Family Economics Review [1986, Number 3]

              Co-Editors
Marilyn Doss Ruffin
Joan C. Courlless
Managing Editor
Sherry Lowe
Editorial Assistant
Nancy J. Bailey
~
Economics
Review
1986 No.3
Contents:
1 For Building Use o.
Beginning with the next issue, Joan C. Courtless will be editor
of the Family Economics Review. Marilyn Doss Ruffin extends her
appreciation to the many people who have assisted her during the
time she served as editor.
Family Economics Review is
published each quarter by the
Family Economics Research
Group. Agricultural Research
Service. United States
Department ol Agriculture.
Washington. D.C.
Contents:
The Secretary ol Agriculture has
determined that the publication
ol this periodical is necessary in
the transaction ol the public
business required by law ol this
Department. Use ollunds lor this
periodical has been approved
by the Director ol the Otlice ol
Management and Budget
through March 31. 1987.
Contents may be reprinted
without permission. but credit to
Family Economics Review
would be appreciated. Use ol
commercial or trade names
does not imply approval or con­stitute
endorsement by USDA.
Family Economics Review is
lor sale by the Superintendent ol
Documents. U.S. Government
Printing Otlice. Send subscrip­tion
orders. change ol address.
and single copy requests to
Superintendent ol Documents.
U S. Government Printing Otlice.
Washington. D.C. 20402. (See
subscription lorm in back ol this
issue.)
Suggestions or comments con·
cerning this publication should
be addressed to:
Joan C. Courlless, Editor,
Family Economics Review,
Family Economics Research Group.
USDN ARS. Federal Building.
Housing Alternatives for the Elderly
Joyce M. Pitts
Family Expenditures for Food Away From
Home and Prepared Foods
Alice Lippert and Douglas 0. Love
Diets of School-Age Children and Teenagers
Mary Doran Evans and Frances J. Cronin
Abstracts
Nutrient Content of the U.s. Food Supply
Share of Income Spent for Food
Revision of the Equal Credit Regulation
Characteristics of the Rural and Farm-Related Population
1986 Revision of Poverty Income Guidelines
Households Receiving Noncash Benefits
New Publications From Human Nutrition Information Service
Perspectives on Comparable Worth
Regular Features
Some New USDA Charts
Consumer Prices
Cost of Food at Home
Room 442A. Hyattsville. Md. 20782 Issued July 1986
1
9
14
8
8
21
22
23
25
25
26
24
27
28
Deposttory
Housing Alternatives f~r the(
Elderly1 . _
By Joyce Matthews Pitts
Home Economist
JUL 16 l9S3
The elderly are heterogeneous in their
ages, economic status, and physical condi­tions.
Housing and living arrangements among
the elderly have become more diverse than
those for any other age group • . Just 20 years
ago, almost one-half of all parents age 65
and over lived with their children. Today,
although contacts with children remain
frequent, few elderly actually reside with
them. Only 13 percent of all elderly live
with a child or other relative (not includ-ing
their spouse), and only 2 percent live
with a nonrelative. Most elderly people are
independent. Almost 85 percent are either
the head or married to the head of the
household. Elderly men are more likely to
live with a spouse, but elderly women
frequently live alone (table 1) (..!.§_).
HOUSING NEEDS
The elderly can be divided into two
groups: (1) Those who are relatively healthy,
active, able to live independently, and
able to perform most physical functions; and
(2) those who have chronic conditions2 that
limit their mobility. The likelihood of
developing a chronic illness increases dra­matically
with age. One-half of all persons
age 85 and over report that they have one
or more chronic conditions that limit their
capacity to perform certain physical
activities (12).
What happens to the living arrangements of
the independent elderly as time passes and
they become the aged (those age 75 and over)
and the very old (those 8 5 years old and
over)? What kind of housing alternatives are
available to each of these groups? There is
apparently a need for a wide range of hous­ing
alternatives--from housing that allows
1 The term "elderly" refers to persons age
65 and over.
2 Chronic conditions include such illnesses
as arthritis, hypertension, visual and hear­ing
impairments, heart disease, and diabetes.
for complete independence to housing that
integrates health and social services.
Housing alternatives for the elderly should
be appropriate for their small-sized house­holds,
physical conditions, and, in many
cases, limited resources. Special housing
planned and designed for the elderly, along
with necessary support services, can prevent
premature institutionalization. In 1977 the
Congressional Budget Office C.J_) estimated
that between 10 and 40 percent of persons
in skilled and intermediate care nursing
facilities did not need to be there. Some
type of alternative housing is needed for
these and other elderly who do not require
constant medical care but are not able to
live independently.
TYPICAL HOUSING ARRANGEMENTS
Seven out of ten elderly persons own the
house they occupy. Even though 84 percent
have no mortgage, the elderly spend a
greater proportion of their income on hous­ing
than younger people. According to the
1980 Census of Housing, elderly married­couple
families with mortgage-free homes
spend over 12 percent of their income on
housing, compared with about 10 percent for
married-couple families with household heads
45 to 64 years of age; those who hold a
mortgage spend about 21 percent of their
income on housing compared with about 15
percent for the younger age group. The
Table 1. Living arrangements of the
elderly--1983
Living arrangement
Alone .............•.
With spouse •••••••••
With relative ••••••••
With nonrelative •••••
Total 1 Male Female
(percent)
30.5
54.2
13.1
2.1
15.4 40.9
76.7 38.7
5.7 18.2
2.1 2.2
1Does not total to 100 because of rounding.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, 1984, Current
Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 388,
[as reported in the Statistical Abstract of
the United States 1985, 105th edition, p. 44].
1986 No. J Family Economics Review
elderly must spend a larger portion of their
income on housing because they receive less
income than younger individuals. Elderly
women also pay a higher percentage of their
income for housing than elderly men (see
figure and table 2).
High costs related to homeownership (such
as utilities, property taxes, and main­tenance)
may cause some elderly homeowners
to consider moving to rental units. About
one-third of elderly householders rent.
Elderly renters generally have lower incomes
than elderly homeowners. These renters
spend a higher proportion of their income on
housing than younger renters--about 25
percent for elderly married-couple families
compared with about 18 percent for similar
families 45 to 64 years of age.
Commercial hotels that cater to elderly
residents often are low cost and located in
central cities. In 1976, about 80,000
elderly persons lived in commercial hotels.
Most residents of these facilities were
never-married men. A few elderly also live
in rooming and boarding houses. A rooming
house rents a room but usually has no pro­vision
for meal preparation; a boarding
house usually provides, in addition to a
room, at least one meal per day. A dispro­portionately
large number of never-married
elderly men were found to live also in
rooming houses (!).
Median Income by Age and Sex
Thousands
8
6
4
2
0
Men, 65 years and over
Women, 25 -64 years~_-;-~_-_-
--.. -. - __,.-~- -- -.. - __ ,.. :;:::.;,- ....- ··········· ··········· •••·•·••••·••····•····· ····~~- Women, 65 years and over
1950 60 70 80
Median income in 1967 dollars.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, as appearing in
the 1985 Agricultural Chartbook, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
According to the 1980 Census of Housing
(~), over 700,000 elderly people live in
mobile homes. Many are attracted to this
type of housing because units are relatively
inexpensive, can be purchased fully fur­nished,
and are com pact, yet efficient. Some
elderly people place their mobile homes near
their family. Others live in mobile-home
parks where they are near other units. This
Table 2. Housing costs as a percentage of household income, by age and sex of Householder
Householder
Male:
Rent •••••••.••••••.••••••••••••••••
Own, with mortgage ••••••••••••••••
Own, without mortgage •••••••••••••
Female:
Rent •••••••••••••••••••••••.•• • • • • •
Own, with mortgage ••••••••••••••••
Own, without mortgage •••••••••••••
65 to
69
21.7
20.5
10.9
29.8
33.1
17.5
Median percentage by age
70 to
74
23.5
24.0
12.5
30.8
36.5
19.1
75 to
79
24.6
27.6
13.5
31.4
37.4
20.5
80 to
84
25.5
30.5
14.6
31.7
38.4
21.4
85 and
over
25.8
33.4
15.6
31.8
39.3
22.3
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of Population
and Housing, 1986, [As reported in U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging publication,
Aging America--Trends and Projections; 1985-86 edition.]
2 Family Economics Review 1986 No.3
encourages frequent social contact with
neighbors but limits privacy. Mobile-home
parks may have recreational facilities.
Parks, however, may not be conveniently
located since many local ordinances allow
such communities only in outlying areas.
ALTERNATIVE HOUSING ARRANGEMENTS
Housing in the Community
About 95 percent of the elderly live
within the community; most prefer to remain
there. The mortality and morbidity rate
among the elderly rises rapidly within
9 months of being forced to move from their
residence of many years (_~). Seventy percent
of persons older than 65 will die at the
same address they had when they turned 65
(11).
Since job relocation is a major reason for
moving, and most elderly do not work, they
are not as likely to change residences as
younger persons. Between 1975 and 1979,
only about 16 percent of the elderly moved
from one housing unit to another. Of the 3. 9
million who did move, 57 percent remained
within the same county; of those who moved
out of the county, 22 percent remained
within the same state. Out-of-state migra­tion
for the elderly generally follows the
same pattern as that for the population as a
whole, with some concentration toward the
sun belt (5).
The elderly are often able to remain in
the community because they are married and
have spousal support (over 50 percent live
in husband-wife household,s) or they live
near family. Data do not support the sup­position
that the elderly are abandoned by
their families. A study by the U.S. General
Accounting Office (_~) revealed that one-half
of all home-help services received by the
elderly were provided by family members and
friends. Even those elderly with serious
medical conditions can live in the community
with suitable live-in support from family,
friends, or hired assistance. In 1976 the
Congressional Budget Office estimated that
between 3 and 6. 7 million people, many of
whom were elderly, received long-term care
services in their home from family members.
Several housing alternatives allow the
elderly to remain close to family, friends,
tenants, or care givers without giving up
their independent lifestyle. Having someone
nearby provides the elderly with a sense of
security. In areas where traditional housing
is expensive and in short supply, these
alternatives could provide additional hous­ing
opportunities for families of any age.
Accessory apartment. An accessory apart­ment,
sometimes referred to as a "mother-in­law
apartment," is a separate, independent
living unit built into an existing house
typically at a cost of $5,000 to $25,000.
