Family Economics Review [1993, Volume 6, Number 2]

              Editor
Joan C. Courtless
Editorial Assistant
Jane W. Fleming
E c 0 m II
Family Economics Review is written
and published each quarter by the
Family Economics Research Group,
Agricultural Research Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Secretary of Agriculture has
determined that publication of this
periodical is necessary in the transac­tion
of the public business required by
law of the Department.
This publication is not copyrighted.
Contents may be reprinted without
permission, but credit to Family
Economics Review would be
appreciated. Use of commercial or
trade names does not imply approval
or constitute endorsement by USDA.
Family Economics Review is indexed
in the following databases: AGRICOLA.
Ageline, Economic Literature Index,
ERIC, Family Resources, PAIS, and
Sociological Abstracts.
Family Economics Review is for sale
by the Superintendent of Documents.
Subscription price is $5 per year
($6.25 for foreign addresses). Send
subscription orders and change of
address to Superintendent of
Documents, P.O. Box 371954,
Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. (See
subscription form on p. 32.)
Suggestions or comments concerning
this publication should be addressed
to: Joan C. Courtless, Editor, Family
Economics Review, Family Economics
Research Group, USDA/ARS, Federal
Building, Room 439A, Hyattsville, MD
20782. Phone (301) 436-8461 .
N 0 M I C
II II
1993 Vol. 6 No.2
Feature Articles •
s
PROPER 1 Y OF THE
LIBRARY
OCT 21 1993
University of North Carolina
at Greensboro
2 Expenditures of Younger and Older Baby Boomers
Julia M. Dinkins
8
Research Summaries • 17
20
22
24
Training To Qualify for Jobs and Improve Skills
U.S. Workers Receive a Wide Range of Employee Benefits
Saving and Demographics: Some International Comparisons
Fruit and Vegetable Consumption
Regular Items • 25 Recent Legislation Affecting Families
26 Charts From Federal Data Sources
28 Data Sources
29 Journal Abstracts and Book Summary
30 Cost of Food at Home
31 Consumer Prices
2
Feature Articles •
Expenditures of Younger and Older
Baby Boomers
By Julia M. Dinkins
Consumer Economist
Family Economics Research Group
The 1990 Consumer Expenditure Survey was used to examine expenditures
and selected socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of two age
groups of baby boomers (also referred to as boomers)-ages 26-35 and
36-44. When compared to younger baby boomers, older baby boomers
were more likely to be married and in managerial and technical occupations.
Older baby boomers were more likely than younger boomers to have children,
have more members in the household, have a before-tax family income
of $30,000 or more, and be homeowners. On average, older baby boomers
spent more overall (by household and on a per person basis) than younger
baby boomers. The percentage of total expenditure used by younger
boomers for different goods and services was similar to that used by older
boomers. As baby boomers develop ways to reconcile the demands of this
life-cycle stage with their resources, they may seek professional assistance.
This study provides useful information to family life specialists, housing
. educators, and financial counselors as they assist baby boomers who are
in the mature single, newly married, and full nest stages of the life cycle.
ITJ he baby-boom generation,
those born in 1946-64, is a
diverse age group. Previous
reports have treated this
cohort as a monolith; however,
researchers have recognized that such
treatment may mask differences that
have implications for present and future
well-being among the different seg­ments
of this large group. Bouvier and
De Vita concluded, "While there may
be some commonalities that bind the
members of the baby-boom generation
into a cohesive unit, the diversity that
exists within the baby-boom generation
is becoming increasingly apparent as its
members head into middle age" (p. 14)
(1 ).
Some researchers found that financial
well-being and savings patterns differed
among subgroups of boomers (2,3 ).
Others reported that boomers with
higher median incomes were more
likely to be older, male, white, and
married without children ( 1 ). Russell,
however, notes that parenthood and a
faster rise in median income for younger
boomers than older boomers may
minimize some differences in the cohort
during most of the 1990's. "But by the
late 1990's, the gap will open up again
as the children of older baby boomers
leave home and the generation's leading
edge [born 1946-54] enters its empty
nest years" (p. 27) (8).
Family Economics Review
As U.S. baby boomers enter middle age,
they will spend money to meet responsi­bilities
they may not have had 10 years
earlier. In 1980, boomers were 16-34
years old. From 1980 to 1990, the
younger members (born 1955-64) had
time to complete their formal education
and enter the labor force. The older
members (born 1946-54) made decisions
about marriage, parenthood, and estab­lishing
new households. Saunders (9)
predicted that baby boomers were among
the groups that would influence con­sumer
expenditure patterns for the rest
of the century. He suggested their ex­penditures
would shift from household
furnishings and equipment to consumer
electronics, sporting goods, jewelry,
books, boats, aircraft, and optical goods.
Waldrop characterized baby boomers'
expenditures this way: "The baby
boom's 45th birthday may prove to be
as momentous as its first. It will begin a
population explosion among affluent,
maturing householders. And it will turn
the 1990s into peak years of consumer
spending" (p. 24) ( 13 ).
Because the baby-boom generation spans
about 20 years, some of its members are
at distinctly different stages of the life
cycle and have expenditures that reflect
concomitant roles and responsibilities.
This study describes baby boomers as
they begin to enter middle age and their
peak earning years. Two questions are
addressed: ( 1) For boomers born between
1946 and 1954 and between 1955 and
I 964, what is each group's total mean
expenditure and what percentage of
the total mean expenditure is used for
housing, food, transportation, apparel,
and other goods and services? (2) What
is being spent by younger and older
baby boomers for each category of
goods and services?
1993 Vol. 6 No.2
Data and Sample
Data for this study are from the inter­view
component of the 1990 Consumer
Expenditure Survey (CE), conducted by
the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau
of Labor Statistics. The CE is an ongoing
survey that collects data on household
expenditures, income, and major socio­economic
and demographic charac­teristics.
A national sample of consumer
units 1 is interviewed once each quarter
for five consecutive quarters; the first
interview is used only for bounding
purposes. Using a rotating sample
design, about one-fifth of the sample
is replaced each quarter. The 1990 CE,
with a response rate of 86 percent,
contains information from about 20,000
interviews. Income data are annual and
quarterly expenditure data are multi­plied
by four to provide estimates of
annual expenditures. Data are weighted
to represent the U.S. noninstitutional­ized
population.
Over half of all reference persons2
belonged to the baby-boom generation.
Twenty-eight percent were 26-35 years
old and 24 percent were 36-44 years old
(table 1, p. 3).
1 A consumer unit consists of either: ( 1) all members
of a particular household who are related by blood,
marriage, adoption, or other legal arrangement;
(2) two or more people living together who pool
their incomes to make joint expenditure decisions;
or (3) a person living alone or sharing a household
with others or living as a roomer in a private home
or lodging house or in permanent living quarters
in a hotel or motel, but who is financially inde­pendent.
To be considered financially independent,
at least two of the three major expense categories
(housing, food, and other living expenses) have to
be provided by the respondent.
2Reference person is the first family member
mentioned by the survey respondent when asked
to "start with the name of the person or one of
the persons who owns or rents the home." The
relationship of all other consumer unit members
is determined by this person. The reference person
may be the respondent.
• The percentage of
total expenditure
used by younger
boomers for
different goods
and services was
similar to that used
by older boomers.
3
Baby Boomers and Their
Households
Baby-boomer households were more
likely than others to have a male refer­ence
person (table 1). Their reference
persons also were more likely to have
4 or more years of college than those
in older or younger households.
Households with a baby-boomer refer­ence
person were more likely than others
to be composed of a husband, wife, and
children (table 2). Hence, these house­holds
were more likely to have three or
more family members than those with
older or younger reference persons.
Also, a higher percentage of baby-boomer
households had before-tax family
income in excess of $30,000, compared
with older or younger households.
Younger baby boomers (ages 26-35
years), as compared with older baby
boomers (ages 36-44 years), were more
likely to be never married, living in one­or
two-person households, and renting.
Younger baby boomers' housing tenure
reflects the relationship between age of
the householder and the ability to pur­chase
a home. Fifty-three percent were
renters. Fronskez and Savage (5) say
three factors influence individuals' and
families' ability to own a home: (1) not
having enough cash for a downpayment
or closing costs; (2) not having the
income to make the monthly mortgage
payments; or (3) having a high debt
load. These factors may keep baby
boomers from purchasing a home
during the earlier stages of the life
cycle.
4
Table 1. Characteristics of reference persons, 1990
Age categories
Characteristic Less than 26-35 36-44 45-65
26 years years years years
Total (in thousands) 9,127 21,717 19,035 28,329
Percent
Race
Non-Black 88 88 87 88
Black 12 12 13 12
Sex
Male 54 70 71 68
Female 46 30 29 32
Education (years)
Less than high school (0-11) 20 13 12 26
High school ( 12) 24 33 30 32
Some college (13-15) 41 27 26 19
College (16+) 15 27 32 23
Marital status
Married 29 59 64 64
Widowed 2 10
Divorced or separated 5 16 23 20
Never married 66 25 11 6
Occupation
Managerial and technical1 48 49 54 42
Other 41 44 40 38
Retired and not working 11 7 6 20
1Includes managerial , professional, technical, sales, and administrative support occupations.
- Less than l percent.
In contrast, older baby boomers were
more likely than younger baby boomers
to have 4 or more years of education, be
married or divorced, and be employed
in managerial and technical occupations.
Also, older boomers were more likely to
have children, live in a household with
four or more members, and have before­tax
family income of $40,000 or more.
Older boomers were more likely than
younger boomers to live in rural areas.
Expenditures of Reference
Persons
Younger Baby Boomers. The 26-35
age group had a total mean expenditure
of $26,831 (table 3, p. 6). Typically,
housing is the largest expenditure
for most families and individuals
(4,6,10,11). However, for some families,
transportation is the largest expenditure
item. Lino and Ray (7) found that husband/
wife families with both spouses 18-25
years old spent 31 percent of their
total expenditure for transportation
compared with 28 percent for housing.
Family Economics Review
For younger boomers, total housing was Table 2. Characteristics of households by age of reference persons, 1990
$9,123, that is, 34 percent of their total
annual expenditure. Shelter is a major Age categories
component of housing expenditures.
