IWS Documented News DAILY POSTINGS

[IWS] NO MESSAGES until 26 August 2013

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Fri, 03 May 2013 15:25:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

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

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

Cornell University

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

NO MESSAGES will be sent until 26 August 2013.

________________________________________________________________________

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

[IWS] OECD TRADE FACILITATION INDICATORS [3 May 2013]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Fri, 03 May 2013 13:07:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

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

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

Cornell University

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

OECD TRADE FACILITATION INDICATORS [3 May 2013]

http://www.oecd.org/trade/facilitation/indicators.htm

To help governments improve their border procedures, reduce trade costs, boost trade flows and reap greater benefits from international trade, OECD has developed a set of trade facilitation indicators that identify areas for action and enable the potential impact of reforms to be assessed.

Press Release 3 May 2013

Trade facilitation agreement would add billions to global economy, says OECD

http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/trade-facilitation-agreement-would-add-billions-to-global-economy-says-oecd.htm

03/05/2013 - Multilateral agreement to cut red tape in international trade would dramatically reduce trading costs and add a substantial boost to the global economy, according to new OECD research.

The OECD Trade Facilitation Indicators estimate that comprehensive implementation of all measures currently being negotiated in the World Trade Organization’s Doha Development Round would reduce total trade costs by 10% in advanced economies and by 13-15.5% in developing countries. Reducing global trade costs by 1% would increase worldwide income by more than USD $40 billion, most of which would accrue in developing countries, according to the OECD.

“Trade facilitation is about easing access to the global marketplace,” OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría said. “Complicated border processes and excess red tape raise costs, which ultimately fall on businesses, consumers and our economies. The trade facilitation negotiations offer countries a golden opportunity to reduce or eliminate these bottlenecks, cut the cost of trading, boost the flow of goods and reap greater benefits from international trade,” Mr Gurría said.

The 16 new trade facilitation indicators correspond to the main policy areas under negotiation at the WTO, including the availability of trade-related information, the simplification and harmonisation of documents, the streamlining of procedures and the use of automated processes and advance rulings.

The Indicators estimate the impact of addressing specific hurdles in the trade and border procedures in 133 countries while guiding governments as they prioritise trade facilitation actions. The Indicators also offer a roadmap for the technical assistance and capacity-building efforts needed to ensure that emerging and developing economies make the most of trading opportunities.

OECD analysis shows that trade facilitation not only benefits importers. By reducing trade costs, facilitation also helps boosts exports significantly, thus allowing firms greater participation in the global value chains that characterise international trade.

Some of the key findings of this work also include the following:

· In some African countries, revenue losses from inefficient border procedures are estimated to exceed 5% of GDP;

· Harmonising and simplifying documents would reduce trade costs by 3% for low-income countries and by 2.7% for lower middle-income countries;

· Streamlining procedures would bring further trade cost reductions of 2.8% for upper middle-income countries, 2.2% for lower middle-income countries and 1% for advanced economies;

· Automating processes would reduce trade costs by more than 2% for all countries studied;

· Ensuring the availability of trade-related information would generate cost savings of 2% for advanced economies, 1.4% for lower middle-income countries and 1.6% for low-income countries.

The OECD work on trade facilitation indicators (TFIs) was undertaken to measure the relative economic and trade impact of trade facilitation measures currently under negotiation in the World Trade Organization (WTO) on trade flows and trade costs in all WTO member countries. Individual country analyses are available here.

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] BLS: THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- APRIL 2013 [3 May 2013]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Fri, 03 May 2013 12:35:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

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

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

Cornell University

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- APRIL 2013 [3 May 2013]

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

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

[full-text, 38 pages]

and

Supplemental Files Table of Contents

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

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 165,000 in April, and the unemployment

rate was little changed at 7.5 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

reported today. Employment increased in professional and business services,

food services and drinking places, retail trade, and health care.

Household Survey Data

The unemployment rate, at 7.5 percent, changed little in April but has

declined by 0.4 percentage point since January. The number of unemployed

persons, at 11.7 million, was also little changed over the month; however,

unemployment has decreased by 673,000 since January. (See table A-1.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for adult women

(6.7 percent) declined in April, while the rates for adult men (7.1

percent), teenagers (24.1 percent), whites (6.7 percent), blacks (13.2

percent), and Hispanics (9.0 percent) showed little or no change. The

jobless rate for Asians was 5.1 percent (not seasonally adjusted),

little changed from a year earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

In April, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27

weeks or more) declined by 258,000 to 4.4 million; their share of the

unemployed declined by 2.2 percentage points to 37.4 percent. Over the

past 12 months, the number of long-term unemployed has decreased by

687,000, and their share has declined by 3.1 percentage points. (See

table A-12.)

The civilian labor force participation rate was 63.3 percent in April,

unchanged over the month but down from 63.6 percent in January. The

employment-population ratio, 58.6 percent, was about unchanged over

the month and has shown little movement, on net, over the past year.

(See table A-1.)

In April, the number of persons employed part time for economic

reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers)

increased by 278,000 to 7.9 million, largely offsetting a decrease in

March. These individuals were working part time because their hours

had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.

(See table A-8.)

In April, 2.3 million persons were marginally attached to the labor

force, essentially unchanged from a year earlier. (The data are not

seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force,

wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime

in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because

they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.

(See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 835,000 discouraged workers

in April, down by 133,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not

seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently

looking for work because they believe no jobs are available for them.

The remaining 1.5 million persons marginally attached to the labor

force in April had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the

survey for reasons such as school attendance or family responsibilities.

(See table A-16.)