There is a separate kitchen, bath, bedroom,
living room, and entrance. Accessory apart­ments
allow the homeowner to rent one part
of the house while continuing to live in the
other. The possibility of establishing
accessory apartments in a particular neigh­borhood
depends on local zoning regulations;
Many elderly homeowners are over-housed, living in large, older homes, on incomes at
or below poverty levels. Home equity conversion is a way for these elderly to use the
equity that is in their homes for living expenses or house repairs without having to
sell. With an equity conversion plan, the elderly homeowner takes out a loan with a
bank or other lender for a percentage of the home's equity. This money is used to buy
an annuity or other investment that will provide the homeowner with regular income. The
lender is repaid when the homeowner dies or the house is sold. There are several
variations to this scenario. For additional information on home equity conversions, see
"Developments in Home Equity Conversion," by Frankie N. Schwenk, Journal of Home
Economics, Fall 1984; Home Equity Conversions by the U.S. House of Representatives
Select Committee on Aging, Comm. Pub. No. 98-426; and "Home Equity Dissaving: A New
Option for the Elderly," by John Gruidl and Marvin Johnson, in Economic Issues, 1982,
College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
1986 No.3 Fam i ly Econom i cs Review 3
they are illegal in most neighborhoods with
single-family homes. Some localities have
created special-use zoning permits allowing
the elderly to take advantage of this hous­ing
alternative. Even so, about 2. 5 million
illegal accessory apartments are believed to
exist in the United States (!.!).
ECHO housing. Elder Cottage Housing
Opportunity (ECHO) is the American version
of Australian housing for the elderly known
as granny flats. ECHO houses are designed
specifically for the elderly and disabled.
These small, self-contained, portable living
units can be placed in the side or back yard
of a single-family, free-standing house and
can be aesthetically compatible to the main
house and the neighborhood. The unit can
be installed on a relative's property or next
to a house owned by the elderly individual.
The elderly person's house can then be
rented to another family. Installation or
removal of the ECHO unit can be accomplished
in just 2 days. When no longer needed the
unit can be transported to another location.
One-bedroom units can be completely in­stalled
for less than $20, 000. Although there
is ECHO housing activity in Pennsylvania
and California, this type of building is not
permitted wherever local zoning laws pro­hibit
prefabricated housing. Where allowed,
they only can be erected with a special-use
permit, which usually has an expiration date.
House sharing involves two or more
usually unrelated persons living in the same
house or apartment and sharing the living
room, dining area, and kitchen. Bedroom and
bathroom facilities may be shared or sepa­rate.
Approximately 500,000 elderly persons
live in some type of shared housing <.!..!.).
House sharing may be initiated by the
elderly landlord and renter themselves
(sometimes referred to as naturally occur­ring
shared households) or may be arranged
by agencies.
The 1980 Housing Choices of Americans
Survey included 1, 300 households with at
least one person age 55 or over <.!.Q). This
survey found that 2. 5 percent of older
households were naturally occurring shared
households. Sixty-six percent consisted of
three or more persons and 75 percent were
located in metropolitan areas. Thirty
percent of the homes in which they lived
were valued at $100,000 or more; 50 percent
4 Family Economics Review 1986 No.3
were mortgage free; 20 percent had
mortgages; and 30 percent were rented.
Although 40 percent of the elderly residents
had no children, two-thirds of the house
sharing arrangements were intergenerational.
These shared households were more likely to
be headed by a married couple than by a
widow. This study suggests that shared
housing initiated by older persons them­selves
is not as prevalent among the very
old, frail, or economically disadvantaged
as might be expected.
In some areas, local government agencies
or other organizations initiate shared­housing
programs in one of two ways:
(1) A match-up program in which the
organization interviews interested home­owners
and prospective tenants, inspects
housing, checks references, and facilitates
a match; or
(2) A resident program in which the organi­zation
leases or buys a house and actually
administers the residence.
Only in agency-sponsored home sharing
projects (often called group homes) are the
elderly residents likely to be poor or have
mobility limitations. A study of a match-up
program in Kensington, MD, found that most
elderly people preferred renting to someone
who worked rather than to someone who
stayed home all day, but the tenant's age was
unimportant (_i). In 1983 there were about
150 nonprofit match-up programs and 150
nonprofit group residence programs in the
United States (11).
House sharing and accessory apartments
can be advantageous for both homeowner and
tenant. Each can benefit financially. In
Philadelphia, for example, a match-up
shared-housing program provided homeowners
with an average of $1, 600 per year in addi­tional
income and saved tenants an average
of $1,500 in rent payments <.!..!). Residents
also can share common expenses and house­keeping.
There is sometimes an exchange of
services, such as cooking, gardening, home
repairs, or personal care3 of the homeowner,
a Personal care includes such services as
help with dressing, grooming, bathing, feed­ing,
and moving around.
for a reduction of rent. Each of these hous­ing
alternatives can promote companionship
and security for the elderly. Compatibility
between tenant and homeowner is vital for
these housing alternatives to be successful,
however.
Supportive Housing
Supportive-housing arrangements for the
elderly provide a variety of services rang­ing
from simple housekeeping assistance to
full-time medical care. There are several
kinds of supportive-housing programs: Board
and care homes, congregate housing, and
continuing-care communities. Retirement
communities may or may not provide some
support services. 4 Characteristics of sup­portive
housing include assistance with
household chores, access to medical facili­ties,
and shared social activities ( 1).
Board and care homes are usually
rental rooms or efficiencies where residents
may come and go as they like. Sometimes
called sheltered housing or residential care
facilities, these homes typically offer
regular housekeeping and laundry services,
as well as room and meals. For an additional
fee some facilities also offer personal care
services and recreational activities.
Congregate housing is "a residential
environment which includes services ••• [that)
are required to assist impaired, but not
ill, elderly tenants to maintain or return
to a semi-independent lifestyle and avoid
institutionalization as they grow older." 5
Congregate housing has private or shared
living quarters that include a kitchen where
light meals can be prepared. Residents rou­tinely
share meals and social events. This
type of housing differs from board and care
homes because a professionally trained staff
of nurses, counselors, nutritionists, and
other personnel is present to monitor the
health and well-being of the residents.
4 Another type of supportive-care facility,
nursing homes, will not be discussed. Only
about 5 percent of the elderly population is
institutionalized.
5 U.S. Senate Special Committee on
Aging, 94th Cong., 1st sess., 1975,
Congregate Housing for Older Adults,
Senate Report 94-478.
Many congregate housing programs are
sponsored by churches, government agencies,
and other nonprofit organizations. The
Department of Housing and Urban Development
has several programs that provide assistance
for congregate housing, including Section
202 that provides financing for construction
of housing for the elderly and Section 231
that insures mortgages on housing for the
elderly ~). In 1977 the Congressional
Budget Office estimated there were as many
as 635,000 units of congregate housing in
existence. However, 1. 3 to 1. 7 million
persons could use this type of housing if
more units were available.
A study of congregate housing projects
revealed that most residents are over age 75
(72 percent), move into a home at a rela­tively
young age ( 62 to 65 years), and are
likely to be single or widowed women (80
percent). Their income is typically higher
than the national average for persons of
their age (_~).
Rates charged by congregate housing facil­ities
cover a package of services including
meals, laundry, housekeeping assistance,
and transportation to shopping and social
events. For an additional fee, medical care
and personal care services often are avail­able.
Although congregate housing is thought
to be for impaired elderly, many fully inde­pendent
people choose to live there. Some
congregate housing programs are somewhat
institutionalized, however, and offer few
options for independent living.
Continuing-care communities provide
independent living quarters in efficiencies
or one- and two-pedroom units (in highrise
or garden apartments), or one- and two­bedroom
cottages. A continuing-care commu­nity
is affiliated with a nursing home that
is usually located on the grounds of the
community. The primary goal of a continuing­care
community is to reduce the health and
emotional difficulties of aging by providing
a wide range of services and activities at
one location.
New residents usually must meet certain
entrance requirements. For example, they
must be healthy, ambulatory, and able to
1986 No.3 Family Econom i cs Review 5
satisfy the facility's financial require-ments.
Residents live an active, independent
life for as long as they can, get routine
medical care as needed, and receive long­term
nursing care should it become neces­sary.
Continuing-care communities allow
couples to stay together in the same commu­nity,
even if one's health deteriorates to
the point where he or she must be placed in
the 24-hour nursing care facility.
Services offered by continuing-care commu­nities
vary and can include: Meals (in
private quarters or dining halls); health
care (nursing and pharmaceutical services,
physical therapy, and continuous medical
care); personal conveniences (beauty and
barber shops, and banks); organized social
activities (dances, games, and craft shops);
recreational facilities (swimming pools and
golf courses); educational programs
(organized classes and libraries); transpor­tation;
gardening space; and laundry,
religious, and room services. Because of the
many services and activities available,
living in these communities can be very
costly. Entrance fees can range from $10,000
to $150,000, and monthly charges, from $250
to $1,700. Many elderly, however, feel this
a small price to pay for the assurance of
housing, medical care, and recreational
facilities for the rest of their lives,
regardless of their health.
Most continuing-care communities are spon­sored
by non profit housing corporations.
Some facilities are so popular that names
are placed on a waiting list years before
space becomes available, whereas other
facilities remain only partially filled. The
American Association of Homes for the Aging
estimates that there are about 600 such
communities in the United States (~).
Retirement communities are age-segregated
developments built specifically
for the elderly. Residents usually have to
be at least 50 years old. Housing may be
somewhat less expensive than in the commu­nity
at large; nevertheless, those who live
in retirement communities typically are
middle-income elderly. Retirement communities
are often built in rural areas, near towns
where residents can use public transporta­tion
and other services. Housing can be
detached houses, duplexes, apartments, or
mobile homes. Living units may be for sale
6 family Econom i cs Rev i ew 1986 No.3
or for rent. Sometimes certain services are
included in the cost, such as use of medical
or recreational facilities. In 1985 there
were about 2, 400 large-scale retirement
communities in the United States C!, ~).
OUTLOOK AND IMPLICATIONS
The number of persons age 65 and over
will increase by about 12 percent between
the years 2000 and 2010, and by 31 percent
between 2010 and 2020 (13). Some experts
estimate that 235,000 ne;-housing units for
the elderly will be required by the year
2000 (18). Others raise doubts as to whether
the private sector can meet this need.
The elderly population will be better
educated and more affluent and active than
previously. Housing choices will need to
adapt to the desires of a changing elderly
population. As more elderly continue to work
after retirement, elderly housing will
likely be built away from the sunbelt areas
and closer to employment opportunities.
Also, more units will be built near recrea­tional
and educational facilities so the
elderly can continue activities they enjoyed
when they were young. Mobile homes, ECHO
housing, and other types of manufactured
housing are expected to be used increasingly
to provide housing for the elderly at low
costs (17). Resident-owned retirement commu­nities
will likely remain popular, but
future communities will have fewer housing
units and fewer costly recreational ameni-ties
than current communities (!Q_). House
sharing is expected to become a more
accepted option, also.
Gerontologists, home economists, coun­selors,
educators, and other professionals
need to encourage families and individuals
to consider housing options early in their
preretirement plans. These professionals
should be familiar with the various housing
options available to the elderly and be able
to provide families and individuals with
information on--
(1) Which factors to consider in making a
retirement housing decision (such as income;
ties with family, friends, and neighbor­hoods;
health; costs and availability of
options; and personal preferences).
(2) Which housing characteristics can
accommodate several generations.
(3) How to reconcile future housing
expenses with expected retirement income.
