Family Economics Review [Mar. 1962]

              'j J. 1 tJ J .' /VI 'f'. ~ X.
~
MICS
EW
Consumer and Food Economics Research Division, Agricultural Research Servic••,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Yill!ffililliilli~j!!f.~~!lli~i~~!f~
Prepared for home demonstration agents and. home economics specialists of the
Agricultural Exten.sion Service, this publication reports curren.t developments
in family and food. economics, and economic aspects of home management.
CONTENTS
ESTIMATING NET INCOME OF WORKING WIVES •.••.• ••.•.••...•.•••....•• 3
NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN FUNCTIONAL CLOTHING FABRICS .•. .•••..•••..•..• 5
FOOD DISTRIBUTION PROGRAJ.\18 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE . • . . • . 7
NATIONAL SURVEY OF CONSUMERS' EXP~{DITURES •.•.•••.•.•..••••...... 12
HOSPITAL BILLS PAID BY INSURANCE .••..•...•. ..••.•..••... ..•..••.. 13
TELEPHONES, HOME FREEZERS, AND AUTOMOBILES ON FARMS . . . • • • • . • • • . . . 14
RURAL AREAS BENEFIT FROM COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAMS . • . . • • • . • • • 16
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE GRA.~rs FOR COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES AND
FACILITIES .•..••.•.•.......••. • • • • • · · • • • · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · • · · • · • 18
ESTIMATED COST OF l WEEK'S FOOD--U.S.A. AVERAGE AND FOUR REGIONS . 18
NEW REFERENCE BASE PERIOD FOR INDEXES OF CONSUMER PRICES · ... • ••. • 24
CONSUMER PRICES ....••..••••..• • • • · • · • • • · · · · · · · • · · • · · • · · · · · · · · · • • · 25
INDEX OF ARTICLES APPEARING MARCH-DECEMBER 1961 · · · · • · · · • • • · · · • · • • 26
ARS 62-5
March 1962 fHE we Wasl:;lington, D. C.
THE U IVER ( r G RO
GREENSBORO, N. C.
ESTIMATING NET INCOME OF WORKING WIVES
Many wives, at some time during their married lives, have the problem of
deciding whether to hold. a job as a paid. worker outside the home in addition
t o their usual job as homem~~er. Many considerations must enter into such a
decision, including questions of the possible social, psychological, and.
economic effects on the family. An important economic consideration is how
much farther ahead. the family will be financially if the wife takes a job. As
an employed. woman she will have expenses she would not have as a housewife.
How much of her earnings will these take? How much will she have left to add.
to the family purse?
A woman considering a job can get a fairly good idea of what her net
income will amount to in a year by estimating her expenses for each of the
items listed. on page 4, and. subtracting the total from her expected. earnings.
If she has not worked. away from home recently she may be able to get help on
some of these estimates from friends employed. in the kind. of job or establish­ment
she expects to be in. They will know, for example, prices of special
work clothing required. for the job, the cost of dues to employee organizations,
and. the usual expense for gifts and flowers, parties, and. meetings connected.
with the job. They can probably give her some idea also of the cost of various
kinds of paid help she can use to relieve her of household. tasks like caring
for children, washing and ironing, sewing, and general housework, though she
alone can decide how much more she will use such help when she is employed ..
The prospective employee can figure some job-related. expenses by using
forms and. information read.ily available to her. For example, she can use the
regular income tax forms (Federal, and State and city where applicable) to
calculate what income taxes will cost her. If her husband has a taxable
income she can charge to her own employment the difference between what their
taxes would. be with her income and without it. If her job is covered. by
social security the social security tax will take (at present) 3-l/8 percent
of her earnings if she rece ives a wage or salary, and 4.7 percent if she is
self -employed.. In either case, the maximum amount of income she must pay the
social security tax on is $4, 800 a year.
Employed wives in four Georgia cities spent an average of about two-fifths
of their earnings in 1957 for the items listed., according to a study done by
the Consumer and. Food Economics Research Division. l/ Those who were mothers
of preschool-age children had. job-related expenses that took almost half of
their income. The women in this study all had husbands with full-time jobs,
and. they themselves worked at least half time (1, 000 hours or more) during
the year. Gross earnings of the wives averaged. $2,200. The experience of
these women would. not necessarily apply to others, but it does give some idea
what expenditures that go with job holding may do to the paycheck.
y Job-Relate d. Expenditures and Management Practices of Ga~nfully Employed.
Wives in Four Georgia Cities, by Emma G. Holmes. Home Econom1cs Research
Report No. 15. USDA. (1962)
-4-
Worksheet for estimating wife's net income from employment
Gross income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . $ ----
Expenses:
l. Income taxes (Federal, State, and local) ............ $ ---
2. Social security tax ................................. $ ---
3· Contributions to other retirement plans ...•......... $ ---
4. Meals and snacks at work . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ ---
5· Transportation to and. from work ......•.............. $
6. Transportation on job (not reimbursed.)
7· Special work clothing (including care)
---
.............. $ ---
$ __
8. Dues to unions, professional and. business
organizations, employee clubs, etc ................ $ ---
9· Professional and business publications •............. $ ---
10. Professional and. business meetings, conventions ..... $ ---
11. Educational expense related to employment ........... $ ---
12. Tools and licenses required. for the job ............. $ ---
13. Gifts and flowers for fellow employees .............. $ ---
14. Parties, special meals with fellow employees ........ $ ---
15. Extra spent for general-wear clothing (including
care) ............................................. $ ---
16. Extra spent for personal care ....................... $
17. Extra spent for paid help for household. tasks ....... $
18. Other expenses for specific job ..................... $
Total ................................................. $ ----
Net income (gross income minus total expenses) ..................... $ ----
-5-
The wife who wants to make a more complete appraisal of the effect of her
gainful employment on the family pocketbook may want to consider the poss i ­bility
of having additional expenses that aren't in the list on page 4.
Because she has less time for homemaking, her family may eat more meals away
from home (in add.ition to those at work); use more expensive foods for meals
at home, if these take less time to prepare; send rugs and other furnishings
out to be cleaned. rather than doing them herself; buy more readymade clothing;
and. use other commercial goods and services which lighten the homemaking load.
but increase expenditures for living.
If expenses add up to a total that seems very large, the wife may still
consider the job worthwhile for the financial help even a small net gain will
give her family, or for the other advantages and satisfactions she hopes to
get from doing it.
--Emma G. Holmes
NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN FUNCTIONAL CLOTHING FABRICS !/
One of the newest developments in the clothing fabric field. is the trend.
toward functional fabrics--those which are engineered. to serve specific end.
uses. Some of the most noteworthy are the stretch fabrics and. fiberSJ lami­nated
coatings; minimum-care woolens; fusible interlinings; and nonwoven and
paper textiles.
