Family Economics Review [1965, Number 1]

              (r;-
~ ) f r BL:ilding Us:= On.y /
MICS
EW
Consumer and Food Economics Research Division, Agricultural Research Servit:e•,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ~~m\illl!lti~l!l!llli~illll~
A quarterly report on current developments in family and food economics and economic aspects
of home management, prepared for home economics agents and home economics specialists of
the Cooperative Extension Service.
SPECIAL LOW-INCOME ISSUE
Contents
Page
VVho Are the Poor ? ------------------------------------------------------------ 3
VVhere Are the Poor? ---------------------------------------------------------- 6
Expenditures of Low-Income Families -------------------------------------------- 6
The Nutritive Value of Donated Foods _______ _________________ _______________ __ __ 12
Installment Debt of Low-Income Families ---------------------------------------- 14
Net VVorth of Low-Income Families _ ___________ _______ ___ ___________ __ ______ ____ 15
Housing of Low-Income Families _____ ______ _ _ _______ __ _______________________ __ 16
The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 ------------------------------------------ 18
USDA Food Plans and Cost-Tools for Deriving Food Cost Standar ds for Use in Public
Assistance -- - ------- - - - -- - -------------------------------------------------- 19
Estimated Cost of 1 VVeek's Food --------------------------- -,.------------------ 21
Spending of Rural Farm Families, 1955 and 1961 --------------------------------- 23
Tomorrow's Jobs - - ------------------------------------------------------------ 25
Some New USDA Publications _____ _________ ___ __________ ____ _______ __ __________ 26
Consumer Prices ------------------------ - ---------------------- - -------------- 27
Index of Articles in 1964 Issues _ ---------- ------------------------------------ 28
ARS 62-5
March 1965
PROPERTY OF THE
ll'"',..,,llry
' ~ 4 1965
3
WHO ARE THE POOR?
This is a question that must be answered before any realistic and effective attack can be
made on poverty. Only when we know who the poor are and what obstacles keep them from
attaining an adequate income can we plan ways of helping them.
When the Council of Economic Advisors discussed poverty in its report to the President
in January 1964/ it suggested as a definition of poverty useful in assessing the extent of the
problem an income of less than $3,000 per year (before taxes) for a family, and $1,500 for an
unrelated individual. At the same time it recognized that refinement of this definition was
necessary, since an income of $3,000 will not meet the needs of all families in equal degree.
The Social Security Board has developed such a refinement-two indexes that take into
account the needs of families varying in size and composition and mark the levels of income
at which their needs can be met at the same degree of adequacy.2 The SSB labels the lower of
the two indexes the economy level and the other the lower-cost level. They are derived from
the cost of U.S. Department of Agriculture food plans, using stated assumptions on the percent
of income going to food.
The lower of the SSB indexes of poverty coincides generally with the definition of the
Council of Economic Advisors. It places the poverty line for the average family of 4 at an after­tax
income of $3,100, and for the unrelated individual at $1,540. Families and unrelated indi­viduals
on farms are assumed to get 40 percent of their living from the farm, and so to need
only 60 percent as much cash income as nonfarm families. '1
Under the standards used in the lower SSB poverty index, there were 7.2 million poor fami­lies
in 1963. These families included 29.7 million persons. Together with the 4.9 million unre­lated
individuals who were poor, they formed 18 percent of the total population. The poor in­cluded
15 percent of all families and 44 percent of all unrelated individuals (Table 1).
Certain types of families and unrelated individuals are more likely than others to be poor.
As might be expected, families with no earners are the most susceptible to poverty. More than
half of these families are poor, a proportion more than 3 times as high as that for all families.
Other families about 3 times as susceptible to poverty as the average family are those with 6 or
more children, those headed by women, and the nonwhite.
The family that has 5 children is about twice as susceptible to poverty as the average fam­ily.
This is true also of the family whose head is either not in the labor force, unemployed, or
a part-time worker and of the family whose head is a farmer, farm manager, or laborer.
Other types of families that are somewhat more susceptible to poverty than the average
are those whose heads are at the extremes of the age range-under 25 years old or 65 or over
-and those with 3 or 4 children. Families living on farms, according to the SSB estimate, have
about a 50 percent greater chance of being poor than nonfarm families.
Being a nonearner almost doubles an unrelated individual's chance of being poor. Being
nonwhite, under 25 years of age, 65 or over, a woman, or a part-time worker somewhat in­creases
the likelihood of being poor. The unrelated single individual has a slightly greater
likelihood of being poor if he does not live on a farm.
Although certain types of families are much more susceptible to poverty than others, they
do not necessarily make up the bulk of the poor. Even the less susceptible groups are not im­mune
to poverty. If a less susceptible group is large, a small percentage of poor within it
makes a large number of poor families. For example, there are 8 times as many families
headed by husband and wife as headed by a woman only. As a result, although the husband­wife
families are much less susceptible to poverty, they make up 70 percent of all poor families,
while those headed by women are only 27 percent of the poor. The other 3 percent are headed
by a man, with no wife present.
Similarly, nonfarm families are less susceptible to poverty than farm families, but they
make up 90 percent of the poor; white are less susceptible than nonwhite, but are 72 percent
1 Economic Report of the President, Jan. 1964. pp. 57-59. Government Printin.g Office, :Washington, D.C.
2 Orshansky M. Counting the poor: another look at the poverty profile, Soetal Secunty Bul. 28 ( 1) : 3-29.
1965. '
3 This assumption appears to overstate the noncash income received from farms. It is based on the ratio of
~orne-produced food to the total food supply of farm families in 1955. Ho!lle prod~ction is kno~ to have declined
m recent years. Tabulations from the 1961 Survey of Consumer Expenditures Wlll shortly proVIde a more nearly
current measure of its importance. There is no justification to assume that the farm contributes to other needs in
the same ratio as to food.
Table 1.-lncidence of poverty among families and unrelated individuals in 1968 as
measured by the Social Security Administration's poverty index at the economy level1
Families Unrelated individuals
All Below the poverty line All Below the poYerty line
Class Percent Percent
Number Percent Number Percent of all poor Number Percent Number Percent of all poor
(millions) of class (millions) of class families (millions) of class (millions) of class individuals
All units -------------------- 47.4 100 7.2 15 100 11.2 100 4.9 44 100
RESIDENCE
Farm ----------------------- 3.1 7 .7 23 10 .4 4 .2 40 3
Nonfarm -------------------- 44.3 93 6.5 15 90 10.8 96 4.7 44 97
COLOR OF HEAD
White ---------------------- 42.7 90 5.2 12 72 9.7 87 4.1 42 83
Nonwhite ------------------- 4.7 10 2.0 42 28 1.5 13 .8 58 17
AGE OF HEAD
14 to 24 years --------------- 2.7 6 .7 26 10 1.0 9 .5 48 10
25 to 54 years --------------- 30.6 65 4.0 13 54} 5.9 53 1.9 32 38
55 to 64 years --------------- 7.4 16 1.0 13 14
65 years and over ------------ 6.7 14 1.5 24 22 4.3 38 2.5 59 52 "'" TYPE OF FAMILY
Husband-wife --------------- 41.3 87 5.0 12 70
Other male head ------------- 1.2 3 .2 17 3 4.3 38 1.4 34 30
Female head ---------~------ 4.9 10 2.0 40 27 6.9 62 3.5 50 70
SIZE OF FAMILY
2 persons ------------------- 15.3 32 2.5 16 34
3 persons ------------------- 9.8 21 1.0 11 14
4 persons ------------------- 9.4 20 1.0 10 14
5 persons ------------------- 6.3 13 .9 14 13
6 persons ------------------- 3.3 7 .6 19 9
7 or more persons ---------- 3.3 7 1.2 35 16
NUMBER OF RELATED
CHILDREN UNDER 18
None ----------------------- 19.1 40 2.4 13 34
1 or 2 children -------------- 17.3 37 2.1 12 28
3 or 4 children -------------- 8.4 18 1.6 19 23
5 children ------------------- 1.4 3 .5 36 7
6 or more children ___________ 1.2 3 .6 49 8
NUMBER OF EARNERS
None ----------------------- 3.7 8 2.0 53 27 4.2 63 3.1 74 63
One ------------------------ 20.8 44 3.3 16 46 7.0 37 1.8 26 37
Two ------------------------ 17.3 37 1.5 9 21
Three or more --------------- 5.6 12 .4 7 6
EMPLOYMENT STATUS
AND OCCUPATION OF
HEAD, MARCH 19642
Not in labor force3 ____ ______ 8.8 19 3.0 34 42
Unemployed ----------·---- --- 1.4 3 .4 28 6
Employed ------------------- 37.2 79 3.7 10 52
Professional, technical, and
kindred -------- --- ------ 4.7 4 .5 3 2
Farmers and farm managers
Managers, officials, and pro-
1.8 4 .5 29 8
prietors, except farm _____ 6.0 13 .3 5 4
Clerical, sales, and kindred _ 4.9 10 .2 4 3
Craftsmen, operatives, and
kindred - ------ ---------- 14.5 31 1.2 8 17
Service workers, including
private household __ __ ____ 3.0 6 .6 20 8
Laborers, except mine ______ 2.3 5 .7 30 10
1 Derived from tables 2 and 3, "Counting the Poor: Another Look at the Poverty Profile," Social Security Bul. 28(1): 3-29. 1965. Percentages may
not add to 100 percent of rounding.
2 Not available for unrelated individuals.
" Includes approximately 0.9 million family heads in the Armed Forces.
c.n
6
of the poor. Families headed by persons between 25 and 64 years of age are less susceptible
than younger or older ones, but they are so numerous that they constitute 68 percent of the
poor ..
Since the SSE poverty index is a very recent development, other writers have not made
use of it as yet. The reader is likely to find the poverty line defined as a single point on an
income distribution, or 1 point for families and 1 for unrelated individuals. There are four
principal income distributions, prepared by Federal agencies, that lend themselves to defining
the poverty line} One of these, from The Current Population Survey of the Bureau of the
Census, forms the basis for the count of the poor developed by the Council of Economic Advisors
(p. 3). The others are:
1960 Census of Population, Bureau of the Census
Survey of Consumer Expenditures, 1960-61 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of
Labor, in cooperation with Department of Agriculture
Size Distribut'ion of Family Personal Income, Office of Business Economics, Department
of Commerce
-Jean L. Pennock.
