Family Economics Review [1982, Number 1]

              WINTER 1982
IN THIS ISSUE:
FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION­THE
TWO-EARNER COUPLE
SINGLE-PARENT HOUSEHOLDS
COST OF DOING LAUNDRY
FOOD STAMP ALLOTMENT AND DIETS
COST OF MEATS AND MEAT ALTERNATES
Depository
PROPERTY OF THE
fiDn~nv
FEB 4 1982
University of North Carolina
ct Greensboro
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Research Service
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.
Editors: Kathleen K. Scholl
Katherine S. Tippett
Family Economics Research Group
Agricultural Research Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Federal Building
Hyattsville, Md. 20782
Agricultural Research Service, Family Economics Review, Winter 1982
Published by Agricultural Research Service,
Northeastern Region, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Md. 20705
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
J
FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION AND THE TWO-EARNER COUPLE
By Co lien Hefferan 1
Legislation to reduce the Federal income
tax liability of two-earner cou.ples was enacted
in 1981 as part of a larger tax reform package
(see insert on p. 5). Under the provisions of
P .L. 97-34, married couples with two earners
can deduct from family income 10 percent of
the lower paid spouse's earnings up to a maxi­mum
income of $30,000 per year. For two­earner
married couples claiming the maximum
deduction and paying the maximum rate of
tax on earned income, 50 percent, the law
will reduce their tax liability by $1,500. The
deduction will be phased in· over 2 years, with
a 5-percent deduction available in 1982 and
the full10 percent in 1983.
The legislation is designed to improve the
equity and efficiency of the Federal income
tax system as it applies to two-earner married
couples. This segment of the population is
expected to comprise 60 percent of all mar­ried
couples and 32 percent of all households
by 1990 (9, 1 0). As women gain in education
and labor force experience, women's earnings
are expected to approach the level of men's.
Rising labor force participation rates of mar­ried
women, as well as increasing earnings,
have made the tax treatment of two-earner
families an issue of growing importance.
Background
Since the introduction of the Federal in­come
tax nearly 70 years ago, three concerns
regarding the tax treatment of families have
arisen: (1) The tax burden of single persons
relative to that of married couples, (2) treat­ment
of the costs of children and other depen­dents
in assessing tax burdens, and (3) the tax
burden of married couples with one earner rel­ative
to that of equal-income married couples
with two earners (4). Most recently, attention
has focused on issues 2 and 3 as the labor force
participation rate of married women increased
1 Economist, Family Economics Research Group,
Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
WINTER 1982
to just under 50 percent in 1979, up 9 percent­age
points since 1970 (11).
Family-related tax issues are difficult to
resolve because the U.S. tax system is built
on three broadly supported, but mutually
conflicting, goals (8). Goal 1 is maintenance
of progressivity, which means that the pro­portion
of income paid in taxes should in­crease
with income. This goal is based on the
concept of declining marginal value of income
and its corollary that taxpaying ability in­creases
more than proportionately with in­come.
Goal 2 is equal taxation of married
couples with equal income. This is based on
the premise that income and economic well­being
are shared by husbands and wives regard­less
of who earns the income. Goal 3 is mar­riage
neutrality, which implies that an indi­vidual's
tax liability should not be dependent
on marital status. This is based on both eco­nomic
efficiency· and equity considerations.
Goal 1 of maintaining progressivity cannot
be met when both goal 2 of equal taxation and
goal 3 of marriage neutrality are accommo­dated.
An example illustrates this conflict
(see Fig. 1 on p. 4). The four units (unit D
contains two single taxpayers who must each
file a single return) in the example have the
same total income, $20,000, but different
composition and sources of earnings. For the
tax system to meet the goal of married couples
with equal income paying equal tax (goal 2),
units A and B must pay the same tax. To meet
the goal of marriage neutrality (goal 3), the
tax liability of a single worker (unit C) must
be the same as that of a married couple with
the same income (unit A), and the tax of two
single workers (unit D1 and D2 ) must be the
same as that of two equal earning married
workers (unit B). When these conditions are
met, then the tax paid by a single taxpayer
earning $20,000 (unit C) must equal that of
two single taxpayers earning $10,000 each
(unit D1 and D2 ). However, this violates the
goal of progressivity (goal 1), which demands
that tax rates rise with level of income. To
meet this goal, the tax paid by unit C should
be more than the combined tax of unit D1
and unit D2 .
3
UNIT A UNIT B
Married couple-­one
earner
$20,000 income
same tax
(goal two)
Married couple-­two
earners
$10,000 income
each
I same tax
(goal three)
UNIT C
(goal three)
same tax I
UNIT D UNIT D
Single person-­Single
Single
$20,000 income different tax
(goal one)
person--
$10,000
person--
$10,000
income income
Source: U.S. Treasury Department, Office of Tax Analysis.
Figure 1
The family-related tax issues could be re­solved
only if one of the underlying goals
were abandoned. Reduction of one inequity
often creates another, generating the need
for further tax reform. The history of the
U.S. income tax system contains several
examples of attempts to reduce the inequity
of tax burdens for families of different types
by abandoning one of those goals. In each
case, reform itself created the need for further
changes in the tax system.
1913-48. Prior to 1948, the individual
rather than the family was the primary unit
of taxation. One rate schedule was used for
all taxpayers, regardless of marital status;
exemptions were used to adjust tax for family
size. The tax system was marriage neutral;
however, couples with equal income did not
necessarily pay equal tax. Residents of com­munity
property States could divide income
between the husband and wife and thereby
reduce their tax liability relative to that of mar­ried
couples living in noncommunity property
States. This inequity was resolved in 1948,
4
when the tax system was changed to allow all
married couples to split their income.
1948-69. Income splitting for married
couples was effected by instituting separate rate
schedules in which the tax brackets were twice
as wide as they were for single taxpayers.
This system assured that married couples
with equal income, regardless of number of
workers, would pay equal tax, but the system
was not marriage neutral. In a progressive
tax structure, income splitting between hus­band
and wife has the effect of creating a tax
bonus for marrying and a penalty on remain­ing
single. In 1969 Congress responded to the
"singles' penalty" by lowering the tax rates
for single individuals.
1969-81. Under the 1969 reforms, the tax
rates still remained higher for single individuals
than for married couples with equal income;
therefore, the tax bonus remained for all one­earner
married couples. Nonetheless, the
singles' rate schedule would have been advan­tageous
to some two-earner couples. If, by
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
ECONOMIC RECOVERY TAX ACT OF 1981
The_ Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-34), signed into law on August 13,
1981, 1s purported to be the largest tax-cutting bill in U.S. history. It is estimated that the
bill will save taxpayers rnore than $700 billion over the next 6 years.
The law contains eight titles including Individual Income Tax Provisions Business
. ' Incentive Provisions, Savings Provisions, Estate and Gift Tax Provisions, Tax Straddles,
Energy Provisions, Administrative Provisions, and Miscellaneous Provisions. Several of
these provisions substantially alter the tax liability of individuals and families.
Income tax rates will be reduced by 5 percent in 1981 and 10 percent in 1982 and in
1983. This will result in a cumulative reduction in individual tax rates of 23 percent over
the period 1981 through 1984. Beginning in 1985, tax rates, exemptions, and the zero
bracket amount will be indexed to reflect annual changes in the Consumer Price Index.
This is designed to reduce "bracket creep," whereby tax liability for individuals and
families increases when income is increased solely to keep up with inflation. The law also
reduces the top marginal tax rate on investment income from 70 percent to 50 percent
effective in 1982.
In addition to these broad tax reduction provisions, the Economic Recovery Tax Act
also provides tax relief for families with child and dependent care expenses necessitated
by gainful employment. Taxpayers with income below $10,000 will be eligible for a child
care credit equal to 30 percent of employment-related child care expenses up to $2,400
(one dependent) or $4,800 (two or more dependents). The credit will be reduced by 1
percent for each $2,000 of income above $10,000 down to a credit of 20 percent for
taxpayers with income of $30,000 or above.
Other provisions related to individual income taxes allow: (1) Non-itemizing taxpayers
to deduct a portion of qualified charitable contributions, beginning in 1982; (2) tax­payers
to deduct up to $1,500 of certain expenses associated with the adoption of hard­to-
place children, beginning in 1981; (3) taxpayers to defer gain on the sale of a principal
residence, if a new residence is purchased within 2 years, on sales and exchanges after
July 20, 1981 or for transactions with unexpired rollover periods (18 months under pre­vious
law); (4) taxpayers 55 years of age and older to increase the one-time exclusion
of gain on principal residences from $100,000 to $125,000, on sales and exchanges after
July 20, 1981.
Under the savings provisions of the Economic Recovery Tax Act, individuals will have
a lifetime exclusion of $1,000 ($2,000 on joint returns) of interest paid on depository
institution tax-exempt saving certificates issued after September 30, 1981. Eligibility
for participation in Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA's) will be extended to all
workers, regardless of participation in employer-sponsored retirement plans, effective
in 1982. In addition, annual contribution limits on IRA's will be increased from $1,500
to $2,000 in 1982.
The gift and estate provisions of the law will exempt an estimated 99.7 percent of all
estates from estate tax by 1987. Effective in 1982, the marital deduction will be un­limited.
The annual gift tax exclusion will be increased from $3,000 to $10,000 per
donee. Most gifts for medical care and tuition will receive unlimited exclusion.
WINTER 1982
5
filing separate returns using the singles' tax
rate schedule, married earners could take
advantage of the low marginal rates at the
bottom of two tax schedules, they could re­duce
their tax liability to less than that of
married couples with the same income but
with only one earner. To maintain the goal
of married couples with equal income pay­ing
equal tax, two-earner couples choosing
to file separate returns were prohibited from
using the singles' tax rate schedule. This
created nonneutrality with respect to mar­riage
and generated the "marriage penalty"
under which two-earner couples found that
the more similar their incomes, the greater
their extra tax burden relative to two single
persons.
The penalty and bonus structure generated
by the separate rate schedules for married
and single taxpayers, as it existed in 1980, is
illustrated in figure 2. The penalties were
greatest for married couples with equally dis­tributed
income and increased with level of
income. For couples with less than $25,000
in total taxable income and in which one
spouse earns less than 20 percent of the in­come,
the tax structure favored or only nom­inally
penalized married taxpayers relative
to single taxpayers. However, the marriage
penalty increased to almost $3,000 for two
married workers each earning $25,000 in
taxable income.
An estimated 29 percent of all married
couples were potentially subject to the mar­riage
penalty imposed by the separate tax
schedules in 1978. This is the percentage of
all married couples in which there were two
earners each contributing more than 20 per­cent
of earnings (11) . This represented 18
percent of all households. 2 Some couples were
subject to very high marriage penalties. Assum­ing
that married couples are taxed on approx­imately
75 percent of their total income,
approximately 3 percent of all married couples,
or just less than 2 percent of all households,
2 Married couples constituted 62.3 percent of all
households. Multiplying the 29 percent of all couples
subject to the marriage penalty by 62.3 percent equals
18 percent of all households subject to the marriage
penalty.
6
paid penalties in excess of $500.3 Other fac­tors,
including differences in the definition of
income as a result of different zero bracket
deductions for married and single taxpayers,
further exacerbated the marriage penalty for
some couples. As part of broader legislation to
reduce all Federal income tax rates, Congress
in 1981 acted to reduce, and in some cases
eliminate, the marriage tax penalty.
1981 Tax Reform
Legislation to reduce the marriage penalty
had wide appeal and broad support. Although
the proportion of all households penalized by
the tax structure in effect from 1969 through
1981 was relatively small, some couples were
significantly penalized by the system. What
is more, the proportion of couples affected
by the marriage penalty was growing at a
rapid pace. When the 1969 tax reform was
implemented, both spouses were gainfully
employed in only about 30 percent of all
married couples ( 9, 1 0). Ten years later,
almost 50 percent of all married couples had
two earners. Continued growth in the pro­portion
of married couples with two-earners
is predicted.
Delegates to the White House Conference
on Families in 1980 strongly recommended
adoption of "major changes in the tax code
to eliminate the marriage tax penalty ... " as
one way to reduce the economic pressures on
marriage and family life (12). Others advo­cated
reductions in the "working wives' tax"
to encourage married women to participate
in the paid labor force (1 ). Most of the argu­ments
for reducing or eliminating the mar­riage
tax penalty centered around the issues
of economic equity and efficiency.
Equity. Under an equitable tax system,
taxpaying units with equal ability to pay are
taxed at equal rates. This implies that couples
3This includes married couples with two earners
each contributing in excess of 20 percent of family
income and having total family income greater than
$50,000 (taxable income estimated to be in excess of
$37 ,500) and couples with two earners each contrib­uting
in excess of 30 percent of family income and
having total family income greater than $35,000 (tax­able
income estimated to be in excess of $26,500).
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Marriage Tax Penalties and Bonuses, 1980
$ Thous.
6~------------------------------------~
-5
-6
-7
-8
0
Marriage
" Penalty"
Marriage
" Bonus"
,...,... -70--30 ----- ,...
80-20
25 100
Combined taxable income of both spouses ($ Thous.)
Addit ional tax liabil ity of married couples compared to tax liability of 2 single taxpayers with the same combined
income, by income split and level of income, calculated from 1980 tax schedule.
Figure 2
WINTER 1982
7
with the same income pay the same tax. Pro­ponents
of the reduction or elimination of
the marriage penalty argued that two-earner
couples with the same money income as one­earner
couples enjoyed less imputed income
from home-produced goods and services and
incurred higher work-related expenses; there­fore,
their real income and their taxpaying
ability were lower (5). They argued for a de­duction
to approximate the work-related
expenses of secondary workers.
Efficiency. Efficient taxes raise revenue
while causing minimal distortion in economic
decisions (6). The question of economic
efficiency arises in relation to the tax treat­ment
of two-earner couples when labor force
decisions of secondary workers are analyzed.
Several researchers have reported that the labor
force participation rates of wives, who are
frequently the lesser earning or secondary
workers in families, are highly responsive to
changes in tax rates (2, 3, 7). By taxing the
first dollar of these workers' income at the
same rate as the last dollar of their spouses'
income, they are discouraged from entering
or fully participating in the paid labor force.
Proponents of the 1981 tax reform argued
that by deducting part of the secondary
worker's earnings from taxable income, labor
force decisions of couples would be less dis­torted
by tax considerations.
