Family Economics Review [1980, Number 1]

              WINTER 1980
HIGHLIGHTS:
ENERGY-SAVING HOME IMPROVEMENTS
/
'-'ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER SYSTEMS
NFCS-WORKING WOMEN AND ELDERLY
COSTS OF RAISING RURAL NONFARM CHILDREN
f I PROP RTY OF THE
liBRARY
M.~R 7 19eJ
U~.:verJt c orth Carolina
~t .Green bo! o
D~'\:'.' ,l"rvH.·:i>.,l!v.n ry
U.S .. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Science and Education Administration
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW is a quarterly
report on research relating to economic aspects
of family living. It is prepared primarily for
home economics agents and home economics
specialists of the Cooperative Extension
Service.
Editor: Katherine S. Tippett
Family Economics Research Group
Science and Education Administration
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Federal Building
Hyattsville, Md. 20782
Science and Education Administration, Family Economics Review, Winter 1980
Published by Science and Education Administration-Agricultural Research,
Northeastern Region, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Md. 20705
ENERGY-SAVING HOME IMPROVEMENTS
By Marilyn Doss Ruffin 1
Man:v families will be considering energy­saving
home improvements in the months ahead
and will need information to help them evaluate
their needs and choose among alternatives. The
consumer (and educator as well) is faced with an
abundance of often conflicting advice-advice
that attempts to simplify decisionmaking about
a very complex and imprecisely measurable area
of family concern. The availability of tax breaks,
loan guarantees, grants, and other incentives
under the National Energy Act of 1978 for some
(but not all) energy measures adds to the com­plexity
of family decisionmaking. The educator
will need to assist families in making energy
improvement decisions that are compatible with
the family's broader needs and goals, and that
consider competing budget needs such as
adequate nutrition, medical care, and financial
security.
Choice of energy improvements based on the
expectation of a guaranteed dollar saving to be
returned in future utility bills is not realistic. The
consumer, therefore, is likely to experience
greater satisfaction by viewing the result of a
potential energy investment within a broader
context of contributing to lowered household
operation costs and increased comfort and also
valuing the measure's contribution toward
achieving a satisfying home environment. In
evaluating the costs and benefits of any
particular energy measure or package of
measures, local costs and conditions must be
considered. For specific information, educators
ma.y want to contact the energy agency of their
State government for recommendations being
developed under the Federal programs discussed
in this article or other guidance materials.
THE NATIONAL ENERGY ACT {NEA)
Two parts of the NEA-The National Energy
Conservation Policy Act of 197 8 and the Energy
Tax Act of 1978t>rovide incentives that
encourage families to make energy-saving modi­fications
to their housing. These incentives
1 Research home economist, Family Economics
Research Group, Science and Education Administration,
U.S. I)epartment of Agriculture.
WINTER 1980
include Federal income tax credits, free or
low-cost inspections or "energy audits" of indi­vidual
residences, home weatherization grants to
low-income families, and loans to homeowners
and builders for the purchase and installation of
solar equipment. Aid under NEA is restricted to
measures that are primarily for the purpose of
saving energy (for example, caulking, weather­stripping,
insulation) and excludes measures that
primarily serve a decorative, structural, or safety
function (for example, siding, carpeting,
draperies, paneling, awnings, shades, new walls,
shrubbery, fireplace screens) or that are for
recreational facilities (for example, vacation
homes or swimming pools.).
The National Energy Conservation Policy Act
Several provisions of the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act of 1978 will directly
affect families. In particular, educators may
want to become familiar with specific recom­mendations
of the weatherization grant program
and the energy audit program described here.
Both provide guidelines by State or locality for
evaluating energy improvement needs.
Weatherization grants for low-income families
are authorized through 1980 by NEA. Families
whose incomes are below or near federally
established poverty levels are eligible for these
programs.2 Each State (except Hawaii) and the
District of Columbia must develop lists of energy
measures ranked according to their priority with
respect to improving the energy soundness of the
homes of elderly, handicapped, and low-income
consumers within the State. During the last part
of 1979 and early 1980, States will be develop­ing
the specific details of these programs. For
additional information on the Grants Program
for Weatherization Assistance for Low-Income
Persons, contact the Director, Office of Weather­ization
Assistance, State and Local Programs,
bepartment of Energy, Washington, D.C.
20545.
2 In 1978, the poverty threshold for a nonfarm family
of four with two children was $6,610; for a similar farm
family of four it was $5,618, or 85 percent of the non­farm
level.
3
"Energy audits" or inspections and other serv­ices
to residential customers of utility companies
and fuel suppliers will be offered through the
Residential Conservation Service Program
administered by the Department of Energy
(DOE). Within guidelines set at the Federal level,
each State is responsible for developing and
implementing its own program. One of the
requirements of the program (mandated by
NEA) is that large gas and electric utilities and, at
the State's option, nonregulated utilities and
home-heating suppliers must offer to their resi­dential
customers energy audits upon request;
information about estimated savings in energy
costs for the measures; and arrangements upon
request for the purchase, installation, financing,
and billing of energy conservation and renewable
source measures, 3 with appropriate attention
given to consumer protection. Federal recom­mendations
will be issued for qualified energy
measures that are likely to be cost effective in
the various climate areas within each State, prod­uct
specifications, and installation and in­spection
procedures. The energy measures are
limited to those with an initial cost of $15 or
more, an expected service life of 3 years or more,
and that are estimated to pay back the con­sumer's
initial investment within 6 years or less.
States will be responsible for operating pro­cedures
and development of a complaint-resolv­ing
mechanism. Proposed guidelines for the
program were published in the "Federal Regis­ter,"
March 19, 1979 (vol. 44, No. 54, pp.
16545-16797), and public hearings were
held in March, April, and May 1979. Based on
public comments, DOE has undertaken a major
revision and expects to issue a revised proposal in
late 1979.
Loan programs for energy-conserving home
improvements and for purchase and installation
of solar heating and cooling equipment are
authorized by the NEA and administered by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). The energy-conservation loans are
limited to moderate-income or elderly families.
These loans feature low-interest rates and are
3 Renewable source measures included in the program
are wind energy systems; solar space heating and hot
water systems; and "passive" heating and cooling sys­tems
that use natural sources in the environment, with­out
reliance on mechanical devices to transfer the
energy.
4
available in amounts up to $2,500 per house­hold.
Solar energy loans are available to home­owners
or to builders in amounts up to $8,000.
Additional information about both loan pro­grams
is available from the Federal Housing
Administration, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Washington, D.C. 20410.
The Energy Tax Act
The Energy Tax Act provides tax credits for
taxpayers (either owners or renters) who pur­chase
and install insulation, other specified
"energy-conserving components," or equipment
that utilizes a renewable energy source. Expen­ditures
qualify only if they occur on or after
April 20, 1977, and before January 1, 1986, and
are for measures installed in or on (or "in con­nection
with" in the case of renewable source
measures) the dwelling that is the taxpayer's
main residence at the time of completion.
Energy-conservation modifications made to
buildings, renovations, or new rooms built after
April 20, 1977, do not qualify; however, this
limitation does not apply to renewable source
measures.
Taxpayers who make qualified expenditures
for insulation or other energy-conservation
measures may subtract 15 percent of the first
$2,000 spent on such measures from the amount
of Federal income tax that would otherwise be
due. Taxpayers who make qualified renewable
source expenditures may subtract 30 percent of
the first $2,000 of such expenditures plus 20
percent of additional expenditures between
$2,000 and $10,000. In the case of joint occu­pancy
of a dwelling by more than one taxpayer
(roommates, for example), the amount of the
credit is to be allocated among the occupants in
proportion to their share of any given year's
eligible expenditure. A taxpayer may not claim a
credit of less than $10; however, eligible expen­ditures
may be accumulated over more than
1 year until the minimum is reached. On the
other hand, if the amount of tax credit that the
consumer would be due is larger than his tax lia­bility
for the year (the case of the low-income or
elderly consumer, for example, who pays little
or no income tax), the credit may be carried over
to subsequent years to offset tax obligations
incurred up to December 31,1987.
A list of items eligible for the credits was
published in the "Federal Register" on May 23,
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
1979 (vol. 44, No. 101, pp. 29924-29931). For
an item to be eligible, its original use must begin
with the taxpayer, it must have an expected use­ful
life of at least 3 years in the case of insulation
and energy-conserving items and 5 years in the
case of renewable source eqqipment, and it must
meet any quality and performance standards
that were required by the Internal Revenue Serv­ice
at the time it was acquired. Items that qualify
as insulation or other energy-conserving com­ponents
include material that is "specifically and
primarily" designed as insulation for use in or on
a dwelling or on a water heater (includes mater­ials
made of fiberglass, rock wool, cellulose,
urea-based foam, urethane, vermiculite, perlite,
polystyrene, extruded polystyrene foam); fur­nace
replacement burners; automatically
operated flue dampers; electric or mechanical
ignition systems for furnaces or boilers to
replace gas pilot lights in existing furnaces; storm
or thermal windows or doors; automatic ener­gy-
saving setback thermostats; caulking and
weatherstripping; and energy-usage display
meters that show the money cost of energy usage
in the entire dwelling, in systems within the
dwelling, or of individual appliances. Items that
qualify under the Energy Tax Act as renewable
source measures may utilize solar, wind, or
geothermal energy. Agricultural products and
byproducts are not considered to be renewable
sources under the program regulations. Materials
or modifications that serve a dual purpose (for
example, skylights, roofs, greenhouses) do not
qualify.
In order to be able to claim the tax credits, the
consumer must keep records that clearly iden­tify
the items, their cost, and any labor cost.
Additional information about the tax credits is
available from the Internal Revenue Service,
Washington, D.C. 20224.
COST EFFECTIVENESS OF ENERGY
INVESTMENTS
A variety of energy-conservation practices
have widespread applicability and can be accom­plished
at little or no cost. According to the
Department of Energy, these practices are at
least as effective as installing measures that
require a much greater investment. These prac­tices
are changing furnace and air-conditioning
filters; installing flow restrictors in shower heads
and faucets; sealing leaks in pipes and ducts; rais-
WINTER1980
ing thermostat settings in summer and reducing
settings in winter; reducing thermostat settings
on water heaters; and closing vents, valves, and
doors in infrequently used rooms. Another mea­sure
that is likely to be highly profitable in most
climate areas is inspection and adjustment of the
furnace by a professional technician to increase
its efficiency.
The cost effectiveness of selected energy -re­lated
home improvements that require a more
substantial investment is discussed here.
