Family Economics Review [1984, Number 4]

              PR PERri Of Til
LIBRARY
OCT 3 0 ·e114
/ For Building Use Only /
Editor
Katherine S. Tippett
Managing Editor
Sherry Lowe
Editorial Assistant
Nancy J. Bailey
Family Economics Review is
published each quarter by the
Family Economics Research
Group, Agricultural Research
Service. United States
Department of Agriculture,
Washington. D.C.
The Secretary of Agriculture has
determined that the publication
of this periodical is necessary in
the transaction of the public
business required by law of this
Department. Use of funds lor this
periodical has been approved
by the Director of the Ot!ice of
Management and Budget
through March 31. 1987.
Contents may be reprinted
without permission. but credit to
Family Economics Review
would be appreciated. Use of
commercial or trade names
does not imply approval or con­stitute
endorsement by USDA
Family Economics Review is
lor sale by the Superintendent of
Documents. U.S. Government
Printing Ot!ice. Send subscrip­tion
orders. change of address.
and single copy requests to
Superintendent of Documents.
U.S. Government Printing Ot!ice.
Washington. D.C. 20402. (See
subscription form in back of this
issue.)
Suggestions or comments con­cerning
this publication should
be addressed to.
Katherine S Tippett, Editor.
Family Economics Review,
Family Economics Research Group.
USDN ARS. Federal Building,
Family
Economics
Review
1984 No.4
Contents:
Contribution of the Family to the Economic Support of
the Elderly
Marilyn Doss Ruffin
Farm Operator Households Receiving Social Security
Income, 1979
Kathleen K. Scholl
National Nutrition Monitoring System
Betty B. Peterkin and Robert L. Rizek
Better Eating for Better Health
Anne M. Shaw, Patricia M. Marsland, and
Barbara P. Clarke
Abstracts
A Marketer's Guide to Discretionary Income
Housing--A Reader
More Census '80 Product Primers
Money Income and Poverty Status of Families in 1982
Regular Features
Some New USDA Publications
Updated Estimates of the Cost of Raising a Child
Cost of Food at Home
Consumer Prices
Agricultural Outlook '85 Program--Outlook for Families
Room 442A Hyattsville. Md. 20782. Issue d October 1984
1
12
15
20
14
15
22
22
11
24
26
27
29
Contribution of the Family to the
Economic Support of the Elderly
By Marilyn Doss Ruffin
Family economist
Programs such as social security, medi­care,
medicaid, supplemental security
income, and food stamps now provide sub­stantial
money and in-kind support to
persons age 65 and over. Nonetheless, the
family continues to make important economic
contributions to their elderly. Such contri­butions
may be in the form of resource
transfers between households (money; goods
and services), or resource transfers or
sharing within households (typically hous­ing).
Services are the predominant form of
economic assistance to elderly parents, and
regular money contributions are the least
prevalent.
The elderly population encompasses a broad
range of individuals in terms of age, func­tional
capabilities, economic well-being,
and other characteristics. The majority of
elderly live independently and are able to
meet most or all of their needs without
assistance from their children or other
family members outside the household.
However, as parents' needs increase due
to advancing age, declining health, death
of spouse, or other factors, assistance
from children may also increase.
This article will present information on
the major types of assistance from adult
children to elderly parents, some factors
that are associated with such assistance,
some developments at the Federal level, and
the outlook for the future.
FORMS OF FAMILY-BASED ECONOMIC
SUPPORT TO THE ELDERLY
Financial Assistance
Overall, direct financial contributions
from families to their elderly are quite
limited. In fact, only a slightly higher
percentage of elderly households r~port .
receiving contributions as making fmanc1al
contributions to another household (6. 6 and
5. 4 percent, respectively) (~). Regular
contributions from adult children to elderly
parents are estimated at only 3 to 4 percent
(11) by one study. Reports of financial
hardship by children who are helping their
elderly parents are infrequent C!).
Social security, rather than the family,
is the primary means of transferring income
from younger generations to the elderly.
Nearly all elderly persons are eligible to
receive social security benefits--by having
paid taxes on their earnings for a specified
time period or by being the spouse of such
a person, and having reached a specified
retirement age. More than 90 percent of
elderly households receive social security
income (14), which constitutes about
40 percent of income of all households in
which the head is age 65 or over (~).
Other transfer programs, such as supple­mental
security income and food stamps, are
"income-conditioned" or "means-tested "--that
is, only those individuals or households who
meet specified criteria of financial need
are eligible to receive benefits. Findings
from a study of elderly Iowans suggest that
the majority of elderly persons would first
turn to such programs rather than to the
family if they were to need financial assis­tance
(9). In general, the government was
the fir~-ranked source, followed by family,
with church and friends and neighbors of
extremely low mention. Some differences were
apparent when the data were broken down by
occupational category--professionals ranked
family before government, while farmers and
factory workers ranked government ahead of
family by 2 to 1. Thus, blue collar individ­uals,
who likely have a lesser pool of
family financial resources available to them,
have less expectation from that source.
In spite of belief that government rather
than family should have major responsibility
for financial aid, findings from a survey
conducted by the U.S. General Accounting
Office in Cleveland, Ohio, indicate that for
most means-tested Federal transfer programs
(in-kind as well as money), the majority
of eligible elderly do not in fact receive
such benefits (19). Nonetheless, the per­centages
of all elderly households who do
receive benefits from those programs exceeds
the estimated 3 to 4 percent who receive
regular financial assistance from their
children (11). In 1982, 8 percent of
elderly-headed households received supple­mental
security income, 13 percent received
1984 No.4 Family Economics Review
medicaid, and 6 percent received food stamps
(..!.!). Limited findings link younger age of
elderly persons with the belief that the
government should be responsible for finan­cial
assistance (!). Thus, in the future
there may be less reluctance by the elderly
in claiming any benefits for which they are
eligible. While increased program partici­pation
could result in greater economic
well-being among low-income elderly and even
less need for help from children than at
present, it likewise would place greater
demands on the public sector.
More elderly households receive occasional
money help from their children than receive
regular help. Circirelli, for example, found
that among adult children with one or both
elderly parents living, 8 percent reported
giving occasional financial help to them
(~_). Shanas, on the other hand, found that
among elderly persons surveyed in 1975
(80 percent of whom had living children)
14 percent of them said that they received
occasional money "gifts" from their children
(!!). Shanas had previously conducted a
similar survey in 1962. During the period
from 1962 to 1975, the prevalence of occa­sional
money gifts dropped considerably;
35 percent of the 1962 sample reported
receiving such gifts--2-1/2 times more than
in 1975 (!.!). Yet, over the same period the
percentage receiving any type of help (that
is, not necessarily money) remained con­stant,
suggesting that the need for finan­cial
contributions from children has greatly
decreased. Indeed, the flow of gifts of
money and goods from elderly parents to
their children also increased between 1962
and 1975. Seventy-five percent of men and
65 percent of women gave such gifts to their
children in 1975--double the 1962 proportion
( 11).
Although, overall, the proportion of
elderly who receive regular financial help
from their children is small, some house­holds
are more likely to receive such help-­for
example, the oldest and those who share
housing with their children. These groups of
households also are more likely to have low
incomes and, thus, greater financial need.
Shanas found that both regular and occa­sional
money help did, in fact, increase
with age of parent as follows: Regular help
was reported by 2 percent of those age 65 to
2 Family Economics Review 1984 No.4
69 and 4 percent of those age 70 to 74 and
7 5 and over; occasional help was reported by
10 percent of those age 65 to 69, 12 percent
of those age 70 to 74, and 19 percent of
those age 75 and over. Similarly, the U.S.
General Accounting Office found that chil­dren
were a very important source of income
to elderly parents who were living with
them--in 27 percent of such households, the
family was the most important source of
income to the elderly parent (!.!:_).
Adult children express willingness to
respond to needs of parents for future
financial assistance. In one study,
15 percent of adult children surveyed said
that they would provide occasional help,
44 percent would provide some regular help,
26 percent would provide a great deal of
help, and 24 percent would be willing to
provide most or all of the income needs of
the elderly parent (_!). Regrouping of that
breakdown shows that 94 percent say they
would help parents financially and
50 percent say they would be willing to
provide a great deal or all of the support
of parents should the need arise.
Assistance in the Form of Services
While the contributions of the public
sector exceed those of the family in the
case of financial support, the opposite is
true for services. The percentages reported
in table 1 illustrate the minor role of
service agencies for most services. For all
categories of service in which the family
provided help, the family was more likely
than service agencies to provide that help
except for nursing care, in which equal
percentages of family (and friends) and
service agencies provided help. 1 In
1Unfortunately, these data are reported
for "family or friends," and a separate
tabulation by family only is not available.
Based on other studies, however, it seems
reasonable to assume that family rather
than friends were the primary helper. For
example, in one study friends or coworkers
were the first or second source of help to
only 3 percent of elderly with limitations
in personal care and to 10 percent of those
with limitations in mobility, shopping, or
household chores (23).
addition to reaching only a small percent­age
of elderly persons, services from
public agencies frequently are concentrated
on residents of public housing (~)-­presumably
because of the greater effi­ciency
in locating and serving those
persons, as well as the belief that public
housing residents have greater need for
such services. Thus, families of the
95 percent of elderly households who do not
live in public or other subsidized housing
may be critical in providing_ needed
services to their elderly.
Most elderly married couples have little
need for service help from their children,
but the very elderly, the frail and ill,
and widows are more likely to need such
help. Service areas where elderly parents
say they are likely to turn to children for
assistance include transportation, house­keeping,
food, and paperwork (~). In
fact, among adult children surveyed by
Circirelli (!), about half were providing
help in the areas of home maintenance,
homemaking, transportation, and bureau­cratic
mediation. In the same survey, adult
children also were asked about the amount
of service help that they would be willing
to provide in the future; most said that
they would provide additional help if
needed but were not willing to be the sole
source of that help. The cost or value of
providing services to an elderly parent can
be great. The U.S. General Accounting
Office estimated that in 1977 the cost or
value of services provided by family (and
friends) ranged from an average of $37 per
month for an unimpaired elderly person to
$673 per month for an extremely impaired
person (~_Q_). 2
Services are provided to elderly parents
not just on the basis of the need of parents
but also as a part of mutual exchanges that
characterize relationships among family
members. For example, a comparison of
receipt of services from children and "need"
for services--both as defined by the elderly
individual--indicate that services are pro­vided
by adult children to a much greater
extent than they are "needed" by elderly
parents <i. ~). Furthermore, substantial
2 Costs of services as measured by the Con­sumer
Price Index of the U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, increased
by 87 percent between mid-1977 and mid-1984.
Table 1. Elderly persons receiving selected services from family and friends, compared with
those receiving same services from agencies
Type of service
Personal care ••••••.•••.•...•....•.••.••
Checking .................. · · • · · • · · • · · • · ·
Homemaker •••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Administrative and legal ••••• • • • • • • • • • • • •
Meal preparation ............ · · • · • • · • · · • ·
Continuous supervision ••••••• • • • • • • • • • • •
Nursing care ............ · · · · • · · · · • · · · · • ·
Transportation ........... · • · · · · • · · · · • · · ·
Service coordination,
information, and referral ••••• • • • • • • • • • •
Family or
friends
56
44
20
15
13
6
3
60
8
Source
Service agencies
Percent of elderly
1
1
5
7
8
1
3
3
3
Both
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
Source: u.s. General Accounting Office, Comptroller General ot: the United States, 1977,
R eport to the Congress, The Well-Being_ of Older Peo-ple in the Umted States, HRD-77-70.