Implications. Figure 3 illustrates the mar­riage
tax penalties and bonuses projected for
1983 based on the 1981 tax reforms. Overall,
the penalties and bonuses will be reduced,
narrowing the gap between the tax liability
of married couples and equal-income, single
taxpayers. The marriage penalties will con­tinue
to be greatest for two-earner couples
with similar or equal division of earnings
between spouses, but unlike the old tax sched­ules,
no two-earner couples with taxable
income under $30,000 will be subject to a
marriage penalty in excess of $500. At higher
income levels, the extra tax liability of two­earner
couples over that of two single persons
will be significantly reduced from the 1969-81
levels. In 1983, for example, the projected
marriage penalty for two married workers
each earning $25,000 in taxable income is
less than $1,500, compared with almost
$3,000 under the previous tax schedule.
8
Not only do the 1981 tax reforms change
the relative tax liability of two-earner mar­ried
couples and single taxpayers, but also
the relative tax liability of two-earner and
one-earner married couples. Under the pro­visions
of the 1981 tax reforms, married
couples with equal income do not neces­sarily
have equal tax liability. Although the
reforms reduce the tax rates for all married
couples, two-earner couples benefit from a
new deduction not available to one-earner
couples. Couples with two earners pay less
tax than single-earner couples with the same
income because 10 percent of the lesser earn­ing
spouse's income, up to a maximum in­come
of $30,000, is tax deductible.
Examples of the differences in tax liability
of equal-income, one-earner and two-earner
married couples are projected for 1983 in the
table on page 10. The differences constitute
a "workers' bonus" for two-earner married
couples compared with one-earner couples
with the same income. The bonus is greater
the more similar the division of earnings be­tween
spouses. The tax liability of a one­earner
married couple earning $50,000 will
be more than $400 greater than that of a two­earner
married couple in which one spouse
earns $10,000 and the other earns $40,000,
and more than $1 ,000 greater than that of a
two-earner couple in which each spouse earns
$25,000.
Conclusions
The Federal income tax reforms of 1981
reduce the differences between the tax liability
of two-earner married couples and two single
taxpayers filing as individuals. In this respect,
the reforms support the goal of marriage
neutrality in the Federal income tax system.
Although income tax liability is still influenced
by marital status, the marriage penalty for
two-earner couples has been significantly
reduced.
In deciding in favor of marriage neutrality,
Congress implicitly decided in the 1981 re­forms
to partially relax the goal of equal
taxation of married couples with equal in­come.
Recognizing the added expenses of
employment in two-earner couples and the
home production and leisure that may be
foregone, provisions of the 1981 reform allow
two-earner couples to adjust their taxable
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Marriage Tax Penalties and Bonuses, 1983
$ Thous.
6
-1
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
0
Marriage
"Penalty"
Marriage
" Bonus"
25
,,..
-,""
,.,.,..-------
------ 70-30 80-20
Combined taxable income of both spouses ($ Thous.)
Additional tax liability of married couples compared to tax liability of 2 single taxpayers with same combined
income, by income split and level of income, projected for 1983 under 1981 tax reform.
Figure 3
WINTER 1982
100
9
Workers' bonus, 19831
Share of combined income of lesser earning spouse
Family income
10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Dollars
$ 0 •• • •• ••••• 0 • ••• •• 0 0 0 0 0
$ 5,000 • • ••• •••••••• • 0 • • 7 8 18 25 30
$ 10,000 ••• • •• • •• ••• • 0 0 • • 15 20 46 61 77
$ 15,000 0 • •• • • • 0 . 0 • •• 0 • • 0 15 12 39 65 92
$ 20,000 . ............ . ... 42 82 124 165 206
$ 25,000 .. .. .... ... ... .. . 68 133 193 253 312
$ 30,000 •• • • 0. 0 0 . 0 •• • •• 0. 92 299 256 502 420
$ 40,000 • 0. 0 • • • 0 • •• • •• • • • 148 295 663 589 736
$ 50,000 ••• •• ••• ••• 0 •••• • 181 418 628 838 1,047
$ 75,000 • • •• •• 0 • •••• • •• 0 . 346 692 1,038 1,385 1,385
$100,000 • • • • • • • ••• • • 0 • •• 0 504 1,009 1,513 1,513 1,513
1 Difference in tax liability of equal-earning married couples with one earner versus two earners, by share of
combined income of the lesser earning spouse, projected to 1983, based on 1981 tax reform.
income to lower their tax liability relative
to that of equal income, one-earner couples.
The goals of progressivity, equal taxation
of married couples with equal income, and
marriage neutrality cannot be met simul-taneously
in the Federal income tax system.
The 1981 tax reforms represent an adjust­ment
in these goals to reflect the growing
importance and impact of two-earner couples
in the U.S. economic and social systems.
REFERENCES
1. Barrett, Nancy S. 1981. Working couples
could use the break. Washington Post,
March 19, p. A23.
2. Kosters, M. 1969. Effects of an income tax
on labor supply. In Arnold C. Harberger
and Martin J. Bailey, editors. The Tax­ation
of Income from Capital. The
Brookings Institution.
3. Leuthold, Jane H. 1979. Taxes and the
two-earner family: Impact on the work
decision. Public Finance Quarterly
7(2) :14 7-161.
4 . Mcintyre, Michael J., and Oliver Oldman.
1977. Treatment of the family. In
Joseph A. Pechman, editor. Compre­hensive
Income Taxation. The Brook­ings
Institution.
5. O'Neill, June Avis. 1980. The tax treat­ment
of married and single taxpayers.
Journal of Home Economics 72(4):
32-34.
6. Rosen, Harvey S. 1976. A methodology
for evaluating tax reform proposals.
10
Journal of Public Economics. Vol. 6,
pp. 105-121.
7. 1976. Tax illusion and the labor
supply of married women. Review of
Economics and Statistics. Vol. 58, pp.
167-172.
8. 1977. Is it time to abandon joint
filing? National Tax Journal 30( 4):
423-428.
9. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. 1975. Projections of the
population of the United States: 1975
to 2050. Current Population Reports.
Series P-25, No. 601.
10. 1979. Statistical Abstract of the
United States, 1 OOth Edition.
11. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. 1981. Marital and
family characteristics of the labor force
March 1979. Special Labor Force
Report 237.
12. White House Conference on Families.
1980. Listening to America's Families­action
for the 80's.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
SINGLE-PARENT HOUSEHOLDS: AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH
By Isabelle S. Payton1
The likelihood that a child will live with just
one parent for part or all of his/her childhood
has increased during the past decade. Between
March 1970 and March 1980, the proportion
of children living with one parent increased
from 11 to 19 percent. The number of children
living with one parent rose by nearly 4 million
to 11.3 million (8). Some researchers have
predicted that more than a third of the chil­dren
born in the seventies will spend part of
their childhood with just one parent (4, 14).
In 1980, there were 5.9 million primary
one-parent families2 and 9 out of 10 of these
families were maintained by the mother. Of
the mothers, 44 percent were divorcees, 27
percent were married but legally or informally
separated from their husbands, 16 percent had
never been married, and 13 percent were
widows (21).
The economic situation among single-parent
households varies with the sex and race of the
parent. In March 1980, for example, a higher
proportion of female-headed, single-parent
families than male-headed, single-parent famil­ies
were classified as living in poverty ( 40 and
16 pet, respectively). In 1979, the median in­come
of single-parent families maintained by
a female was $8,100 compared to $15,300
for families maintained by a male. The median
family income of single-parent families headed
by the mother was $6,400 for blacks and
$9,200 for whites (9).
The image of the single-parent household
that generally comes to mind is that of a di­vorced
woman living alone with her children.
Considerable variation exists, however, in the
structure and composition of single-parent
households. In March 1980, for example, about
1.4 million female-headed families with their
own minor children also included at least one
other relative (21). Epstein and Jennings (7)
noted that other relatives were more likely to
1 Social science analyst with the Family Economics
Research Group, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
2 A primary family includes among its members _the
person or couple who maintains the household , 1.e.,
householder( s ).
WINTER 1982
live in one-parent households than in two­parent
households. In addition, close to 0.8
million single-parent families were living as
subfamilies3 (21 ). Anderson-Khleif (1) and
Bane and Weiss (4) found that female single
parents often move in with their parent(s).
Williams (23) focused on elderly black fami­ies
and found that black female heads tended
to have more young relatives living with
them than their white counterparts. Other
researchers have observed that elderly black
females formed two- or three-generation house­holds
by including young children or single
parents and their children in their homes (2,
3, 6, 10, 15, 22).
This paper will focus on differences in struc­ture
and composition of households headed
by single parents. A typology for classification
of such households into 12 categories is pre­sented
and then applied to data.
Typology
Two factors provide the basis of the typol­ogy:
(1) the presence or absence of additional
adults and (2) the relationship of the head to
the children (table 1). Households are classified
as modified nuclear (mod-nuclear) or modified
extended (mod-extended) depending on the
first factor-the presence or absence of addi­tional
adults.4 If a household consists of only
the head and children, regardless of their
relationship to one another, it is classified as
a mod-nuclear single-parent household (types
1 to 3 in table 1). If, in addition to the head
and children, another adult(s) is present in
the home, the household is considered a mod­extended
single-parent household (types 4 to
12).
3 A subfamily is a married couple with or with­out
children, or one parent with own single children
under 18 years old, living with and related to the
householders.
4 The term "modified" is used because the house­holds
are one-parent households and they may in­clude
nonrelated persons: nonrelated children in the
case of mod-nuclear and/or nonrelated adults in the
case of mod-extended.
11
Table 1. Typology of single-parent headed households
Type
MODIFIED NUCLEAR (only head and children
in the home)1
1. Natural parent2
Own children-all related to the head by
blood, marriage, or adoption.
2. Surrogate parent
Other children-all children other than
the head's own
3. Natural-surrogate parent
Own and other children
MODIFIED EXTENDED (head, children, and
additional adults in the home)'
Natural parent-own children
4.' Own adult children-all adults related to the
head by blood, marriage, or adoption
5. Other adults-all adults other than the
head's own adult children
6. Multi-adults-own adult children and other
adults
Surrogate parent-other children
7. Own adult children-all adults related to the
head by blood, marriage, or adoption
8. Other adults-all adults other than the
head's own adult children
9. Multi-adults-own adult children and other
adults
Natural-surrogate parent-own and other
children
10. Own adult children-all adults related to
the head by blood, marriage, or adoption
11. Other adults-all adults other than the
head's own adult children
12. Multi-adults-own adult children and other
adults
Example
Divorced, separated, widowed, or never-married parent raising
his/her own children.
Lone adult raising his/her grandchildren, younger siblings,
nieces, nephews, cousins, or foster children.
Divorced, separated, widowed, or never-married parent rais­ing
his/her own children and grandchildren, younger siblings,
nieces, nephews, cousins, or foster children.
Divorced, separated, widowed, or never-married parent shar­ing
his/her home with only own children and adult children.
Divorced, separated, widowed, or never-married parent shar­ing
his/her home with own children, and other adults, such as
siblings, parents, nieces, nephews, cousins, and/or friends of
either sex.
Divorced, separated, widowed, or never-married parent shar­ing
his/her home with own children and adult children and
other adults, such as siblings, parents, nieces, nephews,
cousins and/or friends of either sex; spouses of adult children
and/or other relatives.
Adult head sharing his/her home with grandchildren, younger
siblings, nieces, nephews, cousins, or foster children and
adult children.
Adult head sharing his/her home with grandchildren, younger
siblings, nieces, nephews, cousins, or foster children and
other adults, such as siblings, parents, nieces, nephews,
cousins, and/or friends of either sex.
Adult head sharing his/her home with grandchildren, younger
siblings, nieces, nephews, cousins, or foster children and
adult children and other adults, such as siblings, parents,
nieces, nephews, cousins, and/or friends of either sex; spouses
of adult children and/or other relatives.
Divorced, separated, widowed, or never-married parent shar·
ing his/her home with own children and grandchildren,
siblings, nieces, cousins, or foster -children and adult children.
Divorced, separated, widowed, or never-married parent shar­ing
his/her home with own children and grandchildren, sib­lings,
nieces, nephews, cousins, or foster children and other
adults, such as siblings, parents, nieces, nephews, cousins,
and/or friends of either sex.
Divorced, separated, widowed, or never-married parent shar·
ing his/her home with own children and grandchildren, sib­lings,
nieces, nephews, cousins, or foster children and other
adults, such as siblings, parents, nieces, nephews, cousins,
and/or friends of either sex; spouses of adult children and/or
other relatives.
1 Children are all persons less than 18 years of age regardless of their relationship to the head. Adults are all
persons 18 or more years of age.
2 All of the children are the head's own children; this is considered as the traditional nuclear single-parent
household.
12 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Mod-nuclear and mod-extended single-parent
households are subdivided on the basis of the
second factor-the relationship of the head to
the children. The single-parent may be desig­nated
as a natural parent, a surrogate parent,
or a natural-surrogate parent .. A natural parent
is one who considers all children in the home
as hisjher own, including adopted and step­children.
Within the mod-nuclear group, house­holds
of this composition are considered as
traditional nuclear single-parent households
(type 1 in table 1). A surrogate parent consid­ers
none of the children as his/her own. A
natural-surrogate parents considers at least one
child as his/her own, and at least one as an
"other" child.
Based on the relationship of the additional
adult(s) to the head, mod-extended house­holds
may be further classified according to
inclusion of own adult children, other adult(s),
or multi-adults. An adult who is the head's
own child is an own adult child. The head's
parents; adult siblings, nieces, nephews, or
grandchildren; and friends are examples of
other adults. Multi-adult households include
two or more adults in addition to the head­one
who is an adult child of the head and
one who is an "other" adult. Three-generation
families containing one- or two-parent sub­families
would be included in types 5 to 12.
The typology was applied to the Con­sumer
Expenditure Survey data5 (see insert
below). Depending on who was designated as
head of the household, some households of
identical composition were excluded in the
classification of single-parent-headed house­holds.
For example, if natural parents and
their child were living with one of their parents
(the child's grandparent) and designated that
senior individual as head, the household was
considered a single-parent (surrogate)- headed
household and was included. If one of the
parent-couple members was designated as head,
the household was considered a two-parent
household and was not included. In situations
5 Data derived from the Interview Survey Detailed
Public Use Tape No. 2, 1972-73 Consumer Expendi­ture
Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Depart·
ment of Labor. For this article, only those households
that were headed by a person who was at least 18 years
of age were included. The householders were urban
dwellers and, at the time of the survey, had been in
existence as a unit at least 1 year.
DATA SOURCES ON SINGLE-PARENT HOUSEHOLDS
The most commonly used source of data for research on single-parent households is
the Current Population Survey (CPS), conducted monthly by ~h~ Bureau of the Census.