Weatherstripping and caulking. In any geogra­phic
location, weatherstripping and caulking will
generally be cost effective if cold drafts can be
felt. If windows and doors are tight fitting,
weatherstripping and caulking are not likely to
be cost effective. Consumers have a wide choice
in caulking materials, which vary in cost and
durability. Materials acceptable under HUD
Minimum Property Standards are silicone rubber
base or butyl rubber base (conforming to Fed­eral
Specification No. TT-S-1543 or TT-S-1657,
respectively) or other material that can be shown
to be equally resilient and durable. 4
Water heater insulation. The water heater is a
major consumer of energy in the home. Some
consumers spend more on water heating than on
house heating. Federally sponsored research has
found that wrapping the outside of the water
heater with a blanket of fiberglass insulation is a
cost-effective do-it-yourself measure. Savings
will vary depending on the original level of insu­lation
in the water heater, the type of fuel and its
cost, climate, hot water usage, temperature set­ting,
and other factors. The National Bureau of
Standards estimated representative energy sav­ings
with a 1 %-inch blanket of insulation to be
30 therms per year for a gas water heater, 25
gallons per year for an oil water heater, and 300
kWh per year for an electric water heater. For
this estimate, the water heater's contribution to
4 Many housing educators and other professionals will
be familiar with the Minimum Property Standards (MPS)
for One- and Two-Family Dwellings issued by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development. The
MPS are the minimum levels of acceptability set by HUD
for the homes it will insure. Thermal requirements under
the MPS were recently increased to reflect today's higher
level of energy awareness and a changed cost-effective­ness
situation caused by higher energy prices. However,
the levels recommended by the MPS may be lower than
the optimal level for an individual consumer who is
improving his own home.
5
heating the dwelling during the heating season is
considered as well as its adding to the air-condi­tioning
load during hot weather. The water
heater insulation refit kit is widely available. It
consists of a blanket of fiberglass insulation and
materials and instructions for do-it-yourself
application. Extreme care must be used in insu­lating
a gas- or oil-burning water heater, as
improper installation may result in fire. Proper
installation is important to thermal effectiveness
and durability as well.
Storm doors. Storm doors are generally not a
highly cost-effective measure. However, if the
consumer installs the type of door with inter­changeable
screen and storm panels and the door
is used in warm weather to reduce use of air-con­.
ditioning by utilizing natural ventilation when
possible, the cost benefit may become more
.attractive. HUD Minimum Property Standards
(see footnote 4) require storm doors or insulated .
doors for new homes with electric resistance
heat in climates with more than 4,500 winter
degree days5 and in new homes with fossil fuel
heat or heat pumps in climates above 7.,000 win­ter
degree days. Requirements differ somewhat
for houses in which the primary door is a
hollow-core type or has over 25 percent glass.
Under those conditions, a storm door is required
in homes with electric resistance heat in areas
with winter degree days exceeding 1,500 and in
homes with fossil fuel heat or heat pump in areas
with over 3,500 winter degree days.
5 Degree day is a measure of the coldness of the
weather experienced; it is based on temperature differ·
ence and time. Degree days are computed by comparing
each day's mean temperature with the reference temper­ature
of 65°F. Each day that the mean temperature is
below 65°F is assigned a number of degree days equal to
the difference between the day's mean and the reference
mean temperature. For example, a day in which the
mean temperature is 55°Fisassigned lOdegreedaysand
a day in which the mean temperature is 65°F or greater is
assigned 0 degree days. Thus, the greater the number of
degree days, the cooler the climate. Degree day data for
U.S. weather stations and major cities are computed by
the National Climatic Center of the U.S. Department of
Commerce. Annual information for a particular State
may be found in the July issue of "Climatological Data"
(issued for individual States). Many libraries subscribe to
this series or other publications containing local climate
data. Average degree day data for selected major cities
also are published in the "Statistical Abstract of the
United States" (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census, issued annually ).
6
Storm windows. Computerized analysis for
DOE's Residential Conservation Service Pro­gram
showed storm windows to be cost effective
in most parts of the United States for homes
heated by fossil fuels as well as those using elec­tric
heat. The exception would be those areas
that have mild winters and low air-conditioning
need. However, recent in-home testing spon­sored
by DOE showed the saving in energy
resulting from storm windows to be
substantially less than had been predicted from
engineering model calculations.6 Storm win­dows
(and replacement windows) are among the
many strategies for achieving energy-efficient
windows. Numerous other measures (such as
shades, draperies, awnings, and windbreaks) can
be used in conjunction with storm windows or as
an alternative to them. Such measures a,re discus­sed
in a National Bureau of Standards publi­cation,
"Window Design Strategies to Conserve
Energy," NBS Building Science Series No. 104.
The publication is available for $3.75 from the
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govern­ment
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
(Ask for Stock No. 003-003-01794~9.)
Insulation. To evaluate the cost effectiveness
of adding insulation to walls, floors, or attics, the
consumer will need specific information regard­ing
his existing level of insulation, local costs and
conditions, and whether the installation is a
do-it-yourself measure or a contractor job.
R-value is a commonly used measure of a mater­ial's
insulation value, with high R-values indidit­ing
a greater degree of insulation value. Typical
increments for attic insulation are R-11, R-19,
R-30, R-38, and R-49; typical increments for
floor insulation are R-11 and R-19. Adding insu­lation
may be cost effective (payback period of
6 years or less) if no insulation prese~tly exists
or if the present level is at least two increments
below the level currently recommended as cost
effective.7 There is disagreement about the advi­sability
of adding wall insulation. According to
6 U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Buildings
and Community Systems, 1978, The Twin Rivers pro­gram
on energy conservation in housing : Highlights and
conclusions, HCP/M428801, 85 pp. (Report available
for $6 from National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Va. 22161.)
7 Unpublished information prepared by National
Bureau of Standards for the Residential Conservation
Service Program of the U.S. Department of Energy.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
the Department of Energy, adding to an existing
level of wall insulation is generally not recom­mended,
although in many climates the addition
of wall insulation to R-13 where no insulation
previously existed is identified by DOE as cost
effective.
Inappropriate choice of insulation materials
or their improper installation may reduce their
cost effectiveness, cause fire hazard, or cause
moisture problems that lead to peeling paint and
structural damage.
Insulating furnace ducts. Wrapping heating
ducts that pass through unheated areas with
insulation is likely to be highly cost-effective
measure in most areas. The major controllable
loss from a hot air heating system occurs through
uninsulated or leaking ducts. The measure will
be particularly cost effective with do-it-yourself
installation.
Thermostat setback device. According to the
Department of Energy, these devices will be cost
effective in most climates. The consumer can, of
course, achieve substantially the same effect by
manually adjusting the thermostat. Setback
devices should not be used with a heating system
that utilizes a heat pump.
Solar energy. The availability of sunshine is,
of course, the most important factor in the feasi­bility
of a solar heating or water heating system.
Sunny climates with short heating seasons (for
example, Florida or southern California) are not
well suited to solar space heating, but they are
the most favorable areas for solar water heating.
For solar space heating, areas with long and
sunny heating seasons and high utility rates are
the most favorable. Geographic areas meeting
those criteria include the mid-Atlantic region,
New England, some Midwestern States, and the
mountainous areas of the Southwest. In addition
to climate, the characteristics of the particular
home, its site, and its occupants must be evalu­ated.
Currently it is not cost effective for solar
energy systems to provide 100 percent of a
home's heating needs. A solar hot water system
will be more cost effective than solar space heat­ing
in most parts of the country. A hot water
system is simpler and less costly to install and has
the advantage of being useful throughout the
year. A solar water heating system can provide
roughly 60 to 70 percent of a family's needs in
Florida or California and 30 to 40 percent in
such northern locations as Minnesota or Maine.
WINTER 1980
Consumers living in areas where solar heating
or water heating "retrofit" (i.e., installation in
an existing dwelling) may be cost effective will
be eligible for individual in-home evaluations of
the feasibility and economics of installing solar
energy systems. Such evaluations will be offered
through local utility companies as part of the
Department of Energy's Residential Conserva­tion
Service Program( seep. 4).
The solar energy decision will require consi­derable
research on the part of the consumer. It
is important to investigate well ahead of time the
applicable building codes and zoning regulations
and other legal issues. In addition, the consumer
will need to be aware of specific conditions that
must be met in order to qualify for Federal or
local tax incentives, grants, or low-interest loans.
Additional information on solar energy is avail­able
from the National Solar Heating and
Cooling Information Center, a national clearing­house
that is operated for the Departments of
Energy and Housing and Urban Development.
Anyone wanting general information on solar
energy, lists of publications, lists of products and
installers, or answers to specific questions can
write to the Center at P.O. Box 1607, Rockville,
Md. 20850, or call toll. free 800-523-2929; in
Pennsylvania the toll-free number is
800-462-4983. Costs and feasibility of solar
energy are discussed in the Center's Fact Sheet
No. 110, "Solar Retrofit," which is free. (Most
of the information in this section on "solar
energy" is from that fact sheet.)
Fuel switching. The costs and benefits to con­sumers
of switching from one type of fuel to
another is an area in which little information has
been developed. The practice is not included as
an approved energy-conservation practice in any
of the Federal programs discussed in this article.
Fuel switching is not an energy-conservation
measure. However, the consumer who is making
a replacement decision about the home heating
system or who is experiencing severe supply or
cost problems may wish to have comparative
information in order to make an informed deci­sion.
Comparative costs of fuels and heating
systems are discussed in the USDA publication
FB-2235, "Home Heating Systems. "8 Specific
8 Single copies are available free by writing to the
Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, U.S Depart·
ment of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250.
7
information on the operating efficiencies of new
furnaces will be readily available to the
consumer when Federal regulations on energy
labeling of appliances are implemented.
In evaluating the potential costs and savings of
switching from one type of fuel to another, the
following should be considered: The present age
of existing equipment with respect to its pro­bable
total useful life; the present and potential
operating efficiency of existing equipment (this
must be determined by in-home inspection and
testing by a qualified technician); the initial cost
plus installation cost of alternate equipment
including any necessary structural modifi­cations,
permits, and hook-up charges; the effi­ciency
or the estimated energy usage of the new
equipment; and long-term projected fuel costs.
EVALUATING PRODUCTS AND SERVICES
Home improvements continue to be a source
of consumer complaints, and. consumers are
particularly vulnerable in the area of energy-re­lated
improvements. The desire to save energy
(and, of course, money) has increased demand
for such products. Many new or unfamiliar prod­ucts
and services are being offered. Even among
established products such as insulation, pro­blems
may exist due to lack of product standards
and the complexities of installation.
In evaluating products and services, con­sumers
should-
• Be skeptical of claims made for percentage
or dollar reductions of energy costs. The amount
of savings will vary considerably from house to
house and family to family depending on struc­tural
characteristics of the dwelling, existing
8
energy-saving features, climate (including tem­perature,
humidity, wind, and solar character­istics),
present and future energy prices, habits
and lifestyle of the family, and quality of mater­ials
and installation of the particular energy-sav­ing
product.