Characteristic Less than 26-35 36-44 45-65
In the CE, shelter consists of mortgage 26 years years years years
interest, taxes, insurance, maintenance
and repair, and homeowner association
Total (in thousands) 9,127 21,717 19,035 28,329
fees for owners; and rent and tenant
insurance for renters. Reported shelter
expenditures for owners do not include Percent
payment on the principal. The CE con- Family type
siders reduction of mortgage principal Husband, wife only 13 13 9 29
to be repayment of a loan obtained Husband, wife, children 13 42 49 27
before the interview quarter (1 2). Other families 14 11 14 21
Single parents 9 11 11 2
Younger boomers used 22 percent of One person 51 23 17 21
their total expenditure for shelter
Number of members in
($5,832). As a percentage of total consumer unit
housing expenditures, 64 percent was
One 51 23 17 21
used for shelter, 19 percent for utilities,
Two 25 22 19 38
7 percent for household operations, and
I 0 percent for household furnishings and Three 14 20 19 19
equipment. Four or more 10 35 45 22
Composition of earners
Transportation accounted for 19 percent Reference person 57 41 35 29
of younger boomers' total average ex- Reference person and 22 41 32 22
penditure for 1990 ($5,309). Younger spouse
boomers spent 45 percent of their trans- Reference person, or spouse, 14 13 30 37
portation dollar on vehicle purchases? and others
They had, on average, 1.9 vehicles.4 No earners 7 5 3 12
Before-tax family income
The annual expenditure for younger Less than $10,000 39 10 9 12
boomers' total food was $4,185 (16 per- $10,000- $19,999 22 16 12 15
cent of the total expenditure). Food at
$20,000- $29,999 14 19 14 14
home-food purchased at grocery stores,
food stores, and food prepared when on $30,000- $39,999 8 16 13 10
trips away from home-accounted for $40,000 and more 6 26 37 31
three-fourths of their food dollar. Incomplete income 11 13 15 18
Housing tenure
Eleven percent of the younger boomers' Homeowner 11 47 68 78
total expenditure was used for total per- Renter 89 53 32 22
sonal insurance and pensions ($2,903), Area of residence
with most of it (92 percent) attributed to
Urban
pensions and Social Security ($2,663).
Northeast 19 17 18 20
On average, younger boomers spent 5
Midwest 26 22 18 20
percent of their total expenditure for
entertainment ($1,416) and apparel South 26 29 28 28
($1,330) and 4 percent for health care West 20 21 20 17
($956). Rural 9 11 16 15
1 3 For this variable, only those with complete positive income are used. There were 8.1 million reference
Yehicle purchases refers to net outlay; that i , persons less than 26 years old, 18.9 million 26-35 years old, 16.2 million 36-44 years old, and 23.2
~he purchase price minus trade-in value. million 45-65 years old.
Vehicles consist of new and used cars, trucks,
and motorcycles, as well as used aircraft.
1993 Vol. 6 No.2 5
Table 3. Means and component shares of total annual expenditures by age of reference persons, 1990
Age categories
Expenditure categories Less than 26 years 26-35 years 36-44 years 45- 65 years
Total (in thousands) 9,127 21,717 19,035 28,329
Total mean expenditure $16,545 $26,831 $32,929 $30,382
Mean family size 1.89 2.88 3.26 2.60
Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent
Housing $5,011 30 $9,123 34 $10,512 32 $9,028 30
Shelter 3,219 19 5,832 22 6,486 20 5,215 17
Utilities 990 6 1,744 6 2,170 7 2,258 7
Household operations 176 595 2 599 2 345
Furnishings and equipment 626 4 952 4 1,257 4 1,210 4
Transportation 3,740 23 5,309 I9 6,I25 19 5,965 20
Food 2,739 17 4,185 16 5,380 16 5,062 17
Food at home 1,875 11 3,122 12 3,956 12 3,619 12
Food away from home 864 5 1,063 4 1,424 4 1,443 5
Personal insurance and 1,161 7 2,903 11 3,713 II 3,387 11
pensions
Life and other personal 64 0.4 240 442 532 2
insurance
Pensions and Social Security 1,097 7 2,663 10 3,27I 10 2,855 9
Apparel 1,009 6 1,330 5 1,856 6 1,518 5
Entertainment 852 5 1,416 5 1,767 5 1,552 5
Health care 405 2 956 4 1,348 4 1,634 5
Miscellaneous 1 1,628 10 1,609 6 2,228 7 2,236 7
1lncludes expenditures for personal care, reading, education, cash contributions, tobacco, alcohol, and other goods and services.
Older Baby Boomers. The 36-44 age
group had a total average expenditure
of $32,929 in 1990 (table 3). Housing
was 32 percent of this age group's total
expenditure. Shelter accounted for 62
percent of total housing. Older boomers
spent a smaller share of their housing
expenditures for shelter than did younger
boomers. In later years, shelter expendi­tures
decline as the interest portion of
the homeowner's mortgage payment
diminishes. Expenditures for shelter
were followed by utilities, 20 percent;
household furnishings and equipment,
12 percent; and household operations,
6 percent.
6
This group's transportation expenditure
accounted for 19 percent of the total
expenditure ($6, 125). Forty-two percent
of the transportation dollar was used on
vehicle purchases. They had, on average,
2.3 vehicles. Total food expenditure was
$5,380, or 16 percent of the total annual
expenditure. As with younger boomers,
about three-fourths of the total food
expenditure was used for food at home.
Personal insurance and pensions ac­counted
for 11 percent of this group's
total expenditure ($3,713). On average,
older baby boomers spent a little more
for apparel ($1,856) than they did for
entertainment ($1,767) and health care
($1,348).
Conclusions and Implications
The primary finding of this descriptive
study was that younger and older boomers
spent identical shares of their total ex­penditure
for total food, food at home,
food away from home, household opera­tions,
household furnishings and equip­ment,
entertainment, transportation, and
personal insurance and pensions. For
other expenditure categories, the share
spent by the two groups differed by 1 or
2 percentage points.
Family Economics RevieW
Younger and older baby boomers did
differ by two socioeconomic charac­teristics-
housing tenure and family
structure. A higher percentage of older
boomers were homeowners and could
use a major asset-their home-to
accrue equity and thus be more
economically secure. Compared with
younger boomers, older baby boomers
were more likely to be married and be
in families composed of a husband,
wife, and children. The decision to have
children later in the life cycle means
successive life-cycle stages will be
shifted to increasingly older parents­baby
boomers may have certain expendi­tures
later than has traditionally been
the case. In addition to preparing for
retirement, boomers may be paying for
their children's college education,
helping children to establish separate
households, and assisting aging parents.
Further study on delayed parenthood
and baby boomers' retirement plans is
warranted.
1993 Vol. 6 No.2
References
l. Bouvier, L.F. and De Vita, C.J. 1991. The Baby Boom-Entering Midlife.
Population Bulletin, Volume 46, No.3. Population Reference Bureau, Inc.
2. Bums, S.A. and Widdows, R. 1988. An estimation of savings needs to adequately
fund baby boomers' retirement. In V.L. Hampton, ed. American Council on
Consumer Interests-The Proceedings, pp. 15-18. Proceedings of the 34th Annual
Conference of the American Council on Consumer Interests. [Chicago, Illinois,
April 1988].
3. Coulson, L.A. 1990. Female baby boomers-Savings over time. In M. Carsky,
ed. American Council on Consumer Interests-The Proceedings, pp. 316-321.
Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the American Council on Consumer
Interests. [New Orleans, Louisiana, March 1990].
4. Dinkins, J .M. 1992. Housing expenditures of never-marrieds. Journal of Home
Economics 84(/):8-14.
5. Fronszek, P.J. and Savage, H.A. 1991 . Who Can Afford To Buy a House? Current
Housing Report, Series H121/91-1, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census.
6. Guadagno, M.A.N. 1991. Economic status of two-parent families with employed
teens and young adults. Family Economics Review 4(4):2-10.
7. Lino, M. and Ray, G. 1992. Young husband-wife households with children.
Family Economics Review 5(/):9-16.
8. Russell, C. 1991. On the baby-boom bandwagon. American Demographics
13(5):24-27, 30-31.
9. Saunders, N.C. 1989. The aggregate structure of the economy. Monthly Labor
Review 112(/ I): 13-24.
10. Schwenk, F.N. 1992. Income and expenditures of older widowed, divorced, and
never-married women who live alone. Family Economics Review 5(1):2-8.
11. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1991. Consumer
Expenditures in 1990. News. USDL No. 91-607.
12. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1991 . Consumer
Expenditure Survey, I988-89. Bulletin 2383.
13. Waldrop, J. 1991. The baby boom turns 45. American Demographics 13(/):
22-27.
7
8
•
Child-Care Trends
By Nancy E. Schwenk
Consumer Economist
Family Economics Research Group
The demand for child care in the United States is increasing. Most children
of employed mothers are cared for in child-care centers or in family day-care
homes. Since 1965, care by relatives and in-home care have declined.
Children are being enrolled in child-care centers and in preschool educa­tional
programs at an earlier age. Some parents have solved the conflict
between work and family by working at home or by working shifts that do
not overlap with their spouse's work hours. According to Wilier (18), low­income
families (those earning less than $15,000 per year) spend as much
as 23 percent of their income on child care. Some financial help is available to
working parents. A growing number of employers offer child-care benefits to
their employees. The Federal Government subsidizes the cost of meals and
snacks at qualifying family day-care homes and child-care centers. Also,
working parents can claim a credit for child-care expenses on their Federal
income tax form. In the future, more parents are likely to work at home or
engage in split-shift parenting, and more employers will be getting involved in
the care of employees' children, to the benefit of all.
omen employed outside
the home have become the
norm. In 1990, the propor­tion
of American children
under the age of 18 with mothers in
the labor force was 62 percent, up from
39 percent in 1970 (1 8). Over half of
mothers with children under age 6 are
in the labor force (5). By the year 2000,
women are projected to represent 4 7.5
percent of the labor force and to account
for nearly two-thirds of the new entrants
into the labor force (9). In addition,
annual births are almost 5 percent ahead
of the Census Bureau's earlier high­fertility
projections thus far in the 1990's.
The number of preschool-age children
is expected to peak at 20.2 million in
1994 (2). The potential demand for
child care is substantial for this larger­than-
expected age group.
No Supplemental Care
Although they were in the labor force,
37 percent of employed mothers used
no supplemental care for their children
ages 12 and under in 1990 (18). Many
of these mothers worked at home or
had work hours that did not overlap
with their spouse's. The rate was lower
for mothers of preschool children. Of
employed mothers, 32 percent with
children under age 3 and 21 percent
with children ages 3-4 used no supple­mental
care. Of employed mothers of
school-age children 5-12 years, 44 per­cent
used no supplemental care. Either
these parents could provide before­and
after-school care for their children,
or they allowed children to care for
themselves.
Family Economics Review
Home-Based Workers
An increasing number of children are
being cared for at home by parents who
are employed at home, either as business
owners or by an outside employer.
Others are able to take work home
from the job--a concept known as
flexiplace (8). Parents who are home­based
workers may be able to combine
their work life with their home life,
reduce conflicts between the two, and
spend more time with their young
children. Home-based workers represent
a growing segment of the labor force, as
the needs of young children have forced
some parents to withdraw from employ­ment
outside the home.