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

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] BLS: GEOGRAPHIC GUIDE (to DATA from International to Local Area)

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Fri, 03 May 2013 12:31:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

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

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

Cornell University

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

GEOGRAPHIC GUIDE

http://www.bls.gov/guide/geography/

When seeking information by geographic area (International to local), this guide can be extremely useful.

Clicking on a 'More' button below will take you to a new table showing detailed data availability by area.

	International	National	Region	Division	State	Metropolitan Area	County	City or Town
Inflation, Prices, and Consumer Spending	More »	More »	More »			More »
Employment and Unemployment	More »	More »	More »	More »	More »	More »	More »	More »
Pay and Benefits	More »	More »	More »	More »	More »	More »	More »
Productivity	More »	More »
Workplace Injuries		More »			More »	More »
Economic and Employment Projections		More »			More »

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] CRS: U.S. HOUSEHOLD SAVINGS FOR RETIREMENT IN 2010 [30 April 2013]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Fri, 03 May 2013 12:17:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

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

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

Cornell University

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

U.S. Household Savings for Retirement in 2010

John J. Topoleski, Analyst in Income Security

April 30, 2013

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43057.pdf

[full-text, 24 pages]

Summary

Whether households have sufficient savings from which to ensure adequate income throughout

retirement is a concern of households and, therefore, policymakers. The retirement income

landscape has been changing over the past few decades. Although most households are eligible to

receive Social Security benefits in retirement, over the past 30 years, the types of non-Social

Security sources of retirement income have been changing. About half of the U.S. workforce is

covered by an employer-sponsored pension plan. An increasing number of employers offer

defined contributions (DC) pension plans (i.e., tax-advantaged accounts in which employee, and

sometimes employer, contributions accrue investment returns) in lieu of traditional defined

benefit (DB) pension plans (i.e., monthly payments to a retiree by a former employer). This shift

in the nature of employer-sponsored pensions places more responsibility on workers to financially

prepare for their own retirement. Households also save for retirement using Individual Retirement

Accounts (IRAs), into which contributions, up to a specified limit, are tax-deductible for

individuals without an employer-sponsored pension or who have an employer-sponsored pension

and who earn less than specified limits.

Congress has several reasons for its interest in the retirement preparedness of American

households: income from Social Security may be insufficient to provide for an adequate standard

of living in retirement for U.S. households; congressional actions may encourage or discourage

employer and household efforts to provide for their own well-being in retirement; and the U.S.

Treasury will forego $117 billion in FY2013 as a result of tax policies that are designed to

encourage employer and worker retirement savings. President Obama’s FY2014 budget would

prohibit contributions to DC pension plans and IRAs that have a value over $3.4 million. This

threshold is specified to be equivalent to the maximum annual payment allowed from a DB

pension plan, which is $205,000 in 2013.

This report provides data on a variety of household wealth measures in 2010 from the Federal

Reserve’s triennial Survey of Consumer Finances. Although the amount of retirement assets is the

primary focus of the report, other measures of wealth (such as the amount of total assets, financial

assets, total debt, net worth, and housing equity) are also included. The report classifies the

amount of assets and debt by the age of the head of the household for both single and married

households. In general, the amount of household wealth is higher for married households than for

single households. Household wealth generally increases as the age of the head of the household

increases, although some measures decrease for those households in which the head of the

household is aged 75 or older. In general, the median values are less than the average values,

which is an indication that some households hold relatively large amounts of wealth compared

with most households.

Among households with retirement assets, households in which the head is younger than 55 years

old are more likely to own DC pension plan assets than they are likely to own assets from IRAs,

whereas households in which the head is aged 55 or older are more likely to have IRA assets.

Ownership of a principal residence is likely to be a factor that affects the accumulation of

retirement assets. An important saving goal for younger households is home ownership, whereas

preparing for retirement is an important saving goal for older households. As the age of the head

of the household increases, the percentage of assets represented by the household’s principal

residence decreases, although there is not a discernible pattern to the percentage of wealth that

retirement assets represent.

Contents

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

Types of Retirement Plans and Accounts ......................................................................................... 3

Defined Benefit Pension Plans .................................................................................................. 3

Defined Contribution Pension Plans .......................................................................................... 3

Individual Retirement Accounts ................................................................................................ 3

Household Net Worth in 2010 ......................................................................................................... 4

Assets, Debt, and Net Worth Among Single and Married Households in 2010 .............................. 5

Defined Contribution and IRA Balances Among All Households in 2010 .................................... 11

Percentage of Households with an IRA Balance, DC Plan Balance, or DB Pension in

2010 ............................................................................................................................................ 13

DC and IRA Balances Among Households with DC or IRA Balances in 2010 ............................ 14

Value of a Principal Residence as a Percentage of Total Assets in 2010 ....................................... 15

Home Equity as a Percentage of the Value of the Principal Residence in 2010 ............................ 16

Implications for Policy................................................................................................................... 17

Figures

Figure 1. Net Worth in 2010 Among Single and Married Households ............................................ 5

Figure 2. DC Plan and IRA assets in 2010 Among Single and Married Households .................... 11

Figure 3. Percentage of Households in 2010 with an IRA Balance, DC Account Balance, or a Defined Benefit Pension ........................ 14

Figure 4. DC and IRA Balances in 2010 Among Single and Married Households with DC or IRA Balances ......................................... 15

Figure 5. Value of a Principal Residence in 2010 as a Percentage of Total Assets ........................ 16

Figure 6. Principal Residence Equity as a Percentage of the Value of the Principal Residence ........................................... 17

Tables

Table 1. Median Assets, Debt, Net Worth and Income Among Single Households in 2010 ........... 7

Table 2. Average Assets, Debt, Net Worth, and Income Among Single Households in 2010 ....................................... 8