The primary purpose of the CPS is to provide la?or fore~ statistics for ~he U.S. Depar_t­ment
of Labor but it also provides a wealth of mformatwn on the social and economic
status of the U.S. population. The basic unit of' obse~ation ~n the CPS ~s the household­defned
as all individuals living together in a dwellmg umt. Tabulatwns and research
bas~d on the CPS data have provided much informati~n . on single-parent households,
including comparisons with the number and charactenstics of. two-pru::ent households
(5-B, 11-13, 16-21). Published CPS data, ho~ever,_ do not provide detail on household
composition and have limited use in explonng different types of households headed
by the single parent.
Data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES) con~ucted by the Bureau of
L b St t . t· f the us Department of Labor are a particularly good base for the
a or a IS ICS o · · . · · th CES ·
study of households of varying compositions. The umt of observatwn m e IS
t h e consumer um· t- d e f'm ed as two or more persons . (relat.e d .o r unrelated) who poo·1l
t h er·r m· come an d d raw from a common fund for therr maJor Item. s of expense. Detai
· ·d d h member including his/her age, sex, and relation to the head-the
IS proVl e on eac • · dd' · th CES
person d esi· gnat e d as sue h by the other members of the. umt. In a Itlon, e pro-vides
detailed data on income characteristics and expenditure patterns.
WINTER 1982
13
where one household contained two single­parent
components, each depending econom­ically
on the other, the household was iden­tified
as one single-parent household rather
than two.
Single-Parent-Headed Households in the CES
By use of the typology, 1 ,022 households
headed by single parents were classified among
the 19,975 households of the Consumer Ex­penditure
Survey. Only 32 percent of the
households were headed by blacks; whereas 68
percent of the households were headed by
whites or other races. Exactly 90 perc~nt of
the households were headed by female single
parents; the remaining 10 percent were headed
by male single parents. The percentages are
comparable to those reported in the 1972 and
1973 CPS. Of the primary single-parent fam­ilies,
about 32 percent were headed by blacks,
and 91 percent were headed by females (16,
17).
The single parent with only his/her own
children (type 1)-the household most typi­cally
identified as the single-parent family­accounted
for only 56 percent of the total
single-parent-headed households classified in
the typology (table 2). Single parents head­ing
households of alternate structure, there­fore,
accounted for 44 percent.
Mod-nuclear households, or households
consisting of the head and children only (types
1 to 3), made up two-thirds of the households
headed by single parents. The remaining one­third
were mod-extended households (types
4 to 12), which consisted of another adult
Table 2. Households headed ~~ single parents by type of household and race
Household type Entire
sample
Black White
Percent
Total ............................... . 100 100 100
14
Modified nuclear' ........ . .. . ...... ... . 67 67 66
1. Natural-parent' ............... . 56 52 56
2. Surrogate parent3
•. ••••••••••••• 5 6 5
3. Natural-surrogate parent• ......... . 6 9 5
Modified extended5
•.••• •••• ••••••••••• 33 33 34
Natural parent6
••••••••.•.••••••.••• 16 11 18
4. Own adult children ............. . 12 8 13
5. Other adults ................. . 3 3 3
6. Multi-adults .................. . 1 C) 2
Surrogate parent3
•••••••..••••••••••• 9 10 9
7. Own adult children ............. . 4 6 5
8. Other adults ......... . ....... . 3 3 2
9. Multi-adults .................. . 2 1 2
Natural-surrogate parent• .............. . 8 12 7
10. Own adult children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 10 5
11. Other adults ................. . 1 ( 8 ) 1
12. Multi-adults . ................. . (' ) ( 8 ) (. )
1 Only head and children in the home. Children are all persons less than 18 years of age regardless of their relationship to the head.
2 All of the children are the head's own children; this is considered as the traditional nuclear single-parent household.
3 None of the children is the head's own.
4 At least 1 child is the head's own and at least 1 is an "other" child.
5 The head, children, and additional adults in the home. Adults are all persons 18 or more years of age,
6 All of the children are the head's own children.
7 No households.
8 Less than 1 percent.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
in addition to the head and children. The
majority of the mod-extended households
included only those adults who were the
head's older children; only a few households
had at least one own adult child and at least
one other adult.
The same proportion of tilack single parents
as whites headed mod-nuclear households.
Similarly both were equally as likely to head
households that contained another adult (ex­tended
households). In both mod-nuclear and
mod-extended natural-parent households, how­ever,
a greater proportion of white single par­ents
than black single parents were living in
a situation where all the children in the home
were his/her own.
Just as it is important to recognize the
growing number of children who are living at
some point in their lives with just one parent,
it is equally important to recognize the diver­sity
of household structures that these chi­dren
may experience. Single parents who
head households, particularly black single
parents, probably use these alternate house­hold
structures to ameliorate social and eco­nomic
problems, especially those of child care
and housing. It is important that educators
and researchers consider how this diversity in
household structure might affect the resource
management needs of surrogate as well as
natural single parents who head households.
REFERENCES
1. Anderson-Khleif, Susan. 1979. Strategies,
problems, and policy issues for single
parent housing. Prepared for the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban De­velopment.
In cooperation with the
Joint Center for Urban Studies of MIT
and Harvard University. [Unpublished
manuscript.]
2. Aschenbrenner, Joyce. 1973. Extended
families among black Americans. Journal
of Comparative Family Studies 4(2):
257-268.
3. 1978. Continuities and variations
in black family structure. In Demitri B.
Shimkin, Edith M. Shimkin, and Dennis
A. Frate, editors. The Extended Family
in Black Societies. [Mouton Publishers,
The Hague.] Aldine Publishing Co.,
Chicago, ill.
4. Bane, Mary Jo and RobertS. Weiss. 1980.
Alone together-The world of single­parent
families. American Demographics
2(5):11-15, 48.
5. Bianchi Suzanne M. and Reynolds Farley.
1979'. Racial differences in family living
arrangements and economic well-being:
An analysis of recent trends. Journal of
Marriage and the Family 41(3) :537-~~1.
6. Billingsley, Andrew. 1968. Black Famllies
in White America. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J. .
7. Epstein, Marsha Freeman, and Cynthia L.
Jennings. 1979. Child care: Arrange-
WINTER 1982
ments and costs. Family Economics Re­view,
fall issue, pp. 3-6.
8. Grossman, Allyson Sherman. 1981. Work­ing
mothers and their children. Special
Labor Force Reports-Summaries.
Monthly Labor Review 104(5):49-54.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
9. Grossman, Allyson Sherman, Howard
Hayghe, and Beverly L. Johnson. 1981.
Children, working mothers, and their
families. [Unpublished manuscript and
personal communication.] U.S. Depart­ment
of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statis­tics.
10. Hill, Robert B. 1977. Informal Adoption
Among Black Families. National Urban
League.
11. Johnson, Beverly L. 1978. Women who
head families, 1970-77: Their numbers
rose, income lagged. Monthly Labor
Review 101(2):32-37. U.S. Department
of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
12. 1980. Single-parent families.
Family Economics Review, summer/fall
issue, pp. 22-27.
13. Kline, Kristin L. 1974. Other families:
Families without spouses. Family Eco­nomics
Review, summer issue, pp. 18-20.
14. Masnick, George and Mary Jo Bane, and
others. 1980. The Nation's Families:
1960-1990. Joint Center for Urban
15
Studies of MIT and Harvard University,
Cambridge, Mass.
15. Stack, Carol B. 1974. All Our Kin: Strate­gies
for Survival in a Black Community.
Harper & Row, New York, N.Y.
16. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. 1973. Household and
family characteristics: March 1972.
Current Population Reports, Series P-20,
No. 246.
17. 1973. Household and family
characteristics: March 1973. Current
Population Reports, Series P-20, No.
258.
18. 1980. Marital and living arrange-ments:
March 1979. Current Population
Reports, Series P-20, No. 349.
19. 1980. Household and family
characteristics: March 1979. Current
Population Reports, Series P-20, No.
352.
20. 1980. Money income and poverty
status of families and persons in the
United States: 1979 (Advance Report).
Current Population Reports, Series P-60,
No.125.
21. 1981. Marital and living arrange-ments,
March 1980. Current Population
Reports, Series P-20, No. 365.
22. Williams, Allen J., Jr. and Robert Stock­ton.
1973. Black family structures and
functions: An empirical examination of
some suggestions made by Billingsley.
Journal of Marriage and the Family
35(1):39-49.
23. Williams, Blanch Spruiel. 1980. Charac­teristics
of the Black Elderly-1980.
Statistical Reports on Older Americans.
DHEW Publication No. (OHDS) 80-
20057. U.S. Health and Human Services,
Office of Human Development Services.
HOUSEHOLDS AND FAMILIES, BY TYPE: MARCH 1980
According to the results of the March 1980
Current Population Survey there were 79.1
million households in the United States. This
represents an increase of 15.7 million house­holds
(25 pet) since 1970, or an average annual
increase of 1.6 million households over the
10-year span. Between 1970 and 1980, the
number of nonfamily households, those main­tained
by a person living alone or with un­related
individuals, increased by 73 percent
compared with a 13-percent increase in the
number of family households. The dramatic
growth in the number of nonfamily house­holds
appeared to be a function of the grow­ing
tendency for young adults to live inde­pendently
from their parents before forming
families of their own, and for older persons
16
to continue to maintain their own homes
after their families dissolve. Despite the rapid
growth in the number of nonfamily house­holds,
the vast majority of households (7 4
pet) still contain families.
The growing number of nonfamily house­holds
and the declining birth rate have led to
a decline in average household size. Average
household size in 1980 was 2.75 persons,
down from 3.14 persons in 1970.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census, 1980, Households and families, by
type: March 1980 (advance report), Current Popu­lation
Reports, Population Characteristics, Series
P-20, No. 357.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
COST OF DOING LAUNDRY
By Joan C. Courtless1
The Cost of Doing Laundry at Home
The cost of doing laundry at home depends
on the amount spent for laundry equipment·
the cost of operating the equipment includin~
gas, electricity, and water; and the c;st of laun­dry
supplies. Each of these contributing costs
has increase~ since 1975, when laundry costs
were last estimated for the Washington, D.C.,
area (7). Water and gas for heating water gen­erally
have increased the most although the cost
of equipment (washers and dryers) has also risen
substantially (see table 1 on p. 21).
Costs per load were higher overall in 1981
than they were in 1975. Based on six full loads
per week, the cost per load for washing and dry­mg
was $1.05 in 1981, up 59 percent from the
cost per load of $0.66 in 1975 (see table 2 on
p. 21). This comparison is based on assumptions
made to reflect common laundering practices
for each year; the assumptions for 1981 were
slightly different from those for 1975. In 1981,
for example, repairs were assumed to be a
smaller percentage of the cost of equipment.
Households were assumed to be washing in
warm rather than hot water, which reduced
the amount of gas needed to heat the water
but increased the need for laundry products.
The amount allocated towards repairs was
lowered from 5 percent (used in 1975) of the
purchase price of the washer and dryer to 2.5
percent. A survey of owners' experiences with
repair costs indicated this was a more realistic
figure (2).
In 1975, the cost of gas to heat the wash
water to a "hot" temperature was included in
the estimates. A 1976 survey, however, indi­cated
that only one in four loads is washed in
hot water (5). The 1981 estimates, therefore,
provide for gas to heat wash water to a "warm"
temperature. Several reasons account for the
use of less hot water: High energy costs, con­sumer
awareness of care requirements for
specific fibers and fabric finishes, and changes
1 Family economist, Family Economics Research
Group, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture.
WINTER 1982
in e.quipment by manufacturers because of
requrred energy labels.
The tripling of the cost of electricity and
gas since 1970 (12) has caused consumers to
become more conservation minded in their
energy-intense activities at home. About 95
percent of the total energy used in washing
clothes is used in heating water ( 4, 9). Efforts
to minimize utility bills, thereby resulting in
energy conservation in the laundry process
include the use of lower water temperatures:
On the average, a warm wash and cold rinse
cycle reduces energy usage by two-thirds over
~ hot wash and warm rinse cycle (4, 9). Switch­mg
from a warm to a cold rinse saves approxi­mately
one-third of the total energy require­ments
(4).
Many garments made of synthetics and
polyester/cotton blends have care labels that
specify the use of warm wash water. Warm
wash temperature is usually recommended so
that the flame-resistant characteristics of
treated sleepwear may be preserved.
The use of lower water temperatures will
continue to increase in the future. Since May
1980, an energy cost rating has been required
on labels of new clothes washers (see insert on
page 18). To achieve a favorable energy cost
rating, washer manufacturers have taken several
steps. These may include eliminating the warm
rinse option; a preprogramed selection of warm
wash and cold rinse; and reducing the amount
of hot water in the mixing valves. If the user
manually selects other temperatures for a load,
preprogramed washers will automatically reset
for a warm wash and cold rinse for succeeding
loads. Reducing the amount of hot water in
a "warm" setting from a hot-to-cold ratio of
60/40 to 50/50, or even 40/60, will lower
energy costs because less water is heated. The
" warm " wa t er t emperat ure can reasonably
vary from 80°F to l10°F depending on the
mixing valve setting, hot water temperature
as it reaches the washing machine, and ground
water temperature (which varies seasonally).
Because the effectiveness of all laundry
products is reduced as water temperature
decreases, increased use of a variety of laun­dry
supplies becomes desirable with a warm
17
18
ENERGY GUIDE LABELS
Manufacturers of washing machines are required, as part of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975, to provide energy guide labels for clothes washers manufac­tured
after May 19, 1980. Information on the label includes the estimated annual cost
of operating the appliance and the range of operating costs of competing brands and
models of similar size and features. These estimated energy costs are based on U.S. Gov­ernment
standard tests and a national average electric rate of 4.97¢ per kWh. The labels
also provide tables from which the consumer can predict annual energy costs based on the
number of loads of clothes washed per week and local utility rates, with either a gas or
electric water heater. Current annual energy costs for washers with water heated by elec­tricity
range from $34 to $163; for washers with water heated by gas, estimates range
from $13 to $58.
The Federal Trade Commission exempted clothes dryers from energy guide labeling
because annual operating costs varied only $4 for gas dryers ($8 to $12) and $5 for
electric dryers ($39 to $44).
Estimates on the scale are based
on a nattonal average electnc
rate of 4.97c per kilowatt hour
and a natural gas rate of
36.7c per therm.