4 For a comparison of the 4, see Family Income Distribution Statistics Published by Federal Agencies, Statis­tical
Evaluation Report 5, Office of Statistical Standards, Bureau of the Budget.
In articles that follow in this issue of Family Eonomics Review, identification of low-in­come
families is based on income distributions in which no adjustment has been made for family
size and composition as in the SSE index of poverty.
WHERE ARE THE POOR?
Certain areas in the United States have been identified as "pockets of poverty." Among
these are Appalachia, a region from the Ozarks to the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean,
and an area in the Southwest. Although other sections of the country may not have such a
high concentration of low-income families as these, all have some. Locating the areas of need
is an essential part of the planning of attacks on poverty. ~See map page: 8.)
Among the States, the percentage of families reporting incomes under $3,000 ranged from
a low of about 10 percent in Connecticut to a high of 50 percent in Mississippi in 1959-the
latest year for which State income data are available (fig. 1). Hopefully, percentages of families
at this income level may be somewhat lower now (1965) than in 1959. However, States with
many low-income families in 1959 almost certainly have many low-income families in 1965.
Finding your State near the bottom of figure 1, where the low percentages are, is no cause
for complacency-yet. You may have some "pockets of poverty" too. Look up the Census figures
for each county in your State to see if this is true. You will find income figures for counties
in table 81 of the 1960 Census of Population, vol. PC (1) C, for your State. Data on low incomes
for counties in 1 State-Maryland-are shown in figure 2. Only 15 percent of the families in
Maryland had incomes under $3,000. However, in 1 county almost half ( 45 percent) of the
families were in this income group. In 7 of the 24 counties, at least one-third of the families
had incomes under $3,000.
EXPENDITURES OF LOW-INCOME FAMILIES
Home economists and others working with low-income families will find the Consumer
Expenditure Survey of 1960-61 a valuable source of background information. This survey, a
joint project of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
covered a nationwide sample of urban, rural nonfarm, and farm families. It provides a descrip­tion
of low-income families; presents a record of average amounts spent for the goods and serv­ices
these families buy for current consumption; and shows the relative importance of the
various categories of expenditure in the budget of the low-income family.
7
FIG. I-LOW-INCOME FAMILIES, BY STATE FIG. 2 -LOW-INCOME FAMILIES,
BY COUNTY (MD .)
0 10
MISS.
ARK.
s. c.
ALA.
TENN.
KY.
N.C.
GA.
LA.
S. OAK.
W. ·VA.
OKLA •.
N. OAK.
TEX.
FLA.
VA.
MO.
NEBR.
IOWA
N.MEX.
VT.
MAINE
KANS.
MINN.
ARIZ.
IDAHO
MONT
COLO.
IND.
WIS.
D. C.
OREG.
PENN.
R.l,
WYO.
DEL.
MICH.
OHIO
MD.
N.H. ~
WASH.
ILL
UTAH
ALASKA
CALIF
N.Y.
HAWAII
M~SS. ~
NEV. ~
N.J.
CONN.
I
PERCENT
20 30 40 so 60
SOMERSET
GARRETT
WORCESTER
CAROLINE
DORCHESTER
QUEEN ANNE'S
KENT
TALBOT
CALVERT
ST. MARY'S
WICOMICO
CHARLES
ALLEGANY
CARROLL
FREDERICK
WASHINGTON
CECIL
BALTIMORE CITY
HARFORD
HOWARD
ANNE ARUNDEL
1959 INCOME
-.,NDER $1,ooo PRINCE GEORGE'S
m$1,MO- 1,999
0 $2,ooo-:·9•9 BALTIMORE
MONTGOMERY
0 10
PERCENT
20 30 40 so
1959 INCOME
- UNDER $1
EQQ $1,000-1,999
0 $2,ooo- 2,999
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 65 (3)-5778 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
8
Counties with Median family Income Under $3,000 in 1959
Families classified as "low-income" in the following report of findings from the Consumer
Expenditure Survey include those with money incomes under $3,000 after tax in 1961.
("Families" here include both families and unrelated individuals.) This is a somewhat higher
income level than the President's Council of Economic Advisors used in defining the poor. The
Council designated as "low" an income of less than $3,000 a year before tax for a family of
2 or more persons, and $1,500 for an unrelated individual.1
The Consumer Expenditure Survey shows that 21 percent of the urban families, 34 percent
of the rural nonfarm, and 40 percent of the farm famili"es had after-tax incomes under $3,000
in 1961.' (It should be noted that classifying families on the basis of money income in this way
ignores income "in kind," which adds considerably to the incomes of rural families, especially
those on farms.) For some, such a low income was undoubtedly a temporary displacement
from a higher income position. Income in a single year is not necessarily the usual, especially
for the farm family, for whom a poor crop or an outbreak of disease among livestock may
mean an uncommonly lean year.
Characteristics of the Low-Income Families
The low-income families, as a group, were older, less well educated, and smaller than those
with higher incomes. Relatively more of the low-income families were nonwhite, and fewer
were owners of homes or cars. •
In the urban low-income group, the average family was headed by a person 60 years old
with an 8th grade education, and had 1.9 members (table 1). It had only 0.2 full-time earner;
that is, not more than 1 out of 5 families had even 1 full-time earner-reflecting the fact that
many family members were retired, unemployed, or underemployed. About one-fourth of the
families were nonwhite, and one-fifth had children under 18.
In the rural nonfarm low-income families, as compared with the urban, the head was the
same age and had 1 year less of schooling, and the number of full-time earners was the same,
on the average. But the rural nonfarm families were larger (2.7 vs. 1.9 persons), the percent­age
with children under 18 was larger, and the percentage that were nonwhite was smaller by
half.
1 See footnote 1, p. 3.
9
In the low-income farm group, the average family head was somewhat younger than in the
rural nonfarm group (56 vs. 60 years), but his educational level was the same, 7 years. The
farm families, with an average of 3.1 members, were larger than the others, and they were
more likely to have children under 18. They averaged 1 full-time earner. (By the definition
used in the survey, any farm operator was considered a full-time earner. Since some farming
was on a small scale and provided less than full employment, this figure is not comparable with
that for full-time earners in urban and rural nonfarm families.) About the same percentage of
farm as of rural nonfarm low-income families ,\rere nonwhite (14 and 13 percent, respectively).
Expenditures of Low-Income Families
Expenditure per family.-Total expenditure for current consumption by families with in­comes
under $3,000 in 1961 averaged about $2,130 for urban, $1,970 for rural nonfarm, and
$2,200 for farm families. In addition, outlays of about $160, $135, and $195 for personal in­surance,
gifts, and contributions were made by families in the respective groups. Total dis­bursements
exceeded income in each group. If a family spends more than it takes in, it must
use money saved in previous years or go into debt, or both, resulting in a negative net change
in assets and liabilities. The deficit for the low-income farm families averaged about $740, com­pared
with $285 for the urban and $160 for the rural nonfarm families. The fact that outgo
exceeded income, on the average, is one evidence that some of the families usually had higher
incomes. Previous studies have shown that when income drops a family is likely to continue
spending for current living at about its usual rate, for a time at least.
The average amount spent per family for each expenditure category was smaller among
low- than higher-income families. Figure 1 shows average dollar expenditures of farm families
at a low, a medium, and a high income level.
Expenditure per person.-Put on an expenditure per person basis, the average amount spent
for current living was about $1,100 in the urban families with incomes under $3,000, $750 in
the rural nonfarm, and $700 in the farm families. The amount spent for food, the largest single
$
40
FARM FAMILY EXPENDITURES
By Income, 1961
INCOME
- $1,000-1,999
~ $4,000-4,99
I!B!:l8 $7,500-9,999
$INCLUDES BEVERAGES. A INCLUDES HOUSEHOLD OPERATION, FURHISHIHGS AHD EQUIPJCEHT.
0 INCLUDES PERSONAL CARE. f RECREATION, READING, EDUCA TIOH, TOBACCO, MISCELLANEOUS·
USDA DATA. .
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. U (7)-5766 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
10
Table !.-Average expenditures, income, and savings of families and single consumers with incomes under $3,000
(after tax), by urbanization, 1961
Percent of expenditures
Average expenditures for current consumption
Item
United Rural United Rural
States1 Urban nonfarm Farm Statesl Urban nonfarm Farm
Expenditures for current consumption -- $2,093 $2,131 $1,968 $2,204 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Food and alcoholic beverages -------- 624 637 597 617 29.8 29.9 30.3 28.0
Housing, total --------------------- 700 776 580 572
Shelter, fuel, light, refrigeration,
and water --------------------- 495 569 384 356 23.7 26.7 19.5 16.2
Household operation -------------- 116 127 101 95 5.5 6.0 5.1 4.3
Housefurnishings and equipment __ 89 80 95 121 4.3 3.8 4.8 5.5
Clothing -------------------------- 158 154 139 233 7.)5 7.2 7.1 10.6
Personal care ---------------------- 64 67 57 67 3.1 3.1 2.9 3.0
Medical care ----------------------- 186 186 176 214 8.9 8.7 8.9 9.7
Recreation ------------------------ 50 50 46 60 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.7
Reading and education ------------- 25 29 17 28 1.2 1.4 .9 1.3
Automobile purchase and operation __ 164 106 243 293 7.8 5.0 12.3 13.3
Other transportation --------------- 32 42 16 12 1.5 2.0 .8 .5
Other ----------------------------- 90 84 97 108 4.3 3.9 4.9 4.9
Gifts and contributions --------------- 97 101 85 107
Personal insurance ------------------- 60 60 50 85
Money income before taxes ------------ 1,867 1,937 1,792 1,653
Money income after taxes ------------- 1,801 1,866 1,747 1,556
Other money receipts ----------------- 67 59 80 80
Net change in assets and liabilities ____ -296 -285 -161 -739
Average size of family --------------- 2.2 1.9 2.6 3.1
Average age of head ----------------- 59 60 60 56
Percent nonwhite families ------------ 20 24 13 14
Percent homeowners ------------------ 47 37 61 67
Percent auto owners ------------------ 40 27 54 81
1 Preliminary data.
item, would have provided about $6.25 per person per week for city families, $4.35 for rural
nonfarm, and $3.75 for farm families. Corresponding per person food expenditures in fam­ilies
with $7,500 or more income were about $9.90, $8.00, and $5.40.