Table 3. Median Assets, Debt, Net Worth and Income Among Married Households in 2010 ..................................... 9

Table 4. Average Assets, Debt, Net Worth and Income Among Married Households in 2010 .................................... 10

Table 5. Distribution of Retirement Assets Among Households in 2010 ...................................... 12

Appendixes

Appendix. Survey of Consumer Finances ..................................................................................... 19

Contacts

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

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] CRS: Expediting the Return to Work: Approaches in the Unemployment Compensation Program [1 May 2013]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Fri, 03 May 2013 11:45:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

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

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

Cornell University

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

Expediting the Return to Work: Approaches in the Unemployment Compensation Program

Julie M. Whittaker, Specialist in Income Security

May 1, 2013

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43044.pdf

[full-text, 38 pages]

Summary

The most recent recession led to an unprecedented increase in the number of those unemployed

for more than 26 weeks (the long-term unemployed). As a result, congressional interest in policy

initiatives to expedite the return to work grew. This report examines a variety of initiatives and

measures within the Unemployment Compensation (UC) program that might reduce long-term

unemployment for beneficiaries.

Even before the recent recession began, large numbers of UC recipients exhausted their

entitlement to regular state benefits before returning to work. In 2007, one in three recipients

exhausted their benefits. In the depths of the recession, more than half of the recipients exhausted

their regular benefits, with most of them continuing to receive unemployment insurance benefits

through federally financed extended unemployment benefits. Based on current forecasts of a slow

recovery and on trends that were apparent before the recession, it appears likely that the

exhaustion rate will remain well above its pre-recession level for many years to come. The

adverse consequences of not being able to find new work and of exhausting benefits can be

severe for the recipients themselves, as well as for government budgets in terms of lost revenue

and higher expenditures, and for the economy in lost output.

During and immediately following the recession, Congress provided incentives for states to adopt

innovative ways of helping unemployed individuals return to work and enacted legislation that

temporarily increased funding for various reemployment and training services. As the labor

market continues to recover and the temporary funding ends, Congress may again consider policy

initiatives that go beyond income replacement. These may include strategies that would speed up

the reemployment of recipients who will not be returning to their previous employers.

After a brief description of the federal-state unemployment insurance system, this report

examines trends in the duration of unemployment benefits and then reviews a wide range of

approaches for speeding the return to work. The report emphasizes measures that have recently

been considered by lawmakers or have been tried on an experimental basis, particularly if

evaluations of their impacts on duration of UC benefit receipt are available.

Contents

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

Overview of Unemployment Insurance Programs ........................................................................... 1

Regular Unemployment Compensation ..................................................................................... 1

Extended Benefits and Temporary Programs ............................................................................ 2

Extended Benefits ............................................................................................................... 2

Emergency Unemployment Compensation ......................................................................... 2

Long-Term Unemployment and Patterns of UC Benefit Exhaustion .............................................. 3

Duration of Regular UC Benefits .............................................................................................. 3

Trends in the Exhaustion Rate and in the Average Duration of Receipt.................................... 4

Exhaustion Rate................................................................................................................... 5

Average Duration of Regular UC Benefits .......................................................................... 6

Explaining the Trends in Increased Exhaustion Rates and Average Duration of

Benefit Receipt ....................................................................................................................... 8

Changes in Underlying UC Program .................................................................................. 8

Changes in the Labor Market .............................................................................................. 9

Outlook Under Current Law .................................................................................................... 11

Approaches for Expediting the Return to Work ............................................................................. 12

Job Search Requirements and Assistance ................................................................................ 13

Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services ................................................................. 15

Reemployment and Eligibility Assessments ..................................................................... 17

Additional Incentives to Recipients ......................................................................................... 19

Reemployment Bonuses .................................................................................................... 19

Wage Insurance ................................................................................................................. 21

Self-Employment Assistance ............................................................................................. 22

Additional Incentives to Employers ........................................................................................ 24

Prohibition of Discrimination ............................................................................................ 24

Tax Credits ........................................................................................................................ 25

GeorgiaWorks and Related State Programs ....................................................................... 27

Short-time Compensation .................................................................................................. 29

Retraining ................................................................................................................................ 32

Retraining While Receiving Unemployment Compensation ............................................ 32

Workforce Investment Act ................................................................................................. 33

Acknowledgement ......................................................................................................................... 35

Figures

Figure 1. Percentage of Recipients Exhausting Regular Unemployment Compensation Benefits, 1973 to 2012 ........................... 6

Figure 2. Average Duration of Regular Unemployment Compensation, 1973 to 2012 ................... 7

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 35

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] CRS: COUNTING REGULATIONS: An Overview of Rulemaking, Types of Federal Regulations, and Pages in the Federal Register [1 May 2013]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Fri, 03 May 2013 11:39:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

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

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

Cornell University

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

Counting Regulations: An Overview of Rulemaking, Types of Federal Regulations, and Pages in the Federal Register

Maeve P. Carey, Analyst in Government Organization and Management

May 1, 2013

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43056.pdf

[full-text, 21 pages]

Summary

Federal rulemaking is an important mechanism through which the federal government

implements policy. Federal agencies issue regulations pursuant to statutory authority granted by

Congress. Therefore, Congress may have an interest in performing oversight of those regulations.

Measuring federal regulatory activity can be a useful way for Congress to conduct that oversight.

The number of federal rules issued annually and the total number of pages in the Federal Register

are often referred to as measures of the total federal regulatory burden.