Knitted stretch fabrics are designed for action, so are suited. to casual
and. sportswear where smooth fit needs to be combined. with resilience, for
safety and freedom of movement. These fabrics were developed in Europe for
ski wear. Now they are used in slacks, swimwear, and. other types of action
clothes. Stretch fabrics are made of crimped. or twisted. yarns which are per­manently
elastic. These stretch yarns, in fine deniers, are used. in two-way
stretch hose, underwear, and creepers.
Woven stretch fabrics, made with stretch nylon yarns used in either the
warp or the filling, are now in limited. production. Denim, twill, shantung,
and velveteen are among the woven stretch fabrics currently available in blends
of nylon with cotton, rayon, and other manmade fibers. These materials are
being promoted for casual and sportswear, and children's clothing.
Stretch yarns of cotton have been sucessfully used. for some time in
bandaging. The Southern Utilization Research and Development Laboratory of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which worked on that problem, is now
studying the development of stretch cotton yarns that can be used. in clothing
fabrics.
1/ Presented. by Margaret Smith, Clothing and. Housing Research Division,
Agricultural Research Service, at the Agricultural Outlook Conference,
Washington, D. c., November 1961.
-6-
The construction of clothing from stretch fabrics presents problems to
both the home sewer anQ the garment manufacturer. Seams, hems, anQ other
construction features obviously must have the same elasticity as the fabric,
otherwise stitching will snap as the fabric gives. Relaxation shrinkage is
another serious problem. Stretch fabrics, when released. from the tension of
a fabric bolt or roll, tend. to draw up in the direction of the stretch. If
this relaxation shrinkage takes place after rather than before the garment is
cut, the change in size is considerable. When garments are to be made of these
materials, the fabric should be allowed. to relax at least 24 hours before
cutting. Since this may not have been done in some readymade garments, it is
wise to try on stretch garments before buying to be sure of proper fit, as
the size labels may not indicate the true size.
A stretch fiber, spandex, has recently been developeQ to combine the
elastic recovery properties of latex with the ability to be spun into much
finer yarns than latex makes. At present, spandex is used. primarily in light­weight
but firm foundation garments.
The advent of foam-backed. fabrics has resulted. in the production of outer­wear
to provide the warmth of conventional wool fabrics with remarkable light­ness
of weight. Plastic foam is laminateQ by heat or adhesive to the back of
knitted. or woven fabrics of natural or synthetic fibers, imparting a firm,
bulky feel as well as warmth to the material. Because some of the aQhesi ves
now in use are soluble in drycleaning fluids, information on the type of
cleaning recommendeQ shoulQ be obtaineQ at time of purchase . According to the
information now available from drycleaners, fabrics produceQ by the heat lami­nation
process are not damaged. by Qrycleaning .
Research on wash-wear or easy-care finishes continues. The development
of a finish that makes wool fabrics d.imensionally stable to washing is one of
the newest achievements in the easy-care fielQ. This finish was originateQ by
the Western Utilization Research anQ Development Division of the USDA. It
makes wool fabrics shrink resistant and. crease and. press retentive, without
sacrificing the desirable ~ualities of wool, such as resilience anQ ability to
be shapeQ by pressing. Some materials treated. with this finish are easier to
press than the same materials before treatment, and. have lost none of their
desirable tailoring ~ualities. This process, at present known as the IFP or
interfacial polymerization process, is in limited. commercial use at this time.
New manmade fibers continue to be developed. for use in easy-care clothing
fabrics but most of them are still in the experimental stage. For example , a
. new polyester fiber with stretch ~ualities resembling those of spandex has
been developeQ, but is not yet generally available. Because most fabrics made
of manmade fibers or blends are sensitive to heat, research on means of mini­mizing
this problem is being conducteQ by industry. For example, a separate
iron base which clips on over a steam or dry iron has been developeQ to make
possible smooth ironing of these harQ-to-press fabrics.
Nonwoven fabrics are finding new uses in apparel. Nonwovens of cotton or
combinations of cotton with manmade fibers are used. as linings or interfacings.
Some of these are backeQ with an adhesive that fuses, with heat anQ pressure,
-7-
to an outer cloth. Adhesive backing is also being applied. to lightweight
woven cottons that are suitable for interfacings.
Paper textiles, some with a foundation or inner web of a manmade fiber,
are more durable and. stronger than the first papers used. for disposable gar­ments.
These textiles are finding increased. uses, particularly where, for
sanitary or safety reasons, clothing must be d.isposed of after wearing.
FOOD DISTRIBUTION PROGRAMS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE~~
The term "food distribution" in the U.s. Department of Agriculture bas
come to mean a series of interrelated. action programs which are designed. to
improve national dietary levels and. to expand. current and. future markets for
food.. These programs are the Pl2ntiful Foods Programj National School Lunch
Programj Special Milk Programj Direct Distribution Programj and Pilot Food.
Stamp Projects .
Plentiful Foods Program
The Department of Agriculture and the Extension Services of the various
States have long undertaken, or cooperated. in, programs to provide consumers
with information on food. supplies and prices. The Plentiful Foods Program of
the Agricultural Marketing Service is a part of this undertaking. It is a
direct outgrowth of a World War II effort to manage civilian food. supplies by
encouraging consumers to shift from rationed. and. other scarce foods to those
in more abundant supply.
The specific purpose of the program is to increase the commercial mar­keting
of foods that are in peak seasonal supply or are otherwise plentiful.
It is built upon the principle that advertising pays. It attempts to accom­plish
its purpose by mobilizing, on a voluntary basis, the mer~handising and
informational resources of food trade and. allied. groups in support of the
sales and promotion efforts of producer groups.
A great deal of emphasis is placed. upon obtaining the cooperation of food.
retailers, food. editors, and. food and nutrition leaders who work directly with
consumer groups. Retailers can d.o much to influence consumer choices through
their advertising and in-store promotions. Food editors of ne':olspapers,
magazines, rad.io and televi sion can d.o much to create interest in any particu­lar
foods. And there are numerous ways in which those who work directly with
homemakers can tie into this effort.
----------------
~ Condensed from a talk by Isabelle M. Kelley, Food. Distribution Division,
Agricultural Marketing Service, at the Agricultural Outlook Conference,
Washington, D. c., November 1961, with brief add.i tional material in the
section on the food stamp program.
-8-
A continuing activity under this program is to provide information on
foods in need of merchandising attention. Each month a national and. five
regional Plentiful Foods Lists are issued. to cooperating trade and. information
groups. The public feeding industry--hotels, restaurants, industrial feeders-­receives
an especially adapted version of these lists. Special selections
within the list are made for school lunch programs.
A great many people and agencies, both within and. outside USDA, are
involved in selecting the foods to be included. in the lists, because we want
them to be as reliable as possible. And we want to stay away from strictly
luxury items. However, there is no precise line between luxury and ~onluxury
items. Because we are concerned with reaching all consumers, the list is not
designed. as a guide to the best buys, nutritionwise, for families with limited
food budgets. This does not mean that the list can't be useful to those con­cerned.
with helping low-income families. Rather, it requires that they use it
on a selective basis, taking into account their audience and. market conditions
in their own area.
