: Women are at a much greater risk of falling into poverty in later life than men. From 1998 to 1992, 27.8% of older women expe- rienced at least 1 year of poverty compared with 17.6% of men (Wu, 2003). In fact, analysis of the CPS data on the percentage of older Americans living in poverty by age, gender, race, and Hispanic origin dramatically underscores the greater vulnerability of women of color.

As reflected in Table 1, approximately 25% of older African American or Hispanic women now live below the federal poverty level. Marriage often protects women against experiencing poverty in old age. Whereas less than 5% of older married women face poverty, as shown in Table 2, 17% of unmarried older women are poor (Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics, 2002; Older Women’s League, 2003).

Women’s Economic Vulnerability Across the Life Course

The difference in women’s greater economically vulnerabil- ity in old age compared with men’s is largely a consequence

TABLE 1. Percentage of Older U.S. Adults Living in Poverty, by Age, Gender, Race and Hispanic Origin in 2001

TOTAL WHITE BLACK HISPANIC ORIGIN a

Sex and Age Both Sexes

65 to 74 years 9.2 7.8 20.2 21.8

75 and older 11.2 10.2 24.2 22.0

Males

65 to 74 years 6.8 5.7 14.3 17.5

75 and older 7.3 6.4 18.1 19.4

Females

65 to 74 years 11.2 9.6 24.5 25.0

75 and older 13.6 12.5 28.3 23.7 aHispanic can be of any race. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of the Census. Current Population Series, Annual Demographic Survey March 2001 Supplement. Table 1. http://ferret.bls.census.gov/macro/032002/pov/new01_001.htm

FAMILIES IN SOCIETY | Volume 86, No. 3

340

of the domestic division of labor and women’s position in the labor market. Exploring the linkages among the phases of the life course, rather than their distinctiveness, reveals how feminization of poverty occurs in old age. Although more women have entered the labor force in the last several decades, their wages, even for workers with the greatest employment effort, continue to lag behind those of men who are working full time and year-round. One important reason for this earnings gap is gender segregation in the labor market (i.e., the division into traditional women’s jobs and men’s jobs). In 2003, a gender-based comparison of fully engaged workers (e.g., continuous, full-time employ- ment) revealed that women earn, on average 75.5 cents for every dollar earned by men (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004b).

The measurement of an annual male–female wage gap (similar to the annual poverty statistic) does not, however, offer a complete picture of the gender-based wage differen- tial. Using the PSID to track the same men and women across a 15-year period, Rose and Hartman (2004) found that prime-age (26–59 years) employed women earned only 38% of that of prime-age men. The long-term effects of this earning differential are large and can be devastating:

Across the fifteen years of the study, the prime age

working woman earned only $273,592 while the aver-

age working man earned $722,693 (in 1999 dollars).

This gap of 62% is more than twice as large as the

23% gap commonly reported. (Rose & Hartman

2004, p. iii)

Moreover, the gender-based division of domestic responsibilities results in women, more often than men, reducing their time in the paid labor force in order to take on child and elder care and household management. Across the 15-year time span, Rose and Hartman found that slightly more than half (52%) of women had at least 1 calendar year without any earnings compared with just 16% of men. Similarly, women are more than twice as likely as men to work part time (i.e., fewer than 25 hr per week). In 2002, approximately 25% of employed women worked part-time compared with 11% of employed men (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2003). The long-term earnings data underscore that women’s time spent performing fam- ily care often profoundly limits their economic resources in later life. In fact, motherhood has been identified as the sin- gle greatest risk factor for poverty in old age (Rappaport,

2004). Finally, women’s longer average life expectancy compared with men’s means that they may be required to stretch more limited financial resources over a greater number of years. This pattern is also true of married women who outlive their spouses. More than half (59%) of women enter their later years of life not married, even if they once were; as indicated in Table 2, these women face a fourfold greater chance of being poor (Administration on Aging, 2002).

The Importance of Social Security to Older Women’s Lives

Social Security is a near-universal old age social insurance program; 9 of every 10 older citizens are beneficiaries. In fact, it is, in most respects, a highly successful program (American Association of Retired Persons [AARP], 2005). Because of women’s longer life expectancies, they comprise 58% of all Social Security beneficiaries age 62 and older and approximately 71% of beneficiaries aged 85 and older. Without Social Security, it is estimated that more than 50% of our nation’s current population of older women would be poor (Moody, 2002;Older Women’s League, 2003; Weir, Willis, & Sevak, 2002).

From its beginnings, Social Security was never intended to be the only source of retirement income; rather, it was viewed as providing a foundation, along with incomes from pensions, savings, and investments, in the creation of an eco- nomically secure old age for U.S. citizenry. Yet for too many older Americans who lack private pensions or extensive

TABLE 2. Percentage of Older American Women Living in Poverty, by Marital Status in 2001

MARITAL STATUS POVERTY RATE (%)

Married 4.3

Widowed 15.9

Divorced 20.4

Never married 18.9

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, Current Population Survey, March 2002.

17.0%

27.2%

0%

40.9%

25.2%

Less than 50% of Income

50% to 89% of Income

90% to 99% of Income

100% of Income

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% Men Women

30.5%

16.5% 11.7%

31.2%

FIGURE 1. Gender comparison of Social Security as a percentage of income for older Americans, 2001.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2002, Current Population Survey, March Supplement as prepared by AARP Public Policy Institute, 2003.

Gonyea & Hooyman | Reducing Poverty Among Older Women: Social Security Reform and Gender Equity

341

assets, Social Security is their sole income source. As Figure 1 reveals, Social Security represents 90% to 100% of retirement income for almost 59% of women and 29% of men. Analysis by race further reveals that women of color currently rely even more heavily on Social Security for their income in old age than do White women. Social Security provides more than half the retirement income for over 80% of nonmarried older African American and Hispanic women compared with 73% of older White women. Similarly, for more than 50% of African American and Hispanic women, Social Security represents 90% or more of their retirement income compared with 40% of White women (National Women’s Law Center, 2003).

The heavy reliance on Social Security by America’s poor- est elders is again underscored, as shown in Table 3, through a comparison of the income sources for the lowest income quintile of the 65-plus population, which is disproportion- ately occupied by women, with that of the highest income quintile for this age group. Greater workforce attachment (e.g., full-time employment), job stability (e.g., longer job tenures), and higher incomes are associated with a greater accumulation of retirement resources. Women, as a result of their different employment histories, are thus much less likely than men to receive a private pension in old age. Yet even when an older woman does have pension income, it is typically much smaller than that of an older man’s. Using CPS data from 1999 to 2001, Lee and Shaw (2003) found that only about 30% of older women received pension income compared with almost 47% of men. Women’s median annual pension income was about half that of men: $5,600 versus $10,340 (in 2000 constant dollars).

For both genders, the most common reason for not par- ticipating in a pension plan is that the employer simply does not offer one. Almost equal percentages of men and women—39% and 35%, respectively—reported the lack of an employer-sponsored plan as the primary reason for nonparticipation. However, significant gender differences in pension participation exist among employees working for companies that offer pension plans: Female (24%) employees were almost twice as likely as male employees (13%) to report that their nonparticipation was due to not working a sufficient number of hours to qualify for enroll- ment (Shaw & Hill, 2001). This finding is of particular

concern given the dramatic expansion of part-time and temporary employment in the United States during the past few decades. Nearly 25% of the U.S. workforce—more than 30 million Americans—is now engaged in part-time employment with few employment-based benefits; women of all races and minority men disproportionately fill these positions (Hudson, 2000).

Three features of the Social Security program are partic- ularly salient to women’s economic status. First, the Social Security benefit formula is progressive. Benefits are deter- mined based on workers’ earnings; thus, workers with higher earnings pay more taxes and receive higher benefits than those with lower earnings. However, the progressive benefit formula means that Social Security replaces a greater proportion of lower earners’ past income than of higher earners’ past income (although higher income ben- eficiaries will receive a larger benefit in dollars because they have paid more into the system). As noted in our previous discussion, because women typically earn less than men, the progressive formula replaces a greater proportion of their lifetime earnings. The progressive benefit formula is of particular importance to women of color, who tend to be heavily concentrated in low-paying occupations. African American and Hispanic women who are full-time workers earn, on average, only 65% and 56%, respectively, of the earnings of White men and 74% of the earnings of White women(Older Women’s League, 2003). For workers who retired at age 65 in 2000, the replacement rate for what they had paid into Social Security was 53% of preretirement income for lower earners, 40% for average earners, 32% for higher earners, and 24% for those with the maximum tax- able earnings (Anzick & Weaver, 2001).

A second feature of the Social Security system that is salient for women is that workers’ dependents have access to benefits. Under Social Security law, a married woman or qualified divorced woman (after a marriage of at least 10 years) is entitled to the higher of two benefits: a benefit cal- culated based on her own employment history or a benefit that is 50% of her husband’s (or former husband’s) benefit. A widow or divorced widow is also entitled to the higher of her own worker benefit or her husband’s (or ex-husband’s) full benefit as long as she meets requirements related to length of marriage and if her divorced husband has lived long enough to collect benefits. The current reality is that women are more likely to receive Social Security benefits as a dependent—a spouse or widow—than men because their lower lifetime earnings mean that their benefits are typi- cally higher as a spouse or a widow versus as an employee. Although almost all (95%) men receive a benefit based fully on their own employment histories, only 37% of women garnered worker benefits in 1997 (Anzick & Weaver, 2001).

