When an individual earmarks a specific portion of their contribution for food and
another specific portion for shelter, it is called double earmarking. Compute the
individual's pro rata share of food expenses and compare it to the portion of the
contribution earmarked for food.
Compute the individual's pro rata share of shelter expenses and compare it to the
portion of the contribution earmarked for shelter.
If either earmarked contribution equals or exceeds a pro rata share of the item for
which it is earmarked, earmarked sharing exists. The individual is receiving ISM in
the form of the item for which they are not earmarking. This ISM is valued under the
PMV rule. To compute the actual value (AV) of ISM from within the household, follow
the instructions in SI 00835.340C “Computation of In-Kind Support and Maintenance from Within a Household”.
EXAMPLE: Determining if double earmarking applies
Kathleen Daly applies for SSI as an aged individual. For the past three years, Kathleen
has been living with a nephew and the nephew's family in an apartment for which the
nephew has rental liability.
Kathleen alleges a contribution of $150 per month and says it is supposed to be half
for food and half for shelter. Kathleen does not allege anything higher in the LA
sequence than sharing.
When the claims representative (CR) explains sharing to Kathleen and asks if Kathleen
believes that their contribution meets their pro rata share of household operating
expenses (one-fifth, in this case), Kathleen replies that $150 is likely nowhere near
their pro rata share. Because the CR identifies this as a token contribution, the
CR documents the token contribution on the Householder of Another page (See SI 00835.160D.2. “Sharing – Token Contribution”).
Although the CR can curtail development of sharing, the CR must consider earmarked
sharing. The CR asks if Kathleen's $75 contribution equals or exceeds their share
of the shelter expenses. Kathleen says “no”, because the rent alone is $450 per month.
The CR asks whether the $75 food contribution meets their share of food expenses.
Kathleen is unsure because the household receives food stamps. Kathleen estimates
the food expenses to be $400 per month. The CR must obtain evidence of earmarking
because the alleged earmarked contribution of $75 is within $20 of the alleged food
share of $80 ($400 ÷ 5).
The CR informs Kathleen that a statement from their nephew or the nephews spouse (knowledgeable
adults in the household) regarding the earmarked contribution and the household food expense is needed for
verification.
The CR would obtain a signed statement on an SSA-8011-F3 or use a Report of contact page to document the nephew’s or the
nephew's spouse's statement regarding the earmarked contribution and the household
food expense made by Ms. Daly.
The CR would then update the appropriate Household of Another page within the Consolidated
Claims Experience (CCE), documenting verification of the earmarked contribution. This
type of documentation is needed because chargeable ISM in the form of shelter is also
a consideration; evidence of the shelter expense is required.
Kathleen submits the requested statement (SSA-8011-F3) that shows the food expenses
are $450 per month and shelter expenses are $600 per month.
The statement verifies Kathleen allegations about their contribution ($75 for food
and $75 for shelter).
Because Kathleen is not paying their earmarked share for food, $90 ($450 ÷ 5), the
CR determines that Kathleen is subject to the VTR, as Kathleen is receiving food and
shelter throughout the month from the household in which they reside.