Certain methods of quantifying regulatory activity, however, may provide an imperfect portrayal

of the total federal rulemaking burden. For example, the number of final rules published each

year is generally in the range of 2,500-4,500, according to the Government Accountability Office

(GAO). Some of those rules have a large effect on the economy, and others have a significant

legal and/or policy effect, even if the costs and benefits are minimal. On the other hand, many

federal rules are routine in nature and impose minimal regulatory burden, if any. In addition, rules

that are deregulatory in nature and those that repeal existing rules are still defined as “rules”

under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.) and are therefore included

in that total.

The Federal Register provides documentation of the government’s regulatory and other actions,

and some scholars, commentators, and public officials have used the total number of Federal

Federal Register has been in print since the 1930s, the number of pages can be useful for crosstime

comparisons. However, the total number of Federal Register pages may not be an accurate

way to measure regulatory activity for several reasons. In addition to publishing proposed and

final rules in the Federal Register, agencies publish other items that may be related to regulations,

such as notices of public meetings and extensions of comment periods. The Federal Register also

contains many other items related to non-regulatory activities, including presidential documents,

notices, and corrections. In 2011, approximately 32% of the total pages in the Federal Register

were in the “Rules and Regulations” section, the section in which final rules are published.

This report serves to inform the congressional debate over rulemaking by analyzing different

ways to measure federal rulemaking activity. The report provides data on and analysis of the total

number of rules issued each year, as well as information on other types of rules, such as “major”

rules, “significant” rules, and “economically significant” rules. These categories have been

created by various statutes and executive orders containing requirements that may be triggered if

a regulation falls into one of the categories. When available, data are provided on each type of

rule. Finally, the report provides data on the number of pages and documents in the Federal

Contents

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

Brief Overview of Federal Rulemaking ........................................................................................... 2

Statutory Requirements ............................................................................................................. 2

Executive Branch Requirements and Guidance ........................................................................ 4

Number of Final Rules Published in Recent Years .......................................................................... 5

“Major” Rules .................................................................................................................................. 6

“Significant” Rules .......................................................................................................................... 8

“Economically Significant” Rules ................................................................................................. 10

Rules Issued Without Notice and Comment Under “Good Cause” ............................................... 13

“Interim Final” Rules .............................................................................................................. 13

“Direct Final” Rules ................................................................................................................ 13

Number of Pages and Documents in the Federal Register ............................................................ 14

The Federal Register Act ......................................................................................................... 14

The Content of the Federal Register ....................................................................................... 14

Figures

Figure 1. Number of Pages Published Annually in the Federal Register, 1937-2011 .................. 16

Tables

Table 1. Total Number of Final Rules Published in Recent Years, 1997-2012 ................................ 5

Table 2. Total Number of “Major” Final Rules Published, 1997-2012............................................ 7

Table 3. Total Number of Reviews at OIRA, 1994-2012 ................................................................ 9

Table 4. Total Number of “Economically Significant” and Non-“Economically Significant” Reviews at OIRA, 1994-2012 ........................ 11

Table 5. Average Number of Days for “Economically Significant” and Non- “Economically Significant” Reviews, 1994-2012 ........................ 12

Table 6. Annual Content of the Federal Register: Number of Pages and Number of Documents, 1976-2011 .......................................... 17

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 18

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] OECD EMPLOYMENT DATABASE-- international comparisons and trends over time

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Thu, 02 May 2013 16:30:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

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

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

Cornell University

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

OECD EMPLOYMENT DATABASE

http://www.oecd.org/els/emp/onlineoecdemploymentdatabase.htm

www.oecd.org/employment/database

Our online Employment database offers a large range up-to-date statistics for international comparisons and trends over time.

Find data on:

Labour market outcomes		Jobs quality
· Unemployment rates, employment to population ratio and labour force participation rates · Unemployment, employment, labour force and population of working age (15-64) · Unemployment duration · Discouraged workers		· Job duration · Incidence of temporary employment · Working time · Incidence of part-time employment · Involuntary part-time workers · Economic short-time workers · Average annual wages per full-time and full-year equivalent employee · Distribution of gross earnings of full-time employees and gender wage gap
Labour market policies and institutions		Short-term indicators
· Expenditures on and participants to labour market programmes · Strictness of employment protection · Statutory minimum wages in 21 OECD countries · Union members and employees		· Harmonised unemployment rates and levels · Employment by industry · Unit labour costs · Job vacancies
Scoreboards		How does your country compare?
· Scoreboard for youth aged 15-24 · Older workers scoreboard		· In our Key employment statistics , find summary tables for your country with key indicators on labour market outcomes and policies and how they compare with the OECD average. · With our country snapshots (Excel tool), generate a figure with selected key indicators on labour market outcomes and policies

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] Census: MEASURING AMERICA: COUNTY BUSINESS and DEMOGRAPHICS MAP [1 May 2013]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Thu, 02 May 2013 15:08:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

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

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

Cornell University

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

Census

MEASURING AMERICA: COUNTY BUSINESS and DEMOGRAPHICS MAP

http://www.census.gov/cbdmap/

Press Release 1 May 2013
Measuring America: County Business Patterns Interactive Map Update
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/cb13-tps46.html

In conjunction with yesterday's release on the 2011 County Business Patterns, the Census Bureau has updated the Measuring America County Business and Demographics Map. The map provides an interactive, easy-to-understand overview of how many types of businesses are in your community or anywhere else in the U.S. The map includes 2011 County Business Patterns statistics combined with demographic statistics from the 2010 Census.

County Business Patterns provides annual statistics on businesses with paid employees within the U.S. and Puerto Rico. These statistics provide the only detailed annual information on the number of establishments, employees, and quarterly and annual payroll for nearly 1,200 industries covered at the national, state and county levels.

