Family Economics Review [1988, Volume 1, Number 1]

              Editor
Joan C. Courtless
Managing Editor
Sherry Lowe
Editorial assistance
provided by:
Michelle D. Nachison
Family Economics Review is
published each quarter by the
Family Economics Research
Group, Agricultural Research
Service, United States
Department of Agriculture.
Washing1on, D.C.
The Secretary of Agriculture has
determined that the publication
of this periodical is necessary in
the transaction of the public
business required by law of this
Department.
Contents may be reprinted
without permission. but credit to
Family Economics Review
would be appreciated. Use of
commercial or trade names
does not imply approval or con­stitute
endorsement by USDA
Family Economics Review is
for sale by the Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office. Send subscrip­tion
orders. change of address.
and single copy requests to
Superintendent of Documents.
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Washing1on. D.C. 20402. (See
subscription form in back of this
issue.)
Suggestions or comments con­cerning
this publication should
be addressed to:
Joan C. Courtless, Editor.
Family Economics Review,
Family Economics Research Group,
1988 No.1
Contents:
Housing Expenditures
Nancy E. Schwenk
Women's Food and Nutrient Intakes Away From Home, 1985
Cecilia Wilkinson Enns and Patricia M. Guenther
Economic and Regulatory Policies: Implications for Nutrition
James A. Zellner and Rosanna Mentzer Morrison
Socioeconomic Factors and Food Usage Patterns
Karen J. Morgan
Abstracts
Changes in the Use of Cash and Other Methods of Payment
Child Care Arrangements of Working Women
After-School Care of School-Age Youth
Living Arrangements and Marital Status of
Households and Families
liAinimum Wage--Its Relation to Incomes and Poverty
Regular Features
New Publications
Cost of Food at Home
Consumer Prices
USDNARS. Federal Building. Issued January 1988
Room 442A Hyattsville, Md. 20782.
2
9
13
19
7
26
28
30
31
34
35
36
The following article is the first in
a series on consumer expenditures for
various components of the household
budget. Articles on expenditures for
transportation, utilities, and other
budget items will be featured in
upcoming issues of Family Economics
Review.
Housing Expenditures
By Nancy E. Schwenk
Consumer economist
Since the sixties, housing has represented
the largest share of the American consumer's
budget. The proportion of total expenditures
spent on housing has increased steadily from
26.5% in 1950 to 33% in 1983. This article
examines changes in housing expenditures
over time and housing expenditures among
subgroups of the U.S. population, and
provides a physical description of American
housing.
SOURCE OF DATA
Data are from the 1982-83 Consumer Expend­iture
Survey (CES), a continuing survey
conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
U.S. Department of Labor. The Survey has
a rotating sample of approximately 5, 000
consumer units •1 Findings reported here are
based on responses from approximately 16,000
households who reported positive income and
who had participated in the interview por-tion
of the Survey during 1983. Households
------ 1
A consumer unit, or household, is either
(1) all members of a particular household
who are related by blood, marriage, adop­tion,
or other legal arrangement; (2) a per­son
living alone or sharing a household with
others, or living as a roomer in a private
home, lodging house, hotel or motel, but who
is financially independent; or (3) two or
more persons living together who pool their
income to make joint expenditure decisions.
were asked about expenditures for housing
for the previous 3 months. Comparisons
were made with data from the Consumer
Expenditure Survey of 1980-81 (approxi­mately
18,000 households) and 1972-73
(approximately 10,000 households), and with
the Annual Housing Surveys of 1983 and 1973,
undertaken by the Bureau of the Census,
2
U.S. Department of Commerce.
COMPARISONS OVER TIME
A comparison of housing expenditures from
the 1983 CES with those reported in the 1981
and 1973 surveys shows that the percentage
of the household budget allocated to housing
increased slightly between surveys to one­third
of the total budget by 1983 (table 1,
p. 4). Expenditures for housing increased
more than total expenditures between 1973
and 1983--141% and 127%, respectively. Part
of the increase in housing expenditures can
be attributed to higher rnortgage rates,
which rose by over 60% between 1973 and 1983
(table 2, p. 4). Also, the price of single­family
homes more than doubled during this
10-year period (table 3, p. 5).
Dollars spent for total housing, utilities,
and household operations doubled or more
than doubled between 1973 and 1983. The
housing component with the largest percent­age
increase was fuel and other utilities,
up 155% between 1973 and 1983. However,
throughout the 10-year period, utilities
maintained about a one-quarter share of the
housing budget. Expenditures for house­furnishings
and equipment increased much
less dramatically than the other housing
components. Spending for major appliances
increased the least and actually declined
slightly between 1981 and 1983. The increase
in spending for total expenditures, housing,
and utilities closely match the increases in
the Consumer Price Index (CPI) during this
10-year period, as shown in the table on
p. 2 (2).
2
In 1984 the Annual Housing Survey was
renamed "American Housing Survey" and is
currently being conducted every other year.
1988 No.1 Family Economics Review
Percent change in CPI and CES from 1973
1981 1983
CPI CES
All items • • • • • . • • • • • • 105 99
Housing • • • . • • • • • • • • • 117 105
Fuel and other
utilities .••..•.••.. 152 117
SUBGROUPS OF THE POPULATION
Income
GPI CES
124 127
139 141
192 155
Income was divided into five brackets for
purposes of analysis--under $10,000, $10,000
to $19,999, $20,000 to $29,999, $30,000 to
$39,999, and $40,000 and over. Dollar amounts
spent on housing increased with income, al­though
the percentage of total expenditures
allocated to housing decreased as income
increased. Households with annual income
under $10,000 in 1983 spent 35% (an average
of $3, 165) of their total expenditures on
housing, whereas households with greater
income spent about 32%. Similarly, expendi­tures
for utilities increased as income in­creased,
but the proportion of total housing
expenditures represented by utilities
decreased as income increased. As might be
expected, households in the highest income
bracket ($40 ,000 and over) spent signifi­cantly
more on lodging away from home
(including rental of hotel and motel rooms,
expenses for vacation homes, and housing
for someone at school) than households in
the lowest income bracket--$840 and $129,
respectively.
Households were also contrasted by income
quintiles. Mean income for each quintile was
$7,825, $10,675, $18,481, $28,885, and
$53,172. Households in the two lowest income
quintiles, whose housing expenditures
averaged $3,477 and $4,113, spent a greater
portion of their total expenditures on hous­ing
(34%) than households in the highest
three quintiles (32%). Also, utility bills
accounted for a larger share of total hous­ing
expenditures for households in the two
lowest income quintiles--31%, compared with
a range of 21% to 28% for households in the
three highest income brackets.
2 Family Economics Review 1988 No.1
Housing Tenure
In 198 3, 60% of C ES householders were
homeowners and 40% were renters. By com­parison,
the percentage of homeowners was
59% in 1973 and 44% in 1940. Homeowners
spent more than renters for housing and all
applicable components of housing in 1983
(table 4, p. 5). Homeowners spent about
twice as much as renters for utilities,
household operations, domestic services, and
small appliances; they spent well over twice
as much for lodging away from home, furni­ture
and equipment, household textiles,
floor coverings, major appliances, and
miscellaneous household equipment.
Household Size
Four-person households in the 1983 CES
had higher incomes and spent more for hous­ing
than other size households. Four-person
households also spent the most for mortgage
interest, property taxes, and household
maintenance. One-person households spent
the greatest proportion of their total expend­itures
for housing (35%, compared with
multiperson households who spent between
29% and 33%). Expenditures for utilities
increased as household size increased.
Households of six or more persons spent a
larger share of their total housing expendi­tures
for utilities than did smaller house­holds.
In 1973, five-person households had
the highest incomes and the largest housing
expenditures.
Household Composition
Households consisting of a husband and
wife with children earned more money, spent
more money, and had higher housing expendi­tures
than other household types in 1983.
Husband and wife households with children
also had the highest expenditures for mort­gage
interest, property taxes, utilities,
household operations, domestic services,
major and small appliances, and miscellaneous
household equipment.
Single persons and single parents with
children were the household types most
likely to be renters and consequently had
the lowest housing expenditures. However,
single parents with children spent the
largest portion of their total expenditures
for housing compared with other household
types. Single parents with children spent
the least for household maintenance and
lodging away from home, but they spent the
highest amount for rent. Of single parents
living with children, two-thirds of mothers
were renters compared with only one-third of
fathers. Single persons spent the least for
utilities, mortgage interest, household opera­tions,
domestic services, furniture and equip­ment,
major appliances, and miscellaneous
household equipment.