• Seek impartial advice. As a general rule,
avoid obtaining advice on your need for a prod­uct
from someone who sells that product.
• Resist sales pitches. The most heavily
promoted products are likely to be those that are
most profitable to the seller rather than of most
benefit to the homeowner.
• Be wary of offers of easy ~redit. Before
taking on additional debt, consider (1) whether
the product is really needed and (2) whether the
family budget is sufficiently flexible to handle a
new obligation. If you decide to use credit, shop
for a favorable interest rate. You maybe able to
take advantage of low-interest energy-conser­vation
loan programs.
• Check with your local consumer protection
office and with the local Better Business Bureau.
Find out whether problems exist with the type
of service or a particular company.
• In comparing costs, consider the type of
warranty and the firm's past record in addition
to the purchase price.
• Know your rights on door-to-door sales.
Sales made in your home, whether unsolicited or
invited, are covered by a 3-day cooling-off per­iod;
the rule applies to sales of $25 or higher. The
seller is required by law to give you a cancella­tion
form. You may cancel the transaction with.
out any penalty or obligation within 3 days. If
you don't have a cancellation form, you may
write your own letter of cancellation.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
EFTS-ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER SYSTEMS
By Cynthia L.Jennings1
Electronic Funds Transfer Systems (EFTS). is
a term used to describe a variety of new con­sumer
financial services, which are characterized
by the use of computers and electronic tech­nology.
In EFTS, electronic impulses are the
transfer system, replacing the paper used in
check and credit card transactions.
Users of EFTS
EFTS are used by banks for the collection,
clearing, and transfer of funds and financial
information; by retail establishments for credit
authorization, check verification, check guaran­tee,
file look-up functions, and consumer pur­chases
by direct electronic transfer of money;
and by consumers for direct deposit, preauthor­ized
payment, credit purchases, purchases by
direct electronic transfer of money, and inter­account
transfers. These functions overlap and
all three types of EFTS users are interconnected
in an overall system. For instance, many of the
consumer and retail uses of EFTS are possible
only because of the clearinghouse network capa­bilities
of banks.
Banks. The clearinghouse network lmks banks
for the collection, clearing, and transfer of
funds. There are three main national or inter­national
wire services that handle transactions
between member banks: Bank Wire, which trans­mits
transactions and messages among several big
banks, handles $27 billion a day; Fed Wire,
which handles big-dollar transactions among the
Federal Reserve's member banks, processes
$150 million daily; and SWIFT (Society for
Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommuni­cations),
which transmits payments and other
banking messages to member banks on an inter­national
scale, handles $1 billion daily. The
regional automated clearinghouses (ACH), asso­ciations
of financial institutions, handle consum­er
services by transferring funds among
members. ACH operations parallel check·dear­ing
operations in many respects, except that
information is exchanged on magnetic tape
1 Family economist, Family Economics Research
Group, Science and Education Administration, U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
WINTER 1980
instead of paper checks. There are 36 regional
ACH associations linked together by the clearing
and settlement facilities of the Federal Reserve
System into a nationwide electronic payments
network. This network includes 68 percent of
commercial banks and 11 percent of thrift insti­tutions.
Between May 1978 and May 1979, total
fmancial transactions handled through the ACH
network rose 48 percent to 13 million a month.
Although the government, mostly through
direct deposit of social security payments,
accounts for almost 84 percent of the total ACH
volume, commercial use is increasing at twice the
rate. The ACH network makes possible direct
deposit and preauthorized payment services.
Direct deposit is a prearranged automatic cre­dit
to the consumer's account of payment, such
as payroll checks, social security payments, pen­sion
funds, annuity payments, dividends, and
interest. Although use of this service is limited, it
is growing. Between June 1978 and June 1979,
the proportion of all pe<Jple receiving social
security checks who elected direct deposit rose
from 20 to 26 percent. 2 In June 1979, over 10
million people chose direct deposit of their
government retirement check; this represents 23
percent of all those receiving some form of gov­ernment
retirement income. Most government
retirement checks sent for direct deposit go to
commercial banks (87 percent), with savings and
loan associations receiving 7 percent and mutual
savings banks 5 percent.
Preauthorized payment is a means for paying
recurring, fixed payments, such as mortgage pay­ments
or insurance premiums, without writing
checks. An arrangement is made with the finan­cial
institution to duduct the necessary amount
from the customer's account and credit the
account of the creditor through the automated
clearinghouse.
A type of preauthorized payment used in
some areas is "bill check." This is a statement or
stub sent by the company that allows the con­sumer
to regulate the amount paid and the date
of payment. When the consumer fills in the
amount to be paid, signs, and returns the bill
2 From phone conversation with Tom McAndrew,
Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Md.
9
check, the bank is authorized to transfer funds
from the consumer's account to the company's
account through an automated clearinghouse.
Consumers. Besides the use of the direct depo­sit
and preauthorized payment services already
mentioned, consumers' main use of EFTS is
through a remote service unit. Easy access by
consumers to an electronics payment system
through remote service terminals is essential for
the eventual widespread and economical use of
an EFT system. The use of remote service units
has grown tremendously in recent years.
Between June 1976 and June 1978, the total
number of financial institutions using remote
service units increased from 141 to 620.
The automated teller machine (ATM), the
most widely used remote service unit, is opera­ted
by the customer and allows the performance
of a number of basic financial transactions.
ATM's are also called cash dispensers, total
tellers, unmanned tellers, and vestibule banking.
So far, most machines are located in or near bank
branches and create 24-hour banking service. It
is expected that eventually ATM's will be
installed in shopping malls and office buildings.
The A TM is accessed by the consumer using an
EFT card and a secret personal identification
number.
The automatic telephone payment system
allows consumers to pay certain bills by tele­phoning
the bank. With some pushbutton tele­phone
programs, the consumer may be con­nected
directly to a computer and the buttons
on the phone are used to punch in the payment
information.
Point-of-sale systems (POS) are machines
located at retail establishments that can offer
information services to the store (such as check
or credit authorization) or funds transfer serv­ices
to the consumer (such as paying for a pur­chase
by a full transfer of funds or making a
routine banking transaction). The POS are
accessed the same way as the automated teller
machines.
Retail. The primary use of EFTS by retail
establishments at this time is for information.
Stores use a remote service unit to verify checks,
authorize credit, and look up customer files.
Some stores are installing ATM's for customer
use and a few use POS units, in cooperation with
a bank, for full-transfer purchases. With this type
of purchase, the necessary funds are instantly
10
transferred out of the customer's account and
into the store's account-unlike the payment
delay inherent in a credit purchase.
Advantages and Disadvantages
EFTS offers many advantages to banks;retail
establishments, and consumers. EFTS can speed
up financial transactions and, through the eli­mination
of paper checks, can cut their costs by
as much as 80 percent. In addition, electronic
banking provides consumers with more con­venience
and flexibility in their banking, and it
could increase the security of financial trans­actions
by reducing theft of currency or unau­thorized
use of checks.
By its very nature, however, EFTS could cre­ate
considerable problems.
Error and fraud. Although increasing use of
EFTS will likely decrease the possibility of rob­bery
of cash or check fraud, EFTS could cause
costly mistakes through computer error and cre­ate
a new form of fraud through illegal electronic
access to the system. The electronic banking
industry is trying to develop safer systems and
security standards.
Privacy. EFTS technology centralizes finan­cial
information and makes retaining and retriev­ing
it easier. This creates a potential for invasion
of privacy.
To restrict the potential for government abuse
of available individual financial information, the
Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 specified
certain procedures that Federal authorities must
follow to obtain records of an individual custo­mer
from a financial institution. Concern has
been expressed, however, that this legislation
relates only to Federal agencies, and additional
Federal restrictions are needed to protect con­sumers
from abuses by State agencies and the
private sector.
Some State laws res~rict disclosure by deposi­tory
institutions of information regarding an
individual's account, and there are some privacy
protection provisions in the Federal Home Loan·
Bank Board's Remote Service Unit Regulation,
the Comptroller of the Currency's EFTS Guide­lines,
and the Federal Credit Union Bylaws
issued by the National Credit Union Adminis­tration.
Plans have been announced to introduce legis­lation
restricting disclosure of data from EFT
systems. The legislation is expected to include
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
the Privacy Protection Study Commission's
recommendation that EFT service providers
retain individual account information for a
limited period of time-only long enough to ful­fill
operational requirements.
Stop payment and float. EFTS provides for
almost instant transfer of funds without the
allotted clearance time now necessary with
checks. This instantaneousness results in the loss
of two advantages now enjoyed by consumers~ .
check transactions-the time to stop payment
and "float. "3
Solutions suggested include "value dating,"
which is a method of deferring actual payment
until an agreed -upon date, and "reversibility,"
which is the ability to reverse charges even after
the transaction is complete. ·
Consumer adjustment~ EFTS is an intangible
means of payment-unlike the tangible cash or
check. The ease of spending money with EFTS,
by the push of a button, will necessitate careful
consumer financial management; and in a system
where money is automatically flowing in and out
of accounts and there are no canceled checks,
consumers will need to learn new techniques to
keep track of their money.
Electronic Fund Transfer Act
In an attempt to eliminate some of the poten­tial
problems involved in an expanded EFT
system and to encourage development of EFTS
along specified guidelines, Congress passed the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act in November
197 8. The act provides for a basic framework of
rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of partici­pants
in electronic fund transfer systems and
protects consumers in their use of such systems.
The Federal Reserve Board was given authority
to issue rules and regulations to aid in the imple­mentation
of the act.
The Federal Reserve Board's implementing
regulation-Regulation E-Electronic Fund
Transfers-is concerned with any transfer of
funds that is initiated through an electronic ter­minal,
telephone, or computer for the purpose
of debiting or crediting an account. Exempted
from the regulation are (1) check guarantee or
authorization services, (2) bank wire transfers,
( 3) transfers for the purpose of buying or selling
3 Float is the time between the writing of a check and
its clearance.
WINTER1980
securities or commodities, ( 4) automatic trans­fers
from savings to demand deposit accounts,
(5) certain telephone-initiated transfers, and
(6) trust accounts.
Current rules. The ~oard is still in the process
of writing sections of regulation E. Two sec­tions,
however, dealing with EFT cards used by
consumers to access an automated teller or
point-of-sale machine are presently in effect.
The sections (1) specify the conditions under
which EFT cards may be issued and (2) limit a
consumer's liability for unauthorized use of an
EFT card.