Third, Social Security is more than a worker retirement program; it offers both life insurance and disability insur- ance for workers and their families. Moreover, these aspects of the Social Security program are particularly crucial for

TABLE 3. Source of Income Among Persons Age 65 and Older in the Lowest and Highest Income Quintiles, 2001

INCOME SOURCE (%) LOWEST QUINTILE HIGHEST QUINTILE

Social Security 83.0 20.0

Asset Income 2.0 19.0

Pensions 4.0 21.0

Earnings 1.0 38.0

Public Assistance 9.0 0.0

Other 1.0 2.0

Total 100.0 100.0

Source: Social Security Administration Income of Aged Chartbook, 2002.

FAMILIES IN SOCIETY | Volume 86, No. 3

342

women. Despite increasing life expectancies, 1 of every 7 Americans (disproportionately men) will still die before reaching age 67. Many of these individuals, who are the family primary wage earners, lack life insurance policies. Through Social Security, family members are entitled to survivor’s benefits; currently, of the approximately 47 mil- lion Americans who are Social Security recipients, 7 million are the spouses and children of deceased workers. In fact, for the average wage earner with a family, the Social Security insurance benefit is estimated to be equivalent to a $322,000 life insurance policy (National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, 2004). Long-term disability may also jeopardize an individual’s ability to be employed. Although the vast majority of workers lack long-term dis- ability insurance, about 3 of every 10 young adult workers will become disabled before reaching age 67. Fortunately, Social Security offers protection to families and workers with major disabilities that prevent them from being able to work. For the average wage earner with a family, the Social Security insurance benefit is calculated to be equivalent to a $233,000 disability insurance policy (National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, 2004).

These nonretirement features of the program are criti- cally important to women across the life span because only slightly more than 33% of female recipients of Social Security receive benefits solely as retired workers compared with more than 80% of male recipients (National Women’s Law Center [NWLC], 2002). Analyses by race underscore that the Social Security’s disability and survivor benefits are critical particularly to the economic status of women of color and their families. Approximately 20% of African American and Hispanic beneficiaries are younger than 55 years compared with 10% of White beneficiaries. On the basis of calculations with Social Security Administration data, the NWLC (2003) found that African American women rely disproportionately on these nonretirement aspects of the Social Security program, given their higher rates of disability and their likelihood of surviving their husbands. The NWLC reports that

While African Americans make up 9% of all female

beneficiaries, African American women constitute

18% of female disabled worker beneficiaries.…

Whereas 7% of all Social Security beneficiaries are

children, 15% of African American beneficiaries are

children. In fact, African American children are almost

four times more likely to be lifted out of poverty by

Social Security than White children. (2003, p. 2)

Finally, the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) fea- ture of Social Security helps all beneficiaries cope with rising costs such as utilities and prescription drugs. This third fea- ture is especially valuable for women given their longer life expectancies. Without this inflation protection feature, Social Security benefits would buy considerably less over

time. For example, with a 3% annual inflation rate and with- out the COLAs, it is estimated that benefits would buy 25% less after 10 years (National Women’s Law Center, 2002).

Gender Inequities Inherent in Proposals to Privatize Social Security

Social Security is a successful program precisely because it remains the most important source of retirement income for older Americans, especially low-income older women. Although concerns have been raised about Social Security’s longer term financial solvency program, efforts to reform it should not undermine the protections it currently offers our nation’s oldest citizens. Immediate fiscal reforms to address a crisis appear to be unnecessary because the Social Securities actuaries conservatively project that the trust fund balance will not be depleted until 2042. Yet, even after this date, Social Security would not be bankrupt; instead, annual collections from payroll taxes would be sufficient to meet more than 70% of benefits (Board of Trustees, Old Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance, 2004). The Congressional Budget Office’s model estimates the possible trust fund depletion date as 2052 and only a 1% payroll gap between income and benefits over the next 75 years, assuming no changes in the Social Security pro- gram (Congressional Budget Office, 2004).

Although prior presidents and members of Congress have discussed the private mechanisms of incentives to save, the likelihood of privatization has increased dramati- cally with the 2004 reelection of President Bush. Such a shift is congruent with the beginning privatization of Medicare through the 2003 Medicare Prescription Reform in this current era of market and private or individual responsibility (Binstock, 2002). Privatization would divert payroll taxes (or general revenue income tax credits) to new personal investment accounts among workers younger than 55 years. This model assumes a strong economy and stock market, discretionary resources to invest, and indi- vidual knowledge and skills to make informed investment decisions. The volatility of these assumptions, especially related to the stock market, will result in both increased individual risk and greater federal budget deficits. Regardless of any particular model, privatization reflects the following values: Free markets, not social insurance, are the most efficient and fair way to distribute resources; employment success is rewarded; and individual responsi- bility and freedom of choice (or risks) are paramount. These values contrast dramatically with the values of uni- versalism, mutual responsibility, cross-generational bene- fits, and earned right underlying the origin of Social Security (Smallhout, 2002).

Privatization of Social Security would negatively affect women, especially those of color, more than men (Older Women’s League, 2002). Although the specifics of President Bush’s current privatization model are not yet

Gonyea & Hooyman | Reducing Poverty Among Older Women: Social Security Reform and Gender Equity

343

fully known, the costs of moving to a privatization scheme have been acknowledged in prior analyses by the Social Security Administration and even by the Moynihan Commission’s Report on Social Security. Under privatization, the progressive benefit formula of Social Security, which replaces a higher percentage of earnings for lower income workers than higher income workers, would be lost. Moreover, as low-income and part-time employees, many women would have smaller private accounts to invest. With more limited financial resources, women typically avoid higher risk investments; therefore, it is anticipated that the yield of their accounts would generally be below average. In fact, women might find a larger share of their private accounts going to administrative costs. Many policy experts now estimate that the administrative costs—perhaps as high as $1 tril- lion—would be dramatically higher in individual account systems (AARP, 2005). For example, if transac- tion fees involve a flat per-account charge, administrative costs would consume a larger portion of the accounts of low- and moderate-income older adults (Diamond, 1998; Munnell, 1999). Ultimately, the burden for the manage- ment of the investment portfolio would fall squarely on the individual’s shoulders. In addition, older women who have historically received little training in financial man- agement may be at greater risk for faulty or poor invest- ment decisions.

Because of generally limited private investments, women are less likely than men to have sufficient income to last until death. Privatization means that there would no longer be a lifetime guarantee of a benefit; instead, when funds in the account are exhausted, the account ceases to exist. Given women’s longer life expectancy compared with men, coupled with their smaller accounts, women would face a greater prospect of outliving all of their savings and assets. Although women can purchase lifetime private annuities, such annuities, unlike Social Security, are monthly pay- ments based on gender-based life expectancies, resulting in women receiving a lower lifetime benefit even when their investments are equal to those of men.

Concerns are also raised that privatization would likely eliminate death and disability protection and the cost-of- living increase available through Social Security, all changes that would disadvantage women’s benefits. Women, com- pared with men, are much more likely to be responsible for children and themselves after a spouse’s disablement or death. How privatization would impact divorced women is unclear. Under Social Security, divorced spouses and divorced widows, after a marriage of 10 years, automatically receive the same benefits that married spouses and widows receive without any corresponding reduction in benefits to the worker or subsequent spouses. In a privatized system, however, the core benefit might be reduced, and division of the private account between husband and wife would fall under the jurisdiction of a divorce court.

The primary beneficiaries of privatization will be higher income unmarried workers who will not be born until 2025 and who will be largely Caucasian males. In the short term, women will bear the burden of transition and administrative costs, including the need to cut current Social Security bene- fits when funds are diverted into individual accounts and being taxed twice (e.g., paying for their own retirement through private accounts while continuing to pay for current beneficiaries; Cavanaugh, 2002; Favreault & Sammartino, 2002; National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, 2005; Williamson, 2002). Debates about privatiza- tion also need to consider other ways to prevent a shortfall in 2040, such as expanding the number of workers participat- ing in Social Security by requiring state and local govern- ment workers to participate, raising the cap on taxable income, reducing slightly future benefits or COLA increases, or allowing the government to invest the funds in equity markets. Several analysts, for example, have suggested that a 1.1% rise in the FICA tax would be sufficient to finance the Social Security system throughout the baby boomer genera- tion’s retirement years (Diamond & Orszag, 2003; National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, 2005; Quadagno, 1999). Although attention does need to be given to Social Security’s future, its solvency can be achieved through incremental changes and does not require privatiza- tion, which undermines its basic principles and reduces retirement income for women and persons of color.

Increasing Social Security’s Antipoverty Protection

The current debate on privatization has overshadowed dis- cussions of the plight of elders who continue to live in poverty. Despite the enormous success of Social Security in lifting generations of older Americans out of poverty, it remains a flawed antipoverty program (Callahan, 1999). Several proposals for programmatic reforms to Social Security have been advanced to reduce older women’s financial vulnerability, including raising the minimum Social Security benefit; increasing the survivors benefit for widows; and providing dependent care credits. A discussion of each of these options follows.

A Higher Minimum Social Security Benefit As we have shown, even a lifetime of employment does not guarantee a financially secure retirement, especially for the working poor. Raising the minimum Social Security bene- fit would be particularly valuable to women and persons of color, given their overrepresentation in the secondary labor market, a sector that is characterized by low-paying jobs with few benefits. Moreover, many women and persons of color are employed in physically demanding or taxing jobs (e.g., domestic, industrial, and farm labor) that lead to an earlier departure from the paid labor force. Lower income is also associated with a greater risk for earlier onset of a

FAMILIES IN SOCIETY | Volume 86, No. 3

344

number of chronic and disabling health conditions that might force earlier retirement decisions (Kijakazi, 2003). Using the data from the National Health and Retirement Study, Flippen and Tienda (2000) found that African Americans, Hispanics, and women experience more invol- untary job separation in the years immediately before retirement and that these periods of joblessness often result in permanent labor force withdrawal.