National School Lunch Program
This activity, authorized. by the National School Lunch Act of 1946,
encompasses a broad program of assistance to participating schools. Each
participating school agrees to serve a lunch meeting our Type A pattern. This
lunch includes, as a minimum, a protein-rich food, a generous serving of
fruits and vegetables, bread and butter or fortified margarine, and. one-half
pint of milk. Federally donated. foods can be used. to fulfill these require­ments
(we encourage schools to make maximum use of them), but only within the
framework of that Type A pattern.
Most of the food used in the school lunch programs receiving Federal
assistance are purchased. by schools from local suppliers. For 1960-61 school
year, the following summary shows the relative importance of locally purchased.
and Government-donated. foods in the school lunch program:
Source of food; Value ($ million)
Local purchases ......... _ ....•....................... . ... 575.0
Financed by Federal funds ...................... 93.7
Financed. by State and. local funds ............. 481.3
Government-donated. . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.7
Purchased. for the program ..........•.•......... 61.1
Obtained from other USDA supplies .............. 71.6
Total 707·7
Here, as in other programs, we do not rely upon financial assistance
alone to bring about an adequate program. Working with and. through the edu­cational
agencies of the various States, which are responsible for the actual
operation of the program on a grant-in-aid basis, we encourage and. help in a
-9-
broad program of technical assistance to participating schools. This involves,
among other things, the development and publication of food. use and. management
materials and. workshop training programs for local school lunch workers.
Currently the National School Lunch Program is in operation in some
64,000 schools, representing about two-thirds of our elementary and. secondary
school enrollment. On a typical day, about 13.5 million children eat the
Type A lunch--about one-third. of the childxen enrolled. in schools.
Most of the schools which are not in the program are small elementary
schools in relatively small population centers. Lack of food. service facili­ties
is a principal limiting factor. This also is true for the elementary
schools 'in many cities where schools were developed on a neighborhood basis,
with childxen going home for lunch. Some schools can and. do operate a lunch
program without Federal cash assistance.
We have become increasingly aware that many schools in neeQy areas were
facing a special problem. The National School Lunch Act requires that children
unable to pay the full price of the lunch be served. at a reduced. price or free.
But no lunch can be served free of cost. Where the child. does not pay, his
lunch must be financed. out of the Federal payment, State or local sources, or
the payments of other children. Far too frequently, we discovered, this wasn't
enough in a school that needed. to serve 30, 40, or 50 percent--or more--of its
lunches free.
This matter was brought to the attention of the Congress, which authorized
$2.5 million of special commodity assistance in 1961-62 to help "schools which
because of poor local economic conditions (1) have not been operating a school
lunch program or (2) have been serving free or at substantially reduced prices
at least 20 percent of the lunches to children." We view this first year's
operation as an erperiment in techniques. We are directing the use of the
special commodity assistance to schools that have not been able to finance a
school lunch program. For schools now in the program and serving a large
percentage of free meals, we are working with States to give extra assistance
out of the funds and. commodities regularly made available under the annual
appropriation.
Especially needy schools may now be reimbursed. as much as 15 cents for
each Type A meal served.. The regular maximum payment is 9 cents . But this
total will need. to be used on a selective basis for, currently, cash assistance
funds average about 4 cents for the Type A lunch.
Special Milk Program
In this program, participal,.w0 ot.:nools and. institutions (nonprofit summer
camps, orphanages, and. other child. care institutions) purchase fluid. milk from
local suppliers and the Federal Government pays a portion of the cost. Where
milk is sold. to children as in the typical public school, the Federal payment
makes it possible to red~ce prices to children as a me~ns of stim~lating sales.
Where milk is customarily given rather than sold. to ch1ldren--as 1n an
-10-
orphanage--the institutions use the Federal payments to make more milk avail­able
at mealtime or to serve milk at other times during the day.
About 2 percent of the annual nonfarm consumption of fluid. milk is now
accomplished under this program . (This is in ad.dition to a similar quantity
used under the National School Lunch Program.) We estimate the program is
available to at least three out of every four children in school.
For the first time this year, needy schools which have not had a milk or
lunch service are eligible to receive special assist~~ce. Such schools can
receive up to the cost of the milk served. free to needy children . The regular
maximum amount of assistance is 3 cents per half pint for schools that do not
serve Type A lunches.
Direct Distribution Program
For more than 25 years the USDA has had authority to donate food acquired.
under price support and other market stabilization programs to underconsuming
groups in this country. Distribution of these donated. foods is accomplished.
outside of normal trade channels. The Federal Government delivers the food. to
States. State and local govenl~ents arrange for subsequent handling and
storage and the delivery of the foods to the final recipient.
Currently nearly 24 million people in this country are receiving federally
donated foods. This includes 16 million school c~ildren (these foods may also
go to nonprofit school lunch programs which do not receive Federal cash assist­ance),
about 1.2 million people in charitable institutions, and. over 6 million
members of needy families.
The responsibility for determining which families get donated foods is
placed in the hands of State and local welfare agencies. In this way it is
possible to take local needs and conditions into account. We do require, how­ever,
that the standards States use to determine which families should. get
this food bear a relationship to the standards they use in their own public
assistance program. This does not mean that only public assistance families
are eligible. We want these foods to be made available to "marginal" fami­lies--
those, for example, who suffer temporary setbacks when factories close
down or when work is not available to farm laborers hired by the day.
The first Executive Order of President Kennedy called. for an increase in
the volume and variety of donated foods available to needy families . This was
accomplished by increasing the number of items coming from the inventories of
the Commodity Credit Corporation, and by making market purchases of certain
foods which were in need of marketing assistance. In December 1960, a total
of 3.7 million people in needy family units were receiving donated. foods. The
retail value of these donations came to about $3 per person per month. Cur­rently,
over 6 million people are receiving them and. the retail value is about
$6 per person per month.
-11-
Along with the increase in food donations, we have stepped. up our efforts
to help recipients make the best possible use of these foods. Representatives
of the Extension Service are making a valuable contribution by distributing
recipes and menus, hold.ing demonstrations, obtaining newspaper publicity, and.
participating in television programs.
Pilot Food Stamp Projects
We are now testing out a d.ifferent method. of increasing food. consumption
among needy families. The program utilizes normal channels of trade and is a
variation of the Food Stamp Plan which was operated. between 1939 and 1943.
Pilot projects are being operated. in eight sections of the country, to
test the program under a wide variety of conditions. The areas include the
large metropolitan City of Detroit, Franklin County in the coal mining area of
southern Illinois, the Virginia-Hibbing-Nashwauk area in the Mesabi iron range
in Minnesota, Floyd County in Kentucky, McDowell County in West Virginia,
Fayette County in Pennsylvania, San MigQel County in New Mexico, and Silver
Bow County in Montana. All of these areas have experienced substantial unem­ployment
in recent years.