A financial institution may only issue an EFT
card that is valid for use if the consumer requests
it or as a renewal or substitution card.
Unsolicited cards may be distributed only if
the unsolicited card is not valid for use, can only
be validated by a verified request from the con­sumer,
and is accompanied by a clear explana­tion
of validation or disposal procedures for the
card. In addition, the financial institution must
inform the consumer about the following con­ditions
that would apply if the card were vali­dated:
• Consumer's liability for unauthorized
transfers.
• Telephone number and address of the
person or office to be notified in the event
of a suspected unauthorized transfer.
• Financial institution's business days.
• Type of electronic fund transfers allowed
and any limitations.
• Any charges for electronic fund transfers.
• Conditions under which the financial insti­tution
will disclose the consumer's finan­cial
information to others.
• Whether receipts or periodic statements
will be provided.
• Presence and procedure for error resolu­tion.
• Conditions under which the financial insti­tution
will assume liability.
Before a financial institution can impose lia­bility
on a consumer for unauthorized use of a
lost· or stolen EFT card, the following informa­tion
must be provided to the consumer:
• Consumer's liability and responsibility to
report loss.
• Contact telephone number or address to
report suspected unauthorized use.
• Financial institution's business days.
11
If the previous information has been supplied
by the financial institution and the consumer
reports a missing card within 2 business days of
discovering the loss, the liability of the consumer
for unauthorized use of the EFT card is limited
to $50. Notification after 2 business days can
increase liability to as high as $500.
If the consumer fails to report an unauthor­ized
use of the card within 60 days after the issu­ance
of a periodic statement showing the
unauthorized use, the consumer's liability may
be unlimited with respect to transfers made after
the 60days.
A consumer's liability for an unauthorized
credit transaction made with a combination
EFT/credit card is limited to $50.
Proposed rules. Rules to implement other sec­tions
of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act have
been proposed by the Federal Reserve Board.
Final rules are expected by the end of 197 9 and
are effective in May 1980.
The Board has proposed that EFT trans­actions
for mutual funds, pensions, and profit
sharing be added as an additional exemption.
Also, certain EFT transactions made within a
financial institution, such as automatic crediting
of interest on savings accounts and debiting for
automatic mortgage payments, would be
exempt from the regulations.
In addition, the Board has proposed that-
• Specified terms and conditions of an EFT
service must be disclosed to the consumer in
writing when the contract is made or before the
first transfer is made.
• Receipts and periodic statements showing
EFT transactions must be provided.
• When a consumer pre authorizes a recurring
credit (for example, direct deposit paycheck),
the financial institution must make the credit
available immediately for .the consumer's use
and must notify the consumer whether the
expected credit was received.
• When a consumer preauthorizes a recurring
payment (for example, utility bills, insurance
premiums), the financial institution must notify
the consumer, in advance of payment, when the
payment amount varies outside a specified
range; and a consumer may stop the payment,
either orally or in writing, up to 3 business days
before the scheduled date of payment.
• When the consumer alleges that an error has
been made, the financial institution must com­plete
an investigation of the allegation within 10
days or temporarily recredit the consumer's
account with the disputed amount until the
investigation is completed.
• Financial institutions must keep evidence
of compliance with the regulations for at least
2 years.
• No person may condition an extension of
credit to a consumer upon repayment by EFT,
nor require a consumer to establish an account
with a particular financial institution as a con­dition
of employment or receipt of government
benefits. ·
REFERENCES
Bender, Mark G. 1975. EFTS, electronic funds
transfer systems--elements and impact,
99 pp. Kennikat Press, Port Washington,
N.Y.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System. 1979. Regulation E-Electronic
Fund Transfer Act. Federal Reserve press
releases March 21, April 30, May 21, June 7,
and August 2, 1979.
Brown, James L. 1979. EFTS and privacy 5 pp.
[Talk presented at American Council of
Consumer Interests Annual Convention,
April1979, San Antonio, Tex.]
Business Week. 1977. Electronic banking-a
retreat from the cashless society. No. 2479,
pp. 80-90.
12
Changing Times. 1975. Get ready for cashless
checkless living. Changing Times, The
Kiplinger Magazine 29(10): 6-10.
Consumer Reports. 1978. The new money-pro­mises
and pitfalls of electronic funds trans­fer.
43(6): 354-357. Consumers Union of
the United States, Inc., Mount Vernon, N.Y.
Hamilton, Earl G. 1979. An update on the auto­mated
clearinghouse. Federal Reserve Bulle­tin
65(7 ): 525-531. Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System, Division of Sup­port
Services, Washington, D.C.
Miller, Frederick W.1979. Checkless society gets
closer. Infosystems 26( 48): 48-51.
National Automated Clearing House Asso­ciation.
1978 and 1979. Sure pay update,
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
NACHA, status report, pp. 4-5. NACHA
Support Department, American Bankers
Association, Washington, D.C.
National Commission on Electronic Fund Trans­fers.
1977. EFT and the public interest,
149 pp. [Report available from National
Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Va. 22161.]
Pastore, Steven. 1979. EFT and the consumer.
The Bankers Magazine 162(2): 35-42.
Public Law 95-630, 92 Stat. 3728. Nov. 10,
1978. Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15
U.S.C.1601).
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Wel­fare;
Office of Consumer Affairs. 1976.
EFTS, Consumer News 6(22): 2-33.
U.S. Department of the Treasury. [1979] Direct
deposit-volume report, summary for June
1979. Operations Planning and Research
Staff, G-PR, Office of Fiscal Assistant Secre­tary,
Washington, D.C.
Zimmer, Robert C. 1979. Consumers and the
law governing EFT, 16 pp. [Statement
before American Council of Consumer Inter­ests
Annual Convention, April 1979, San
Antonio, Tex.]
FOOD COSTS AND PRACTICES OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH
WORKING WOMEN AND ELDERLY PERSONS, SPRING­SUMMER
1977
.By Robert L. Rizek and Betty B. Peterkin 1
This article summarizes preliminary findings
from the USDA's Nationwide Food Consump­tion
Survey (NFCS) 1977-78. Findings include
the money value of foods consumed, the propor­tion
of meals eaten at home and away from
home, the nutrient return per dollar's worth of
food used at home, and the food shopping
practices and identity of the person or persons
responsible for food planning, shopping, and
preparation. Results shown are for about 7,000
ho~sekeeping households in the conterminous
States in April to September 1977 and are classi­fied
by whether or not (1) the female head2
usually worked 20 hours or more per week out­side
the home and (2) the male or female head
was 65 years or older. Housekeeping households
1 Chairman and home economist, respectively, Con­sumer
and Food Economics Institute, Human Nutrition
Center, Science and Education Administration, U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Assistance of Mills Weinstein
and Richard Kerr of the Institute in data preparation is
acknowledged.
2 Female head refers to women who lead households
jointly with their husbands or serve as a single head of
household living either alone or with other household
members.
WINTER1980
are those with at least one person having 10 or
more meals from home food suppliesduringthe
7 days prior to the interview.
Information on the history of USDA food sur­veys,
the scope of the 1977-78 survey, and the
data collection methods were summarized in an
article in the fa111978 issue of "Family Econo­mics
Review," entitled "The 1977-78 Nation­wide
Food Consumption Survey," by Robert L.
Rizek. Copies are available from the Family
Economics Research Group at the address on
page 2 of this issue (see box).
Households With Working Women
Of the 6,565 survey households with female
heads, 2,420 had female heads who were
employed 20 or more hours per week outside the
home (working-women households). Work­ing-
women households averaged about 3.2
household members, the same as other house­holds,
but their household incomes were higher.
Only 25 percent of working-women households
had a 1976 income before taxes below $10,000,
compared with 47 percent of other households
having female heads (see table).
13
Characteristics of U.S. households surveyed in spring and summer 1977
Employment of
Household All female head 1 Age of head
characteristics households 65 years
Working2 Other or over3 Other
Percent
Location:
Central city ........ 31 33 28 32 30
Suburban ... ......... 36 37 36 29 38
Nonrnetropolitan ..... 33 30 36 39 32
Household members:
1 ................... 16 10 14 39 10
2 ................... 31 32 31 51 25
3 ................... 18 22 17 7 21
4 ................... 17 18 18 2 21
5 or more ........... 18 18 20 1 23
Income (1976) before
taxes:
Less than $5,000 .... 18 6 23 43 l2
$5,000-$9,999 ....... 22 19 24 33 19
$10,000-$14,999 20 21 19 13 21
$15,000-$19,999 16 19 15 4 19
$20,000 or more 24 35 19 7 29
lincludes only households with female head.
2Usually worked 20 or more hours per week outside the horne.
3Male or female head is 65 years or older.
Source: The Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1977-78, Consumer and Food
Economics Institute, Human Nutrition Center, Science and Education Adminis­tration,
U.S. Department of Agri.culture.
Money value of food. 3 The food used at home
and away by working-women households had a
higher total money value on the average than the
food used by other households (fig. 1). This was
true for all food used and for food used per
3 Food prepared at home and carried to work, school,
and recreational and other events is included as food at
home. Food away from home includes only food paid
for by household members. The value of food received as
guests or in payment for services is not available from
this survey.
14
household member. Although the value of food
used at home per household member (including
that bought and home produced or otherwise
received without direct expense) was slightly
higher for working women than for other house­holds
(fig. 2), it accounted for only 7 3 percent
of the total money value of food for work­ing-
women households com i}ared with 80 per­cent
for other households. Expense for food
away from home for working-women house­holds
was $5.80 per household member per
week-$4.60 for meals and $1.20 for snacks.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Meals at home and away from home.
Although 8 out of every 10 meals in work­ing-
women households came from home food
supplies, these households bought more meals
away from home than other households (fig. 3).
Less than 1 out of every 20 meals in work­ing-
women and in other households was eaten ·
away fr()m home without direct expense-as
guest meals, as free school meals, or as payment
for services. Noon meals were most frequently
eaten away from home, regardless of employ­ment
of the female head. As would be expected,
working-women households had fewer of their
noon meals from home food supplies ( 68 per­cent
compared with 80 percent in other house­holds).
Working-women households had 88 per­cent
of their evening meals and ~1 percent of
their morning meals at home-only slightly
fewer than other households.
The average cost of a home "meal unit,"
which includes the cost of meals and snacks, was
WORKING WOMEN and VALUE of FOOD per WEEK, Spring.Summer 1977
Working •
Nonworking
• 20 Houtt or more per week
USDA N•tionwide Food Comumption Survey, 48 St•tM(preliminary)
SEA 6186-1'9181
Figure 1
WORKING WOMEN and PERCENT of MEALS
At HOME and AWAY, Spring-Summar 1977
At,__
Working • 81"
Nonworking
• 20 Hourt or more .,., week
USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survev, 48 St1ta1 (pl"'llminary)
SI!A8192·'7tl81
Figure 3
WINTER 1980
........