Households consisting of a husband and
wife with no children had the highest expen­ditures
for household maintenance, lodging
away from home, and furniture and equip­ment.
They were the household type most
likely to have their mortgage paid off.
Region
In 1983, CES households who lived in the
West spent more for housing than those who
lived in the other three regions of the
country. Housing also represented a greater
share of total expenditures in the West.
Westerners had the highest expenditures for
mortgage interest, rent, lodging away from
home, household operations, domestic
services, and miscellaneous household
equipment; and the lowest expenditures for
utilities. Midwesterners had the highest
expenditures for property taxes and utili­ties,
and the lowest expenditures for rent
and household maintenance. Southerners spent
the most on furniture and equipment and
major appliances, and the least on property
taxes. Northeasterners spent the most on
household maintenance and the least on
mortgage interest. In 1973 households living
in the Northeast had the greatest expendi­tures
for total housing and for utilities.
In both 197 3 and 1983, new homes were
priced highest in the Northeast, although in
1981 the West had the highest priced new
homes (table 3). In 1973, 1981, and 1983,
new homes were lowest in price in the South.
In 1973 existing homes were priced highest
in the Northeast, but in 1981 and 1983
existing home prices were highest in the
West. The lowest priced existing homes for
all 3 years were in the Midwest.
Persons living in rural areas were more
likely to be homeowners than persons living
in urban areas. Findings from the Annual
Housing Survey (AHS), in both 1973 and 1983,
indicate that 7 3% of all occupied housing
units in rural areas were owner-occupied,
compared with 61% in urban areas.
Race
According to the 1973 AHS, 67% of white3
householders were homeowners, compared
with 43% of black householders. In the 1983
AHS, the percentage of white householders
who were homeowners remained at 67% but
the percentage of black homeowners had
increased slightly to 45%.
In 1983 whites had annual incomes that
were 57% higher, total expenditures that
were 55% higher, and housing expenditures
that were 41% higher than those of blacks.
However, blacks spent a greater portion of
their total expenditures on housing than did
whites. Dollar amounts spent on utilities
were nearly equal for blacks and whites, but
utilities represented a larger share of
housing expenses of black households than of
white households--34% and 24%, respectively.
White households spent more than twice as
much as black households on household
maintenance, lodging away from home,
furniture and equipment, household textiles,
floor coverings, small appliances, and
miscellaneous household equipment.
PREDICTING HOUSING EXPENDITURES
The amount of money households are likely
to spend on housing may be associated with
various demographic factors pertaining to
those households. A multiple regression was
conducted to determine what factors were
related to housing expenditures. 4 All
factors were statistically significant at
3Group includes American Indian, Aleut,
Eskimo, Asian or Pacific Islander, and
other.
4The multiple R2 for the equation was .41.
Intercorrelations of all the independent
variables in this regression analysis were
less than • 35.
1988 No.1 Family Economics Review 3
Table 1. Mean annual housing expenditures of Consumer Expenditure Survey households
I tan
Total expenditures .................... .
Housing expenditures ••••••••••••••••
Shelter1
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Fuel and other utilities <- •••••••••••
Household operations 3
•••••••••••••
Housefurnishings and equipment 4
••
Major appliances ••••••••••••••••
Housing (% of total expenditures)5 •••••
Fuel and other utilities 6
(% of housing expenditures) •••••••••
1973
$8,080
2,468
1,309
606
140
413
95
31
25
1981
$16,088
5,071
2,834
1,313
246
678
126
32
26
1983
$18,317
5,960
3,381
1,544
280
755
124
33
26
1 Includes of owned dwellings, mortgage interest, property taxes, maintenance, repairs,
insurance, rented dwellings, and lodging away from home.
2 Includes natural gas, electricity, fuel oil and other fuel, telephone, water, and other
public services.
3 Includes domestic services and other household expenses.
4 Includes household textiles, floor coverings, major appliances, small appliances,
miscellaneous housewares, and miscellaneous household equipment.
5 Mean housing expenditure as a percentage of mean total expenditure.
6 Mean utility expenditure as a percentage of mean housing expenditure.
Table 2. Home mortgage rates
Type of mortgage
FHA-insured mortgage ••••••••••••••
Conventional mortgage,
new home . ........................ .
Conventional mortgage, existing
home ............•.............•.•.
Annual average interest rate
1973
8.19
8.30
8.33
1981
(percent)
16.31
16.52
16.55
1983
13.11
13.43
13.45
Percent
increase,
1973 to 1983
60.1
61.8
61.5
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the
United States 1978, p. 549; and Statistical Abstract of the United States 1986, p. 506.
4 Family Economics Review 1988 No.1
Table 3. Median sales price of new and existing single-family houses, by region
Region 1973 1981 1983
New houses:
United States $32,500 $68,900 $75,300
Northeast ...................... . 37,100 76,000 82,200
Midwest ......................•.• 32,900 65,900 79,500
South .......................... . 30,900 64,400 70,900
\Vest •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 32,400 77,800 80,100
Existing houses:
United States .................... . 28,900 66,400 70,300
Northeast ...................... . 32,800 63,700 72,200
Midwest .•••.•.•••.••...••..•.... 25,300 54,300 56,600
South .......................... . '29,000 64,400 69,200
West •••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • 31,000 96,200 94,900
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the
United States 1985, p. 729.
Table 4. Mean annual housing expenditures of Consumer Expenditure Survey households,
by housing tenure, 1983
It an
Total expenditures ••••••••••••••••••••••
Housing expenditures ••••••••••••••••••
Shelter ............................. .
Mortgage interest •••••••••••••••••
Property tax •••••.••••.••.•.••••••
Household maintenance •••••••••••••
Rent .••.•••••••••••.•••.•••• · • • • • •
Other lodging .................... .
Fuel and other utilities •••••••••••••
Household operations ••••••••••••••••
Domestic services . ................ .
Other household expenses •••••••••
Furniture and equipment ••••••••••••
Household textiles •••••••••••••••••
Floor coverings .................. .
Major appliances •••••••••••••••••••
Small appliances •••••••••••••••••••
Miscellaneous household equipment.
Homeowners
$21,498
6,963
3,653
1,921
659
657
385
1,938
348
278
70
1,023
115
68
167
80
244
Renters
$12,883
4,293
2,747
2,554
174
934
181
142
40
431
39
11
71
39
99
1988 No.1 Family Economics Review 5
the 5% level. Total household expenditures,
before tax income, presence of children,
homeownership, and number of family
members were positively related to total
housing expenditures. Age of reference
person, 5 number of earners in the household,
and race were negatively related to total
housing expenditures. Overall, total house­hold
expenditures and before tax income were
the best predictors of total housing
expenditures.
HOUSING DESCRIPTION
In 1983 most of the CES households (61%)
lived in single-family, detached homes.
Thirty-five percent lived in multifamily or
attached homes, which includes town houses,
row houses, duplexes, garden and high-rise
apartments, and flats.6 Among these
multifamily homes were over 1 million
owner-occupied condominiums. Of the CES
households, 4% lived in mobile homes or
trailers. The age of the housing units was
rather evenly distributed among dwellings
built in 1949 or earlier (33%), between
1950 and 1969 (36%), and in 1970 or later
(31%). The majority of households (56%)
lived in homes having between five and seven
rooms; 32% lived in smaller homes of one to
four rooms; and 12% lived in larger homes of
eight rooms or more. Of the CES households,
2% lived in public housing and/or were being
assisted by the government in paying part of
their housing costs.
The 1983 AHS results indicate a net
increase in the number of housing units of
approximately 23% between 197 3 and 1983. At
the same time, the U.S. population increased
11%. This indicates a trend toward fewer
persons per housing unit. Also, the median
number of rooms per housing unit has
dropped slightly from 5. 2 in 197 3 to 5.1 in
1983.
5 The reference person is the first person
mentioned by the respondent when asked to
"Start with the name of the person or one of
the persons who owns or rents the home."
6 An apartment on one floor usually with
separate entry and sometimes lacking
amenities (for example, a cold-water flat).