Model with Model with
lowesl $58 highesl
energy cost energy cost
$22 $67
'f' THIS MODEL 'f' 'f'
Gila Wa~r Heater
~~~~wilh $ energy cost 22
$20
Model wilh
highest
energy cost I THIS y MODEL tm'"t.M'!.!Ih'i''
$24
y
Your coat wtll vary depending on your local energy rate and how you
UM the product. Thit eMrg~ colt Is bu.d on US Go.,.rnmenl llandtrd lest•
How much will this model cost you to run yearly?
wtth an •etrlc w.ter ...... , with 1 gas watar Mater
-LoMo ol .... - Cool pot
kllowott
hour
Loada of
2 4 6 8 12 clo- 2 4 6 8 12
~ $7 $14 $21 $29 $42
.. $14 $29 $43 $57 $85
.. $21$43-$84 $86$129
.. $29 $57 $86 $114 $172
1~ $36 $71 $107 $143 $214
12¢ $43 $85 $128 $172 $256
•-k
C .. l per 1~ $2 $4 $8 S8 $12
:~oormeubte ~ U S8 ~~ $16 $24
1HI) 3~ $6 $11 $17 $22 $34
40¢ $8 $15 $23 $30 $48
5~ $10 $19 1211 $48 $58
~ $12 $22 $34 "" $88
AA your salesperson or local utility for the energy rate (cost per kilowatt
hour or !harm) in your area, and for estimated costs ~ you have a propane or
oil water heater.
Important Aemov•l of this label before consumer purchase Is a violation or
-all ... (42 u.s.c. 6302)
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
water wash (4, 9). Hard water also signifi­cantly
reduces the performance of detergents,
bleaches, and fabric softeners; detergents use
part of their cleaning capability to soften the
water. About 85 percent of U.S. homes are in
hard-water areas but only 10 percent have
mechanical water softeners. (1 0). Fabric soft­eners
are used in 7 out of 10 American house­holds
( 1). The 1981 cost estimates for laundry
supplies given in this article assume the need
for a larger amount of detergent than in 1975,
and the addition of both a water softener and
a fabric softener. The addition of the water
and fabric softeners in 1981 is the primary
reason for the large percentage increase in the
cost of supplies between 1975 and 1981.
The cost per load varies by the water level
and the number of loads done per week. For
smaller loads requiring less water, the costs
of supplies, water, and gas to heat the water
decrease. The 1981 estimates for washing
and drying laundry at home are given in detail
in table 3 (p. 22). Following are descriptions of
the methodology used to calculate costs in 1981.
Cost of equipment. This cost includes the
original price, sales tax, finance charges for
24 months-amortized over 11 years for the
washer and 14 years for the dryer ( 11 )-and
an additional 2.5 percent of the purchase price
to cover the cost of repairs per year. Estimates
for 1981 costs were based on an automatic
washer costing $365 ($455 including tax and
finance charges) and an electric dryer costing
$290 ($362 with tax and finance charges).
Per-load costs were determined by dividing
first by 52 to get a weekly figure, and then by
the number of loads washed per week. The
method of estimating the cost of equipment
assumes that the service life of the appliance
and its repair costs are the same regardless of
how often the appliance is used. Therefore,
the cost per load decreases as the number of
loads per week increases. A shortened service
life or additional repair costs because of
increased use of the equipment would slightly
change the cost per load.
Cost of operation. Operating costs include
electricity to run the appliances, water, and
gas to heat the wash water to a warm temper­ature
and were based on 1981 Washington,
D.c.,' area utility rates. The cost of heating
WINTER 1982
water by electricity was not estimated for the
costs of doing laundry at home because annual
energy costs for washers average 2lh times as
much with electric as with gas water heaters.2
The total amount of water used, by a washer
at full capacity, was estimated at 48 gallons
(4). The cost of water was $2.22 per thousand
gallons. Of the 48 gallons, 22 are used in the
wash cycle (4). A 50/50 hot-to-cold ratio was
used and a ground water temperature of 60° F
was assumed. The cost of gas to heat 11 gallons
from 60°F to 140°F at a rate of 43.3¢ per
therm was included in calculating the operating
costs.
The amount of electricity required to oper­ate
the washer for one cycle was estimated at
0.22 kWh (4), and to operate an electric dryer
for about 30 minutes of drying time, 2.65
kWh were required (6). If two loads are dried
consecutively, the second load takes less elec­tricity
because the dryer interior is preheated
(3). The rate used was 5.9¢ per kWh. Dryer
costs were not estimated separately because
most (8 out of 10) American households with
an automatic washer also have a dryer (4).
Cost of supplies. The cost for a detergent
concentration of 0.203 , (rather than the 0.15
considered satisfactory in hot water), was in­cluded
in the cost of supplies. (A recom­mended
1-1/4 cup per load would be increased
to 1-2/3 cup to obtain a 0.20 concentration.)
The cost of detergent was based on an average
of six products, including liquids and powders.
Cost of fabric softener was based on an average
of six products including liquids and sheets
used in the dryer. Liquid chlorine bleach was
included in supplies. Some loads probably
would be washed without bleach, which would
slightly lower the cost of supplies per load.
Self-Service Laundry Costs
Because the purchase of an automatic
washer and dryer costs several hundred dollars,
2 Based on information from energy guide labels
on 40 models of automatic washers from 7 manu­facturers,
summer 1981.
3 A solution of 0.20 percent detergent and 99.80
percent water.
19
some families prefer to use a self-service laun­dry.
The cost of doing laundry this way in­eludes
the charges for washing and drying,
laundry supplies, and transportation. In the
Washington, D.C., area typical charges are 75¢
for a washer load and 75¢ for 30 minutes of
dryer time. Supplies would cost the same as
for laundry done at home, provided they are
brought from home. Transportation costs
currently average 25¢ per mile (8). When two
or more loads are done each week, or when
round-trip travel exceeds 2 miles, the cost of
doing laundry is greater at a commercial
facility than at home (table 4, p. 22).
REFERENCES
1. Barrett, John H. 1980. Laundry aids: Tools
for the washday alchemist. Detergents­In-
Depth, '80, pp. 55-62. Proceedings
from the fourth biennial symposium of
The Soap and Detergent Association.
[San Francisco, Calif., April 1980.]
2. Consumers Union. 1980. Washing ma­chines.
Consumer Reports 45(11):679-
684.
3. Hurlocker, Mary M. 1977. From personal
communication in February 1980. South
Dakota State University, Agricultural
Experiment Station.
4. Levins, W.P. 1980. Energy and the Laundry
Process, ORNL/CON-41. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Union Carbide
Corporation, for the U.S. Department
of Energy. National Technical Informa­tion
Service, Springfield, Va.
5. Lyng, Anne L. 1978. Consumers are the
final product judges. Detergents-In­Depth,
'78, pp. 70-74. Proceedings from
the third biennial symposium of The
Soap and Detergent Association. [St.
Louis, Mo., April1978.]
6. Lovett, Denver. 1977. Appliance Energy
Efficiency Improvement Target for
Clothes Dryers for FEA. National
Bureau of Standards.
20
7. Mark, Lucille F. 1975. The cost of doing
laundry at home. Family Economics
Review. Fall issue, pp. 32-33. U.S. De­partment
of Agriculture, Agricultural
Research Service.
8. New York Times. 1981. Car cost study
by American Automobile Association.
June 4 issue, p. D15.
9. Schrage, Joy. 1980. Home laundry: Appli­ance
systems for the '80s. Detergents­In-
Depth, '80, pp. 42-43. Proceedings
from the fourth biennial symposium
of The Soap and Detergent Association.
[San Francisco, Calif., April 1980.]
10. Steinberg, Howard. 1976. Water condi­tioners,
presoaks, and boosters. Deter­gents-
In-Depth, '76, pp. 24-29. Proceed­ings
from a symposium sponsored by
The Soap and Detergent Association.
[Chicago, Ill., April1976.]
11. Tippett, Katherine S., and Ruffin, Marilyn
Doss. 1975. Service-life expectancy of
household appliances. Family Economics
Review. Summer issue, pp. 3-6. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Research Service.
12. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Statistics. 1970 and 1981. Consumer
Price Index Detailed Reports.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Table 1. Average costs ~or laundry equipment, utilities, and laundry supplies,
Washmgton, D.C., area, 1975 and 19811
Equipment
Washer
Item
Purchase price, tax, finance charges
Repairs and depreciation2
•••••••••••
Dryer
Purchase price, tax, finance charges .....
Repairs and depreciation2
••••••• • • • •
Operation
Electricity, per kWh ................ .
Gas, per therm . . . . . . ............. .
Water (and sewer), per 1,000 gallons ..... .
Supplies
Detergent, 49·oz box ........... ..... .
Liquid chlorine bleach, per gallon ....... .
1975 1981
. ------ Current dollars -------
304.75 454.53
42.94 52.68
228.80 361.56
27.78 34.87
.051 .059
.250 .433
1.08 2.22
1.45 1.73
.93 .94
Increase
Percent
49
23
58
25
16
73
106
19
1
M
1 The Consumer Price Index for "All Items," Washington, D.C., area, increased by 66 percent between 1975 and
ay 1981.
2 Annual costs.
Table 2. Cost per load1 for laundry done at home in the Washington, D.C., area,
1975 and 1981
Item 1975 1981
- - -- - - - - - Current dollars
Equipment2 0.23 0.28
Washer ... .14 .17
Dryer .09 .11
Operation• .26 .33
Electricity .16 .17
Gas .05 .05
Water .05 .11
Supplies• .17 .44
Detergent .12 .20
Bleach .05 .05
Fabric softener (') .06
Water softener ( 5 ) .13
Total .66 1.05
Increase
Percent
22
21
22
27
6
0
120
159
67
0
( 5 )
( 5 )
59
1 Assumes 6 full loads per week.
2 1981 estimates are based on a new automatic washer costing $455 ($305 in 1975) and a new electric dryer
costing $362 ($229 in 1975) on a 24-month installment plan, with average life expectancy of 11 years for the
washer and 14 years for the dryer, and with 2.5 percent (5 pet of 1975) of the cost of appliances allowed for repairs.
'Includes cost of electricity to operate washer and dryer, water, and gas to heat wash water to hot (1975) or
warm (1981) temperature. Based on 1975 and 1981 rates in the Washington, D.C., area.
4 Detergent, liquid chlorine bleach at 1975 and 1981 prices; fabric softener and water softener at 1981 prices in
Washington, D.C., area.
5 These products were not used in the 1975 calculations.
21
WINTER 1982
Table 3. Estimated cost per load of laundry washed and dried at home in
the Washington, D.C., area, 1981
Number of loads done at home per week
Item
3 4 5 6 8 10
Water level
Full (large load)
Equipment' •••• 0 •• • •• $0.56 $0.42 $0.34 $0.28 $0.21 $0.17
Operation' • 0 •••••• 0 •• .33 .33 .33 .33 .33 .33
Supplies' . .. .... .. 0 ••• .44 .44 .44 .44 .44 .44
Total 0 ......... 0 ••• 1.33 1.19 1.11 1.05 .98 .94
3/4 full
(med!um load)
Equipment' • 0 • •• • 0. 0 . .56 .42 .34 .28 .21 .17
Operation' • 0 0 0 ••••••• .28 .28 .28 .28 .28 .28
Supplies• . ..... ....... 0 . .33 .33 .33 .33 .33 .33
Total •• • • 0. 0 •••••• 1.17 1.03 .95 .89 .82 .78
1/2 full
Equipment' • 0. 0. 0 •••• .56 .42 .34 .28 .21 .17
Operation' 0 • ••• 0 ••••• .24 .24 .24 .24 .24 .24
Supplies' ..... 0 . . . ..... .22 .22 .22 .22 .22 .22
Total ............. 1.02 .88 .80 .74 .67 .63
1 Estimates based on a new automatic washer costing $455 and a new electric dryer costing $362 on a 24-month
installment plan, with average life expectancy of 11 years for the washer and 14 years for the dryer, and with 2.5
percent of the cost of appliances allowed for repairs.
1 Includes cost of electricity to operate washer and dryer, water, and gas to heat wash water to warm tempera·
ture. Based on 1981 rates in the Washington, D.C., area. Gas to heat water adjusted for washer water level.
' Detergent, liquid chlorine bleach, fabric softener, and water softener at 1981 prices in Washington, D.C., area.
Amounts adjusted for washer water level.
Table 4. Cost per load of laundry done at home and in a self-service laundry, 1
1981 costs, Washington, D.C., area
Self-service laundry-
Number of loads
Laundry done distance traveled both ways,
at home' single trip
1 mile 2 miles 5 miles
1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 • 0 0 0 •• 0 • 0 0 0 •• 0 0 • 0 $2.45 $2.19 $2.44 $3.19
2 . 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 ••• 0 . 0 0 0 •• 0 0 0. 0 0 1.61 2.06 2.19 2.56
3 0 . 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •• 0 •• 0 •••• 0 0 0. 1.33 2.02 2.11 2.36
1 Estimates include charge for washer, 30 minutes dryer time, cost of transportation, and cost of supplies as
used at home.
1 Estimates based on loads per week.
22 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
FOOD STAMP ALLOTMENT AND DIETS OF U.S. HOUSEHOLDS
By Betty B. Peterkin and Richard L. Kerr1
The cost of the thrifty food plan (1 ), which
is used as the basis for the food stamp allot­ment,
has been criticized by some as overly
generous and by others as insufficient. The
Consumer Nutrition Center used household
food consumption behavior to address several
questions about the allotment level: How
reasonable is the allotment with respect to
food costs of U.S. households? Do households
with costs at the allotment level have nutritious
diets? Did diet quality at the allotment level
decline between 1965 and 1977-78?
Data to address these questions were derived
from the Nationwide Food Consumption
Survey 1977-78 (NFCS). Data on food con­sumption
were collected from interviews with
food managers in over 14,000 housekeeping
households, drawn from a stratified probability
sample in the 48 conterminous States. The
managers reported the kinds, quantities, and
prices (if purchased) of foods used during
the 7 days prior to the interview. "Food used"
(household diet) refers to all food that dis­appeared
from household food supplies during
the 7 days, whether it was eaten at home, car­ried
from home in packed meals, discarded,
or fed to animals.
Food Costs
The money value of food used by house­holds
was estimated from the sum of reported
prices paid for food purchased with money,
food stamps, or on credit, plus values for foods
produced at home and received as gift or pay.
The value assigned to nonpurchased foods
used by a household was the average price for
comparable food reported by other house­holds
in the same region of the country. This
money value of food used at home was ad­justed
to add an at-home value for meals eaten
away from home by household members and
to exclude the value of food eaten in the
1 Supervisory home economist and economist,
respectively, Consumer Nutrition Center, Human
Nutrition Information Service.
WINTER 1982
household by guests, employees, and boarders.
Then the adjusted value (food cost) was ex­pressed
as a percentage of the maximum food
stamp allotment at the time of the survey for
a household of the same size.