Builders should be encouraged to incorpo­rate
features that make housing more adapt­able
to the elderly. For example, extra-wide
doorways and lowered light switches would
accommodate people in wheelchairs; door
levers instead of doorknobs would allow
those with arthritis to enter and exit more
easily; and nonslip floor surfaces and bars
installed in showers could prevent falls.
These changes would not make the housing
unit any less attractive to young families
but could benefit older families considerably.
SELECTED REFERENCES
1. American Association of Retired Persons.
1984. Your Home, Your Choice--A
Workbook for Older People and Their
Families. [In cooperation with the
Federal Trade Commission.]
2. Elrod, Linda Henry. 1979-80. Housing
alternatives for the elderly. Journal
of Family Law 18(4): 723-759.
3. Lawton, M. Powell. 1981. Alternative
housing. Journal of Gerontological
Social Work 3(3): 61-81.
4. Schreter, Carol. 1984. Residents of
shared housing. Social Thought, winter
issue, pp. 30-38.
5. The 1981 White House Conference on
Aging. Chartbook on Aging in America.
6. Thorpe, Norman. 1983. Communities for
retirees on rise again. The Wall Street
Journal, Sept. 2 issue, p. 15.
7. U.S. Congressional Budget Office. 1977.
Long-Term Care for the Elderly and
Disabled. [Budget issue paper.]
8. U.S. House of Representatives, 95th
Cong. , 1st sess., Select Committee on
Aging. 1977. Housing the Elderly:
Integration of Health and Social
Services. Comm. Pub. No. 95-99.
[Hearing held on Mar. 24, 1977.]
9. , 96th Cong., 2d sess.,
Select Committee on Aging. 1981.
Housing Needs of the Elderly. Comm.
Pub. No. 96-268. [Hearing held on
Sept. 13, 1980.]
10. , 97th Con g., 1st. sess.,
Select Committee on Aging. 1982. Shared
Housing. Comm. Pub. No. 97-321.
[Hearing held on Nov. 17, 1981.]
11. , 98th Cong., 1st. sess.,
Select Committee on Aging. 1984.
Housing the Elderly: Alternative
Options. Comm. Pub. No. 98-421.
[Hearing held Oct. 17, 1983.]
12. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. 1983. America in
Transition: An Aging Society. Current
Population Reports. Special Studies,
Series P-23, No. 128.
13. • 1984. Demographic and
Socioeconomic Aspects of Aging in the
United States. Current Population
Reports. Special Studies, Series P-23,
No. 138.
14. • 1984. Metropolitan Housing
Characteristics--United States Summary.
1980 Census of Housing. Vol. 2.
HCS0-2-1.
15. • 1984. Mobile Homes. 1980
Census of Housing. Vol. 3. Subject
Reports, Chapter 2. HCS0-3-2.
16. • 1984. Statistical Abstract
of the United States 1985. 105th
edition.
17. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration on Aging.
1983. Survey predicts changes for
retirement communities. Aging. Issue
No. 341. News Notes, pp. 36-37.
18. • 1984. 235,000 housing units
for elderly may be needed by year 2000.
Aging. Issue No. 342. News Notes,
pp. 35-36.
19.· U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Office of Housing. 1979.
U.S. Housing Developments for the
Elderly or Handicapped.
20. Zinsser, John. 1985. Housing: Your
exciting new options. 50 Plus
25(5):28-30, 59.
1986 No.3 Family Economics Review 7
Nutrient Content of the U.S. Food
Supply
Major changes in nutrient levels of the
Nation's food supply are reported in an
article "Nutrient Content of the U.S. Food
Supply, 1984" by Ruth Marston and Nancy
Raper published in the National Food Review
(NFR-32). The article also includes a detailed
review of trends in the levels and sources
of calcium in the food supply since 1909-13.
The nutrient content of the food supply is
based on per capita amounts of foods avail­able
for consumption, and food composition
data. Food losses occurring after per capita
food consumption is measured, such as in
further processing, marketing, and home use,
are not considered. Therefore, nutrient
levels provided by the food supply may be
higher than quantities actually ingested.
Between 1983 and 1984, nutrient levels of
the food supply increased between 2 and 5
percent for iron, vitamin A, calcium, and
vitamin B 12. Levels of food energy and
11 nutrients--protein, fat, carbohydrate,
phosphorus, magnesium, zinc, thiamin, ribo­flavin,
niacin, vitamin B6, and cholesterol-­increased
1 percent or less. The only
decline (3 percent) was for ascorbic acid.
Changes between 1967 and 1984 were
greater than year-to-year changes. Levels
were from 1 to 17 percent higher for food
energy, protein, fat, carbohydrate, calcium,
phosphorus, magnesium, iron, zinc,
vitamin A, riboflavin, thiamin, niacin,
vitamin B6, and ascorbic acid. Levels
for vitamin B 12 and cholesterol declined
4 and 8 percent.
The calcium level of the food supply
increased from 503 to 700 mg per capita per
day between 1909-13 and 1984. Dairy products
were the leading source of calcium, provid­ing
three-fourths of the total in 1984
compared with two-thirds in 1909-13. In
descending order, whole milk, cheese, and
skim and lowfat milks were the main sources
of calcium. The share of calcium from whole
milk declined, while the share from cheese
and skim and lowfat milks rose. Vegetables-­including
potatoes and sweetpotatoes, and
dry beans, peas, nuts, and soy products-­together
provided the largest share of
calcium from nondairy foods.
8 Family Economics Rev iew 1986 No.3
Share of Income Spent for Food
In 1984, Americans spent 15.1 percent of
after-tax income on food, down from 15.6
percent in 1983. Moderate inflation, coupled
with a nearly 10-percent jump in disposable
income, reduced the share of income spent
on food by a larger amount than in any year
since 1971. This decline in the proportion
of income spent on food continues a long­term
trend (see table). All of the decline
has occurred in spending for food at home;
expenditures on food away from home have
remained relatively stable.
Source: Kurland, Julie, and Denis Dunham,
1985, Smaller share of income goes for food,
National Food Review, NF R 31, fall issue,
pp. 26-27.
Proportion of income spent for food
Away
Year At hane 1 fran hane 2 Total
1930 20.2 4.1 24.4
1935 19.5 3.8 23.3
1940 17.9 4.1 22.0
1945 15.6 6.6 22.2
1950 17.7 4.5 22.3
1955 16.9 4.2 21.1
1960 16.0 4.0 20.0
1965 14.0 4.0 18.0
1970 13.2 4.0 17.2
1975 12.7 4.2 16.9
1976 12.5 4.3 16.8
1977 12.2 4.3 16.5
1978 12.0 4.3 16.3
1979 12.1 4.4 16.5
1980 12.1 4.3 16.5
1981 11.8 4.2 16.0
1982 ....... 11.6 4.2 15.8
1983 ....... 11.2 4.4 15.6
1984 10.8 4.3 15.1
1 Includes food purchases for off-premise consump­tion
and food consumed on farms where produced.
2 Includes purchased meals and beverages, exclud­ing
alcohol, and food furnished to the military and
employees of hospitals.
Source: Kurland, Julie, and Denis Dunham, 1985,
Smaller share of income goes for food, National Food
Review, NFR 31, fall issue, pp. 26-27.
Family Expenditures for Food
Away From Home and Prepared
Foods
By Alice Lippert 1
Economist, Energy Information Administration
U.S. Department of Energy
Douglas 0. Love 1
Assistant Professor of Business Administration
and Research Associate of the Bureau of
Business Research
University of Nebraska
Since more women have entered the labor
force in the past 10 years, the distribution
of a household's production time has
changed, particularly in the area of food
preparation. Households with working wives
may choose to substitute meals outside the
home in lieu of preparing meals at home,
which are more labor intensive. With addi­tional
money income earned by employed
married women, household time and leisure
are bought by eating meals outside the home.
Several studies have examined relation­ships
between the value of the homemaker's
time, her time allocation, and her family's
expenditure on meals away from home.
Redman (5) used data from the 1972-73
Consumer Expenditure Study, conducted by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), U.S.
Department of Labor, to test the relation-ship
between certain characteristics of the
homemaker and away-from-home food consump­tion.
Prochaska-Schrimper <_!) incorporated
the value of the homemaker's time in their
model explaining the purchase of meals away
from home, using data from the 1965-66
Nationwide Household Food Consumption
Survey, conducted by the Agricultural
Research Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Kinsey (~_) used 1978 data from
the Panel Study of Income Dynamics
(collected by the Institute of Social
Research, University of Michigan) to test
the effect of various sources of household
income on the marginal propensity to consume
food away from home, for various family
1Formerly an economist with the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.
types. Differences in methodology, however,
make it difficult to compare Kinsey's find­ings
with those from the two earlier studies.
Since the collection of the data used by
Prochaska-Schrimper and Redman, several
changes have occurred that affect family
expenditures for food consumed away from
home, and, therefore, their conclusions no
longer may be valid. Between 1965 and 1980
labor force participation rates among mar­ried
females, with spouse present, increased
by 40 percent; among young wives, ages 25
to 34, labor force participation rates
increased by more than 80 percent ~). In
addition, both surveys were conducted before
the large increases in energy prices.
During the 10-year period between 1972 and
1981, food expenditures increased by 50
percent as energy expenditures increased by
150 percent. A greater proportion of a
family's total expenditures was needed for
gasoline and oil, and electricity and
natural gas. Although food's share of total
expenditures has decreased over the years,
the proportion of food expenditures spent on
food consumed away from home has steadily
increased, comprising 17 percent of food
expenditures in 1961, 28 percent in 1972,
and 32 percent in 1981 (.!!_).
The purpose of this research was to
identify changing food expenditure relation­ships
between 1972-73 and 1980, to determine
the marginal propensity to consume food
away from home and prepared foods, and to
examine whether the employment of the wife
continues to affect the allocation of time
in household production, as evidenced by
increased spending for meals away from home.
Procedure
To obtain a current picture of the deter­minants
of expenditures for food consumed
away from home and prepared foods, data
from the BLS 1980 Diary Consumer
Expenditure Survey were analyzed. Survey
respondents had kept a detailed record
(weekly diaries) of their expenditures for
food and other frequently purchased items
over a 2-week period. The diary period
varied from respondent to respondent, but
all were within the 1980 calendar year.
1986 No.3 family Economics Review 9
To control for family type, only consumer
units headed by a married couple were
included in the sample. Regression equations
were estimated using variables addressed in
the Redman study, plus additional variables
designed to observe the interaction effect
of households with employed married women
and family income. Regression coefficients
were compared with those estimated using the
1972-73 CES data, after adjusting for price
changes that occurred between 1972-73 and
1980 (table 1). Results are presented for
two categories of food expenditures--food
consumed away from home and prepared foods.
Food Away From Home
The relationship between family income and
expenditures on food consumed away from
home, though still positive, weakened
between 1972-73 and 1980. Wife's employment
was positively related to food expenditures
away from home in 1980, compared to a nega­tive
impact in 1972-73; neither estimate,
however, was significant. The interaction of
income and wife's employment remained posi­tive
for both time periods but was not
significant with the 1980 data. Because the
intercorrelation between the interaction and
wife's employment was high (r = . 75), multi­collinearity
could contribute to the insig­nificance.