1984 No.4 Family Economics Review J
amounts of services flow from elderly
parents to adult children. In the 1975
Survey of the Aged, Shanas (!.!) found that
28 percent of elderly men and 41 percent of
elderly women helped their children with
grandchildren; 6 and 8 percent, respectively,
helped them during illness; 24 and 3 percent,
respectively, helped them with home repairs;
and 11 percent and 39 percent, respectively,
helped them with housekeeping.
Shared Housing3
The sharing of housing by adult children
and elderly parents may come about for
economic reasons, because the parent can no
longer safely maintain himself or herself in
an independent living situation, or for
other reasons. Overall, only a small pro­portion
of elderly persons live with their
children; yet, most adult children say they
would be willing to take a parent into their
home under some circumstances (Q), and the
probability is high that an older person
will live in a shared housing situation at
some point late in life C.!).
The proportion of persons age 65 and over
who are not married and who live in families
serves as an indicator of the proportion who
live with children. In 1982, 13.3 percent
of elderly persons had such living arrange­ments.
About half of these elderly persons
either owned or rented the dwelling (that
is, were the "householder"), suggesting that
the sharing of housing resources flows as
often from the older person to the younger
person as the reverse. Over time, the
proportion of older persons living as other
persons in families has declined. For
example, in 1970, 18.4 percent had such
arrangements (_~_). Greater economic indepen­dence
between generations--due in part to
3 Unless otherwise indicated, 1982 figures
in this section and elsewhere are derived
from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census, 1983, Marital Status and
Living Arrangements: March 1982, Current
Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 380;
1972 figures are derived from U.S. Depart­ment
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
1972, Marital Status and Living Arrange­ments:
March 1972, Current Population
Reports, Series P-20, .No. 242.
4 Family Economics Review 1984 No.4
increased social security benefits, the
implementation of supplemental security
income in 197 4, and other public programs-­has
contributed to this trend.
Although the proportion of elderly who
live as "other persons" in families is not
large, the total number of such persons far
exceeds both the number of nursing home
residents and the number who live in public
or other subsidized housing (table 2). The
number of nonhouseholder "other persons"
also exceeded public housing recipients and
exceeded nursing home residents except for
the age 75-and-over category, which was
about the same. Thus, when placed in per­spective,
th·e importance of family-shared
housing becomes apparent, both in terms of
contributing to the elderly person's
well-being and substituting for public
expenditures.
Sex, income, and age of the elderly person
are associated with family-shared housing.
Elderly women are three times as likely as
elderly men to live in shared housing
(6 percent of men, compared with 18 percent
of women in 1982). Furthermore, most elderly
who live as "other persons" in families are
widows (65 percent). In addition to lacking
a spouse and, thereby, the mutually
supportive relationship that facilitates
independent living, widows as a group are
older and thus more frail, and have lower
incomes than all persons who are age 65 and
over • .Nonetheless, widows increasingly are
choosing to live alone. Between 1972 and
1982 that proportion increased by 14 percent
and the proportion living as "other persons"
in families decreased by 20 percent.
Being poor is associated with family­shared
living arrangements. More than half
(56 percent) of elderly "other relatives" in
families would be classified as poor by the
Social Security Administration's definition
if only the income of the elderly person
were counted (.!1_). Furthec·more, among
unmarried elderly persons, the poor (on
the basis of their own income) were more
than twice as likely as the nonpoor to live
"Includes widowed, never married, and
divorced.
with relatives (31.3 percent of poor and
13.6 percent of nonpoor).
Persons who are age 75 and over are nearly
twice as likely to live as "other persons"
in families than are persons who are age 65
to 74 (19 percent, compared with 10 percent
in 1982). Data on the very elderly are
available from Shanas' 1975 Survey of the
Aged, but because the sample universe and
other factors differ from the Current
Population Survey, figures are not directly
comparable. As part of the National Survey
of the Aged, elderly persons who had living
parent(s) were asked about the living
arrangements of the parent(s); about half of
those very elderly parents lived with a
child (!.!). 5
5 This does not mean that one-half of very
elderly persons live with children, as not
all of such persons have children.
Both advantages and disadvantages may
result from a shared housing arrangement. 6
The availability of assistance in health
care and personal and housekeeping tasks, as
well as economies of scale in food and
shelter costs and a pool of shared appli­ances
and other goods and services, enable
persons in shared housing to stretch income
(_!l). There are costs, also. For example,
the elderly individual's benefits from means­tested
transfer programs may be reduced or
terminated. However, when households
combine, the sharing of income and resources
usually benefits the financial well-being of
the added member at the expense of the
sharing household (_!l); computations from
data compiled by the Social Security Admin­istration
indicate that of elderly "other
relatives" who would have been classified as
6 Non economic factors are of course of
great importance in evaluating shared
housing but are outside the scope of the
present discussion.
Table 2. Selected living arrangements of persons 65 and over, 1982
Living arrangement
Live with children or other relatives: 1 2
All ••.•.••... • · • • • · · • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Not householder ...................... .
Live in public housing or other
subsidized renter housing ••••••••••••••
Live in nursing home .... ............... .
1 Excludes married couples living together.
65+
3,343
1,821
961
1,316
Age
65 to 74
Numbers in thousands
1,777
727
NA
232
75 and over
1,566
1,094
NA
1,084
2 Data are not available on the porportion of these families who also receive a housing
subsidy. For all ages, 3.2 percent of family households receive such a subsidy; thus, the
amount of overlap between the two categories is believed to be small.
NA = Not available.
Sources: u.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, _1983, Marital status and
living arrangements, March 1982, Current Population Reports, Ser1es P-20, No. 380.
u.s. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1984, Characteri~tics of househol~s
and persons receiving selected noncash benefits, 1982, Current Population Rep?rts, Se_r1es
P-60, No. 143. u.s. Department of Health and Human Services, Federal ?ou~cil on Aging,
1981, The Need for Long Term Care: Information and Issues, DHHS Publlcatlon No. OHDS
81-20704. (Estimated data.)
1984 No.4 Family Economics Review 5
poor had they maintained their own house­holds,
89 percent were not counted as poor
in the shared living situation C.!.:U. The
combining of households may lead to crowded
living conditions and thus may adversely
effect the relative comfort and quality of
living provided by the families housing
structure. Time and/or money that must be
spent in caring for an elderly parent who is
frail or ill must also be considered. The
outlay of resources for that purpose may be
considerable, and families receive little or
no financial assistance for home care from
medicaid or other public programs. Thus,
many factors may limit the ability of the
primary household to maintain or improve its
own economic well-being. One important way
in which the household may be constrained is
in its ability to engage in productive
activities for its own benefit, whether by
means of a second earner or by home produc­tion.
Conversely. an able elderly member may
be able to provide welcome assistance in
home production activities and thereby
enable younger family members (particularly
a daughter or daughter-in-law) to more
effectively allocate productive capabilities
between home and labor market activities.
SOME FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH NEED
FOR HELP
Loss of spouse, poor health, and advancing
age of a parent are among the factors that
increase the likelihood of assistance from
adult children to elderly parents. Often
these factors go hand in hand. For example,
about 50 percent of persons age 75 and over
are widowed, compared with 25 percent of
persons age 65 to 74. Age also is associated
with increased incidence of chronic condi­tions
that limit independent functioning.
Death of One Parent
Death of one parent may increase the need
for assistance from children in several
ways. Perhaps the most important is that the
death of a spouse eliminates that spouse's
services as well as the mutual support that
the elderly couple provided to each other
within the household; thus, the need for
such support and services from outside the
household increases. Typically. the husband
predeceases the wife. Among current cohorts
6 Family Economics Review 1984 No.4
of older women, many have specialized in
traditional homemaking responsibilities and
may be ill-equipped to handle financial
management, arrange for home maintenance,
or provide their own transportation.
Although most elderly widows now live
alone (69 percent in 1982). they comprise
about two-thirds of elderly persons living
as "other persons" in families of their
children or others.
Income may be reduced, perhaps dramati­cally.
without a proportionate drop in
living expenses if one spouse dies. Lower
income may result from loss of a bread­winner's
earnings, lower social security
benefits, or a loss or reduction of pension.
Not all men who have reached age 65 have
retired. Twenty-six percent of men age 65 to
74 and 12 percent of men age 70 and over
were still in the labor force in 1983 (~_);
death of that earner would, of course, mean
that such income would stop. In the case
where the worker was retired and pension
benefits were being received while he was
living, such benefits could end or be dras­tically
reduced upon his death. Under
present law. survivor benefits do not have
to be provided by a pension plan, and even
if they are offered, the worker is not com­pelled
to select that option. Many workers
do in fact choose the alternative of a
higher retirement check during their own
lifetime rather than continuation of some
level of benefits after their death, perhaps
without fully understanding the implications
of their actions. The proposed Pension
Equity Act of 1983 (H. H.. 4032). currently
before the Congress, addresses the problem
of survivor benefits and would afford pro­tection
to future beneficiaries.
Income from social security is a far more
prevalent source for most elderly than is
income from pensions (93 percent of older
households received social security in 1982,
compared with 24 percent who received
pensions)(!.~). Social security income also
drops when a spouse dies. When that income
was based on the earnings of one member, the
benefit drops by one-third (10). In the case
of low-earning couples who had relied on two
paychecks to provide sufficient income and
who had received social security benefits
based on each spouse's earning record, a
greater reduction would be likely (!.Q).
Health
Elderly parents who are ill or impaired
may need services or financial assistance
from their children in the areas of house­hold
tasks or personal care, consultations
or arrangements for medical care, provisions
or arrangements for long-term care, as well
as in other areas. Thirty-seven percent of
older persons surveyed in Cleveland, Ohio,
by the U.S. General Accounting Office said
that their children would be ~he primary
source of assistance to them if they became
ill or disabled C.!~). Most assistance goes
to elderly mothers; this is because of the
greater number of elderly women than men,
the older age and thus greater needs of
these women, and the fact that most elderly
men are married and have wives who are the
major source of care and services for them.
Shanas (!!) found that elderly women who
had been ill in bed received help with
selected household tasks from children out­side
and within the household, respectively,
as follows: Housework, 18 percent and
15 percent; meal preparation, 19 percent and
13 percent; and shopping, 25 percent and
16 percent/ Elderly persons who are unable
to function independently with respect to
personal care or mobility are highly likely
to receive service assistance from children.
In one study, children were the first or
second source of help to 54 percent of non­institutionalized
elderly persons who were
limited in mobility or in ability to do
household chores or shopping, and to
27 percent of elderly with personal care
limitations (spouse was named by 42 and
45 percent, respectively) (~). Transporta­tion
to receive medical care is a typical
child-provided service. Circirelli (4)
found that among a sample of mid~stern
elderly who had a child living nearby,
45 percent relied on a child for transpor­tation
to obtain medical services. Finan­cial
assistance with medical bills is
infrequent, however. Only 2 percent of
7 Note: Help from children outside and
within the household cannot be summed to
yield total help from children, as respon­dents
could report help in both categories.
noninstitutionalized elderly surveyed by
Shanas in 1975 reported that their children
helped in paying medical bills. Low inci­dence
of assistance with medical payments
may be due to the nearly universal coverage
of elderly persons by medicare or medi­caid.
In 1982, 97 percent of elderly
members of households were enrolled in
medicare and 13 percent of elderly members
were enrolled in medicaid as well. These
programs paid for approximately two-thirds
of the health care expenditures of persons
age 65 and over (_~).