Under the pilot prugram, low-income families exchange the amount of money
they would. normally be expected. to spend. for food. for stamp coupons of a
higher monetary value. For example, a family of four which normally could be
expected. to spend about $60 a month for food can exchange that amount of money
for perhaps as much as $90 worth of coupons. The extra $30 represents the
Federal Government's contribution. The family can use the coupons to purchase
food at prevailing retail prices at any regular retail store which has been
approved to accept the coupons . Only a few food i terns cannot be purchased
with coupons--coffee, tea, cocoa, bananas, and packaged. imported. items.
In September, approximately 144,000 people purchased food coupons. They
spent $1.9 million for coupons and. received $1.1 million in bonus coupons. We
have been very encouraged. by our experience with these pilot projects. Pre­liminary
results fr~m special evaluation studies show that retail food. store
sales increased 8 percent in a sample of stores in the eight pilot areas.
Participating families in two areas where household. food. studies were made had
made significant increases in food purchases and. in total value of food used.
and. their diets had been improved .•
In his Budget Message to Congress, the President recommended a modest
expansion of the food stamp program in the 1963 fiscal year.
-12-
NATIONAL SURVEY OF CONSUMERS' EXPENDIWRES
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and. the Bureau of Labor Statistics are
cooperating in a nationwide survey that will provide data on patterns of
families' incomes and. expenditures for the U.S. population as a whole for the
first time since 1941-42. They began late in January 1962 to collect these
data, which will relate to calendar year 1961. No national data on rural non­farm
families' expenditures and incomes have been collected. since 1941-42.
The BLS conducted a nationwide survey of urban families' incomes and. expendi­tures
relating to 1950. The USDA conducted. a nationwide survey of farm­operator
families' incomes and expenditures relating to 1955.
Uses of income and expenditure data.--Data on families' incomes and.
expenditures are needed. to keep up to date the national economic accounts so
that these series will provide prompt and. accurate information on the func­tioning
of our economy--information that is needed for wise policy decisions.
They are also needed. by both economists and. home economists for the study of
patterns of living of urban, rural nonfarm, and. rural farm families. Reports
on the average amounts spent by families for the major categories of consumer
goods provide basic data for developing ma~erials needed by persons counseling
with families on spending plans, as well as for more general estimates of
living costs.
The sample .--The USDA sample is a national sample of rural farm and. rural
nonfarm families. The rural nonfarm portion of the sample includes families
located. in communities of less than 2, 500 inhabitants, as well as in open­country
areas. The rural farm portion includes families residing on farms,
regardless of whether the family operates a farm. The rural sample is located.
in 126 counties; these counties are located in 41 States. The rural sample is
expected to yield about 5,000 families, approximately evenly divided between
rural farm and rural nonfarm.
The BLS planned its urban survey in two parts, one part covering calendar
year 1960 and. the other calendar year 1961. Urban data for the latter year
only, combined. with the 1961 rural farm and. rural nonfarm data, will be used.
in deriving averages for the total U.S. population. The BLS sample for each
year is an independent national sample of urban families--that is, families
residing in places with 2,500 or more inhabitants. (See Family Economics
Review, March 1961, page 13, for the list of cities included. in each of the
BLS samples.)
Tabulation of data.--The primary tabulations will be by place of residence
of the family; that is, separate averages will be provided for the urban,
rural nonfarm, and. rural farm populations. In ad.di tion, it is expected. that
the USDA will tabulate data on all farm-operator families--including those
residing in urban and. rural nonfarm areas, as well as those on farms--in order
to provide data comparable to those obtained. on its 1955 farm-operator family
survey.
--Laura Mae Webb
-13-
HOSPITAL BILLS PAID BY INSURANCE
The data pictured. in the chart below were obtained in interviews in a
National Health Survey made between July 1958 and. June 1960. They refer to
discharges from hospitals in the 6 months prior to the interview.
In 68 out of every 100 discharges from hospitals during this period. some
portion of the hospital bill was paid by insurance. Except for 15-to-24-year­olds,
relatively more discharges with insurance-paid bills were reported for
persons in age groups under 65 than for those 65 and over. The low proportion
(55 percent) in the 15-to-24 age group with any part of the hospital bill paid
by insurance may indicate that when boys and girls reach 18, the age when many
family-type policies cease to protect them, they do not become insured again
for a while. Also, many women in this age group enter the hospital for child
deliveries, which are not covered by some insurance, or are covered only after
the policy has been in effect a certain minimu~ length of time.
In 51 percent of the hospital discharges, insurance paid three-fourths or
more of the bill.
50
25
0
DISCHARGES FROM HOSPITALS, FOR WHICH PART OF THE HOSPITAL
BILL WAS PAID BY INSURANCE
All Under 15-24 25-34
ages 15
35-44 45-54 55-64 65-69 70-74 75 and
over
Age (years)
Source: u.s. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health
Service. Health statistics from U.S. National Health Survey, Series B-No. 30.
-14-
TELEPHONES, HOME FREEZERS, AND AUTOMOBILES ON FARMS
Connecticut outranked. all other States in 1959 in the proportion of farms
with telephones. Montana farms were at the top with home freezers, and. Iowa
farms with automobiles. The rank of the other States with respect to these
facilities and. the proportion of farms reporting them in each State are shown
in the table below. The figures are based. on information from a sample of all
farms counted in the 1959 Census of Agriculture.
Sizable gains were made between the last previous census (1954) and 1959
in the percentage of U.S. farms with these facilities, especially home freezers
and. telephones. Farms with ~orne freezers increased. from 32 percent of the
total to 56 percent; with telephones from 49 to 65 percent; and with automo­biles
from 71 to 80 percent.
Telephones, home freezers, and. automobiles on farms in 1959, by State
-
Farms with-- Rank in percent
State
Total of farms with-- y
farms Tele- Home Auto- Tele- Home Auto-phones
freezers mobiles phones freezers mobiles
-
Number Percent -Per-ce-nt Percent
United States .... 3,708,573 65 56 80 -- -- --
Alabama?} ..... 115,610 34 42 58 48 47 48
Alaska ........• 367 53 67 69 38 7 41
Arizona ........ 7,173 70 63 82 30 20 31
Arkansas ....... 94,980 32 42 55 49 45 49
California ?} .. 99,260 88 6o 88 7 27 19
Colorado ....... 33,183 78 66 89 25 9 14
Connecticut •... 8,259 97 62 87 l 23 21
Delaware ....... 5,203 88 64 89 8 14 15
Florida ?J. ..... 45,098 61 49 73 36 38 36
Georgia ?J ..... 106,347 45 53 71 44 32 39
Hawaii ......... 6,242 70 37 72 29 49 37
Idaho .......... 33,648 82 67 90 19 8 10
Illinois ....... 154,652 83 70 92 16 2 7
Indiana ........ 128,143 83 70 89 15 3 16
Iowa ........... 174,685 92 66 95 6 ll l
Kansas ......... 104,134 84 52 91 13 35 9
Kentucky ....... 150,972 +5 37 68 43 50 43
Louisiana ?} ... 74,438 52 63 65 39 21 45
Maine .......... 17,342 82 53 83 18 33 29
Maryland ...•... 25 ' 108 80 62 86 23 24 27
See footnotes at end of table.
