When an individual earmarks a specific portion of his 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 he is 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, she
has been living with her nephew and his family in an apartment for which he has rental
She says she contributes $150 per month and says it is supposed to be half for food
and half for shelter. She does not allege anything higher in the LA sequence than
When the claims representative (CR) explains sharing to her and asks if she believes
that her contribution meets her pro rata share of household operating expenses (one-fifth,
in this case), she replies that she does not believe $150 is anywhere near her 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 her $75 contribution equals or exceeds her share of the shelter
expenses. She says “no”, because the rent alone is $450 per month.
The CR asks whether her $75 food contribution meets her share of food expenses. Ms.
Daly is unsure because the household receives food stamps. Ms. Daly estimates the
food expenses to be $400 per month. The CR must obtain evidence of earmarking because
her alleged earmarked contribution of $75 is within $20 of her alleged food share
of $80 ($400 ÷ 5).
The CR informs Ms. Daly that a statement from her nephew or his wife (knowledgeable
adults in the household) regarding her earmarked contribution and the household food expense is needed for
The CR would obtain a signed statement on an SSA-8011-F3 or use a report of contact (DROC) screen to document the nephew’s
or his wife’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 MSSICS,
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.
Ms. Daly 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 Ms. Daly's allegations about her contribution ($75 for food
and $75 for shelter).
Because Ms. Daly is not paying her earmarked share for food, $90 ($450 ÷ 5), the CR
determines that she is subject to the VTR, as she is receiving food and shelter throughout
the month from the household in which she resides.