Home care of an impaired elderly person
can make great demands on a family's
resources. In 1977, the U.S. General
Accounting Office (GAO) estimated the
average annual value or cost of services for
home care of an impaired elderly person by
degree of impairment as follows: Slightly
impaired, $63; mildly impaired, $111; moder­ately
impaired, $181; generally impaired,
$204; greatly impaired, $287; and extremely
impaired, $673 (_~Q) •8 In spite of virtual
absence of medicaid assistance for in-home
care of an elderly parent, many adult
children choose this alternative. 9 At some
point, the family may need to consider
whether a nursing home is the best alterna­tive
for care of an elderly parent. Fre­quently
it is the only way to financially
obtain adequate care. When the elderly
person is institutionalized, public programs
generally relieve children of responsibility
for that care. Nonetheless, children were
the major source of financial support to
11 percent of parents living in nursing
homes in the GAO study (!!_).
8 See footnote 3, p. 4.
9 The U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs
reports that a bulletin All About Home
Care: A Consumer's Guide is now available.
Published by the National Homecaring Council
and the Council of Better Business Bureaus,
it is a 30-page guide to home care services
(such as medical care, nutrition services,
personal care, and nursing care). Single
copies may be ordered from the National
Homecaring Council, 235 Park Avenue South,
New York, N.Y. 10003. Send $2 and a self­addressed
business envelope. Bulk rates are
also available.
1984 No.4 Family Economics Review 7
Age
Age of parent is associated with many
factors that increase the need for help from
children--greater likelihood of health prob­lems
and impairments, greater likelihood of
widowhood, and lower incomes. In addition,
current cohorts of elderly, particularly the
oldest, may have special needs due to
factors such as low levels of education,
inexperience with forms and other paperwork,
and other interactions with bureaucracies.
Circirelli (_~_) found that reliance on
children and other relatives for income as
well as services increased with age, espe­cially
in the over-80 category. However, the
very elderly were still self-reliant except
in the areas of home maintenance and trans­portation
(_!). Data from the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services illustrate how
the oldest of the elderly may need greatly
increased amounts of help to carry out
home management activities (due to chronic
conditions). While only 5. 7 percent of
persons ages 65 to 74 and 14.2 percent of
persons ages 75 to 84 needed help in any
activity, 39.3 percent of those age 85 and
over needed assistance (see table 3).
Increased age also is associated with
greater likelihood of living in a shared
housing situation with a child or other
relative.
Incomes of the very old are likely to be
lowest. This is partly because their retire­ment
benefits from social security or
private pensions are derived from an earlier
and lower earnings base and that benefit
increases, if any, generally are based on
cost-of-living increases, whereas subsequent
workers' earnings have increased on the
basis of productivity gains as well as cost
of living (_!.Q.).
SOME DEVELOPMENTS AT THE FEDERAL
LEVEL
Implications of demographic and social
trends for Federal support of dependent-care
services for the elderly were assessed by
the Congressional Budget Office in a 1983
report (~). Demand for such services is
growing, and to expand Federal support
would mean choices among altering other
Federal programs, raising taxes, or
increasing the deficit.
The Advisory Council on Social Security
recommended in a March 1984 report that the
age for medicare eligibility be raised from
6 5 to 6 7 (_!_~). The Cou neil also recommended
Table 3. Need for home management help by persons 65 and over, 1979 1
Activity Total 65-74 75-84 85 arrl over
Percent needing helE2
Any activity .......................... 10.5 5.7 14.2 39.9
Shop ping3
•••••••••••••••••••••••••• 8.6 4.4 11.8 35.5
Chores ............................. 8.7 4.1 9.8 29.3
Handling money •••••••• ••••••••••••• 3.6 1.5 5.1 17.6
Meals ............................... 5.0 2.5 6.5 22.5
~Based on interview~ with civilian noninstitutionalized population.
These percentages mclude only persons with self-reported chronic conditions and, thus,
may be lower than is actually the case.
3 Excludes persons who need help only in getting to the store.
Source: Feller, Barbara A., 1983, Americans needing help to function at home. Vital and
Health Statistics, No. 92. U.s. Department of Health and Human Serv1·ces,
for Health Statistics. National Center
8 Family Economics Review 1984 No.4
that coinsurance payments (that is, the
share of medical bills that program partici­pants
must pay) be increased. These recom­mendations
follow from projections by the
Council that medicare could run out of funds
between 1988 and 1990 unless major changes
are made. The raising of the eligibility age
would particularly affect many older indivi­duals
who are not covered by private insur­ance.
About one-third of medicare enrollees
were not covered by private insurance in
1980; persons who had low levels of educa­tion,
low income, were black, or perceived
that they were in poor health were most
likely to. lack private coverage (~). The
proposed changes clearly would affect the
economic well-being of the elderly and have
the potential for increasing the need for
economic assistance from children. The
proposals will be evaluated by Congress
later this year.
The Retirement Equity Act of 1984
(H.R. 4280) was passed by the House in May
1984, and similar legislation has been
proposed in the Senate. Part of this act
addresses joint and survivor coverage under
pension plans that offer benefits in the
form of life annuities. Under current law,
such options do not have to be provided
until the worker has reached the earliest
possible retirement age under the organiza­tion's
plan. Thus, if the worker died before
reaching that age, the plan would not have
to pay the spouse a survivor's benefit.
Under the new legislation, joint and
survivor benefits would be automatically
provided after the worker had accumulated 10
years of service and had reached age 45. In
addition to remedying the inequity in which
a widow of a below-retirement age worker
receives no pension benefits, the provision
also means that the joint and survivor
option would become the usual form in which
benefits are paid. That is, a reduced
annuity amount would be paid during the
worker's retirement in order to provide for
the continuation of benefits to the surviv­ing
spouse should the retired worker die
first; in that case, the survivor's annuity
payment would have to be at least 50 percent
of that received while the retired worker
was living. To waive joint and survivor
coverage, the spouse would have to consent
in writing before either a plan representa­tive
or a notary public. These changes would
not, of course, apply to currently retired
persons or their surviving spouses.
The Administration on Aging (U.S. Depart­ment
of Health and Human Services) has
sponsored a number of model or demonstration
projects to explore the role of families and
others, such as friends, neighbors, and
volunteers, in informally providing care and
other services to elderly persons. Other
projects have explored how formal care giver
support groups might strengthen informal
efforts. A project now is underway by the
National Council on the Aging, also under
the sponsorship of the Administration on
Aging, to develop a series of publications
that synthesize and publicize the Federal
projects. The following three publications
are available: 10
Informal Supports: A Summary of
Federally Funded Research and
Demonstrations. (A summary report;
price, $10).
Care Giver Support Groups. (A "how-to"
book based on two successful demonstra­tion
projects; price, $6).
Volume III: Peer Groups for Health
Education. (Also a "how-to" book based
on successful demonstration projects;
price, $6).
OUTLOOK
During the decade of the eighties the
elderly population will increase--particu-larly
the most aged, who are most likely to
have low incomes, health problems, and func­tional
limitation, and thus greatest need
for family and public sector support. How­ever,
both the family and the public sector
will have difficulty in responding to the
greater level of need. Trends affecting
younger age groups--such as the proportion
of women in the labor force and the large
1 0More information on this project may be
obtained from Lorriane Lidoff, National
Council on the Aging, 600 Maryland Avenue
S.W., West Wing 100, Washington, D.C. 20024.
Publication orders should be addressed to
the Publications Department; enclose payment
plus $1.50 per order for postage and
handling.
1984 No.4 Family Economics Review 9
number of families that are headed by a
single parent or are reconstituted--dilute
the family's time and money resources that
are available for helping their elderly
relatives.11 The inability of public sector
resources to respond to growth in the
elderly population already is evidenced by
proposals to increase eligibility ages for
social security and medicare. In addition,
it is likely that the public sector will not
be able to respond to increased need for
services for the impaired elderly as that
population segment increases (i).
Of necessity, we are likely to see a shift
to types of help to the elderly that rely to
a lesser extent than in the past on either
family or government. This would take the
form of various types of money and in-kind
economic transfers, for example:
Services purchased from agencies and
individuals by families of the elderly and
the elderly themselves.
Formal and informal volunteer efforts.
In-kind exchanges by the elderly among
themselves or with others.
Increased involvement by the younger
and more able elderly in all of the above
areas.
The role of extension and other profes­sionals
will be more critical than in the
past due to greater needs of the elderly
population, decreased ability of major
sources of help to the elderly to continue
to provide that help, and thus a greater
need to augment and strengthen available
resources. For example, a shift to greater
levels of purchased services will mean the
need for information on the availability of
qualified providers. The greater need for
volunteer efforts will mean that the role of
professionals as facilitators of such
efforts will take on greater importance;
there will be a need to perform a clearing­house
function to enable the elderly to more
readily engage in in-kind exchanges of goods
and services. Creative solutions will be
required as professionals respond to this
major challenge.
11 For some families, on the other hand,
the offsetting trend of smaller family size
may mean more financial resources available
for helping elderly family members.
10 family Economics Review 1984 No.4
SELECTED REFERENCES
1. Beresford, J. C., and A.M • .H.ivlin.
1966. Privacy, property, and old age.
Demography 3:247-258.
2. Circirelli, Victor G. 1980. Adult
Children's Views on Providing Services
for Elderly Parents. Final Report.
[Unpublished.] [Grant from Andrus
Foundation of the National Retired
Teachers Association and the American
Association of Retired Persons.]
3. • 1981. Helping Elderly
Parents. Auburn House Publishing
Company, Boston, Mass.
4. • 1982. Influence of Adult
Children on the Health Behavior and
Health Problems of Advanced Elderly
Parents. Final Report. [Unpublished.]
[Grant from Andrus Foundation of the
National Retired Teachers Association
and the American Association of Retired
Persons.]
5. Feller, Barbara A. 1983. Americans
needing help to function at home.
Advancedata, 91. U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, National
Center for Health Statistics.
6. Glick, P. C. 1979. The future marital
status and living arrangements of the
elderly. Gerontologist 19: 301-309.
7. Grad, S. 1981. Income of the Population
55 and over, 1978. Staff Paper No. 41
(SSA Publication No. 13-11871).
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Social Security Administration.
8. Moon, M. 1983. The role of the family
in the economic well-being of the
elderly. Gerontologist 23:45-50.
9. Powers, E. A., P.M. Keith, and W. J.
Goudy. 1981. Family networks of the
rural aged. _!.!!. .H.. T. Coward and W. M.
Smith (Eds.), The Family in Rural
Society. Westview Press, Bolder,
Colo.
10. President's Commission on Pension
Policy. Working Women, Marriage, and
Retirement. 1980.
11. Shanas, E. 1982. National Survey of
the Aged. DHHS Publication No. 00145
83-20425. U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Administration on
Aging.
12. Sussman, Marvin B. 197!:1. Social and
Economic Supports and Family
Environments for the Elderly. Final
Report. [Unpublished.] [Grant
No. 90-A-316(03)]. U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Administra­tion
on Aging.
13. Tissue, Thomas, and John L. McCoy.
1981. Income and living arrangements
among poor aged singles. Social
Security Bulletin 44(4):3-13.
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Social Security Administration.
14. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. 1984. Characteristics
of persons receiving selected noncash
benefits: 1982. Consumer I nco me.
Current Population Reports, Series P-60,
No. 143.
15. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Advisory Council on Social
Security. 1983. Medicare Benefits and
Financing. Report of the 1982 Advisory
Council on Social Security.
16. • Health Care Financing
Administration. 1983. The Medicare
Medicaid Data Book, 1983. HCFA Publi­cation
No. 03156.
17. • Social Security Administration.
1982. Social Security Bulletin, Annual
Statistical Supplement (table 10, p. 66).
18. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. 1984. Employment and
Earnings.
19. U.S. General Accounting Office,
Comptroller General of the United
States. 1977. The Well-Being of Older
People in Cleveland, Ohio. Publication
No. HRD-77-70.