To examine home-based workers, the
NE-167 Regional Research Project was
undertaken in 1989, with nine States
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture
participating (3). 1 The project defined a
home-based worker as "a person age 18
or older who had worked 6 or more
hours per week or a minimum of 312
hours during the previous 12 months,"
either in or from the home to earn
income. Of the home-based workers in
this study, three of four had their own
business, such as contracting, repair
work, home child care, or work involv­ing
arts or crafts. Of those paid by an
outside employer, most were engaged
in marketing or sales. Home-based
business owners worked an average of
36 hours per week, compared with 39
hours for those paid by an employer.
Eighty-five percent of home-based
workers in this study were married,
42 percent were female, 54 percent had
children, and 28 percent had children
I
The NE-167 Regional Research Project, "At-Home-
Income-Generation: Impact on Management,
Productivity, and Stability in Rural/Urban
Families," was supported by the Agricultural
Experiment Stations of Hawaii, Iowa, Michigan,
Lmcoln University (Missouri), New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Utah, and Vermont and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
1993 Vol. 6 No.2
Child-Care Settings
• No Supplemental Care-parents
provide all care for their children
or use non parental care only on
an irregular basis.
• Relative Care-care is provided
by a relative, such as a grand­parent
or aunt, in the child's
home or the relative's home.
• In-Home Care-a nonrelative
comes to the child's home to
provide care.
• Family Day Care-care is
provided in a caregiver's home
for a small group of children.
• Child-Care Center-children
are cared for in a group in a
nonresidential setting for all or
part of the day. Centers can be
nonprofit or for profit, inde­pendent
or chain members (18).
Source: Willer, B. et al. 1991. The demand
and supply of child care in 1990. National
Association for the Education of Young
Children.
under age 6 (3). Being able to "take
care of family" was considered a main
advantage of home-based work by 35
percent of business owners and by 28
percent of paid workers. The majority
(83 percent) reported receiving "a lot"
of satisfaction with home-based
employment (3).
Working at home, however, is not always
compatible with caring for young
children. Many home-based workers
must work when children are asleep or,
even though they are at home, rely on
other caregivers. Mothers who work as
family day-care providers (40 percent
of all women who work olely at home)
avoid this incompatibility problem (8).
• The great majority
of family day-care
homes are not
regulated ...
9
Split-Shift Parenting
Another solution to the conflict between
work and family for some couples is
split-shift parenting. By 1985, one in
six dual-income couples with children
under 6 years of age had work hours
that did not overlap, enabling parents to
take turns caring for children while their
spouse worked (7). The standard work­week
of five 8-hour days was the norm
for only 46 percent of women and 42
percent of men in nonagricultural jobs.
Of those parents with children under
age 14, 24 percent of mothers and 30
percent of fathers worked on Saturdays
and/or Sundays (8).
Men's attitudes toward caring for
children are changing, with more men
willing to place family ahead of work.
According to a 1989 Robert Half Inter­national
survey, 74 percent of men
indicated they would rather have a
"daddy track" job than a "fast-track"
job (7). The growing diversity of work
schedules results in greater paternal
involvement in child care.
In addition, many couples find the
cost of quality child care prohibitive.
Although split-shift parenting can help
financially, it may not be a satisfactory
choice when a spouse works a rotating
shift or when hours worked by spouses
overlap (8) .
The number of dual-income couples
engaged in split-shift parenting is
expected to increase. According to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics' projections
for job growth into the next decade, the
largest absolute gains will be in service
businesses that often require employ­ment
during nonstandard hours­evening
and weekend work. Waiters and
waitresses, registered nurses, janitors and
cleaners, retail salespersons, and cashiers
will be in particular demand (8).
10
Supplemental Care
Relative Care
The overall growth in the labor force
participation of women has resulted in a
decline in the number of nonemployed
female relatives available to care for
children. In 1965, 33 percent of the
youngest preschool-age children of
employed mothers were cared for by a
relative, compared with 19 percent in
1990 (1 8). On the other hand, relatives
may be available to care for employed
mothers' chi ldren if work hours do not
overlap. For example, one-third of
women who cared for their grandchildren
were themselves employed (8).
Care by relatives is usually free or at low
cost, with only two-fifths of relatives
receiving cash payments (8). Some
employed mothers may prefer to have
relatives care for their children; others
may use relatives because they have
no affordable alte rnative. In most cases,
relatives are likely to provide more
loving care than a nonrelative (8).
In-Home Care
In-home care is the least-often used
type of supplemental child care. Only
3 percent of the youngest preschool
chi ldren of employed mothers were
cared for in-home in 1990, compared
with 15 percent in 1965 (1 8) (figure 1).
The price of such care, which averaged
$2.30 per hour for these children in
1990 (1 8), may be prohibitive to many
families.
Figure 1. Child-care arrangements for youngest preschool child
of employed mothers, 1965-90
Percent
40
30
20
10
0
Parent Relative In-Home Family Center
day care
0 1965 • 1977 . 1990
Source: Willer, B. eta/., 1991, The Demand and Supply of Child Care in 1990, National
Association for the Education of Young Children.
Family Economics Review
Table 1. Child-care fees across the country by type of program, 1990
Average fee of those programs charging fees only
Area Centers charging fees
(percent)
Regulated Nonregulated
Centers family day care family day care
Total U.S.
By region
Northeast
South
Midwest
West
By community type
Urban
Suburban
Rural
85
85
88
84
89
86
92
82
$1.59/hr
2.18
1.29
1.63
1.71
1.78
1.55
1.31
$1.64/hr $1.48/hr
2.02 1.83
1.32 0.89
1.42 1.83
1.86 1.32
1.74 1.74
1.67 1.66
1.38 1.07
Source: Willer, B. et at., 1991, The Demand and Supply of Child Care in 1990, National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Family Day Care
Family day care can be either regulated
or nonregulated. In 1990, there were
about 118,000 regulated family day­care
homes with capacity for 860,000
children (5). The great majority of
family day-care homes are not regu­lated,
however, since 36 States exempt
homes serving less than four unrelated
children from mandatory regulation (1 8).
Estimates of the number of nonregu­lated
family day-care homes range from
550,000 to 1.1 million (1 8).
The supply of regulated family day-care
homes is relatively more concentrated
in the Midwest and the West and less
concentrated in the Northeast and the
South. This reflects differences among
States in the exemption of small family
day-care providers from regulation (5).
A family day-care provider is often a
mother with young children at home.
Among employed mothers, 22 percent
used family day care for infants and
1993 Vol. 6 No.2
toddlers, 17 percent for 3- to 4-year-olds,
and 7 percent for 5- to 12-year-olds (18).
Twenty-five percent of regulated family
day-care providers are sponsored by a
local agency that organizes family day
care, and about 50 percent of regulated
providers network with other family
day-care providers (5).
Of all regulated family day-care
providers, 99 percent charged fees,
which averaged $1.64 per hour in 1990.
Of nonregulated family day-care
providers, 77 percent charged fees,
which averaged $1.48 per hour (1 8)
(table 1).
Center Care
Since the mid-1970's, the number of
center-care programs has tripled, and
center enrollments have quadrupled (5).
In 1990, 4 million preschool children
were being cared for at about 80,000
early education and care centers. These
center-care facilities were licensed to
erve an additional 200,000 children
(18).
Center-based programs are distributed
across the country in approximate pro­portion
to the preschool-age population.
However, relatively more spaces are
available in the South, and relatively
fewer spaces are available in the West
and in rural areas (5).
Nonprofit organizations sponsored 65
percent of early education and care
centers in 1990 (18) (figure 2, p. 12).
An average of 62 children were enrolled
per program (table 2, p. 13 ). Smallest
enrollments were in publicly sponsored
programs, such as Head Start and public
school programs, whereas for-profit
chains had the largest enrollments.
The growing proportion of mothers of
very young children who are employed
has resulted in a hift toward caring
for younger children in centers. The
proportion of infants in center care
increased from I to 4 percent between
1976 and 1990, while the proportion
of children ages 1-2 increased from
3 to 5 percent (18).
11
Fees were charged by 85 percent of all
centers in 1990, averaging $1.59 per
hour. Publicly sponsored programs,
such as Head Start (a free program) and
public school programs, averaged $1.19
per hour, whereas independent non­profit
centers averaged $1.73 per hour
(1 8). Fees were higher in urban areas
than in rural areas, and higher in the
Northeast and the West than in the
South and the Midwest (18).
In I 990, the cost of child care (center
care, family day care, or in-home care)
for employed mothers of a preschool
child averaged $63 per week, or 10 per­cent
of income among mothers who
paid for care (18). Families with incomes
under $15,000 spent 23 percent of their
income on child care, whereas families
with incomes of at least $50,000 spent
6 percent (18) (figure 3).
The educational attainment of center
staff and regulated family day-care
providers has increased greatly since
the mid-1970' s. The proportion of center
teachers with at least a colJege degree
increased from 29 percent in 1976-77 to
41 percent in 1990. Similarly, the average
educational level of family day-care
providers increased from high school
to 1 year of college during the same
period (18).
Public and Private Programs
That Help With Child Care
Child and Adult Care Food Program
The Child and Adult Care Food Program
(CACFP) was formerly known as the
Special Food Service Program for
Children and then as the Child Care
Food Program. It is a Federal program
established in 1968 to provide cash
reimbursement and donated foods to
help provide nutritious meals and
snacks to children enrolled in
12
Figure 2. Sponsorship of early education and care centers
serving preschoolers, 1990
Independent
for profit
For-profit
chain
Head
Start
Public school
Independent
nonprofit
Religious sponsor
Other sponsored
nonprofit
Source: Willer, B. eta/., 1991, The Demand and Supply of Child Care in 1990, National
Association for the Education of Young Children.
Figure 3. Percentage of family income spent on child care 1 by
family income, 1990
Family income
<$15,000 23%
$1 5,000 - $24,999 12%
$25,000 -$34,999 8%
$35,000- $49,999 7%
>$50,000 6%
11ncludes only families with employed mothers with youngest child under age 5 who pay for care.
Source: Willer, B. eta/., 1991, The Demand and Supply of Child Care in 1990, National
Association for the Education of Young Children.