$0.83 in working-women households-slightly
higher than in other households ($0.75). A meal
unit bought and eaten away from home, also
including the· cost of meals and snacks, averaged
$2.04 for working-women households and $2.22
for other households. The procedures used in
determining the costs per meal unit at home and
away from home are described in "Food Costs of
U.S. Households, Spring 1977,'' in the summer
1979 issue of "Family Economics Review."
Nutrients per dollar's worth of food.
Although working-wom~n households used food
at home with a higher cost per meal unit than
other households, the nutrient return per dol­lar's
worth of food was slightly lower for each of
11 nutrients studied (fig. 4). The higher nutrient
return in other households does not mean neces­sarily
that they consciously chose more nutri­tious
foods. Diets that are low in cost usually
include some relatively inexpensive foods in
WORKING WOMEN and FOOD at til(ME lnd AWAY
Value par Ho"'Ihold Member per Wook, Spring-5umme< 1977
Working •
Nonworking
• 20 Houn or mor1 PI' WHk
USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Sui'Yey, 48 Stltas (p~imln.ryl
SEAita,.78(1)
Figure 2
WORKING WOMEN and NUTRIENTS PER OOLLAR, Spring-Summer 1977
(Wortcing• comJNred with nonworking women hou•hotds)
Proaln
Calcium
hon
PMgnestum .............
Vtt.min A
Th'-tnln
Riboflavin
ViamlnB6
VltlrnlnBu:
AtcOf'bk:ac:id • 20 Houts or more per week
USDA Nationwide Food Contumption Survey, 48 States (preliminary)
SEA 11 ... 71111
Figure 4
15
large quantities. Some of these foods-such as
enriched and whole-grain flour and bread, some
cereals, dry beans, and potatoes-furnish
substantial amounts of a number of nutrients.
Other information. When asked to evaluate
their food, 7 8 percent of working-women house­hold
respondents indicated that they had
enough food and the kinds of foods they
wanted. Slightly fewer, 72 percent, of other
households responded this way.
About one-half of both working-women and
nonworking-women households surveyed did
major food shopping once a week and about one­-
fifth shopped twice or more per week. Of both
types of households, about 95 percent did their
major food shopping at a supermarket. - The female head in most survey households
usually shopped for, planned, and prepared the
food (fig. 5). The male head in working-women
households was more likely to participate in
shopping than in the planning and preparation.
The male head's role in shopping for food was
the same whether or not the female head
worked, and his role in planning and preparation
was only slightly increased in working-women
households. Fourteen percent of the male heads
in working-women households, compared with
8 percent in other households, usually planned
or helped the female head plan the meals. Fif­teen
percent of male heads in working-women
households, compared with 7 percent in other
households, usually prepared or helped prepare
the food.
Households With Elderly Persons
Of the 7,000 survey households, 1,480 had a
male or female head 65 years of age or older
(elderly households). These elderly households
were more frequently located in nonmetro­politan
areas, averaged fewer household mem­bers,
and had lower incomes than other house­holds
(see table).
Money value of food. Although the total
money value of food at home and away from
home per week per household was considerably
lower for elderly households than for other
households, the money value of food per person
16
was the same-about $20 (fig. 6). Of this $20,
however, elderly households used more for food
at home and less for food away than did other
households (fig. 7).
Meals at home and away from home. As
would be expected from the value of food used
away from home, elderly households bought
fewer of their meals out than did other house­holds
(fig. 8); although, when they did eat out,
they spent considerably more per meal unit
($3.04 and $2.11, respectively). The average
cost per home meal unit was $0.79 in both
elderly and other households.
Nutrients per dollar's worth of food. The
nutrient return per dollar's worth of food in
elderly households was as high or higher than in
other households for 7 of the 11 nutrients
studied (fig. 9). The four nutrients for which
nutrient return was lower-protein, calcium,
phosphorus, and riboflavin-are provided
abundantly by milk, which is generally more
prominent in diets of households with children
than households with elderly persons.
Other information. When asked to evaluate
their food, about three-fourths of elderly
households indicated that they had enough food
and the kinds of foods they wanted, about the
same percentage as for other households.
One-half of the elderly households and one-half
of the other households usually did their major
food shopping once a week. A few more elderly
households (28 percent) than other households
(20 percent) shopped two or more times·a week.
Seven percent of elderly households, compared
with 3 percent of other households, did their
major shopping at a small store.
Further Information From the NFCS 1977-78
Notification of future releases from the
Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1977-78
can be requested by writing to the Consumer and
Food Economics Institute, Human Nutrition
Center, Science and Education Administration,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville,
Md. 20782.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
WHO USUALLY SHOPS FOR, PLANS and PREPARES FOOD
(In Hou .. holdl writh both M.le .wt female he.S.. Spri~ummer 1877)
AGE of HEAD and VALUE of FOOD par WEEK, Spring-Summer 1977
~tt.d .... --~ Shopo 73"
PIMI 88"
,__ 88"
USDA Nnionwidt Food Contumption Surwey, 48 Statal (preliminary)
UA ,,,J.7t(t)
Figure 5
AGE"' HEAD and FOOD at HOME and AWAY
:~If
GY
J·H
Volue per Houllhold Member par Week, Spring-Summer 1977
65 Year~ or over •
Other
• M .. e or femMe h .. d
USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Sunoey, 48 State• (preliminary)
SEAI1a.71(1)
Figure 6
AGE of HEAD and PERCENT of MEALS
At HOME end AWAY, Spring-Summer 1977
86 Years or over •
At harM.., -·-m~ 65 Years or over • 92"
HA 1117·71(11
Figure 7
WINTER1980
Other 85"
USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey. 48 Stllt.s (prelimlnaryl
SEA41t1-79UII
AGE of HEAD end NUTRIENTS PER DOLLAR, Spring.Summer 1977
(66 Years or ower• compared with other households)
Protein
Caicium
Iron
~ium -· .... VItamin A
Thiamin
Atboflnin
Vlt.-nln a,
ViUmln 8 12
Asc:orbtc 1ekl
....
....
USDA Nationwide Food ConiUmption Sunoey, 48 Stabs (preliminary) •MMe or hmale head
SEA 11 ... 7ttll
Figure 9
Figure 8
EJ·I
17
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -RECENT
REPORTS AND FORTHCOMING DATA
How Well Are We Housed? The fourth report
on the adequacy of housing of particular groups
of Americans, released from the U.S. Depart­ment
of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), focuses on the elderly. (The first three
reports were described in "Family Economics
Review," fall 1979.) The report includes statis­tical
information on elderly households and how
they live, and it is based on data from the Annual
Housing Survey. According to the report, over
40 percent of the elderly households in America,
compared with only 20 percent in all U.S. house­holds,
have to spend in excess of one-quarter of
their income to live in adequate housing. Elderly
renters are hardest hit by housing costs-only 50
percent of elderly renters, compared with over
75 percent of all renters, can afford adequate
housing for one-quarter of their income. Single
copies of the report in English and in Spanish are
available free from HUD USER, P.O. Box 280,
Germantown, Md. 20767.
Experimental Housing Allowance Program:
Forthcoming Data Center. Data from the re­search
program on the issues related to the use of
housing allowances (see "Family Economics
Review," summer 1979 for a description) are to
be made available for public use. A major prod­uct
of the Experimental Housing Allowance Pro­gram
(EHAP) will be the massive data set derived
from the Demand, Supply, and Administrative
Agency Experiments and the Integrated Analy­sis
of EHAP. A data center is being designed to
house the EHAP data and other HUD data sets
for which there is public demand. It will main­tain
all the EHAP files, codebooks, and docu­mentation
at one computer installation. These
will be integrated using software systems
designed to make them more manageable and
linked to standard analysis packages. Batch and
interactive access will be available and also train­ing
sessions and technical assistance. The system
will be operable for public use by about
18
mid-1980. For additional information, contact
Jennifer Stucker, Division of Housing Research,
Office of Policy Development and Research ,
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (tel. 202-7 55-6568).
A Survey of Citizens Views and Concerns
About Urban Life. This is the final report of a
survey that was completed in January 1978 and
provided citizen input into the President's 1978
report to the Congress on urban policy. Citizens
in urban, suburban, and rural areas throughout
the country were asked to give their views on the
present condition and future prospects of their
communities. This report outlines the survey's
general findings, including satisfaction, expecta­tions,
attitudes, and preferences. Detailed
demographic information from the survey is
contained in "The 197 8 HUD Survey on the
Quality of Community Life: A Data Book" (see
"Family Economics Review," fall 1979, for a
description). Both are available free from HUD
USER, P.O. Box 280,Germantown,Md. 20767.
Housing for the Elderly and Handicapped­The
Experience of the Section 202 Program
from 1959 to 1977. This report provides a
descriptive overview and an evaluation of the
Section 202 Program. Section 202 of The Hous­ing
Act of 1959 was one of the first Federal pro­grams
to produce housing especially designed for
the elderly and handicapped by making loans
available to nonprofit sponsors to stimulate new
multifamily housing construction. The report
covers program background information, policy
issues, tenant and project characteristics, an
analysis of the cost effectiveness of the 202 and
other similar programs, an evaluation of 202
financial viability, and a summary of implica­tions
for current programs with similar go~s.
Single copies of the report are available free from
HUD USER, P.O. Box 280, Germantown, Md.
20767.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
FARM POPULATION TRENDS
Although the total U.S. farm population
declined between 1970 and 1975, the popula­tion
on farms with annual sales greater than
$40,000 increased 76 percent. Approximately a
fourth of the farm population lived on these
farms and accounted for nearly 80 percent of the
total farm receipts. Some of the increase in
population on large farms can be attributed to
inflation and its effect on dollar value of farm
product sales, but at least part of the change
reflects real increase.
About a third of the farm population lived on
farms with annual sales of under $2,500. These
persons earned most of their income from
off-farm sources.
Most persons living on farms were in the same
households as the farm operator. Only 10 per­cent
lived in other dwellings; such nonoperator
households contained 32 percent of all black
farm residents, as compared with only 7 percent
of white farm residents.
From 1970 to 1975 the farm population
declined at a greater rate among blacks, non­operators,
and residents of the South as com­pared
with whites, operators, and those living in
the northern and western regions.
The U.S. farm population was concentrated
on livestock and cash-grain farms. About two
out of every five lived on livestock farms.
Cash-grain farms increased their share of the
total farm population to 27 percent in 1975
from 20 percent in 1973.