20. • 1977. Report to Congress
on Home Health--The Need for a
National Policy to Better Provide for
the Elderly. Publication No. HR0-78-19.
21. • 1979. Entering a Nursing
Home--Costly Implications for Medicaid
and the Elderly. Publication
No. AD-80-12.
22. U.S. House of Representatives, 98th
Congress, 1st Session. 1983.
Demographic and Social Trends:
Implications for Federal Support of
Dependent-Care Services for Children
and Their Elderly. [A report together
with additional views.]
23. U.S. Office of Management and Budget,
Human Resources, Veterans, and Labor
Special Studies Division. 1980. Data
Coverage of the Functionally Limited
Elderly, Report of the Interagency
Statistical Committee on Long-Term Care
for the Elderly, p. 28.
24. Upp, Melinda. 1983. Relative impor­tance
of various income sources of the
aged, 1980. Social Security Bulletin
45(1): 3-10. U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Social Security
Administration.
25. Weeks, J. R., and J. B. Cuellar. 1981.
The role of family members in the
helping networks of older people.
Gerontologist 21:388-394.
Some New USDA PUblications
The following are for sale from the Super­intendent
of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402,
(202) 783-3238.
1983 Handbook of Agricultural Charts.
December 1983. Stock No. 001-000-
04377 3. $5.
COMPUTERS ON THE FARM. March 1984.
Stock No. 001-000-04413-3. $1.75.
LIST OF PROPRIETARY SUBSTANCES
AND NONFOOD COMPOUNDS. April 1984.
Stock No. 001-000-04419-2. $12.
WEEU CONTROL IN LAWNS AND OTHER
TURF. May 1984. Stock No. 001-000-
04420-6. $2.
1964 No.4 Family Economics Review 11
Farm Operator Households
Receiving Social Security
Income, 1979
Hy Kathleen K. Scholl
Consumer economist
Of the 2. 4 million U.S. farm operator
households in existence in 1979, one-half
million received some kind of social
security income. The average benefit per
household was $3,736. In comparison with all
farm operator households, those with social
security income were more likely to be
located in the South, be associated with
small-scale farms (both in terms of acreage
and amount of agricultural sales), and have
cash farm income of less than $10,000. In
1979 the farm operators in households
receiving social security income were
generally senior citizens and were more
likely to be black1 and to be female than
were all farm operators.
Published 2 and unpublished data from the
1979 Farm Finance Survey are used in this
article to provide an overview of the farm
operator households who have access to
social security income. The nature of the
data limits the interpretations that can be
made, however. Farm operators were asked
to report social security income received by
them or a member of their household. The
data describe only the characteristics of
the farm or the farm operator; no detail was
obtained about the actual member of the
household who received the social security
income. The data, therefore, do not provide
a measure of the social security income
received by individual farm residents. Also,
total income received from all social
security programs was reported, but specific
programs were not identified. Since social
security income was recorded in the survey
document in the retirement and disability
income section, some respondents may not
1 Includes other minority races.
2 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, 1982, 1979 Farm Finance Survey,
Census of Agriculture, 1978, Vol. 5, Special
Reports, Part 6, tables 33 and 34.
12 Famil Economics Review 1984 No.4
have reported social security income result­ing
from survivorship or medicare.
Farm households with social ·security
income tended to have small-scale farms.
Over 70 percent of the farm households had
farms with less than 180 acres; less than
average social security income was reported
by households with farms having fewer than
260 acres (see table). Eighty-one percent of
the households had farms with agricultural
product sales of less than $20,000; average
or less than average social security income
was reported by these households.
The vast majority of the farm operators
with social security income in the household
were full owners with an individual or
family type farm organization. Benefit
levels per farm household were near the
average of $3,736 for full owners and
individual or family type organizations.
Those with farm corporations received higher
benefits per farm than those who owned their
farms either as individuals, families, or
partners.
One-half of the farm households receiving
social security income resided in the South.
Among the regions, southern farm households
had the lowest and western farm households
the highest per farm average of social
security income. Southern tobacco farm
households had the lowest level of social
security benefits per farm of all the crop
and livestock farm operations. Farm house­holds
with black 1 operators had lower per
farm social security income than farm
households with white farm operators. The
average social security income in 1979 for
households with female operators was about
$800 less than the average for households
with male operators.
Three-fifths of the farm operators whose
households had social security income were
65 years of age and older; this probably
means that the majority of the farm house­holds
receiving social security received it
as a retirement benefit. Of all the age
categories, this age group also had the
highest per farm average of social security
benefits. There are a number of reasons why
farm households with operators less than 65
years of age may be receiving social secu­rity
income. For example, a retired parent
living with adult children could be receiv­ing
social security income, or children of a
"V"1
IV
I
\0
0
0
0
(I)
""
IV
~
(I)
p
z
0
p
...,
"3'
~
'< ,
n
0
:::>
0
3.. ..
n
"'
::0
(»
.<.. .
(»
:0:
.....
Number of farms and amount per farm reporting social security income/ by selected characteristics
Selected characteristics
All farms reporting ••••••••••
Size of farm (in acres):
Less than 50 •••••••••••••••
50-99 ••••••••••••••••••••••
100-179 ••••••••••••••••••••
180-259 ••••••••••••••••••••
260-499 ••••••••••••••••••••
500-999 ••••••••••••••••••••
1,000-1,999 ••••••••••••••••
2, 000 or more ••••••••••••••
Value of agricultural
products sold (in dollars):
Less than 2, 500 ••••••••••••
2,500-4,999 ••••••••••••••••
5,000-9,999 ••••••••••••••••
10,000-19,999 ••••••••••••••
20,000-39,999 ••••••••••••••
40,000-99,999 ••••••••••••••
100,000-199,999 ••••••••••••
200,000-499,999 ••••••••••••
500, 000 or more ••••••••••••
Tenure of farm operator:
Full owners ••••••••••••••••
Part owners ••••••••••••••••
Tenants ••••••••••••••••••••
Type of farm organization:
Individual or family ••••••••
Partnership ••••••••••••••••
Corporation ••••••••••••••••
Other ••••••••••••••••••••••
Regions:
Northeast ••••••••••••••••••
Midwest ••••••••••••••••••••
South ••••••••••••••••••••••
West •••••••••••••••••••••••
Race of operator:
White ••••••••••••••••••••••
Black and other races ••••••
Nurber of
farms reporting
508,554
151,374
108,595
104,043
46,701
57,192
23,261
9,633
7,755
155,265
98,849
91,016
66,741
46,039
34,897
10,591
4,170
986
406,143
74,029
28,382
464,640
37,208
5,728
978
29,915
172,158
254,023
52,458
483,991
24,563
Social security
income per farm
(dollars)
3,736
3,626
3,720
3,694
3,683
3,961
3,987
3,820
4,432
3,630
3, 570
3,710
3,740
3,981
3,983
4,708
4,541
4,917
3,704
3,911
3,726
3,725
3,741
4,232
5,685
3,689
3,837
3,613
4,023
3,761
3,230
Selected characteristics
Sex of operator:
Male •••••••••••••••••••••••
Female •••••••••••••••••••••
Age of operator (in years):
Under 25 •••••••••••••••••••
25-34 ••••••••••••••••••••••
35-44 •••••.••.••••••..•..•.
45-54 ••••••••••••••••••••••
55-64 ••••••••••••••••••••••
65 and over ••••••••••••••••
Total net cash farm income
(in dollars):
Negative •••••••••••••••••••
0-999 ••••••••••••••••••••••
1,000-1,999 ••••••••••••••••
2. 000-2. 999 ••••••••••••••••
3,000-4,999 ••••••••••••••••
5,000-9,999 ••••••••••••••••
10,000-19,999 ••••••••••••••
20,000-29,999 ••••••••••••••
30,000-39,999 ••••••••••••••
40,000-49,999 ••••••••••••••
50, 000 or more •••••••••••••
Total net cash income
(in dollars):
Negative •••••••••••••••••••
0-999 ••..•...•.•..•••.•.•••
1,000-1,999 ••••••••••••••••
2,000-2,999 ••••••••••••••••
3,000-4,999 ••••••••••••••••
5,000-9,999 ••••••••••••••••
10,000-19,999 ••••••••••••••
20,000-29,999 ••••••••••••••
30,000-39,999 ••••••••••••••
40,000-49,999 ••••••••••••••
50,000-99,999 ••••••••••••••
100,000 or more ••••••••••••
Nurrber of
farms reporting
459,018
49,536
4,589
15,769
25,695
39,709
129,865
292.927
132,122
83,707
51,745
38,479
60,607
61,814
41,332
16,689
7,465
4,824
9,770
13,001
6,275
11,885
22,202
58,855
142,738
142,684
53,282
26,411
10,899
15,751
4,571
Social security
incane per farm
(dollars)
3,811
3,033
3,585
3,530
3,625
3,431
3,567
3,875
3,692
3,761
3,513
3,573
3,627
3,902
3,662
3,992
4,202
4,496
4,696
3,150
1,878
1,929
2,309
3,003
3,582
4,180
4,422
4,076
4,135
4,735
5,573
1 The manner in which the inquiry was placed on the questionnaire under retirement and/or disability off-farm income may have caused
some respondents to not report social security income resulting from survivorship or medicare.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1982, 1979 Farm Finance Survey, Census of Agriculture, 1978, Vol. 5,
Special Reports, Part 6, tables 33 and 34 •
deceased parent could be receiVmg social
security benefits although the surviving
spouse has remarried.
Social security benefit levels by net cash
farm income levels increased most notably at
levels beyond $20,000. Since retired farmers
would reduce or not continue their farming
activities, a similar level of benefits
would be expected across low levels of net
cash farm income. Fifty-one percent of the
farm operators receiving social security
income in their households had less than 20
percent of their net cash income from farm­ing;
only 6 percent received BO or more
percent of their income from farming. Those
with high net farm income and high per farm
benefit levels may be those older, self­employed
farm operators who did not retire
from farming and are not penalized by an
earnings test because of their age. Also,
those with high net farm income and high
benefits could be a widowed or retired
parent living on the farm with adult chil­dren
who operate the farm.
Generally, characteristics positively
associated with wealth--such as the value of
land and buildings, net cash income, and
off-farm income--were also positively
associated with higher benefit levels. One
exception is that of farm households with a
negative net cash income; 3 the social secu­rity
minimum benefit levels probably
assisted these families. 4 Otherwise, wealth
appeared to be generating the income on
which the benefits were based.
Of the farm operator households in 1979
who received social security income,
19 percent were below the nonfarm poverty
threshold. The average social security
income received by these poverty households
was $2,698, well below the average of $3,736
for all farm households.
3 Despite their high level of social secu­rity
benefits, these households apparently
do not have sufficient levels of off-farm
income to offset their farm losses.
"In 1981 legislation eliminated social
security minimum benefit levels that were in
effect in 1979. Presently, some low-income
farm families may qualify for special
minimum social security benefits for certain
workers with many years of low earnings.
14 family Economics Review 1984 No.4
A Marketer's Guide to
Discretionary Income
This report, prepared jointly by the
Conference Board, Inc., of the Consumer
}{esearch Center, 1 and the U.S. Bureau of
the Census, focuses on discretionary income
and its distribution among households .
Discretionary income is defined as the
amount of money that would permit a family
to maintain a standard of living higher than
the average of that of similar families . By
analyzing household income statistics,
marketers can trace the growth, movements ,
and size of potential markets .