Average expenditures per person for clothing were $80 for urban, $55 for rural nonfarm,
and $75 for farm families. In contrast, those for the higher-income ($7,500 and over) families
were $265, $214, and $170, respectively.
Division of the Low-Income Family's Dollar
As compared with families having higher incomes. those with less than $3,000 in 1961
spent larger percentages of their consumption dollar for food, shelter, and medical care, and
smaller percentages for clothing, transportation, and home furnishings and equipment.
Shelter-including fuel, light, water, and refrigeration-took about 27 percent of the total
spent for current consumption by low-income urban families, but only 20 percent for rural
nonfarm and 16 percent for farm families. In contrast, families with $7,500 or more income
spent 16 percent for shelter in urban and rural nonfarm areas, and 15 percent on farms.
Clothing took about 11 percent of the consumption dollar of low-income farm families, con­siderably
above the 7 percent average of the rural nonfarm and urban families. The higher fig­ure
for the farm families reflects, in part, their larger size. But it also reflects the tendency
of families with temporarily reduced incomes to maintain their usual level of living. Among
families with incomes of $7,500 or more, farm families were more like urban and rural non­farm
families in size, and spent about the same percentage of the dollar for clothing ( 13 per­cent
for farm; 12, urban; and 11, rural nonfarm).
Medical care and transportation were both sizeable items in low-income budgets. Medical
care accounted for about 9 percent of the urban and rural nonfarm family's consumption dol­lar,
and 10 percent of the farm family's. Corresponding figures were 6 and 8 percent in the
11
$7,500 and over group. Transportation took 7 percent of the urban family's dollar, but about
double that-13 and 14 percent, respectively--of the rural nonfarm and farm family's spending.
The low rate of car ownership among urban low-income families (27 percent vs. 81 percent for
farni families) is largely responsible for their lower transportation expenditure. Families with
incomes of $7,500 or more spent 15 to 19 percent of their consumption dollar for transporta­tion.
Household operation and furnishings and e:Juipment combined took 10 percent of the low­income
family's dollar, as did the other small budget items-personal care, recreation, reading
and education, and miscellaneous-combined. These percentages were somewhat higher among
high-income families.
Spending of Families Differing in Size and Age
Obviously the spending patterns of the "average" family in a population does not fit every
kind of family making up that population. For example, small families spend differently than
large ones, young families differently than old ones. Data about the spending of selected groups
of farm families with incomes . under $3,000 point up some of these differences (table 2).
Table 2.-Average expenditures, income, and savings of farm families and single consumer.~ with incomes
unde1· $3,000, after tax, by family size and age of head, 1961
Item
Expenditures for current consumption -
Food and alcoholic beverages --------
Housing, total ---------------------
Shelter, fuel, light, refrigeration,
and vvater ---------------------
Household operation ------------- Housefurnishings and equipment __
Clothing --------------------------
Personal care ----------------------
Medical care -----------------------
Recreation ------------------------
Reading and education --------------
Automobile purchase and operation __
Other transportation ---------------
Other -----------------------------
Gifts and contributions ---------------
Personal insurance -------------------
Money income before taxes ------------
Money income after taxes ------------
Other money receipts ---------- -------
Net change in assets and liabilities _____
Average size of family ---------------
Average age of head ----------------
Percent nonvvhite families ------------
Percent homeovvners ----------------- Percent auto ovvners -----------------
By family size By age of head
2 persons
Percent
Average of
expend- expend-itures
itures
$2,026 100.0
529 26.1
572 28.2
362 17.9
95 4.7
115 5.7
164 8.1
58 2.9
232 11.5
51 2.5
18 .9
281 13.9
10 .5
111 5.5
133
71
1,691
1,596
67
-528
2.0
62
7
81
84
6 or
more persons
Percent
25-34
Percent
A vera~e of Average of
expen - expend- expend- expend-itures
itures itures itures
$2,721 100.0 $2,556 100.0
871 32.0 750 29.3
579 21.3 720 28.2
332 12.2 419 16.4
98 3.6 120 4.7
149 5.5 181 7.1
421 15.5 317 12.4
92 3.4 88 3.4
222 8.2 188 7.4
91 3.3 88 3.4
47 1.7 15 .6
276 10.1 263 10.3
17 .6 26 1.0
105 3.9 101 4.0
56 60
91 85
1,871 1,502
1,791 1,434
7 256
-1,126 -802
7.6 4.8
42 31
39 22
44 20
79 80
65 and over
Percent
Average of
expend- expend-itures
itures
$1,779 100.0
495 27.8
503 28.3
315 17.7
92 5.2
96 5.4
127 7.1
45 2.5
231 13.0
41 2.3
19 1.1
224 12.6
8 .4
86 4.8
106
52
1,674
1,615
23
-331
2.1
72
9
83
73
Lctrge and small families.-The total consumption expenditure of the large families (6 or
more persons) averaged $2,721, the smaller families (2 per~ons) $2,0~6. But the expe_n_diture
per person was only about $360 in the large as compared with $1,015 m the small families.
Food was a major item in the large family's budget, taking 32 percent of its consumption
dollar, as compared with 26 percent in the small families. Clothing took 15 percent of the large,
8 percent of the small family's dollar. The big families also allocated slightly larger percent-
12
ages of their expenditure to personal care, recreation, and reading and education. Their spend­ing
for housing, medical care, transportation, and "other" took smaller percentages of the total
than that of the small families.
Although the large families had incomes about $200 higher than the small families, they
ended the year with a: much larger deficit ($1,126 compared with $528).
Young and older families.-The young families (head 25-34 years) had incomes averaging
about $180 less than the older families (65 and over), but spent about 50 percent more for liv­ing
($2,556 compared with $1,779). Since the young families were larger, however, their expen­diture
per person was only about $530 to the older families' $850.
The most notable differences in the way these 2 groups divided the consumption dollar was
the larger allocation of young families to clothing (12 percent vs. 7 for the elderly) and their
smaller allocation to medical care (7 percent vs. 13 percent). The larger allocation to clothing
by the young was due mainly to the larger numbers to be clothed, since the average amount
spent per person was only a little higher than in the older families.
The young families, as compared with the older ones, spent somewhat larger percentages for
food, furnishings and equipment, and recreation; and somewhat smaller percentages for shelter
and transportation.
The year's deficit for the young families was $800, that for the older ones $330.
More Information Available
Information about the characteristics, incomes, and expenditures of low-income families in
the Northeast, North Central, Southern, and Western Regions is available in reports of the Sur­vey
of Consumer Expenditures. These can be obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics or
the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Data are not available for individual States.
-Emma G. Holmes
THE NUTRITIVE VALUE OF DONATED FOODS
The nutritive values of 18 food items donated to needy families by the Federal Government
in February 1965 are shown in the table on the opposite page. The values given are for one
pound of each food as distributed, with no allowances for losses in cooking. For canned chopped
meat and beef, values are given also for the contents of the size can being issued.
Not all of the foods listed are available in every community. Many areas of the country
have yet to request any foods. The supplies available in others vary from time to time.
The number of foods offered to the States for distribution was increased in 1961. Even
before this increase the contribution of donated foods to family diets could be substantial. In
1961, the Consumer and Food Economics Research Division made two small surveys of the food
consumption of 80 Baltimore families all of whom were receiving some donated foods. The pro­portions
of the total calories and total amounts of several nutrients furnished by the donated
foods were as follows:
Nutrient
Early in 1961 when 5
foods were being
distributed
Food energy -------------------------------
Protein ______ ----------------- ____________ _
Calcium ___ -------------------- ___________ _
Vitamin A ________________________________ _
Thiamine _________________________________ _
Percent
20
21
38
5
24
Later in 1961 when 8
foods were being
distributed
Percent
26
24
34
9
25
Table 1.-Contposition of Government-donated foods distributed to needy families1
(Nutritive values in 1 pound of each food)
Item Food Carbo- Phos- Vit.A Thia- Ribo- Ascor-
Wate1 energy Protein Fat hydrates Calcium phorus Iron Sodium Potassium Value mine flavin Niacin bic acid
Pet. Calories Gm. Gm. Gm. Mg. Mg. Mg. Mg. Mg. l.U. Mg. Mg. Mg. Mg.
Peas, dry, split --------- 9 1,579 110 5 284 150 1,216 23.1 181 4,060 540 3.38 1.31 13.7
Peanut butter ---------- 2 2,640 116 225 88 277 1,792 9.1 2,749 2,95~ --- .57 .56 69.3 0
Cheese, Cheddar (Ameri-can)
processed ------- 40 1,678 105 136 9 3,162 3,497 4.1 5,153 363 5,530 .07 1.85 .1 0
Chopped meat, canned ___ 55 1,334 68 113 6 41 490 10.0 5,597 1,007 0 1.41 .95 13.6
1 lb. 14.5 oz.2 _________ 55 2,542 130 215 11 78 934 19.0 10,670 1,920 0 2.68 1.82 25.9
Beef, w/ natural juices,
canned --------------- 60 1,016 113 59 0 73 526 10.9 --- 1,175 --- .09 1.04 19.1 0
1 lb. 13 oz.2 ---------- 60 1,842 206 107 0 132 954 19.7 --- 2,129 --- .16 1.89 34.5 0
Margarine3 ------------ 15 3,266 3 367 2 91 73 0 4,477 104 15,000 -- -- 0
Lard ------------------ 0 4,091 0 454 0 0 0 0 --- --- 0 0 0 0 0
Milk, dried, nonfat ______ 3 1,647 163 4 237 5,933 4,609 2.7 2,413 7,915 140 1.59 8.16 4.1 32
Wheat flours: ...... All purpose, enriched _ 12 1,651 48 5 345 73 395 13.0 9 431 0 2.00 1.20 16.0 0 Co.!)