Family Economics Review
Table 2. Profiles of early education and care settings, 1990
Centers All
Non12rofit For 12rofit centers Famil~ da~ care
Program Head Public Religious Other In de- Chain lnde- Regulated Non-characteristic
Start school sponsor sponsor pendent pendent regulated
Average number
of children 50 58 73 58
enrolled per
63 91 67 62 6 3
program
Average percentage
Children ages 3
to 5 in relation to 99 83 74 74 69 48 59 62 39 40
total enrollment
Children from
families receiving 68 NA 5 30 10 6 8 17 5 13
public assistance
Program
income from 95 76 3 38 11 3 6 22 NA NA
public agencies
Teachers who
have a college 45 88 50 52 49 31 35 47 11 15
degree
Average annual
teacher turnover 20 14 23 25 25 39 27 25 NA NA
rate
NA =Not applicable or not available.
Source: Willer, B. eta/. , 1991, The Demand and Supply of Child Care in /990, National Association for the Education of Young Children.
nonresidential child-care centers and
family day-care homes (1 1).2 To partici­pate
in the program, family day-care
homes must be licensed and operate
under a sponsoring organization. Any
public or private nonprofit day-care
center can apply to the CACFP directly
or through a sponsoring organization.
Children who are 12 years old or younger
(or 15 years old or younger for migrant
workers) are eligible to participate.
Providers must serve meals that meet
meal-pattern requirements specified in
program regulations, and are reimbursed
at different rates for each type of meal
2
1n November 1987, Public Law I 00- 175
amended the National School Lunch Act to allow
certain adult day-care centers to participate in the
program.
1993 Vol. 6 No. 2
served. For example, as of July 1992,
family day-care providers were reim­bursed
$.80 per breakfast served,
$1.4525 per lunch or supper, and
$.4325 per snack (11) .
The CACFP is either administered by
a State agency, usually the State Depart­ment
of Education, or operated directly
by USDA's Food and Nutrition Service
(11). The program has grown from an
average daily attendance of 138,400
children and total Federal cash reim­bursement
of$1.5 million in fiscal 1969
(table 3, p. 14) to an average daily
attendance of I ,930,000 and total
Federal cash reimbursement of $1,078.2
million in fiscal 1992 (1 2).
Preschool Programs
Many experts in the field of early child­hood
education believe that children are
better prepared for elementary school
if they have experienced some high­quality
group care or preschool (1 7).
Employed as well as unemployed
mothers are enrolling their children in
preschool educational programs at an
increasingly early age. In 1965, only 5
percent of 3-year-olds and 16 percent of
4-year-olds were enrolled in a preschool
educational program. In 1989, 27 per­cent
of 3-year-olds and 51 percent of
4-year-olds were enrolled (1 8).
According to the Department of
Education's 1991 National Household
Education Survey, 71 percent of
surveyed children had attended a
center-based program (exc luding
kindergarten)-either a day-care center,
13
• The Federal Child
and Dependent Care
Tax Credit ...
provided $3.4 billion
to families in fiscal
year 1988.
14
Table 3. Child- and adult-care food program, 1969-90
Fiscal year Average daily attendance 1
(in thousands)
Total Federal
cash reimbursement
(in millions)
1969
1970
1975
1980
1985
1986
1987
1988
19892
1990
1991
1992
138.4
320.3
457.1
757.1
1,144.7
1,188.1
1,292.0
1,354.4
I ,445.0
1,615.7
1,677.8
1,930.0
$ 1.5
7.7
48.8
214.0
385.6
425.4
479.5
535.2
610.7
715.6
932.0
1,078.2
1 Average daily attendance for month in which greatest number of people participated.
2Public Law 100-175 allowed certain adult day-care centers to be eligible for assistance under the
CACFP, beginning in fiscal 1989. No separate reimbursement breakout is available.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, SFS-2-69 - SFS-2a-75, CCFP-2-
80- CFP-2-88, and CACFP-2-89- CACFP-2-90.
a preschool, or both-before starting
elementary school. The higher the
educational attainment of the parents,
the more likely a child was to have had
a center··based experience. For example,
of children whose parents had attended
graduate or professional school, 84 per­cent
had attended a day-care center or
preschool, compared with only 47 per­cent
of children whose parents had less
than a high school education (17).
Child and Dependent Care
Tax Credit
The Federal Child and Dependent Care
Tax Credit is a major source of public
assistance for child care. A parent who
pays someone to care for a child while
he or she (and spouse, if married) works
or looks for work can qualify for a child­care
credit on their Federal income tax
return. The parent(s) must have earned
income to claim this credit. Any depend­ent
child under age 13 who lives in the
same home with the parent(s) can be
claimed. The parent must provide the
name, address, Social Security number
or employer identification number, and
amount paid to each person or organiza­tion
that provided care on an attachment
to Form 1040. The maximum credit
allowed in 1991 was $2,400 for one
child and $4,800 for two or more
children (16).
The credit provided $3.4 billion to
families in fiscal year 1988. In general,
as family income increases, the percent­age
of families claiming the tax credit
increases. For the 1988 tax year, the
credit was claimed by 22 percent of
families with incomes under $15,000,
compared with 37 percent of families
with incomes of $50,000 or more (1 8).
Family Economics Review
Child Care as an Employee Benefit
The increasing presence of women in
the labor force places pressure on em­ployers
to provide family-related bene­fits,
such as parental leave, adoption
benefits,3 flextime,4 and child care.
Most employers in the United States do
not actively participate in the care of
employees' children. However, many
employers are adjusting work schedules,
providing benefit packages, and using
recruitment efforts to publicize their
programs and policies that benefit families.
Employers offer family-related benefits
to attract and retain quality employees,
to increase productivity by reducing
absenteeism and tardiness, and to reduce
turnover rates, thus lowering costs of
retraining and recruitment (9).
Employer-sponsored child-care options
include the following:
• On-site or near-site child-care
centers.
• Consortium centers-groups of
employers share the co t and
benefits of establishing and
operating a child-care center.
• Resource and referral services for
child care--counsel employees on
how to find and judge quality care.
• Employee discounts with child-care
providers.
• Voucher systems--companies
subsidize a percentage of child­care
costs at programs cho en by
the parents.
3
Adoption benefits include direct financial assis­tance
or reimbursement for ex pen es related to
adoption and/or the provision of paid or unpaid
leave for the adoptive parent (9).
4
Flextime allows employees to vary the beginning
and end of their workday. The number of hours
worked per day or the total number of hours
worked per pay period may vary, though most
flextime plans require a core time each day (9).
1993 Vol. 6 No.2
• Before- and after-school care­support
offered through public
school or community agencies.
• Travel care--company provides
reimbursements for child-care costs
incurred by work-related travel
(15).
Typically, large establishments are
more likely than small ones to offer
child-care benefits to their employees.
The results of three recent employee
surveys issued by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) show how employer
size and type affect the likelihood of
child care as a benefit. According to
the 1988 survey of private-sector estab­lishments
with 100 or more employees,
4 percent of full-time employees were
eligible for subsidized child care. This
benefit was more frequently available
to employees in service-producing
(6 percent) and service establishments
(9 percent) than to employees in goods­producing
establishments (2 percent).
Relatively few women are employed in
goods-producing establishments (1).
The 1990 survey of establishments with
fewer than 100 employees reveals that
only I percent of employees, both full
time and part time, were eligible for
subsidized child care (1 3). According
to the survey of State and local govern­ment
employees, 9 percent of full-time
employees were eligible for subsidized
child care (1 4).
A more widespread method of helping
employees with child-care expenses is
through reimbursement accounts (also
called flexible spending accounts) that
provide funds from which employees
pay for expenses not covered by their
regular benefits package, such as child
care (1 3). Money is taken out of the
employee's paycheck on a pretax ba is,
thereby lowering the tax burden (4).
Reimbursement accounts are currently
the most common method of providing
assistance with child-care costs (4).
Thirty-one percent of full-time employees
covered in the 1990 Bureau of Labor
Statistics survey of State and local
government employees were eligible for
such accounts (14), as were 23 percent
of employees in medium and large
establishments (4) and nearly 10 percent
of employees in the small establishment
survey. A greater proportion of white­collar
than blue-collar workers were
eligible in small establishments (13) .
Child-Care Network
A group of U.S. companies, led by
International Business Machines Corp.,
plans to invest millions of dollars to
provide facilities to care for employees'
children and elderly relatives (6). The
project, which is expected to be fully
implemented by the fall of 1993, will
expand or construct dependent-care
facilities, including elder care, child
care, and after-school programs, in as
many as 60 locations nationwide. The
group, called the American Business
Collaboration for Quality Dependent
Care, consists of at least 40 major
companies, including AT&T, American
Express, Eastman Kodak, Johnson and
Johnson, Exxon Corp., and Xerox Corp.
The extent to which the companies
would subsidize the costs of the facilities
for their employees who use them and
the ownership of the facilities have yet
to be determined. evertheless, over
200 companies have participated in
discussions on the project, and between
40 and 60 companies have signed letters
of intent, pledging between $100,000
and $7 million.
15
Emergency Care
A major concern of working parents is
how to provide child care when a child
is mildly sick or when a child's regular
caregiver is temporarily unavailable.
American businesses lose an estimated
$3 billion a year because of child-care­related
employee absences (10). To
address this concern, 14 companies
in the New York City area founded
Emergency Child Care Services in 1989.
The companies use the services of Child
Care, Inc., a nonprofit, private resource­and-
referral agency, to provide emergency
caregivers in employees' homes. Each
participating company pays a $4,000
annual fee to Child Care, Inc., and a
share of the caregiver's fee. Most of the
companies pay the full amount ($11 to
$13.25 per hour for in-home care) for
3 days, then 50 percent for the next
3 days.
16
References
1. Burke, T.P. and Morton, J.D. 1990. How firm ize and industry affect employee
benefits. Monthly Labor Review 113(12):35-43.
2. Exter, T. 1991 . And baby makes 20 million. American Demographics J 3(7):55.
3. Furry, M.M. and Lino, M. 1992. An overview of home-based work: Results from a
regional research project. Family Economics Review 5(3):2-8.
4. Hyland, S.L. 1990. Helping employees with family care. Monthly Labor Review
113(9):22-26.
5. Kisker, E.E. et al. 1991. A Profile of Child Care Settings: Early Education and Care
in 1990, Executive Summary. U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under
Secretary.
6. McCartney, R.J. 1992. Major firms plan child-care network. The Washington Post,
July 10 issue.
7. McEnroe, J. 1991. Split-shift parenting. American Demographics 13(2):50-52.
8. Presser, H.B . 1989. Can we make time for children? The economy, work schedules,
and child care. Demography 26(4):523-542.
9. Saltford, N.C. and Heck, R.K.Z. 1990. An Overview of Employee Benefits Supportive
of Families. Employee Benefits Research Institute.
10. Schlosberg, J. 1991 . A small change for working parents: Emergency child care in
New York City. American Demographics 13(2):53.
II. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 1990. The child and
adult food program memos: Family day care homes component, child care component,
adult care component, and payments for meals served in day care centers and day care
homes and administrative payments for day care home sponsors.
12. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 1970-J 99 J. Special
food service program SFS-2-69- SFS-2a-75, Child care food program CCFP-2-80-
CCFP-2-88, and Child and adult care food program CACFP-2-89-CACFP-2-90.
13. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1991 . Employee Benefits in
Small Private Establishments, 1990. Bulletin 2388.
14. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1991. Employee benefits in
state and local governments address family concerns. News. USDL No. 91-549.
15. U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Secretary, Women's Bureau. 1990. Work
and family resource kit, Dependent care options.
16. U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. 1991. 1040 Forms and
Instructions, Package 1040-5.
17. West, J. et a!. 1992. Experiences in child care and early childhood programs of first
and second graders. Statistics in Brief NCES 92-005. U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics.
18. Willer, B. et al. 1991 . The demand and supply of child care in 1990. National
Association for the Education of Young Children.
Family Economics Review
1993 Vol. 6 No.2
Research Summaries •
Training to
Qualify for Jobs
and Improve Skills
The number of workers who were
trained to improve their job skills rose
by 13 million from 1983 to 1991,
according to a recent study undertaken
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This
article presents data collected in a
supplement to the January 1991 Current
Population SUIVey (CPS) on how workers
get trained before they are hired and
after they are on the job. If schools or
formal company programs were used,
further questions addressed the type of
program, who paid for it, how long it
lasted, and whether respondents
completed their training.
Knowing how much and what kind
of training employees need in order to
qualify for their jobs can help workers
decide how to prepare for a new
occupation. Employers can use training
information to evaluate their require­ments
for new employees or the type
and amount of training they provide.
Training specialists can use it to assess
changes in their courses or to target
specific groups of employees.
Workers who reported taking skill
improvement training were divided into
five categories, according to the type of
training: (1) managerial or supervisory
skills, (2) reading, writing, and math
skills, (3) computer-related skills,
(4) occupation-specific technical skills,
and (5) other skills. For all occupational
groups except administrative support
and private household, occupation­specific
technical training wa the .
primary form of training for improvmg
skills. Administrative support workers
most often worked on improving
computer skills. "Other" skills were
the secondary training focus of service
workers.
Twenty-six percent of 16- to 19-year­old
employees said they needed training
to get their jobs in 1991. This proportion
increased steadily with age, peaking at
63 percent for workers ages 35 to 44
(see table, p. 18). Starting at age 55, the
proportion of employees who said they
needed training to get their jobs de­clined
sharply, reaching 44 percent for
those age 65 and over. At 56 percent,
women needed training to qualify for
their jobs about as often as men (57
percent). The more education workers
have, the more they reported the need
for specific training to get their jobs.
The 53 percent of employees in private
industry who reported they needed train­ing
to get their jobs was the smallest of
the classes of workers, even though
they made up by far the largest group.
This is because a relatively large number
of employees in private industry work
in occupations that require the fewest
skills and the least training. About 75
percent of State and local government
workers, 66 percent of Federal Govern­ment
workers, and 60 percent of the
self-employed said they needed training.
Other occupations that required training
for a relatively large number of workers
were technician and related support
occupations (86 percent), and executive,
administrative, and managerial
occupations (72 percent).
Workers most frequently got training
to qualify for their jobs in school (33
percent), through informal on-the-job
training (27 percent), and through
formal company programs (12 percent).
Seven percent obtained training from
a friend or relative or other experience
unrelated to work; 2 percent from the
Armed Forces; and 1 percent from
correspondence courses. Relatively
more women used school as the source
of their needed_ training, and relatively
more men used other methods.
The more schooling workers have, the
more likely they will work in jobs that
require training and the more likely
their schoolwork qualified them for
17
Workers who needed training to qualify for their jobs or to improve their skills, and source of the training,
by selected characteristics, 1991
Workers
in group Source of training (percent) 1
Formal Informal
Characteristic (percent) School company on-the-job Other
Age group
16 and over 57 33 12 27 10
16- 19 26 8 4 16 4
20-24 46 25 8 23 6
25-34 60 36 13 30 10
35-44 63 38 14 30 11
45-54 60 34 14 28 13
55-64 53 28 10 24 11
65 and over 44 23 6 17 13
Sex
Male 57 31 14 29 15
Female 56 35 9 25 7
Race and ethnicity
White 58 34 12 28 11
Black 47 24 12 20 8
All other races3 58 37 11 23 11
Hispanic origin 4 41 17 8 20 8
Highest grade completed
High school or less 41 12 10 25 10
Some college 63 36 16 32 13
College graduate 84 72 13 28 11
Occupational group
Executive, administrative, and managerial 72 49 17 37 14
Professional specialty 92 83 11 25 11
Technical, related support 86 63 17 31 14
Sales occupations 43 17 13 26 9
Administrative support, clerical 55 32 10 30 6
Private household 10 4 1 3 4
Service, except private household 37 14 9 18 9
Farming, forestry, fishing 28 9 2 17 13
Precision production, craft, repair 62 19 19 36 19
Machine operators, assemblers, inspectors 38 8 8 25 6
Transportation, material movers 42 4 11 24 11
Handlers, equipment cleaners, laborers 20 2 3 14 4
1 Percents may add to more than l 00 because some workers identified more than one source of training.
2Examples of other sources are Armed Forces, correspondence courses, private lessons, reading professional journals, attending seminars or conventions, and
hobbies.
3This category includes Asian-Pacific Islanders, American Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts, and other races.
4Hispanics may be Black, White, American Indian, or any other race.
Source: Amirault, T., 1992, Training to qualify for jobs and improve skills, 1991, Monrhly Labor Review 115(9):31-36.
18 Family Economics Review
those jobs. Apart from school, however,
it appears that workers with some
college education used other sources
of training in higher proportions than
either college graduates or less educated
workers. Private industry, government,
and self-employed workers most
frequently attended school to prepare
for their jobs. The second most popular
way to qualify for jobs was on-the-job
training across all sectors.
Acquiring skills to qualify for jobs is
one aspect of training; another is
improving job skills. In January 1991,
46.8 million workers reported taking
this additional training to improve their
job skills. The proportion of all workers
taking skill improvement training
increased from 35 percent to 41 percent
between 1983 and 1991-a much larger
increase than in the proportions of those
who needed training to qualify for their
jobs. Most of the increase resulted from
greater use of formal company training
programs, which replaced on-the-job
training as the most frequently used
way workers were trained to improve
their job skills.
Between 1983 and 1991, workers most
likely to take skill improvement training
were ages 35 to 64. Workers in these
age groups tend to stay with the same
employer longer and are most likely to
provide the greatest return to a company
investing in their skills. About 40 per­cent
of men and women reported taking
training; they also showed almost equal
increases since 1983. Although workers
in each racial and ethnic group received
relatively more training for their jobs
than in 1983, Whites continued to report
the highest proportion (42 percent),
followed by "other races" (38 percent),
Blacks (34 percent), and Hispanics
(28 percent).
Although the proportion of workers
taking skill improvement training has
increased since 1983 for all workers,
the rate increased as they acquired addi­tional
education. Government workers
1993 Vol. 6 No. 2
were also most likely to say they had
taken training to improve skills for their
jobs. The percentages for Federal, State,
and local government workers were each
about 60 percent. While government
employees accounted for 16 percent of
all workers, they took 24 percent of the
training. Relatively few self-employed
people (34 percent) said they took skill
improvement training. Workers in all
sectors were more likely to have taken
training to improve their skills in 1991
than in 1983.
The percentage of respondents who said
they took training for their jobs ranged
from 6 percent among private household
workers to 67 percent among profes­sional
specialty workers. Physicians,
engineers, and other technical specialists
must keep developing their skills and
knowledge or face obsolescence. A high
percentage of workers in technician and
related support occupations (59 percent)
and executive, administrative, and
managerial occupations (53 percent)
also received training to improve their
skills.
Unlike training to qualify for a job,
employees who were trained in order
to improve their job skills reported they
used formal company programs (16
percent), informal on-the-job training
(15 percent), and school (14 percent)
with almost equal frequency. Only
7 percent reported they tried to improve
their job skills by using "other" training
methods. The proportion of workers
taking skiii improvement training from
any source increased with age until the
35-to-44 age group, declined slightly in
the 45-to-54 age group, and then dropped
off sharply for workers older than 54.
A similar proportion of men and women
obtained training to improve their skills,
but the source of training differed.
Relatively more women used school,
whereas men were more likely to par­ticipate
in formal company programs.
Among racial and ethnic groups, rela­tively
more Whites used three of the
four training sources-school programs,
on-the-job training, and "other" sources­and
tied with "other races" for the highest
participation in formal company training.
Informal on-the-job training was the
most frequent form of training received
by Blacks and Hispanics to improve job
skills.
Just as more educated workers are most
likely to have been trained for their jobs
in school, they are also most likely to
use school to improve their skills.
Federal Government employees used
formal company training most frequently
(37 percent) and local government workers
used school most often (33 percent).
Almost equal proportions of the self­employed
identified school and "other"
methods ( 13 percent) of training to
improve job skills. While not as frequent
as formal company training, school was
cited with about the same frequency as
on-the-job training for executive, admin­istrative,
and managerial occupations,
and technician and related support
occupations. School, on-the-job training,
and "other" methods were used almost
equally in farming, forestry, and fishing
occupations.
The rapid expansion in formal company
training programs accounted for 40 per­cent
of the increase between 1983 and
L 991 in the number of workers who said
they were trained for work. Training in
formal company programs increased by
7.3 million to 18.0 million. The length
of these formal company programs
was also noticeably longer in 1991
compared with 1983.
Source: Amirault, T., 1992, Training to qualify for
jobs and improve skills, 1991, Monthly Labor
Review 115(9):31-36.
19
• U.S.Workers
Receive a Wide
Range of Employee
Benefits
In 1991, employer-provided benefits
accounted for nearly 30 percent of
compensation costs. The Bureau of
Labor Statistics Employee Benefits
Survey provides data on the incidence
and details of benefit plans offered to
employees. Established in 1979, the
Employee Benefits Survey has expanded
during the past decade to represent
more components of the civilian non­farm
economy, including small private
establishments, State and local govern­ments,
part-time employees, and other
employees. Data on households and the
Federal Government are not collected.
Data presented in this report are from
surveys conducted in 1989 and 1990.
About 65 million full-time private
industry employees and 13 million State
and local government employees are
covered.
Medical Care and Life Insurance
Employer-provided medical care cover­age
has been the subject of considerable
attention recently. Slightly more than
80 percent of full-time employees
received medical care benefits at least
partly financed by their employer
during 1989-90 (see table).