-15-
Telephones, home freezers, and automobiles on farms in 1959, by State--con.
Farms with-- Rank in percent
State Total of farms with-- y
farms Tele- Home Auto- Tele- Home Auto-phones
freezers mobiles phones freezers mobiles
Number Percent Percent Percent
Massachusetts .. 11,149 94 52 84 2 36 28
Michigan ....... 111,765 80 64 92 22 17 8
Minnesota ...•.. 145,639 78 64 93 26 18 6
Mississippi ?:./ . 138,142 27 43 53 50 43 50
Missouri ....... 168,679 66 50 79 33 37 33
Montana ........ 28,802 66 74 90 31 1 12
Nebraska ....... 90,223 80 63 94 21 19 2
Nevada ......... 2,316 73 65 81 27 13 32
New Hampshire .. 6,544 85 58 82 11 29 30
New Jersey ..... 15,463 94 57 87 4 30 23
New Mexico ..... 15,869 43 55 68 45 31 42
New York ....... 82,354 94 65 89 3 12 17
North Carolina . 190,511 35 48 70 46 39 I 4o
North Dakota ... 54,791 66 68 94 34 5 I 3
Ohio ........... 140,366 81 64 89 20 16 13
Oklahoma ....... 94,678 61 43 76 35 40 35
Oregon ......... 42,551 84 64 88 12 15 20
Pennsylvania ... 100,049 82 68 86 17 6 25
Rhode Island . ... 1,400 93 45 87 5 42 22
South Carolina . 78,163 35 46 71 47 41 38
South Dakota ... 55,496 72 63 93 28 22 5
Tennessee ...... 157,695 51 42 64 40 46 46
Texas ?) ....... 227,054 56 52 79 37 34 34
Utah ........... 17,811 87 59 88 9 28 18
Vermont ........ 12,167 84 60 86 14 26 26
Virginia ....... 97,619 50 42 67 41 44 44
Washington ..... 51,554 86 61 90 10 25 11
West Virginia .. 43,982 50 38 62 42 48 47
Wisconsin ...... 131,192 79 66 93 24 10 4
Wyoming ........ 9,705 66 69 87 32 4 24
~/ Prepared by the Farm Population Branch, ESA Division, ERS, USDA.
?:./ Based on preliminary data.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Final data from Census of Agriculture:
1959. Vol. I, Table 4. Preliminary data from 1959 Census of Agriculture-­Preliminary.
Series AC 59-1.
-16-
RURAL AREAS BENEFIT FROM COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROORAMS !/
The Community Facilities Administration, a constituent of the Housing and.
Home Finance Agency, is responsible for four programs which can help in pro­viding
facilities to rural areas. These are (l) Advances for Public Works
Planning; (2) Public Facility Loans; (3) College Housing Loans; and. (4) Loans
for Senior Citizens' Housing.
The experts tell us that we have been experiencing an explosion of our
population out into the countryside. The suburbs have grown so fast that a
great many problems have been created, for both new and. old. residents. When
people fled to the suburbs they hoped. to escape the tax burdens and. congestion
of the old. central city, but were doomed. to disappointment. The new suburbs
suddenly needed. a lot of public facilities, and. had. to build. them in a great
hurry and at prices higher than those which built the city facilities. Local
governments and other public bodies have had to find. the money to pay for
these facilities and services. The Community Facilities Administration has
two programs that help finance the public facilities such communi ties need ..
One of these programs is Advances for Public Works Planning. Freg_uently
a community would be able to borrow money for a public work if it had. the
plans, but cannot get the planning money until it has plans to show to pro­spective
investors or to the voters who must approve the bond. issue. Advances
made by the CFA make it possible for a local government to draw up plans for a
needed facility. These advances are interest free, and. are repaid when con­struction
begins.
Since 1946, the Community Facilities A&~inistration has made more than
11,000 planning advances totaling over $154 million. These have resulted. in
the construction of public works that cost $2-3/4 billion, borrowed. almost
entirely from private investors. About half of these advances were made to
communities of less than 5,000 population. It is a fair assumption that few
of the needed facilities would. have been built, or built so promptly, without
the advances, since advances are made only when planning money is available
nowhere else.
Generally, a community is able to borrow money for needed. public works
from private investors. However, smaller communities far away from the
financial centers sometimes have trouble borrowing at a reasonable rate of
interest. In such cases they may be able to borrow from CFA.
About 90 percent of applications received. for ?ublic Facility Loans have
come from communities with populations of less than 5,000. Over 90 percent of
t he applicants were seeking assistance in the construction of water and sewer
!/ Condensed from a talk given by HenryS. Brooks, Housing and. Home Finance
Agency, at the Agricultural Outlook Conference, Washington, D. C., November
1961, with some figures brought up to date.
-17-
facilities. The typical applicant has been a town of about 1,000, which
needed. about $200,000 to finance a project, anQ which had. never before issued
bonds or planneQ, built, and operated a public facility. Since 1954, CFA has
approved. about $118 million worth of public facility loans.
Public Facility Loans are available to communities under 50,000 popula­tion;
in depressed areas, communities under 150,000 are eligible. For loans
approved Quring this fiscal year, p~blic facility loan interest rates are
3-5/8 percent, but drop to 3-3/8 percent in depresseQ areas. The lo~~s are
made only if private financing is not available on reasonable terms. CFA
re~uires that bonds be advertised for sale before it will buy them.
CFA is also cooperating in the efforts of the Area Redevelopment Admini­stration
to provide facilities to give permanent economic improvement to
redevelopment areas.
The College Housing Program was established. by Congress in 1950 to help
meet the tremendous influx of students into colleges anQ universities. It
lends money to accredited. institutions to builQ dormitories, dining halls,
college unions, married. student apartments, and. faculty housing. The loans
are available also to hospitals that conduct accredited. nurses' training
schools. Many college housing loans have been made to Land-Grant Colleges
and. colleges in small towns. The program has approved loans of more than
$1.5 billion to more than 800 institutions.
Congress voteQ, in the new housing act (1961), to lend. up to $300 million
through the College Housing Program during each of the next 4 years. This
will allow the colleges anQ universities to plan their new residential build.­ings
in an orderly way.
To enable elderly persons to live as independently as possible, and. yet
to meet their special needs, housing projects of many kinds have been
developed. Loans for Senior Citizens' Housing is a direct loan program that
assists nonprofit organizations, both public and private, in building rental
or cooperative housing for the elderly.