In fact, a special minimum Social Security benefit cur- rently exists for low-wage workers with a history of steady employment that provides these retirees with a higher monthly benefit than they would receive under the regular benefit formula. Few individuals, however, are currently eligible for the special minimum benefit because of its restrictive eligibility requirements. In 2000, only about 144,000 individuals, or 0.33% of Social Security beneficia- ries, received the special minimum benefit. Moreover, the maximum benefit amount remains at only 85% of the fed- eral poverty threshold for an adult aged 65 and older (Anazick & Weaver, 2001). A number of policy analysts, such as Wendall Primus of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, have offered proposals for a revised benefit for- mula and eligibility standards in order to both raise the minimum benefit amount and more effectively target these funds to the working poor (See Kijakazi, 2003, and Anazick & Weaver, 2001, for more detailed discussions of this pro- posed reform.) Finally, increasing the minimum Social Security benefit would particularly benefit poor employed women who either never married or were married fewer than 10 years and thus receive a benefit based solely on their own employment histories.

Increase the Survivor Benefit for Widows Women often experience a significant decline in their income with the death of their husband. Under the current Social Security system, a married couple is allowed to receive 100% of the higher earner’s income as well as a spousal benefit equal to 50% of the higher earner’s income (or her own earnings history if that would result in benefits higher than the spouse’s benefit). On her husband’s death, a woman receives 100% of her own benefit or 100% of the deceased spouse’s benefit. For most widows, the decline in Social Security income greatly exceeds the decline in their living expenses. The federal poverty threshold for a 1-per- son older household equals 79% of the federal poverty level for a 2-person older household. Thus, policy experts often suggest that the survivor’s benefit should be increased to 75% of the couple’s benefit; in other words, the surviving spouse’s benefit should not be reduced by more than 25% of the couple’s combined benefit (Anzick & Weaver, 2001; Burkhauser & Smeeding, 1994).

Raising the survivor benefit would provide gains for older widowed women, but the largest increases would be to wid- ows from families with higher lifetime earnings (Favreault, Sammartino, 2002). As Harrington Meyer (1996) notes,

middle- and upper-class White women are more like to receive noncontributory Social Security benefits. Because more women have entered the paid labor force and fewer women are married for the qualifying 10-year marriage, what was originally an important safety net for lower income retirees has greatest value for traditional families in higher income brackets (Harrington Meyer, 1996).

Offering Dependent Care Credits Care credits are often debated as a way to reward and rec- ognize women’s disproportionate responsibilities for rais- ing children. Rather than marital status as an eligibility criterion, women would receive benefits based on their contribution to the economy through both their labor force participation and their unpaid work of child care. Yet care credit reforms need to take account of race and socioe- conomic class differences within the female population. The most commonly debated type of care credit proposal is to remove zero-earnings years—when women have been out of the paid work force because of child care responsi- bilities—from women’s benefit calculation. This approach may further class and racial inequities, however, because upper income White married women, who can afford not to work for pay, are more likely to benefit than low-income married women of color who are employed out of eco- nomic necessity. Because most low-income women have to work, they are unlikely to have zero-earnings years in their benefit calculation. A second care credit model would drop additional low-earnings years (9 years) from the benefit calculations. Currently, workers can drop 5 low-earnings years between the ages of 22 and 62, which leaves them with 35 earnings years. Because the rewards for caregiving are directly tied to women’s earnings histories, women with high earnings would again fare better than women with low earnings. Placing a value on care is a third way to struc- ture care credits; such credits would be a set amount of earnings, which would substitute for a certain number of years of earnings that are below this level. To illustrate, if the care credit was $15,000 and a woman within her high- est 35 years of earnings had 2 years in which she earned only $8,000, she would be credited with an additional $7,000 for those years. This approach would benefit lower income women more than those with higher earnings (Herd, 2002). Care credits would be a more progressive way to distribute benefits than spousal benefits, because women would move onto the worker benefit and their lower incomes would be buffered by economic value being assigned to their unpaid care work. Generally, low-income women would be hurt most by a system that dropped more zero- or low-earnings years and would benefit most if half of their median wage were substituted into low-earnings years. Because care credits would eliminate spousal bene- fits, this approach would probably be revenue neutral for the government, unlike privatization proposals that carry heavy transition and administrative costs.

Gonyea & Hooyman | Reducing Poverty Among Older Women: Social Security Reform and Gender Equity

345

All three of the identified programmatic reforms would redistribute women’s benefits from earlier to later in life. However, it is evident that each of these programmatic changes would differentially impact various subpopula- tions of older women, given the complexity and diversity of their life experiences. In one of the most significant studies to date, Favreault and Sammartino (2002) use a dynamic microsimulation model on the 1990–1993 Survey of Income and Program Participation data to explore the impact of expanding the minimum benefit, increasing the survivor benefit, and offering dependent care credits. Their analysis underscores that programmatic reforms to improve Social Security’s adequacy and equity for current and future generations of women can be designed to be low-cost or revenue neutral. They conclude that

Policymakers should be careful not to rely on intu-

ition when designing reforms to shore up women’s

Social Security benefits, but rather to rely on rigorous

analyses … we have demonstrated that policymakers

can change the parameters in the existing system to

target the highest-risk low-income and older women.

Our analyses show how legislators can combine a

series of changes into packages that meet multiple

needs. (2002, p. ix)

Since its origin, the Social Security program has been amended a number of times to increase its antipoverty effectiveness. Amendments have included, for example, raises in benefit levels, the indexing of levels to inflation (COLAs), and shortening of the marriage duration require- ment from 20 to 10 years. Each of the identified reforms— raising the minimum benefit level, increasing the survivor benefit level, and offering dependent care credits—repre- sent critical programmatic reforms that would further strengthen Social Security’s antipoverty protection.

Unfortunately, the current focus on Social Security’s long-term solvency overlooks its centrality to older women’s relative economic security and protection from poverty, especially among low-income women of color. Even though a significant percentage of older women who receive Social Security benefits still remain poor or near poor, their economic status is likely to be at even greater risk under a system of privatization that assumes individu- als have adequate resources and investment capability. Given the relative invisibility of older women in our public policy-making process, their needs for protection from poverty under revenue-neutral proposals are unlikely to be heard compared with the financial gains from privatization for investment companies. Although the Older Women’s League has been a strong advocate for changes in Social Security to benefit older women, their voices are likely to be silenced by the powerful interest groups that characterize policymaking in this current era of free market and indi- vidual responsibility (Binstock, 2002).

The characteristics of future cohorts of women Social Security beneficiaries will differ markedly from current women beneficiaries. Changing marital, family, and labor force patterns suggest that a smaller proportion of women will be entitled to benefits solely as spouses or survivors and a growing proportion will receive worker-only benefits, dually entitled spouse benefits, and dually entitled survivor benefits. It is critical to recognize, however, that these trends will not eliminate concerns about the adequacy and equity of Social Security benefits. As the debate regarding how to “save” Social Security intensifies, progressives must effec- tively make the case that privatizing Social Security would mean less retirement income for the majority of Americans and would be particularly harmful to women. The Social Security program can be protected for future generations of retirees without introducing the risk of and high cost of individual private accounts. Further, progressives must advocate strongly that this current period of reform offers an opportunity not only to protect but also to raise the safety net of Social Security for older women who are at high risk for poverty.

The profession of social work has a long history of grass- roots advocacy and speaking out about the role of govern- ment in protecting our nation’s most vulnerable citizens. Social workers, individually and collectively through the National Association of Social Workers, can play a significant role in communicating concerns about the president’s pri- vatization plans, particularly for women. As a historically female profession, social work represents an important voice in working to preserve and strengthen Social Security not only for the current cohort of older women but also for our daughters, granddaughters, and great-granddaughters.

References Administration on Aging. (2002). A profile of older Americans: 2002.

Retrieved May 20, 2005, from http://www.aoa.gov/prof/Statistics/profile/2002profile.pdf

American Association of Retired Persons. (2005, February 12). AARP and Social Security: A background briefing. Retrieved May 20, 2005, www.aarp.org/socialsecurity

Anzick, M. A., & Weaver, D. A. (2001). Reducing poverty among elderly women. ORES Working Paper Series Number 87. Washington DC: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation and Statistics.

Binstock, R. (2002). The politics of enacting reform. In S. H. Altman & D. I. Schatman (Eds.), Policies for an aging society (pp. 346–377). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

Board of Trustees, Old Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance. (2004). Annual report of the Board of Trustees of the federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance trust funds. Washington, DC: Author.

Burkhauser, R. V., & Smeeding, T. M. (1994). Social Security reform: A budget neutral approach to reducing older women’s disproportionate risk of poverty. Syracuse, NY: Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs/Center for Policy Research.

Callahan, D. (1999). Still with us: Elderly poverty in America. The American Prospect. 10(45), 74–77.

Cavanaugh, F. X. (2002). Feasibility of Social Security individual accounts. Washington, DC: Public Policy Institute, AARP.

Congressional Budget Office. (2004). The outlook for Social Security. Washington, DC: Author.

FAMILIES IN SOCIETY | Volume 86, No. 3

346

Diamond, P. A. (1998). The economics of Social Security reform. In R. D. Arnold, M. J. Graetz, & A. H. Munnell (Eds.), Framing the Social Security debate: Values, politics, and economics (pp. 38–64). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Diamond, P. A., & Orszag, P. R. (2003). Understanding the legacy debt in Social Security. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute.