Bread flour, enriched __ 12 1,656 54 5 339 73 431 13.0 9 431 0 2.00 1.20 16.0 0
Whole wheat _________ 12 1,510 60 9 322 186 1,687 15.0 14 1,678 0 2.49 .54 19.7 0
Wheat, rolled ----------- 10 1,542 45 9 346 163 1,551 14.5 9 1,724 0 1.65 .55 18.6 0
Bulgur, from hard red
winter wheat --------- 10 1,605 51 7 343 132 1,533 16.8 --- 1,039 0 1.27 .64 20.5 0
Cornmeal, yellow:
Regular, enriched _____ 12 1,642 41 15 338 477 1,012 13.0 5 1,125 2,180 2.00 1.20 16.0 0
Degermed, enriched ___ 12 1,651 36 5 356 427 449 13.0 5 544 2,000 2.00 1.20 16.0 0
Corn grits, yellow,
enriched ------------- 12 1,642 39 4 354 418 331 13.0 5 363 2,000 2.00 1.20 16.0 0
Rice, white:
Commercial, varieties
enriched ----------- 12 1,647 30 2 365 109 426 13.0 23 417 0 2.00 1.20 16.0 0
Parboiled, enriched ____ 10 1,674 34 1 369 272 907 13.0 41 680 0 2.00 1.20 16.0 0
1 Based on USDA Agriculture Handbook 8 Revised, 1963, "Composition of Foods-raw, processed, prepared," with adjustments where needed to
meet Federal specifications.
t Values for contents of the size can being issued to families.
3 Butter, when available, is distributed instead of margarine.
4 Value without added calcium. If calcium is added, value would be 500 mg. per pound.
14
INSTALLMENT DEBT OF LOW-INCOME FAMILIES
Early in 1963 about 32 percent of the families with incomes under $3,000 and 22 percent
of those with incomes under $2,000 had installment debt for cars, household durables, or addi­tions
and repairs to their homes, according to the Survey of Consumer Finances conducted by
the University of Michigan's Survey Research Center (table 1) . l The proportion of debtor fami­lies
was considerably greater in all higher income groups, reaching a peak at the $7,500 to
$9,999 income level, where 63 percent owed some installment debt. ("Families" here is used to
designate what the Survey report calls "spending units." A spending unit consists of all re­lated
persons living together who pool their incomes. Husband and wife and children under 18
living at home are always considered members of the same spending unit.)
In 1963 the percentage of installment debtors among families with incomes under $2,000
was about the same as in 1961 and 1962, but somewhat smaller than in the late 1950's. The
decrease between these dates was partly, perhaps, because $2,000 was a smaller income (in
terms of buying power) in 1963 than in the 1950's, and smaller incomes mean fewer debtors.
Table !.-Families with installment debt, by income before tax
Income
(before tax) 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1956
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
All ---------------------------- 50 54 47 48 48 45
Under $2,000 ------------------- 22 23 21 25 27 28
$2,000-$4,999 ------------------- 50 48 49 49 50 50
$5,000-$7,499 ------------------- 60 56 52 60 61 56
$7,500-$9,999 ------------------- 63 59 62 58 59 48
$10,000 and over ---------------- 46 46 48 44 38 32
Among the low-income families, also, those with little or no accumulation of liquid assets
are the ones most likely to owe installment debt. ("Liquid assets" include deposits in banks,
savings and loan associations, and credit unions; and U.S. Government savings bonds.) In
the under-$3,000 income group, over 40 percent of those with no liquid assets and about the
same percentage with some assets but less than $500 reported debts early in 1963. Less than
10 percent of the families with liquid assets of $500 or more owed on installment purchases
and loans at that time.
The amounts of installment debt owed by low-income families were, on the whole, relatively
small. Among the families with incomes under $2,000, the 22 percent who owed on debts in­cluded
11 percent (half of the debtors) with debts under $200 (table 2). But it also included
2 percent with debts of $1,000 or more-large amounts to be paid off by families with so little
income. In 9 percent of the families with incomes under $2,000, installment payments during
the year would take 20 percent or more of their disposable income; and in 4 percent such pay­ments
would claim at least 40 percent of income (table 3).
About half of the low-income families with incomes under $3,000 who bought cars in 1962
bought them on the installment plan. Most of the cars were used cars, and most of the debts
assumed were--as car debts go--fairly small. Out of every 10 car debts assumed, about 6 were
under $500, 1 was between $500 and $999, 2 between $1,000 and $1,999, and 1 was $2,000 or
more.
Young low-income families are much more likely to be installment debtors than older ones.
In the group with incomes under $3,000, for example, 52 percent of the families headed by a
person under 35 owed installment debts early in 1962, but only 11 percent of those with head
aged 65 or older. The young families also tended to have larger debts. This seems natural,
since many young families are in the process of building up a stock of durables, while most
older families are making replacements only.
1 Survey of Consumer Finances, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, The University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor. Data from the 1956, 1959, 1960, 1961, and 1962 surveys are used in the article above. Per­mission
to use this material was granted by the Survey Research Center.
15
Table 2.-Amount of installment debt owed by families with incomes under $2,000
Amount of installment
debt
None --------------------------
$1-$99 ------------------------­$
100-$199 ---------------------­$
200-$499 ---------------------­$
500-$999 ---------------------­$
1,000-$1,999 ------------------­$
2,000 or more ------------------
Total -----------------------­Median
------------------------
1 Less than 0.5 percent.
2 Not available.
1963
78
8
3
6
3
1
1
100
$190
Percent of families
1962 1959
77 73
8 9
7 8
6 6
2 3
(1) (;d (1)
100 100
$165 $160
Table 3.-Ratio of installment debt payments to income after tax of families with
incomes under $2,000
Annual debt payments as
percent of income
None --------------------------
Under 5 -----------------------
5-9 ----------------------------
10-19 --------------------------
20-39 --------------------------
40-59 --------------------------
60 or over ---------------------­Not
ascertained -----------------
MeTdoitaanl r-a-t-io-- -(-p-e-r-c-e-n-t)- --__-_-_-_-_-_-_- _-
1 Less than 0.5 percent.
1963
78
1
5
7
5
{ 4
(1)
100
18
1962
77
1
4
5
9
{ 4
(1)
100
18
Percent of families
1961 1960
79 75
1 1
5 4
5 7
5 4
4 3
1 5
1
100 100
16 22
1956
72
12
6
6
2
2
100
(2)
1959
73
1
5
8
8
3
3
(1)
100
19
Medical debts, not included in the installment debts above, were reported by 17 percent of
the families with incomes under $2,000, in amounts averaging about $160. Few low-income
families had mortgage debts-only about 10 percent of those with incomes under $3,000.
Although the proportion of low-income families owing installment debts seems small in
comparison with other income groups, this does not mean that a consideration of credit prob­lems
can be omitted from programs for low-income families. In terms of numbers of families,
installment debtors with incomes under $2,000 totaled about 2 million early in 1963. If even
a small proportion of these repeated the unfortunate experiences with installment credit of the
families described in the widely quoted book "The Poor Pay More," 2 it would mean loss they
could ill afford to a large number of people.
-Emma G. Holmes.
2 Caplovitz, D. The Poor Pay M.ore. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. 1963.
NET WORTH OF LOW-INCOME FAMILIES
The median net worth of families with incomes under $3,000 was about $2,800 at the end
of 1962, according to the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Financial Characteristics of Con­sumers.
1 The median for all U.S. families was $7,500. ("Families" here refers to families and un­related
individuals. "Income" is total money received, before payroll deductions.)
1 ProJ'ector D S Surve" of Financial Characteristics of Consumers, Fed. Reserve Bul., pp. 285-293, March
1964. ' . . ·'
16
Even more revealing of the financial status of the low-income families is the fact that
43 percent of them had net worths amounting to less than $1,000, as the following summary
shows:
Net worth, December 31, 1962:
Negative (more debt than assets) ------------------------------------------------
0 to $999 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
$1,000 to $4,999 ----------------------------------------------------------------
~~O~~~Ot~o$i~i,~99-==============================================================
$25,000 to $49,999 -------------------------------------------------------------­$
50,000 to $99,999 -------------------------------------------------------------­$
100,000 and over --------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of low-income
families (under $3,000)
12
31
16
15
17
7
1
1
It seems likely that most of the families at the low end of the range of net worth-particu­larly
those with negative net worth or less than $1,000-were either very young families or
families whose incomes had been low in past years as well as in 1962, so that they had been un­able
to accumulate much. On the contrary, those with net worth at the high end of the range­especially
the 2 percent with $50,000 or more-were probably mostly families whose incomes in
1962 were lower than usual-perhaps because they were now retired or were temporarily
displaced from a higher income level.
Components of net worth.-The assets of the low-income families were most frequently
in the form of liquid assets, equity in a house, or an automobile. Of every 100 families with in­comes
under $3,000-
56 had liquid assets such as money in the bank, savings bonds, and shares in building
and loan associations or credit unions;
44 had equity in a home;
39 owned an automobile;
31 had assets in life insurance, annuities, or retirement plans;
15 had investment in stocks, bonds, mortgages, or real estate;
14 had money in a farm or nonfarm business or profession in which they participated
actively in management;
6 had miscellaneous assets, such as funds held in trust; funds in profit-sharing or de­ferred
income plans; royalties; and patents.
On the negative side, 34 out of every 100 families with incomes under $3,000 owed some
personal debt, not including automobile debt. ("Personal" debt refers to consumer debts not
secured by any of the assets listed above. These include installment debts on consumer dur­ables,
except automobiles; home modernization loans; and debts to doctors and hospitals.)
HOUSING OF LOW-INCOME FAMILIES
One stereotype of families with low income is that they are crowded into poor housing and
lack comforts and equipment so frequently found in American homes where incomes are high­er.
The Housing Census of 1960 shows that housing condition, crowding, and possession of cer­tain
equipment differ considerably among families with low incomes (under $3,000), depend­ing
on where they live and whether they own or rent.
Housing condition.-In 1960 over 51~ million families with incomes under $3,000 lived in
homes that were dilapidated (i.e., with defects "so critical or so widespread that the structure
should be extensively repaired, rebuilt, or torn down") or lacked some plumbing facility (piped
hot and cold water, or private toilet or bathing facilities inside the structure) .1 This group con­stituted
36 per cent of all families with low in comes.
Families with low incomes were about equally divided between owners and renters and
between large metropolitan areas and the rest of the country. The concentration of families
with poor housing, however, was among renters living outside SMSA's-standard metropolitan
statistical areas. An SMSA is made up of a city of 50,000 or more and the surrounding closely
related counties (table 1.).