Food costs estimated for the households
surveyed in 1977-78 varied from less than one­half
to more than three times the maximum
food stamp allotment for the thrifty level
(see figure on p. 24).2 Of these households, 12
percent had food costs below the maximum
allotment level (thrifty), 5 percent had costs
below 80 percent of the allotment, and almost
none had costs below 50 percent of the allot­ment.
About 30 percent of the households
used food valued at twice the allotment level or
more.
The percentages of households with food
costs below hypothetical allotments based
on USDA's three more expensive food plans­low-
cost, moderate-cost, and liberal-were
also estimated. Of the households studied,
30 percent had food costs below the allot­ment
based on the low-cost plan, 52 percent
had costs below that based on the moderate­cost
plan, and 70 percent had costs below
that based on the liberal plan. At the time of
the survey, the cost for the low-cost plan for
the four-person household used for food
stamp purposes was 31 percent above the
cost for the thrifty plan. The moderate-cost
plan was 64 percent above, and the liberal
plan, 97 percent above the cost for the thrifty
plan.
2 The maximum value of food stamps, given to
households with little or no income, is the cost of
food in USDA's thrifty food plan (1) for a four-person
household (man, woman, and two elementary-school­age
children) adjusted for household size and econ­omies
associated with buying and using food in large
compared with small households. At the time of the
1977-78 survey, all households in the Food Stamp
Program received the maximum food stamp allotment,
but some households had to pay for part of their food
stamps. In 1979, the "purchase requirement" of the
program was eliminated and eligible households with
some income received food stamps equal to the maxi­mum
allotment minus 30 percent of their income.
23
U.S. Households by Food Cost
(cumulative distribution)
Percent of households
100-
80-
60-
40-
20-
o-,
0
I
50
I
100
-Moderate-coat (52%)
-Low-coat (30%)
I
150
I
200
I
250
I
300
I
350
I
400
Value of food at home* as percent of food stamp allotment
• Food for household members only
USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey, 1977-78, 48 States
Nutritional Quality of Diets
Each household's diet was appraised and
two measures of the nutritional quality of
diets of groups of households were used: The
proportion of diets meeting the R_DA 's for_ all
nutrients studied and the proportiOn of d1ets
meeting at least 80 percent of the RDA's
for these nutrients.
The nutritive value of the edible portion of
foods used, adjusted for loss of vitamins dur­ing
cooking, was calculated for each house­hold.
The nutrient content of each house­hold
diet was compared with recommended
amounts of nutrients totaled for persons
eating in the household. In this comparison,
adjustments were made for food eaten away
from home and for food eaten in the house-hold
by guests, employees, and boarders. .
RDA's published in 1974 (2) for protem,
calcium, phosphorous, iron, magnesiu~, vita­min
A value, thiamin, riboflavin, vitamm Bs,
24
vitamin B1 2 , and vitamin C were used as
standards.3 Since the RDA's exceed the re­quirements
of most individuals, failure to
meet these standards is not evidence of poor
fpod practices or malnutrition. Requirements
of individuals of a given sex and age vary,
and the RDA's are set high intentionally to
cover requirements of essentially all healthy
people in the country.
RDA's, although the best standard avail­able
are not fully appropriate for household
food consumption. RDA's apply to food in­take
or food actually eaten; and food used
by ~ost households includes some edible
food that is discarded or fed to animals, as
well as food that is eaten. RDA's are for in-
3 The use of the 1980 RDA's would not change
substantially the results reported here. Levels of vita­min
C, the only nutrient for which the RDA was
increased significantly in 1980, are generally high
in household diets reported.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
dividuals classified by sex and age, but food
in most households is used by several house­hold
members who differ in sex and age.
Therefore, nutrient shortfalls of a member in
one sex-age category may be compensated for
by the excesses of a member in another cate­gory.
Unless the household food is divided
according to nutritional need, some members
could have diets with lower nutrient levels
than household food use indicates. On the
other hand, if the total household food does
not furnish the RDA's, some, if not all, mem­bers
have diets that do not meet the RDA's.
Of the households 50 percent used food
that provided the RDA's or more for all 11
nutrients studied, and 71 percent of the house­holds
met at least 80 percent of the RDA's
(table 1). The nutrients for which household
diets were most often below RDA's were
calcium and vitamin B6 ; three out of 10
household diets failed to furnish the RDA's
for these nutrients. Magnesium and vitamin
A levels were below RDA in about 2 out of
10 households. Fewer than 1 in 10 failed to
meet RDA's for protein, phosphorus, thia­min,
riboflavin, and vitamin C.
Of households with food costS at the allot­ment
level based on the thrifty food plan cost,
9 percent used food that met 100 percent of
all 11 RDA's and 33 percent met at least 80
percent of the RDA's. At a cost level 15 per­cent
below the allotment level, 3 percent of
the households met 100 percent. of the RDA's
and 16 percent met 80 or more percent of the
RDA's.
Households with food costs at the hypo­thetical
allotment level based on the low-cost
plan (31 pet above the thrifty plan cost) fared
better nutritionally than households with costs
at the allotment based on the thrifty plan.
However, even an allotment based on the
liberal plan (almost twice the thrifty plan level)
would not assure that all diets meet the RDA's.
At the liberal plan level, 31 percent failed to
meet allll RDA's in full, and 11 percent failed
to meet 80 percent of the RDA's.
These results indicate that many households
in the 1977-78 survey did not select diets that
were as nutritious as diets specified in the food
plans. Regardless of food cost level, some
households had diets that did not meet RDA's
(or 80 pet of the RDA's) for the 11 nutrients
studied. Households with limited food costs,
WINTER 1982
Table 1. Diet quality of households at four
food cost levels, 1977-78
Food cost level '
All households ....... .
Thrifty plan .... .. . .
Low-cost plan . . . .. .
Moderate-cost plan .. .
Liberal plan ... . . . . .
Percent of households
using food that furnished-
1974 RDA's
for 11
nutrients'
50
9
31
52
69
80 percent
of 1974
RDA's for
11 nutrients
71
33
64
81
89
1 Cost of food in the USDA food plans for ·a four­person
household (man and woman 20-54 and children
6-8 and 9-11 years of age) adjusted for household size
and economy of scale factors used in establishing the
food stamp allotment.
2 Protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, magnesium,
vitamin A value, thiamin, riboflavin, vitamin B6 ,
vitamin B12 , and vitamin C.
Source : 14,400 housekeeping households, Nation­wide
Food Consumption Survey 1977-78,48 States.
however, were less likely than those with
higher food costs to have diets that furnished
recommended nutrient levels.
Improvement in Diets Since 1965
Prior to the 1977-78 survey, results from a
1965 survey were used as indicators of the
quality of diet that might be expected at the
food plan cost levels. When the 1965 survey
was conducted, there were four food plans
in existence which were similar, but not iden­tical,
to the current thrifty, low-cost, mod­erate-
cost, and liberal plans. The least costly
of the plans in 1965, the economy plan, was
used for food stamp purposes prior to 1975.
A 1969 study estimated the proportions
of households surveyed in spring 1965 that
used food at the four food plan cost levels
that met the 1964 RDA's for seven nutrients
(3). (Phosphorous, vitamin B6 , vitamin B12 ,
and magnesium were not included in the
1969 study.) At the economy plan cost, fewer
than 10 percent had diets that met the seven
RDA's in 1965 (table 2, p. 26). The percentage
of household diets meeting RDA's at the low­cost,
moderate-cost, and liberal food plan
cost levels were 30, 50, and 60 percent, re­spectively.
25
Table 2. Households using food that met RDA 's for 7 nutrients, 1
spring 1965 and in 1977-78 at 4 cost levels2
Food cost level
Thrifty plan
(economy plan in 1965) .................. .
Low-cost plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Moderate-cost plan ....................... .
Liberal plan ............................ .
Percent of
households meeting
1964 RDA's,
Spring 1965
Fewer than 10
30
50
60
Percent of
households meeting
1974 RDA's,
1977-783
20
45
63
77
1 Protein, calcium, iron, vitamin A value, thiamin, riboflavin, and Vitamin C.
2 Although different procedures, RDA's, food plans, and rounding were used with 1965 data (1 0) than with
1977-78 data, appraisals were considered to be appropriate for their respective periods.
3 14,400 housekeeping households, Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1977-78, 48 States.
When the same seven nutrients were con­sidered
for 1977-78 households, more diets
met the RDA's at each of the four food cost
levels than in 1965. Proportions of households
surveyed in 1977-78 that met the 1974 RDA's
for 11 nutrients at allotment levels from the
four food plans, as shown in table 1, were as
high or higher than proportions surveyed in
1965 that met the 1964 RDA's for 7 nutrients
at the comparable food plan costs.
Part of the apparent improvement between
1965 and 1977-78 in diet quality at all levels
of cost was attributed to increases in the levels
of dietary vitamin C. Average vitamin C con­tent
of household food in spring was 35 per­cent
higher in 1977 than in 1965 (4). In spring
1965, diets in 27 percent of the households
failed to provide the 1964 RDA; in 1977-78,
diets in only 6 percent failed to provide the
1974 RDA.
Estimates in the 1969 (3) study differ from
those in this study in several respects, such as
the procedures used for determining food costs
and nutrient levels of survey households,
seasons covered by the survey, inclusion of one­person
households, the makeup of the four
food plans, the RDA's used as standards, the
nutrients covered, and rounding of data. Even
so, the estimates were considered appropriate
for their respective periods. Furthermore, com­parison
of these estimates suggests that the
nutritional value of diets at the allotment level
improved between the 1965 and 1977-78
surveys.
REFERENCES
1. Peterkin, Betty B., Judy P. Chassy, and
Richard L. Kerr. The Thrifty Food Plan.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agri­cultural
Research Service, Consumer and
Food Economics Institute. CFE (Adm.)
326. 1975.
2. National Academy of Sciences, National
Research Council, Food and Nutrition
Board, Recommended Dietary Allow­ances,
8th ed., National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, D.C. 1974.
26
3. Peterkin, Betty, and Faith Clark. Money
value and adequacy of diets compared
with the USDA food plans. Family
Economics Review. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Ser­vice.
ARS 62-5. September 1969, p. 6-8.
4. Cronin, Frances J. Nutrient levels and food
used by households. 1977 and 1965.
Family Economics Review. U.S. Depart­ment
of Agriculture, Agricultural Re­search
Service. Spring 1980, p. 10-15.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
FERTILITY OF AMERICAN WOMEN: JUNE 1979
The average number of lifetime births ex­pected
by wives 18 to 24 years old declined
from 2.9 births in 1967 to 2.4 births in 1971
and 2.2 births in 1979. There is an increasing
tendency for women to delay marriage and
childbirth. Although the median age at first
marriage remained at approximately 20.3
years for women who married between 1950
and 1969, delayed marriages increased the
median age to 21.2 years for women who
married during the 1975-79 period. The
median age of a woman at the birth of her
first child was 22.2 years in the first half of
the fifties. The median age subsequently
declined to 21.4 years during the sixties,
but then increased to 22.3 years between
1975 and 1979. The proportion of women
having their first child after age 30 did not
differ significantly between the periods of
1975-1979 and 1955-59.
The longer a woman postponed childbear­ing
after her first marriage, the less likely she
was to expect to have children. Childless wives
under 30 years old who had been married for
less than 2 years were more likely to expect
to have children than those who had been
married for at least 5 years.
Source : U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census, 1980, Fertility of American women:
June 1979, Current Population Reports, Population
Characteristics, Series P-20, No. 358.
SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS
(Please give your ZIP code in your return address when you order these.)
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:
e NUTRITIVE VALUE OF FOODS. G 72. Revised April 1981.
e HOW TO BUY ECONOMICALLY-A FOOD BUYER'S GUIDE. G 235. April1981.
From Economic Management Services, Room 0054, South Building, Washington, D.C. 20250:
e NONMETRO YOUTH IN THE LABOR FORCE. RDRR 27. March 1981.
e IMPACT OF HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND INCOME ON FOOD SPENDING PATTERNS.
TB 1650. May 1981.
From Food Safety and Quality Service, Information Division, Room 2957-S, Washington, D.C.
20250:
e INFORMATION AVAILABLE FROM USDA'S FOOD SAFETY AND QUALITY SERVICE.
FSQS 6. Revised April1981.
27
WINTER 1982
COST OF MEATS AND MEAT ALTERNATES
By Cynthia C. J unker1
The meat , poultry, and fish items in meals
usually cost more than other items. Because,
however, the range in costs of different types
and cuts of meats is great, careful selection
may result in worthwhile savings.
Estimated costs in the Washington, D.C.,
area of 3-ounce servings of cooked lean from
selected types and cuts of meat and of poultry
and fish are shown in table 1. The economy­minded
shopper can replace some of the meats
ordinarily used with alternates such as dry
beans and peas, peanut butter, and eggs. These
foods provide protein and other nutrients for
which meat, poultry , and fish are valued.
Cheese can also be used.
1 Home economist, Consumer Nutrition Center,
Human Nutrition Information Service.
One way to find good buys among meats
and meat alternates is to compare the costs on
the basis of equal amounts of protein. Table
2 shows the cost of amounts of some meats
and alternates required to give 20 grams of
protein-one-third of the daily recommended
allowance for a 20-year-old man.
A 3-ounce serving of cooked lean meat from
beef, pork, lamb, veal, chicken, turkey, or fish
provides about 20 grams of protein or more.
For some meats and alternates, however, well
over a 3-ounce serving is required to provide
20 grams of protein-such as 10 slices of bacon,
4 frankfurters, 3% eggs, or 41h tablespoons of
peanut butter.
An estimated average price in the Washing­ton,
D.C., area and the part of a pound or
other market unit required to provide a 3-
ounce serving of cooked lean meat (table 1)
Table 1. Cost of 3 ounces of cooked lean from specified meat, poultry, and fish
at July 1981 prices
Food
Beef liver ..... . ........ .. .... . .. . .. ... .
Ham, whole, bone in ...... . ... ... .... . .. . . .
Turkey, ready-to-cook . .. .... . ....... . .. . . . .
Chicken, whole, ready-t o-cook .. .. . ..... . . . .. .
Ground beef, regular ...... . ...... . .. . . . . . . .
Pork shoulder, smoked, bone in . .. ..... ..... . . .
Ground beef, lean . ............. . . .. .... . . .
Ocean perch, filet, frozen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ham, canned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chicken breasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Haddock, filet, frozen ..... . . . .. . ....... . .. .
Rump roast of beef, bone out .... . ..... . ..... .
Pork Jo in roast, bone in .............. . .... . .
Chuck roast of beef, bone in . . . . .. .. ......... .
Pork chops, center cut .... . . . ............ . . .
Round beefsteak, bone in . . .. ........ . .. .. .. .