Source: Banks, Vera J . 1978. Farm population trends
and farm characteristics. U.S. Department of .Agricul·
ture, Rural Development Research Report No. 3, 50 pp.
ESTIMATES OF THE COSTS OF RAISING RURAL NONFARM
CHILDREN: UPDATED TO 1978 PRICE LEVELS
Estimates of the cost of raising rural nonfarm
children, developed in the early 1970's, have
been updated to 1978 annual average price
levels. Total and annual costs from birth to age
18 for eight items in the budget and at three cost
levels are presented in the tables on the following
pages. The costs have been estimated separately
WINTER1980
for children living in the North Central, North­east,
South, and West regions. Information on
the development, use, and interpretation of
USDA estimates of the cost of raising children
was given in the summer 1979 issue of "Family
Economics Review."
19
Table 1. Annual cost of raising a rural nonfarm child from birth to age 18, by age,
at 3 cost levels: 1978 price levels 1
Age of child
(years)
ECONOMY
Under 1 ---------
1 ---------------
2-3 -------------
4-5 -------------
6 ---------------
7-9 -------------
10-11 -----------
12 --------------
13-15 -----------
16-17 -----------
Total ---------
LOW
Under 1 ---------
1 ---------------
2-3 -------------
4-5 -------------
6 ---------------
7-9 -------------
10-11 -----------
12 --------------
13-15 -----------
16-17 -----------
Total ---------
MODERATE
Under 1 ---------
1 ---------------
2-3 -------------
4-5 -------------
6 ---------------
7-9 -------------
10-11 -----------
12 --------·------
13-15 -----------
16-17 -----------
Total ---------
Total
1,159
1,215
1,110
1,184
1,225
1,298
1,372
1,446
1,502
1,587
23,951
1,787
1,842
1,632
1, 724
1, 779
1,871
1,945
2,113
2,169
2,332
34,907
2,517
2,609
2,339
2,486
2,690
2,800
2,948
3,187
3,279
3,542
51,870
Food
at
home
258
314
295
351
351
424
498
498
554
627
7,897
332
387
387
443
443
535
606
627
683
775
9,871
369
461
443
517
517
627
775
775
867
959
11,992
NORTH CENTRAL
Food
away Clothing Housing3 Medical
from care
home2
0
0
0
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
252
0
0
0
36
36
36
36
55
55
55
618
0
0
0
73
91
91
91
91
91
109
1,274
55
55
69
69
110
110
110
151
151
165
1,980
82
82
110
110
165
165
165
247
247
302
3,186
96
96
151
151
233
233
233
356
356
439
4,496
Dollars
392
392
341
341
324
324
324
341
341
341
6,138
716
716
579
579
545
545
545
545
545
545
10,288
1,074
1,074
903
903
886
886
886
920
920
937
16,630
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
55
1,278
109
109
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
1,674
164
164
145
145
145
145
145
145
145
164
2,686
1Child in a family of husband and wife and no more than 5 children.
2rncludes home-produced food and school lunches.
Educa­tion
0
0
0
0
17
17
17
17
17
17
204
0
0
0
0
17
17
17
17
17
17
204
0
0
0
0
70
70
70
70
70
70
840
Trans­porta­tion
280
280
231
231
231
231
231
231
231
247
4,288
363
363
297
297
297
297
297
330
330
346
5, 708
495
495
412
412
429
429
429
478
478
495
8,114
3Includes shelter, fuel, utilities, household operations, furnishings, and equipment.
4Includes personal care, recreation, reading, and other miscellaneous expenditures.
All
other4
101
101
101
101
101
101
101
117
117
117
1,914
185
185
168
168
185
185
185
201
201
201
3,358
319
319
285
285
319
319
319
352
352
369
5,838
Source: Costs were updated from estimates in table 2 of CFE (Adm.)-318, 1971, USDA, Agricul­tural
Research Service, Cost of Raising a Child--Derived from 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expendi­tures,
detail tables. Indexes used are shown in table 3. Estimates rounded to nearest $1.
20 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Table 1. Annual cost of raising a rural nonfarm child from birth to age 18, by age,
at 3 cost levels: 1978 price levelsl
Age of child
(years)
ECONOMY
Under 1 ---------
1 ---------------
2-3 -------------
4-5 -------------
6 ---------------
7-9 -------------
10-11 -----------
12 --------------
13-15 -----------
16-17 -----------
Total
LOW
Under 1 ---------
1 ---------------
2-3 -------------
4-5 -------------
6 ---------------
7-9 -------------
10-11 -----------
12 --------------
13-15 -----------
16-17 -----------
Total
MODERATE
Total
1,247
1,303
1,266
1,339
1,373
1,447
1,539
1,583
1,638
1,876
26,801
1,991
2,065
1,955
2,065
2,154
2,264
2,375
2,487
2,561
2,806
41,574
Under 1 --------- 2,924
1 --------------- 3,016
2-3 ------------- 2,898
4-5 ------------- 3,080
6 --------------- 3,301
7-9 ------------- 3,412
10-11 ----------- 3,578
12 -------------- 3,817
13-15 ----------- 3,928
16-17 ----------- 4,297
Total--------- 62,784
NORTHEAST
Food
Food away Medical
from Clothing Housing3 care
Educa­at
tion
home
295
351
351
406
406
480
572
572
627
701
9,005
369
443
443
498
480
590
701
701
775
867
11,106
home2
0
0
0
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
252
0
0
0
55
55
55
55
55
55
73
806
443 0
535 0
517 0
590 109
590 127
701 127
867 127
867 127
978 127
1,089 146
13,598 1,780
55
55
69
69
110
110
110
137
137
260
2,114
82
82
123
123
178
178
178
274
274
343
3,506
110
110
178
178
260
260
260
398
398
521
5,126
Dollars
426
426
392
392
392
392
392
409
409
426
7,260
784
784
699
699
682
682
682
682
682
699
12,582
1,210
1,210
1,108
1,108
1,091
1,091
1,091
1,125
1,125
1,159
20,216
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
1,314
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
1,962
0
0
0
0
9
9
9
9
9
17
124
0
0
0
0
35
35
35
35
35
35
420
164 0
164 0
164 0
164 0
164 105
164 105
164 105
164 105
164 105
164 105
2,952 1,260
1Child in a family of husband and wife and no more than 5 children.
2Includes home-produced food and school lunches.
Trans­porta­tion
264
264
247
247
231
231
231
231
231
247
4,320
412
412
363
363
363
363
363
379
379
412
6,794
577
577
528
528
528
528
528
561
561
610
9,898
3Includes shelter, fuel, utilities, household operations, furnishings, and equipment.
4Includes personal care, recreation, reading, and other miscellaneous expenditures.
All
other4
134
134
134
134
134
134
134
134
134
134
2,412
235
235
218
218
252
252
252
252
252
268
4,398
420
420
403
403
436
436
436
470
470
503
7,954
Source: Costs were updated from estimates in table 2 of CFE (Adm.)-318, 1971, USDA, Agricul­tural
Research Service, Cost of Raising a Child--Derived from 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expen­ditures,
detail tables. Indexes used are shown in table 3. Estimates rounded to nearest $1.
WINTER 1980
21
Table 1. Annual cost of raising a rural nonfarm child from birth to age 18, by age,
at 3 cost levels: 1978 price levels1
Age of child
(years)
ECONOMY
Under 1 -----------
1 -----------------
2-3 ---------------
4-5 ---------------
6 -----------------
7-9 ---------------
10-11 -------------
12 ----------------
13-15 -------------
16-17 -------------
Total -----------
LOW
Under 1 -----------
1 -----------------
2-3 ---------------
4-5 ---------------
6 -----------------
7-~ ---------------
10-11 ----~--------
12 ----------------
13-15 -------------
16-17 -------------
Total -----------
MODERATE
Under 1 -----------
1 -----------------
2-3 ---------------
4-5 ---------------
6 -----------------
7-9 ---------------
10-11 -------------
12 ----------------
13-15 -------------
16-17 -------------
Total -----------
Total
1,228
1,283
1,139
1,230
1,240
1,313
1,387
1,449
1,505
1,622
24,410
1,967
2,041
1,827
1,938
1,928
2,020
2,112
2,213
2,269
2,494
37,758
3,021
3,095
2,824
3,007
3,128
3,238
3,386
3,658
3,750
4,111
60,522
Food
at
home
277
332
314
369
351
424
498
498
554
627
8,008
332
406
387
443
443
535
627
627
683
775
9,926
443
517
498
572
554
6M
812
812
904
1,015
12,824
Food
away
from
home2
0
0
0
36
18
18
18
36
36
36
396
0
0
0
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
770
0
0
0
109
109
109
109
127
127
146
1,672
SOUTH
Medical
Clothing Housing3 care
55
55
82
82
110
110
110
137
137
165
1,976
96
96
137
137
178
178
178
247
247
329
3,454
123
123
192
192
260
260
2(: ;
398
398
562
5,290
Dollars
392
392
324
324
324
324
324
341
341
341
6,070
767
767
630
630
562
562
562 .
579
579
596
10,934
1,210
1,210
1,039
1,039
1,005
1,005
1,005
1,039
1,039
1,056
18,874
73
73
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
1,026
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
91
91
91
1,8.54
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
3,276
lChild in a family of husband and wife and no more than 5 children.
2rncludes home-produced food and school lunches.
.Educa­tion
0
0
0
0
17
17
17
17
17
17
204
0
0
0
0
17
17
17
17
17
17
204
0
0
0
0
87
87
87
87
87
87
1,044
Trans­porta­tion
297
297
247
247
231
231
231
231
231
247
4,386
445
445
363
363
346
346
346
379
379
396
6, 726
660
660
544
544
528
528
528
577
577
610
10,192
3rncludes shelter, fuel, utilities, household operations, furnishings, and equipment.
4rncludes personal care, recreation, reading, and other miscellaneous expenditures.
All
other4
134
134
117
117
134
134
134
134
134
134
2,344
218
218
201
201
218
218
218
218
218
235
3,890
403
403
369
369
403
403
403
436
436
453
7,350
Source: Costs were updated from estimates in table 2 of CFE (Adm.)-318, 1971, USDA, Agricultural
Research Service, Cost of Raising a Child--Derived from 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures,
detail tables. Indexes used are shown in table 3. Estimates rounded to nearest $1.