These projects are limited. to persons of 62 or older. Their design takes
into account the special needs of the elderly. CFA has received. applications
for several different kinds of projects, each designed. to meet the objectives
of a particular group. These incluQe apartment buildings and. various forms of
congregate living in which the residents may eat together in a common dining
hall but also have as much privacy as possible in their living ~uarters.
The Community Facilities Aili~inistration would be pleased. to answer
~uestions and. give further information about its various programs at.the
Regional Offices of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, or the Washington
office, which may be aQQressed as follows: Community Facilities Administra-tion,
Washington 25, D. C.
-18-
YuBLIC HEALTH SERVICE GRANTS FOR COMMUNITY
HEALTH SERVICES AND FACILITIES
The Community Health Services and. Facilities Act of 1961 gives the Public
Health Service the authority to make project grants to nonprofit organizations
for studies, experL~ents, and. demo~strations to develop new or improved. methods
of providing community health services outside hospitals, particularly for
chronically ill or aged. persons. These services might include care in a
nursing home, nursing care at home, homemaker services, information and.
referral services, nutritional and. social services for the sick at home, and
services for the prevention, detection, or treatment of disease or disability.
Project grants could. be made to such State or local public or private non­profit
agencies as health departments, welfare agencies, hospitals, educational
institutions, and. voluntary health associations. Those receiving grants are
not required to put up matching funds, but generally would. be expected. to pay
part of the cost· of the project. Any agency interested. in receiving a grant
for a specific study or demonstration may apply to one of the nine regional
Public Health Service offices, or to the Grants Management Branch, Public
Health Service, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and. Welfare,
Washington 25, D. C.
The new law also increases (from $30 million to $50 million) the authori­zation
for funds which the Public Health Service grants d.irectly to States (on
a 2-to-1 matching basis) to help them establish and. maintain adequate public
health services. It authorizes the earmarking of part of these funds for
particular activities. The additional funds which would. be made available to
the States could. be used. in programs for improving the scope, quality, and.
availability of community health services.
ESTIMATED COST OF 1 WEEK'S FOOD--U.S.A. AVERAGE.~ FOUR REGIONS
This issue of Family Economics Review presents January 1962 estimates of
the retail cost of food. for the USDA food. plans for the U.S.A. and fo= four
regions--the Northeast, the North Central, the South, and. the West. (See
tables 1 to 3, pages 19 to 21.) Also, table 4 on page 22 presents January 1962
costs of the Southern adaptation of the low-cost plan. An explanation of the
development of the food plans and. th= cost estimates for the U.S.A. was given
in the October 1957 issue of Family Economics Review. Information about the
estimates f or the four regions and. the adaptation of the low-cost food plan
for the South appeared. in the September 1959 issue of Family Economics Review.
Estimates of the cost of food for the plans for the U.S.A. will continue
to appear quarterly in this publication. Regional estimates will appear in
the March issues.
-19-
Table 1.--Estimated. Cost of 1 Week's Food, ~January 1962--U.S.A. Average
Sex-age groups
FAMILIES
Family of two, 20-34 years gj ............ .
Family of two, 55-74 years gj ............ .
Family of four, preschool children lf .... .
Family of four, school children~ ....... .
INDIVIDUALS ]./
Children, under 1 year ................... .
1-3 years .............................. .
4-6 years . .. ........................... .
7-9 years ............•..................
10-12 years . .......................•....
Girls, 13-15 years ....................... .
16-19 years ............................ .
Boys, 13-15 years ........................ .
16-19 years ............................ .
Women, 20-34 years ....................... .
35-54 years ............................ .
55-74 years ............................ .
75 years and. over ...................... .
Pregnant ............................... .
Nursing ................................ .
Men, 20-34 years ......................... .
35-54 years ............................ .
55-74 years ............................ .
75 years and over ...................... .
Low-cost
plan
Dollars
13.80
12.40
20.60
23.80
3.10
3.70
4.40
5.20
6.10
6.40
6.50
7.00
8.20
5.40
5.30
5.00
4.80
6.80
8.50
7.10
6.60
6.30
6.10
Moderate­cost
plan
Dollars
18.80
17.00
27.50
32.10
3.90
4.70
5.70
6.80
8.20
8.70
8.70
9.60
11.20
7·50
7.30
6.90
6.40
8.80
10.90
9.60
9.00
8.60
8.20
Liberal
plan
Dollars
21.30
19.00
31.50
36.60
4.20
5.30
6.80
7.80
9.40
10.00
9.90
10.90
12.60
8.50
8.30
7.80
7.30
9.80
12.10
10.90
10.10
9.50
9.10
~ These estimates were computed. from ~uantities in food. plans published in
the October 1957 issue of F~ily Economics Review. Quantities for children
were revised. January 1959 to comply with the 1958 NRC Recommended Dietary
Allowances. The cost of the food. plans was first estimated by using the aver­age
price per pound. of each food. group paid. by nonfarm survey families at
three selected. income levels in 1955· These prices were adjusted to current
levels by use of Average Retail Prices of Food. in 46 Large Cities Combined.
released. periodically by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
2/ Ten percent added. for family size adjustment. For derivation of factor
for ad.justment, see September 1960 issue of Family Economics Review.
1/ Man and. woman 20-34 years; children, 1-3 and 4-6 years.
~ Man and woman 20-34 years; children, 7-9 and. 10-12 years.
]_/ The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individ­uals
in other size families, the following ad.justments are suggested:
1-person--ad.d. 20 percent; 2-person--ad.d. 10 percent; 3-person--add. 5 percent;
5-person--subtract 5 percent; 6-or-more-person--subtract 10 percent.
Table 2.--Estimated. Cost of l Week's Food, ?:,_/ January 1962, for Northeast and. North Central Regions
Northeast
Sex-age groups Low-cost !Moderate-plan
cost plan
Liberal
plan
North Central
Low-cost
plan
Moderate­cost
plan
Liberal
plarr
FAMILIES
Dollars Dollars 1 Dollars 1 Dollars Dollars j Dollars
Family of two, 20-34 years 2/ ..•......
Family of two, 55-74 years gj ........ .
Family of four, preschool children 1/ .
Family of four, school children~ ....
INDIVIOOALS 21
Children, under l year ............... .
l-3 years .......................... .
4-6 years .......................... .
7-9 years .......................... .
10-12 years ........................ .
Girls, 13-15 years ................... .
16-19 years ........................ .
Boys, 13-15 years .................... .
16-l9 years ........................ .
Women, 20-34 years ................... .
35-54 years ........................ .
55-74 years ........................ .
75 years and. over .................. .
Pregnant ........................... .
Nursing ............................ .
Men, 20-34 years ..................... .
35-54 years ........................ .
55-74 years ........................ .
75 years and. over .................. .
15.80
14.20
23.40
27.00
3.30
4.10
4.90
5.80
6.80
7.20
7.20
7·90
9.40
6.20
6.00
5.70
5.50
7.60
9.50
8.20
7.60
7.20
7.00
!./-21 See footnotes of table 1 on page 19.