Medical care benefits in private industry
are provided to 80 percent of full-time
employees, whereas dental care benefits
are available to half of all full-time
employees in this sector. Government
employees have a higher incidence of
these benefits. Among full-time State
and local government employees, 93
percent have medical care benefits and
62 percent have dental care benefits
provided by their employer.
20
In the private sector, coverage for medical
care varies greatly by establishment
size-that is, number of employees. In
medium and large e tablishments, 9 of I 0
employees receive medical care benefits
from their employer; in small estab­lishments
(those with fewer than 100
employees), 7 of 10 employees have
medical care benefits.
The incidence of life insurance varies
little between the private and public
sectors. Overall, 81 percent of all full­time
employees have life insurance
benefits. In the private sector, employ­ees
in larger establishments nearly
always receive life insurance benefits,
compared with two-thirds of employees
in smaller establishments.
Leave Benefits
The most prevalent benefit provided by
employers is paid leave. Nearly nine­tenths
of full-time employees receive
paid vacations and holidays. These
benefits are most frequently provided
to private sector workers, especially
white-collar employees.
The incidence of paid holidays and
vacations is lower in State and local
governments, attributable mainly to the
low incidence of such benefits among
teachers. Teachers are typically em­ployed
and paid for a fixed number of
days, such as 180 schooldays per year.
This schedule eliminates vacation leave.
State and local government employees,
other than teachers, do receive vacations
and holidays; two-thirds of them are
provided vacation leave and three­quarters
have paid holidays.
A benefit recently receiving attention
throughout the United States relates to
the time taken by employees for the
birth or care of their children. Unpaid
maternity leave is available to 31 per­cent
of full-time employees, and unpaid
paternity leave is available to 16 percent.
Half of State and local government
employees could receive unpaid
maternity leave and one-third could
receive unpaid paternity leave. Among
private sector employees, unpaid
maternity (27 percent) and paternity
(13 percent) leave is less prevalent. Paid
maternity or paternity leave is rarely
provided for any public or private
sector employee.
Retirement Plans
Retirement income is available from a
variety of sources. For all private sector
workers and many government workers,
Social Security is available. In addition,
two-thirds of an full-time employees
receive retirement benefits beyond
Social Security from their employer.
The most popular retirement benefit is
the defined benefit pension, which
specifies a formula for calculating an
employee's pension. Half of all full­time
employees are offered this benefit.
The defmed contribution plan, which
specifies the contribution an employer
and an employee must make to the plan,
is the next most popular retirement
benefit, with 34 percent of all full-time
employees participating.
New Benefits
Among new benefits emerging in the
work force arena, flexible benefits plans
have received considerable attention.
Flexible benefits plans, also known as
cafeteria plans, allow employees to
choose among various benefits. Of
employees surveyed, 1 of 20 are partici­pants
in a flexible benefits plan, which
is most prevalent among private sector,
white-collar employees.
Reimbursement accounts, which may
be part of a flexible benefits plan or
provided independently, allow employ­ees
to set aside pretax dollars to pay for
particular benefits. Nearly 20 percent of
all full-time employees have reimburse­ment
accounts.
Source: Grossman, G.M., 1992, U.S. workers
receive a wide range of employee benefits,
Monthly Labor Review I 15(9):36-38.
Family Economics Review
Percentage of full-time employees receiving selected benefits, 1989-90
State and local
Private sector employees government
Employee benefit program All employees Total White-collar Blue-collar employees
1989-90 1989-90 1989-90 1989-90 1990
Paid
Holidays 87 90 94 86 74
Vacations 88 93 96 89 67
Personal leave 20 16 22 10 39
Lunch period 9 9 6 12 11
Rest time 59 59 54 65 56
Funeral leave 65 65 71 59 63
Jury duty leave 76 72 80 64 94
Military leave 44 37 44 30 81
Sick leave 64 57 78 36 95
Maternity leave 2 3 3 2
Paternity leave 1
Unpaid
Maternity leave 31 27 30 23 51
Paternity leave 16 13 14 11 33
Medical care 83 80 85 76 93
Employee coverage
Wholly employer financed 46 44 43 45 58
Partly employer fmanced 36 37 42 31 35
Family coverage
Wholly employer financed 28 27 25 29 32
Partly employer financed 55 54 60 47 60
Dental care 52 50 54 46 62
Employee coverage
Wholly employer financed 33 30 30 29 51
Partly employer financed 19 20 24 16 11
Family coverage
Wholly employer financed 25 22 21 23 38
Partly employer financed 27 28 33 23 25
Life insurance 81 79 84 73 88
Wholly employer financed 69 68 72 62 77
Partly employer financed 11 12 12 11 11
All retirement 68 62 66 58 96
Defined benefit pension 50 42 43 40 90
Wholly employer financed 37 40 41 38 23
Partly employer financed 13 2 2 2 67
Defined contribution 34 40 47 32 9
Flexible benefits plans 5 5 9 2 5
Reimbursement accounts 18 15 23 7 31
Source: Grossman, G.M., /992, U.S. workers receive a wide range of employee benefits, Momhly Labor Review 115(9):36-39.
1993 Vol. 6 No.2 21
•
Saving and
Demographics:
Some International
Comparisons
During the 1980's, the United States
saved a much lower share of its aggre­gate
income than did most other large,
industrial countries. Differences in the
age composition of countries' populations
are partly responsible for differences in
personal saving. Differences in govern­ment
saving around the world reflect
budget balances: surpluses in high­saving
countries and deficits in low­saving
countries. Because saving is the
source of funds that finance investment
in plant and equipment, structures, and
housing, higher levels of saving mean
increased productive capital, growing
labor productivity, and a rising standard
of living over time.
This article provides a comparison
between the saving rates in the United
States, West Germany, and Japan during
the 1980's. Net national saving in West
Germany, when measured as a share of
GNP, was more than three times as large
as in the United States (see table). In
Japan, the share was six times that in
the United States. Recent economic
research suggests that projected demo­graphic
changes are likely to narrow
this gap in saving rates as saving rates
fall in Germany and Japan and rise in
the United States.
Economic theory of saving behavior is
used to explain how demographic factors
affect household saving. The theory
focuses on the five major reasons why
people save: (1) to provide for their
retirement; (2) to leave a bequest;
(3) to bridge temporary declines in their
incomes; (4) to finance unanticipated
expenditures such as medical bills;
and (5) to finance purchases of durable
goods such as furniture and automobiles.
22
Saving and investment as a share of GNP (average for 1980's in
percent)
Saving, investment United States West Germany Japan
Net national saving 3.0 10.2 18.1
Household 3.8 7.8 11.0
Business 1.7 1.0 2.8
Government -2.5 1.3 4.3
Net fixed investment 5.1 8.0 15.4
Source: Meyer, S.A., 1992, Savings and demographics: Some international comparisons, Business
Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, March/April issue, pp. 13-23.
Real earnings usually are relatively low
early in people's careers, peak shortly
before retirement, and then fall substan­tially
after retirement. Assuming that
people prefer to spread their consump­tion
of goods and services evenly over
their lives and not have consumption
fall sharply in retirement, it can be pre­dicted
that: younger families are likely
to spend more than their incomes so, on
average, their saving will be negative;
middle-aged families will typically save
a larger share of their rising earnings as
they prepare for retirement and accumu­late
an estate; and families headed by
retired people will likely save very little,
and in many cases they will use savings
for current consumption.
Surveys of consumer spending and
finances in the United States yield
results that are broadly consistent with
this life-cycle pattern of earnings and
saving. Surveys of saving behavior in
Canada and Japan provide similar
results. However, the simplest version
of the life-cycle saving model does not
explain all that is observed about family
saving: some families save a small and
relatively constant share of their incomes
throughout their working years; many
older families neither save nor consume
savings; and those with substantial
wealth typically continue to save.
More complex versions of the life-cycle
saving pattern incorporate precautionary
saving, Social Security, borrowing con­straints,
uncertainty about Iifespans, and
saving to accumulate an estate. Even in
these more complicated models, age
affects saving behavior.
Demographic factors are not the only
determinants of household saving.
People's saving is also affected by the
tax treatment of saving and interest, the
structure of Social Security and pension
systems, the variability of incomes,
the extent to which people can insure
against unanticipated expenditures or
income reductions, unanticipated
changes in wealth, and the strength or
weakness of the economy, among other
factors. There is also evidence that
household saving is affected by the
size of government budget surpluses
or deficits.
Although there is vigorous debate
among economists about how much
household saving is generated by each
of the five major reasons for saving,
there is broad agreement that the age
composition of a country's population
can affect the share of income that is
saved. The life-cycle saving theory
suggests that a high share of household
income will be saved in a country that
Family Economics Review
has a large fraction of its population in
the high-saving years (from age 45 to 64)
and a small fraction in the low-saving
or dissaving years (up to age 20 and
beyond age 64).
The share of the U.S. population in the
high-saving age group was appreciably
lower than in West Germany and Japan
in both 1980 and 1990. On average, 19
percent of the U.S. population was in
the high-saving group--about 5 percent­age
points lower than in Japan arid West
Germany. Almost 42 percent of the U.S.
population fell into the two low-saving
age groups during the 1980's, about
3 percentage points higher than in West
Germany and Japan. Demographic
differences can account for roughly
one-third of the gap in personal saving
relative to GNP between West Germany
and the United States and roughly two­thirds
of the gap between Japan and the
United States.
Demographers project that the share of
the U.S. population in the high-saving
years (from age 45 to 64) will rise by
half from 1990 to 2010, as the baby­boom
generation ages. The working-age
segment of the population will grow as
well. The segment of the U.S. popula­tion
over the age of 64 is projected to
be roughly constant during the next 20
years, and the share under the age of 20
is projected to decline. These demo­graphic
trends are likely to increase
personal saving relative to GNP in the
United States. Beyond 2010, however,
the portion of the U.S. population over
age 65 is projected to rise and that in
the high-saving, peak-earning years is
projected to gradually decline as baby
boomers begin to enter the retirement
years. Thus, the projected rise in national
saving relative to GNP in the United
States may prove temporary.
In contrast, the share of the population
over age 64 is projected to rise by one­third
in Germany and by two-thirds in
Japan, whereas otber segments of the
population are projected to decrease.
1993 Vol. 6 No.2
These projected changes in the age
distribution of their populations are
likely to lower personal saving relative
to GNP in Germany and Japan. Beyond
2010, demographers project that the
ratio of over-65 to working-age popula­tions
will continue to rise in Germany
and Japan, although more gradually.
The projected decline in national saving
relative to GNP in those countries may
prove long lasting.