6 Family Economics Review 1988 No.1
Changes in the adequacy of American
housing units over time are evident. One
means of assessing housing adequacy is by
determining the rate of overcrowding, which
was a health problem in the first half of
this century. A standard was set in 19 50
that defined overcrowding as more than 1.0
persons per room. At that time, over 16% of
all homes were considered to be overcrowded.
At present, however, fewer than 4% of all
U.S. households exceed the 1.0 person per
room standard. Another measure of housing
adequacy is the existence of complete
plumbing facilities (hot and cold running
water, flush toilet, and bathtub or shower).
In 1940 nearly 45% of all dwellings lacked
one or more of these plumbing facilities. By
1960 the percentage of units without complete
plumbing facilities had decreased to 13%,
and by 1973 and 1983, to 6% and 2%.
Other changes in the characteristics of
housing units can be noted. The number of
units with air conditioning increased from
12% in 1960 to 47% in 1973, and to 59% in
1983. Also, the number of housing units with
a telephone increased from 78% in 1960 to
94% in 1973, but then dropped to 90% in
1983.
CONCLUSIONS
Large increases in mortgage interest rates
and in the cost of utilities account for
much of the increase in expenditures for
housing between 1973 and 1983. Some of the
increased spending for housing can be attri­buted
to improvements in housing adequacy.
Greater spending for housing can also
reflect the consumer's desire for increasing
quantities of housing goods and services.
REFERENCES
1. Salins, Peter D. 1986. Toward a perma­nent
housing problem. The Public
Interest 85(3):22-33.
2. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census. Statistical Abstract of the
United States. (88th, 95th, 96th, 98th,
99th, 105th, and 106th editions.)
3. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census; and U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Office
of Policy Development and Research.
1975. Annual Housing Survey: 1973,
Part A--General Housing Characteristics.
Current Housing Reports, Series
H-150-73A.
4. • 1984. Annual Housing Survey:
198 3, Part A --General Housing Character­istics.
Current Housing Reports, Series
H-150-83.
5. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. 1976. Cons~mer Expend­iture
Survey Series: Interview Survey,
1972 and 1973. Report 455-3.
6. -----• 1985. 1982-83 Interview
Survey Public Use Tape Documentation.
Changes in the Use of Cash and
Other Methods of Payment
Families use cash, credit, checks, money
orders, and debit cards to pay bills and
make purchases. To learn how consumers
acquire cash and use both cash and other
means of payment, the Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System in 1984
commissioned the Survey of Currency and
Transaction Account Usage.
Since that time several economic, regula­tory,
and technical changes have occurred
that could affect the way families use cash
and bank accounts. (1) Automated teller
machines (ATM's) became widely available
through improved electronic technology,
(2) interest rates on consumer deposits were
virtually deregulated, (3) Federal minimum
balance requirements on accounts were
eliminated, and (4) yields on short-term
investments fell, narrowing the gap between
these rates and those paid on interest­bearing
checking accounts.
The Board commissioned a second survey
in 1986 to ascertain the effects of these
changes on the payment practices of
families. Both the 1986 and 1984 surveys
collected information on deposit balances,
expenditures out of accounts, uses of credit
cards, and patterns of cash acquisition and
use (see table on p. 8). General results
showed that consumers' choices among
methods of payment were mostly unchanged
between the 2 years:
Methods of pa~ent
by families
Cash only .............. .
Cash and money orders ••
Cash and checks ••••••••
Cash, checks, and
credit cards ••••••••••••
1984 1986
6
7
20
67
(percent)
7
8
19
66
However, this general stability included
some significant changes within the various
means of payment.
Checking accounts. Families used their
main checking account for a smaller percent­age
of their total spending in 1986 than
they did in 1984. Although the average
account balance fell by $458, about one-half
of the families surveyed reported maintaining
a higher balance than they otherwise would
have to avoid or reduce bank fees and
service charges. The percentage of families
reporting the payment of fees increased by
6% in 1986. However, the percentage
receiving interest on checking accounts was
unchanged at 39%. The surveys also sug­gested
that the use by families of checking
accounts for savings purposes increased as
their use for transactions decreased.
1988 No.1 Family Economics Review 7
Use of transaction accounts by families, 1984 and 1986
Method of payment
Frunilies owning accounts
(percent)
Frunilies using accounts
(percent of owners)
1984 1986 1984 1986
Money market and savings accounts •••• 69 59 18 30
Main checking account ... .............. 87 85 94 97
Other checking account ................ 20 22 60 75
Credit cards .......................... 71 71 76 82
A TM's •••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 44 46 61 69
Money orders . ......................... 15 14
Source: Avery, Robert B., et al., 1987, Changes in the use of transaction accounts and
cash from 1984 to 1986, Federal Reserve Bulletin 73(3):179-196, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System.
Credit cards. The use of credit cards as
a method of payment rose substantially from
1984 to 1986. Total monthly credit card
charges were more than 27% higher in 1986.
Much of the rise of the credit card debt may
reflect an increased use of cards as a means
of payment rather than as a source of
credit--the average credit card charge per
family increased by less than 4%.
Money orders. In the aggregate, money
orders are not an important way of making
purchases and paying bills for most people.
However, nonwhites, Hispanics, and low-income
families used money orders to pay for a ·
significant proportion of their expenditures.
Electronic banking. There was no increase
in the growth of direct deposits to family
accounts in 1986 and only small growth in
the proportion of families having automatic
payment of a mortgage or other bill. Since
1984 the proportion of families owning ATM
cards has not changed significantly, but the
proportion using ATM's has increased by 8%.
8 Family Economics Review 1988 No.1
Cash. Check cashing was the primary
means used by individuals to obtain cash; at
the time of the 1986 survey, an estimated
550 million checks per month were cashed by
individuals. Of the total cash acquired by
all individuals for use in transactions, 7 0%
was withdrawn from checking or savings
accounts in a bank or other financial insti­tution;
9% was acquired from ATM's; 8% from
employers; another 7% from families and
friends; and 6% from stores. Data on the
rate of cash acquisitions indicated that
individuals obtained cash less frequently in
1986 (about every 16 days) than they did in
1984 (about every 12 days). However, in 1986
they acquired somewhat larger amounts each
time. These findings may reflect the fact
that declining interest rates over the period
reduced the interest income foregone by
holding instead of investing cash. Evidence
also suggests that the usage or turnover
rate of cash (total cash spent divided by
average cash held) declined between 1984 and
1986.
Source: Avery, Robert B., et al., 1987,
Changes in the use of transaction accounts
and cash from 1984 to 1986, Federal Reserve
Bulletin 73(3): 179-196, Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System.
Women's Food and Nutrient
Intakes Away From Home, 1985
By Cecilia Wilkinson Enns and
Patricia M. Guenther
Home economist and Nutrition analyst
Nutrition Monitoring Division
Human Nutrition Information Service
Eating away from home was more common
among women at the highest income level than
at lower income levels, as reported in the
1985 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by
Individuals (CSFII-1985) (_~, .=!), conducted
by USDA's Human Nutrition Information
Service (HNIS). Consequently, food obtained
and eaten away from home contributed larger
proportions of ·the food energy and nutrient
intakes by women in the highest income group
than in lower income groups.
Results presented here are group means
for women 19 to 50 years of age, based on
4 nonconsecutive days of dietary information
collected over a 1-year period from April
1985 through March 1986. Individuals were
asked to provide 6 days of dietary data over
a 1-year period. Waves of data collection
began at intervals of approximately 2 months·
Data were collected using a 1-day recall.
The first wave was collected by personal
interview; subsequent waves were collected
by telephone when possible. Only 47% of the
women who provided the first 1-day recall
completed all six waves. The results pre­sented
here are for the 1,088 women (71%)
who completed the first 1-day recall and at
least three additional 1-day recalls. For
women who provided more than 4 days of
dietary data, the 3 additional days used in
the analyses were randomly selected. Further
details about the purpose, methodology, and
results of the CSFII-1985 have been
published by HNIS (_!_, !• .=!).
The income groups used in this article are
based on the poverty guidelines provided by
the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (4). Women living in households
with befor;-tax incomes for the previous
year below 131% of the poverty guidelines
are referred to as low-income (N=220); those
with incomes from 131% through 300% of
poverty are referred to as middle-income
(N=364); and those with incomes over 300%
of poverty are referred to as high-income
(N=384). Food and nutrient data reported by
income exclude 120 women living in house­holds
that did not report income. The low­income
group had a much higher proportion
of blacks (33%) than did the other income
groups (4% of both middle- and high-income).