20.70
18.60
29.80
34.90
4.10
4.90
6.10
7.30
8.80
9.40
9.30
10.40
12.10
8.20
8.00
7·50
7.00
9.50
11.70
10.60
9.90
9.40
9.00
22.50
20.20
33.00
38.40
4.30
5.50
7.00
8.10
9.80
10.40
10.30
11.50
13.30
9.00
8.80
8.30
7·70
10.30
12.70
11.50
10.70
10.10
9·70
14.60
13.20
21.80
25.20
3.20
3.90
4.60
5.50
6.40
6.80
6.90
7.40
8.80
5.70
5.60
5.30
5.10
7.20
9.00
7.60
7.10
6.70
6.40
18.30
16.40
26.60
31.10
3.70
4.50
5.50
6.60
7.90
8.40
8.40
9.30
10.90
7·30
7.00
6 .60
6.20
8.60
10.60
9.30
8.70
8.30
7.90
20.80
18.60
30.70
35.60
4.10
5.20
6.60
7.60
9.10
9.70
9.60
10.60
12.40
8.30
8.10
7.60
7.10
9.60
11.90
10.60
9.80
9.30
8.90
I
(\)
0
I
Table 3. --Estimated. Cost of l Week's Food., y January 1962, for Southern and. Western Regions
South West
Sex-age groups Low-cost I Moderate-~ Liberal
plan cost plan plan
Low-cost ~Moderate - ~ Liberal
plan cost plan plan
FAMILIES
Dollars Dollars 1 Dollars 1 Dollars Dollars 1 Dollars
Family of two, 20-34 years 2/ ........ .
Family of two, 55-74 years 2/ ........ .
Family of four, preschool children 3/ .
Family of four, school (!hildren !2_/ -:- •••
INDIVIDUALS 2}
Children, m!der 1 year ............... .
l-3 years .......................... .
4-6 years .......................... .
7-9 years .......................... .
10-12 years ..............•..........
Girls, 13-15 years ................... .
16-19 years ........................ .
Boys, 13-15 years .................... .
16-19 years ........................ .
Women, 20-34 years ................... .
35-54 years ........................ .
55-74 years ........................ .
75 years and. over .................. .
Pregnant ........................... .
Nursing ............................ .
Men, 20-34 years ..................... .
35-54 years ........................ .
55-74 years ........................ .
75 years and over ..............•....
11.80
10.70
17.80
20.50
2.70
3.30
3.80
4.50
5.30
5.50
5.60
6.00
7.00
4.70
4.50
4.30
4.20
5.90
7.40
6.00
5.70
5.4o
5.20
!/-2/ See footnotes of table 1 on page 19.
16 .20
14.70
23.80
27.60
3.40
4.10
5.00
5.90
7.00
7.50
7.50
8.20
9.50
6.50
6.40
6.00
5.60
7.70
9.50
8.20
7.70
7.40
7.10
18.90
17.00
28.00
32.30
3.80
4.80
6.00
6.90
8.20
8.80
8.80
9.50
11.00
7.60
7.50
7.10
6.60
8.80
10.80
9.60
8.90
8.40
8.10
15.50
14.00
23.10
26.70
3.40
4.10
4.90
5.80
6.80
7.20
7.30
7.80
9.30
6.10
6.00
5.60
5.40
7.60
9.60
8.00
7.50
7.10
6.90
19.80
17.80
28.90
33.80
4.00
4.90
6.00
7.20
8.60
9.10
9.10
10.10
11.70
7.90
7.70
7.20
6.70
9 .30
11.50
10.10
9.50
9.00
8.60
22.70
20.20
33.50
38.90
4.50
5.70
7.20
8.30
10.00
10.60
10.50
11.60
13.40
9.00
8.80
8.30
7.80
10.50
13.00
11.60
10.70
10.10
9.70
I
r\)
1-.J
I
-22-
Table 4. --Estimated. Cost of l Week's Food, for Special Adap·::;ation
of Low-Cost Plan for the South, January 1962
Sex-age groups
FAMILIES
Family of two, 20-34 years 2/ ...... .
Family of two, 55-74 years 2/ ...... .
Family of four, preschool children 3/
Family of four, school children~~.
INDIVIDUALS 2)
Children, under 1 year ............. .
1-3 years ........................ .
4-6 years ........................ .
7-9 years .....•...................
10-12 years ...................... .
Girls, 13-15 years ................. .
Special
low-cost
plan !/
Dollars
11.20
9.90
17.00
19.60
2.60
3.10
3.70
4.30
5.10
5.40
Sex-age groups
INDIVIDUALS--Con.
16-19 years ....... .
Boys, 13-15 years ... .
16-19 years ....... .
Women, 20-34 years .. .
35-54 years ....... .
55-74 years ....... .
75 years and. over ..
Pregnant .......... .
Nursing ........... .
Men, 20-34 years .... .
35-54 years ....... .
55-74 years ....... .
75 yeara and. over ..
Special
low-cost
plan !/
Dollars
5.50
5.60
6.70
4.50
4.40
4.00
3.90
5.80
7.30
5.70
5.30
5.00
4.90
!/ Based on ~uantities suggested. in table 2 on page 16, Family Economics
Review, September 1959·
g/-2/ See footnotes of table l on page 19.
Unit prices of food groups
The costs of food. for the food plans are estimated by applying unit (~t.,
lb., doz.) prices for the food. groups to the ~uanti ties suggested. in the food.
plans for individuals. The' unit price for each food group assumes an assort­ment
of food within the groups similar to that used in 1955 by nonfann families
at selected. income levels. Of course, these unit prices will be ~uite differ­ent
if families make selections that deviate greatly from those assumed. Unit
prices can be used for making rough estimates of the costs of food. when food
group ~uantities are different from those for the food. plans. For example,
unit group prices are useful for estimating the money value of food consump­tion
in a local community and for estimating the value of home-produced. food.
.,
-23-
The unit prices used. with the food plans are kept current by adjusting
them according to food prices collected periodically by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics .
Table 5 gives the Jam.ary 1962 unit prices of food groups that were used.
for estimating the cost of food. for the U.S.A. for the low-cost, moderate­cost,
and. liberal food. plans.
Table 5.--Unit prices of food. groups for USDA food. plans at three levels,
January 1962 !/
Low-cost Moderate- Liberal
Food group and. unit plan cost plan plan
Cents Cents Cents
Milk, cheese, ice cream ....•.. quart equiv ....... .
Meat, poultry, fish (including
bacon, salt pork) ............ pound ............... .
Eggs .......................... dozen .............. .
Dry beans, peas, nuts ......... pound ............... .
Grain products .......•........ pound flour equiv .. .
Potatoes ...................... pound ............. .
Citrus fruit, tomatoes ........ .. do ............... .