Sirloin beefsteak, bone in ......... ... . ..... . .
Rib roast of beef, bone in .. . ........... . .... .
Veal cutlets ............ . . . ... . ... . ..... .
Lamb chops, loin ..... . . . ..... .. . . .. . . .. . .
Porterhouse beefsteak, bone in . .............. .
Retail
price per
pound'
$1.07
1.01
.90
.72
1.52
.96
1.82
1.80
2.21
1.50
2.24
2.06
1.56
1.82
2.20
3.14
3.17
3.28
6.76
3.77
4.14
Part of pound
for 3 ounces
of cooked lean
0.27
.35
.41
.55
.28
.46
.26
.27
.25
.40
.27
.34
.51
.45
.45
.34
.43
.45
.25
.46
.52
Cost of
3 ounces
of cooked Jean
$0.29
.35
.37
.40
.43
.44
.47
.49
.55
.60
.60
.70
.79
.82
.99
1.07
1.36
1.48
1.69
1. 73
2.15
1 An average using prices for 4 consecutive weeks in 5 Washington, D.C., area supermarkets.
28 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
or 20 grams of protein (table 2) are shown for
each meat and meat alternate for which costs
were compared. These cost comparisons show,
in general, which cuts of meat and types of
meat alternates are expensive and inexpensive
choices; however, consumers need to compare
costs using prices at stores where they shop. To
figure a comparable cost at a different price,
multiply the store's retail price by the part of a
pound or other market unit shown.
Table 2. Cost of 20 grams of protein from specified meats and meat alternates
at July 1981 prices
Food
Bread, white, enriched' ..................... .
Dry beans .............................. .
Eggs, large . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Beef liver .... . .... . .......... . ... .... · · ·
Bean soup, canned .... .................... .
Turkey, ready-to-cook . ..... .. ...... ...... . . .
Milk, whole, fluid 4
•••• •••••• • ••• • • •• • • • - • • •
Chicken, whole, ready-to-cook .. .. .. .. .. .. .. · · ·
Ham, whole, bone in .................. - · · · · ·
Pork shoulder, smoked, bone in ........... · · · · · ·
Peanut butter . . . ......... .............. .. .
Tuna, canned . . . . .... - . . . . . . .. · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chicken breasts ...................... · · · · ·
Sardines, canned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . · . · · · - - · · · · · ·
Ground beef, lean ............... · · · · · · · · · · ·
Frankfurters . . . . . . . . . . ... · · · · · · · · · ·
American process cheese. . . . . . . . . . . . . . · · · · · · · ·
Pork loin roast, bone in .......... · · · · - · · · · · · ·
Ham, canned .... - ....... · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rump roast of beef, bone out .. .... · .. · · · · · · · · · ·
Bacon, sliced . . . . . ....... · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Pork sausage .............. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Ocean perch, filet, frozen ........ · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Chuck roast of beef, bone in .... . · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Haddock filet, frozen ..... . ... · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Round beefsteak, bone in . . . . . . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Bologna ............ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Pork chops, center cut . . . . . . · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Sirloin beefsteak, bone in . . . . . . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Rib roast of beef, bone in ..... · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Lamb chops, loin ....... · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Porterhouse beefsteak, bone in . · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Veal cutlets ..... ...... · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Market
unit
22 oz
lb
doz
lb
11.25 oz
lb
half·gal
lb
lb
lb
12 oz
6.5 oz
lb
3.75oz
lb
lb
8 oz
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
8 oz
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
Part of
Price per market unit
market to give 20
unit' grams of
protein'
$0.31 0.37
.52 .24
.80 .28
1.07 .24
.35 .82
.90 .33
.96 .31
.72 .42
1.01 .30
.96 .32
1.48 .23
.83 .44
1.50 .27
.49 .86
1.82 .25
1.21 .39
1.28 .40
1.56 .33
2.21 .24
2.06 .26
1.04 .52
1.14 .48
1.80 .31
1.82 .35
2.24 .31
3.14 .23
.99 .75
2.20 .35
3.17 .28
3.28 .33
3.77 .32
4.14 .34
6.76 .23
Cost of 20
grams of
protein
$0.11
.13
.22
.26
.29
.30
.30
.30
.30
.31
.34
.37
.41
.42
.45
.47
.51
.51
.53
.54
.54
.55
.56
.64
.69
.72
.74
.77
.89
1.08
1.21
1.41
1.55
. . · eeks in 5 Washington, D.C., area supermarkets. Prices for processed
'An average usmg pnces for 4 consecutive w . . .
1 b d · the market umt spec1f1ed.
items are for the least cost Y ran m d d f 20 year-old man Assumes that all meat is eaten.
'One-third of the daily amount recommen e tor a d -r,·ce are freq.uently used with a small amount of meat,
3 h . ducts such as pas a an ' Bread and ot er gram pr_o . ' . eals In this way the high-quality protein in meat and cheese
poultry fish or cheese as mam d1shes m economy m ·
' ' l't f rotein in cereal products. . .
enhances the lower qua ' Y 0 P . 1 it is an economical source of good-qual1ty protem.
• Although milk is not used to replace meat m mea s,
Source : U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Hyattsville, Md. 20782.
Human Nutrition Information Service, Consumer Nutrition Center,
29
WINTER 1982
UPDATED ESTIMATES OF THE COST OF RAISING A CHILD
The cost of raising urban children: June 19811
Food Food
Age of child Total at away Clothing Housing• Medical Educa- Transpor- All
(years) home' from care tion tation other4
home
NORTH CENTRAL
Under 1 • • •• • •• 0 •• • $3,709 $517 $0 $128 $1,620 $219 $0 $773 $452
1 ... .. . . .. . ... ... 3,827 635 0 128 1,620 219 0 773 452
2-3 ...... .... . . . . . 3,568 635 0 208 1,424 219 0 673 409
4-5 . . .. . . .. . ... ... 3,784 729 122 208 1,424 219 0 673 409
6 ... . ............ 3,922 705 122 288 1,350 219 91 673 474
7-9 . ... .. . . ..... . . 4,087 870 122 288 1,350 219 91 673 474
10-11 . .. .......... 4,251 1,034 122 288 1,350 219 91 673 474
12 . . ..... ... ..... 4,548 1,058 147 416 1,399 219 91 723 495
13-15 . . .... . ... . . . 4,665 1,175 147 416 1,399 219 91 723 495
16-17 . . . ... ... . . . . 5,134 1,316 147 576 1,448 219 91 798 539
Total • • • • • • 0 • • • • 75,736 16,478 1,858 5,632 25,528 3,942 1,092 12,764 8,442
NORTHEAST
Under 1 .. .. ....... 3,685 611 0 128 1,645 219 0 673 409
1 . ... ... . . ....... 3,826 752 0 128 1,645 219 0 673 409
2-3 . ... . . .. . ...... 3,724 729 0 224 1,498 219 0 623 431
4-5 ... ... .... .. . . . 3,940 823 122 224 1,498 219 0 623 431
6 .. .... . ......... 4,198 823 147 304 1,473 219 114 623 495
7-9 ..... . . .. . . .. .. 4,362 987 147 304 1,473 219 114 623 495
10-11 .......... . .. 4,574 1,199 147 304 1,473 219 114 623 495
12 . . . . . .... . . .. .. 4,864 1,199 147 448 1,522 219 114 698 517
13-15 . .. .. . . . . . .. . 5,005 1,340 147 448 1,522 219 114 698 517
16-17 .. . ..... .. ... 5,379 1,481 171 560 1,547 219 114 748 539
Total ... . .. ... . . 79,908 18,830 2,056 5,888 27,302 3,942 1,368 11,864 8,658
SOUTH
Under 1 •• 0 •• • • • ••• 4,034 564 0 144 1,743 243 0 823 517
1 . . .. ... .. ...... . 4,152 682 0 144 1,743 243 0 823 517
2-3 . . .... . ........ 3,890 658 0 224 1,547 243 0 723 495
4-5 ...... .. . .... . . 4,083 729 122 224 1,547 243 0 723 495
6 . . . . .. .. .. . . .... 4,295 729 147 304 1,473 243 137 723 539
7-9 .. .. .. .... ... .. 4,436 870 147 304 1,473 243 137 723 539
10·11 .. . .. . ..... . . 4,624 1,058 147 304 1,473 243 137 723 539
12 .. . ... . . .. .... . 4,934 1,058 171 448 1,522 243 137 773 582
13-15 .. . . .. .. . . .. . 5,075 1,199 171 448 1,522 243 137 773 582
16-17 . . . .. . .. ... . . 5,465 1,316 171 576 1,571 243 137 848 603
Total ....... . . . . 82,072 16,762 2,152 5,952 27,742 4,374 1,644 13,664 9,782
WEST
Under 1 • • •• . •••. 0 . 3,971 564 0 128 1,694 267 0 823 495
1 . . .. .. .. .. . . . . .. 4,112 705 0 128 1,694 267 0 823 495
2-3 ...... . .... . .. . 3,897 682 0 208 1,522 267 0 723 495
4-5 . .. . ...... . .. .. 4,138 776 147 208 1,522 267 0 723 495
6 .. ... . . . .. . .. . .. 4,414 752 171 304 1,498 267 114 748 560
7-9 ......... .. .. .. 4,579 917 171 304 1,498 267 114 748 560
10-11 .. . . . ... . .... 4,790 1,128 171 304 1,498 267 114 748 560
12 . .. . . . . . ... ... . 5,064 1,128 171 432 1,547 267 114 823 582
13-15 . . ...... . . .. . 5,182 1,246 171 432 1,547 267 114 823 582
16-17 .. . ........ . . 5,694 1,410 196 544 1,620 267 114 897 646
Total .. .. ...... . 83,882 17,630 2,396 5,728 27,892 4,806 1,368 14,112 9,950
1 Annual cost of raising a child from birth to age 18, by age, in a husband-wife family with no more than 5
children, spending at the moderate cost level. For more information on these and additional child cost estimates,
see USDA Miscellaneous Publication No. 1411 by Carolyn S. Edwards, "USDA Estimates of the Cost of Raising a
Child : A Guide to Their Use and Interpretation." Available free from : USDA, Family Economics Research Group,
Federal Building, 6505 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782.
2 Includes home-produced food and school lunches.
3 Includes shelter, fuel, utilities, household operations, furnishings, and equipment.
4 Includes personal care, recreation, reading and other miscellaneous expenditures.
30 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
The cost of raising rural nonfarm children: June 19811
Age of child Food Food
(years) Total at away Clothing Housing3 Medical Educa- Transpor- All
home• from care tion tation other•
home
NORTH CENTRAL
Under 1 •••••• 0 ••• 0 $3,505 $470 $0 $112 $1,547 $219 $0 $748 $409
1 ................ 3,623 588 0 112 1,547 219 0 748 409
2-3 ............... 3,224 564 0 176 1,301 194 0 623 366
4-5 .... .... . ...... 3,416 658 98 176 1,301 194 0 623 366
6 ... ..... .... .... 3,671 658 122 272 1,277 194 91 648 409
7-9 ............... 3,812 799 122 272 1,277 194 91 648 409
10-11 ............. 4,000 987 122 272 1,277 194 91 648 409
12 . ..... .. . ...... 4,311 987 122 416 1,326 194 91 723 452
13-15 ............. 4,429 1,105 122 416 1,326 194 91 723 452
16-17 ............. 4,763 1,222 147 512 1,350 219 91 748 474
Total • 0 ••••• 0 ••• 70,639 15,277 1,710 5,248 23,964 3,592 1,092 12,264 7,492
NORTHEAST
Under 1 ••• 0 0 •••• 0 0 4,066 564 0 128 1,743 219 0 873 539
1 ..... ........... 4,184 682 0 128 1,743 219 0 873 539
2-3 ............... 3,996 658 0 208 1,596 219 0 798 517
4-5 .. ............. 4,237 752 147 208 1,596 219 0 798 517
6 ................ 4,512 752 171 304 1,571 219 137 798 560
7-9 ............... 4,653 893 171 304 1,571 219 137 798 560
10-11 . ... . ...... .. 4,865 1,105 171 304 1,571 219 137 798 560
12 ...... .. ... .... 5,167 1,105 171 464 1,620 219 137 848 603
13-15 ............. 5,308 1,246 171 464 1,620 219 137 848 603
16-17 ............. 5,784 1,387 196 608 1,669 219 137 922 646
Total ........... 85,576 17,324 2,396 5,984 29,114 3,942 1,644 14,962 10,210
SOUTH
Under 1 •••• 0 •••• •• 4,208 564 0 144 1,743 243 0 997 517
1 ................ 4,302 658 0 144 1,743 243 0 997 517
2-3 ............... 3,897 635 0 224 1,498 243 0 823 474
4-5 ............... 4,138 729 147 224 1,498 243 0 823 474
6 ................ 4,276 705 147 304 1,448 243 114 798 517
7-9 ... ...... ...... 4,417 846 147 304 1,448 243 114 798 517
10-11 ............. 4,605 1,034 147 304 1,448 243 114 798 517
12 ............... 4,957 1,034 171 464 1,498 243 114 873 560
13-15 ............. 5,075 1,152 171 464 1,498 243 114 873 560
16-17 .. . .. ........ 5,528 1,293 196 656 1,522 243 114 922 582
Total ........... 82,555 16,337 2,252 6,176 27,202 4,374 1,368 15,410 9,436
WEST
Under 1 ........... 4,349 564 0 128 1,768 267 0 997 625
1 ................ 4,467 682 0 128 1,768 267 0 997 625
2-3 ............... 4,039 658 0 208 1,522 243 0 848 560
4-5 ............... 4,280 752 147 208 1,522 243 0 848 560
6 ................ 4,571 729 147 320 1,498 267 137 848 625
7-9 ............... 4,735 893 147 320 1,498 267 137 848 625
10-11 ............. 4,923 1,081 147 320 1,498 267 137 848 625
12 ..... ... ....... 5,273 1,081 171 480 1,547 267 137 922 668
13-15 ............. 5,414 1,222 171 480 1,547 267 137 922 668
16-17 ............. 5,950 1,387 196 560 1,645 267 137 1,047 711
Total ••••••• 0 ••• 87,491 17,157 2,252 6,048 28,090 4,710 1,644 16,256 11,334
1 Annual cost of raising a child from birth to age 18, by age, in a husband-wife family with no more than 5
children, spending at the moderate cost level. For more information on.,these and ~dditional child cost esti?l~tes,
see USDA Miscellaneous Publication No. 1411 by Carolyn S. Edwards, USDA Est1mates of the Cost of Ra1smg a
Child: A Guide to Their Use and Interpretation." Available free from: USDA, Family Economics Research Group,
Federal Building, 6505 Belcrest Road, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782.