Favreault, M. M., & Sammartino, F. J. (2002). Impact of Social Security reform on low-income and older women. Washington, DC: Public Policy Institute, AARP.

Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics. (2002). Older Americans 2000: Key indicators of well-being. Hyattsville, MD: Author.

FitzPatrick, C.S., & Entmacher, J. (2000). Increasing economic security for elderly women by improving Social Security survivor benefits. Retrieved October 1, 2005, http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/NASIwidows2.pdf

Flippen, C., & Tienda, M. (2000). Pathways to retirement: Patterns of labor force participation and labor market exist among the pre- retirement populations by race, Hispanic origin, and sex. Journal of Gerontology: Psychology and Social Sciences, 55, S14–S27.

Harrington Meyer, M. (1996). Making claims as workers or wives: The distribution of Social Security benefits. American Sociological Review, 61, 449–465.

Herd, P. (2002). Care credits: Race, gender, class and Social Security reform. Public Policy and Aging Report, 12, 13–18.

Hudson, K. (2000). No shortage of “nonstandard” jobs. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Kijakazi, K. (2003, June). Low-wage earners: Options for improving their retirement income. Retrieved October 1, 2005, http://www.centeronbudget.org/6-13-03socsec.pdf.

Lee, S., & Shaw, L. (2003). Gender and economic security in retirement. Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

Moody, H. R. (2002). What is the future of Social Security? In H. R. Moody (Ed.), Aging: Concepts and controversies (4th ed., pp. 215–250). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Munnell, A. (1999). Reforming Social Security: The case against individual accounts. Boston: Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. (2004, October). Disability insurance & survivors’ benefits. Retrieved May 20, 2005, http://www.ncpssm.org/news/archive/vp_surviorsbene

National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. (2005, January). Social Security’s real ‘crisis’ is one of morals. Retrieved February 01, 2005, http://www.ncpssm.org/news/archive/nathansonoped.

National Women’s Law Center. (2002, May 10). Women and Social Security reform: What’s at stake? Washington, DC: Author.

National Women’s Law Center. (2003, January). Women of color and Social Security. Washington, DC: Author.

Older Women’s League. (2002). Social Security privatization: A false promise for women. Washington, DC: Author.

Older Women’s League. (2003). Women and retirement income. Washington, DC: Author.

Quadagno, J. (1999). Creating a capital investment welfare state: The new American exceptionalism. American Sociological Review, 64, 1–11.

Rappaport, F. S. (2004, May 21). Women and Social Security: Important issues for financial security of older Americans. Report presented to Mercer Human Resource Consulting, New York.

Rose, S. J., & Hartmann, H. I. (2004). Still a man’s labor market: The long- term earnings gap. Washington, DC: Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

Shaw, L., & Hill, C. (2001). The gender gap in pension coverage: What does the future hold? Retrieved October 1, 2005, http//www.iwpr.org/pdf/e507.pdf

Smallhout, J. H. (2002). Benefit design choices for personal Social Security accounts. Benefits Quarterly, 18, 44–64.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2003, October). Women at work: A visual essay. Monthly Labor Review, 46–50. Retrieved October 1, 2005, http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2003/10/ressum3.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau. (2001, October). The 65 years and over population: 2000. Census 2000 brief. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2004a). Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2003. Retrieved October 10, 2005, http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau. (2004b, August). Median earning of workers 15 years old and over by work experience and sex. Retrieved October 10, 2005, http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-203.pdf

Weir, D. R., Willis, R. J., & Sevak, P. A. (2002). The economic consequences of widowhood. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Michigan Retirement Research Center.

Williamson, J. B. (2002). What’s next for Social Security: Partial privatization? Generations, 26, 34–39.

Wu, K. B. (2003). Poverty experience of older persons: A poverty study from a long-term perspective. Washington, DC: AARP.

Judith G. Gonyea, PhD, is associate professor and chair, Boston University School of Social Research, Boston, MA. Nancy R. Hooyman, PhD, is endowed professor of gerontology and dean emeritus, University of Washington School of Social Work, Seattle, WA. Correspondence regarding this article may be sent to the first author at [email protected] or Boston University, School of Social Work, 264 Bay State Road, Boston, MA 02215.

Manuscript received: November 15, 2004 Revised: March 24, 2005 Accepted: March 25, 2005

696

Predictors of Homelessness among Older Adults in New York City

Disability, Economic, Human and Social Capital and Stressful Events

MARYBETH SHINN, JAMIE GOTTLIEB, JESSICA L. WETT, & AJAY BAHL New York University, USA ARNOLD COHEN & DEBORAH BARON ELLIS The Partnership for the Homeless, USA

Abstract

We interviewed 61 housed and 79 homeless adults aged 55 and over about disability; economic, human and social capital; and stressful life events prior to becoming homeless. Over half of the homeless group had previously led conventional lives. Human capital, social capital and life events were more important than disability or economic capital in predicting homelessness. The homeless adults were younger, more likely to be male and better educated than housed adults, but had shorter job tenure and fewer social ties. Homeless adults faced multiple, cascading risks, including job loss and housing loss. Implications for prevention are discussed.

Journal of Health Psychology Copyright © 2007 SAGE Publications Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore www.sagepublications.com Vol 12(5) 696–708 DOI: 10.1177/1359105307080581

AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S . We thank the Partnership for the Homeless for funding interview incentives, the Jacob A. Riis Settlement House for furnishing the comparison group, Marcia Liu for data entry and interviewers. We are especially grateful to respondents, both homeless and housed. This article is based in part on an undergraduate honors thesis by Jamie Gottlieb.

C O M P E T I N G I N T E R E S T S : None declared.

A D D R E S S . Correspondence should be directed to: MARYBETH SHINN, New York University, 715 Broadway, Room 201, New York, NY 10003, USA. [email: [email protected]]

Keywords

■ aging ■ disability ■ homelessness ■ life events ■ social capital

UNTIL RECENTLY, homelessness among older adults in the United States seemed to be vanquished. In 1973 a book on homeless adults in New York was entitled Old men drunk and sober (Bahr & Caplow, 1973), but by the 1980s attention shifted to ‘the new homeless’: young minority men and families (e.g. New York Commission on the Homeless, 1992). In 1990, adults aged 50–61 used shelter at less than a third the rate, and adults aged 62 and over less than a 15th the rate, of adults aged 18–39 (0.41%, 0.09% and 1.40–1.45% of the population respectively, Culhane & Metraux, 1999). But homelessness among older adults is again on the rise. This study asks why, and what to do about it.

The reduction in poverty among adults aged 65 and older in the United States from 35 percent in 1960 to 10 percent in 1995 is widely hailed as an accomplish- ment of Social Security. However, although older people continued to make progress relative to the poverty line until the mid-1990s, progress relative to median non-elderly income stagnated in the 1980s (Engelhardt & Gruber, 2004). Further, the poverty rate for people aged 65 and older is nearly twice as high in New York City as in the nation as a whole (17.7% vs 9.4% in 2004, US Census Bureau Factfinder, n.d.). Perhaps as a consequence, the age of homeless New Yorkers is creeping up again. Single adults in New York’s shelter system were an average of five years older in 2002 than in 1988. Those over 40 made up 53 percent of the total in 2002, compared to less than 30 percent in 1988 (New York City Department of Homeless Services, n.d.). By 2005, 13 percent of residents of single adult shelters were 55 and over (M. Schretzman, Associate Commissioner, NYC Department of Homeless Services, personal communication, October 2005).

It is natural that homeless adults should age along with the overall population, but why might they be aging faster? One possibility is that individuals once dubbed the ‘new homeless’ remained homeless as they grew older. Cohen suggests that ‘personal risk factors [for homelessness] may accumulate over a lifetime’ and enculturation to street or shelter may prolong homelessness, although systemic and programmatic factors also matter (2004, p. 425). He reports that older homeless men ‘commonly have long histories of homelessness’ whereas homelessness among older women is more often caused by a crisis (2004, p. 428). However, studies of shelter records indicate that relatively few people are chronically homeless; most exit from this state (Culhane, Dejowski, Ibanez, Needham, & Macchia, 1994).

Another possibility is that as incomes stagnate and housing costs rise, adverse events may lead older adults to become homeless for the first time late in life. Indeed, in a cross-national study in England, Australia and the United States, Crane et al. (2005) found that of older adults who became homeless within the last two years, two-thirds (four-fifths in the United States) had never been homeless before. However, by definition, this study did not include adults with long, continuous histories of homelessness.

The current study has two goals. First, we examine risk factors for homelessness by comparing homeless and housed but poor adults over the age of 55. Based on prior research with homeless populations of differ- ent ages, we hypothesize that five classes of factors would differentiate homeless adults from their housed counterparts. These include disability, economic, human and social capital and stressful events in the period leading up to homelessness. In order to under- stand potential causes of homelessness, we tied our assessment to the last year that study participants spent in conventional housing, that is an apartment or a house. Second, we use narrative descriptions of respondents’ lives to understand the extent to which homeless older adults always had tenuous ties to housing or led relatively conventional lives before becoming homeless in old age.