1 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Housing: 1960. Vol. I, States and Small Areas. U.S. Summary.
HC (1) 1, p. LXIII.
17
Table 1.-U.S. families in lwusing that was dilapted or lacked plumbing, 1960
Income Under $3,000 Income $3,000 and over
Location
All Owners Renters All Owners Renters
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
All u.s. ----------------------- 36 30 42 8 6 13
Inside SMSA's --------------- 23 14 30 5 3 10
Outside SMSA's -------------- 49 41 60 15 12 21
All rural ---------------------- 55 37 70 19 16 28
Farm ------------------------ 57 50 74 26 24 38
~onfarm --------------------- 54 45 69 17 13 26
Among low-·income rural families, including those inside SMSA's, a slightly higher propor­tion
of farm than rural nonfarm families had housing that was dilapidated and lacked plumbing
-57 percent and 54 percent, ·respectively. Rural farm housing was inferior to rural nonfarm
because of lack of plumbing more frequently than because of dilapidation.
Only 8 percent of the families with higher incomes-$3,000 or more-lived in housing that
was dilapidated or lacked plumbing. Among these, the ones most likely to have housing that
was dilapidated or lacked plumbing were those who rented somewhere outside an SMSA-21
percent. The ones least likely to have such housing were owners living inside SMSA's-3 per­cent.
Crowding.-Judged by the standard that more than one person per room is "crowding," the
families with low incomes were only slightly more likely to be crowded than other American
families in 1960. Twelve percent of the families with incomes under $3,000 and 11 percent of
those with higher incomes lived in units providing less than one room per person. Crowding
was more prevalent in rented than in owned homes, and outside than inside SMSA's, as the
following summary shows:
Income and location
Under $3,000
Inside SMSA's ........................ .
Outside SMSA's ... . ......... . ........ .
$3,000 and over
Inside SMSA's ........................ .
Outside SMSA's ................... .. . .
Owned
4
9
8
11
Percent of units with less
than 1 room per person
Rented
14
23
14
18
Equipment.-Low- and high-income rural families differed in the equipment they had as
well as in the condition of their homes. (We lack information about equipment for low- and
high-income urban families.) There were major differences in percentages of families having
TV, telephone, freezer, washing machine, and dryer (table 2).
Table 2.-Rural families having specified household equipment
Income under $3,000 Income $3,000 and over
Item
All rural Farm ~onfarm All rural Farm ~onfarm
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
Radio -------------------------- 84 88 82 93 94 92
Television ---------------------- 67 71 65 91 89 92
Telephone available ------------- 47 51 45 79 78 79
llorne food freezer -------------- 24 42 15 38 63 32
Washing machine --------------- 72 82 67 89 93 88
Clothes dryer ------------------- 6 9 5 25 25 25
18
As far as the 6 items listed are concerned, farm families were better off than nonfarm
families at income levels under $3,000. The home freezer was much more common among farm
than nonfarm families. In fact, freezers were owned more frequently by farm families with low
incomes than by nonfarm families with higher incomes.
Possession of these items was more common among homeowners than renters, especially in
the group with incomes below $3,000. The difference was greatest for telephones and washers.
Among low-income rural homeowners, 55 percent had a telephone available and 78 percent had
a washer. The comparable rates for renters were 31 percent and 60 percent.
Data for regions, States, and cities would no doubt display additional variation among low­income
families. Data from the 1960 Census of Housing relating housing characteristics to the
income of the occupants are found in: (1) Rural Housing, Vol. VI. Condition, plumbing facili­ties
and equipment in farm and rural nonfarm, owner-and renter-occupied units in the United
States and 121 economic subregions. (2) Characteristics of Housing Units Classified by 1959
Income of Occupants, Current Housing Reports, Series H-121, No. 1, August 1964. (Including
a mimeographed supplement for the United States). Selected characteristics of owner- and
renter-occupied housing, for each State, inside and outside SMSA's in each State, and for the 25
largest SMSA's, and for nonwhite families in States having 25,000 or more such families.
-Mary Jane Ellis
THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964
The purpose of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (Public Law 88---452), popularly
known as the anti-poverty bill, is to improve the lot of persons with low income by "opening to
everyone the opportunity for education and training, the opportunity to work, and the oppor­tunity
to live in decency and dignity."
The Act provides for five major programs:
1. Youth programs.-Their purpose is to prepare young men and women 16 through 21
years of age for the responsibilities of citizenship and to increase their employability through
education and vocational training. There are three types of youth programs:
• The Job Corps provides education, work experience, and vocational training in
urban and rural residential centers. All enrollees will receive clothing, work equip­ment,
transportation, allowances, and recreational and health services. They may
be in the Job Corps up to 2 years.
• The Neighborhood Youth Corps provides for full- or part-time employment so that
young people (living at home) may continue or resume their education or increase
their employability.
• The Work-Study Program provides for part-time employment so that students
from low-income families may start or continue their college education.
2. Community action programs.-The Act provides financial support for certain programs
originated and executed by the community. Such programs may develop employment oppor­tunities;
improve human performance, motivation, and productivity; or better the conditions
under which people live, learn, and work. Literacy classes for adults are singled out for specific
mention.
3. Rural areas programs.-Loans will be made available to rural farm and nonfarm families
who are unable to get loans from other sources, in order to improve their incomes permanent­ly.
Aid will be given to migratory workers through programs in housing, sanitation, educa­tion,
and day care of their children.
4. Small business loans.-To keep a small business in operation or to start a new one, small
loans will be available to those who have difficulty borrowing money at reasonable rates else­where.
5. Work-experience programs.-The Act authorizes funds for projects providing work ex­perience
or training for unemployed fathers and other needy persons.
To carry out this array of programs requires the help of many people. The Act provides
for a group called Volunteers in Service for America (VISTA), akin to a domestic Peace Corps.
Members will be assigned upon request of States or local agencies to work toward meeting
19
health, education, welfare, and other needs of Indians on reservations, migratory workers and
their families, and residents of U.S. territories and protectorates; to aid in the care of mentally
ill ·and mentally retarded patients in hospitals assisted by Federal funds; and to help in Job
Corps Centers and Community Action programs. VISTA Volunteers will receive a stipend of
$50 a month and allowances for living, travel, and leave.
Progress with Programs to January 1965
By mid-January 1965, $221 million had been committed to almost 400 projects located in
every State, the District of Columbia, and some territories.
Youth programs.-The establishment of 62 rural and 5 urban Job Corps centers had been
announced. The rural centers, training mostly in conservation, each enroll 100 to 200 young
men. The urban centers, handling 1,250 to 2,250 young men, provide training for work of many
kinds-office, food service, repair and maintenance (for radios, television, autos, boats, equip­ment),
electrical, air conditioning and refrigeration, sales, welding, and machine shop and sheet­metal
work.
Funds had been allocated for 37 Neighborhood Youth Corps projects in 23 States and a
nationwide summer job program for 50,000 needy students. For example, the city and county
schools of Los Angeles developed a community action program that included a Neighborhood
Youth Corps project involving 5,000 students serving as playground and custodial aides.
Part-time jobs for 18,000 students at 250 colleges and universities were made possible by
the first funds granted under the work-study program. Some 350 other colleges have applied
for work-study funds.
Community Action programs.-To help finance 86 programs, $23 million had been com­mitted.
Examples are ( 1) the program for preschool and tutorial aid to underprivileged chil­dren
in Martin's Ferry, Ohio; (2) a health program for the "poor" of the Bronx, New York,
using mental health aides from the community and directed by a local college of medicine; and
(3) Detroit's Total Action Against Poverty program, which, among other things, makes availa­ble
to low-income families employment counseling, legal aid, family counseling, and medical
services.
Work-experience programs.-Funds had been committed for 26 programs. One of these was
to train 3,600 unemployed fathers and needy persons in eastern Kentucky.
Volunteers in Service to America.-During January the first two groups of VISTA Volun­teers
began 6 weeks of intensive training. Volunteers are to be assigned to 28 communities, in­cluding
city slums, migratory workers' camps in California, and mountain towns of Appalachia.
Where to Get Information
The operation of the programs under the Economic Opportunity Act varies among the
States; the best place to inquire is at the nearest Community Action program headquarters or
the Office of Economic Opportunity, Washington, D.C. 20506.
USDA FOOD PLANS AND COSTS-TOOLS FOR
DERIVING FOOD COST STANDARDS FOR USE IN PUBLIC ASSISTANCE
The USDA family food plans and their costs, or modifications of them, a~e used in develop­ing
food cost standards by many public assistance agencies. The plans as priced by USDA are
easily adapted to this use.
Separate plans are presented for individuals with different nutrien~ needs-infants, boys
~nd girls, and men and women of different ages, and pregnant and nursu~g women. Each p~an
Is a guide for estimating amounts of foods from 11 food groups. to . b~y m a week to prov1de
nutritious and satisfying meals. By adding amounts of foods for md1V1duals, a food plan for a
family of any given size and composition can be developed.
20
The estimated costs of foods for individuals and families using the low-cost, moderate-cost,
and liberal plans are published in Family Economics Review quarterly for the United States and
annually for each of the four regions, including a special low-cost plan suited to food habits
of families in the South (tables 1-3). Cost estimates for the economy plan, the least costly of
all, are shown for the United States in table 1.
Standards in Many States Below Cost Level of Plans
Food cost standards for public assistance in many States are well below the cost of food
in the low-cost plan. For example, the median food cost standard for all Aid to Dependent Chil­dren
programs of the Nation, reported in January 1963, was $88 per month for a mother and
three children.1 It would have cost about $97 to buy foods in the low-cost plan for the same
family at that time.
In some States, payments made to families are not adequate to cover all the living expenses
as determined by the standards used in measuring needs. As a result, part of the money that is
needed for food must go for other items in the family budget.
Cost standards for total need vary widely from State to State, but generally fall between
$150 and $250 a month for a family of 4 persons. With income this low, the amount the family
can spend for food is probably below the cost of even the economy plan. Assuming that one­third
of the household money goes for food, 2 a monthly income of $250 is needed before the fam­ily
can afford the economy plan and over $300 before it can afford the low-cost plan.