For more detailed information on County Business Patterns, including how the data are collected, coverage and methodology, and industry detail, please visit the County Business Patterns website.

-X-

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] BEA: U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN GOODS AND SERVICES March 2013 [2 May 2013]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Thu, 02 May 2013 15:00:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

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

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

Cornell University

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN GOODS AND SERVICES March 2013 [2 May 2013]

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/trade/2013/trad0313.htm

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/trade/2013/pdf/trad0313.pdf

[full-text, 50 pages]

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/trade/2013/xls/trad0313.xls

and

Highlights

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/trade/2013/pdf/trad0313_fax.pdf

Goods and Services

The U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, through the Department of

Commerce, announced today that total March exports of $184.3 billion and imports of $223.1

billion resulted in a goods and services deficit of $38.8 billion, down from $43.6 billion in

February, revised. March exports were $1.7 billion less than February exports of $186.0

billion. March imports were $6.5 billion less than February imports of $229.6 billion.

In March, the goods deficit decreased $4.6 billion from February to $56.1 billion, and the

services surplus increased $0.2 billion from February to $17.3 billion. Exports of goods

decreased $1.8 billion to $130.3 billion, and imports of goods decreased $6.4 billion to

$186.5 billion. Exports of services increased $0.1 billion to $53.9 billion, and imports of

services decreased $0.1 billion to $36.6 billion.

The goods and services deficit decreased $12.9 billion from March 2012 to March 2013. Exports

were down $0.4 billion, or 0.2 percent, and imports were down $13.3 billion, or 5.6 percent.

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

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] BLS: PRODUCTIVITY AND COSTS First Quarter 2013, Preliminary [2 May 2013]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Thu, 02 May 2013 14:54:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

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

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

Cornell University

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

PRODUCTIVITY AND COSTS First Quarter 2013, Preliminary [2 May 2013]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod2.nr0.htm

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/prod2.pdf

[full-text, 12 pages]

and

Supplemental Files Table of Contents

http://www.bls.gov/web/prod2.supp.toc.htm

Nonfarm business sector labor productivity increased at a 0.7 percent annual

rate during the first quarter of 2013, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

reported today. The increase in productivity reflects increases of 2.5 percent

in output and 1.8 percent in hours worked. (All quarterly percent changes in

this release are seasonally adjusted annual rates.) From the first quarter of

2012 to the first quarter of 2013, productivity increased 0.9 percent as

output and hours worked increased 2.5 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively.

(See table A.)

Labor productivity, or output per hour, is calculated by dividing an index of

real output by an index of hours worked of all persons, including employees,

proprietors, and unpaid family workers.

Unit labor costs in nonfarm businesses increased 0.5 percent in the first

quarter of 2013, as an increase in hourly compensation was greater than the

increase in productivity. Unit labor costs rose 0.6 percent over the last four

quarters. (See table A.)

BLS defines unit labor costs as the ratio of hourly compensation to labor

productivity; increases in hourly compensation tend to increase unit labor

costs and increases in output per hour tend to reduce them.

Manufacturing sector productivity increased 3.8 percent in the first quarter

of 2013, as output grew 5.6 percent and hours rose 1.7 percent. Output growth

was robust in both manufacturing subsectors, while virtually all hours growth

occurred in durable manufacturing. Over the last four quarters, manufacturing

sector productivity increased 1.7 percent as output and hours worked rose 2.6

percent and 0.9 percent, respectively. Unit labor costs in manufacturing

decreased 0.5 percent in the first quarter of 2013 and increased 1.6 percent

from the same quarter a year ago. (See tables A and 3.)

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

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] BLS: METROPOLITAN AREA EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT -- MARCH 2013 [1 May 2013]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Wed, 01 May 2013 18:51:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

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

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

Cornell University

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

METROPOLITAN AREA EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT -- MARCH 2013 [1 May 2013]

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

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

[full-text, 23 pages]

and

Supplemental Files Table of Contents

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

Unemployment rates were lower in March than a year earlier in 306 of

the 372 metropolitan areas, higher in 44 areas, and unchanged in 22

areas, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Seven areas

had jobless rates of at least 15.0 percent, and 33 areas had rates of

less than 5.0 percent. Two hundred eighty-seven metropolitan areas had

over-the-year increases in nonfarm payroll employment, 80 had decreases,

and 5 had no change. The national unemployment rate in March was 7.6

percent, not seasonally adjusted, down from 8.4 percent a year earlier.

Metropolitan Area Unemployment (Not Seasonally Adjusted)

In March, 44 metropolitan areas had jobless rates of at least 10.0

percent, down from 63 areas a year earlier, while 157 areas had rates

below 7.0 percent, up from 113 areas in March 2012. Yuma, Ariz., and

El Centro, Calif., had the highest unemployment rates in March 2013,

at 26.0 percent and 23.7 percent, respectively. Midland, Texas, had the

lowest unemployment rate, 3.1 percent. A total of 202 areas had March

unemployment rates below the U.S. figure of 7.6 percent, 166 areas had

rates above it, and 4 areas had rates equal to that of the nation.

(See table 1.)

Yuba City, Calif., had the largest over-the-year unemployment rate

decrease in March (-2.9 percentage points). Twenty-six other areas had

rate declines of at least 2.0 percentage points, and an additional 70

areas had declines of at least 1.0 point. Yuma, Ariz., had the largest

over-the-year jobless rate increase (+3.3 percentage points). The next

largest increase was in Decatur, Ill. (+1.4 percentage points).

Of the 49 metropolitan areas with a Census 2000 population of 1

million or more, Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, Calif., had the

highest unemployment rate in March, 10.5 percent. Oklahoma City, Okla.,

had the lowest jobless rate among the large areas, 4.6 percent.