Joint F-tests were conducted to
Table 1. Expenditures for food away from home, 1980 and 1972-73
Variable
Intercept •••••••••••••••••••••
I nco me •••••••••••••••••••••••
Employment of wife •••••••••••
Interaction .................. .
Wife's education ••••••••••••••
Wife's age •....•.•.•...••...••
Family size ............... • • • .
Family composition:
Preschool ................. .
Elementary ................ .
High school ............... .
Region:
Northeast ••.•••••••••••••••
North Central ••••••••••••••
South ..................... .
Black race •••..••.••.••••••••
Residence:
Metropolitan ••••••••••••••••
Urban ••.•••...•.•...•.•.•••
Rural ................ · · . · · ·
R2
Sample size
*Significant at • 05 level.
1980
Estimated
coefficient
15.091*
.468*
3.784
.076
5. 595*
-.139*
2.596*
-7.837*
-3.217*
-.423
• 017
-2.127
.235
-11.143*
5.304*
-4.109
-6.260*
.157
2,222
10 family Economics Review 1986 No.3
Standard
error
4.781
.077
2.683
.096
1.560
.059
.931
1.513
1.364
1.447
2.100
1.997
2.053
2.539
2.090
2.890
2.536
1972-73
Estimated Standard
coefficient error
(adjusted for price changes
between 1972-73 and 1980)
18.844* 2.360
.744* .026
-.842 1.378
.153* .042
3.423* 1.107
-.192* .029
.473* .565
-3.699* .804
-1.194 .716
-.377 .772
1.211 1.113
-3.867* 1.040
-2.886* 1.044
-8.718* 1.378
3.967* 1.060
-4.386* 1.379
-5.626 1.260
.159
12,819
test for the significance of the combined
effect of wife's education. wife's employ­ment.
family income. and the interaction
variables on the dependent variable. Results
of this analysis indicated each of these
variables was significant (at • 001 level) in
explaining food a way from home. 2 Additional
regression models. omitting either employ­ment
of wife or interaction. were tested.
In these models. the remammg variable
became significant. The positive coefficient
for the employment variable. combined with
significant results in the regression model
that omitted the interaction variable.
indicated a positive impact of female
employment on expenditures for food away
from home.
The effect of a wife's college education
2 Joint F-tests also indicated that family
composition. urbanization. location (region
and urbanization). and household character­istics
(black race and family size) were
significant. at • 901 level. in explaining
away-from-home food expenditures.
on expenditures for food away was greater
in 1980 than in 1972-73. Households in which
the wife had some college education spent
significantly more on food away from home
than other households.
VARIABLE DESCRIPTIONS
Income
Employment of wife
Interaction
Wife's education
Wife's age
Family size
Family composition:
Preschool
Elementary
High school
Region:
Northeast, North
Central, South
Black race
Residence:
Metropolitan
Urban
Rural
Family income before taxes.
Dummy variable taking on value of 1 if wife was employed either full or part time.
Employment of wife X income.
Dummy variable taking on value of 1 if wife had more than high school education.
Age of wife in the family.
Number of persons in the family.
Number of children in the family under 6 years old.
Number of children in the family 6 to 12 years old.
Number of children in the family 13 to 17 years old.
Regional dummy variables.
Dummy variable taking on value of 1 if reference person was black.
Dummy variable defined as a standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA)1 with a
population of 400,000 or more.
Dummy variable defined as an urban area outside an SMSA.
Dummy variable defined as rural by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau
of the Census.
(The remaining area is defined as having a population of less than 400,000 in an SMSA.)
Food away
Prepared food
Total weekly expenditures for food consumed away from home excluding snacks.
Total weekly expenditures for prepared foods. Prepared foods included items such
as prepared flour and cake mixes, bakery products, canned and packaged meats,
canned and frozen vegetables and fruits, and miscellaneous frozen meals.
1 In 1983 the Bureau of the Census replaced the classification, standard metropolitan statistical area
(SMSA), used to describe all metropolitan areas, with 2 terms: Metropolitan statistical area (MSA),
a free-standing metropolitan area surrounded by nonmetropolitan counties; and primary metropolitan statistical
area (PSMA), a metropolitan area that is closely related to another.
1986 No.3 Family Economics Review 11
Wife's age was negatively related to
expenditures for food away from home. A
comparison of 1980 and 1972-73 regression
coefficients showed a decline in magnitude,
however. Smaller incomes and the limited
mobility of older households may help
explain their lower expenditures for food
away from home.
Black households spent considerably less
than others for food away from home in 1980
and 1972-73. This difference increased
between 1972-73 and 1980.
A comparison of results indicated the
impact of children had also increased. The
1972-73 data show that the presence of chil­dren,
particularly for families with pre-school
and elementary school children, had a
negative effect on food away from home, which
became greater in 1980. Behavior and physi­cal
characteristics of preschoolers may
result in fewer meals purchased outside the
home. As children grow older, households
with employed married women may experience
an increase in real income, allowing for
more eating occasions outside the home.
Additionally, high school children, acting
independently, may purchase more food away
from home than younger children. Overall
family size, however, had a positive influ­ence
on food expenditures away from home
that increased between 1972-73 and 1980.
Although family expenditures for food
consumed away from home in the North
Central and Southern regions were less than
in other regions in 1972-73, by 1980 there
were no significant differences among
regions. Households in metropolitan areas
spent the most for food away in both 1980
and 1972-73, whereas those in the rural
areas spent the least in 1980. Differences
between rural and metropolitan areas were
larger in 1980 than 1972-73. Restaurant
availability may contribute to these results.
Prepared Foods
No change was observed in the relationship
between family income and expenditures for
prepared foods in the years between 1972-73
and 1980 (table 2). The employment of the
wife had a large positive impact in 1980
compared to 1972-73. The interaction of
family income and wife's employment was
negative, however. For every dollar increase
in real income in 1980, families with
12 fam i ly Economics Review 1986 No.3
employed wives spent an additional $0.05
for prepared foods, whereas other families
expended $0.22. Meals that include prepared
foods still involve setting and clearing the
table, washing dishes, and kitchen cleanup.
Because time becomes relatively more valu­able
than money as income increases, house­holds
with employed wives may prefer to
spend any additional income on meals outside
the home.
Households with a homemaker who had
attended college spent more, but not signi­ficantly
more, on prepared foods than other
households. Wife's age was positively
related to prepared food expenditures in
both 1980 and 1972-73. Black families spent
less for prepared foods than other families,
although this difference declined slightly
between 1972-73 and ·1980.
A comparison of the estimates showed an
increase in expenditures between 1972-73
and 1980 for all children's age groups.
Households with children may gain time for
leisure or other household activities by
choosing to purchase prepared foods instead
of eating meals away from home. Family size
remained positively related to prepared food
expenditures in 1980 but declined
substantially from 1972-73.
Metropolitan families increased their
expenditures for prepared foods in 1980 from
1972-73 and spent more than urban or rural
families. Northeastern households spent more
on prepared foods than did households in
other regions, but these expenditures
declined from 1972-73 to 1980.
Conclusions
The direction and magnitude of the rela­tionship
between expenditures for food
consumed away from home and prepared foods
and certain socioeconomic characteristics of
households changed between 1972-73 and 1980.
Family income, wife's employment, wife's
college education, a metropolitan residence,
and family size were associated with higher
expenditures for food away from home in
1980. The income variable, however, showed
less impact in 1980 than in 1972-73. Wife's
employment had a negative effect in 1972-73.
The presence of children, a rural residence,
being of the black race, and wife's age were
negatively related to spending for food away
from home in 1980. Except for wife's age,
these variables had a greater negative
impact in 1980 than in 1972-73.
Race and the interaction variable were
negatively related to expenditures for pre­pared
foods. Family income, wife's employ­ment,
wife's age, presence of children,
living in the Northeast, and a metropolitan
residence were associated with higher spend­ing
for prepared foods. Family size and
living in the Northeast had less impact in
1980 than in 1972-73, however. ·
Even though proportions for food away
from home to total food proportions increased
from 1972-73 to 1980, family income coeffi­cients
decreased during this period.
Economic conditions in 1980 may have forced
many households to allocate an increased
share of their income for gasoline and
utilities to cover rising energy costs.
Also, average family income did not rise as
quickly as prices; a decline in real before­tax
income may have contributed to house­holds
spending less for food away from home.
Table 2. Expenditures for prepared food, 1980 and 1972-73
Variable
Intercept •••••••••••••••••••••
I nco me •••••••••••••••••••••••
Employment of wife ...........
Interaction •••••••••••••••••••
Wife's education ..............
Wife's age ....................
Family size ...................
Family composition:
Preschool ..................
Elementary .•••...••.•.•••..
High school ................
Region:
Northeast ..................
North Central .....•.... ~ ...
South ......................
Black race ...................
Residence:
Metropolitan ••••••••••••••••
Urban • •••••••..••••..•..•• •
Rural ......................
R2
Sample size
*Significant at • 05 level.
1980
Estimated
coefficient
2.834
• 221 *
4.154*
-.169*
.647
.129*
3.353*
1.820*
2. 080*
3.152*
3.367*
-1.110
-1.991
-8.515*
2.594*
1.660
.159
.203
2,222
Standard
error
2. 575
.041
1.445
.051
.840
.032
.501
.815
.734
.800
1.131
1.075
1.106
1.367
1.125
1.557
1.366
1972-73
Estimated Standard
coefficient error
(adjusted for price changes
between 1972-73 and 1980)
4.112* 1.353
• 200* .015
• 503 .790
-.042 .024
.442 .635
• 061* .017
6.054* .324
-.378 .461
• 963* .410
1.388* .443
5.243* .639
2.041* .596
-.136 .599
-9.822* .790
.956 .608
1.151 .791
-1.343 .723
• 226
12,819
1986 No. J Family Econom i cs Rev i ew 1J
Further research is necessary to determine
whether the types of meals consumed away
from home (weekday versus weekend, daytime
versus evening) yield additional information
on how women allocate their time. Also,
determining why meals are consumed outside
the home (as a substitute for meals at home
or as a leisure activity) may help explain
why certain households have higher away­from-
home food expenditures.
SELECTED REFERENCES
1. Johnson, Beverly L., and Elizabeth
Waldman. 1981. Marital and family
patterns of the labor force. Monthly
Labor Review 104(10): 36-38. U.S. Depart­ment
of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
2. Kinsey, Jean. 1983. Working wives and
the marginal propensity to consume
food away from home. American Journal
of Agricultural Economics 65(1): 10-19.
3. Michael, Robert T., and Gary S. Becker.
1973. On the new theory of consumer
behavior. Swedish Journal of Economics
75(4):378-396.
4. Prochaska, Fred J. , and R. A. Schrim per.
1973. Opportunity cost of time and other
socioeconomic effects on away-from-home
food consumption. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics 55(4): 595-603.