Disability

Numerous studies have found elevated levels of physical health problems, mental illness and substance abuse among homeless single adults both in the United States (Burt et al., 1999; Koegel, Burnam, & Baumohl, 1996) and in Europe (Firdion & Marpsat, 2007; Muñoz, Crespo, & Pérez-Santos, 2005; Philippot, Lecocq, Sempoux, Nachtergael, & Galand, 2007). Gelberg, Linn and Mayer-Oakes (1990) found more chronic disease and functional disability among home- less individuals over 50 than among younger homeless people. They and others have concluded that in terms of health, homeless people over 50 resemble the gen- eral population over 65 (Cohen, 1999; Gelberg et al., 1990). Substance use and mental illness accounted for 69 percent of hospitalizations among homeless adults in New York City, from 2001–3 compared with 10 percent in the general population (Kerker et al., 2005), although it is important to realize that a single person can account for multiple hospitalizations. We expected that high levels of disability would also predate homelessness.

SHINN ET AL.: PREDICTORS OF HOMELESSNESS AMONG OLDER ADULTS

697

Economic capital

Homeless individuals live in deep poverty, with aver- age incomes in a national survey of only $367 per month in 1996 (Burt et al., 1999). We hypothesized that poverty would predate homelessness. In particu- lar we expected that low levels of income (in the job participants held for the longest period) and high levels of economic stressors (in the last year in conventional housing) would predict homelessness. In the United States, a home is the primary economic asset for middle-class adults, but New York is a city of renters, and poor adults are unlikely to own homes. Thus we examined title to housing, defined as owning a home or having one’s name on the lease rather than doubling up with others. We also examined housing quality. The protective effect of a housing subsidy— another form of economic capital—could not be exam- ined, because comparison group members all had subsidized housing.

Human capital

Human capital refers not to economic assets but to the ability to earn them. We considered educational attain- ment and work history as measures of human capital, and predicted that low levels of both would predict homelessness. Caton et al. (2000) found low educa- tional levels to be a risk factor for homelessness among men in New York.

Social capital

Social capital refers to the social and organizational ties on which individuals can draw for assistance. Many studies have found that homeless individuals and families lack social supports, or wear out their welcome with relatives and friends before becoming homeless, although findings are not uniform (Shinn, Knickman, & Weitzman, 1991). We assessed the extent to which children, or other relatives and friends, would serve as housing resources, and also examined respondents’ participation in community-based orga- nizations. We hypothesized that social capital would be negatively related to homelessness. A number of studies have found that disruptive childhood experi- ences, such as abuse or being in foster care, are asso- ciated with homelessness (Herman, Susser, Struening, & Link, 1997; Shinn et al., 1991). We assessed such experiences as negative indicators of social capital but posed no hypothesis, because it was unclear whether

childhood disruptions would have enduring conse- quences for older adults.

Stressful life events

Crane et al. (2005) describe events or transitions that may serve as ‘triggers’ for homelessness in older adults such as widowhood, marital breakdown, stop- ping work, evictions and onset or increased severity of mental illness. (We included the last under disability.) We hypothesized that stressful life events would be associated with homelessness. However, life transi- tions may also be common for older adults who remain securely housed. Here, as for all measures, our strategy was comparative. We asked not simply about the levels of disability, capital and stressful events among homeless adults during their last period of stable housing, but about the relative levels in homeless and housed but poor adults, and the extent to which each factor predicted homelessness in the context of the others.

Method

Participants Participants were 79 homeless and 61 housed adults aged 55 and older. Homeless adults were recruited from Peter’s Place, the only drop-in center in New York City dedicated to serving adults 55 and older. Drop-in centers are low-demand settings that provide food, social, medical and housing services to home- less individuals coming off the street. They are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Some participants go to informal night shelters in churches and return to the drop-in center during the day; others remain on chairs in the drop-in center at night or return intermit- tently to the street. Peter’s Place often serves older adults wary of the city’s mixed-age shelter system. Housed respondents were recruited from a settlement house serving a public housing project in New York City, ensuring that all were low income. Based on directors’ estimates of attendance at the two agencies during the interview period, response rates were approximately 82 percent for the homeless adults and 68 percent for the housed adults.

Procedure Interviewers (undergraduate and graduate psychology students who received extensive training) visited the drop-in center and settlement house repeatedly over a period of several months, becoming a familiar

JOURNAL OF HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY 12(5)

698

presence. Respondents, who were paid $20, could sign up for interviews, or were solicited informally by interviewers. After giving informed consent, partici- pants were interviewed in English or Spanish in private spaces for about an hour.

Two measures were used to assure respondents’ competence to provide data. First, we included a mea- sure of cognitive competence (Chestnut Health Systems, n.d.), however, individuals with failing scores were primarily non-native speakers of English and, in the interviewers’ judgments, difficulties had to do with language rather than memory. Interviewers also rated the coherence and consistency of the interview. Three interviews with homeless respondents, one rated as having ‘serious problems of coherence or consistency’, one terminated by the interviewer when the respondent seemed confused and one broken off by an agitated respondent were excluded from analysis.

Measures Most measures were tied to a ‘target year’, that is the most recent 12-month period in which the respondent had lived continuously in conventional housing with- out a move, in order to understand how events and conditions in this year may have precipitated home- lessness. The interviewer obtained a housing history to identify the last residence that qualified, and asked several questions about its location, who else lived there and when and why the respondent left in order to fix the location in the respondent’s mind. For 59 of 61 comparison respondents, but none of the homeless respondents, this target year was the 12 months imme- diately preceding the interview.

Measures of disabilities included physical disabil- ity, mental disability and substance use in the target year. Physical disability included reports that health problems affected ability to carry out any of five tasks (e.g. engage in moderate physical activity such as car- rying groceries or climbing stairs), or hospitalization for a medical problem. Mental disability included reports that a ‘mental or nervous problem’ affected ‘your ability to do the things you had to do’ or hospi- talization ‘for a nervous problem’. A substance prob- lem included reports of using marijuana or other drugs weekly, having any of four other symptoms of abuse of alcohol or drugs from the GAIN–Short Screener (Chestnut Health Systems, n.d., e.g. ‘did you try to hide that you were using alcohol, marijuana or other drugs’), or staying overnight in a detox facility.

Measures of economic capital included income for the final year at the longest job the respondent had held, and economic stressors, title to housing and

building problems during the target year. Income at the longest job was divided by the poverty threshold for the relevant year, to adjust for inflation. Economic stressors were assessed by an eight-item scale (based on Pearlin & Schooler, 1978) with high scores indicat- ing high levels of stressors (Cronbach’s alpha = .90). Items asked about inability to afford necessities (e.g. ‘the kind of food you should have’) and difficulties with finances. Because the items used different response scales, they were standardized before averag- ing, and the average was again standardized to make units meaningful. Title to housing assessed whether the respondent owned a residence or was named on a rental lease. A count of four serious building problems (e.g. lack of heat for a week or more in winter, rats; Shinn et al., 1998) indexed housing quality.

Measures of human capital included receipt of a high school (or equivalency) diploma and length of the longest job the respondent had ever held. Measures of social capital included a count of six dis- ruptive events in youth such as living in foster care, or being physically abused, reported by the respondent before age 18 (Shinn et al., 1991), and three adult measures: child housing resource indicated that the respondent had at least one child who would allow the respondent to stay with him or her. Relative/friend housing resource indicated that the respondent had a friend or a relative who would allow this. Organiza- tional ties were scored on a three-point scale where 0 indicated no organizational affiliations in the target year; 1 indicated attendance at a place of worship, community or senior center, or other club or regular meeting (excluding the agencies where we sampled respondents) and 2 indicated that someone would ask about a respondent who missed a meeting or did not go for a long time.

Stressful life events was a count of the number out of 11 events the respondent experienced during the target year. Events were related to housing (eviction, being told to leave), employment (job loss), relation- ships (divorce, ceasing to live with a partner, spouse or family member’s death or illness) and criminal victim- ization or involvement (self or family member arrested or jailed).

After the interview, the interviewer wrote a ‘thumbnail sketch’ of the respondent’s life and, for homeless respondents, the circumstances that led to housing loss. The interviewer also rated the coher- ence and consistency of the interview, and the extent to which homeless respondents had a ‘con- ventional life’ in terms of housing and employment prior to becoming homeless. To assure consistency

SHINN ET AL.: PREDICTORS OF HOMELESSNESS AMONG OLDER ADULTS

699

in the latter ratings, two experienced interviewers re-read the full set of thumbnail sketches for homeless respondents, and rated respondents again, focusing on whether the respondent had a stable lifestyle for a decade or more before becoming homeless. Agreement, corrected for chance (kappa) between the two sets of ratings was .75; disagreements were resolved by consensus.

Missing data Thirty-five respondents (25%) were unable to recall their income for the final year at their longest job, and we doubted the accuracy of additional reports. Thus we use this variable descriptively, but exclude it from regression analyses. No other variable was missing data for more than 3 percent of cases, and missing data were scattered. We used the Expectation Maximization method, SPSS version 14.0, to impute missing values for regression analyses (excluding income from the data used for imputation).

Results

Description of sample Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of homeless and housed respondents as of the time of the interview. Housed respondents were approximately seven years older (and 13 years older during the ‘tar- get year’ in which both groups were in conventional housing, see Table 2). They were also much more likely to be female and Black, and marginally less likely to be foreign born. Few respondents in either group were currently married. Housed respondents were more likely to be widowed, and homeless respon- dents more likely never to have married.