Forty-five of the large areas had over-the-year unemployment rate

decreases, while three areas had increases and one had no change.

The largest unemployment rate declines occurred in three Florida

areas: Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater (-2.2 percentage points),

Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford (-2.1 points), and Jacksonville (-2.0

points). Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, Ill.-Ind.-Wis., had the largest

over-the-year jobless rate increase in a large area (+0.5 percentage

point).

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

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] WOODY GUTHRIE ARCHIVES NOW IN TULSA, OKLAHOMA

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Wed, 01 May 2013 18:42:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

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

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

Cornell University

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

WOODY GUTHRIE ARCHIVES NOW IN TULSA, OKLAHOMA

See Woody Guthrie Center

http://woodyguthriecenter.org/

For an explanation of the move, see

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSw63GOXUAM

and

http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Expert_on_the_icon_Woody_Guthrie_Center_opening_to/20130426_269_D1_CUTLIN76648

see Story-

30 April 2013

Woody Guthrie archives come home

http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/Woody_Guthrie_archives_come_home/20130430_61_A13_Follow819047

[Thanks to Greg Guthrie for the tip].

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] BLS: BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT DYNAMICS: THIRD QUARTER 2012 [1 May 2013]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Wed, 01 May 2013 14:50:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

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

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

Cornell University

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT DYNAMICS: THIRD QUARTER 2012 [1 May 2013]

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

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

[full-text, 17 pages]

and

Supplemental Files Table of Contents

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

From June 2012 to September 2012 gross job gains from opening and

expanding private sector establishments were 6.8 million, a decrease

of 191,000 jobs from the previous quarter, the U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics reported today. Over this period, gross job losses from

closing and contracting private sector establishments were 6.6 million,

an increase of 192,000 jobs from the previous quarter.

The difference between the number of gross job gains and the number

of gross job losses yielded a net employment gain of 199,000 jobs in

the private sector during the third quarter of 2012. (See table 1.)

The change in the number of jobs over time is the net result of

increases and decreases in employment that occur at all businesses

in the economy. Business Employment Dynamics (BED) statistics track

these changes in employment at private business units from the third

month of one quarter to the third month of the next. Gross job gains

are the sum of increases in employment from expansions at existing

units and the addition of new jobs at opening units. Gross job losses

are the result of contractions in employment at existing units and the

loss of jobs at closing units. The difference between the number of

gross job gains and the number of gross job losses is the net change

in employment. (See the Technical Note for more information.)

The BED data series include gross job gains and gross job losses at the

establishment level by industry subsector and for the 50 states, the

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, as well as

gross job gains and gross job losses at the firm level by employer size

class.

Gross job gains at expanding establishments totaled 5.5 million in

third quarter 2012, a decrease of 199,000 jobs from the previous

quarter.

Opening establishments accounted for 1.3 million jobs gained in third

quarter 2012, an increase of 8,000 jobs from the previous quarter.

Contracting establishments lost 5.4 million jobs in third quarter

2012. This is an increase of 173,000 jobs from the prior quarter.

In third quarter 2012, closing establishments lost 1.2 million jobs,

an increase of 19,000 from the previous quarter. (See tables 1 and 3.)

Gross job gains represented 6.2 percent of private sector employment

in third quarter 2012, while gross job losses represented 6.0 percent

of private sector employment. (See table 2.)

In third quarter 2012, the number of establishment births (a subset of

the openings data, see the Technical Note for more information)

increased by 2,000 to 193,000. These new establishments accounted for

789,000 jobs, an increase of 30,000 from the previous quarter.

(See table 8.)

Data for establishment deaths (a subset of the closings data) are

available through fourth quarter 2011, when 750,000 jobs were lost at

191,000 establishments. These figures represent increases from the

prior quarter when 674,000 jobs were lost at 187,000 establishments.

During third quarter 2012, gross job losses exceeded gross job gains

in six industry sectors: natural resources and mining; retail trade;

utilities; information; leisure and hospitality; and other services.

The education and health services sector experienced net gains of

91,000 jobs, an increase of 73,000 jobs from the prior quarter. This

represents the largest over the quarter net employment change of all

industry sectors. (See table 3.)

Gross job gains decreased and gross job losses increased in all three

major firm size classes during the third quarter 2012. However, only

the smallest size class (firms with 1-49 employees) experienced a net

job loss, where gross job losses exceeded gross job gains by 3,000

jobs. The largest size class (firms with 250 or more employees)

experienced a net employment gain of 133,000 jobs, accounting for

79 percent of the total net change in employment for third quarter

2012. (See tables 4 and 5.)

AND MORE...including TABLES....

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] Census: CURRENTLY UNMARRIED WOMEN WITH A RECENT BIRTH: 2011--SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF [1 May 2013)

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Wed, 01 May 2013 14:42:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

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

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

Cornell University

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

Census

American Community Survey Reports ACS-21

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CURRENTLY UNMARRIED WOMEN WITH A RECENT BIRTH: 2011 [1 May 2013)

By Rachel M. Shattuck and Rose M. Kreider

http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-21.pdf

[full-text, 10 pages]

Press Release 1 May 2013

About 6 in 10 Recent Moms in Their Early 20s are Unmarried, Census Bureau Reports

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/cb13-80.html

As of 2011, 62 percent of women age 20 to 24 who gave birth in the previous 12 months were unmarried, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. This compares with 17 percent among women age 35 to 39.

The information comes from Social and Economic Characteristics of Currently Unmarried Women with a Recent Birth: 2011, an American Community Survey report. The analysis is based on separate survey questions on whether women have given birth to any children in the past 12 months and what their marital status is. The statistics in the report are presented at the national and state levels, with a separate table and map containing metropolitan area data.