5. Redman, Barbara J. 1980. The impact of
women's time allocation on expenditure
for meals away from home and prepared
foods. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 62(2):234-237.
6. U.s. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. 1965. Survey of
Consumer Expenditures, 1960-61.
Consumer Expenditures and Income, Total
United States, Urban and Rural, 1960-61,
BLS Report No. 237-93.
7. • 1977. Consumer Expenditure
Survey: Diary Survey, July 1972-June
1974. Bulletin No. 1959.
8. • 1980. Handbook of Labor
Statistic s . Bulletin 2070, p. 17.
9. • 1983. Consumer Expenditure
Survey: Diary Survey, 1980-81. Bulletin
No. 2173.
1• f amily Econ omi cs Review 1986 No.3
Diets of School-Age Children
and ieenagers
By Mary Doran Evans and Frances J. Cronin
Nutritionists
Nutrition Education Division
Human Nutrition Information Service
The diets of children and teenagers and
the factors influencing their diets have
many implications in terms of dietary
guidance, since certain eating behaviors
established at an early age may continue
throughout life. Data are presented here
primarily from USDA's 1977-78 Nationwide
Food Consumption Survey (NFCS), which
collected information on food and nutrient
intakes by individuals.1 2 Three-day
dietary reports were collected from a
nationally representative sample of approxi­mately
35,000 individuals in the coterminous
United States, including about 9,000
children and teenagers between 6 and 18
years of age and 6, 000 adults between 35
and 50 years of age. Information on the
diets of these two age groups is compared.
Factors Influencing Diets of Children and
Teenagers
The nutritional adequacy of diets depends
on food choices. Food choices are influenced
by many factors, including with whom, when,
and where individuals eat.
With whom they ate. For school-age
children and teenagers in particular, the
influence of other people--household and
nonhousehold members--plays an important
role in what foods are consumed. Parents
often control the food choices of children
and to a lesser extent those of younger
1 For more detailed information on the
1977-78 NFCS, see "The 1977-78 Nationwide
Food Consumption Survey," by Robert L.
Rizek, Family Economics Review, fall 1978,
pp. 3-7.
2 Dietary intake information currently
being collected in the USDA Continuing
Survey of Food Intakes of Individuals
(CSFII), Family Economics Review 1985(1):
16-17, does not include children and
teenagers 6 to 18 years of age.
teenagers. Food choices of older teenagers,
however, probably are more influenced by
people outside the home, particularly peers
(1).
-Data from the 1977-78 NF CS show that the
percentage of eating occasions shared with
other household members declined with
increasing age through the teen years, and
the percentage eaten alone increased
(table 1). However, regardless of age, at
least 50 percent of all meals and snacks
were shared with other household members.
Breakfast was the meal most co!llmonly eaten
alone by children and teens; however, a
larger percentage ate breakfast with other
household members than ate alone. Lunch was
more commonly shared with nonhousehold
members, and dinner or supper was usually
eaten with household members. Snacks were
more commonly eaten with other household
members by 6- to 11-year-olds; teens tended
to eat snacks alone.
Table 1. Eating occasions shared with
others and alone 1
Shared with--
Sex and age
(years)
Household Nonhousehold Alone
members members
(percent of occasions)
Children:
6-8 ••••••••• 71 16 11
Males:
9-11 . .••.••• 66 17 15
12-14 ••••••• 59 17 22
15-18 ••••••• 50 17 30
35-50 ••••••• 50 17 31
Females:
9-11 •.•••.•. 66 17 15
12-14 ••••••• 59 18 22
15-18 ••••••• 50 19 29
35-50 ••••••• 53 11 33
1 Eating occasions for which descriptive
information was not reported (2 to 3 pet)
are not presented in table.
Source: USDA 1977-78 Nationwide Food
Consumption Survey, Report No. 1-2.
When they ate. Meal patterns affect the
nutritional quality of diets. If an individual
generally skips 1 meal a day, the other
meals that day may not compensate for the
nutrients in the meal that was missed.
Crocetti and others (_~), using the 1977-78
NFCS data, investigated eating behaviors and
nutritional quality of diets. They showed
that 64 percent of all individuals reported
meal patterns of 3 meals per day for each of
the 3 study days reported, and only
8 percent had patterns of 2 meals per day.
Among all those who ate 2 meals per day, 46
percent skipped breakfast and 28 percent
skipped the midday meal. Breakfast skipping
increased with age through the teenage years
regardless of sex. Children rarely reported
missing breakfast; teens, particularly teen­age
girls, skipped breakfast more frequently
than the younger group did. Almost 30
percent of teenage girls reported skipping
breakfast on at least 1 of the survey days,
although only 8 percent reported skipping
breakfast on all 3 days.
Snacking is a common practice regardless
of age. Around 75 percent of all individuals
in the NFCS reported at least one snack
<.!.~). Children and teenagers obtained
slightly more Calories from snacks than
adults did. On the average, children 6 to 11
years of age consumed about 18 percent,
teenagers about 21 percent, and adults 35 to
50 years of age about 16 percent of their
total Calories from snacks. Snacks not only
provide energy but also can make important
nutrient contributions to diets, particu-larly
for individuals who skip meals. The
nutrient contribution of snacks depends on
the food choices made. A study by Pao <.~),
using data from the spring portion of the
1977-78 NFCS, identified the types of foods
selected by children and teenagers from day
1 of the 3-day intake survey. Foods most
frequently reported as snacks by 6- to
11-year-olds in order of importance were
bakery products (cookies, cakes, and pies),
soft drinks, milk, milk deserts (ice cream
and puddings), candy, fruit, and salty
snacks. Among teenage boys (12 to 18 years)
the most popular snacks were soft drinks,
milk, bakery products, bread, milk desserts,
salty snacks, meats, and fruits. Favorite
snacks for teenage girls in decreasing order
were soft drinks, bakery products, milk
1986 No.3 Family Economics Review 1.S
desserts, salty snacks, fruit, milk, candy,
and bread. Several of the popular types of
snacks such as milk, bread, and fruit are
good or important sources of one or more
essential nutrients; however, others, such
as soft drinks and candy. generally provide
few nutrients in relation to Calories.
Where they ate. Although approximately
75 percent of children and teenagers ob­tained
and ate some meals or snacks away
from home. most of the food they reported
eating came from household food supplies
<..!.~). About 83 percent of their total
Calories were from foods from home. and 17
percent were from foods obtained and eaten
away from home. These data indicate that
household food supplies are a major contri­butor
to the nutritional quality of diets of
children and teens.
School was the major place for away-from­home
eating for school-age children and
teens; work and restaurants were the major
places for adults age 35 to 50 (table 2).
Older teens (15 to 18 years) obtained and
ate a somewhat smaller percentage of their
away-from-home meals at school and a larger
percentage at fast food places than children
and younger teens did. They also were more
likely to eat at work and at restaurants
than younger teens. This probably is related
to the greater independence of older teens.
Overall, foods selected away from home were
similar in nutritional quality to foods at
home, providing about the same percent of
total fat and other nutrients as Calories.
Diets of Children and Teens in Relation to
the Dietary Guidelines
The Dietary Guidelines provide a basis for
planning diets for families. including those
with children and teenagers (..!Q_). The
Guidelines were published jointly by the
U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Health
and Human Services, first in 1980 and a
revised edition in September of 1985 (10.
Q). They are based on current scientific
knowledge about the relationship of diet to
good health. The guidelines recommend: Eat
a variety of foods; maintain desirable
weight; avoid too much fat, saturated fat,
and cholesterol; eat foods with adequate
starch and fiber; avoid too much sugar;
avoid too much sodium; and if you drink
alcoholic beverages, do so in moderation.
Table 2. Places where individuals obtain and eat food away from home
Sane one
Sex am age Restaurant Fast food Work School else's All other
(years) establistments hane
(percent of occasions)
Children:
6-8 ••••••••••• 4 7 0 58 19 12
Males:
9-11 ••••.••••• 4 7 0 59 14 16
12-14 ••••••••• 4 10 1 58 13 14
15-18 ••••••••• 9 16 8 40 11 16
35-50 ••••••••• 30 12 33 2 8 15
Females:
9-11 . ••••.•••. 5 9 0 57 17 12
12-14 ••••••••• 6 11 1 49 16 17
15-18 ••••••••• 11 18 6 33 16 16
30-50 ••••••••• 28 11 29 2 15 15
Source: USDA 1977-78 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey. Report No. 1-2.
16 Family Economics Review 1986 No.3
The Dietary Guidelines are intended for
healthy Americans. When applied together,
they form the basis for a diet that provides
adequate amounts of energy, nutrients
including vitamins and minerals, and fiber,
while avoiding too much sodium or too many
Calories (especially those from fat, satu­rated
fat, sugar, and alcohol). Information
on the diets of children and teenagers in
relation to selected Dietary Guidelines
follows.
Eat a variety of foods. The purpose of
this guideline is to encourage individuals
to include the kinds of foods that supply
the more than 40 nutrients essential for
health. However, data are available on the
intakes of only a selected number of
nutrients. The Recommended Dietary
Allowances (RDA), which are established by
the National Academy of Sciences, are
standards usually used to evaluate nutrient
intakes (7). 3
The need for energy and almost all nutri­ents
increases during periods of growth.
Except for pregnant and lactating women, the
RDA for nearly all nutrients is highest dur­ing
the teen years--a time of rapid growth.
On the average, the diets of both children
and teens were at or above recommended
levels for most of the 12 vitamiiis and
minerals that were evaluated as part of
the 1977-78 NFCS. Calcium and iron were
exceptions and have been identified as prob­lem
nutrients for teenagers and adult women
as well as for certain other groups in the
population (~). The RDA for calcium is
highest for teenagers, and the RDA for iron
is highest for teenagers and adult women.
Table 3 shows the mean percent of the RDA
of calcium and iron for children 6 to 8 years
of age, teenagers, and adults 35 to 50 years
of age. Average intakes for teenage girls
and adult women were substantially below
recommended levels for both calcium and
iron. The diets of teenage boys were higher
in calcium and iron, but, nevertheless,
intakes averaged slightly below their RDA.
3 The RDA are established to meet the
known nutrient needs of practically all
healthy persons (7). Failure to meet the
RDA does not nec~ssarily mean that an
individual's diet is inadequate.
Mean intakes for groups do not display the
wide range in intakes by individuals.
Another way to evaluate the nutritional
adequacy of dietary intakes is to look at
the distribution of intakes (9) (table 4).
Over 50 percent of teenage girls and adult
women had diets that provided less than 70
percent of the RDA for both calcium and
iron. The diets of teenage males were
higher, but 24 to 35 percent of them also
had diets that provided less than 70 percent
of the RDA for these nutrients. The RDA
for iron for children and adult men is much
lower than that for teenagers, and only a
small percentage had iron intakes of less
than 70 percent of the RDA.