Prevalence of Eating Away From Home
In the CSFII, participants were asked
whether each food or drink item they
consumed was from the home food supply
(food eaten at home and food brought into
the home but later eaten elsewhere) or was
obtained and eaten away from home (food
never brought into the home, including food
eaten at someone else's home).
Of all women surveyed, 19% obtained and
ate some food or drink away from home on
each of the 4 survey days, as shown in the
table below. Only 12% of the women did not
eat away from home on any of the 4 days.
The prevalence of eating away from home was
greater in successively higher income
groups. Away-from-home-eating was more
common among white than among black women.
Number of days food away
reported
0 1 2 3 4
(percent of individuals)
All women ••••• 12 20 23 26 19
Income group:
Low ••••• • • • • '24 27 23 21 5
Middle ••••••• 14 17 27 24 19
High ...... · · 5 14 21 32 28
Race:
White ....... 11) 19 23 27 21
Black ....... 22 28 25 13 12
1988 No.1 Family Economics Review 9
Food Obtained and Eaten Away From Home
The proportion of women's food intake that
was obtained and eaten away from home
varied by food group and subgroup (table 1).
The proportions of food eaten away by women
were lowest for fluid milk, cereals and
pastas, total milk and milk products, and
fruit; and were highest for alcoholic
beverages, carbonated soft drinks, and fish
and shellfish. The proportions of beverages
drunk away from home varied more than did
the proportions of other foods.
About 30% (49 gm of 162 gm) of women's
intake of meat, poultry, and fish was
obtained and eaten away from home. At least
one meat, poultry, or fish item was obtained
and eaten away from home during the 4 sur­vey
days by 72% of the women. Meat mixtures
was the meat subgroup obtained and eaten
away from home by the largest proportion of
women (43%), followed by beef (24%).
Only 14% (28 gm of 200 gm) of women's
intake of milk and milk products came from
food obtained and eaten away from home,
Table 1. Mean intake and percentage of individuals using selected foods and percentage of
intake obtained and eaten away from home, women age 19-50, 4 noncons~cutive days, 1985
Food group/subgroup
Meat, poultry, and fish ••••••••••••••
Meat mixtures •..................•..
Beef •••••••••••••••••••••.••••••.••
Frankfurters, sausages, and
luncheon meats ................... .
Pork ..........•....................
Poultry ........................... .
Fish and shellfish ••••••••••••••••••
Milk and milk products •••••••••••••••
Fluid milk •.........................
Cream and milk desserts ••••••••••••
Cheese ............................ .
Eggs ••••••..•..•..•••••.••••••••••.••
Legumes, nuts, and seeds ••••••••••••
Vegetables .......................... .
Dark-green vegetables ••••••••••••••
Deep-yellow vegetables •••••••••••••
Fruits and fruit juices •••••••••••••••
Grain products ...................... .
Grain mixtures ..................... .
Cereals and pastas •••••••••••••••••
Fats and oils ........................ .
Sugars and sweets .................. .
Beverages ........................... .
Coffee ............................ .
Carbonated soft drinks •••••••••••••
Alcoholic beverages ••••••••••••••••
10 family Economics Review 1988 No.1
Mean intake
per day
(grams)
162
75
26
13
12
20
11
200
147
22
15
17
18
164
9
6
119
196
72
38
16
17
823
298
284
61
Percentage of
individuals
using at least
once in 4 days
99
79
64
60
50
52
33
96
77
55
71
58
55
99
30
29
81
100
69
66
95
84
99
68
84
31
Percentage of
intake obtained
and eaten away
30
33
27
23
25
30
36
14
7
32
27
24
22
27
22
17
15
23
26
11
31
29
32
25
42
44
although more than half of the women (57%)
had an away-from-home milk product at least
once during the 4 days. More of the women
reported eating cheese (31%) and cream and
milk desserts (27%) than drinking milk away
from home (20%).
Of women's beverage intake (excluding milk
and juices), 32% was obtained and drunk
away from home (261 gm of 823 gm). The
proportion of women drinking beverages away
from home was 81%; 61% reported carbonated
soft ririnks, and 39% reported coffee. Only
18% of the women drank alcoholic beverages
away from home, but 44% of the total intake
of alcoholic beverages (27 gm of 61 gm) was
drunk away from home.
The contribution of food obtained and
eaten away from home to total food intakes
was lower for low-income women than for
high-income women, as shown below:
Meat, poultry, and fish
Meat mixtures ••••••••
Beef ................ ·
Poultry .... .......... ·
Milk and milk products
Fluid milk •••••••• • • • •
Vegetables .••••••••••••
Fruits ........ · · · · • · · • •
Grain products •••••••••
Grain mixtures •••••••
Beverages .......•......
Coffee .............. .
Carbonated soft
drinks ............. .
Alcoholic beverages
Income
Low Middle High
(percent of intake)
20
22
}C)
~2
12
8
16
11
12
10
21
14
36
34
29
32
24
29
13
6
26
12
23
27
30
22
41
38
38
41
32
41
17
9
32
18
30
34
37
32
47
49
Dietary Contribution of Food Obtained and
Eaten Away From Home
Food obtained and eaten away from home
contributed 28% of women's food energy and
21% to 31% of their nutrients and other
dietary components (see figure below and
table 2, p. 12). Food away from home contri­buted
less of vitamins A and C than of other
nutrients, reflecting the smaller propor-tions
of fruits and vegetables that were
eaten away (table 1). Total fat, fatty
acids, and vitamin E had the highest
proportions coming from food away.
The greater prevalence of away-from-home
eating among higher income groups was
reflected in the proportions of food energy
provided by food away from home to women
in the three income groups (table 2). For
low-income women, food obtained and eaten
away from home provided 15% to 20% of
intakes of food energy and nutrients.
Middle-income women obtained 21% to 30% of
their food energy and nutrients from
away-from-home food. High-income women
obtained 25% to 37% of their food energy and
nutrients away from home. Also, the greater
prevalence of eating away from home among
white than among black women was reflected
in the proportions of food energy and
nutrients supplied by food obtained and
eaten away from home (table 2). Food away
from home supplied 22% to 32% of food energy
and nutrients in diets of white women, and
15% to 25% of food energy and nutrients in
diets of black women.
Nutrient Contribution of Food Away From Home
Percent of total intake
Food energy
Total fat
Polyunsaturated fat
Unsaturated fat
Carbohydrate
Protein
Iron
Calcium
Vitamin A
Vitamin C
28 L_ __________________ ~
29 L_ ____________________ __
31
28
27
26
24
24
22
21
1988 No.1 Family Economics Review 11
Table 2. Dietary contribution of food obtained and eaten away from home: Mean percentage
of intake per individual, women age 19-50, 4 nonconsecutive days, 1985
In cane Race
Dietary All -----
component wanen Low Middle High White Black
(N=1,088) (N=220) (N=364) (N=384) (N=927) (N=107)
(percent of intake)
Food energy •••••••••••••
Protein .. ............... .
Total fat ......•.•.......
Saturated fat ••••••••••••
Monounsaturated fat •••••
Polyunsaturated fat ••••••
Cholesterol ••••••••••••••
Carbohydrate ••••••••••••
Dietary fiber ••••••••••••
Vitamin A .............. .
Carotenes .............. .
Vitamin E .....••........
Vitamin C .............. .
Thiamin ................ .
Riboflavin .............. .
Niacin .... .............. .
Vitamin B6 ............. .
Folate .................. ·
Vitamin B12 •••••••••••••
Calcium ...•.............
Phosphorus ••••••••••••••
Magnesium •••••••••••••••
Iron .. ............. · · · · · ·
Zinc .. ............. · • · · · ·
Copper ................. .
Sodium 1 •••••••••••••••••
Potassium .............. .
28
26
29
28
28
31
26
27
24
22
25
28
'H
24
23
25
23
23
25
24
25
24
24
26
26
27
24
1Excludes salt added at the table.
REFERENCES
1. Tippett, Katherine S., and Howard A.
Riddick. Diets of American women by
income, spring 1977 and spring 1985.
Family Economics Review 1987(1):10-17.
19
18
19
19
19
20
17
19
17
15
18
19
15
16
16
17
16
16
17
17
17
17
17 .
18
17
17
17
2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human
Nutrition Information Service. 1985.