"This is the first report from the Census Bureau showing geographic variation in recent births to unmarried women, as well as characteristics of the women such as educational attainment," said Rose Kreider, a family demographer with the Census Bureau and one of the report's authors. "The American Community Survey is the nation's exclusive source of data on the demographic characteristics of mothers with this level of geographic detail."

In 2011, 4.1 million women reported that they had given birth in the last year. Of these women, 36 percent were unmarried at the time of the survey, an increase from 2005 when an estimated 31 percent of recent births were to unmarried women (2005 was the earliest year for which statistics are available from the American Community Survey).

"The increased share of unmarried recent mothers is one measure of the nation's changing family structure," Kreider said. "Nonmarital fertility has been climbing steadily since the 1940s and has risen even more markedly in recent years."

The American Community Survey asks the question on fertility for a variety of reasons, including to help project the future size of the population and to carry out various programs required by law, such as researching matters on child welfare.

The proportion of recent births to unmarried women varied widely by other
socio-economic characteristics besides age. For example, more than half (57 percent) of women with less than a high school diploma in 2011, who had given birth in the past year were unmarried, the highest percentage among the education groups. In contrast, only 9 percent of recent mothers with a bachelor's degree or higher were unmarried. (See Figure 2)

Similarly, there are wide variations when examining recent births by household income level. The share of unmarried women who gave birth ranged from 69 percent in household with incomes of less than $10,000 per year to 9 percent in households with annual income of $200,000 or more.

Other highlights:

Recent moms who were native-born were more likely to be unmarried than women born outside the United States (39 percent compared with 24 percent).
Among black women who had a birth in the last year, 68 percent were unmarried. The corresponding percentages were 11 percent for Asians, 43 percent for Hispanics and 26 percent for non-Hispanic whites.
The states (or equivalents) with the highest percentages of women with a birth in the last year who were unmarried include the District of Columbia (51 percent), Louisiana (49 percent), Mississippi (48 percent) and New Mexico (48 percent). (These states do not differ statistically from one another, and each of these states do not differ statistically from some of the other states.)
Among the states with the lowest percentage of recent mothers who were unmarried were Utah (15 percent) and New Hampshire (20 percent).
There were a number of metropolitan areas with considerably higher percentages of unmarried recent moms than the national average. Among these were Flagstaff, Ariz. (75 percent); Greenville, N.C. (69 percent); Lima, Ohio (68 percent); Myrtle Beach, S.C. (67 percent); and Danville, Va. (67 percent). None of these estimates differs statistically from one another, and they do not differ from estimates from some other metropolitan areas.
Several metropolitan areas had considerably lower percentages of unmarried recent moms than the national average. Among these are Provo-Orem, Utah (8 percent); Kennewick-Pasco-Richland, Wash. (12 percent); Bremerton-Silverdale, Wash. (13 percent); and Lake Havasu City-Kingman, Ariz. (13 percent). None of these estimates differs statistically from one another, and they do not differ from estimates from some other metropolitan areas.

The American Community Survey provides a wide range of important statistics about people and housing for every community across the nation. The results are used by everyone from town and city planners to retailers and homebuilders. The survey is the only source of local estimates for most of the 40 topics it covers, such as education, occupation, language, ancestry and housing costs for even the smallest communities. Ever since Thomas Jefferson directed the first census in 1790, the census has collected detailed characteristics about our nation's people. Questions about jobs and the economy were added 20 years later under James Madison, who said such information would allow Congress to "adapt the public measures to the particular circumstances of the community," and over the decades allow America "an opportunity of marking the progress of the society."

-X-

National level American Community Survey estimates of the percentages of women with a birth in the last year who are unmarried differ from the National Center for Health Statistics vital statistics administrative counts of nonmarital births. See the report for more details as to why.

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] BLS: Monthly Labor Review, April 2013, Vol.136, no. 4 [1 May 2013]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Wed, 01 May 2013 12:19:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

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

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

Cornell University

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

Monthly Labor Review, April 2013, Vol.136, no. 4 [1 May 2013]

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/

Articles

People with a disability in 2012: a visual essay
Terence M. McMenamin
Summary | Full text in PDF

Differences in union and nonunion compensation, 2001–2011
George I. Long
Summary | Full text in PDF

Where did we indulge? Consumer spending during the asset boom
Michael L. Walden
Summary | Full text in PDF

Conference Report

Consumer Expenditure Survey Microdata Users' Workshop, July 2012
Geoffrey D. Paulin and Ian J. Elkin
Summary | Full text in PDF

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] ILO: WORLD REPORT ON CHILD LABOUR: Economic vulnerability, social protection and the fight against child labour [30 April 2013]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Wed, 01 May 2013 12:09:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

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

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

Cornell University

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

International Labour Organization (ILO)

World Report on Child Labour: Economic vulnerability, social protection and the fight against child labour

How can we reduce child labour in the less favourable circumstances of a global economic slowdown? [30 April 2013]

http://www.ilo.org/ipec/Informationresources/WCMS_178184/lang--en/index.htm

http://www.ilo.org/ipecinfo/product/download.do?type=document&id=19565

[full-text, 105 pages]

Executive Summary

http://www.ilo.org/ipecinfo/product/download.do?type=document&id=22095

[full-text, 14 pages]

This new report is the first in a series to be published annually by the ILO’s International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour. It brings together research on child labour and social protection, identifying policies that are designed to achieve multiple social goals. It discusses the role of poverty and economic shocks in rendering households vulnerable to child labour and considers the impact on child labour of cash transfers, public employment programmes, social insurance and other social protection initiatives as they have been implemented around the world. The report distils a broad range of research in economic and social policy and should be of interest to those looking for ways to combat poverty in the present and reduce its burden on the next generation.