Changing age distributions may affect
government budget balances as well as
private saving. As the number of people
age 65 and over in Germany and Japan
grows rapidly during the next 20 years,
their governments' spending on medical
care, pensions, social security systems,
retirement housing, and other programs
for the elderly is likely to grow rapidly,
too. On the other hand, spending on
education may decline as the number of
children shrinks. In the United States,
by contrast, the number of people age
65 and older is projected to grow slowly
during the next 20 years. Over the same
period, the working-age share of the
population is projected to rise. These
demographic shifts could reduce govern­ment
spending in the United States by
about 1.5 percent of GNP over the next
20 years.
Major industrial countries have reason­ably
accurate census data. As a result,
demographers' projections of changes
in the age composition of those countries'
populations tend to be fairly accurate,
even with uncertainty about future birth­rates
and average lifespans.
Source: Meyer. S.A .. I992. Saving and demo­graphics:
Some inlemalional comparisons.
Bu.siness Review. Federal Reserve Bank of
Pltiladelpltia, March/Aplil issue. pp. 13-23.
23
•
Fruit and
Vegetable
Consumption
U.S. consumption of fresh vegetables
increased by 5 percent in the 1970's,
then by 22 percent in the 1980's.
According to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, this trend may illustrate
an increasing concern about nutrition.
Americans' consumption of all fruits­fresh
and processed-also rose between
1970 and 1990. Since 1975, growth in
consumer spending for fruits and
vegetables has been exceeded only by
that for poultry. U.S. consumers spent
nearly $102 billion on fruits and
vegetables in 1990, compared with
$155 billion for all kinds of meat.
Americans' eating habits over the past
two decades have led to the following
changes in the fruit and vegetable market:
numerous restaurants and supermarkets
provide salad bars; fast-food restaurants
have been offering tomatoes, onions,
lettuce, and other fresh vegetables as
condiments; there has been an improved
selection and new varieties of fruits and
vegetables; and more items have been
eaten year round, boosting import
demand. The growth in the produce
industry is also attributed to the influx
of Latin American and Asian immigrants,
who are accustomed to vegetable-based
diets, and to the rising popularity of
ethnic restaurants, whose menus rely
heavily on vegetables.
Retailers compete for customers by
stocking produce departments with
many different kinds of fruits and
vegetables. Over the past 20 years,
some retailers have expanded their
produce selection from fewer than
100 selections to several hundred.
24
While consumption has been rising, the
incomes of American households have
been growing: between 1970 and 1990,
household income rose an average 2.7
percent per year, after adjusting for
inflation. More women (58 percent)
were working outside the home. With
more income and less time to prepare
food at home, consumers began eating
more meals away from home in 1990.
About one-third of the average house­hold
food budget was spent on food
away from home. Also, fresh produce
requires minimal preparation.
Another major boost to the U.S. fruit
and vegetable industry has come from
rising exports. The United States' success
as a produce exporter is attributed to
three factors. Many foreign countries
embraced the concept of a free market
and attempted to promote competition
by importing agricultural products,
especially fruits and vegetables. Also,
the United States promoted these prod­ucts
through advertising and marketing
activities. Finally, the devaluation of the
dollar in the rnid-1980' s benefited fruit
and vegetable exports.
The U.S. produce industry has set a
goal to double domestic consumption
of fruits and vegetables by the year
2000. If the average consumer has five
servings a day (as recommended by
USDA), his or her current consumption
will double. The industry may find it
necessary to implement more sophisti­cated
educational programs, targeting
groups who have yet to alter their eating
habits.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
EconomiC Research Service, 1992, Americans
are eating more fruits and vegetables, Farmline
13(7):8- 13.
Family Economics Review
1993 Vol. 6 No.2
Regular Items •
Recent Legislation Affecting Families
Public Law 102-367 (enacted
September 7, 1992)-the Job Training
Reform Amendments of 1992 amends
the Job Training Partnership Act to
improve the delivery of services to
hard-to-serve youth and adults, such
as those who are disadvantaged or dis­abled,
long-term unemployed people,
and school dropouts. A new program
provides educational and training
services to disadvantaged youth. Incen­tives
paid to States to provide training
services to absent spouses of children
receiving Aid to Families With Depend­ent
Children (AFDC) benefits should
reduce welfare costs and promote self­sufficiency.
Public Law 102-405 (enacted October
9, 1992}-the Veterans' Medical Pro­grams
Amendments of 1992 improves
the provision of health care and other
services to veterans by the Department
of Veterans Affairs. The law establishes
a program for veterans of the Persian
Gulf War and their families who are in
need of family and marriage counseling.
The Department of Veterans Affairs
will increase efforts to help homeless
veterans, and veterans whose disabilities
require structural modifications to
their homes will be eligible to receive
increased payments.
Public Law 102-411 (enacted October
14, 1992)-the EEOC Education,
Technical Assistance, and Training
Revolving Fund Act of 1992 amends
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
to establish a revolving fund for use by
the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission to cover the costs of pro­viding
education, technical assistance,
and training related to the laws adminis­tered
by the Commission. Monies in the
fund will be available without fiscal
year limitation to the Commission for
such purposes.
·Public Law 102-476 (enacted October
23, 1992}-the Scientific and Advanced­Technology
Act of 1992 establishes a
national advanced technician training
program, using the resources of the
Nation's 2-year associate-degree­granting
colleges to expand the pool
of skilled technicians in strategic
advanced-technology fields, to increase
the productivity of the Nation's industries,
and to improve the competitiveness of
the United States in international trade.
The law will improve science and
technical education at associate-degree­granting
colleges and improve secondary
school and postsecondary curricula in
mathematics and science.
Public Law 102-512 (enacted October
24, 1992}-the Homeless Children's
Assistance Act of 1992 amends the
National School Lunch Act and the
Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to better
assist children in homeless shelters.
The law will improve competition
among infant formula manufacturers
and reduce the per unit costs of infant
formula for the special supplemental
food program for women, infants, and
children (WIC).
Public Law 102-515 (enacted October
24, 1992}-the Cancer Registries
Amendment Act authorizes the Govern­ment
to make grants to each State to
establish and/or upgrade a population­based
cancer registry. Cancer data to
be collected will include demographic
information, industrial or occupational
history, administrative information
including date of diagnosis and source
of information, pathological data, and
other pertinent information. A study
will be conducted to determine the
causes of an increased occurrence of
breast cancer on the East Coast of the
United States.
25
26
•
Charts From Federal Data Sources
States with the 10 highest numbers of people age 65+, 1990
Source: Taeuber, C.M., 1992, Sixty-five plus in America, Current Population Reports, Special
Studies, P23-178, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
States with the 10 highest percentages of age 65+ population, 1991
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1992, Statistical Abstract of the
United States: 1992, [112th ed.]
Family Economics Review
States with the 10 highest numbers of people age 65+ in poverty, 1990
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, unpublished data.
States with the 1 0 highest poverty rates for people age 65+, 1990
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, unpublished data.
1993 Vol. 6 No.2 27
•
Data Sources
Survey of Income and
Program Participation (SIPP)
Sponsoring agency: U.S. Department
of Commerce
Population covered: Noninstitutionalized
U.S. population
Sample size: 28,500 households
Geographic distribution: Nationwide
Years data collected: Began in
October 1983. New panel started each
January since 1985.
Method of data collection: Personal
interviews once every 4 months for
2-112 years (8 times total). Telephone
followups were conducted for missing
information.
Future surveys planned: A new panel
is started each January.
Survey of Consumer Attitudes
and Behavior
Sponsoring agency: Survey Research
Center, University of Michigan
Population covered: U.S. adult
population
Sample size: 500 sampled per month
Geographic distribution: Nationwide
Years data collected: Began in late
1940's; conducted quarterly through
1977, and monthly thereafter.
Method of data collection: Telephone
interviews
28
Major variables: Social and demo­graphic
characteristics, household
information, labor force activity, type
and amount of income, participation
status in various programs, attendance
in postsecondary schools, private health
insurance coverage, public subsidized
rental housing, low-income energy
assistance, and school breakfast and
lunch participation. Each year additional
supplements are covered including
topics such as: child-care arrangements,
child-support agreements, support for
nonhousehold members, long-term care,
pension plan coverage, housing costs,
and energy usage.
Publications: Research ba~ed on SIPP
is published in numerous research
journals. Additionally, findings from
the survey are reported in the P-70 Series
of Census Bureau publications and other
Census Bureau publications.
Future surveys planned: Ongoing
Major variables: Evaluations and
expectations about personal finances,
employment, price changes, and the
national business situation; buying
intentions for automobile; and appraisal
of present market condition for purchas­ing
houses, automobiles, and other
durables.
Sources for further information and
data:
For information contact:
SIPP Branch
Statistical Methods Division
Bureau of the Census
Washington, DC 20233
(301) 763-7944
Microdata files may be ordered from:
Customer Services
Data User Services Division
Bureau of the Census
Washington, DC 20233
(30 I) 763-4100
Sources for further information and
data:
Data files and information are
available from:
Survey Research Center
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48106
(313) 764-8365
or
Inter-University Consortium for
Political and Social Research
P.O. Box 1248
Ann Arbor, MI 48106
(313) 763-5010
Family Economics Review
•
Journal Abstracts and Book Summary
The following journal abstracts are reprinted verbatim as they appear in the cited source.
Donnelly, D. and Finkelhor, D. 1993.
Who has joint custody? Class differ­ences
in the determination of custody
arrangements. Family Relations
42(1):57-60.
This article reports the incidence and
predictors of joint custody based on a
nationally representative sample. Al­though
joint custody has captured much
attention, its incidence actually remains
low. A logistic regression model shows
that those with higher incomes and
educational levels, those living in larger
cities, and nonwhites are more likely to
have joint custody. These class differ­ences
suggest that policymakers use
caution in establishing systems that
strongly mandate or prefer joint custody.
Hong, G-S. and Wellen, P.D.1993.
Welfare use: Implications for teen
mothers' education. Home Economics
Research Journal21(3):241-260.
This study examines the role of welfare
benefits in retaining teenage mothers in
educational programs. Using data from
the 1985 Survey of Income Program
Participation, 212 mothers, aged 15
through 21 years, who have one or more
children were studied. The findings
show that receiving AFDC and WIC
benefits, living with parents, and public
expenditure on education per pupil in
the state positively influence teen mothers'
education. Receiving food stamps is
negatively associated with the educa­tional
attainment of teenage mothers.
1993 Vol. 6 No.2
Ko1odinsky, J. 1992. Money-off coupons
and the consumer: are they worth the
effort? Journal of Consumer Studies
and Home Economics 16(4):389-398.
Is the use of coupons a worthwhile
practice for consumers? What defmes a
cost-effective money-off coupon user?
In this study, the time cost of clipping
and organizing grocery coupons is
compared to actual savings received.