Families on public assistance are better able to afford the foods in the low-cost plan if
they receive some food free through the Food Distribution Program. A family of four conceiva­bly
could receive over $8 worth of the foods in the low-cost plan in a week ($38 a month) if it
used the 14 foods currently distributed, in amounts suggested by the USDA. This family could
probably afford the low-cost plan on a monthly income of $200. Unfortunately, however, many
families on public assistance receive no donated foods or only part of those provided in the
Food Distribution Program. Only half of the counties choose to participate in this program,
and some of these do not request all of the foods available. Moreover, some families are unable
to utilize all the donated foods available to them.
The summary below shows what percentage of the cost of each of three USDA food plans
would be covered by a specified income for a family of 4 (mother aged 35, boy 14, and girls 9 and
4), if the family used one-third of its income for food, used no free foods, and ate all meals at
home or from the household food supply. The food costs on which the calculations are based are
those for June 1964, when the costs for this family were $18.40 for the economy plan, $23.50 for
the low-cost plan, and $31.40 for the moderate-cost plan.
If the monthly
income of a 4-person
family was-
$ 50
100
150
200
250
300
And % of each week's
allowance was used
for food-
$ 3.80
7.70
11.50
15.40
19.20
23.10
The amount used for food would
be this percentage of the
cost of the-
Economy Low-cost Moderate-plan
plan cost plan
21 16 12
42 33 24
62 49 36
84 66 49
104 82 61
126 98 73
1 Bureau of Family Services. Monthly cost standards for basic needs used by States for specified types of
old-age assistance cases and families receiving aid to dependent children, Jan. 1963. U.S. Social Security Admin.
March 1964.
2 This is a slightly larger proportion than indicated by the Survey of Consumer Expenditures, 1960-61. In
this survey, urban families of 4 persons with incomes from $1,000 to $1,999 and from $2,000 to $2,999 spent
for food 29 percent of their total expenditure for current livi11g.
21
Less Costly Diets Often Short in Nutrients
The public assistance agency responsible for setting a food cost standard should know what
effect the food allowance is likely to have on the nutritional quality of the diet. If the standard
is to be a reasonable measure of basic needs for a good diet, it should be as high as the cost of
the low-cost plan. Of families spending at even this level, many will have poor diets. The
agency that sets its food cost standard as low as the cost of the economy plan should recognize
that almost one-half of the families that spend this amount for food are likely to have diets that
fall far short of nutrient needs.
Studies show that many U.S. families spend less for food than is needed for the low-cost or
even the economy plan. Out of every 10 nonfarm families in a 1955 study of household food
consumption, 2 spent less than the amount needed for the low-cost plan and 1 spent less than
enough for the economy plan.
Among the families studied that spent the amount needed to buy foods in the low-cost plan,
about 25 percent chose diets that met dietary allowances as recommended by the National Re­search
Council. Another 25 percent chose diets that furnished less than two-thirds of the recom­mended
amounts for one or mare nutrients. Of the families spending at the economy plan level,
only about 10 percent used foods that furnished recommended amounts of all nutrients and
ESTIMATED COST OF 1 WEEK'S FOOD
Table 1.-Cost of 1 Week's Food at Home Estimated for Food Plans at Four Cost
Levels,' December 1964-U.S. Ave1·age
Sex-age groups 2
FAMILIES
Family of 2, 20-35 years 3
---------------------­Family
of 2, 55-75 years a ---------------------­Family
of 4, preschool children 4 ---------------­Family
of 4, school children s -------------------
INDIVIDUALS G
Children, under 1 year ------------------------
1-3 years -----------------------------------
3-6 years -----------------------------------
6-9 years -----------------------------------
Girls, 9-12 years ------------------------------
12-15 years ---------------------------------
15-20 years --------------------------------­Boys,
9-12 years ------------------------------
12-15 years ---------------------------------
15-20 years ---------------------------------
VVomen, 20-35 years ---------------------------
35-55 years ---------------------------------
55-75 years ---------------------------------
75 years and over --------------------------­Pregnant
-----------------------------------
Nur~ng ------------------------------------
Men, 20-35 years ------------------------------
35-55 years ---------------------------------
55-75 years ---------------------------------
75 years and over ---------------------------
Economy
plan
Dollars
11.10
9.40
16.70
19.20
2.50
3.10
3.50
4.20
4.70
5.40
5.50
4.90
5.70
6.70
4.70
4.50
4.00
3.60
6.00
7.00
5.40
5.00
4.50
4.30
Low-cost
plan
Dollars
14.70
12.30
21.60
24.80
3.00
3.80
4.40
5.30
6.00
6.60
7.00
6.10
7.10
8.30
6.30
6.00
5.20
4.70
7.50
8.70
7.10
6.60
6.00
5.60
Moderate­cost
plan
Dollars
19.80
16.70
28.80
33.20
3.90
4.90
5.90
7.00
8.10
8.90
9.10
8.20
9.70
11.10
8.40
8.00
7.00
6.30
9.70
11.20
9.60
8.90
8.20
7.90
Liberal
plan
Dollars
22.90
18.90
33.10
38.60
4.20
5.60
6.70
8.40
9.00
10.30
10.30
9.40
11.00
12.70
9.50
9.20
7.90
7.30
10.90
12.40
11.30
10.30
9.30
8.90
1 These estimates were computed from quantities in food plans published in Fami!Y Economics Review,
October 1964. The costs of the food plans were first estimat_ed by usmg t~e average pnce per pound o~ each
food group paid by nonfarm survey families at fou_r. selected mcom~ leyels m 1955. These pnces we~e adJ_us~ed
to current levels by use of Retail Food Prices by Cttt~s released penod1c~lly bJ: the Bureau of Labor Statl.stics.
2 Age groups include the persons of the first age listed up_ to ~ut not mcludmg tho~e of the second ag:e listed.
3 Ten percent added for family size adjustment. For denvatwn of factors for adJustment, see Famtly Food
Plans and Food Costs, HERR No. 20, Appendix B.
4 Man and woman, 20-35 years; children, 1-3 and 3-6 years.
5 Man and woman, 20-35 years; child, 6-9 and boy, 9-~? years. . . . . . . .
. 6 ~he costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For mdlVIduals m ot~er s1ze families, the fellow~
mg adJustments are suggested: 1-person-add 20 percent; 2-person-add 10 percent, 3-person-add 5 percent,
5-person-subtract 5 percent; 6-or-more-person-subtract 10 percent.
22
Table 2.-Cost of 1 Week's Food at Home Estimated for Food Plans at Three Cost Levels1, December 1964, for
Northeast and North Central Regions
Northeast North Central
Sex-age groups2 Low-cost Moderate- Liberal Low-cost Moderate- Liberal
plan cost plan plan plan cost plan plan
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
FAMILIES
Family of 2, 20-35 yearsa ------------- 17.20 21.80 24.50 15.80 19.40 22.60
Family of 2, 55-75 yearsa ------------- 14.10 18.40 20.40 13.30 16.40 18.80
Family of 4, preschool children4 ________ 24.90 31.50 35.40 23.10 28.20 32.70
Family of 4, school children5 ---------- 28.80 36.70 41.30 26.60 32.60 38.10
INDIVIDUALS6
Children, under 1 year --------------- 3.30 4.20 4.40 3.10 3.80 4.10
1-3 years -------------------------- 4.30 5.30 5.90 4.00 4.80 5.50
3-6 years -------------------------- 5.00 6.40 7.20 4.70 5.80 6.70
6-9 years -------------------------- 6.10 7.80 8.90 5.60 6.90 8.30
Girls, 9-12 years --------------------- 6.90 8.90 9.60 6.50 7.90 8.90
12-15 years ------------------------ 7.50 9.80 11.00 7.10 8.70 10.20
15-20 years ------------------------ 7.90 10.00 11.00 7.50 9.00 10.20
Boys, 9-12 years ------------------- -- 7.10 9.10 10.10 6.60 8.10 9.30
12-15 years ------------------------ 8.10 10.70 11.80 7.70 9.60 10.90
15-20 years ------------------------ 9.60 12.20 13.50 9.10 11.00 12.60
Women, 20-35 years ------------------ 7.30 9.20 10.20 6.70 8.20 9.40
35-55 years ------------------------ 7.00 8.90 9.90 6.50 7.90 9.10
55-75 years ------------------------ 5.90 7.70 8.50 5.60 6.90 7.90
75 years and over ------------------ 5.40 6.90 7.80 5.10 6.10 7.?.0
Pregnant -------------------------- 8.70 10.80 11.70 8.10 9.60 10.90
Nursing --------------------------- 9.90 12.30 13.20 9.30 11.00 12.30
Men, 20-35 years -------------------- 8.30 10.60 12.10 7.70 9.40 11.10
35-55 years ------------------------ 7.80 9.90 11.00 7.20 8.70 10.20
55-75 years ------------------------ 6.90 9.00 10.00 6.50 8.00 9.20
75 years and over ------------------ 6.50 8.70 9.60 6.00 7.70 8.90
See footnotes 1 to 6 of Table 1 on page 21.