Nationwide Food Consumption Survey,
Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by
Individuals: Women 19-50 Years and Their
Children 1-5 Years, 1 Day, 1985. Rpt.
No. 85-1, 102 pp.
12 Family Economics Review 1988 No.1
3.
27 34 29 22
25 32 27 22
28 35 30 23
28 34 29 22
28 35 29 22
30 37 32 25
26 32 27 19
26 32 28 22
24 30 25 20
22 27 22 16
24 30 26 18
27 35 29 23
21 25 22 17
23 29 25 19
22 28 24 18
24 31 26 20
23 28 24 19
23 28 24 18
24 31 26 20
24 30 25 22
24 31 26 22
23 29 24 21
24 30 25 20
25 31 26 21
25 32 27 20
26 33 28 20
24 29 25 21
-----· 1987. Nationwide Food
Consumption Survey_, Continuing Survey
of Food Intakes by Individualst._~omen
19-50 Years and Children 1-5 Years,
4 Nonconsecutive Days, 1985. Rpt.
No. 85-4.
4. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. 1985. Annual revision of the
poverty income guidelines. Federal
Register 46:9517.
The following two articles are taken
from papers presented at Expanding
Horizons: More Tools for our Trade,
the Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the
Society for Nutrition Education on
July 9, 1986, in Washington, DC.
Economic and Regulatory
Policies: Implications for
Nutrition1
By James A. Zellner and
Rosanna Mentzer Morrison
Economists
Economic Research Service
Although the U.S. Government does not
dictate what the American people will eat,
numerous Federal economic and regulatory
policies influence our food choices and
hence our nutrient consumption (_~_). Some of
these policies are consistent with nutri-tional
objectives but others may be in
conflict. Policies such as food assistance
programs and nutrient fortification are
designed to have direct effects on nutrient
consumption. Other Federal policies, however,
indirectly influence nutrient consumption by
affecting the supply or demand for food and,
thus, its availability or price.
FOOD AND NUTRIENT DEMAND
Economic research shows that, other things
being equal, the lower the price of a good
or its complements--or the higher the price
of substitutes, for example, margarine and
butter--the more of that good that will be
demanded. Income also influences food pur­chases;
demand for most foods rises with
income. For example, economists have found
that as income rises consumers are likely to
purchase more meats, desserts, and pro­cessed
fruits and vegetables (_~). However,
demand for some foods, primarily staples,
1 The content of this article does not
necessarily reflect the views of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
falls as income rises. Many demographic fac­tors
in addition to income (such as region
of residence, race, age, size of family, and
education) also have been shown to affect
the quantity and mix of foods consumed.
Therefore, public policies that affect
people's income and other demographic
characteristics could alter demand for food
and change the mix of nutrients consumed.
Food Assistance Programs
Perhaps the most obvious Government
programs influencing nutrient demand are the
food assistance programs. The Food Stamp
Program was formally established in 1939-­when
there was both a huge surplus of food
and inadequate income for people to purchase
the food. The early Food Stamp Program was
terminated in 1943, and food assistance was
provided primarily through the distribution
of surplus commodities until the sixties.
The Food Stamp Act of 1964 reinstituted the
Food Stamp Program as a permanent program,
to operate at State option. In 1974 Congress
required all States to offer food stamps to
the poor. Over 19 million people partici­pated
in the Food Stamp Program in fiscal
year 1986, and total program expenditures
were $11.7 billion. Food stamps augment the
resources of recipient families and there-fore
result in greater food expenditures. A
recent economic analysis of the current pro­gram
found that a dollars' worth of food
stamps increases at-home food purchases by
about 26 cents C.!.!). Because the recipient
decides how the stamps will be used, the
program has changed nutrient intake in much
the same way as an income supplement.
The nutritional assistance program for
women, infants, and children (WIC) began as
a pilot program in the sixties, but soon
became a major provider of supplemental
nutrients to low-income pregnant women,
nursing mothers, infants, and children.
Since the supplemental foods are specified
in the WIC voucher, the WIC program has
resulted in direct and intended changes in
nutrient intake. In fiscal year 1986, the
WIC program cost approximately $1.6 billion
and served more than 3. 3 million women and
children each month.
1988 No.1 Family Economics Review 13
A nationwide school lunch program was
begun in 1935 to address the nutrition needs
of school age children. A secondary motive
in establishing the program was to utilize
surplus commodities. National School Lunch
Program (NSLP) meals must meet certain
nutrition criteria. Therefore, the NSLP not
only affects overall food demand but also
influences the mix of foods consumed. In
fiscal year 1986, the NSLP cost approxi­mately
$3.5 billion and about 24 million
school children participated.
Income and Welfare Policies
Although food assistance programs have
the major impact on the nutritional status
of the population, other income assistance
policies increase people's disposable income
and, thus, their food spending. These
include Aid to Families With Dependent
Children, housing assistance, Supplemental
Security Income, Social Security, and even
the progressive nature of the Federal income
tax structure. About half of the States
exempt food from State and local sales
taxes, recognizing the regressive nature of
such a tax, particularly when applied to
food. Although these programs affect the
overall expenditut'es on food, they do not
directly or intentionally influence the mix
of foods purchased.
Demand Enhancement Programs
Today's primary demand enhancement pro­grams
are international in scope--relying on
credit subsidies, export promotion programs,
and Food for Peace. Few domestic programs
of this type remain, although a number of
generic advertising programs implemented
under the auspices of the Federal or State
Governments are currently in effect.
Generic advertising is used to enhance
demand for a product group as opposed to a
single brand. Potatoes, eggs, wheat, and
dairy products have national promotion pro­grams
(~_). The Food Security Act of 1985
authorizes national programs for beef and
pork promotion (1). However, nutrient con­sumption
will be affected only to the extent
that promotion programs are successful in
altering the mix of foods purchased by
consumers.
14 Family Economics Review 1988 No.1
Federal nutrition research and education
also influence the demand for food. The in­tent
of these efforts is to provide consumers
with information about the components of a
healthy diet. The Food Security Act of 1985
directs State Cooperative Extension Services
to expand nutrition education for low-income
people. If consumers incorporate these nutri­tion
guidelines into theit' diets by making
changes in their food choices, nutrient
consumption will also change.
FOOD AND NUTRIENT SUPPLY
Perhaps nowhere in our economy is there
more Government intervention that influences
supply and the cost of production than in
the food system. Supply management programs
have been at the heart of U.S. agricultural
programs for the past 50 years. Even before
that, research and Extension programs to
raise agricultural productivity had major
impacts on the supply of agricultural
commodities.
Farm Price Support Programs
Since 1933 supply management programs
have been used to stabilize and enhance the
price of supported commodities--wheat, t'ice,
feedgrains, soybeans, peanuts, honey, sugat',
and dairy products (_!). Even before the
enactment of Federal legislation, farmers
were urged to voluntarily restrict supply as
a means of enhancing their prices. Because
of the inelastic nature of short-run demand
for farm commodities, a small reduction in
supply could result in a large increase in
price received and, therefot'e, in farmers'
revenues.
Over the years a number of different
supply-restricting programs were tried. For
grains, long-term land retirement under the
Soil Bank and Conservation Reserve programs
of the fifties and sixties took as many as
21 and 29 million acres of land, respectively,
out of production. Under the 1985 farm
legislation, a similar program was begun
that will take 40 million acres of highly
erodable land out of production. More
typical of supply restriction programs are
those in which farmers are paid directly (or
become eligible for other program benefits)
to take land out of production for a single
growing season. These so-called "set-aside"
or "diversion" programs have idled as many
as 70 million acres in a single year and
have been in effect in 21 of the past 27
years Cl, 1) ·
When supply is restricted, the price of
the raw commodity increases. This raises the
price of the foods manufactured or produced
from the commodity. For cereals, this price
increase is rather minor since the farm com­ponent
of bread and other bakery products
is quite small. When the supply of feed­grains
is restricted, the effect on food
prices is more indirect. If more expensive
feedgrains must be used, the cost of produc­ing
meat and poultry rises. There is a time
lag between a decision to change production
and the actual change in meat supplies.
Thus, a policy that enhances prices of feed­grains
this year could result in lower meat
prices initially as producers step up
slaughter to avoid higher feed costs. The
longer term effect would be higher meat
prices as lower supplies are available a
year or two later.