Forty per cent of consumers did not
reap savings at least equal to their time
cost of coupon clipping. Cost-ineffective
consumers are identified and compared
to the cost-effective group on several
demographic and shopping charac­teristics.
Differences are discussed in
relation to consumer economics and
super-shopper role models.
Pett, M.A., Lang, N., and Gander, A.
1992. Late-life divorce: Its impact on
family rituals. Journal of Family
Issues 13(4):526-552.
The impact of late-life divorce on family
rituals has not been systematically
explored. The purpose of this study was
to examine the perceived changes in
specific family celebrations, traditions,
important life cycle events, and day-to­day
family contact that occurred for a
group of 115 adult children (73 females
and 42 males) whose parents had
divorced after a long-term marriage. A
strong positive correlation was found
between perceived disruptiveness of the
parental divorce and changes in family
rituals, particularly at Thanksgiving
and Christmas. The role of women as
kinkeepers, sibling differences, and the
implications of evolving family ritual
activities for theory development,
research, assessment, and intervention
are explored.
Bryant, W.K., Zick, C.D., and Kim,
H. 1992. The Dollar Value of House­hold
Work. Cornell University.
This publication presents up-to-date
estimates of the do1lar value of house­hold
work performed in U.S. families
using three different valuation tech­niques.
The estimates are based on 1981
time-use data and 1988 data concerning
the dollar value of time per hour.
Estimates of time spent in household
work by men and women in two­spouse
families, the hourly value of
household work, and the annual dollar
value of household work by demo­graphic
characteristics are provided.
Results indicate that the dollar value
of household work done by married
women and men in this country is sub­stantial,
yet there has been a downward
trend in this value during the past 10
to 15 years. As women have increased
their labor force participation, they
have tended to decrease the time they
spend in household work. Husbands
appear to have increased their house­hold
work time but not by enough to
offset women's reduced hours.
A popular bulletin entitled "Household
Work: What's It Worth and Why"
was prepared for extension education.
29
• Cost of Food at Home
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at four cost levels, March 1993, U.S. average1
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month
Sex-age group Thrifty Low-cost Moderate- Liberal Thrifty Low-cost Moderate- Liberal
plan plan cost plan plan plan plan cost plan plan
FAMILIES
Family of 2:2
20 - 50 years . . ..... .. ...... . ... $50.50 $63.80 $78.70 $98.00 $218.90 $276.50 $340.70 $424.40
51 years and over ......... . •.... 47.70 61 .30 75.60 90.40 207.10 265.60 327.50 392.00
Family of 4:
Couple, 20 - 50 years
and children-
1 - 2 and 3 - 5 years .. . ........• 73.50 91.80 112.20 138.00 318.40 398.10 486.00 597.90
6 - 8 and 9 - 11 years ........... 84.10 107.80 134.80 162.50 364.50 467.50 584.10 704.10
INDIVIDUALS3
Child:
1 - 2 years .. .. ..... .... . . .. .... 13.30 16.20 19.00 22.90 57.60 70.30 82.10 99.40
3- 5 years . . . .. .. . .. ... ...... .. 14.30 17.60 21 .70 26.00 61 .80 76.40 94.20 112.70
6- 8 years ........ •..... ....... 17.40 23.30 29.20 34.00 75.50 101.10 126.50 147.50
9- 11 years .......... . ...... • .. 20.80 26.50 34.10 39.40 90.00 115.00 147.90 170.80
Male:
12 - 14 years .............. ... . . 21 .60 30.10 37.50 44.10 93.70 130.20 162.60 190.90
15- 19 years .... ... . . . ......... 22.40 31 .00 38.60 44.70 97.00 134.50 167.40 193.80
20 - 50 years ................... 24.10 30.90 38.50 46.70 104.40 133.80 166.80 202.30
51 years and over ........... . . .. 21.80 29.30 36.10 43.30 94.60 127.10 156.50 187.70
Female:
12- 19 years ................... 21 .70 26.00 31.60 38.30 94.20 112.90 137.10 165.80
20 - 50 years . ...... . .. ... .. ... . 21 .80 27.10 33.00 42.40 94.60 117.60 142.90 183.50
51 years and over . . .• ... .... .... 21 .60 26.40 32.60 38.90 93.70 114.40 141 .20 168.70
1 Assumes that food for all meals and snacks is purchased at the store and prepared at home. Estimates for the thrifty food plan were
computed from quantities of foods published in Family Economics Review 1984( 1). Estimates for the other plans were computed from
quantities of foods published in Family Economics Review 1983(2). The costs of the food plans are estimated by updating prices paid by
households surveyed in 1977-78 in USDA's Nationwide Food Consumption Survey. USDA updates these survey prices using information
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI Detailed Report, table 4, to estimate the costs for the food plans.
2Ten percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 3.
~he costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size families, the following adjustments are suggested:
1-person-add 20 percent; 2-person-add 10 percent; 3-person-add 5 percent; 5- or 6-person-subtract 5 percent; 7- or more-person-subtract
1 0 percent.
30 Family Economics Review
•
Consumer Prices
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers [1982-84 = 1 00]
Group
All items . . .. . ................ . .. .... ... . . . ... . .. .
Food . . . ..... .. .. . ..... . . . . . ..•..• . ... . •. .. ....
Food at home ....... .. ............ . . . .. . .. . .. .
Food away from home ....... . .....• . ...........
Housing ..... . . .. .. . ... . . . .. . ..... . ........... .
Shelter . .......... . ... . .... . . . . . ........ . .... .
Renters' costs 1
...........•... . .••.•......•..•
Homeowners' costs 1
.. .. ... • ..•.....• . .•..• . •.
Household insurance1
.......... . ..• . .••.••.•
Maintenance and repairs . ..................•...
Maintenance and repair services ......... . ....•
Maintenance and repair commodities .. . . .... .. .
Fuel and other utilities . . .................... . ... .
Fuel oil and other household fuel commodities ..... .
Gas (piped) and electricity ..... . ... .. .. . .... . .. .
Household furnishings and operation .... . .. . ...... .
Housefurnishings .. . .. ..... ... . ..... .. . . ..... .
Housekeeping supplies ... . ... . . . ... . ......... .
Housekeeping services .... . . . .. . ... . ......... .
Apparel and upkeep ... . ..... ... .... .. ....... . . . . .
Apparel commodities . .............. . .. . .. .. . . . .
Men's and boys' apparel ...........•......... . .
Women's and girls' apparel .........•.... . ......
Infants' and toddlers' apparel. . .. ... ............ .
Footwear .............. . ........•......... . .
Apparel services ..... . .•..... . ............ . .. . .
Transportation . ..... . ...•... . ...... . ...... . ... . .
Private transportation ...•... . . . ......... . .......
New vehicles ....................• . ........ ..
Used cars .. ........................•....... .
Motor fuel ... . ......................•........
Automobile maintenance and repair .. . .......... .
Other private transportation .................... .
Other private transportation commodities ....... .
Other private transportation services ..... . ..... .
Public transportation .. . .... .. ........ ... . . ..... .
Medical care ..... . ......... ... ..... . ...... . .... .
Medical care commodities ... . ................•..
Medical care services ...... .. ..........•.... . •..
Professional medical services .... ... ...... . ... . .
Entertainment . . ............ . ............ . ...... .
Entertainment commodities . . ..............•.....
Entertainment services ............ . ... . ........ .
Other goods and services .. . . .. . .... .........•. . ...
Personal care ...... . ........ . .. . ...... . ..... . .
Toilet goods and personal care appliances ........ .
Personal care services . .. . . . .. . . . ............. .
Personal and educational expenses .............. . .
School books and supplies ..........•..... ... ..
Personal and educational services ....•..........
1
1ndexes on a December 1982 = 100 base.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
1993 Vol. 6 No. 2
March
1993
143.6
140.1
139.4
142.4
140.2
154.8
165.2
158.7
144.9
131 .5
135.8
125.8
119.5
92.8
115.1
118.7
109.3
129.6
134.6
136.2
133.9
128.7
138.4
125.9
126.3
150.6
129.0
126.3
132.0
126.6
97.3
144.7
156.3
103.9
168.3
163.5
198.6
193.9
199.7
182.3
144.8
133.1
159.0
192.0
140.7
138.4
142.9
206.3
195.7
207.3
Unadjusted indexes
February January
1993 1993
143.1
139.9
139.1
142.2
139.7
154.4
164.4
158.5
144.7
130.5
135.2
124.0
118.4
92.5
113.8
11 8.6
108.9
130.6
134.5
133.4
130.9
126.5
133.1
127.0
125.2
150.2
129.2
126.2
132.0
126.0
98.0
144.3
156.8
104.5
168.8
164.1
198.0
193.2
199.1
181.7
144.5
132.9
158.7
191 .5
139.6
137.0
142.2
206.0
195.6
207.0
142.6
139.8
139.1
142.0
139.3
153.7
162.5
158.2
144.1
129.7
135.1
122.5
119.2
92.3
11 5.9
11 8.2
108.6
130.0
134.1
129.7
126.8
124.2
125.7
127.9
124.4
149.7
129.1
126.6
131 .8
127.4
98.6
143.4
156.5
105.0
168.2
161.6
196.4
191.8
197.5
180.7
144.3
132.8
158.4
191.0
139.8
137.7
141.9
205.4
195.5
206.4
March
1992
139.3
138.1
137.5
140.1
136.6
150.4
161.2
154.1
141.0
128.4
132.0
123.5
115.8
90.5
111.5
117.7
109.4
128.6
130.3
133.4
131.2
127.4
133.6
127.1
124.9
146.6
124.4
122.2
129.1
115.7
93.4
140.3
152.2
105.2
162.8
153.5
187.3
186.7
187.4
173.4
141.2
130.7
154.3
179.8
137.9
136.1
139.6
193.5
188.6
194.0
31
Order Processing Code: * 5141 Superintendent of Documents Order Form Charge your order. ~ ~
It's Easy! ~ ..
To fax your orders (202) 512-2233
D YES, please send me __ subscriptions to FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW (FAMER) at $5.00 ($6.25 foreign).
The total cost of my order is $. ___ • Price includes regular domestic postage and handling and is subject to change.
(COmpany or Personal Name) (Please type or print)
(Additional address/attention line)
(Street address)
(City, State, ZIP Code)
(Daytime phone including area code)
(Purchase Order No.)
YES NO
May we make your name/address available to other mm1ers? O O
32
Please Choose Method of Payment:
D
D
Check Payable to the Superintendent of Documents
GPO Deposit Account I I I I I I I I -0
D VISA or MasterCard Account
I I I
I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I (Credit card expiration date)
Thank you for
your order!
~----------~----------------------- (Authorizing Signature) 10191
Mail To: New Orders, Superintendent of Documents
P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954
Family Economics Review