Surprisingly, the homeless respondents were sub- stantially better educated than the housed comparison group. Just under half of the housed group had com- pleted high school, and only 13 percent had any post- high school education, whereas three-quarters of the homeless group had completed high school and

JOURNAL OF HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY 12(5)

700

Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of homeless and housed groups

Homeless group Housed group Test of difference (N = 79) (N = 61) (t or χ²)

Age, years, mean (SD) 63.6 (7.6) 70.5 (7.4) 6.88*** Female, % 19 77 49.74*** Race/ethnicity, % 22.26***

Blacka 41 75 Latino 13 13 White 33 8 Other 14 3

Foreign birth % 30 17 3.57t

Marital status, % 30.19*** Married 4 13 Separated 17 16 Divorced 23 15 Widowed 19 49 Single (never married) 37 7

Education, % 18.55** 8th grade or below 12 21 9th to 11th grade 14 30 Completed high school 31 36 Some college 27 8 College graduate 10 2 Post-graduate 6 3

Income/poverty line 4.1 (2.5) 2.6 (1.9) 3.51** (at end of longest job)b

tp < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 a Mostly African-American, but also African and Caribbean b Excluded from regression analyses due to 25 percent missing data

43 percent had some higher education. Reported jobs (including teacher, engineer, army officer and many business posts) were consistent with these educations. The homeless group also reported higher incomes at their longest job.

Prediction of homelessness We predicted homelessness from age (as of the target year), gender and measures of disability; economic, human and social capital; and stressful life events. Table 2 shows univariate relationships between variables in each domain and homelessness. Taken one at a time, only physical disability, building problems and disrup- tive events in youth failed to predict homelessness at p < .05.

Table 2 also shows the adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for a parsimonious multivariate

model, arrived at by backwards elimination: non- significant predictors were removed, one at a time, from a full model with all the predictors in the table, until only variables that were related to homelessness at p < .05 remained. To check whether the order of removal mattered, each excluded variable was added back to this parsimonious model individually; none of the excluded variables was related to homelessness at p < .10.1 The adjusted odds ratio is the amount by which the odds of homelessness are multiplied for each unit increase in the predictor variable, controlling for other variables in the model. For dichotomous vari- ables (such as gender or high school education) it is simply the amount by which the odds are multiplied for women, or for high school graduates. For variables measured in years, such as age or length of longest job, it is the amount by which the odds are multiplied for

SHINN ET AL.: PREDICTORS OF HOMELESSNESS AMONG OLDER ADULTS

701

Table 2. Predictors of homelessness along with odds ratios for logistic regression model predicting homelessness from life history and conditions in last year in conventional housing (target year)

Adjusted odds ratio Homeless group Housed group (95% confidence

Predictor: mean (with SD) or proportion (N = 79) (N = 61) interval)b

Demographics Age during target year 57.6 (10.3) 70.5 (7.4)*** 0.84 (0.74, 0.94) Female .19 .77*** 0.01 (0.00, 0.12)

Disability in target year Physical disability .42 .57t

Mental disability .24 .08* Substance problem .34 .05***

Economic capital in target year Economic stressors (Z-score) 0.2 (1.1) -0.3 (0.7)** Housing title .69 .89** # Building problems (out of 4) 0.6 (0.9) 0.6 (0.9)

Human capital High school or GED .74 .49** 38.52 (2.29, 648.68) Length of longest job (years) 10.8 (8.2) 17.1 (10.3)*** 0.81 (0.71, 0.93)

Social capital # Disruptive events in youth 0.8 (1.1) 0.6 (1.1) Child housing resource .33 .85*** 0.08 (0.01, 0.59) Relative/friend housing resource .25 .79*** 0.03 (0.00, 0.28) Organizational ties, mean (0–2 scale) 1.0 (0.9) 1.7 (0.6)***

Stressful life events in target year # of events 1.0 (1.1) 0.4 (0.6)*** Apartment or job lossa .48 .02*** 31.02 (1.99, 483.68)

tp < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 in univariate analyses predicting homelessness a Apartment or job loss in the target year was substituted, post hoc, for full index of stressful life events. The substitution did not change the significance of other predictors b Odds ratios are from the parsimonious model including all variables where odds ratios are given. No other variable reached significance at p < .10 in the context of this basic set

each year—a five-year increase in age multiplied the odds of homelessness by (.84)5 or .42. If the confidence interval includes 1, the variable is not significant (mul- tiplying by 1 yields no change). Because of the rela- tively small sample size, only rather substantial effects reached statistical significance.

In terms of demographic variables, homeless indi- viduals were younger and more likely to be male than housed individuals, and both these variables remained significant in the context of all other variables.

No form of disability was a significant predictor of homelessness in the context of other variables. The adjusted odds ratios when each variable was added to the parsimonious model were 1.18 for physical dis- ability and 1.08 for mental disability, suggesting that these forms of disability were not important to home- lessness. However, the confidence intervals were quite broad: (0.13, 10.54) for physical disability and (0.12, 9.38) for mental disability, so that neither large increases in the odds of homelessness nor large decreases could be ruled out. In the case of substance problems the adjusted odds ratio was substantial (9.13), suggesting that substance abuse could well be important to homelessness in this age group, but the broad confidence interval (0.58, 145.05), made it impossible to specify this association. (Both sub- stance abuse and homelessness were correlated with younger age and male gender.) No indicator of eco- nomic capital contributed to the final model, although economic stressors and title to housing were signifi- cant taking one variable at a time. Of these, title to housing seemed more likely to be important, with an adjusted odds ratio (when added to the parsimonious model) of 7.98, but a very broad confidence interval (0.54, 118.05). Both groups experienced relatively high levels of economic stressors in the target year, e.g. 38 percent of homeless and 31 percent of housed adults reported not having enough money to afford the kind of food they should have at least once in a while. Although we could not examine the association of housing subsidies with homelessness, because the comparison group was recruited from subsidized public housing, only 24 percent of homeless respon- dents had received a housing subsidy in their last year in stable housing.

The two indicators of human capital had opposite relationships to homelessness. As already noted, educational attainment was positively associated with homelessness, but length of the longest job was negatively associated. Housed individuals had worked over six years longer, on average, at the longest job they had held, but the homeless group

also had substantial work histories, with tenure at the longest job averaging almost 11 years.

Two measures of social capital were also signifi- cant predictors of homelessness controlling for other variables. Housed respondents were much more likely than homeless respondents to report having a child or another relative or friend who would house them. Nevertheless, a third of homeless respondents said a child would allow them to stay, and a quarter said someone else would do so. Why, then, were they homeless? Respondents commonly reported contentious relationships with someone in the house- hold, not wanting to impose or wanting to remain independent (14–19 respondents each). Other network members lived far away, had not been in touch with the respondent for years, lived in crowded circum- stances or were in the military or institutional settings (5–9 respondents each). (Respondents could offer dif- ferent reasons for different network members.)

Although homeless individuals reported over twice as many stressful life events in their last year in con- ventional housing as did housed respondents, the overall index of life events did not contribute to the prediction of homelessness, controlling for other vari- ables. A post hoc examination of specific life events showed that homeless respondents were far more likely than housed respondents to report events relat- ing to loss of housing or jobs during their last year in conventional housing: 25 percent had been evicted, 8 percent had been asked to leave by someone they were staying with and 22 percent had lost a job. Altogether, 48 percent of homeless but only 2 percent of housed respondents had experienced one or more of these events in their last year in conventional hous- ing. The average number of other events reported by the two groups (0.43 for homeless, 0.42 for housed) was virtually identical. An indicator that the respon- dent had lost an apartment or a job in the year before becoming homeless, when substituted for the life events index in the logistic regression analysis, was highly significant, increasing the odds of homeless- ness by a factor of 31 (with broad confidence bounds). No other variable changed in significance as a result. The odds ratios and confidence intervals in Table 2 are from the equation using the indicator of apartment or job loss.

Conventional lives and qualitative analyses We coded 42 or 53 percent of the 79 homeless respondents as having conventional lives prior to becoming homeless. This designation did not mean

JOURNAL OF HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY 12(5)

702

that individuals had no problems, simply that they managed to keep conventional housing and jobs for extended periods of time prior to becoming home- less late in life.

Table 3 shows differences between the homeless respondents coded as having more conventional and less conventional lives. The two groups were nearly the same age, but those with less conventional lives were 15 years younger on average, when they first became homeless, were four times as likely to have had multiple bouts of homelessness and, based on the thumbnail sketches, often had tenuous ties to housing throughout adulthood. The less conventional group was twice as likely to have had a substance problem in the target year and twice as likely to have experi- enced disruptive events in childhood. The more con- ventional group was more likely to have graduated from high school, and had held their longest job for almost twice as long, on average. They were also more likely to report organizational ties and that a child would allow them to stay. Although the groups did not differ on overall stressful life events or the combined index of apartment and job loss, the less conventional group was more likely to have lost a job and the more conventional group more likely to have lost housing during the target year. The groups did not differ on any other variables in Tables 1 and 2.

In summary, the less conventional group fit the pro- file of individuals with long histories of homelessness or housing instability and accumulated risk; the more conventional group did not. Why, then, did the latter group become homeless in old age? Summaries of the thumbnail sketches for five more conventional respondents give qualitative answers.

José (not his real name), age 77, graduated from college in Cuba, and came to the United States, where he owned a furniture business and raised eight chil- dren, before retiring and selling the business at age 72. Although he thought that he could live on his pension, he was soon unable to afford the rent for his long-time apartment, and was evicted. José is close to his chil- dren, but says that they are enjoying their lives and he does not want to be a burden to them, or a ‘pain in the neck’.

Bill, age 74, graduated from high school and lived in the same apartment for 50 years until age 68, when he developed a crippling physical illness which pre- vented him from working or living alone. He thus lost the construction job he had held for 15 years and was unable to afford his rent. He stayed with a nephew for two years and a sister for one year; but became home- less after ‘using up’ these social resources.