2 Includes home-produced food and schoollunche_s. . . .
3 Includes shelter, fuel, utilities, household operatwns, f~rmshmgs, and equ1~ment.
4 Includes personal care, recreation, reading and other miscellaneous expenditures.
WINTER 1982 31
NEW CHILD COST BULLETIN
USDA Miscellaneous Publication No. 1411,
"USDA Estimates of the Cost of Raising a
Child: A Guide to Their Use and Interpreta­tion,"
by Carolyn S. Edwards, has been pub­lished.
This five-part guide starts with a descrip­tion
of the estimates that are available and
short profiles of the cost of raising urban, rural
nonfarm, and farm children. The next section
provides important definitions and addresses
the most frequently asked questions on the use
and interpretation of the estimates. Adjust­ments
of the estimates for specific situations
and the limitations associated with the use of
these adjustments are discussed. The third
section discusses resource materials on addi­tional
issues that are related to the cost of
raising a child. The references are organized
so that they correspond to the topics covered
in the guide. Finally, the appendix includes
the estimates, updated to June 1980 price
levels.
For a free copy of the bulletin, send a post
card to the Office of Governmental and Public
Affairs, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C. 20250. Give the name and
publication number when ordering and include
your ZIP code with your address.
1980 CENSUS SUBJECT REPORTS
The Census Bureau has announced plans
for releasing Subject Reports as a part of the
1980 Census publication program. There will
be some changes from the reports issued
following the 1970 Census; several new reports
will be added in 1980, some older titles will
be dropped, and a number of reports with
the same titles as corresponding 1970 Census
reports will incorporate new features. The
following is a list of the proposed 1980 titles:
(*Indicates new report)
32
Housing Subject Reports HC80-3
Housing of the Older Population
Mobile Homes
*Residential Energy Patterns
Recent Movers
Space Utilization
Structural Characteristics
Housing Quality
Condominiums
Population Subject Reports PC80-2
Black Population
American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts
in the United States
*American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts:
Reservations and Historic Areas of
Oklahoma
Asian and Pacific Islander Population in
the United States
Persons of Spanish Origin and Persons of
Spanish Surname
Ancestry of the Population
*Persons Born in Foreign Countries
*Languages Spoken by Americans
Mobility for States and the Nation
Lifetime and Recent Migration
Mobility for Metropolitan Areas
Fertility
Household and Family Composition
Persons by Family Characteristics
Marital Characteristics
Persons in Institutions and Other Group
Quarters
Education
Employment Status and Work Experience
Persons Not Employed
Journey to Work: Metropolitan Commut­ing
Flows
Journey to Work: Characteristics of
Workers in Metropolitan Commuting
Flows
Place of Work
Occupational Characteristics
Industrial Characteristics
Occupation by Industry
Government Workers
Sources and Structure of Household and
Family Income
Earnings by Occupation and Education
Characteristics of the Poverty Population
Poverty Areas in Large Cities
*Characteristics of the Metropolitan and
the Nonmetropolitan Population
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Persons in Metropolitan Areas by Census
Tract Characteristics
Characteristics of the Rural and Farm­Related
Population
*The Older Population
*Women
Veterans
The following eight topics covered in the 1970
Subject Reports will not be repeated in 1980:
Childspacing and Current Fertility, Vocational
Training, Occupation and Residence in 1965,
Americans Living Abroad, Migration between
State Economic Areas, State Economic Areas,
Occupations of Persons with High Earnings,
and Persons With Work Disability.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, 1981, 1980 Census Update, Issue No. 18.
CHARGES AND SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR VISITS
TO PHYSICIAN OFFICES
During the first quarter of 1977, the average
charge for physicians' office visits was $21.29.
Of this charge, the patient or the patient's
family paid an average of 69 percent, while
private health insurance, medicare, medicaid,
and other public sources paid averages of 16,
4, 7, and 4 percent, respectively. Other public
sources included the Civilian Health and
Medical Program of the Uniformed Services
(CHAMPUS); the Civilian Health and Medical
Program of the Veterans' Administration
(CHAMPVA); the Indian Health Service; the
Veterans' Administration; the military; and
other Federal, State, city, or county payers
or providers.
Charges and sources of payment varied
by the demographic characteristics of the
patient (see table on p. 34). ·children under
6 years of age reported the lowest average
charge ($14.62), while college graduates
reported the highest average charge ($28.10).
In all cases, the patient or the patient's family
was the major source of payment, which
ranged from an average high of 76 percent for
persons living in the South to a low of 55
percent for persons living in the West.
The mean visit charge was, on the average,
higher for persons reporting excellent health
than for persons reporting lower health status.
The average proportion of the charge paid
by the family declined with perceived health
status. Although the family and private health
insurance were the largest payers for office
charges for all health status categories, m_edi­care
and medicaid assumed higher proportions
of the charges for those in fair or poor health
status than for those in excellent or good
health.
WINTER 1982
The source of payment for physicians' office
visits varied substantially among age and racial
groups. White families, for example, were more
likely than black families to pay physicians'
charges with their own funds, as shown below:
White
All other
Under 6 6-18 19-54 55-64 65 years
years years years years or older
Average proportion paid by family
0.78
.49
0.73 0.69
.48 .61
0.73
.70
0.61
.61
This difference was greatest for children under
6 years of age but became narrower in each
successive age group until the elderly age
group, in which the proportion paid by all
others equaled that paid by whites. Thus, the
average proportion paid by the family de­creased
with age for whites and increased with
age for all others. Although there was little or
no difference between racial groups in the pro­portion
paid by private health insurance, there
were differences in the proportion paid by
medicaid. Medicaid paid a smaller percentage
of physicians' charges for whites than for all
others.
Source : Rossiter, Louis F., and Matthew A. Salo­mon,
1981, Charges and sources of payment for visits
to physician offices, NCHSR National Health Care
Expenditures Study, Data Preview 5, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, National Center for
Health Services Research.
33
Charges and sources of payment for physician office visits: 1 Mean visit charge,
source of payment, and selected patient characteristics,
Patient
characteristics
January 1 -March 31, 1977
Mean
charge
per
visit
Family
Private
health
insurance
Source of payment
Medicare2 Medicaid
Dallal'S --- -- - - - - --- -- - Average percent paid -- -- ---- -- - -- --
All patients
Age
Less than 6 years . . . . . . . . . .
6-18 years .............. .
19-54 years . .......... .. .
55-64 years ......... .
65 or older ............. .
Sex
Male ...
Female
Race
White ................. .
All other .......... .
Years of education'
0-11 ............... . .
12 ................... .
13-15 ................. .
16 or more ............. .
Place of residence
SMSA ....... .
Other ......... .
U.S. Census region
Northeast . . . . ..... .
North Central ........... .
South ................. .
West .................. .
Perceived health status
Excellent ........... .
Good .......... ....... .
Fair ........ .
Poor ......... ......... .
21.29
14.62
18.92
22.88
21.37
23.15
20.83
21.61
21.39
19.89
18.91
22.88
26.87
28.10
22.40
18.59
21.02
18.08
20.39
28.01
23.20
20.14
20.62
20.23
1 Excludes flat fee and free-of-charge visits.
69
75
71
68
72
61
67
70
70
59
65
70
65
71
67
73
68
71
76
55
73
70
65
55
16
11
17
20
17
6
19
14
17
12
12
19
22
20
17
14
15
18
12
22
18
16
14
14
4
4
5
5
3
9
3
3
5
5
3
5
2
4
6
2
4
8
10
7
11
9
6
5
5
5
8
5
22
7
5
8
5
4
11
4
6
10
16
4
2
3
5
3
1
5
3
4
5
3
4
7
3
4
4
3
3
3
6
4
4
4
4
2 Medicare being primarily a program for persons over age 65, the average proportion paid by medicare (parts A
and B) is nearly 0 for those in the other age groups.
3 Includes CHAMPUS, CHAMPV A, the Indian Health Service, the Veterans' Administration, the military, and
other Federal, State, city, or county payers or providers.
4 More than 0 but less than 0.5 percent.
5 Includes only those 17 years of age and older.
Source: Rossiter, Louis F., and Matthew A. Salomon, 1981, Charges and sources of payment for visits to physi­cian
offices, NCHSR National Health Care Expenditures Study, Data Preview 5, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, National Center for Health Services Research.
34 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
NEW YORK FAMILY BUDGET ANNUAL PRICE SURVEY,
OCTOBER 1980
The Community Council of Greater New
York has issued its 21st edition of the "Annual
Price Survey," the first since 1976. The survey
reflects budget costs in October 1980 for
families living at a moderate level in New York
City, and gives cost data based on the "Family
Budget Standard," revised by the Community
Council in 1970. The survey updates the
cost of the council's "Family Budget Stan­dard,"
which describes the quantities of goods
and services required by families of moderate
income, taking account of the age, sex, and
employment status of each family member,
as well as family size.
According to the survey, a family of four
required $17,7 4 7 (plus taxes) annually to live
at a moderate level in the New York City
area in October 1980; a husband and wife
with one young child required $14,591 (plus
taxes). The survey's retired couple required
$10,158 in 1980 for goods and services, with
the largest share going to housing. The average
monthly social security benefit-$561 for a
retired worker and dependent spouse-provided
less than two-thirds of the income the couple
required to maintain a moderate level of living
in New York City.
The "Annual Price Survey" is available for
$8 from the Community Council of Greater
New York, 225 Park Avenue South, New
York, N.Y. 10003.
PERSONS OF SPANISH ORIGIN IN THE UNITED STATES:
MARCH 1980
In March 1980, 13 .2 million persons of
Spanish origin lived in the United States. 1
Of that number, 60 percent were of Mexican
descent, 14 percent were of Puerto Rican
descent, 6 percent were of Cuban descent,
8 percent were of Central or South American
descent, and 12 percent were of other Spanish
descent. About 84 percent of all Spanish
families lived in metropolitan areas, compared
with 66 percent of all other families. The
Spanish origin population was younger than
the non-Spanish population as a result of
higher fertility; the median age of Hispanic
persons (22 years) was substantially lower
than that for persons not of Spanish origin
(31 years).
Median income in 1979 was lower for
families of Spanish origin ($14,600) than for
other families ($20,000). Median income
differed among the Spanish origin groups and
was, for example, $17,500 for families of
1 The estimates of the Spanish-origin population in
this report are based on updated population controls
from the 1970 census and do not agree with counts
from the 1980 census.
WINTER 1982
Cuban descent and $9,900 for families of
Puerto Rican descent.
These low income figures might be attri­buted
to the higher than average unemploy­ment
rate maintained by persons of Spanish
origin. Of the 5 million persons of Spanish
origin aged 16 and over in the civilian labor
force in March 1980, 9 percent were unem­ployed.
This compares with just under 7 per­cent
for all other persons. As with income,
the unemployment rate differed by type of
Spanish origin; 5 percent of Cuban descendants
compared with 12 percent of Puerto Rican
descendants were unemployed.
Persons of Spanish origin were concentrated
in low-paying occupations. Although 24 per­cent
of employed persons of Spanish origin
were employed as operatives, only 9 percent
were employed in professional occupations,
which compares with 14 and 17 percent,
respectively, for all other employed persons.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, 1981, Persons of Spanish origin in the
United States: March 1980 (advance report), Current
Population Reports, Population Characteristics, Series
P-20, No, 361.
35
HOUSING RESEARCH, REPORTS, AND FORTHCOMING DATA
Housing Research Data Center
The Housing Research Data Center, a cen­tral
depository of data files sponsored by
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), began phase I of its
operation in February 1981. The center is
intended for use by researchers who are inter­ested
in the study of housing, social policy,
and related issues. HUD offers these data files
to the public research community by provid­ing
nationwide access, full documentation,
software for analysis, and user consulting
and support services.
The data center is operated by DUALabs
(Data Use and Access Laboratories) through
the computer facilities of National CSS. Hours
of operation for inquiries and consultation
are 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. (eastern time), Monday
through Friday. Data can be accessed through
NCSS 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Training and consultation services are avail­able
for newcomers to computer-assisted
research; experienced users can access the
data by opening an account and using the
Housing Research Data Center Manual with
their own terminals in their own facilities.
To obtain further information or to open
an account, contact:
Becky Maguire
Housing Research Data Center
DUALabs
1601 North Kent Street
Arlington, Va. 22209
Phone: 703-525-1480
Survey of Residential Finance
The Bureau of the Census of the U.S.
Department of Commerce began its fourth
Survey of Residential Finance in April 1981.
The survey, which is a followup based on the
1980 Census, will poll about 60,000 residential
properties-owners, renters, and mortgage
holders-including condominiums for the first
time.
The survey is designed to provide informa­tion
on the current financial status of invest­ment
in residential properties. Property owners
will be asked information including the number
36
of housing units on the property, purchase
price, current market value, year of construc­tion,
and certain types of expenses. Owners
of mortgaged properties will be asked questions
on the type and amount of the mortgage,
the year the mortgage was made, and monthly
payments. Lenders will be asked for infor­mation
such as the interest rate of the mort­gage,
current balance, prepayment penalties,
and whether the mortgage can be assumed.
The data will be tabulated (probably in
late 1982) for the Nation as a whole, for each
of the four regions, and collectively for metro­politan
areas, nonmetropolitan areas, and for
central cities and suburban rings within metro­politan
areas.
For more information contact:
Peter J. Fronczek
Housing Division
Bureau of the Census
Room 300, Professional Center Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20233
Phone: 301-763-2866
1979 Statistical Yearbook, U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Office of Organiza­tion
and Management Information. 1980.
The HUD Statistical Year book brings
together comprehensive and detailed data on
program and financial operations of HUD and
statistical information related to housing and
urban activities. The first eight sections pre­sent
HUD program status and activity data,
compiled by the administering offices. The
ninth section titled "General Statistics" con­tains
data published by other government
departments and some private organizations.
These data cover such topics as population;
households and families; housing occupancy
and vacancy, production, and sales; construc­tion
expenditures and costs; and mortgage
financing.
Single copies of the 1979 Statistical Year­book,
HUD-338-8-UD, are available free from
Publications Service Center, HUD, Room B-
258, 451-7th Street, SW., Washington, D.C.
20410.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Characteristics of New Housing: 1980, u.s.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census and
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop~ent.
1981.
This annual joint publication of the U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, and the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development provides statistics on
selected physical and financial characteristics
of new housing. The report includes chapters
on the characteristics on single-family and
multifamily housing completed in 1980,
single-family houses sold during 1980, and
contractor-built housing starts.
According to the report, an estimated
1,502,000 new houses were completed during
1980; 957,000 were single-family structures.