Data were obtained from the 65,500 house­holds
included in the Bureau of the Census
1981 Current Population Survey. Households
were grouped by the following characteris­tics:
Size, age of head, size of community,
and region of the country . These character­istics
were cross-tabulated to establish
the various categories for classification
of the survey households. Average personal
consumption expenditures for all of the
cross-tabulated household groups were esti­mated
from the 1972-73 Consumer Expenditure
Survey data and expressed as a percentage
of after-tax income. Money available for
personal consumption for each household was
estimated and compared to the average level
of spendable income of all similar house­holds.
Those households with spendable
income exceeding the average of their group
by 30 percent or more were considered to
have discretionary income.
In 1980 slightly more than 25,000,000, or
almost 31 percent of the Nation's households
were in the discretionary income class.
These discretionary income households
accounted for almost 55 percent of total
pretax income, 64 percent of all taxes paid,
and had discretionary income of slightly
more than $7,600, equal to 28 percent of
after-tax income. Some households were more
1 The .. conference Hoard is an independent,
non.proht r~search institution, funded by
varwus busmesses and industries with
offices in the United States, Cana,da, and
Europe.
likely than others to have discretionary
income. The age group 40 to 64 years
accounted for well above average amounts of
spendable discretionary income, while the
age group under 30 accounted for relatively
little discretionary income. Households
headed by someone with a college degree
accounted for a much greater percentage of
discretionary income than did households
headed by a high school graduate. Discre­tionary
income was higher in &uburban
communities and among home owners than in
central cities and among renters. Blacks and
persons of Spanish origin had very small
amounts of discretionary spending money.
Source: The Conference Board, Inc.,
Consumer Research Center; jointly with U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, 1983, A Marketer's Guide to
Discretionary Income, New York, N.Y.
Housing-A Reader
This report is a compilation of papers
written by specialists of the Congressional
Research Service, Library of Congress, for
the House Committee on Banking, Finance,
and Urban Affairs and the Subcommittee on
Housing and Community Development. Topics
covered in the 11 papers include an overview
of housing, an examination of the impact of
demographic change on housing and community
development, inflation in housing costs, the
evolution of mortgage markets, a history of
tax subsidies to housing, legal aspects of
housing discrimination, the scope and
rationale of housing assistance programs,
and the policy making process in housing.
Also included are a glossary of mortgage
terms and financing techniques and a list of
suggested readings.
House Banking Committee Print 98-5, Stock
No. 052-070-05863-3, is available for $4.75
from the Superintendent of Documents,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C. 20402.
National Nutrition Monitoring
System
Hy Hetty H. Peterkin
Associate administrator
Human Nutrition Information Service
Robert L. Rizek
Director, Nutrition Monitoring Service
Human Nutrition Information Service
The National Nutrition Monitoring System
(NNMS) incorporates existing and proposed
research and survey activities with the
overall purpose of monitoring the nutri-tional
status of the U.S. population. The
system was described by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Depart­ment
of Health and Human Services (HHS) in
a Joint Implementation Plan for a Comprehen­sive
National Nutrition Monitoring System
provided to Congress in 1981. N NMS covers
these five types of activities: Health status
measurements, food consumption measure­ments,
food composition measurements,
dietary knowledge and attitudes assessments,
and food supply determinations.
The goals of the NNMS are as follows:
To provide the scientific foundation
for the maintenance and improvement of
the nutritional status of the U.S.
population and the nutritional quality
and healthfulness of the national food
supply.
To collect, analyze, and disseminate
timely data on the nutritional and
dietary status of the U.S. population,
the nutritional quality of the food
supply, foo9 consumption patterns, and
consumer knowledge and attitudes
concerning nutrition.
To identify high-risk groups and geo­graphic
areas, as well as nutrition­related
problems and trends, in order
to facilitate prompt implementation of
nutrition intervention activities.
To establish national baseline data and
develop and improve uniform standards,
methods, criteria, policies, and
procedures for nutrition monitoring.
1984 No.4 Family Economics Review 15
To provide data for evaluation of the
implications of changes in agricultural
policy related to food production,
processing, and distribution which may
affect the nutritional quality and
healthfulness of the U.S. food supply.
The National Health and Nutrition Examina­tion
Survey (HANES) and the Nationwide Food
Consumption Survey (NFCS) are the core of
NNMS. HANES is conducted periodically by
the National Center for Health Statistics of
HHS. HANES consists of a series of surveys
of representative samples of the U.S.
population. The surveys include health
histories, physical examinations, laboratory
measurements, and a 24-hour dietary recall.
Analyses of the resulting data provide indi­cations
of the health and nutritional status
of the U.S. population. Two surveys have
been completed--National Health and Nutri­tion
Examination Survey I and National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey II
(HANES I (1971-74) and HANES II (1976-80)).
A Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey ~ underway.
The NFCS has been conducted at roughly
10-year intervals by the Human Nutrition
Information Service (HNIS) of USDA. A
national probability sample of U.S. house­holds
was surveyed in 1977-78. This survey
collected information on the food used at
home by the entire household and food eaten
at home and away from home by individual
household members. Included were the kinds,
amounts, and cost of food used by households
in terms of food as brought into the household
during a 7-day period and the food actually
consumed by household members during a
3-day period. Also, data were collected on
numerous socioeconomic variables, such as
income and participation in food assistance
programs. Analyses of survey data provide
assessments of the adequacy of nutrient in­takes
of the U.S. population and population
segments.
Nutrition monitoring extends beyond the
measurement of nutritional and dietary
status. It provides information on a regular
basis about the kinds and amounts of foods
eaten by Americans and about people's knowl­edge
of and preferences for foods, both of
which influence food choices. It appraises
the composition of the foods eaten (includ­ing
their nutrient content), the types and
16 family Economics Review 1984 No.4
extent of fortification, and the presence of
certain contaminants which may influence
diet quality and health. It assesses the
availability of food for consumption, which
may in turn be affected by such factors as
crop strategies, commodity prices, and
support policies.
Both USDA and HHS carry out a variety of
activities in addition to HANES and NFCS
that make significant contributions to the
understanding of the diets and nutritional
well-being of Americans. For example, USDA's
HNIS determines the nutrient content of the
U.S. food supply each year and maintains the
National Nutrient Data Bank. The Agricul­tural
Research Service, in its five nutri-tion
research centers, conducts basic
research in human nutritional requirements
and methods for determining the composition
of foods.
HHS's Center for Disease Control collects
information on the health status of people
using public health facilities in some
States. The Food and Drug Administration's
Total Diet Study determines levels of
selected nutrients and contaminants in diets
prepared from standard market baskets of
foods in several regions of the country.
Other HHS activities include determination
of morbidity and mortality statistics and
studies of food knowledge, attitudes, and
preferences. Both USDA and HHS conduct
research on methods and standards for nutri­tional
assessment.
The National Nutrition Monitoring System
has an important limitation. Its large
monitoring surveys are generally not appro­priate
for evaluation of food assistance
programs. However, the surveys do collect
information about participation in these
programs for use as variables in studies of
determinants of nutritional and dietary
status. Food assistance programs--such as
food stamps, meals for the elderly, and food
supplements for women, infants, and
children--are offered to diverse populations
that often are undergoing concurrent changes
other than program intervention. Also, most
of these programs have objectives in addi­tion
to improvement of the diet. Conse­quently,
unless evaluations are designed as
carefully controlled experiments from the
outset, a large number of intervening
variables will confound the interpretation
of results. Meaningful results require
studies in which data for control groups or
for the population prior to intervention are
collected and compared with data for program
participants.
NNMS Implementation Plan
The implementation plan submitted to
Congress in 1981 set forth se.veral objec­tives
for incorporating HANES and NFCS into
an operational monitoring system. According
to the plan, the two surveys will be coor­dinated
into a compatible survey plan that
would accommodate priority information
needs of data users. Starting in 1985, NFCS
will survey the diets of individuals on a
continuing basis to provide more represen­tative
dietary information on a more timely
basis. In 1987 the first coordinated NFCS­HANES
will be conducted based on methods
of research and field tests undertaken in
1983-85. The plan called for the establish­ment
of a joint (USDA-HHS) nutrition moni­toring
evaluation committee to report to the
Congress every 3 years on the nutritional
status of the population.
Progress on NNMS Implementation
r
A number of major steps have been taken
toward implementation of NNMS since the plan
was submitted to Congress.
USDA and HHS convened a panel of survey
statisticians in 1982 to review objectives
and procedures of NFCS and HANES and make
recommendations on how the two surveys could
be made more comparable. Recommendations of
the panel are being implemented.
The two Departments jointly sponsored the
Food and Nutrition Hoard of the National
Academy of Science (FN B/ NAS), that con­ducted
conferences of users of dietary data
in 1983. The objectives were to help iden­tify
priority needs for dietary information
and means of providing the information. The
final report of recommendations for national
surveys of food consumption from these con­ferences
and the expert committee selected
by FN B/ NAS was released in July 1984.
Certain aspects of NNMS are being studied
at several universities under agreements
with U!:WA. For example, the University of
Michigan is studying dietary data collected
in NFCS and HANES and the effect of
methodology differences such as data for
1 day versus 3 days, inclusion of weekend
days, and nutrient data bases and food
coding assumptions used. The University of
Wisconsin is studying food costs information
collected in NFCS and in the Consumer
Expenditure Surveys conducted by the U.S.
Department of Labor. Other methods are being
studied at the University of Maryland
(validation of dietary recall), University
of Arizona (measures of household food
discard), Pennsylvania State University
(food frequency measures), and Case Western
Reserve University, 0 hio, (use of food
models and other quantity guides).
USDA is initiating a continuing survey of
food intake of individuals (CSFII) in 1985.
As planned, this survey will provide infor­mation
on a core monitoring group--a nation­ally
representative sample of women 19 to 50
years of age and all children 1 to 5 years
of age of these women. Dietary information
will be collected for up to 6 days over the
year, and a new and comparable sample of
women with their children will be surveyed
each year. Information collected will take
into account priority needs of the data
users as indicated by the users' conference
conducted by FNB/NAS.
Women were selected for the core monitor­ing
group for several reasons. Generally,
they are the household food managers and
know the most about the food eaten--how it
was prepared and the kinds and amounts of
ingredients, for example. Also, women of
childbearing age are among the sex-age
groups that were found in the 1977-78 survey
to have intakes that most often failed to
provide recommended amounts of nutrients
(see box on p. 18). Young children also
frequently had intakes that were short in
nutrients, and their diets in these forma-tive
years are of special importance.
As a supplement to the CSFll of the
nationally representative sample of women
and children starting in 1985, a continuing
survey of women and children in low-income
households is planned starting in 1986.
Funding for this supplement has been pro­posed
in the President's budget for fiscal
year 1985.
1984 No.4 Family Economics Review 17
MONITORING OF U.S. DIETS
USDA monitors the nutrient content of U.S. diets at three levels--food available from
the U.S. food supply, food used by households, and food eaten by individuals.
Nutrient Content of the u.s. Food Supply
The food supply--the amount of food available per person in the population--is gener­ally
plentiful as a nutrient provider. Food supply data represent the amounts of food
that disappear into the food distribution system. They are derived by deducting data on
ex ports; military use; year-end inventories; and nonfood use from data on production,
imports, and beginning-of-the-year inventories. If the food supply were evenly distri­buted
among the population, it would be sufficient to provide recommended amounts of
most nutrients we know enough about to measure. An exception is in the mineral, zinc.
The supply of zinc is about 12 mg per person per day, whereas the Recommended
Dietary Allowance (RDA) is 15 mg per day for persons 10 years of age or older. This
discrepancy occurs despite the fact that the food supply provides about 3, 500 calories
per person per day--more food than most people actually eat.
Food supply statistics are especially useful for showing long-term trends in nutrient
levels and food sources of nutrients. The data show, for example, that although the
number of calories the food supply provides has changed little over the past 70 years,
the foods that provide the calories have changed. The big changes are the decrease in
grain products and the increase in meat, poultry, and fish; fats and oils; and sugars.