The ultimate impact on nutrition will
depend on how consumers react to changes
in food prices. Economic theory and empiri­cal
evidence tell us that food consumption
patterns will be altered as prices of dif­ferent
foods change relative to each other
and to nonfood prices. For instance, one
study found that if pork prices increased by
10%, consumers are likely to increase pur­chases
of chicken by almost 3% (i). Since
different foods have different nutritional
contents, the mix of nutrients would be
altered.
Farm Programs and Nutrition: A Dairy
Example
The dairy sector provides a good example
of changes in nutrient consumption that
stemmed from price support programs. The
Government guarantees dairy farmers minimum
milk prices by purchasing (at the support
price) all cheese, butter, and nonfat dry
milk that is not sold in the market. In 1977
legislation was passed that assured dairy
farmers prices that were high by historic
standards. They responded with greater pro­duction
and increased investment in facili­ties
and herds. By the early eighties, it
was obvious that the production capacity in
the dairy sector was at least 10% above
consumer demand at current prices.
In late 1981, faced with a huge surplus of
dairy products, the Administration began the
Temporary Emergency Food Assistance
Program (TEFAP). The program included the
direct donation of surplus cheese. Over the
next 6 years, the quantity of American
cheese given to needy persons averaged about
twice their normal consumption. This trans­lates
into the consumption of a different
mix of nutrients as more cheese and less
cheese alternatives (for example, meat and
other protein products) are eaten.
The nutritional status of the target popu­lation
has no doubt been altered by TEF AP.
The primary problem they faced prior to
TEFAP was an inadequate quantity of food.
That has been addressed in part by the dona­tion
of surplus food. But other nutritional
considerations are relevant as well. What
has happened to the fat intake of the TEF AP
recipient? Has the mix of nutrients been
changed in an adverse or desirable way? Is
there a need for additional nutrition educa­tion
to assure that recipients are able to
integrate the surplus commodities into their
diets in a balanced manner?
POLICIES AFFECTING BOTH SUPPLY AND
DEMAND
There are a number of policies that
influence both the demand for food and the
supply of--even the existence of--certain
foods. This is particularly true of the
policies that govern industry structure and
conduct, the quality and safety of the food
supply, and policies relating to technological
change.
Policies Affecting Industry Structure and
Conduct
Our antitrust laws affect the supply and
demand of nutrients by providing legally
binding guidelines for business conduct.
These laws are designed to promote fair and
effective competition. The rationale for
these policies is to create an environment
with lower prices, larger output, and pro­duct
quality reflecting consumer preferences.
Advertising is an important business
practice subject to Government oversight.
Several Federal agencies have authority over
1988 No.1 Family Economics Review 15
various aspects of food advertising, but the
most influential agency is the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC). The FTC has authority
to stop false, deceptive, and misleading
claims. The FTC can also require affirmative
disclosure of specific facts or "corrective"
advertising to counter a long history of
false advertising (1_).
Government Regulation of Food Safety and
Quality
Food regulations generally fall into one
of three categories--safety, esthetics, or
quality. Safety rules generally relate to
processing practices and the introduction of
harmful ingredients during processing. Rules
governing esthetics generally establish
maximun levels of contaminants. Rules that
govern quality address characteristics other
than nutrients. These rules generally fall
under the category of food grades or stan­dards
of identity and composition. Grades
typically classify less processed products
(such as fruits, vegetables, and beef) by
attributes such as color, size, and mar­bling.
Standards of identity define foods
with respect to a recipe. In order for a
food to bear the common name of a product
on its package label, it must conform with
the official recipe or standard for the
food.
These rules can affect the supply of foods
by removing products that fail to meet
Government-established safety or quality
standards. In addition, the very existence
of institutions regulating the safety and
quality of the food supply can also influ­ence
demand in a positive manner by increas­ing
consumer confidence in the product.
Food Quality and the Supply and Demand
for Nutrients
The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938
mandated that standards of quality be estab­lished
whenever " ••• such action will promote
honesty and fair dealing in the interest of
consumers." The rationale behind the iden­tity
standards was to prevent foods that
were known by a traditional name from being
debased by the substitution of inferior
ingredients or low-valued fillers.
16 Family Economics Review 1988 No.1
In recent years, amid concerns over
unnecessary or burdensome regulations, food
standards have come under increased scru­tiny.
Viewed from one perspective, standards
are seen as intruding unnecessarily into the
consumer choice process, retarding innova­tion,
restricting competition, and raising
food prices. Another perspective sees the
standards as (1) providing useful signals to
consumers who lack sufficient information to
wisely choose food products, (2) guarding
quality and traditional food preparation
methods, and (3) insuring a safe and
nutritious food supply.
Standards of identity require that foods
that do not conform to the official recipe
be clearly labeled. At times this would
include "negative" labeling, such as "imita­tion
mayonnaise" for a product that contains
less fat or eggs than mayonnaise, or "tissue
from ground bone," the name originally pro­posed
by USDA for a mechanically deboned
meat product. This negative labeling often
means that many foods that do not meet the
standards are withheld from the marketplace,
thus limiting consumer choice and poten­tially
altering the supply of nutrients
available to consumers.
Standards of identity may lock in attri­butes
that have become negative since the
standard was established. This is especially
important for nutrition considerations when
knowledge about what may be "good" for you
changes over time. For example, we now know
that there are links between dietary fat and
cholesterol and heart disease. These links
were not considered when the mayonnaise
standard was written. Yet because there is a
mayonnaise standard, a product with less fat
or cholesterol might have to be called imi­tation
mayonnaise, or by a less descriptive
name.
Food Safety and the Supply and Demand for
Nutrients
Regulators have always been concerned with
acute food safety problems caused by manage­ment
error or improper processing controls.
The product recalls that accompany acute
food safety problems appear to have little
lasting impact on nutrient supply or demand.
Over the past 20 years, a number of food
additives found to induce cancer in labora­tory
animals have been removed from the food
supply. For the most part, safe and reason­ably
economical substitutes existed. However,
during the seventies a number of additives
for which there were no adequate substitutes
were found to cause cancer. This raised a
dilemma for regulators, who were faced with
the possibility of banning or at least
altering not-insignificant portions of the
food supply. For example, nitrite (which
could form nitrosamines, a potent
carcinogen) is an important preservative for
the substantial portion of the pork products
consumed in cured form. Hence, the banning
of nitrite as a food additive would have
resulted in major changes in food and
nutrient consumption. Policy makers opted
instead to reduce nitrite levels and expand
public research into ways to eliminate the
nitrosamine risk.
Technology and Nutrient Supply and
Demand
Technological developments in agricultural
production and food processing have impacts
on both nutrient supply and demand. Tech­nologies
that increase plant yield and ani­mal
growth or lower production cost can
translate into greater food supplies at a
lower cost and enhance nutrient consumption.
On the demand side, technological develop­ments
that result in quality changes (such
as seedless grapes) or lower cost alterna­tives
(such as simulated seafood products)
can increase consumption of certain foods.
National policies and programs affect
technological developments in food and agri­culture
in two ways--through their effects
on research and on commercialization. The
Government has enhanced technological
advancements through its long history of
conducting basic research and sponsoring
similar research at universities. The
Government's influence on commercialization
occurs through its regulatory role. For
example, the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, must issue a regulation prescrib­ing
safe use of a new food additive. These
regulations specify the foods in which the
additive may be used, the maximum quantity,
how the additive may be added. and any
special labeling or packaging requirements.
The Case of Irradiation
The still evolving development of food
irradiation in the United States illustrates
the Government's research and regulatory
roles in technological development. Food
irradiation is the process of exposing food
to radiation to kill or sterilize insects
and food spoilage microorganisms. The
effects of the radiation depends on the par­ticular
food and the dose of radiation
absorbed (10). Federal research on food
irradiation dates from the "Atoms for Peace"
program of the early fifties. The Atomic
Energy Commission, and later the Department
of Energy, was given responsibility for
research on irradiation's lower dose food
applications such as sprout inhibition, pas­teurization,
and insect disinfestation. The
Army concentrated its research on high dose
applications. Their purpose was to develop
radiation-sterilized meat products as a
substitute for canned and frozen military
rations.