James, age 68, came to New York from a southern state in the 1960s. He had some college education,

SHINN ET AL.: PREDICTORS OF HOMELESSNESS AMONG OLDER ADULTS

703

Table 3. Differences between homeless individuals with more and less conventional lives

Less conventional More conventional Test of difference Characteristic: mean (SD) or proportion (N = 37) (N = 42) (t or χ²)

History of homelessness Age at interview 62.5 (6.6) 64.7 (8.4) 1.30 Age first homeless 44.2 (15.0) 59.4 (10.2) 5.06*** Multiple bouts of homelessness .70 .17 22.62***

Disability in target year Substance problem .49 .21 6.56*

Human capital High School or GED .62 .85 5.59* Length of longest job (years) 7.4 (6.1) 13.7 (8.8) 3.66***

Social capital # Disruptive events in youth 1.2 (1.3) 0.5 (0.8) 2.49* Child housing resource .19 .45 6.36* Organizational ties, mean (0–2 scale) 0.8 (0.9) 1.2 (0.8) 2.16*

Stressful life events in target year Evicted or asked to leave .19 .45 6.36* Job loss .35 .10 7.89**

*p < .05; ** p< .01; *** p< .001 The groups did not differ on gender, race, foreign birth, marital status, income relative to poverty line, mental or physical health, economic stressors, title to housing, building problems, relative/friend housing resource or the full index of stressful events

and owned a grocery store, from which he retired at age 67. A year later, he lost his apartment in a fire. The City placed him in a single-room occupancy hotel, which he left because it was dirty and infested with roaches. Although he could stay with either of his two children, he wants to get back on his feet in a place of his own.

Bob, age 58, is a Vietnam veteran with some college education who was diagnosed with generalized anxi- ety disorder, bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but nevertheless earned $70,000 a year in a management position for a bank. He became homeless at age 56 when the girlfriend with whom he had lived for seven years left. Two months later he left his job and lacked money to pay the rent. He had problems with both gambling and alcohol abuse, and reported stays in detox and in a hospital for both med- ical and nervous problems in that year.

Susan, age 86, became homeless at age 74 when she was evicted from the apartment where she had lived for 29 years for hoarding. She never married and had no children. She had some college education and had served in the military, done fundraising for a social service agency and worked as assistant public- ity director for a large arts organization, among other jobs. After an injury restricted her ability to work, she began to manage a thrift shop. She brought so many items home that it created a fire hazard. Susan has three elderly siblings who are in nursing homes or living with children and unable to help her.

These case studies suggest that the quantitative measures were sometimes too specific to capture respondents’ situations. Neither James, whose apart- ment burned down, nor Bob, who could not afford the rent after his girlfriend left, reported being evicted or asked to leave by someone they were stay- ing with. Other ‘conventional’ respondents reported losing their housing in ways our stressful event inventory did not capture (e.g. a flood, a death of the primary tenant, a shooting, a move that did not work out). No case-study respondent reported losing a job in the target year, although Bill and Susan lost jobs earlier, due to illness and injury, and Bob left work for unspecified reasons that may have been related to mental disability.

The case studies also show that it is typically the confluence of multiple risk factors or a cascade of events that make someone homeless, rather than just one. Susan was coded as having both a physical and a mental health problem in her last year in con- ventional housing, no child, friend or relative hous- ing resources and a relatively short period of five

years in her longest job (she held many jobs over the years). None the less, she remained housed until age 74, living in her last apartment for 29 years.

Based on the qualitative findings that homeless respondents experienced multiple risk factors, we did a final post hoc analysis. For each respondent we counted the number of 12 risk factors: physical dis- ability; mental disability; substance problem; eco- nomic stressors above the sample mean; lack of title to housing; longest job of less than 10 years; any dis- ruptive event in youth; lack of child housing resource; lack of relative/friend housing resource; lack of organizational ties; job loss in target year; and housing loss in target year. On average, homeless individuals had three more risk factors than did housed individuals (homeless M = 4.97, SD = 1.97; housed M = 2.05, SD = 1.51, t(138) = 9.60, p < .001). Among housed respondents, 67 percent had 0–2 risk factors and none had more than six. Among homeless respondents, only 10 percent had 0–2 risk factors, and 25 percent had 7–10. The only homeless respon- dent with no identifiable risk factors described giving everything up and taking to the street after his wife died, but his example shows the value of a compara- tive approach. As Table 1 shows, widowhood was far more common in the housed sample.

Discussion

Conventional lives Perhaps the most interesting finding to emerge from the study is that over half of the homeless respon- dents lived relatively conventional lives, typically involving long periods of employment and residen- tial stability before becoming homeless at an aver- age age of 59. Multiple events shifted people who were unsupported by family and society from these conventional lives into homelessness. Just under half of the homeless respondents had longer histo- ries of instability, more in line with earlier findings (e.g. Cohen, 2004). The dividing line between these groups is a fuzzy one—the slide into homelessness was often slow, with lives looking less conventional as time went on.

Predictors of homelessness The quantitative analyses isolated factors that differen- tiated the entire group of homeless adults from poor adults who remained housed. Key predictors were male gender, younger age, higher levels of education, shorter tenure in the longest job held, loss of an

JOURNAL OF HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY 12(5)

704

apartment or job while in conventional housing and lack of children or other ties who would provide hous- ing. Because confidence intervals were often broad, the study should not be interpreted as providing evi- dence against the contributions of other factors to homelessness. In particular, substance problems and title to housing may play important roles. The sam- pling design, in which all housed respondents were drawn from public housing, meant that the role of housing subsidies in protecting against homelessness could not be examined, despite their scarcity in the homeless group and importance to other populations in the same city (Shinn et al., 1998).

Demographic differences between groups were unsurprising. Studies of single homeless adults (e.g. Burt et al., 1999) typically find many more men than women whereas differential mortality leads to larger numbers of women than men among older adults generally. Very old adults may not be able to survive on the street (Gelberg et al., 1990). Adults who are too old to readily gain employment if they lose jobs but who are too young to be eligible for social secu- rity benefits may be at special risk as Okamoto (2007) also found in Japan. As in national studies (e.g. Burt et al., 1999), there were relatively more Black respondents in the homeless group than in New York City, but this was even truer of the comparison group.

More surprisingly, health and disability did not play a statistically significant role in predicting homelessness, although confidence intervals were broad, so that the data cannot rule out important asso- ciations, especially for substance abuse. Health may have deteriorated after individuals became homeless, consistent with other literature (e.g. Burt et al., 1999; Cohen, 1999; Firdion & Marpsat, 2007; Gelberg et al., 1990; Muñoz et al., 2005; Philippot et al., 2007). Also, the qualitative data suggest that disability sometimes precipitated other, more proximal causes of homelessness, and substance abuse was more common among the homeless adults with less con- ventional lives. Crane et al. (2005) also found that newly homeless older adults reported housing and relationship problems as more direct antecedents of homelessness than physical or mental health or sub- stance problems, which were sometimes ‘predispos- ing or contributory’.

Sample biases may have affected reported health. Adults with physical disabilities or dementia may be more likely to be in institutional settings, and those with substance problems or paranoia may be less likely to come into a drop-in center than to stay on the street. Interviewers and staff believed that poten-

tial homeless respondents who were not interviewed had more cognitive problems and mental illness than those who were, and the three homeless respondents whose interviews were not usable were more agitated or less coherent than those whose interviews were analyzed. On the other hand, Gelberg et al. (1990) found older homeless adults less likely than younger ones to have psychotic symptoms, and no more likely to have memory loss.

Economic capital also seemed relatively unimpor- tant. No predictors were significant, although having title to housing could not be ruled out as a protective factor. Levels of economic stressors were high for both groups, but may not have threatened homeless- ness for the comparison group whose public housing rents were tied to income.

The high levels of educational-level attainment among homeless respondents, and their rates of par- ticipation in college and post-graduate education, were surprising. Nor did the higher education levels of homeless adults with conventional than with unconventional lives protect them from housing loss. The other indicator of human capital, tenure in the longest job a respondent had held, favored the housed group, as expected. Even so, homeless respondents averaged 10.8 years and those with conventional lives averaged 13.7 years in their longest jobs. We did not assess the total number of years that respondents worked, but it is clear that many had a series of responsible and often well-paid jobs commensurate with their educational levels.

Social ties, especially ties to children who would allow the respondent to stay with them, were an important protective factor. Organizational ties (which were not explicitly tied to housing) were less important. The number of homeless individuals who declined opportunities to stay with children or relatives may suggest that they overestimated these resources. In some cases, such as Bill’s, respon- dents had stayed with others and had worn out their welcome. (Note that 11 percent of the housed sample did not have title to housing, but were dou- bled up with others who may have protected them from homelessness.)

It is also interesting that disruptive experiences in childhood, which have been robust predictors of homelessness in younger samples (e.g. Herman et al., 1997), were not important after controlling for other variables here. Such disruptive childhood experiences were relatively high among homeless adults with unconventional lives, suggesting that they may play an indirect role, by setting processes

SHINN ET AL.: PREDICTORS OF HOMELESSNESS AMONG OLDER ADULTS

705

in motion that lead to more proximal predictors of homelessness.

Stressful life events during the last year in conven- tional housing did not predict homelessness, but events that indicated loss of resources (eviction, being asked to leave, job loss) did. This post hoc selection of events that best differentiated the groups should be replicated. It is also possible that the low levels of such events in the comparison group is an artifact. Housed individuals had been living in their present apartment in public housing for a median of 26 years, and were largely retired (only 21 percent of the comparison group, compared to 53 percent of the homeless group had been employed since 2000, χ²(1, n = 140) = 15.2, p < .001). Thus they were unlikely to have lost jobs or housing in the past year. Nevertheless, it is plausible that events that affected access to housing resources and income would be particularly important to homelessness (see similar findings by Okamoto, 2007).