22 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Table 1. Annual cost of raising a rural nonfarm child from birth to age 18, by age,
at 3 cost levels: 1978 price levels 1
Age of child
(years)
ECONOMY
Under 1 -----------
1 -----------------
2-3 ---------------
4-5 ---------------
6 -----------------
7-9 ---------------
10-11 -------------
12 ----------------
13-15 -------------
16-17 -------------
Total -----------
LOH
Under 1 -----------
1 -----------------
2-3 ---------------
4-5 ---------------
6 -----------------
7-9 ---------------
10-11 -------------
12 ----------------
13-15 -------------
16-17 -------------
Total -----------
MODERATE
Under 1 -----------
1 -----------------
2-3 ---------------
4-5 ---------------
6 -----------------
7-9 ---------------
10-11 -------------
12 ----------------
13-15 -------------
16-17 -------------
Total -----------
Total
1,661
1, 717
1,493
1,566
1,640
1,714
1,788
1,846
1,901
2,103
31,609
2,242
2,334
2,117
2,246
2,299
2,409
2,502
2,665
2,738
2,996
44,703
3,127
3,219
2,930
3,112
3,347
3,476
3,624
3,896
4,006
4,409
64,185
Food
at
home
295
351
332
387
406
480
554
554
609
720
8,859
351
443
424
498
480
590
683
683
756
867
10,939
Food
away
from
home2
0
0
0
18
18
18
18
18
18
36
288
0
0
0
55
55
55
55
55
55
73
806
443 0
535 0
517 0
590 109
572 109
701 109
849 109
849 127
959 127
1,089 146
13,469 1,672
WEST
Medical Educa-
Clothing Housing3 care tion
69
69
82
82
137
137
137
178
178
151
2,302
82
82
137
137
206
206
206
302
302
315
3,786
110
110
178
178
274
274
274
411
411
480
5,180
Dollars
511
511
426
426
409
409
409
409
409
443
7,702
835
835
699
699
665
665
665
682
682
699
12,582
1,227
1,227
1,056
1,056
1,039
1,039
1,039
1,074
1,074
1,142
19,492
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
1,314
127
127
127
127
127
127
127
127
127
127
2,286
0
0
0
0
17
17
17
17
17
17
204
0
0
0
0
35
35
35
35
35
35
420
200 0
200 0
182 0
182 0
200 105
200 105
200 105
200 105
200 105
200 105
3,528 1,260
Ichild in a family of husband and wife and no more than 5 children.
2Includes home-produced food and school lunches.
Trans­porta­tion
528
528
412
412
412
412
412
429
429
478
7,848
528
528
445
445
429
429
429
462
462
528
8,314
660
660
561
561
561
561
561
610
610
693
10,756
3rncludes shelter, fuel, utilities, household operations, furnishings, and equipment.
4rncludes personal care, recreation, reading, and other miscellaneous expenditures.
All
other4
185
185
168
168
168
168
168
168
168
185
3,092
319
319
285
285
302
302
302
319
319
352
5,570
487
487
436
436
487
487
487
520
520
554
8,828
Source: Costs were updated from estimates in table 2 of CFE (Adm.)-318, 1971, USDA, Agricultural
Research Service, Cost of Raising a Child--Derived from 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures,
Detail Tables. Indexes used are shown in table 3. Estimates rounded to nearest $1.
WINTER 1980 23
POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS, 1978
Population Growth
The total population of the United States on
January 1, 1979, was estimated to be 219.5 mil­lion.
This was an increase of 1.7 million, or 0.8
percent, since January 1, 1978-the same rate as
in the previous year. The birth rate was 15.2 per
1,000 population in 197 8 and 15.3 in 1977.
Over a period of years childlessness has increased
among young married women 20 to 29 years of
age. In 1978 the fertility rate (how many births a
group of 1,000 women would have by the end of
their childbearing years) was 1,795, about
two-thirds that in 1960. Even though a rate of
2,115 per thousand is required for natural
replacement of the population, the United
States is still many years away from zero popu­lation
growth because a large proportion of
women are currently in their childbearing years.
The age structure of the population has
shifted since 197 0. The number of persons 25 to
34 years of age increased by 35 percent; those 18
to 24 years increased by over 18 percent. As a
proportion of the total population, the group 18
to 34 years of age increased from 24 percent in
1970 to almost 29 percent in 197 8. The number
of children under 14 years decreased by over 13
percent during 1970-78. Their proportion of the
total population decreased from 26 percent in
1970 to 21 percent in 1978.
In March 1978 there were 25 million black
persons, representing 12 percent of the popula­tion.
The black population, which is relatively
young (median age of 24 years, as compared
with 30 years for whites), experienced a slower
decline in fertility than the white population and
a resulting smaller decrease in the proportion of
children under 14 years. During 1970-78 the
black population grew by 13 percent, compared
with 6 percent for the white population.
Since 1970, 40 percent of all U.S. populat-ion
growth has occurred in California, Florida, and
24
Texas. Much of this is due to immigration from
other States.
Employment
For the first time in U.S. history, the civilian
labor force averaged 100 million persons during
1978, or 63 percent of the civilian, noninsti­tutional
population 16 years and older. The
unemployment rate for 1978 averaged 6.0 per­cent,
continuing the yearly decline since 1975
when the rate was 8.5 percent. Teenages and
women have contributed significantly to the
labor force expansion. The proportion of teen­ages
in the labor force grew from 4 7 percent in
1960 to 58 percent in 1978; 1 out of every 10
persons in the 1978 labor force was a teenager.
The proportion of women in the labor force,
which was 38 percent in 1960, reached 50 per­cent
for the first time in recorded U.S. history in
197 8. Women between the ages of 25 and 34
increased their labor force participation rate
from 36 percent in 1960 to 62 percent in 1978.
Mothers in the labor force with children under
6 years increased from 19 percent in 1960 to 42
percent in 1978, and those with school age
children (6 to 17 years) from 39 percent in 1960
to 57 percent in 1978.
At the same time that female labor fo.rce parti­cipation
increased, male participation continued
to decline, from .83 percent in 1960 to 78 per­cent
in 197 8. As a result, women have increased
their share of the civilian labor force from 34
percent in 1960 to 42 percent in 1978.
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce~ Bureau of
the Census, 1979, Current Population Reports: Popu­lation
Characteristics, Population profile of the United
States: 1978, Series P-20, No. 318, 58 pp.; Population
Estimates and Projections, Estimates of the population
of the United States, by age, sex, and race: 1976 to 1978
Series P-25, No. 800, 25 pp. '
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
MARITAL AND FAMILY STATUS OF.WORKERS
BY STATE AND AREA
Newly published data from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics provide information on the
marital and family characteristics of the work
force in 1976 by region, State, and standard
metropolitan statistical areas. The data reveal
trends that may affect the labor supply of
regions and States as well as the social services
needed by families in a given area.
The characteristics of women in the labor
force are one of the trends highlighted in the
report. About 49 percent of women in the
United States are in the labor force with regional
variations of from 46 percent in the east south
central region to a high of 52 percent in the New
England States. Of women who head families in
the United States, 59 percent are in the labor
force, varying from 52 percent in the New Eng­land
area to 66 percent in the mountain regions.
For women in husband-wife families where the
husband is in the civilian labor force, 53 percent
are in the labor force themselves. About 54 per-cent
of women in the labor force who have a hus­band
present also have children under age 18.
About 81 percent of women in the labor force
who have never been married or are widowed or
divorced have no children under age 18, whereas
those with children under age 18 vary from
9 percent in the Boston area to 25 percent in the
Los Angeles-Long Beach area.
Other important regional, State, and area
trends reported in the publication are employ­ment
and unemployment of family members;
presence and age of children in various family
types; labor force participation, marital status,
and presence of children by race; income infor­mation;
and contribution of wives' earnings to
family income.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labol'
Statistics, 1978, Marital and family status of workers by
State and area, Report No. 545 [fromSurveyoflncome
and ·Education, Spring 1976].
RECENT SUBURBANIZATION OF BLACKS:
HOW MUCH, WHO, AND WHERE
This report from the Department of Housing
and Urban Development examines the extent
and significance of black movement into the
suburbs from the late 1950's to the mid-1970's.
The analysis concludes that black migration
patterns have shifted since 1970, so that there is
now net movement from central cities to
suburbs by blacks as well as whites. The report is
WINTER1980
the first in a series of Annual Housing Survey
Studies, intended to discuss research from the
Annual Housing Survey.
Single copies of the report (HUD-PDR-378)
are available free while the supply lasts. Send
your request to HUD USER, P.O. Box 280, Ger­mantown,
Md. 20767.
25
SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS
(Please give your ZIP code in your return address when you order these.)
The following are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 20402:
• COMPOSITION OF FOODS: FATS AND OILS-RAW, PROCESSED, PREPARED. AH 8-4.
Revised June 1979.$4.75. ·
• PRACTICES USED FOR HOME CANNING OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES. HERR 43.
April1979. $2.40.
• SOYBEANS AS HUMAN FOOD-UNPROCESSED AND SIMPLY PROCESSED. URR 5.
Revised July 1979. $2..40.
Single copies of the following are available free from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Please
address your request to the office indicated.
From Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20250:
• STRAWBERRY VARIETIES IN THE UNITED STATES. F 1043. Revised June 197 9.
• GROWING BLACKBERRIES. F 2160. Revised July 1979.
• MONEY-SAVING MAIN DISHES. G 43. Revised July 1979.
From Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service, Publications Unit, Room 0054, South
Building, Washington, D.C. 20250:
• BALANCE SHEET OF THE FARMING SECTOR, 1979. AB 430. August 1979.
• SOLAR ENERGY FOR AGRICULTURE-REVIEW OF RESEARCH. ESCS-67 . August 1979.
• HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE PATTERNS IN THE UNITED STATES. T 1603. April1979.
HEALTH CARE IN RURAL AMERICA .
Nonmetropolitan areas have greater unmet
health needs and fewer health resources than
metropolitan areas according to a new report
from USDA's Economics, Statistics, and
Cooperat'ives Service (ESCS). The report com­pares
the health needs and resources in both
areas, and it shows that nonmetro areas' lower
incomes, larger aged populations, hazardous
occupations, and lower educational levels contri­bute
to poorer health care conditions. The
26
report also includes sections on government
involvement in rural health care, the supply of
medical resources, and needs of specific sub­populations.
"Health Care in Rural America," by Mary C.
Ahearn of the Economic Development Division,
is available without charge from the Publications
Unit, ESCS, USDA, Washington, D.C. 20250.
Ask for U.S. Department of Agriculture Bulletin
No. 428, issued July 1979.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
CONSUMER CREDIT SURVEY
The 1977 Consumer Credit Survey, published
by the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, provides a wealth of new data
on consumers' awareness, perceptions, attitudes,
and behavior in credit transactions. Data collec­tion
for this survey was the responsibility of the
Survey Research Center (SRC) of the University
of Michigan, and analysis of the data and pre­paration
of the report were done by Thomas A.
Durkin and Gregory E. Elliehausen of Penn­sylvania
State University. The Federal Reserve
System, the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation jointly sponsored the project.