This represents a shift toward less food that contains complex carbohydrates (such as
grain products) and toward more food that contains fat and sugars. The fat content of
the food supply has increased markedly since the beginning of the century; a consider­able
shift from animal to vegetable sources of fat has also occurred.
Food Used in Households
In the 1977-78 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey, information on food use for a
week in 15,000 households in the 48 conterminous States was collected, along with
information on income, education, and employment of household heads; participation in
food assistance programs; and other factors that might be expected to affect food use.
To help determine procedures to be used in
CSFII, USDA conducted two major methodolog­ical
studies. Data have been collected and
are being analyzed. One study tested nine
alternative procedures for collecting indi­vidual
intake data for up to 12 days over a
year's period of time. Data were collected
by personal interview, telephone, mail, and
combinations of these. The second study was
a pilot study of procedures with selected
low-income populations.
The nutrient levels of diets reported in
surveys are usually appraised by comparing
them to the FNB/ NAS Recommended Dietary
Allowances (ftDA). Many diets do not meet the
RDA. Therefore, to interpret survey results,
it is important to know the degree of risk
associated with consumption of nutrient
18 Family Economics Review 1984 No.4
levels below the RDA. FN BIN AS is attempting
to determine these risks under a grant from
USDA. Results of its study will be used by
USDA and HHS in appraising diets reported
in their future surveys.
The USDA-HHS Joint Nutrition Monitoring
Evaluation Committee has been convened. Its
fifth meeting was held in Hyattsville, Md.,
July 20, 1984. Their report of the nutritional
status of the population and recommendations
for improvements in the monitoring system is
to be sent to Congress in November 1984.
USDA's comprehensive decennial survey is
being planned for 1987 (NFCS 1987). This
survey, comparable to NFCS 1977-78, will
collect information on household food
The survey provides benchmarks or norms for household food consumption in terms of
pounds, dollars, and nutrients. Agricultural economists use these data to determine
demands for production and marketing facilities and services, and to determine the
effects of income, size of household, and other variables on consumption of all food and
of specific commodities. These data can be used to compare diets of people participating
in large food programs directed to the household (such as the Food Stamp Program) with
diets of other households that are eligible but do not participate. The household data
are the basis for food money management information and guidance, such as the USDA
family food plans at four cost levels. The least costly plan--the thrifty food plan--is
the legal standard for the .food stamp allotment.
Food Eaten by Individuals
NFCS also collected information about the food intakes at home and away of individual
household members--what and how much was eaten; where, when, how often; and with
whom it was eaten. From this information the food patterns and eating practices of men,
women, and children of different ages can be appraised. Target groups can be identified
for food assistance and education programs, and appropriate program guides and stan­dards
for dietary improvement can be defined. Agencies charged with the safety of our
food supply and environment, such as the Food and Drug Administration and the
Environmental Protection Agency, use the data to help estimate intakes of additives,
contaminants, and naturally occurring toxic substances.
The nutrient intakes of individuals (calculated using food reported in the 1977-78
N.FCS and data from the National Nutrient Data Bank) were compared to the RDA.
Nutrients found to be most often short of RDA levels were calcium, iron, magnesium,
and vitamin B6• Vitamins A and C were also short in many diets. Furthermore, zinc and
folacin are known to be problem nutrients, although individual intakes were not calcu­lated.
Many teenage girls and women had calcium intakes that were below RDA. Iron was
a problem for children 1 to 2 years of age and females of childbearing age. For more in­formation,
see Nutrient Intakes: Individuals in 48 States, Year 1977-78, Report No. 1-2,
due off press in September 1984. For price and availability, contact the Superintendent
of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, (202) 783-3238.
consumption and its money value as well as
3-day food intakes of each household member.
National samples of households across all
incomes and of low-income households will be
surveyed. The 1987 N FCS will incorporate
automated interviewing procedures that will
have been perfected prior to the survey.
Future Nutrition Monitoring
Policymakers and others need valid and
reliable information on the nutritional
status of the population on a timely basis.
Hunger in the United States and the adequacy
of assistance to hungry people were topics
addressed by the President's Task Force on
Food Assistance in its January 1984 report.
This group found that information available
from current nutrition monitoring efforts
was insufficient to measure the incidence of
hunger and to determine whether hunger was
more or less prevalent in 1983 than in the
late seventies. They recommended that
additional information about nutritional
status of the population be obtained.
USDA's CFSII, 1987 NFCS, and other activi­ties
in the joint implementation plan for a
comprehensive national nutrition monitoring
system will provide some of the additional
information requested by the President's
task force. The CSFII and 1987 NFCS designs
and questionnaires will also retlect, insofar
as possible, the priority information needs
identified by the conference of dietary data
users conducted by the Food and Nutrition
Board of the National Academy of Sciences.
1984 No.4 Family Economics Review 19
Better Eating for Better Health 1
By Anne M. Shaw and Patricia M. Marsland
Nutritionists
Human Nutrition Information Service
Barbara P. Clarke
Project director, Nutrition Education Program
American National Red Cross
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Human Nutrition Information Service (HNIS)
has been working with the American Red
Cross (AH.C) for 3 years on the development
of the nutrition course "Better Eating for
Better Health. " 2 Both organizations offered
unique resources to the project. ARC has
extensive experience in developing health
educational materials and in providing
health education to the public. In addition,
ARC has over 3, 000 chapters nationwide,
providing a national network to deliver the
nutrition course to the public. USDA has
extensive experience in developing and
providing nutrition guidance for the general
healthy population. In addition, the USDA
Extension Service has a national network of
food and nutrition specialists who could
serve as resources for Red Cross chapters in
implementing the course at the local level.
A Memorandum of Understanding, signed in
1982, committed USDA and HNIS to provide
technical assistance in developing the
nutrition course and to collaborate with AH.C
in testing and evaluating the nutrition
course materials and teaching strategies.
The Extension Service agreed to assist in
reviewing course materials and to encourage
1 Recognition is given to the following
additional members of the project team for
the development of "Better Eating for Better
Health": Kristen DeMicco and Rebecca Mullis,
formerly with Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University; Mary Ann Hankin and
Fred Troutman of the American Red Cross;
and Luise Light, formerly with USDA.
2This project was initiated as a result of
a resolution passed at the ARC national
convention in 1979 to include nutrition in
their new health promotion initiatives.
20 Family Economics Review 1984 No, 4
State extension specialists, as resources
permit, to provide technical assistance,
coordination, and consultation to ARC chap­ters
in delivery of the nutrition course in
their communities.
A project team of professionals from HNIS,
ARC, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University worked together to develop
the course. The project team represented
expertise in nutrition science, nutrition
education, health education, and program
planning and evaluation.
A unique aspect of this project was the
integration of evaluation efforts at all
stages of course development. Course mate­rials
were evaluated and revised several
times based on technical review by nutrition
and education experts, a series of small­scale
pilot tests, and finally a nationwide
field test. Field test results indicated
that "Better Eating for Better Health" was
effective in improving nutrition knowledge,
beliefs, and behaviors of course partici-pants
from a broad range of backgrounds ( 5).
Purpose and Design of the Course (!)
The purpose of "Better Eating for Better
Health" is to enable the consumer to make
wise personal food decisions based on
current concepts of nutrition for good
health. These current concepts are primarily
based on the dietary guidelines published by
the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and
Health and Human Services (~).
Through a variety of activities and dis­cussions,
the course provides an opportunity
for participants to evaluate their own food
choices and to understand how these choices
may affect their health. Emphasis is placed
on providing information that will be prac­tical
and useful to participants in making
food decisions for a better diet. For
example, nutrient composition of foods; food
labeling; U.S. Recommended Daily Allowances;
and the fat, added sweeteners, and sodium
content of different types of foods are dis­cussed
in detail because they relate directly
to practical decisions when selecting foods.
Target Audience
Course materials and activities are
designed for healthy American adults who are
interested in improving their own nutrition
and the nutrition of those for whom they
select and prepare food. The course content
and materials are appropriate for healthy
persons. The food guidance information in
the course is designed for people who
consume the mix of foods customary in the
United States--fruits, vegetables, breads
and cereals, dairy products, meat, poultry,
and fish. Individuals who exclude one or
more of these groups of food from their
diets need additional guidance.
Course Content and Materials
The course is designed to be taught in six
2-hour sessions. Generally sessions are to
be held once (or at most twice) a week to
permit time for completion of activities and
trial of new food practices.
The following topics are covered in the
sessions:
Session 1: Food and you. Topics include
introducing the food guidance system used in
the course, factors influencing individual
eating decisions, major nutrients in food,
and examination of participants' eating
patterns.
Session 2: What's in your food? Topics
include discussing nutrients in the food
groups of the food guidance system, using
nutrition and ingredient labels as tools for
making food decisions, and identifying roles
of food additives.
Session 3: Eating for health. Topics
include identifying dietary factors related
to heart disease, high blood pressure, and
cancer; and ways to moderate fat, choles­terol,
sodium, and added sugars in the
diet.
Session 4: Food decisions. Topics
include evaluating need for vitamin-mineral
supplements, factors affecting calorie
balance, ways to control weight, and role of
regular exercise in physical fitness.
Session 5: Nutrition throughout your
life. Topics include identifying nutrient
needs and factors that influence food
choices and nutritional health during dif­ferent
stages of the life cycle, using the
food guidance system to plan diets for
people of all ages; and modifying recipes to
moderate fat, sodium, and sugar content.
Session 6: Putting it all together.
Topics include evaluating different diets,
sharing experiences in trying out new food
practices, and reviewing and evaluating the
course.
Course materials consist of an instruc­tor's
guide (!) and a participant's packet
<_;!). The format for each session in the
Instructor's Guide includes an overview,
objectives, key points, instructor's prepa­ration
for the session, and content and
activities for each objective. Activity
sheets, tables, and other supplemental
material are also included in various
sessions. The participant's packet contains
a Participant's Guide with background infor­mation
on session topics, six booklets deal­ing
with nutrition issues at specific stages
of the life cycle, and a poster that summa­rizes
some of the food guidance information
developed for the course. A 13-minute film
"Table Talk," illustrates a variety of other'
factors (cultural, social, environmental,
financial, and so forth) that may influence
an individual's food choices in addition to
nutrition and health concerns (1).
Instructors
The course is taught under the auspices of
an ARC chapter by an authorized instructor.
An instructor must have training in nutrition
(as a registered dietitian or nutritionist)
or in a related field that includes some
course work in human nutrition. Examples of
professionals in related fields include
registered nurses, health educators, and
home economists. Instructors for the course
are recruited by ARC chapters and must com­plete
the Nursing and Health Services Core
Curriculum, which covers adult education
methods, and the Nutrition Instructor
Specialty course, which covers the course
design and content. Instructor training
requirements may be modified somewhat
depending on the professional experience of
the instructor candidate (4).
ARC is encouraging chapters to seek parti­cipation
of nutritionists and registered
dietitians in training instructors and in
1984 No.4 Family Economics Review 21
teaching the course. Instructors who are not
nutrition professionals are encouraged to
team with a nutritionist in teaching the
course. In addition, ARC chapters and nutri­tion
course instructors are asked to identify
appropriate nutrition professionals in their
communities who are willing to serve as
information resources for instructors and
participants during and after the course.
For more information on "Better Eating for
Better Health" contact a Red Cross chapter
in your community.
LITERATURE CITED
1. The American Red Cross. 1982. Table
Talk.
2. • 1984. Better Eating for
Better Health: Instructor's Guide.
3. • 1984. Better Eating for
Better Health: Participant's Packet.