Maintain desirable weight. Obesity is
associated with the development of some
chronic disorders. A recent National
Institutes of Health Consensus Development
Conference on Health Implications of Obesity
(14) recommended that children as well as
adults be encouraged to keep their weight
within normal range. The Conference's panel
of experts expressed concern for an increas­ing
occurrence of obesity in children and
adolescents, stating that although obesity
in ~'hildhood does not always result in
obesity in adulthood, it is a significant
Table 3. Mean intakes of calcium and iron
as percent of 1980 RDA
Sex and age Calcium Iron
(years) (percent of RL\<\)
Children:
6-8 ••.•.••...••• 114 115
Males:
9-11 ••••.•.•.••• 104 102
12-14 •.......•.. 91 82
15-18 ••••••••••• 98 92
35-50 •••.•.•.•.. 94 156
Females:
9-11 •••••••...•• 96 92
12-14 • .....•...• 71 65
15-18 .••••....•. 63 62
35-50 ••••••••.•• 66 60
Source: USDA 1977-78 Nationwide Food
Consumption Survey, Report No. 1-2.
1986 No.3 family Economics Review 17
risk factor for adult obesity. Investigation
of obesity and, subsequently, establishment
of weight standards for children and teen­agers
is difficult due to the growth and
development needs of these age groups (_!~).
NFCS data on weight status of children and
teenagers have not been evaluated.
Excessive and rapid weight loss also is
related to health complications and there­fore
should be avoided. Two eating disorders
seen primarily in adolescent girls are
anorexia nervosa and bulimia (_!, ~. ~).
Anorexia nervosa is an excessive pursuit of
thinness characterized by near-starvation
dieting and compulsive exercising, resulting
in emaciation and, in extreme cases, death.
Bulimia is characterized by secretive binge
eating followed by self-induced vomiting
and/ or laxative use. Frequent vomiting and
purging can cause chemical imbalances that
can lead to an irregular heart rate and even
death.
Avoid too much fat, saturated fat, and
cholesterol. Dietary fats are responsible
for some of the characteristic flavors and
textures of food, aid in the absorption of
fat soluble vitamins, and are a source of
Table 4. Calcium and iron--percent of 3-day
essential fatty acids. However, excessive
levels can cause health problems. Dietary
fat is a concentrated source of Calories.
Excessive intakes of Calories, saturated
fat, and cholesterol can increase blood
cholesterol levels, and a high blood choles­terol
level increases the risk of heart
disease (1 0) •
Individuals surveyed in the 1977-78 NFCS
reported diets averaging about 41 percent of
Calories from fat (!~). Although children,
and to a lesser extent teenagers, consumed
fewer Calories from fat than adults did,
mean intakes were above 35 percent of
Calories from fat (table 5). Between one­sixth
and one-fourth of children and teens
reported 3-day intakes with less than 35
percent of Calories from fat (table 6).
Younger children were more likely to have
lower fat diets than teenagers were.
A void too much sugar. Most people like
foods that taste sweet. In moderation, these
foods can be a part of a well-balanced diet.
Intakes of sugar and other caloric sweet­eners
are of concern because of their rela­tionship
to dental caries and because they
contribute Calories but few nutrients to the
diet. Diets with large amounts of sugars
intakes at specified levels of 1980 RDA
Calciumr-percent of Rrn. Iron--percent of liD\
Sex and age
(years) Below 50 to 70 to 100 and Below 50 to 70 to 100 and
50 69 99 over 50 69 99 over
(percent of individuals) (percent of individuals)
Children:
6-8 . ........... 5 9 25 61 1 5 30 64
Males:
9-11 . .......... 6 15 30 49 2 10 43 45
12-14 .......... 13 19 33 35 8 27 43 22
15-18 •••••••••• 13 16 28 43 6 18 43 33
35-50 •••..••.•• 17 18 29 36 0 1 10 89
Females:
9-11 •••.••••••. 8 17 33 42 3 18 47 32
12-14 •••••••••• 24 26 34 16 23 41 30 6
15-18 ••.•..•••. 39 23 26 12 32 38 23 7
35-50 •..•.....• 36 25 23 16 33 39 24 4
Source: USDA 1977-78 Nationwide F~d Consumption Survey, Report No. I-2.
18 Family Economics Review 1986 No.3
have greater likelihood of being nutrition­ally
inadequate, particularly if they are
low in Calories.
Using data from the spring portion of the
1977-78 NFCS, USDA researchers estimated
the intake of added sweeteners for day 1 of
the 3-day food intake survey (],i). Added
sweeteners were defined as any sugar or
other caloric sweetener that did not occur
naturally in the food in which it was
measured. Added sweeteners contributed an
average of 14 to 16 percent of <?alories for
children an<;t teenagers. This was substan­tially
higher than the 10 to 11 percent
reported for adults 35 to 50 years of age.
The major sources of added sweeteners in
the diets of children and teens were soft
drinks, ades, and punches. These sweet
beverages accounted for about 27 percent of
Table 5. Mean percent of Calories from fat
Sex
Age Both Males Females
(years) (percent of calories from fat)
6-8.......... 38
9-11 •••.••.••
12-14 ••••••••
15-18 ••••••••
35-50 ••••••••
39
40
41
43
39
39
40
42
Source: USDA 1977-78 Nationwide Food
Consumption Survey, Report No. 1-2.
Table 6. Percent of 3-day intakes at less
than 35 percent of Calories from fat
Age
(years)
6-8 ••••••••••
9-11 ••••••.••
12-14 ••••••••
15-18 ••••••••
35-50 ••••••••
Sex
Both Males Females
(percent of individuals)
24
21
18
17
13
24
22
21
17
Source: USDA 1977-78 Nationwide Food
Consumption Survey, Report No. 1-2.
the added sweeteners for children and young
teenage boys. For teenage girls and older
teenage boys, sweet beverages accounted for
35 to 40 percent. Other important contribu­tors
of added sweeteners were sugar and
sugary foods--13 to 17 percent--and bakery
products--11 to 15 percent. Soft drinks and
sugary foods generally provide few nutri­ents.
Bakery products, however, are made
with grain and thus make some nutrient
contribution.
Most children and teens in the 1977-78
NFCS reported consuming soft drinks, includ­ing
carbonated drinks such as colas. Two­thirds
of children reported soft drinks at
least once in 3 days; older teens were some­what
more likely than children or younger
teens to report consumption of these bever­ages
and to obtain them from away-from-home
sources (table 7). For all age groups,
Table 7. Individuals reporting soft drinks
at least once in 3 consecutive days 1
Individuals using soft drinks
Sex and age At Away Either
(years) home from place
(percent of individuals)
Children:
6-8 ••••••••• 56 22 65
Males:
9-11 •••••••. 56 24 66
12-14 ••••••• 54 29 67
15-18 ••••••• 56 40 74
35-50 ••••••• 38 28 53
Females:
9-11 •.•••.•• 55 23 64
12-14 ••••••• 59 29 70
15-18 ••••••• 61 43 78
35-50 ••••••• 47 24 57
1 Soft drinks include carbonated drinks
(such as colas, fruit-flavored and cream
sodas, ginger ale, root beer, and carbonated
diet drinks) and noncarbonated soft drinks
made from powdered mixes and liquid
concentrates.
All individuals using drinks at home
and/or away from home.
Source: USDA 1977-78 Nationwide Food
Consumption Survey, Report No. 1-1.
1986 No. J Family Economics Review 19
however, most intake was from home
sources--approximately 80, 70, and 60
percent, respectively, for children, younger
teens, and older teens.
A recent study of beverage use by teen­agers
and its effect on nutrient intake
showed that soft drink consumption had a
substantial effect on calcium intake, par­ticularly
for teenage girls (_!). The author
suggested that soft drinks may be replacing
milk as a beverage in the diets of some
teens and thus lowering the intake of
calcium.
Implications
Dietary patterns established at a young
age may last a lifetime. Parents can control
what their young children eat, but as chil­dren
grow older their eating behaviors
become more independent. If parents follow
healthy dietary practices, their children
may follow such eating patterns as they take
additional responsibility for their own diets.
The Dietary Guidelines are a good basis
for planning healthful diets for Americans.
No doubt, children and teens can benefit
from appropriate dietary guidance. However,
because most of the food eaten by children
and teenagers comes from household food
supplies, the individual who plans, pur­chases,
and prepares food for household
members has the most opportunity to influ­ence
the food available and many of the food
choices ultimately made by the child or
teenager. If the food choices available at
home are those that contribute nutrients
and are moderate in fat, sugar, and sodium,
it is more likely that children and teens
will have high quality diets.
SELECTED REFERENCES
1. Barlow, David H., and Jeanne L.
Tillotson. 1978. Behavioral science and
nutrition: A new perspective. Journal
of the American Dietetic Association
72(4):368-371.
2. Crocetti, Annemarie F., and Helen A.
Guthrie. 1982. Eating Behavior and
Associated Nutrient Quality of Diets-­Final
Report. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Science and Education
Administration. Sponsored by Anarem
Systems Research Corporation.
20 family Economics Review 1986 No.3
3. Guenther, Patricia M. 1986. Beverages
in the diets of American teenagers.
Journal of the American Dietetic
Association 86(4) :493-499.
4. Hodges, Patricia A. M., Ann A.
Hertzler, and Sanda Lynn Holder. 1985.
Bulimia: A coping response to societal
pressures. Journal of Home Economics
77(3):19-22.
5. Huse, Diane M., and Alexander R. Lucas.
1983. Dietary treatment of anorexia
nervosa. Journal of the American
Dietetic Association 83(6) :687-690.
6. Love, Susan, and Craig L. Johnson.
1985. Etiological factors in the
development of bulimia. Nutrition News
48(2):5-8.
7. National Academy of Sciences, National
Research Council, Food and Nutrition
Board. 1980. Recommended Dietary
Allowances, 9th edition.
8. Pao, Eleanor M. 1981. Eating patterns
and food frequencies of children in the
United States. In J. J. Hefferen,
W. A. Ayer, and H. M. Koehler, editors.
Foods, Nutrition and Dental Health.
Vol. 3. Proceedings of the Fourth
Annual Conference on Foods, Nutrition,
and Dental Health, American Dental
Association Health Foundation [Chicago,
IL, October 1980]. Pathotox, Park
Forest South, IL.
9. Pao, Eleanor M., and Sharon J. Mickle.
1981. Problem nutrients in the United
States. Food Technology 35(9): 58-79.
10. U.S. Department of Agriculture and
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. 1985. Nutrition and Your
Health--Dietary Guidelines for
Americans. 2d edition. Home and Garden
Bulletin No. 232.
11. U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare [now known as U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services]. 1980.
Nutrition and Your Health--Dietary
Guidelines for Americans. Home and
Garden Bulletin No. 232.
12. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human
Nutrition Information Service. 1983.
Food Intakes: Individuals in 48 States,
Year 1977-78. NFCS 1977-78 Report
No. I-1.
13. • 1984. Nutrient Intakes:
Individuals in 48 States, Year 1977-78.
NFCS 1977-78 Report No. I-2.
14. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Service. 1985.
Health Implications of Obesity,
National Institutes of Health Consensus
Development Conference Statement.