Information from the survey is divided into
twb major sections: (1) Respondents' awareness
of the credit process including laws and regula­tions,
attitudes toward credit, and perceptions
of differences among institutions; and (2) infor­mation
about credit use and users-information
that has not been available on a cross-section
basis since suspension of the Survey of Con­sumer
Finances in 1979 (SRC, University of
Michigan).
The report, dated December 1978, is available
for $2 in a limited supply from Publications
Services, Division of Administrative Services,
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, Washington, D.C. 20551.
JOURNEY TO WORK
A special study of commuting in the United
States based on interviews of households from
October through December 1975 shows the
following findings:
• Workers who lived in suburban areas were
twice as likely to work in the suburbs as to
commute into the central cities.
• Twice as many workers commuted from
nonmetropolitan areas to metropolitan
areas as the reverse.
• About 8 percent of all workers in the
United States regularly worked at different
locations and had no fixed place of occupa­tion.
• A greater proportion of central city and
suburban residents worked in the suburbs
in 197 5 than in 197 0.
WINTER1980
• About 65 percent of all workers in the
United States drove to work alone; those
who lived in the suburbs were more likely
to drive alone than other workers.
• Workers in nonmetropolitan areas and
those in central cities or suburbs had
especially high rates of carpooling.
• The average commuting trip one way in the
United States was about 9 miles-8 miles
for those driving alone and 11 miles for
those in carpools.
Source : U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, 1979, The journey to work in the United States:
197 5, Current Population Reports, Special Studies P-23 ,
No. 99, 29 pp.
27
~
00
~ t"'
><
t.zj
C')
0 z
-~ C')
00
~
t.zj
-<: t.zj
~
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at 4 cost levels, September 1979, U.S. average1
Sex-age groups
FAMILIES
Family of 2: 3
20-54 years ............ .
55 years and over ...... .
Family of 4:
Couple, 20-54 years and
children--
1-2 and 3-5 years
6-8 and 9-11 years
INDIVIDUALS 4
Child:
7 months to 1 year ..... .
1-2 years .........•.....
3-5 years .............. .
6-8 years .............. .
9-11 years ............. .
Male:
12-14 years ............ .
15-19 years ............ .
20-54 years ............ .
55 years and over ...... .
Female:
12-19 years ............ .
20-54 years ............ .
55 years and over ...... .
Pregnant ............... .
Nursing ................ .
Thrifty
plan2
28.40
25.40
40.00
48.20
5.70
6.40
7.80
9.90
12.50
13.30
14.60
14.20
12.60
11.90
11.60
10.50
14.60
15.50
Cost for 1 week
Low-cost
plan
Moderate­cost
plan
Dollars
37.10
33.00
51.70
62.30
6.90
8.20
9.80
12.70
15.90
16.90
18.80
18.60
16.40
15.20
15.10
13.60
18.70
19.80
46.70
40.90
64.70
78.50
8.50
10.10
12.10
16.00
20.00
21.20
23.50
23.60
20.40
18.80
18.90
16.80
23.00
24.70
Liberal
·plan
55.90
49.10
77.50
93.90
10.00
12.10
14.60
19.10
24.00
25.40
28.30
28.30
24.60
22.50
22.50
20.00
27.40
29.30
Thrifty
plan2
123. 10
110.40
173.60
208.90
24.70
27.90
33.80
43.00
54.00
57.60
63.50
61.60
54.80
51.60
50.30
45.60
63.40
67.20
Cost for 1 month
Low-cost
plan
Moderate­cost
plan
Dollars
160.90
143.30
224.20
270.40
30.10
35.50
42.40
55.20
68.90
73.30
81.40
80.70
71.20
65.70
65.60
59.10
81.00
86.00
202.10
177.70
280.20
339.60
36.80
43.90
52.60
69.20
86.70
92.00
102.00
102.00
88.60
81.50
81.70
72.90
99 .. 70
107.00
Liberal
plan
242.20
212.30
335.70
407.10
43.50
52.20
63 . 30
83.00
103.90
110.10
122.70
122.80
106.50
97.30
97.40
86.50
118.50
127.10
1Assumes that food for all meals and snacks is purchased at the store and prepared at home. Estimates for each plan
were computed from quantities of foods published in the Winter 1976 (thrifty plan) and Winter 1975 (low-cost, moderate­cost,
and liberal plans) issues of Family Economics Review. The costs of the food plans were first estimated using
prices paid in 1965-66 by households from USDA's Household Food Consumption Survey with food costs at 4 selected levels.
USDA updates these survey prices to estimate the current costs for the food plans using information from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics: "Estimated Retail Food Prices by Cities" from 1965-66 to 1977 and "CPI Detailed Report," tables 3
and 9, after 1977.
2Coupon allotment in the Food Stamp Program based on this food plan.
310 percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 4.
4The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size families, the following
adjustments are suggested: !-person--add 20 percent; 2-person- -add 10 percent; 3-person--add 5 percent; 5-or-6-person-­subtract
5 percent; 7-or-more-person--subtract 10 percent.
n
0
U)
-t
0
"""" 0
0
0
:J>
-t
:z:
0
~
m
CONSUMER PRICES
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers
(1967 = 100)
Group
All items ..••..........•....••
Food ......•.....••....•.•...
Food at home .•.•..•••..•..
Food away from home ..•••.•
Housing ••......•.••...•....•
Shelter .•....••.•...•••...
Rent ..•..•.•......•••...
Homeownership .•...•..•..
Fuel and other utilities •.
Fuel oil, coal, and
bottled gas .•.•..•.•...
Gas (piped) and
electricity •• .•..•..•..
Household furnishings
and operation ..•....•...•
Apparel and upkeep ...•••....
Men's and boys' apparel •••
Women's and girls' apparel
Footwear .....•••.•........
Transportation ••...•........
Private .................. .
Public •.............••••..
Medical care .•.••...••..•...
Entertainment ••••.•..•......
Other goods and services .•..
Personal care ••..•.•......
Sept.
1979
223.4
237.1
234.7
247.6
234.6
247.4
179.0
271.9
251.2
461.6
270.1
192.2
169.8
162.7
155.9
180.1
221.4
220.0
205.2
243.7
191.1
201.7
199.0
Aug.
1979
221.1
236.3
233.9
246.5
231.5
243.9
177.5
267.6
247.2
438.6
266.5
191.2
166.3
159.6
151.3
177.5
219.6
220.4
200.8
241.8
190.2
197.0
197.5
July
1979
218.9
236.9
235.5
244.9
228.4
240.1
175.9
263.0
243.5
412.9
264.5
190.4
164.3
159.2
147.8
176.6
216.6
217.4
197.1
239.9
189.1
195.2
196.4
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Sept.
1978
199.3
215.6
214.1
223.2
207.5
216.2
166.4
234.2
218.8
295.7
237.9
180.5
161.9
158.7
152.3
165.7
188.7
188.3
188.2
222.6
178.3
187.8
184.9
~NTER1980 29
INDEX OF ARTICLES IN 1979 ISSUES
CLOTHING & TEXTILES
Clothing Budgets for Farm Children, 1977
Clothing Budgets for Farm Adults, 197 8
Energy Consumption for Textiles and Apparel
FAMILY FINANCE
Child Care: Arrangements and Costs
Commuting to Work-A Cost Comparison
The Cost of Raising Farm Children
Credit Protection Laws
Three Budgets for a Retired Couple, Autumn 1977
Urban Family Budgets-Autumn 1977
Users' Guide to USDA Estimates of the Cost of
Raising a Child
Working Women, June 1978
FAMILY LIVING
Child Care in Rural Areas: Needs, Attitud~s,
and Preferences
Children in the United States
Children Living in One-Parent Families
Family Cay Care Pilot Program of Cooperative
Extension, New York State
Quality Child Care and the Informed Parent
Perspectives on American Husbands and Wives
FOOD
Children's Diets
Consumer Awareness and Use of Unit Pricing
Food Costs of U.S. Households, Spring 1977
The Food Price Outlook for 1979
Frozen-Prepared Plate Dinners and Entrees-
Cost vs. Convenience
Human Nutrition Center
Nutrient Content of the National Food Supply
HOUSING
30
Characteristics of New Housing
Construction Statistics
Farmers Home Administration Rural Housing Programs
A Guide to Housing Rehabilitation Programs
Housing and Community Development-Recent Reports
The Outlook for Housing in 1979
Page
12
16
3
3
22
3
23
25
29
3
24
10
17
21
8
6
13
24
11
14
10
18
25
21
27
21
17
20
20
14
Issue
Winter
Summer
Spring
Fall
Summer
Winter
Fall
Spring
Winter
Summer
Summer
Fall
Winter
Winter
Fall
Fall
Fall
Winter
Winter
Fall
Spring
Summer
Summer
Summer
Spring
Summer
Spring
Spring
Fall
Spring
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
HOUSING--<::ontinued
Recent Housing Developments
Recent Reports on Housing
Status of Housing in Nonmetropolitan Areas
MISCELLANEOUS
The President's National Urban Policy Report
Rural Development Perspectives
Traveling to Work
Uniform Tire Quality Grading System
WINTER1980
Page
20
20
21
20
21
22
24
Issue
Summer
Summer
Spring
Spring
Fall
Summer
Summer
31
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
WINTER 1980
Contents
Page
ENERGY-SAVING HOME IMPROVEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
By Marilyn Doss Ruf{ih
EFTS-ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER SYSTEMS ... .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
By Cynthia L. Jennings
FOOD COSTS AND PRACTICES OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH WORKING
WOMEN AND ELDERLY PERSONS, SPRING-SUMMER 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
By Robert L. Rizek and Betty B. Peterkin
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-RECENT REPORTS
AND FORTHCOMING DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
FARMPOPULATIONTRENDS........................................... 19
ESTIMATES OF THE COSTS OF RAISING RURAL NONFARM CHILDREN:
UPDATED TO 1978 PRICE LEVELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
POPULATIONANDEMPLOYMENTTRENDS,1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
MARITAL AND FAMILY STATUS OF WORKERS BY STATE AND AREA . . . . . . . . . 25
RECENT SUBURBANIZATION OF BLACKS: HOW MUCH, WHO, AND WHERE . . . . 25
HEALTH CARE IN RURAL AMERICA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
CONSUMER CREDIT SURVEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
JOURNEY TO WORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Regular Features
SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
COSTOFFOODATHOME .............................................. 28
CONSUMER PRICES ...................................... . ........... . 29
INDEX OF ARTICLES IN 1979 ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Issued December 1979
JtU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OffiCE• 1980-620-220/3613
l<'AMIL Y ECONOMICS REVIEW