27.0 28.5 30.0
56.5 63.9 68.1
52.3 54.4 56.1
29.6 42.5 48.9
27.2 37.1 41.2
5.6 6.7 6.8
16.2 18.0 18.4
Other fruits and. vegetables
(includes dark-green and.
deep-yellow vegetables) ....... do ............... .
Fats and. oils ................... do ............... .
Sugar, sweets ................... do •••.••.•••••.• • •
16.5 18.0 18.2
34.0 38.4 41.1
21.2 24.9 27.8
1/ An estimated amount is also added. to the total for accessories such as
coffee, tea, vinegar, and. spices. Prices for the low-cost pl~~ were based
upon practices of households reporting in the 1955 Food. Consumption Surveys
with incomes of $2,000-$2,999; moderate-cost, $4,000-$4,999; liberal, $6,000-
$7,999·
-24-
NEW REFERENCE BASE PERIOD FOR INDEXES OF CONSUMER PRICES
Beginning with this issue of the Family Economics Review, the Index of
P:-..·ices Paid by Farmers for Commodities Used. in Family Living and the Consumer
Price Index for City Wage-Earner and Clerical-Worker Families will appear on
the 1957-59 = 100 base. (See opposite page.) In recent years these have
appeared on the 1947-49 = 100 base.
The new reference base period 1957-59 was established for many Federal
Government Indexes, including the Consumer Price Inde~ by the Bureau of the
Budget, after consultation with staffs of Federal statistical agencies and.
nongovernmental statisticians. A uniform base for the various general-purpose
indexes published by Federal agencies is important to the users of these
statistics. The base has been revised. approximately every 10 years. The
two preceding bases were 1935-39 and 1947-49.
The indexes calculated on the new base will be considerably lower than
those calculated on the old base . But the percentage of change in an index
from one month or year to another will be the same, whether it is on the
1947-49 = 100 or the 1957-59 = 100 base. For example, the Ja~uary 1962
Cons;.rner Price Index for all i terns is approximately 8 percent higher than the
January 1957 index on either base. The indexes for the 2 months are as
follows:
Base period:
1947-49 = 100
1957-59 100
January 1957 index January 1962 index
118
96
128
104
The Bureau of the Budget has recommended. that the conversion of each
index to the new reference base be carried back to the beginning of the index,
if possible . Requests for revised indexes for earlier periods shoQld be
directed to the agency producing the index.
The official Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Commodities Used in
Family Living (also the Index of Prices Received by Farmers) will continue to
be published by the Statistical Reporting Service of the USDA on the 1910-14
base, as required by law. Family Economics Review publishes this index on the
same base as the CPI for the convenience of its readers.
-25-
CONSUMER PRICES
Table 1. --Index of Prices Paid by F armer· s f or co mmodities Used. in Family Living
(1957-59 = 100)
February 1961; June 1961-February 1962
Item Feb. June
July Jan.
1961 1961 Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
1962
Feb.
All commodities ............ 102 101 101 101 102 102 102 102 102 103
Food and tobacco ......... -- 102 -- -- 102 -- -- 102 -- --
Clothing ................. -- 105 -- -- 107 -- -- 107 -- -- Household operation ...... -- 102 -- -- 103 -- -- 104 -- --
Ho~sehold furnishings .... -- 97 -- -- 98 -- -- 97 -- -- Building materials, house. -- 101 -- -- 101 -- -- 101 -- --
Auto and. auto supplies ... -- 99 -- -- 98 -- -- 101 -- --
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service.
Table 2.--Consumer Price Index for City Wage-Earner and. Clerical-Worker Families
(1957-59 = 100)
January 1961; May 1961-January 1962
Item Jan. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.
1961 1961 1962
All items .................. 104 104 104 104 104 105 105 105 104 104
Food . ..................... 103 102 102 103 103 103 102 102 102 102
Apparel .................. 102 102 102 102 102 104 104 104 104 102
Housing .................. 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104
Rent ................... 104 104 104 104 104 105 105 105 105 105
Gas and electricity .... 108 loB 108 loB 108 loB loB 108 1081 108
Solid fuels and fuel oil 102 100 100 100 100 101 102 102 103 104
Housefurnishings ....... 100 99 100 100 99 100 100 99 99 99
Household operation .... 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 1061 106
Transportation ........... 104 104 105 105 106 106 107 107 1061 106
Medical care ............. 110 111 111 112 112 112 112 112 112 113
Personal care ............ 104 104 104 105 105 105 105 105 105 106
Read.ing and recreation ... 106 107 107 107 107 108 loB loB 108 108
Other goods and services . 104 104 104 105 105 105 105 105 1051 105
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
-26-
INDEX OF ARTICLES APPEARING MA.'tCH-DECEMBER 1961
CLOTHING AND TEXTILES
Casual Clothing Wins Favor with Women .................... 14
FOOD
Cheese Buying Guide ..•.............•..................... 12
Estimated. Cost of 1 Week's Food--U.S.A. Average and.
Four Regions ......•..•.................•..•.......•.•.. 20
Family Diets Change .....•..•........••..............•.... 9
Guardians of Our Food. Supply .•.•..•...................... 3
High Consumption of Foods ............................... . 5
Stockpiling Food. for Survival ...••..•..•..••..•....•..... 15
The Food. Stamp Plan ............•.........•............... 26
FAMILY FINANCE
A Scale for Estimating Budget Costs of Families of
Different Sizes and Types . . . • . . . . • • . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Consumer Installment Credit in 1961 •........•............ 11
Employment of Husbands and. Wives in an Ohio City......... 8
Farm Wives in the Labor Force ..•....••..........•........ 12
Health Insurance Coverage . . . . . . . • . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . 18
Income as Related to Education ..........•......•......... 22
Minimum. Wage Law Amended .......•...•..................... 25
Personal Consumption Expenditures, 1960 ......•........... 18
Retired. Couple's Budget Revised. . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Social Security Law Amended. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10
Social Security Rules Amended. . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • . 15
Value of Consumption: An Improved Measure of the Level
of Living . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
What's Available on Budgeting ...•...............•........ 19
HOUSING
Issue
September
September
March
June
March
March
September
June
June
September
September
June
March
June
June
September
March
September
March
June
June
More on Replacement Rates for Household Appliances ....... 14 June
MISCELLANEOUS
Bureau of Labor Statistics to Collect Data on Consumer
Expenditures ..•............................. !,-• ••••••••• 12 March
Census Counts Telephones and Television Sets ............ . 17 September
Census Reports on Farms and. Farm People ................. . 19 June
Energy Used by Women in Various Activities ............•.. 14 March
Facts about Families and. Family Members ................. . 3 September
Food and Drug Labeling ..............•.................... 13 September
Index of Articles Appearing March-December 1960 ......... . 27 March
Laws to Protect Consumers ........•....................... 19 March
Mobility of the Population, 1958-59 ..................... . 7 March
State Population Changes, 1950-60 ....................... . 16 March
ANNUAL OUTLOOK ISSUE
Outlook for 1962 .....•................................... 1-30 December
Growth Through Agricultural Progress