Vol. 5, No. 9. Sponsored by the Office
of Medical Applications of Research,
National Institute of Arthritis,
Diabetes, and Digestive and Kidney
Diseases; and National Heart, Lung, and
Blood Institute.
15. Woteki, Catherine E., et al. 1982.
Recent trends and levels of dietary
sugars and other caloric sweeteners. In
s. Reiser, editor. Metabolic Effects of
Utilizable Dietary Carbohydrates.
Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.
Revision of the Equal Credit
Regulation
The Federal Reserve Board has responsi­bilities
for writing or enforcing a number
of major laws that offer consumers protec-tion
in their financial dealings. For
example, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act
(ECOA), part of the Consumer Credit Protec­tion
Act (CCPA), is one of several laws
concerning financial services implemented by
the Board. The ECOA prohibits creditors
from taking into account a credit applicant's
race, color, religion, national origin, sex,
age (with some qualification), or marital
status in making a credit decision.
Creditors cannot discriminate against an
applicant because he or she receives income
from public assistance, nor against anyone
who in good faith has exercised rights under
the CCPA. ECOA applies to business and com­mercial
transactions as well as to consumer
credit, and it affects all stages of a credit
transaction, including the application,
credit investigations, creditworthiness
standards, credit terms, signature rules,
credit reporting, and collection procedures.
ECOA went into effect in 1975 and was
expanded in 1976.
In 1977 the Federal Reserve Board issued
a set of rules, collectively called Regula­tion
B, to carry out the E CO A. These rules
were recently reviewed under the Board's
regulatory improvement program to determine
which of its regulations can be eliminated,
replaced with a nonregulatory program,
simplified to ease the burden of compliance,
or made easier to understand. Under consid­eration
during the review process were ways
to reduce burdens on industry while retain­ing
the protections that Congress intended
for credit applicants. The Board also
studied whether the rules could be reworded
to carry out congressional intent more
effectively. The review included comments
received from the public, a study of rele­vant
court decisions, an analysis of each
section of the regulation, and an assessment
of the costs and benefits of some of the
rules. The review yielded a proposal for
specific changes, which was published by the
Board in March 1985 for public comment. An
amended regulation was then issued in
November 1985, which took effect in December
1985, with a transition period ending
September 1986.
There were only minor changes made to
Regulation B after the review process was
completed for several reasons. First, no
statutory amendments mandated changes in
Regulation B. Second, a review of court
decisions under ECOA did not reveal a great
need for clarification of ambiguities or
modification of technical provisions. Third,
the Board was responsive to consumer groups,
which urged the Board to avoid changes that
would reduce civil rights protections. And
fourth, many creditors found most of the
existing requirements to be manageable. The
new regulation is shorter because obsolete
material was deleted and footnotes and other
1986 No.3 Family Econom i cs Review 21
explanatory matter were placed in an
official staff commentary that complements
the revised regulation.
The following is a summary of the changes
made in Regulation B:
Creditors are required to note an
applicant's race or national origin and sex
on loan applications for the purchase or
refinancing of residences, including mobile
homes. (Real estate was selected for special
monitoring because unlawful discrimination
in this area can be especially detrimental
to members of minority groups.)
The definition of applicant was amended
to include guarantors, which gives guar­antors
legal standing to sue for violations
of their rights under Regulation B.
New rules were adopted that enable
creditors to streamline the procedure for
informing applicants when additional infor­mation
is needed for a credit decision, and
sample forms for notifying applicants of
credit denials were revised.
The criteria that a credit-scoring
system must meet to qualify as "demonstrably
and statistically sound" were redefined, and
systems that meet the criteria may use an
applicant's age as a factor.
The reporting rules applicable to joint
accounts held by spouses were updated, as
were the reporting rules for individual
accounts on which a spouse is an authorized
user.
Creditors are required to retain appli­cations
withdrawn by the applicant in
advance of a decision for the purpose of
improving the data available to the regula­tory
agencies.
The Federal Reserve Board continues to
monitor developments to ensure that the
ECOA is achieving its intended goals.
Source: Smith, Dolores S., 1985, Revision
of the Board's equal credit regulation: An
overview, Federal Reserve Bulletin 71(12):
913-923.
22 fam i ly Econom i cs Rev i ew 1986 No.3
Characteristics of the Rural and
Farm-Related Population
Families solely dependent on farm income
are more likely to be in poverty than farm
families with additional sources of income.
Data from the 1980 Census of Population show
that one-third of the farm families with
farm self-employment income as their only
source of income were below the poverty
level in 1979, but less than one-tenth of
the families were in poverty if they had
income from other sources. The median income
of a white family with a farm operator or
manager was $16,456, compared with a median
income of $13, 981 for a Spanish origin 1
farm-operator family. Nearly one-half ( 43
percent) of the Spanish origin families
were in poverty if they were solely
dependent on farm self-employment income.
These and related facts are available from
the Bureau of Census' publication
Characteristics of the Rural and Farm­Related
Population. Social, economic, and
housing characteristics are presented in
seven detailed tables for three popula­tions--
those living on farms, those
receiving farm self-employment income, and
persons employed in agriculture. The report
is part of the Subject Reports series and
presents sample data from the 1980 Census
of Population on the population associated
with agriculture. A summary text is not
provided, but appendices provide sufficient
information to interpret the data tables.
The report is for sale by the Superintendent
of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC 20402.
1 Persons of Spanish origin may be of any
race.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, 1985, Characteristics
of the Rural and Farm-Related Population,
1980 Census of Population, vol. 2, Subject
Reports, PC80-2-9C.
1986 Revision of Poverty Income
Guidelines
The poverty income guidelines issued by
the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services are used as an eligibility
criterion by various Federal programs. The
guidelines are revised annually to reflect
changes in the Consumer Price Index. 1
The poverty income guidelines are a sim­plified
version of the poverty thresholds
used by the Bureau of the Census, U.s.
Department of Commerce, for sta.tistical
purposes, such as determining the number
of persons in poverty and their demographic
characteristics. The guidelines are used for
administrative purposes, for example, deter­mining
whether a person or family is finan­cially
eligible for assistance or services
under a particular Federal program.
1 For information on the methodology used
to calculate the guidelines, see "Poverty
thresholds and poverty guidelines," Family
Economics Review 1985(1): 17-18.
Poverty income guidelines, 1986 1
The following definitions, derived from
the Bureau of the Census, are used in con­nection
with the poverty income guidelines:
1. Family--a group of two or more persons
related by birth, marriage, or adoption, who
reside together. If a household includes
more than one family and I or more than one
unrelated individual, the poverty guidelines
are applied separately to each family and/or
unrelated individual.
2. Family unit of size one--a person 15
years or over who is not living with any
relatives.
3. Income--total annual cash receipts
from all sources before taxes.
The poverty guidelines given in the table
below are applicable to both farm and
nonfarm families.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, 1986,
Poverty income guidelines: Annual revision,
Federal Register 51(28):5105-5106.
Size of family unit 48 contiguous States and
the District of Columbia
Alaska Hawaii
1 ................................
2 ................................
3 ................................
4 ................................
5 ................................
6 ................................
7 ••• Ill ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
8 ................................
$5,360
7,240
9,120
11,000
12,880
14,760
16,640
18,520
$6,700
9,050
11,400
13,7 50
16,100
18,450
20,800
23,150
$6,170
8,330
10,490
12,650
14,810
16,970
19,130
21,290
1 For family units with more than 8 members--for each additional member add $1,880 in the
contiguous States and the District of Columbia, add $2,350 in Alaska, and add $2,160 in
Hawaii.
Source: U.s. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Planning and Evaluation, 1986, Poverty income guidelines: Annual revision, Federal
Register 51(28):5105-5106.
1986 No.3 Family Economics Review 23
Some New USDA Charts
Chart 138
Selected Income Sources of the Elderly
%of elderly
Social 90
Security 73 ~··
22
Earnings
36 1962
Private
23
pension 9
Government 12
employee
pension 5
Source: Bureau of the Census.
Chart 140
Annual Household Expenditures by Age of Householder
Food and drink 20% -----------.......
Health care 4% -----------------
Transportation 20% Age of householder: 35-44 years
Total expenditures: $22,084
Average total expenditures.
Source: 1980-81 Consumer Expenditure Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
24 Family Economics Review 1986 No.3
Chart 141
Persons Receiving Benefits from Selected
Government Programs
Percent
Means-tested programs:
Food stamps
Medicaid
AFDC
Subsidized rental
housing
Federal SSI
WIG
Other cash assistance
8.5,
~===~
7.8, '-____ ...J
4.30
3.80
1.50
1.30
uO )
Nonmeans-tested programs:
Social Security
Medicare
Veterans'
compensation
14.4 .
12.0 !.... _______ _,
2.10
Educational assistance 1.6 0
Unemployment
compensation
Railroad retirement
Workers' compensation
F•rst quarter 1984 data. AFOC: Aid for Families with Dependent Children;
WIC: Women. Infants. and Children; SSI: Supplemental Security Income.
Nonfarm. noninstitutional population. Source: Survey of Income and
Program Participation. Bureau of the Census.
65 and over
$10,754
Households Receiving Noncash
Benefits
Non cash benefits can be defined as bene­fits
received in a form other than money
that serve to en :lance or improve the eco­nomic
well-being of the recipient. Noncash
benefits can be categorized as public trans­fers
and those that are employer or union
provided. Public transfers include the Food
Stamp Program; the National School Lunch
Program; public and other subsidized rental
housing; medicare and medicaid; and
CHAMP US, 1 VA, or military health insurance.
Employer- or union-provided benefits include
pension plans and group health insurance
plans.
In 1984, 76.7 million, or 88 percent, of
U.S. households received at least one non­cash
benefit, an increase of 97 2, 000 house­holds
from 1983. In order to receive means­tested
benefits, such as food stamps or
medicaid, a household's income or assets
must fall below a specified level. The
number of households receiving at least one
means-tested noncash benefit was 14. 6
million in 1984, not significantly different
from the 1983 figure. In 1984, 8 percent of
all households were receiving food stamps,
21 percent of households with school chil­dren
were receiving free or reduced-price
school lunches, 12 percent of renting house­holds
were residing in publicly owned or
other subsidized housing, and 10 percent
of households included members covered by
medicaid.
Nonmeans-tested benefits include medicare,
regular-priced school lunches, and employer­or
union-provided benefits. The number of
households receiving nonmeans-tested bene­fits
increased from 69.8 million in 1983 to
70.7 million in 1984. There were 21.3
million households with one or more members
covered by medicare in 1984 and 11.1 million
households with school children receiving
regular-priced school lunches. The number
of households with one or more workers
covered by an employer- or union-provided
pension plan showed no significant change
between 1983 and 1984. However, households
1 Civilian Health and Medical Program of
the Uniformed Services.
with members covered by group health
insurance plans that were paid for, at least
in part, by their employer or union
increased by 617, 000 to 49. 6 million.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, 1985, Characteristics
of Households and Persons Receiving Selected
Noncash Benefits: 1984, Current Population
Reports, Consumer Income, Series P-60,
No. 150.