Table 3.-Cost of 1 Week's Food at Home Estimated for Food Plans at Three Cost Levels1, December 1964, for
Southern and Western Regions
South West
Another
Sex-age groups2 Low-cost low-cost Moderate- Liberal Low-cost Moderate- Liberal
plan plan7 cost plan plan plan cost plan plan
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
FAMILIES
Family of 2, 20-35 yearsa _____ 13.10 12.40 17.40 20.90 16.80 20.80 24.20
Family of 2, 55-75 yearsa _____ 10.90 10.20 15.00 17.40 14.00 17.50 20.10
Family of 4, preschool children• 19.20 18.30 25.40 30.20 24.40 30.10 35.00
Family of 4, school children5 __ 22.10 21.10 29.30 35.10 28.30 35.00 40.90
INDIVIDUALS6
Children, under 1 year _______ 2.70 2.60 3.50 3.80 3.30 4.00 4.40
1-3 years ------------------ 3.40 3.20 4.40 5.10 4.20 5.10 5.90
3-6 years ------------------ 3.90 3.80 5.20 6.10 4.90 6.10 7.10
6-9 years ------------------ 4.70 4.60 6.20 7.60 6.00 7.40 8.90
Girls, 9-12 years ------------- 5.40 5.10 7.20 8.20 6.80 8.50 9.60
12-15 years ---------------- 5.90 5.60 7.90 9.30 7.50 9.30 10.90
15-20 years ---------------- 6.20 5.90 8.10 9.40 7.90 9.60 10.90
Boys, 9-12 years ------------- 5.50 5.20 7.30 8.50 7.00 8.70 10.00
12-15 years ---------------- 6.30 6.10 8.50 9.90 8.10 10.30 11.80
15-20 years ---------------- 7.40 7.00 9.70 11.40 9.60 11.80 13.50
Women, 20-35 years ---------- 5.60 5.30 7.40 8.80 7.10 8.80 10.10
35-55 years ---------------- 5.40 5.10 7.10 8.50 6.80 8.40 9.70
55-75 years ---------------- 4.60 4.20 6.30 7.30 5.90 7.30 8.40
75-years and over __________ 4.20 3.90 5.60 6.80 5.30 6.50 7.70
Pregnant ------------------ 6.70 6.50 8.60 10.00 8.50 10.20 11.60
Nursing ------------------- 7.70 7.40 9.90 11.20 9.80 11.80 13.20
Men, 20-35 years ------------· 6.30 6.00 8.40 10.20 8.20 10.10 11.90
35-55 years ---------------- 5.90 5.60 7.80 9.30 7.60 9.40 10.90
55-75 years ---------------- 5.30 5.10 7.30 .8.50 6.80 8.60 9.90
75 years and over ---------- 5.00 4.80 7.00 8.20 6.40 8.20 9.50
See footnotes 1 to 6 of table 1 on page 21.
7 Special adaptation of low-cost plan especially suitable for food habits of families in the Southeastern States.
23
over 40 percent used foods providing less than two-thirds of their needs for one or more nutri­ents.
On the other hand, about half of the families spending the amount needed for the moderate­cost
plan used foods that provided recommended amounts of all nutrients. and only 5 percent
fell below two-thirds of recommended amounts.
Food Management Counseling Indicated
When food money allowances are as low as the cost level of the economy plan, the need for
counseling on food management is clearly indicated. The homemaker must use her food money
with great skill if she is to provide her family with a good diet. She may need to adjust her
family's food patterns somewhat and learn to use some economical foods that are new to her.
The economy food plan was developed as a guide for the counselor helping the homemaker
to furnish her family the foods they need at very low cost, hopefully for a short period of time.
In such a plan it is impossible to include the amounts of meat, eggs, and more expensive vegeta­bles
and fruits that surveys show are chosen even by very low-income families. Instead, nutrient
needs are met by using more of the less costly foods--dry beans, flour, cereals and baked goods,
and potatoes.
Menus for the economy plan include only the least costly items in the food groups. Little
variety is possible, but meals can be palatable and satisfying. A small serving of an inexpensive
meat can be included only two or three times a week, with small amounts of meat in casseroles
or other mixed dishes at one meal on the other days. Eggs are served twice and dry beans two
or three times a week. Potatoes are included twice a day, along with two servings of other low­cost
vegetables or fruits. Special attention should be given to including the less expensive dark­green
vegetables frequently. Heavy use of cereal, bread, and other baked goods-10 to 15 serv­ings
a day for men-is important in meeting nutrient needs at the cost level of this economy plan.
Sample menus for a week and a corresponding grocery list for the economy food plan are
available upon request from the Consumer and Food Economics Research Division, Agricultural
Research Service, USDA, Hyattsville, Md. 20781. USDA Home and Garden Bulletins 5 and 13
describe family food management, using the low-cost and moderate-cost plans as guides. "Fam­ily
Food Plans and Food Costs," USDA HomeEconomics Research Report 20, prepared for
nutritionists and other leaders who develop and use food plans, describes the plans and their
use. The food plans presented in this publication have been updated during the past year and
were published in the October issue of Family Economics Review.
-Betty B. Peterkin
SPENDING OF RURAL FAMILIES, 1955 AND 1961
Farm families in the United States spent about one-fourth more for current consumption
in 1961 than in 1955. Their expenditures averaged $3,594 in 1961 and $2,903 in 1955 (tabl~ 1).
About half of the increase was due to higher prices. However, incomes rose more than prices,
making increases in actual consumption possible.
The information about expenditures of farm families (including unrelated individuals) in
1961 was collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as part of t~e ~960-61 Survey of Con­sumer
Expenditures conducted jointly with the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Depart­ment
of Labor.1 Data for 1955 are from the Survey of Farmers' ExpenditureS.2
In addition to spending more for current living, farm families put more in~o gifts and c~n­tributions
in 1961-$220 as compared with $152 in 1955. They also put more mto personal m­surance--$
200 as compared with $86.
Expenditures for all major categories of current consumption were higher in 1961 than ~n
1955. The rates of increase were not the same, however. As a result there was some ~hange m
the spending pattern-that is in the way total expenditure was divided among the vanous cate-gon.
e s. '
• :t A report on the urban portion of the survey appeared in . the June 1964 issue of Family Economics Re-vtew,
one on the rural nonfarm portion in the September 1964 _1s~ue. . .
2 USDA, Farmers' Expenditures in 1955 by Regions, Stat1stlcal Bulletm 224, 134 pp. +1x. 1958.
24
Food, clothing, and housing, the three categories frequently referred to as "basic," took
only 60 percent of total expenditure for current consumption in 1961, in contrast to 65 percent
in 1955. Expenditures for food and beverages decreased in importance from 29 to 25 percent.
This was largely because income had increased and families do not increase their spending for
food as much as for other budget items when there is more money to spend. Relative stability of
food prices also. contributed.
Clothing expenditures fell from 14 to 12 percent of expenditures for current consumption
between 1955 and 1961. This is a continuation of a longterm downward trend, somewhat accen­tuated
by relative stability of clothing prices.
Although the 3 "basics" together took a smaller proportion of total spending in 1961, one of
them-housing-increased in importance from 24 to 26 percent. This increase reflects, in part,
improvements in the quality of farm housing and higher spending for household operation. The
Table !.-Average expenditures of farm families and single consumers, 1961 and 1955
Average per family
Item
Expenditures for current consumption3 ----------­Food
and beverages --------------------------
Tobacco --------------------------------------
Housing, total --------------------------------
Shelter, fuel, light, refrigeration, and water __ _
Household operation -----------------------­Housefurnishings
and equipment ------------
Clothing, materials, services ------------------­Personal
care -------------------------------­]
dedical care --------------------------------­Recreation
----------------------------------­Reading
and education -----------------------­Automobile
purchase and operation -----------­Other
transportation - ------------------------­Other
expenditures ---------------------------
Gifts and contributions -------------------------­Personal
insurance ------------------------------
19611.
Dollars
3,594
893
64
917
541
156
220
427
106
310
123
64
588
25
77
220
200
Note: Detail items may not add to totals because of rounding.
1 Includes families and single individuals living on rural farms.
1955 2
Dollars
2,903
846
50
699
380
112
207
405
69
240
122
43
360
17
53
152
86
2 Includes families and single individuals operating farms, urban and rural.
3 Classification of items in the two surveys is not strictly comparable.
Percent of
expenditures
for current
consumption
1961
100.0
24.8
1.8
25.5
15.1
4.3
6.1
11.9
2.9
8.6
3.4
1.8
16.4
.7
2.1
1955
100.0
29.1
1.7
24.1
13.1
3.8
7.1
14.0
2.4
8.3
4.2
1.5
12.4
.6
1.8
increase is partly due to an understatement of the housing expenditures of tenant families in
the 1955 study.
Transportation expenses ranked third in importance among the categories of current con­sumption
for farm families in 1961, having passed clothing since 1955. Expenditures for auto­mobile
purchase and operation showed a greater increase than any other category, rising from
12 to 16 percent of total spending for consumption. Much of this increase can be attributed to
the larger proportion of families with a car or truck for family use in 1961, and the larger pro­portion
of two-car families. Expenditures for other transportation also increased sharply but
remained a very small part of the budget.
Expenditures for four minor categories-personal care, medical care, reading and education,
and miscellaneous family expenditures-each made small increases. In combination they rose
from 14 percent of total spending in 1955, to 15 percent in 1961. In contrast, spending for
recreation decreased from 4 percent in 1955 to 3 percent in 1961.
In 1961 farm families had an average net gain in assets and liabilities of $519. Comparable
data are not availble for 1955.
Farm families in the West had higher after-tax incomes than those in the other regions.
Out of average incomes of approximately $6,150 they saved about $1,000, and spent about $4,525
for current consumption, $450 for gifts and contributions, and $300 for personal insurance.
Farm families in the South had incomes averaging about $3,600. They saved about $250
and spent $3,150 for current consumption, $175 for gifts and contributions, and $150 for per­sonal
insurance.
25
The level of income in the North Central and Northeast was almost midway between the
West and the South, averaging about $4,875 in the North Central and $5,050 in the Northeast.
Savings in the former averaged $700, in the latter $600. They spent, respectively, $3,800 and
$4,050 for current consumption, and $225 and $250 for gifts and contributions. In both regions
personal insurance took about $225.
More information about expenditures, incomes, and savings of farm families in 1961 are
available from the USDA in the following reports: Consumer Expenditures and Income, 1961;
Rural Farm Areas: Northea~tern Region, USDA Rept. CES-1; North Central Region, USDA
Rept. CES-2; Southern Region, USDA Rept. CES-3; Western Region, USDA Rept. CES-4;
United States, USDA Rept. CES-5.
A comparison of the situations of farm, rural nonfarm and urban families and to earlier
studies is available from the USDA in a paper presented by Jean L. Pennock at the 42d Outlook
Conference, "Spending Patterns of Rural and Urban Families."
TOMORROW'S JOBS
To know what job openings lie ahead is vitally important to many people. Youth at the sec­ondary
school level begin choice-making among courses of study directed toward careers. The
high school graduate weighs choices between further education and immediate employment.
College students seek guidelines in selecting their majors and making decisions about graduate
study. Men and women who have been employed all their adult lives may face the necessity of
shifting to new jobs as old ones become obsolete.
Department of Labor projections have indicated that civilian employment would rise from
67 to 88 million between 1960 and 1975.1 This 1975 level of employment included 21 million new
jobs, increasing the total by almost one-third.
Growth in New Jobs
The rising demand will be largely for well-educated or highly skilled workers. Jobs for the
unskilled will be harder and harder to find. Flexibility, the ability to shift from one job to an­other
as technology changes employment opportunities, will be essential.