Lack of regulatory approval has been one
of the major impediments to the commerciali­zation
of food irradiation. Permission to
irradiate specific foods has been granted or
denied in response to individual petitions
submitted to FDA. However, in April 1986
FDA issued a broader final rule allowing
processors to use low doses of radiation to
inhibit sprouting and maturing of fresh
foods and to rid foods of insects <11) •
FDA requires that retail packages or bulk
containers of irradiated foods carry the
statement "Treated with radiation" or
"Treated by irradiation" and a designated
symbol (11.). FDA's labeling action may
indirectly affect food demand and nutrient
consumption because consumers' reaction to
the required wording will influence sales of
irradiated food.
Provided industry decides to offer irradi­ated
foods and consumers will eat them,
irradiation has the potential for altering
nutrient demand and consumption in several
ways. It can reduce spoilage loss for cer­tain
foods and expand the supply of some
tropical fruits and vegetables currently
precluded by quarantine restrictions.
Irradiation may be able to substitute for
certain chemical preservatives, such as
nitrite in bacon, and raise the safety level
of meats, poultry, and fish.
1988 No.1 Family Economics Review 17
CONCLUSION
Many economic policies and programs of the
Federal Government that are seemingly unre­lated
to nutrition have important nutri-tional
implications. It is becoming ever
more obvious that there are interrelation­ships
that must be studied and considered
when making policy decisions. In a recent
speech, the Director of FDA's Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition stated,
" ••• it is no longer possible for us to con­sider
the various components of a national
food policy separately. We will have to
consider agricultural needs, health and
nutritional needs, microbiological needs,
toxicological needs, and food technological
needs simultaneously. Only in this way can
we ever develop understanding of the whole
problem" (_~) •
REFERENCES
1. Bowers, Douglas E., Wayne D. Rasmussen,
and Gladys L. Baker. 1984. Histq_~
Agricultural Price-Support and Adjust­mel1t
Programs, 1933-84_: Background for
1985 Farm Legislation. Agriculture
Information Bulletin No. 485. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service.
2. Connor, John R., et al. 1985. The Food
Manufacturi!!&_ Industries: SJructure,
Strategies, Performance, and Policies,
pp. 349-354. Lexington Books,
Lexington, MA.
3. Evans, Sam, and Philip Paarlberg.
1984. Wheat: Background for 1985 Farm
Legislation. Agriculture Information
Bulletin No. 467. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
4. Glaser, Lewrene K. 1986. Provisions of
the Food Security Act of 1985. Agri­culture
Information Bulletin No. 498.
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service.
5. Huang, Kuo S. 1985. U.S. Demand for
Food: A Complete System of Price and
Income Effects. Technical Bulletin No.
1714. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service.
18 Family Economics Review 1988 No.1
6. Lee, John E. 1981. Food and agricul­tural
policy: A suggested approach.
Agricultural-Food Policy Review: Per­spectives
for the 1980s, pp. 136-148.
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Economics and Statistics Service, [now
known as Economic Research Service].
7. Lin, William, Mack Leath, and Philip
Paarlberg. 1984. Corn: Background for
1985 Farm Legislation. Agriculture
Information Bulletin No. 471. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service.
8. Miller, Sanford A. 1985. Food safety
and health: A scientific and legisla­tive
perspective. Talk to the XIII
International Congress of Nutt:'ition.
[Brighton, United Kingdom, August 22,
198 5.]
9. Morrison, Rosanna Mentzer. 1984.
Generic Advertising of Farm Products.
Agriculture Information Bulletin
No. 481. U.S. Department of Agricul­ture,
Economic Research Service.
10. Morrison, Rosanna Mentzer, and Tanya
Roberts. 1985. Food Irradiation: New
Perspectives on a Controversial
Technology. Report for the Office of
Technology Assessment, U.s. Congress.
11. Senauer, Ben, and Nathan Young. 1986.
The impact of food stamps on food
expenditures: Rejection of the tradi­tional
model. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics 68(1) :37-43.
12. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Food and Drug Administration.
1986. Irradiated foods; production,
processing, and handling. Federal
gegister 51(75):13376-13399.
Note: For more information on the Food
Stamp Program, see "Food Stamp Program,"
Family Economics Review 1987 (3): 18-19.
Socioeconomic Factors and
Food Usage Patterns
By Karen J. Morgan 1
Associate professor
Department of Human Nutrition
Foods and Food Systems Management
University of Missouri, Columbia
Introduction
The increasing complexity and changing
composition of the U.S. food supply,
together with heightened consumer interest
in health and nutrition, have increased the
need for a more complete understanding of
eating patterns and the nutritional quality
of diets. Affluence, changes in lifestyle,
greater employment of women, smaller house­holds,
increased accessibility to commercial
food establishments, and increased availa­bility
to highly processed foods all have
influenced U.S. food consumption patterns.
These changes in consumption behavior are
of utmost importance to nutritionists.
Nutrition educators are constantly being
asked to examine the determinants and conse­quences
of various consumption patterns and
to select the most appropriate methods for
modifying individual and group diets.
Economics as a discipline has a long history
of examining food selection patterns. In
particular, demand economists have attempted
to quantify the commonalities of behavior
with respect to food selection--for example,
with respect to consumer response to food
pr-ice, household income, household composi­tion,
and many other variables. Whereas
behavioral and social psychologists tend to
focus on unobservable factors (such as
motivation, cognition, and learning) to
explain variation in consumption behavior,
economists focus more on external or observ­able
factors such as prices and income. To
develop or evaluate nutrition programs that
involve food selection decisions by indivi­duals,
the nutrition educator must consider
both kinds of factors.
1 Dr. Morgan is now Consumer Affairs
Director, Nabisco Brands, Inc.
Little of the nutrition research conducted
by nutrition professionals appears to have
systematically utilized the body of research
developed by economists. This article sum­marizes
selected economic research on indi­vidual
and household food selection patterns
in an effort to help facilitate the use of
economic theory and research in nutrition
education research.
Data
Most of the studies described here have
utilized all or a portion of either the
household availability data or the individual
intake data from USDA's 1977-78 Nationwide
Food Consumption Survey (NFCS). The house­hold
component consisted of records of food
usage during a 1-week period in 1977-78 for
over 14,000 households. The NFCS provides
detailed information on food used by house­holds,
from which the nutritional quality of
household food supplies can be estimated
using USDA's Nutrient Data Bank. These
nutrient values are for edible portions of
foods, with vitamin values adjusted for
cooking losses. The Survey also provides
data on home production of food, household
income, participation in food programs, edu­cation
and employment of household heads,
and other factors that might affect food
consumption.
The individual intake component of the
1977-78 NFCS contained over 37,000 indivi­duals.
Information was collected on foods
and beverages eaten at home and away from
home by the household members participating
in the household portion of the Survey.
Intake data were recorded by household
members for 3 successive days. The foods and
beverages consumed were converted to dietary
component intakes using another USDA
Nutrient Data Base that was designed for use
with the individual intake data.
General Methods
Most of the studies reviewed have utilized
multivariate statistical regression methods.
The selection of independent variables is
based on how they are hypothesized to impact
on the dependent variable of interest. For
example, per capita annual income is hypo­thesized
to have a positive relationship to
1988 No.1 Family Economics Review 19
away-from-home food consumption, use of
convenience foods, and obtainment of more
expensive food items, such as high-cost
meats and beverages. The employment status
of female household head, used by economists
as a proxy for the opportunity cost of time,
is hypothesized to have a positive relation­ship
to away-from-home food consumption, use
of convenience foods, and obtainment of
luxury foods. Age and sex variables are fre­quently
included in regression analyses to
reflect changing nutritional requirements
and as proxies for age-related food prefer­ences.
Sometimes variables are included in
the analyses to control for their effects on
the dependent variable. An example is region
of the country to control for interregional
price effects.
Away-From-Home Food Consumption
Although there exist many studies of away­from-
home food consumption (3, 6, 7, 12 13
.!.!) , only three have been sel~ct;d for this-'
review. In 1984, Morgan and Goungetas (8)
used ordinary least squares (OLS) regres-=
sions and found that increased per capita
income had a positive effect on the numbers
of meals consumed away from home, whereas
household size did not have a strong impact
on away-from-home food consumption.
However, the fact that household composition
was not included in the household size
specification may have masked the presence­of-
preschool-age-children effect reported
by other researchers (1, 12). The number
of meals consumed away from home decreased
with increasing age, a result reflecting
school lunch consumption. Persons residing
in single-headed households consumed more
meals away from home, suggesting that a
single household head has fewer at-home
labor substitutes for at-home production.