4. • 1984. Fact Sheet: Instructors
for Better Eating for Better Health.
5. Edwards, Particia K., Alan C. Acock,
Robert L. Johnston, and Kristen L.
DeMicco. 1983. American Red Cross Nutri­tion
Course Field Test: Final Report.
The American National Red Cross.
6. U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
1980. Nutrition and Your Health ••• Dietary
Guidelines for Americans. Home and
Garden Bulletin No. 232.
More Census '80 Product Primers
The Bureau of the Census has issued five
Product Primers, a series of instructional
aids to help college instructors, students,
and researchers use 1980 census products,
bringing the total number published as of
March 1984 to nine. 1 The Bureau has also
announced that three other primers will be
available soon.
Primer 5 introduces the General Population
Characteristics (PCB0-1-B) reports.
Primers 6 and 7 are extracts from Summary
1 For a review of Product Primers 1 to 4,
see Family Ecomonics Review 84(1): 17.
22 Family Economics Review 1984 No.4
Tape Files (STF) 1 and 3 and feature the two
microfiche products that offer substantial
data for small areas. Primer 6 describes
the complete-count data found on STF's 1A
and 1 C microfiche and includes a detailed
exercise on geographic hierarchy to help
users locate data for specific areas on
these fiche. Primer 7 describes sample
estimate data found on STF's 3A and 3C.
Primer 8 describes the Summary Characteris­tics
of Governmental Units and Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (PHC80-3)
reports; Primer 9 focuses on the Congres­sional
Districts of the 98th Congress
(PHC80-4) series.
Product Primers 10 through 12 will be
available shortly. Primer 10 will cover the
Census Tracts (PHC80-2) reports; Primer 11
will describe the General Social and
Economic Characteristics (PC80-1-C) State
reports; Primer 12 will introduce the
Detailed Housing Characteristics (HCB0-1-B)
series.
The primers cost $1 per copy (25 percent
discount on orders of 100 or more going to a
single address) and are available from Data
User Services Division, Customer Services
Division, Bureau of the Census, Washington,
D.C. 20203.
Money Income and Poverty
Status of Families in 1982
A recession beginning in mid-1981 and
lasting through most of 1982 caused a
decline in families' real income. However,
due to a slowing in the rate of inflation,
real income declined by only 1.4 percent
(see table). This was significantly less
than the 1980-81 decline of 3.5 percent.
White families and, in particular, Spanish
families experienced a significant decrease
in real median income. Black families under­went
no significant change in their real
median income.
Although the income of families in the
West decreased by 2. 8 percent, income of
families in other parts of the United States
did not change significantly. Families
living in large metropolitan areas were the
worst hit by the recession; they suffered a
3. 2-percent decline in real median income.
Median income in 1981 and 1982 by selected characteristics
Cllaracteristics
All families ............................ .
Race:
White ••••••••..•••••.•••.••.•••.•.•.
Black .................•.............
Spanish origin 2
•••••••••••••••••••••
Type of residence:
In metropolitan areas ••••••••••••••••
1,000,000 or more •••••••.•.•••••••
Less than 1,000,000 •••••••••••••••
Outside metropolitan areas •••••••••••
Type of family:
Married couples .................... .
Wife in paid labor force •••••••••••
Wife not in paid labor force •.•.•••
Male householder, no wife •••••••••••
Female householder, no husband •••••
All males ............................... .
All females ............................. .
Median income
1981
22,388
23,517
13,267
16,402
24,478
25,741
22,893
19,225
25,065
29,247
20,325
19,889
10,960
13,473
5,458
Dollars
1982
23,433
24,603
13, 599
16,228
25,423
26,440
24,164
20,100
26,019
30,34 2
21,299
20,140
11,484
13,950
5,887
Percentage change
in real income
1 -2.1
1 -3.2
-0.5
-1.5
1 -2.2
1 -2.2
-1.3
-4.6
-1.3
1 -2.4
1 1.6
1 Statistically significant change at the 95-percent confidence level.
2 Persons of Spanish origin were identified by a question that asked for self-identification
of the person's origin or descent.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1983, Money income and
poverty status of families and persons in the United States: 1982, Current Population
Reports, Consumer Income, Series P-60, No. 140.
Families in smaller cities and nonmetro­politan
areas experienced no significant
decline in real income.
Among families consisting of a married
couple and those headed by single females or
males, only married couples with a wife in
the labor force showed a significant decline
in income. Associated with the decline in
the income of married couples was a 1. 5
percent decline in the income of families
with two earners. While real median income
for men decreased, real median income for
women actually increased.
The recession, which resulted in a rise in
unemployment, and the reduction of federally
sponsored programs, such as Aid to Families
With Dependent Children, caused an increase
of 2.6 million persons living in poverty. In
1982 there were 34.4 million persons living
below the poverty level, constituting
15 percent of the U.S. population. The slow
rate of inflation contributed to the
smallest increase in the poverty threshold
since 1976 (6 .1 percent). In 1982 this
threshold was $9,86 2 for a family of four.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, 1983, Money income
and poverty status of families and persons
in the United States: 1982, Current Popula­tion
Reports, Consumer Income, Series P-60,
No. 140.
1984 No.4 Family Economics Review 23
Updated Estimates of the Cost of Raising a Child
The cost of raising urban children: June 1984; moderate-cost level 1
Region and
age of child
(years)
NORTH CENTRAL:
Under 1 •••••••••
1 ••••••••••••••••
2-3 ••••••••••••••
4-5 ••••••••••••••
6 ••••••••••••••••
7-9 ............ ..
10-11 ••••••••••••
12 •••••••••••••••
13-15 .......... ..
16-17 .......... ..
Total ••••••••••
NOl{THEAST:
Under 1 •••••••••
1 .............. ..
2-3 ••••••••••••••
4-5 ••••••••••••••
6 ............... .
7-9 ••••••••••••••
10-11 ........... .
12 •••••••••••••••
13-15 ••••••••••••
16-17 ••••••••••••
Total
SOUTH:
Under 1 •••••••••
1 ............... .
2-3 ••••••••••••••
4-5 ••••••••••••••
6 .............. ..
7-9 ••••••••••••••
10-11 ........... .
12 ............. ..
13-15 ••••••••••••
16-17 •••••••·••••
Total
WEST:
Under 1 ....... ..
1 .............. ..
2-3 ••••••••••••••
4-5 ••••••••••••••
6 .............. ..
7-9 ••••••••••••••
10-11 ••••••••••••
12 •••••••••••••••
13-15 ••••••••••••
16-17 ••••••••••••
Total ••••••••••
Thtal
$4,238
4,366
4, 065
4,307
4,493
4,672
4,850
5,178
5,306
5,821
86,295
4,201
4,354
4,236
4,478
4,807
4,985
5,215
5,533
5,686
6,096
90,958
4,614
4,742
4,441
4,658
4,935
5,088
5,292
5,639
5,792
6,222
93,796
4,546
4,699
4,455
4,725
5,070
5,249
5,478
5,780
5,908
6,482
95,846
Food
at
home 2
$561
689
689
791
765
944
1,122
1,148
1,276
1,429
17,885
663
816
791
893
893
1,071
1,301
1,301
1,454
1,607
20,432
612
740
714
791
791
944
1,148
1,148
1,301
1,429
18,190
612
765
740
842
816
995
1,224
1,224
1,352
1,531
19,132
Food
away
frcm
heme
$0
0
0
140
140
140
140
168
168
168
2,128
0
0
0
140
168
168
168
168
168
196
2,352
0
0
0
140
168
168
168
196
196
196
2,464
0
0
0
168
196
196
196
196
196
224
2,744
Clothing Housing 3
$135
135
220
220
304
304
304
439
439
608
5,946
135
135
236
236
321
321
321
473
473
591
6,214
152
152
236
236
321
321
321
473
473
608
6,282
135
135
220
220
321
321
321
456
456
574
6,048
$1,810
1,810
1, 591
1, 591
1,509
1,509
1,509
1, 564
1,564
1,618
28,530
1,838
1,838
1,673
1,673
1,646
1,646
1,646
1,701
1,701
1,728
30,504
1,948
1,948
1,728
1, 728
1,646
1,646
1,646
1,701
1,701
1, 756
31,000
1,893
1,893
1,701
1,701
1,673
1,673
1,673
1,728
1, 728
1,810
31,160
Medical
care
$281
281
281
281
281
281
281
281
281
281
5,058
281
281
281
281
281
281
281
281
281
281
5,058
312
312
312
312
312
312
312
312
312
312
5,616
343
343
343
343
343
343
343
343
343
343
6,174
Educa­tion
$0
0
0
0
127
127
127
127
127
127
1,524
0
0
0
0
159
159
159
159
159
159
1,908
0
0
0
0
191
191
191
191
191
191
2,292
0
0
0
0
159
159
159
159
159
159
1,908
Transpor­tation
$868
868
756
756
756
756
756
812
812
896
14.336
756
756
700
700
700
700
700
784
784
840
13,328
924
924
812
812
812
812
812
868
868
952
15,344
924
924
812
812
840
840
840
924
924
1,008
15,848
All other•
$583
583
528
528
611
611
611
639
639
694
10,888
528
528
555
555
639
639
639
666
666
694
11,162
666
666
639
639
694
694
694
750
750
778
12,608
639
639
639
639
722
722
722
750
750
833
12,832
1Annual cost of raising a child from birth to age 18, by age, in a husband-wife family with no more than 5 children.
For more information on these and additional child cost estimates, see 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, Family
Economics Research Group, Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
2 Includes home-produced food and school lunches.
3 Includes shelter, fuel, utilities, household operations, furnishings, and equipment.
*Includes personal care, recreation, reading, and other miscellaneous expenditures.
24 Family Economics Review 1984 No.4
The cost of raising rural nonfarm children: June 1984; moderate-cost leve! 1
Region and
age of child
(years)
NORTH CENTRAL:
Under 1 ........ .
1 •••••••••.••.•••
2-3 ••••••••••••••
4-5 ••••••••••••••
6 ••••••••••••••••
7-9 ••••••••••••••
10-11 ••••••••••••
12 •••••••••••••••
13-15 ••••••••••••
16-17 ••••••••••••
Total ••••••••••
NO.RTHEAST:
Under 1 •••••••••
1 ••••••••••••••••
2-3 ••••••••••••••
4-5 ••••••••••••••
6 .............. ..
7-9 ••••••••••••••
10-11 .......... ..
12 .............. .
13-15 ••••••••••••
16-17 ••••••••••••
Total
SOUTH:
Under 1 ........ .
1 .............. ..
2-3 ••••••••••••••
4-5 ••••••••••••••
6 ............... .
7-9 ••••••••••••••
10-11 .......... ..
12 •••••••••••••••
13-15 .......... ..
16-17 ••••••••••••
Total
WEST:
Under 1 ........ .
1 .............. ..
2-3 ••••••••••••••
4-5 •.••••••••••••
6 .............. ..
7-9 ••••••••.•••••
10-11 .......... ..