Press Release 30 April 2013

Protecting children from having to work

Social protection measures can help reduce the incidence of child labour, says Constance Thomas, Director of the ILO’s International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC)

http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/comment-analysis/WCMS_211978/lang--en/index.htm

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] CRS: Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) Reform: An Overview of Proposals to Reduce the Growth in SSDI Rolls [29 April 2013]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:57:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

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

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

Cornell University

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

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

William R. Morton, Research Associate

April 29, 2013

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

[full-text, 51 pages]

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in 2016.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Security Administration (SSA).

Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figures

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendixes

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

Contacts

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

________________________________________________________________________

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

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:44:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

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

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

Cornell University

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

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

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

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

[full-text, 35 pages]

Description:

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

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] Census: COUNTY BUSINESS PATTERNS 2011 [30 April 2013]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:13:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

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

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

Cornell University

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

Census

COUNTY BUSINESS PATTERNS 2011 [30 April 2013]

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

Press Release 30 April 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

State and County Highlights

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

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

Industry Sector Highlights

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

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

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

Annual Statistics for Puerto Rico and the Island Areas

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

Statistics for the individual Island Areas include:

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

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

-X-

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

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] BLS: EMPLOYMENT COST INDEX - MARCH 2013 [30 April 2013]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:48:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

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

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

Cornell University

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

EMPLOYMENT COST INDEX - MARCH 2013 [30 April 2013]

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

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

[full-text, 21 pages]

and

Supplemental Files Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

March 2013, down from 0.6 percent in December 2012.

Civilian Workers

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

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

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

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

March 2012 increase of 2.7 percent.

Benefits Data for Sales and Office Occupations Unavailable

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

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

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

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

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

Private Industry Workers

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

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

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

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

March 2012 increase of 2.8 percent.

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

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

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

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

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

State and Local Government Workers

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

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

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

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

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

________________________

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

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

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

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:37:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

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

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

Cornell University

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

Asian Development Bank (ADB)

Development Asia, April 2013

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

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

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

[full-text, 60 pages]

Description

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

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

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

Contents

•Asia's Inequality Challenge

•Situation Report: A roundup of topical development news

•On the Record: What opinion makers are saying

•On the Web: Development sources and tools onliine

•The Wealth Gap

•Inequality Illustrated

•The Reformer: Palaniappan Chidambaram

•The Growth Conundrum

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

•Less Unequal Than Others

•Raising Cambodia

•In Search of a Cure

•Slums Reconsidered

•Digital Dollars

•Review

•Results First

•Development Agenda

•Black & White

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] CRS: Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Processes, and Effects [23 April 2013]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:23:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

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

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

Cornell University

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

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

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

April 23, 2013

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

[full-text, 23 pages]

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

Government shutdowns have necessitated furloughs of several hundred thousand federal

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

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

government shutdowns, including potential issues for Congress.

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

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

Policy Staff” table at the end of this report.

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

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

Appropriations, by Pat Towell and Amy Belasco.

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

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

Kate M. Manuel and Erika K. Lunder.

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

Overview, by Jessica Tollestrup.

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

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

Conrad Nagel and Justin Murray.

Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contacts

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

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] DOL: (WORK IN PROGRESS): THE OFFICIAL BLOG OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:52:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

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

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

Cornell University

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

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

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

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

· Categories

The following are the blogs from the last month.

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

by Seth Harris on April 29, 2013 · 0 comments

Building a Skills Infrastructure by Investing in Community Colleges

by Seth Harris April 26, 2013

Giving a Hand Up to Minimum-Wage Workers

by Seth Harris April 25, 2013

Breaking Down Barriers to Employment, For All Workers

by Jane Oates and Kathy Martinez April 24, 2013

Union credit card policies and procedures

by John Lund April 22, 2013

Real People, Real Impact

by Kathy Martinez April 18, 2013

Taking Open Government to the Next Level

by Carl Fillichio April 18, 2013

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

by Phyllis Borzi April 17, 2013

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

by Mary Beth Maxwell April 17, 2013

Streamlining Services for Displaced Workers

by Seth Harris April 11, 2013

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

by Seth Harris April 10, 2013

The Faith-Based Argument for Raising the Minimum Wage

by Phil Tom April 9, 2013

Closing the Equal Pay Gap: 50 Years and Counting

by Latifa Lyles April 9, 2013

Gender and Pay Equality: Join the Conversation

by admin April 8, 2013

Renewing Our Commitment to Promote Safe Mines

by Joseph Main April 8, 2013

Partnering to Rebuild the Economy

by Seth Harris April 5, 2013

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

by Seth Harris April 4, 2013

Tools to Help Businesses Grow

by Jane Oates April 4, 2013

Fueling Corporate Accountability

by Mary Beth Maxwell March 29, 2013

Comprehensive Immigration Reform: a Moral and Economic Imperative

by Seth Harris March 28, 2013

________________________________________________________________________

[IWS] CRS: Prevalence of Mental Illness in the United States: Data Sources and Estimates [24 April 2013]

noreply@blogger.com (SBasefsky) — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:44:00 +0000

IWS Documented News Service

_______________________________

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

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

Cornell University

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

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

________________________________________________________________________

Congressional Research Service (CRS)

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

Erin Bagalman, Analyst in Health Policy

Angela Napili, Information Research Specialist

April 24, 2013

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

[full-text, 11 pages]

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

on NCS-A data.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

illness for that population.

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

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

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

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

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

on how they answer such questions.

Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tables

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

Contacts

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

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

________________________________________________________________________