The greatest increases in new job openings appear in white-collar occupations. Persons
with doctorate degrees will be in special demand. Teachers will be needed at all levels. In addi­tion,
there will be special demand for natural scientists, engineers, mathematicians, physicists,
chemists, technicians in all fields, physicians, nurses, and other personnel for health-related
services.
The number of clerical jobs will increase almost as much. The rapid expansion of finance,
insurance, and government services account for much of the increase. Checkers and cashiers
are expected to increase in number as retailers turn to self-service operations. On the other
hand, such unskilled routine clerical jobs as billing and inventory control, which can be auto­mated,
will decline in number.
A third white-collar group-managers, proprietors, and officials-was expected to increase
about half as much as the professional-technical group between 1960 and 1975. Expected expan­sion
of government jobs at Federal, State, and local levels will help to increase the number. of
these and other white-collar workers. Likewise, the number of managers and other salaried
officials in business organizations is likely to continue at a fairly rapid rise. Self-employment in
the retail or wholesale trades shows promise into 1975.
. Continuing a trend evident in the last 5 years, jobs in se:vice occupat.ions a~e expecte?- to
mcrease sharply by 1975. Increasing population and prospenty forecast mcreasmg JObs m-
• Protective services (policemen, guards, firemen, watchmen)
• Food service (cooks, waitresses, waiters)
• Health services (practical nurses, hospital attendants)
• Custodial services (charwomen, janitors) .
1 U. S. Department of Labor, "Employment Projections, by Industry and Occupation, 1960-75," Monthly
Labor Review, pp 240-8. March 1963.
26
The Department of Labor projection adds a substantial number of craftsmen and foremen
by 1975 to the 1960 total. Highly skilled craftsmen will be in great demand. Skilled building
construction workers of all kinds will be needed. Tool and die makers and instrument makers
may expect continued demand for their skills.
A somewhat Il,lOre moderate increase was forecast for operatives. This is currently the larg­est
of the major occupational groups, but automation will slow its growth. Jobs as truck and
bus drivers appear to be increasing. Employment of sales workers is being slowed by the use of
vending machines and self-service. Best job chances in sales work are part-time ones for
women, young people, and "moonlighting" men in suburban shopping centers' stores.
The future is less bright for laborers and farmworkers. The number of jobs for laborers
was expected to continue at about the 1960 level. The trend toward large farm operations with
dependence on machinery will decrease the number of workers needed in farming.
Replacement Needs
Job openings are created when retirements, deaths, job transfers, and promotions occur as
well as when new jobs develop. In some occupations, openings because of turnover are more
numerous than new jobs. In the teaching profession, for example, job openings arising through
turnover are, in the 1960's, about 3 times as numerous as newly created jobs.
Occupations dominated by women tend to have high replacement rates. The overall replace­ment
rate for women in the 1960's is 5 percent, but 2 percent for men. Typists and telephone op­erators
(mostly women) have a high separation rate, mail carriers (mostly men) a relatively
low rate.
The age of employees in an occupation affects job replacement rate, also. Proprietors, man­agers,
and officials, a relatively older group of workers, have an annual separation rate of 2.6
percent. On the other hand, professional workers and operatives, a younger group, have a rate
of 1.7 percent.
The Department of Labor estimates that the number of replacements needed each year is
greatest in clerical jobs. Next in order come jobs for operatives; then professional and techni­cal
workers; managers, proprietors, and officials, craftsmen and foremen, and finally sales
workers.
Some "lfs"
These employment projections assume full employment, no unusual changes in economic and
social patterns, and continued scientific and technological advances affecting production. On the
other hand, a major disaster, war, unexpected international developments, or the vagaries of con­sumer
preference could alter the whole picture.
SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS
JOB-RELATED EXPENDITURES AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OF GAINFULLY
EMPLOYED WIVES IN OHIO, by Emma G. Holmes. Home Economics Research Report No.
27 (January 1965). Reports a study of employed wives in one city and in the open country of
four counties in east central Ohio. Available from the Supt. of Documents, Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. $0.25.
RURAL FAMILY SPENDING AND CONSUMPTION IN A LOW-INCOME AREA IN KEN­TUCKY,
by Jean L. Pennock. Home Economics Research Report No. 26 (August 1964). Re­ports
a study of expenditures and value of consumptions of open-country families in five
Kentucky counties. Available from Supt. of Documents, Government Printing Office, Wash­ing,
D.C. 20402. $0.55.
NUTRITIVE VALUE OF FOODS, Home and Garden Bulletin No. 72 (Revised, September
1964). Gives the nutritive values in commonly used household measures of about 500 popular
foods. Single copy available upon request to: Office of Information, USDA, Washington, D.C.
20250.
27
CONSUMER PRICES
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical
(1957-59=100)
Workers (including single workers)
Dec. Oct. Nov.
Group 1963 1964 1964
All items ------------------------------------ 107.6 108.5 108.7
Food -------------------------------------- 105.4 106.9 106.8
Food at home ---------------------------- 103.7 105.3 105.1
Food away from home -------------------- 114.3 115.7 115.9
Housing ---------------------------------- 106.9 107.6 107.7
Shelter1
--------------------------------- 108.0 109.2 109.3
Rent ---------------------------------- 107.3 108.2 108.3
Homeownership2
----------------------- 108.4 109.6 109.8
Fuel and utilitiesa ----------------------- 107.6 107.4 107.5
Fuel oil and coal ---------------------- 105.8 102.9 103.7
Gas and electricity --------------------- 108.1 108.2 108.1
Household furnishings and operation ______ 102.9 102.8 102.9
Apparel and upkeep4 ----------~ ------------ 106.1 106.2 106.4
Men's and boys' ------------------- ------ 106.2 106.7 107.0
Women's and girls' ---------------------- 103.3 102.9 103.2
Footwear -------------------------------- 111.2 111.4 111.6
Transportation ---------------------------- 108.9 109.4 110.0
Private --------------------------------- 107.5 108.0 108.6
Public ----------------------------------- 118.3 119.3 119.5
Health and recreation ---------------------- 112.7 114.0 114.2
Medical care ----------------------------- 117.9 119.9 120.2
Personal care --------------------------- 108.8 109.7 109.7
Reading and recreation ------------------- 113.1 114.5 114.9
Other goods and services5 ------------------- 108.3 109.1 109.1
1 Also includes hotel and motel rates not shown separately.
2 Includes home purchase, mortgage interest, taxes, insurance, and maintenance and repairs.
3 Also includes telephone, water, and sewerage service not shown separately.
Dec.
1964
108.8
106.9
105.1
116.0
107.8
109.5
108.4
110.0
107.9
105.8
108.3
102.9
106.6
107.1
103.3
111.7
110.5
109.0
120.3
114.3
120.3
110.0
114.9
109.2
4 Also includes infants' wear, sewing materials, jewelry, and apparel upkeep services not shown separately.
s Includes tobacco, alcoholic beverages, and funeral, legal, and bank service charges.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.
Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Commodities Used in Family Living
(1957-59 = 100)
Jan. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov.
Item 1964 1964 1964 1964 1964
All commodities ---------------------- 104 105 105 105 105
Food and tobacco ------------------- 106
Clothing -------------------------- 110
Household operation ---------------- 108
Household furnishings -------------- 96
Building materials, house ----------- 101
Autos and auto supplies ------------ 101 101 102
Source: u.s. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service.
Dec. Jan.
1!l64 1965
105 106
107
110
109
96
101
103
28
INDEX OF ARTICLES IN 1964 ISSUES
CLOTHING AND TEXTILES
Clothing and textiles: supplies and prices -------------------------­New
developments in textiles -------------------------------------
CONSUMER INTERESTS
Consumer interests in the White House ---------------------------­Food
and Drug Administration expands its consumer education program
USDA control over pesticides improved--- --------------- ----------
FAMILY FINANCE
Changes in urban family spending 1950 to 1960-61 -----------------­A
consideration of cash vs. credit buying--------------------------­Consumer
Prices -----------------------------------------------
Do ----------------------------------------------------------­Do
-----------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Price Index extensively revised--------------------------
Costs of Higher Education--- -------------------- ---------------­Equal
Pay Act of 1963 becomes effective --------------------------­Incomes
of U.S. women-----------------------------------------­Laundering
costs: Home vs. self-service ---------------------------­More
married women in labor force ------------------------------­Net
worth, assets, and debts of families---------------------------­New
York family budget standard -------------------------------­Personal
income in 1963 ----------------------------------------­Spending
of rural nonfarm families -------------------------------
The stability of family spending in the face of income change _________ _
FOOD
Enrichment and fortification of foods------------------------------
Estimated cost of 1 week's food: U.S. average _____________________ _
Do ----------------------------------------------------------­Do
----------------------------------------------------------­Do
----------------~------------------------------------------
Estimated cost of 1 week's food for regions-------------------------
Family food discards -------------------------------------------­Family
food plans, revised 1964 ----------------------------------­How
much of the budget goes for food? ---------------------------­Mixes
and frozen baked foods as time savers ----------------------­Outlook
for food consumption and prices ---------------------------
HOUSING AND HOUSEHOLD EQUIPMENT
Home mortgage foreclosures-why?-------------------------------
Household service life of equipment, rugs, cars _____________________ _
Housing outlook ---------------------------------------------- __
Outlook for household equipment in 1965 --------------------------­Present
day housing of U.S. families ------------------------------
MISCELLANEOUS
Census projections of population in 1970 and 1985 __________________ _
National economic situation and outlook for 1965 -------------------­President's
Commission on the Status of Women makes
recommendations ---------------------------------------------
New publications ______________________________________________ _
Do ----------------------------------------------------------­Do
-----------------------------------------------------------
Questions about Family Economics Review answered _______________ _
Page Issue
9 December
14 December
3 April
12 June
10 October
3 June
11 June
15 April, June
22 October
26 December
14 April
24 December
9 June
7 June
8 October
7 October
5 June
8 April
11 June
3 October
6 October
9 April
17 April
14 June
20 October
28 December
18, 19 April
9 June
11 October
5 October
9 April
6 December
6 April
4 April
16 December
19 December
11 April
9 October
3 December
7 April
8 April
13 June
23 October
12 June