12 •••••.•••••••••
13-15 ••••••••••••
16-17 ••••••••••••
Total ••••••••••
Total
$4,005
4,133
3,674
3,888
4,200
4,353
4,557
4,903
5,031
5,403
80,437
4,650
4,778
4, 560
4,830
5,179
5,332
5,562
5,897
6,050
6,577
97,708
4,810
4,912
4,445
4, 715
4,905
5,058
5,262
5,654
5,782
6,277
94,199
4,990
5,118
4,621
4,891
5,261
5,439
5,643
6,035
6,189
6,784
100,166
Food
at
hane 2
$510
638
. 612
714
714
867
1,071
1,071
1,199
1,327
16,579
612
740
714
816
816
969
1,199
1,199
1,352
1,505
18,798
612
714
689
791
765
918
1,122
1,122
1,250
1,403
17,727
612
740
714
816
791
969
1,173
1,173
1,327
1,505
18,620
Food
away
frcm
hane
$0
0
0
112
140
140
140
140
140
168
1,960
0
0
0
168
196
196
196
196
196
224
2,744
0
0
0
168
168
168
168
196
196
224
2,576
0
0
0
168
168
168
168
196
196
224
2,576
Clothing Housing3 Medical
care
$118
118
186
186
287
287
287
439
439
540
5,538
135
135
220
220
321
321
321
490
490
642
6,320
152
152
236
236
321
321
321
490
490
692
6,518
135
135
220
220
338
338
338
507
507
591
6,388
$1,728
1, 728
1,454
1,454
1,426
1,426
1,426
1,481
1,481
1,509
26,770
1,948
1,948
1,783
1,783
1, 756
1, 756
1, 756
1,810
1,810
1,856
32,534
1,948
1,948
1,673
1,673
1,618
1,618
1,618
1,673
1,673
1,701
30,390
1,975
1,975
1,701
1,701
1,673
1,673
1,673
1,728
1, 728
1,838
31,380
$281
281
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
281
4,624
281
281
281
281
281
281
281
281
281
281
5,058
312
312
312
312
312
312
312
312
312
312
5,616
343
343
312
312
343
343
343
343
343
343
6,050
Educa­tion
$0
0
0
0
127
127
127
127
127
127
1,524
0
0
0
0
191
191
191
191
191
191
2,292
0
0
0
0
159
159
159
159
159
159
1,908
0
0
0
0
191
191
191
191
191
191
2,292
Transpor­tation
$840
840
700
700
728
728
728
812
812
840
13,776
980
980
896
896
896
896
896
952
952
1,036
16,800
1,120
1,120
924
924
896
896
896
980
980
1,036
17,304
1,120
1,120
952
952
952
952
952
1,036
1,036
1,176
18.256
All
4 other
$528
528
472
472
528
528
528
583
583
611
9,666
694
694
666
666
722
722
722
778
778
833
13,162
666
666
611
611
666
666
666
722
722
750
12,160
805
805
722
722
805
805
805
861
861
916
14,604
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.
For more information on these and additional child cost estimates, see 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, Family
Economics Research Group, Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
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.
1984 No.4 Family Economics Review 25
N
"'
...,
."3.'. .
~
'< ,..,
(')
0
:::l
0
.3. ..
(')
(/)
::0
~
.<.. .
(l)
~
~
CD
:>
z
0
:>
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at 4 cost levels, June 1984, U.S. average
Sex-age group
FAMILIES
Family of 2:
20-50 years ••••••••••••••••••••••••
51 years and over .•.•.••..••..••.••
Family of 4:
Couple, 20-50 years and children--
1-2 and 3-5 years ••••••••••••••••
6-8 and 9-11 years •••••••••••••••
INDIVIDUALS
Child:
1-2 years ..........................
3-5 years ..........................
6-8 years ....•.....................
9-11 years .........................
Male:
12-14 years ........................
15-19 years ........................
20-50 years ••••••••••••••••••••••••
51 years and over ••••••••••••••••••
Female:
12-19 years •...•......•..••.••.••••
20-50 years ........................
51 years and over •••••••••••••••••
Thrifty
plan
$36.70
34.80
53.40
61.40
9.60
10.40
12.80
15.20
15.90
16.60
17.60
16.00
15.80
15.80
15.60
Cost for 1 week
Low-cost
plan
$45.90
43.90
65.90
77.60
11.50
12.70
16.80
19.10
21.70
22.60
22.20
21.10
18.80
19.50
18.80
MOderate­cost
plan
$56.50
53.80
80.40
96.90
13.40
15.60
21.00
24.50
27.00
27.80
27.80
25.80
22.60
23.60
23.10
Liberal
plan
$69.60
64.10
98.10
116.20
16.10
18.70
24.50
28.40
31.60
32.30
33.40
30.80
27.30
29.90
27.50
Thrifty
plan
$159.10
150.60
231.30
265.78
41.60
45.10
55.40
65.70
68.90
72.00
76.20
69.40
68.30
68.40
67.50
Cost for 1 month
Low-cost
plan
$199.00
190.10
286.00
336.40
50.00
55.10
72.80
82.70
94.00
97.70
96.40
91.20
81.30
84.50
81.60
MOderate- Liberal
cost plan plan
$244.80 $301.30
233.20 277.90
348.40 424.70
419.70 503.00
58.10 69.60
67.80 81.20
91.00 106.10
106.20 123.00
117.00 137.10
120.50 139.80
120.40 144.50
111.70 133.40
98.10 118.20
102.10 129.40
100.30 119.20
Assumes that food for all meals and snacks is purchased at the store and prepared at home. Estimates for the thrifty food
plan were computed from quantities of foods published in Family Economics Review. 1984 No. 1. Estimates for the other plans
were computed from quantities of foods published in Family Economics Review, 1983 No. 2. The costs of the food plans are
estimated by updating prices paid by households surveyed in 1977-78 in USDA's Nationwide Food Consumption Survey. USDA
updates these survey prices using information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (CPI Detailed Report, table 3) to estimate
the costs for the food plans.
10 percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 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--subtract
5 percent; 7- or more-person--subtract 10 percent.
n
0 a
9.
(J
0
~
8.
:I:
0
~
Consumer Prices
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers l1967 = 100]
Group
All items •.......•...........................
Food ..•...................•...............
Food at home ••••••••••••• ; ••••••••••••••
Food a way from home .. ................. .
lfousing .................................. .
Shelter ................................. .
Rent, residential ..................... .
Fuel and other utilities •••••••••••••••••
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas ••••••••
Gas (piped) and electricity ••••••••.•••
Household furnishings and operation •••••
Apparel and upkeep •••••••••••••••••.•••••
Men's and boys' •••••••.••••••••••.••••••
Women's and girls' ...................... .
Footwear ............................... .
Transportation ........................... .
Private ................................. .
Public .. ................................ .
Medical care .............................. .
Entertainment ............................ .
Other goods and services ••••••••••••••••••
Personal care ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
July
19tl4
311.7
303.2
292.5
334.4
338.1
362.7
249.7
393.9
637.4
459.1
241.9
196.6
189.8
156.2
208.0
312.9
307.5
389.3
380.3
255.3
306.5
271.8
June
1984
310.7
302.0
291.4
333.1
336.2
360.2
248.4
390.0
646.0
450.6
242.3
197.4
190.3
157.9
209.6
313.1
308.1
385.2
378.0
254.5
304.4
270.6
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
May.
1984
309.7
301.4
290.7
332.6
334.6
358.9
247.2
385.5
649.2
441.4
242.4
198.9
190.7
161.8
210.2
312.2
307.4
380.7
376.8
253.5
303.2
269.5
July
1!:183
299.3
292.0
282.8
319.8
324.5
345.3
237.1
375.5
619.3
440.5
238.9
195.0
188.2
158.8
203.8
300.4
296.0
363.2
357.7
246.0
287.5
261.3
1984 No.4 Family Economics Review 27
ORDER FORM MAIL TO: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Credit Cerd Orders Only
Enclosed Is S 0 check, • T t 1 h $ Fill ,·n the boxes below.
0 money order, or charge to my 0 a c arges
Deposit Account No. Credit r-r---r-r-..--T-r-T~-,--.---.-.---.--.-.-~
I I I I 1 1 1 1-0 169".=..'." J can~ ••· I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Expiration Date I I I I
Order No. Month/Year . . . .
Please enter my subscription to FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW.
Annual subscription rate $12.00 domestic ($15.00 foreign),
single copies $3.25 C$4.10 foreign).
eornp.ny or penona• name
~ljl,~ttllt!nel I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
b I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
treet address
hI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
lty State ZIP Code
lllllllllllllllllllll W IIIII
(or COuntry)
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE
Family
Economics
Review
CHANGE OF ADDRESS FORM
MAIL TIDS FORM TO:
S1.1-penntendent ot Documents
U.S. Government Printing Ottice
Washington. D.C. 20402
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT
For Office UM Only
Quantity Charges
.. .... .......... Enclosed
...... .. .. ...... To be mailed .. ......... .... .
.. ..... .. .. ..... Subscriptions ............... .
Postage ............................... ..... .... .... .
Foreign handling ........................... ..
MMOB ......... .. ................................... .
OPNR ..... ... ..... ....... ....... ..... ............. .
................... UPNS
....... Otscount
... Refund
NAME - FIRST. LAST ______________ _
Attach last subscription
label here.
28 Family Economics Review 1984 No.4
COMPANYNAME _______________ __
ADDRESS ___________ _
CITY
STATE____ _ ________ ZIP CODE ___ _
(OR COUNTRY) ___________ _
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1984 0 - 452-900
Agricultural Outlook '85
Program-Outlook for Families
first minute, and 35 cents for each addi­tional
minute. The home economics sessions
on Monday and Tuesday (with the exception
of the lunch talk) can be direct dialed on
900-410-1245. The human nutrition session
Wednesday can be accessed on 900-410-FORR.
Home Economics: Outlook for Families, a
part of the Agricultural Outlook Conference,
will be held from December 3 to 5, 1984, in
Washington, DC. Please register in advance
by writing Outlook '85, Room 5143,- South
Building, Washington, DC 20250. To obtain
Conference materials and a building pass to
this free Conference, participants are asked
to go to the Patio in USDA's Administration
Building at 12th St. and Independence Ave.
An informal luncheon buffet will be held
at Hogate's Seafood Restaurant at 9th Street
and Maine Avenue, SW., Washington, DC.
on Monday, December 3, 1984, at 12:15 p.m.
To make a reservation, please send a check
for $13.25, payable to HE-170, to Velda
Rankin, ES-USDA, Room 3443, South Building,
A live access telephone line service is Washington, DC 20250. The cost will be
available for those who cannot attend the
Conference. The cost is 50 cents for the
$14.50 at the door for reservations not made
or received by Wednesday, November 21.
Monday, December 3
12:15
2:30-4:00
4:15-5:00
Lunch at Hogate's Seafood Restaurant
Economic Outlook for Families - June A. O'Neill, Urban Institute
Moderator - Mary E. Heltsley, CSRS-USDA
Measuring Poverty
Moderator - Mollie Orshansky, retired HHS
Poverty in the United States - Speaker to be announced (TBA)
In-Kind Income: Effect on Poverty - (TBA)
Discussant - June A. O'Neill, Urban Institute
Medical Care Expenditures - Mary Grace Kovar, HHS
Moderator - Colien Hefferan, ARS-USDA
Tuesday, December 4
12:30-2:00
2:15-3:45
4:00-4:45
Family Policy
Moderator - (TBA)
Congressional Findings - Alan J. Stone, Staff Director and Counsel, House Select
Committee on Children, Youth, and Families; Christine Elliott-Groves, Minority
Staff Director, House Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families
Grass Roots Findings - Anna Mae Kobbe, NAEHE
Housing
Moderator - Glenda L. Pifer, ES-USDA
Housing Outlook - (TBA)
Adjustable Rate Mortgages - Kevin Villani, Federal National Mortgage Corporation
Clothing: The Portable Environment - Susan M. Watkins, Cornell University
Moderator - Joan c. Courtless, ARS-USDA
Wednesday, December 5
1:30-3:45 Human Nutrition
Moderator - Ann Chadwick, OCA-USDA
American Red Cross Nutrition Course - (T BA)
USDA's Continuing Survey - (TBA)
Revision of the Dietary Guidelines - (TBA)
1984 No.4 Family Economics Review 29