Limitations The study has several limitations. Ideally, we would compare a random sample of homeless individuals over the age of 55 with a random sample of poor adults of the same age. Because Peter’s Place is the only drop-in center for older adults in New York City, the homeless sample is not a bad one, but may still differ from samples drawn from institutions or the street. The comparison sample is more limited because all had access to subsidized housing and were recruited at a settlement house, so they were unlikely to be socially isolated.

Focusing the interview on the last year in stable housing (the target year) was both a strength and lim- itation of the study. Collecting information on respon- dents’ circumstances prior to homelessness (or the most recent instance of homelessness, for respondents with multiple bouts) justified considering these cir- cumstances as predictors rather than consequences of homelessness, and may account for differences between this study and others with respect to health. However, retrospective recall of past events may mag- nify biases inherent in self-report data and the longer time lag for homeless than for housed respondents may have led to differential recall in the two groups. Future research might have housed respondents recall a period three years in the past (the median time lag for homeless respondents). Focusing on a year in stable housing also minimized reporting of events incom- patible with such housing, such as imprisonment. In

addition to focusing on the last period in stable hous- ing, future research might inquire about earlier events.

Implications for prevention Despite these limitations, this study provides useful guidance for preventing homelessness among older adults, and challenges some assumptions that might be drawn from considering only the circumstances of people who are currently homeless. The analysis of health and disability suggests that efforts to provide more health services, however valuable on other grounds, may do little to prevent homelessness. Rather, the analysis of stressful life events suggests that efforts to prevent homelessness late in life should target those who lose jobs or housing for any reason. Cohen (1999) found that 80 percent of older homeless men wanted to be employed and 56 percent had been continually looking for work. Over half of the home- less respondents in our sample had recent work histo- ries. Age discrimination in employment is illegal in the United States, although laws are not always enforced. Older workers can face difficulties finding new work if they are laid off, or if illness or injury requires a period of unemployment or a change in activity. Providing jobs for adults aged 50–64, who do not qualify for entitlements available to older adults, could prevent some homelessness (Cohen, 1999).

Older adults and those with disabilities should be helped to apply for available income supports. However, housing costs put even adults who work full time at risk of homelessness, and place unsubsidized housing out of reach for people receiving disability benefits. The fair market rent for a one-bedroom apartment in New York City during the study was $1003 per month—more than the entire after-tax income of a full-time minimum wage worker (National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2005), and much more than such a person would receive in retire- ment. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for dis- abled individuals was only $666 per month.

Thus, rent subsidies are important supports for older adults, but in our study, only one-quarter of respondents on the verge of homelessness received one. Both general subsidies (e.g. Section 8) and those targeted to older adults (e.g. Section 202) should be expanded. New York’s Senior Citizens Rent Increase Exemption Program, which exempts low-income senior citizens from increases in rent by giving landlords reductions in property taxes, is an entitlement, but should be publicized more broadly and extended to subsidize base rents (not

JOURNAL OF HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY 12(5)

706

just increases). New York City currently offers legal help to prevent eviction, but many older adults are unaware of their rights and do not access these programs. Additional inexpensive housing options, such as clean, safe single-room occupancy hotels for seniors, could also reduce homelessness.

Efforts might also focus on adults who lack family, especially children who would take them in. Social policy cannot change social ties, but it can provide in-home services to allow older people to remain independent, legal and other forms of advo- cacy with housing providers and access to benefits that might substitute for social resources.

Note

1. To check the robustness of this model, we added race (Black vs other) as a control; no variable changed significance at p<.05, but confidence intervals were broader. Race itself was not a sig- nificant predictor.

References

Bahr, H. M., & Caplow, T. (1973). Old men drunk and sober. New York: New York University Press.

Burt, M., Aron, L. Y., Douglas, T., Valente, J., Lee, E., & Iwen, B. (1999). Homelessness: Programs and the people they serve: Findings of the National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Caton, C. L., Hasin, D., Shrout, P. E., Opler, L. A., Hirshfield, S., Dominguez, B., & Felix, A. (2000). Risk factors for homelessness among indigent urban adults with no history of psychotic illness: A case-control study. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 258–263.

Chestnut Health Systems. (n.d.). GAIN–Short Screener (GAIN-SS). www.chestnut.org/li/gain (accessed 15 February 2005).

Cohen, C. I. (1999). Aging and homelessness. The Gerontol- ogist, 39, 5–14.

Cohen, C. I. (2004). Older homeless persons. In Encyclopedia of homelessness (pp. 425–431). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Crane, M., Byrne, K., Fu, R., Lipmann, B., Mirabelli, F., Rota-Bartelink, A. et al. (2005). The causes of home- lessness in later life: Findings from a 3-nation study. Journals of Gerontology, 60B, S152–S159.

Culhane, D. P., Dejowski, E. F., Ibanez, J., Needham, E., & Macchia, I. (1994). Public shelter admission rates in Philadelphia and New York City: The implications of turnover for sheltered population counts. Housing Policy Debate, 5, 107–140.

Culhane, D. P., & Metraux, S. (1999). One-year rates of public shelter utilization by race/ethnicity, age, sex and

poverty status for New York City (1990 and 1995) and Philadelphia (1995). Population Research and Policy Review, 18, 219–236.

Engelhardt, G. V., & Gruber, J. (2004). Social security and the evolution of elderly poverty. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 10466. Available at http:// www.nber.org/papers/w10466 (accessed 17 July 2006).

Firdion, J.-M., & Marpsat, M. (2007). A research program on homelessness in France. Journal of Social Issues 63(3), 567–587.

Gelberg, L., Linn, L. S., & Mayer-Oakes, S. A. (1990). Differences in health status between older and younger homeless adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 38, 1220–1229.

Herman, D. B., Susser, E. S., Struening, E. L., & Link, B. L. (1997). Adverse childhood experiences: Are they risk factors for adult homelessness? American Journal of Public Health, 87, 249–255.

Kerker, B., Bainbridg, E. J., Li, W., Kennedy, J., Bennani, Y., Agerton, T. et al. (2005). The health of homeless adults in New York City: A report from the New York City Depart- ments of Health and Mental Hygiene and Homeless Services. Available at http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/down- loads/pdf/epi/epi-homeless-200512.pdf (accessed 7 July 2006).

Koegel, P., Burnam, M. A., & Baumohl, J. (1996). The causes of homelessness. In J. Baumohl (Ed.), Homelessness in America (pp. 24–33). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.

Muñoz, M., Crespo, M., & Pérez-Santos, E. (2005). Homelessness effects on men’s and women’s health. International Journal of Mental Health, 34, 47–61.

National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2005). Out of reach 2005. http://www.nlihc.org/oor2005/ (accessed 3 July 2006).

New York City Commission on the Homeless. (1992). The way home: A new direction in social policy. New York: New York City Commission on the Homeless.

New York City Department of Homeless Services. (n.d.). Emerging trends in client demographics. Available at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dhs/downloads/pdf/demo- graphic.pdf (accessed 3 July 2006).

Okamoto,Y. (2007). A comparative study of homelessness in the United Kingdom and Japan. Journal of Social Issues 63(3), 525–542.

Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of cop- ing. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19, 2–21.

Philippot, P., Lecocq, C., Sempoux, F., Nachtergael, H., & Galand, B. (2007). Psychological research on homeless- ness in Western Europe: A review from 1970 to 2001. Journal of Social Issues 63(3), 483–503.

Shinn, M., Knickman, J. R., & Weitzman, B. C. (1991). Social relations and vulnerability to becoming homeless among poor families. American Psychologist, 46, 1180–1187.

Shinn, M., Weitzman, B. C., Stojanovic, D., Knickman, J. R., Jimenez, L., Duchon, L. et al. (1998). Predictors of homelessness among families in New York City: From

SHINN ET AL.: PREDICTORS OF HOMELESSNESS AMONG OLDER ADULTS

707

shelter request to housing stability. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 1651–1657.

US Census Bureau Factfinder. (n.d.). American commu- nity survey data for 2004. Available at http://factfinder.

census.gov/servlet/SAFFPeople?_submenuId=people_9 (accessed 17 July 2006).

JOURNAL OF HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY 12(5)

708

Author biographies

MARYBETH SHINN is Professor of Applied Psychology and Public Policy in the Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development and Wagner School of Public Service at New York University.

JAMIE GOTTLIEB is a first-year Distinguished Public Interest Scholar at Seton Hall School of Law. She graduated with honors from New York University in 2006 with a BA in Psychology.

JESSICA WETT received her BA in Psychology from New York University in 2006. She plans a career in social work.

AJAY BAHL is an aspiring psychiatrist who will graduate from NYU with a Psychology major in spring 2007. He hopes to pursue a Masters in Bioethics before attending medical school.

ARNOLD S. COHEN is President and CEO of the Partnership for the Homeless, which offers services, research and education to end homelessness. He worked previously as a public interest attorney.

DEBORAH BARON ELLIS, LCSW is Director of Older Adult Services at The Partnership for the Homeless. She is also director of Peter’s Place, a multi-service center for homeless older adults.

Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteEdu. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.

Do you need help with this question?

Get assignment help from WriteEdu.com Paper Writing Website and forget about your problems.

WriteEdu provides custom & cheap essay writing 100% original, plagiarism free essays, assignments & dissertations.

With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.

Click here to Place your Order Now