New Publications from Human
Nutrition Information Service
The following new publications from USDA's
Human Nutrition Information Service are
for sale from the Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC 20402, 202-783-3238:
Dietary Levels: Households in the
North Central Region, Spring 1977,
Nationwide Food Consumption Survey
1977-78. May 1985. Stock No. 001-000-
04446-0. $7.
Dietary Levels: Households in the
Northeast, Spring 1977, Nationwide
Food Consumption Survey 1977-78.
May 1985. Stock No. 001-000-04445-1.
$7.
Dietary Levels: Households in the
South, Spring 1977, Nationwide Food
Consumption Survey 1977-78. May 1985.
Stock No. 001-000-04447-8. $7.
Dietary Levels: Households in the West,
Spring 1977, Nationwide Food Consump­tion
Survey 1977-78. May 1985. Stock
No. 001-000-04448-6. $7.
Nutritive Value of Foods. Dec. 1985.
Stock No. 001-000-04457-5. $2. 75.
Thrifty Meals for Two: Making Food
Dollars Count. Feb. 1986. Stock No.
001-000-04459-1. $2.50.
1986 No.3 Family Economics Rev i ew 25
Perspectives on Comparable
Worth
The concept of comparable worth emerges
from interpretations of statistical esti-mates.
These estimates have generally shown
a continuing disparity between the wages of
men and women. Recent data, however, indi­cate
that the earnings gap has been grad­ually
decreasing over the past several
years. Reports from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics' (BLS) Current Population Survey
(CPS) show that for the first quarter of
1985 women working full time had median wage
and salary earnings of about $268 per week.
This is 66 percent of the $404 earned by
their male counterparts. This earnings ratio
has fluctuated between 61 and 67 percent
from quarter to quarter over the last 6
years, but the trend has been mostly upward.
Preliminary data for 1984 from an earlier
CPS series on year-round, full-time earnings
show women's median wages at $14,810 and
those for men at $23,225, a 64-percent
ratio. The same ratio was 60 percent in
1980, 59 percent in 1970, and 61 percent in
1960. Like the quarterly earnings data, this
series also indicates that the overall male­female
earnings gap has narrowed.
CPS microdata look beneath aggregate
levels to show how male and female earnings
differ by occupation, hours of work, educa­tion,
race, family status, and other charac­teristics.
Often statistics adjusted by
these factors show a male-female earnings
gap that is reduced considerably. A BLS
study (Monthly Labor Review 107 (6): 29-33)
demonstrated that although the average pay
for men in a selected group of white-collar
occupations generally exceeded the pay
earned by women in those same occupations,
differences nearly disappeared when each
occupation was broken down according to
skill and experience. Because a much smaller
proportion of women held senior level jobs,
their average pay figure was depressed. This
concentration of women in entry level posi­tions
may be due in part to the increased
number entering the labor force in the
seventies and early eighties. As women move
up in their professions, pay differences
with men may decline. Some observers
Z6 F am i ly Econom i cs Review 1986 No.3
believe, however, that supply and demand
factors will keep women from advancing.
Others feel that the high labor force
participation rates of women are only a
temporary phenomenon despite evidence to
the contrary.
Source: Norwood, Janet L., 1985,
Perspectives on comparable worth: An
introduction to the data, Monthly Labor
Review 108(12): 3-4.
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX--REVISION
Beginning with this issue, the
following groups will be included in
our regular feature of the Consumer
Price Index for all urban consumers:
Renters' costs
Homeowners' costs
Maintenance and repairs
Maintenance and repair services
Maintenance and repair commodities
Housefurnishings
Housekeeping supplies
Housekeeping services
Apparel commodities
Infants' and toddlers' apparel
Apparel services
New vehicles
Used cars
Motor fuel
Maintenance and repair
Medical care commodities
Medical care services
Professional services
Personal and educational expenses
Consumer Prices
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers
[ 1967 = 100, unless otherwise noted 1
Group
All i terns ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Food .......•.••........•.••...•..•..••....
Food at home .•.........................•.
Food away from home ••••••••••••••••••••
Housing .................................. .
Shelter ................................. .
Renters' costs 1
••••••••••••••••••••••••
Rent, residential ••••••••••••••••••••
Homeowners' costs 1
••••••••••••••••••••
Maintenance and repairs •••••••••••••••
Maintenance and repair services •.••••
Maintenance and repair commodities ••
Fuel and other utilities •••••••••••••••••
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas ••••••••
Gas (piped) and electricity ••••••••••••
Household furnishings and operation •••••
Housefurnishings ..................... .
Housekeeping supplies •••••••••••••••••
Housekeeping services •••••••••••••••••
Apparel and upkeep •••••••••••••••••••••••
Apparel commodities •••••••••••••••••••••
Men's and boys' apparel •••••••••••••••
Women's and girls' apparel ••••••••••••
Infants' and toddlers' apparel •••••••••
Footwear ............................. .
Apparel services ....................... .
Transportation ........................... .
Private transportation ••••••••••••••••••
New vehicles ......................... .
Used cars •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Motor fuel . ............................. .
Maintenance and repair ••••••••••••••••••
Public transportation •••••••••••••••••••
Medical care .............................. .
Medical care commodities •••••••••••••••••
Medical care services ••••••••••••••••••••
Professional services ••••••••••••••••••
Entertainment .......................... · · ·
Other goods and services ••••••••••••••••••
Personal care ........................... .
Personal and educational expenses •••••••
1 Indexes based on December 1982 = 100 base.
Apr.
1986
325.3
316.1
301.5
357.0
358.0
400.1
120.9
277.9
118.7
367.6
424.6
264.5
381.8
518.3
439.2
249.6
200.4
318.5
345.4
207.3
191.7
199.7
168.0
316.6
211.4
332.9
303.3
295.3
221.0
364.8
279.5
360.6
422.2
428.0
271.3
462.3
386.9
272.3
341.8
290.5
418.9
Unadjusted indexes
Mar. Feb.
1986 1986
326.0
315.4
301.2
355.5
357.0
397.0
119.6
275.0
117.9
367.5
422.4
266.1
385.5
549.9
442.3
249.8
201.0
317.9
345.1
206.3
190.8
198.3
167.6
313.1
210.1
331.5
309.6
302.1
220.1
367.2
308.5
359.3
421.2
425.8
269.4
460.1
385.0
271.9
341.1
290.3
417.9
327.5
315.3
301.5
354.2
356.5
394.8
119.0
273.7
117 .o
379.6
432.8
277.8
390.0
591.2
444.5
249.0
199.7
318.6
344.5
204.1
188.5
196.8
163.4
311.6
207.9
330.7
319.2
312.2
220.2
370.7
351.5
358.9
422.2
422.3
267.4
456.2
381.6
272.0
340.3
289.1
417.7
Apr.
1985
320.1
309.6
297.7
343.9
345.9
375.9
113.5
260.4
111.3
368.0
418.2
270.4
388.7
623.5
445.9
247.9
201.7
312.6
337.9
205.9
191.8
197.4
170.0
295.3
213.2
318.4
320.0
314.6
213.9
386.4
374.2
348.2
398.0
398.0
253.9
429.4
363.0
263.3
321.8
279.8
388.3
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
1986 No.3 Family Economics Review 27
N
CD
..,
Q)
3 .....
......
'<
1"'1
n
0
::J
0
3... ..
n
Q)
"CD"
<.... .
CD
s:
-
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at 4 cost levels, April 1986, U.S. average 1
Sex-age group
FAMILIES
Family of 2: 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 3
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
$37.40
35.30
54.40
62.60
9.80
10.60
13.10
15.50
16.20
16.80
17.90
16.20
16.10
16.10
15.90
Cost for 1 week
Low-cost
plan
$47.30
45.40
68.00
80.00
11.90
13.10
17.30
19.70
22.30
23.10
22.80
21.80
19.30
20.20
19.50
M:xlerate­cost
plan
$58.60
56.20
83.30
100.10
13.90
16.10
21.60
25.20
27.80
28.70
28.80
26.90
23.40
24.50
24.20
Liberal
plan
$72.60
67.20
102.10
120.50
16.70
19.40
25.30
29.20
32.60
33.20
34.70
32.20
28.30
31.30
28.90
Thrifty
plan
$162.30
153.10
236.00
271.30
42.50
46.00
56.60
67.20
70.10
72.60
77.70
70.30
69.60
69.80
68.90
Cost for 1 month
Low-cost
plan
$205.20
196.70
295.00
346.90
51.70
56.80
75.10
85.30
96.70
100.00
99.00
94.40
83.80
87.50
84.40
M:xlerate- Liberal
cost plan plan
$254.10 $314.60
243.40 291.20
361.10 442.40
434.10 522.20
60.20 72.50
69.90 83.90
93.70 109.50
109.40 126.70
120.50 141.40
124.20 143.70
124.70 150.30
116.50 139.50
101.50 122.60
106.30 135.70
104.80 125.20
1Assumes that food for all meals and snacks is purchased at the store and prepared at home. Estimates for the thrifty food
plan were computed from quantities of foods published in Family Economics Review. 1984 No. 1. Estimates for the other plans
were computed from quantities of foods published in Family Economics Review. 1983 No. 2. The costs of the food plans are
estimated by updating prices paid by households surveyed in 1977-78 in USDA's Nationwide Food Consumption Survey. USDA
updates these survey prices using information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (CPI Detailed Report. table 3) to estimate
the costs for the food plans.
2 10 percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 3.
3The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size families. the following adjustments
are suggested: 1-person--add 20 percent; 2-person--add 10 percent; 3-person--add 5 percent; 5- or 6-person--subtract
5 percent; 7- or more-person--subtract 10 percent.
()
~
9.
~
0
0.
8.
~
Subscription Order Or
Chcmge 01 Address Form
Enclosed is$ __ ___ _
0 Check
0 Money order
:J Charge lo my Deposit Account
No. _______ _
Order No .. _____ _
Make check payable to.
Superintendent of Documents
CREDIT CARD ORDERS ONLY
(Visa and Mastercard)
Total charges S
Credit cord No
Expiration Dote Month/Year
FAMILY Annual subscription Single copies
ECONOMICS $12.00 domestic $325 domestic
REVIEW ($15.00 foreign) ($4.10 foreign}
Please print or type
Company or Personal Nome
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Additional Address I Attention Une
I I I I I I
Street Address
I I I
City
I I i
Country
I I I I
CHANGE OF ADDRESS
Please attach moUing Iobel here and
send this form when requesting a
change of address
MAIL ORDER FOIIl4 TO,
Superintendent o1 Documents
Go..-emment Printing OUice
Waahington, D.C. 20402
State ZIP Code
LU L--1 .L_I ._I --'----1.--l
I I I
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Quantity
_ _ _ Publications
Charges
___ Subscriptions _ __ _
Special Shipping Charges __ _
International Handling _ __ _
Special Charges _ ___ _ _
OPNR
____ UPNS
____ Balance Due
---- DISCOunt
____ Retund