The median size of these single-family dwell­ings
was 1,595 square feet, compared with
1 ,645 square feet in 1979-a decrease of 3
percent and a reversal of the trend toward
larger houses that has prevailed since 1975.
This decrease in size is consistent with data
from surveys of the National Association of
Home Builders. In addition, proportionately
fewer houses were built with basements,
garages, fireplaces, and four or more bed­rooms.
The only measured amenity to in­crease
was central air-conditioning. Electricity
was used to heat about half of all new one­family
houses, while the proportion heated
with gas increased slightly. The proportion
of new single-family houses heated by oil
continued to decline.
Of the estimated 545,000 units in multi­family
buildings completed in 1980, 32 per­cent
were for sale, as compared with 24 per­cent
in 1979 and 18 percent in 1978. Unlike
one-family houses, units in multifamily build­ings
completed in 1980 were larger than those
completed in 1979. Proportionately more
units completed in 1980 had air-conditioning,
two or more bathrooms, and two or more
bedrooms.
The median sales price of new single-family
houses sold in 1980 was $64,500, compared
with $62,900 in 1979. In 1980, the aver~ge
price per square foot, of houses for wh1ch
figures were available, was $35.20, compared
with $32.40 in 1979, and $28.50 in 1978.
The price index of houses of comparable
quality sold in the United States rose from
130.8 in 1979 (1977=100) to 145.2 in 1980.
WINTER 1982
Single copies of Characteristics of New
Housing: 1980, Construction Reports C25-80-
13, are available for $2.50 from Data User
Division, Customer Service Branch (Publica­tions),
Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C.
20233.
Survey of Homeowner Experience with New
Residential Housing Construction, u.s. Depart­ment
of Housing and Urban Development, Office of
Policy Development and Research, and the Federal
Trade Commission. Richard L. Kaluzny, Mathematica
Policy Research, Inc., Princeton, N.J. 1980.
This report presents information on a
national survey of new homebuyers' experi­ences
regarding the incidence and repair of
problems in their new homes. The study
focuses on all non-builder-resolved problems
(i.e., all unresolved and owner-resolved prob­lems)
estimated to cost $100 or more to
repair. The findings are presented for three
areas: Problem incidence, problem cost, and
owner-builder relations. Footnotes, tabular
data, and information on survey methods
and variable definitions are included.
Single copies of the report, PDR-622, are
available free from HUD USER, P.O. Box
280, Germantown, Md. 20767.
Housing Needs of the Rural Elderly and Handi­capped,
Iric Nathanson, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and
Research, Washington, D.C. 1980.
This report was prepared in response to a
Congressional directive in Public Law 96-153
that requires HUD to transmit to Congress
an assessment of the housing needs of the
rural elderly and handicapped, alternatives
to meeting these needs, and present programs
available to these people. Issues considered
in the delivery of assistance include attitudinal
factors, support services, institutional con­straints,
local sponsorship, and local govern­ment
capacity. Alternative approaches include
financing mechanisms, sponsorship arrange­ments,
and alternative housing types.
Single copies of the report, PDR-633, are
available free from HUD USER, P.O. Box
280, Germantown, Md. 20767.
37
SOME NEW USDA CHARTS
Chart 134
Change in Housing Prices
Relative to Other Items
% of 1967
400
300
Homeownership "y • . ,,,,,,,,,
All items CPI ~,.,_,
11'''
200
100L-~---L--~--L-~---L--~--L-~--~
1971 73 75 77 79
Annual averages 1971-80; June data for 1981.
Source: Bureau of labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Chart 139
Household Energy Use by Family Type
Million Btu's
Young 83
Older 112
Singles
Young 114
Midlife 145
Older 140
Couples
L__ _____ l
Single· 148
parent family
Two-parent <6 140
family, with 6-17 167
oldest child: 18+ 188
April 1978-March 1979 data. Young, midlife, and older refer to household
head's age of under 35, 45-64, and 65 and older, respectively.
38
81
Chart 132
Cost of Raising North Central, Urban Children
Housing
Food
Medical care
Education
Other
$thousand
13.3
17 -ffi]][i]]f]ImiTITill
.
9 OOM®®#®W®WWWWJ#l6"1777:TT771
25.5
2.21 2.7 :rrr
3.9
;:i
June 1981 data. Birth to age 18.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Clwrt 125
Income of the Elderly
Married couples
Social
security------~l'lfit~~
ther 2%------.Q'-1'111
Private
pensions ____ _...
Govt. and
other pensions
$9,180
Nonmarried men
$4,590
Median income
Median income, 1978. Other includes public assistance and other mcome sources.
Source: Soc1al Security Administration.
hart 130
Distribution of the Saving's Dollar
ecurities, life
insurance, and
pension plans 38%----
Demand deposits
Money market
funds 8% ------1'----..
Nonfarm homes 14%
1979
Other tangible
assets 18% ----------=~~~.u+,~i
Nonmarried women
$3,860
1980
Demand deposits accounted for less than 1 percent in 1980. Other tangible assets includes consumer durables, nonresidential fixed assets,
and Inven tories.
Source: Federal Reserve Board.
WINTER 1982
39
INDEX OF ARTICLES IN 1981 ISSUES
CLOTHING & TEXTILES
Clothing and Textiles: Supplies, Prices, and
Outlook for 1981
ENERGY
Household Energy Use and Conservation
Residential Energy Consumption Surveys
FAMILY FINANCES
Charges and Sources of Payment for Dental Visits
Child Support and Alimony: 1978
Credit Use in the Purchase of Household Appliances
The Economy in 1981: The Outlook in General
Family Financial Planning-Research
Family Purchasing Power
Final Report of President's Commission on Pension Policy
An Interim Report-The President's Commission
on Pension Policy
Money Income and Poverty Status of Families and
Persons in the United States: 1979
National Health Care Expenditures
The Outlook for Consumer Credit
Pensions
Retirement Income
Rural Development Perspectives-Rural Poverty
Social Security and the Changing Roles
of Men and Women
Two Measures of Inflation: The Consumer Price Index
and the Implicit Price Deflator
Urban Family Budgets-Autumn 1979
Urban Family Budgets-Autumn 1980
USER's Guide to USDA Estimates of the Cost of
Raising a Child: Part II
Women Social Security Beneficiaries Aged 62 and Older
Work-Related Transportation Costs
FAMILY LIVING
40
Families Maintained by Female Householders, 1970-79
Time Use and Family Life
WHCF Recommendations Relating to the
Economic Well-Being of Families
Page
3
26
29
36
15
3
20
14
46
13
12
32
24
24
8
3
47
46
13
44
18
19
34
33
32
20
36
Issue
Spring
Summer
Summer
Spring
Fall
Fall
Spring
Spring
Winter
Fall
Winter
Spring
Fall
Spring
Spring
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Fall
Winter
Spring
Winter
Summer
Summer
Winter
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Page Issue
FOOD
Health-Related Food Choices 16 Summer
Nutrient Content of the National Food Supply 33 Summer
Nutrients in Foods at Home and Away 4 Summer
Nutrients From Meals and Snacks Consumed
by Individuals 9 Summer
Nutritive Value of Food Intakes: Results From the
USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1977-78 3 Summer
The Outlook for Food 27 Spring
The Thrifty Food Plan 7 Fall
HOUSING
Housing and Urban Development Abstracts 49 Winter
29 Spring
19 Fall
Interest Rates for HUD/FHA and VA Mortgages 22 Fall
The Outlook for Housing 26 Spring
Rent or Buy: Housing Alternatives 33 Winter
LABOR AND POPULATION TRENDS
Alternative Work Schedules 29 Fall
The Black Elderly 40 Winter
Conflicts Between Work and Family Life 42 Winter
Economic Indicators of the Farm Sector 27 Fall
~ Employment Gains of Women, 1968-78 47 Winter
Labor Force Patterns of Single Women 45 Winter
Moonlighting by Women 42 Winter
Perspectives on Working Women: A Databook 15 Fall
Rural and Small Town Population Change, 1970-80 28 Fall
MISCELLANEOUS
Consumer Expenditure Survey Data 18 Winter
Evaluating Benefits From Research in Home Economics 25 Fall
New Base Year for Consumer Price Index 31 Fall
New Initiatives in Home Economics 25 Summer
Social Indicators III 26 Fall
The Supply and Demand for Home Economics Graduates 28 Fall
Who Are the Uninsured? 33 Summer
WINTER 1982
41
,j:>.. Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at 4 cost levels, September 1981, U.S. average1
t-:)
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month
Sex-age groups
Thrifty Low-cost Moderate- Liberal Thrifty Low-cost Moderate- Liberal
plan2 plan cost plan plan plan2 plan cost plan plan
FAMILIES
Family of 2:3
20-54 years _ ... .. . .. .. ..... 33.20 42.90 53.70 64.30 144.00 185.70 232.70 278.70
55 years and over ............ 29.80 38.20 47.30 56.40 129.30 165.70 205.00 244.60
Family of 4:
Couple, 20-54 years and
children-
1-2 and 3-5 years ... ... .. .. 47.20 60.30 75.00 89.90 204.40 260.80 325.10 389.10 n 6-8 and 9-11 years ......... 56.90 72.90 91.20 109.20 246.60 315.50 395.30 473.10 0
INDIVIDUALS4 Ul
-t
Child : 7 months to 1 year ... . . . . . .. . 6.80 8.20 10.00 11.80 29.30 35.40 43.30 51.10 0
1-2 years .... .. ...... ..... . 7.70 9.70 11.90 14.20 33.20 41.90 51.60 61.30 .,
3-5 years . ........ . ... .. .. . 9.30 11.60 14.30 17.20 40.30 50.10 62.00 74.40 .,
6-8 years .................. 11.80 15.10 18.80 22.50 51.30 65.20 81.60 97.6Q 0
9-11 years ...... .. .... .. . .. 14.90 18.80 23.60 28.20 64.40 81.50 102.20 122.10 0
Male : c
12-14 years ................ 15.80 20.00 25.00 29.80 68.60 86.50 108.20 129.30 "> 15-19 years .. .. . .... ... .. .. 17.30 22.00 27.60 33.10 75.10 95.40 119.40 143.40 -t
20-54 years . . . . . . . . .. . ..... 16.70 21.60 27.20 32.70 72.20 93.40 117.80 141.60 55 years and over . . . . . . . . . ... 14.80 19.00 23.60 28.30 64.20 82.40 102.40 122.80 :I:
Female: 0
12-1 9 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.00 17.80 22.00 26.30 60.70 77.10 95.50 113.80 s: 20-54 years ................ 13.50 17.40 21.60 25.80 58.70 75.40 93.70 111.80 m
55 years and over ............ 12.30 15.70 19.40 23.00 53.30 68.20 84.00 99.60 '"%j
:> Pregnant . .......... . ... ... 17.00 21.50 26.50 31.40 73.50 93.20 114.70 136.20 .s..:.:. Nursing .... . . .. . ..... ..... 18.00 22.80 28.40 33.70 78.00 98.80 122.90 146.10
t"' >< 1 Assumes that food for all meals and snacks is purchased at the store and prepared at home. Estimates for each plan were computed from quantities trl
0 of foods published in the Winter 1976 (thrifty plan) and Winter 1975 (low-cost, moderate-cost, and liberal plans) issues of Family Ecomics Review.
0z 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
0 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 .s..:.:. Labor Statistics : "Estimated Retail Food Prices by Cities" from 1965-66 to 1977 and "CPI Detailed Report," tables 3 and 9, after 1977 .
0 2 Coupon allotment in the Food Stamp Program based on this food plan. CI:J
::0
3 10 Percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 4.
trl 4 The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size families, the following adjustments are suggested: 1-person- .<...:. add 20 percent; 2-person-add 10 percent; 3-person-add 5 percent; 5- or 6-person~ubtract 5 percent; 7- or more-person~ubtract 10 percent.
trl ::;;
CONSUMER PRICES
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers
(1967 = 100)
Group
All items ....... .. . . . .. .... .. · . .. .
Food ••••• 0 0 •• 0 • • • 0 ••• •••• •• 0
Food at home . .. . . ...... .. . . .
Food away from home ...... . . . .
Housing . ..... .. . .... .... .... .
Shelter .... .. . . .. ... . ...... .
Rent 0. 0 . 0 • • • • 0 •• 0 •• • 0 • ••
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 boy's .. ... .. .. . .. . . .
Women's and girls' ..... .. ... . . .
Footwear ...... . . .. . ...... . .
Transportation ... .. . ... . . . ... . . .
Private .... ..... .. ..... ... . .
Public . .. . . ......... . . .. ... .
Medical care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
Entertainment . .. ... ... . . ... . . . .
Other goods and services . . . . . . ... . .
Personal care . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .
Sept.
1981
279.3
278.0
273.2
294.8
303.7
326.9
211.9
367.8
331.1
673.4
364.5
224.5
190.7
181.1
162.9
202.4
285.2
281.9
329.1
301.7
224.0
243.0
236.3
Aug.
1981
276.5
277.4
272.8
293.7
299.7
322.0
210.3
361.8
327.8
674.6
360.8
222.9
187.4
177.6
157.8
200.0
283.7
280.5
326.5
299.3
222.3
235.6
235.1
July
1981
274.4
276.2
271 .6
292.4
297.0
318.5
207.8
358.0
325.1
677.9
357.6
222.4
184.7
175.6
153.5
199.0
282.6
279.6
323.1
295.6
221.1
234.6
233.4
Sept.
1980
251.7
261.1
258.9
271.4
267.7
285.3
195.1
317.6
288.2
561.5
318.4
209.2
182.2
171.7
159.0
193.2
254.7
253.2
271.0
270.6
209.8
220.6
216.7
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
HEATING WITH WOOD
The number of homes in which wood is used
to either supplement or toally supply present
heating requirements is increasing throughout
the Nation. Wood has become one of the
favorite alternative fuels and could help make
regions less dependent on imported, expensive,
and increasingly scarce fuels.
A new factsheet on heating with wood
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
provides the consumer with information on
the advantages of heating with wood and facts
WINTER 1982
needed for the purchase of wood for heating.
Presented, also, is information on the most
economical, efficient, and safe way to burn
wood; and diagrams for correct installation
of stoves or fireplaces.
Single free copies of the factsheet, Wood
Heat: Is It Right for You?, AFS 4-2-1, are
available from the U.S. Department of Agri­culture,
Office of Government and Public
Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20250.
43
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
WINTER 1982
CONTENTS
Federal Income Taxation and the Two-Earner Couple
Colien Hefferan
Page
3
Single-Parent Households: An Alternative Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Isabelle S. Payton
Cost of Doing Laundry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Joan C. Courtless
Food