Significantly more meals were consumed
away from home when the female household
head was employed; however neither regional
location nor degree of urbanization had
significant impact on the numbers of meals
consumed away from home.
The Morgan study also assessed the effect
of away-from-home meal consumption on diet
quality, as indicated by intake levels of
calcium, vitamin B6, iron, magnesium
(underconsumed nutrients), fat, cholesterol,
20 Family Economics Review 1988 No.1
sodium, and total sugar (overconsumed
dietary components) compared to food energy
intake levels. For most age and sex groups,
increased meals consumed away from home
provided greater proportionate increases in
intake levels of cholesterol, sodium, fat,
calcium, magnesium, and iron than in food
energy intake levels. However, it was con­cluded
from this study that where persons
ate did not strongly influence their
nutritional well-being.
Bunch and Hall (_!) also studied the nutri­ent
intake implications of consuming food
away from home. These researchers used
quantity of calories from away-from-home
food consumption as one of the independent
variables (along with socioeconomic charac­teristics)
in a multivariate regression
analysis where the dependent variables were
nutrient intake levels. The main conclusion
from their research was that consumption of
food away from home did not contribute to
overconsumption of fat. Their results indi­cated,
however, that for some individuals,
vitamin and mineral consumption was adversely
affected by the consumption of foods away
from home. Specifically, for adolescents and
young adults, consumption of food away from
home was negatively related to intake levels
of vitamins A and C, iron, and calcium. An
analysis of nutrient density of the sample
showed that nutrients per kilocalorie were
significantly lower for individuals who con­sumed
greater than 30% of total calories
away from home. The authors concluded that
individuals who ate large percentages of
their calories away from home frequently had
adequate diets, but that higher caloric
consumption was required to achieve this
level of nutrient intake.
Haines (!) studied expenditures by indivi­duals
ages 15 to 35 years on away-from-home
food in restaurants, fast food and conve­nience
stores, and school or work cafeterias.
Haines found that household characteristics
(particularly characteristics of the person
who usually planned and prepared food for
other household members) strongly influenced
individual away-from-home food expenditure
patterns. Tl-tat is, if the meal processor was
employed, significantly more was spent on
away-from-home foods. The age composition
of the household (particularly the presence
of preschool-age children) had a negative
impact on restaurant expenditures but had a
positive impact on fast food expenditures.
Further, increased household size yielded
decreased expenditure at restaurants and
increased expenditure at fast food places.
Individuals from single-headed households
spent more for food away from home than did
their counterparts in dual-headed households.
Haines reported that income elasticity for
all food consumed away from home was 0.475.
Income elasticities estimated for specific
away-from-home categories ranged from 2.00
for restaurant food and 0. 92 for fast food,
to a low of 0.18 for cafeteria food. The
range of these elasticities indicated that
consumers had quite different preferences
and behaviors for food in different settings.
Haines also evaluated the impact of away­from-
home food consumption on 15- to
35-year-olds' intake levels of food energy,
protein, fat, vitamins B6 and A, and
calcium. She found that individuals in
households with an employed meal processor
consumed more food energy, protein, and fat
over a 24-hour period, other things being
equal, but that no increased intake levels
of vitamins B6 and A, and calcium were
observed. Although higher household incomes
were associated with greater individual
away-from-home expenditures, for all nutri­ents
studied higher incomes had no associa­tion
with or were related to lower 24-hour
nutrient intakes. When all other factors
were held constant, individuals in house­holds
with a more highly educated meal
processor consumed fewer calories during a
24-hour period. However, processor's educa­tion
was positively associated with intakes
of calcium and vitamin A.
Convenience and Nonconvenience Foods
The findings reported here for convenience
food usage were drawn from two research
papers (_!, i) that utilized the household
data from the 1977-78 NFCS. These research­ers
grouped convenience foods into three
classes. The basic convenience class
included foods wherein processing was more
related to a preservation method than to
ease of preparation; foods with a single or
limited number of ingredients; and foods
with time or energy inputs, but not culinary
expertise, built in (such as processed
cheese, peanut butter, and frozen french
fries). The complex convenience class
contained multi-ingredient prepared mixtures
and foods that have high levels of time­saving
and/or energy inputs, as well as
culinary expertise, built in (such as cake
mixes, ice cream, catsup, frozen entrees,
and canned and dehydrated soups). The
manufactured convenience class contained
foods that have no home-prepared counter­parts
(such as ready-to-eat breakfast
cereal, soft drinks, and canned meal
replacement or supplement). The non­convenience
food class included fresh
(unprocessed) foods, ingredient foods, and
home-produced or home-preserved items,
(such as fresh fruits and vegetables,
cooking oils, flour, and eggs).
Mean nutrient densities and mean nutrients
per dollar of convenience and nonconvenience
classes of foods used by households were
computed by Havlicek et al. (i). This study
showed that processed foods are not
necessarily expensive sources of nutrients.
With few exceptions, the mean cost of nutri­ents
was lower for convenience foods than
for nonconvenience foods. However, no single
food class was consistently the best source
of all nutrients per 1, 000 kcal. Basic con­venience
and nonconvenience foods provided
more protein and calcium per dollar and pe-r
1, 000 kcal than complex convenience and
manufactured convenience foods. The highest
level of fat per 1, 000 kcal was present in
non convenience foods, the class that
included untrimmed fresh meat, most milk and
cheese products, and table and cooking fats.
As the share of the food dollar spent for
convenience foods increased, there was an
associated small decrease in the nutrient
level per nutrition unit for food energy and
all nutrients except calcium, vitamin A, and
carbohydrate. Approximately 55% of the
dollar for at-home food was spent on noncon­venience
foods, 18% on basic convenience
foods, 19% on complex convenience foods, and
7% on manufactured convenience foods.
1988 No.1 Family Economics Review 21
A follow-up study of these data by Capps
et al. (,?_) was conducted to determine the
impact of total food expenditure, income,
food price, household size, and demographic
variables on household demand for conve­nience
and nonconvenience foods. Households
located in the Northeast, North Central, and
West allocated larger shares of the food
dollar to complex convenience foods than
households located in the South. Addition­ally,
Northeastern and North Central house­holds
allotted significantly smaller shares
to nonconvenience foods than Southern house­holds.
Central city and nonmetropolitan
households used smaller shares of the food
dollar for complex and manufactured conve­nience
foods than suburban households.
However, relative to suburban households,
central city households allocated larger
shares to basic convenience foods, whereas
nonmetropolitan households allocated larger
shares to nonconvenience foods.
Nonwhite households, as well as households
with household managers at least 35 years of
age, allotted smaller shares of the food
dollar to all the convenience classes than
their corresponding counterparts. Households
with female household managers apportioned
larger shares to nonconvenience foods and
smaller shares to complex and manufactured
convenience foods than households with male
household managers. The same held true for
unemployed household managers versus em­ployed
household managers. Households with
college-educated household managers allo­cated
smaller shares to nonconvenience and
complex convenience foods but larger shares
to basic and manufactured convenience foods
than households without college-educated
household managers. Finally, increased
household size (measured in 21-meal
equivalents) led to increased use of basic
and complex convenience foods and to
decreased use of non convenience foods, but
the use of manufactured convenience foods
was not affected by household size.
At-Home Food Patterns
Morgan et al. (~, ..!Q., ..!1) have completed
several studies evaluating at-home food con­sumption
patterns and their nutritional con­sequences.
The first of these studies (~)
assessed factors influencing proportionate
allocations of total food dollars to each of
22 Family Economics Review 1988 No.1
12 food groups. Results are indicated in
table 1 (p. 23) and show the various charac­teristics
associated with higher and lower
proportions of the food dollar attributed to
the 12 food groups. In addition, it was
determined that nonmetropolitan households
allocated significantly greater proportions
of their total food value to all 12 food
groups than did central city households.
Suburban households allocated higher pro­portions
of their total food value to milk
and cheese; mixtures, condiments and bakery
products; fats and oils; sugar and sweets;
and beverages, and a lower proportion to
lower-cost meats than did central city
households.
Another study by Morgan et al. (!Q)
utilized OLS regressions to relate socio­economic
variables to food energy and five
selected nutrients obtained per food dollar.
Table 2 (p. 24) lists the characteristics
that contributed to higher and lower levels
of these six dietary components acquired
from each food dollar. Also, nonmetropolitan
households had a higher level of return per
dollar of food energy and all nutrients,
except vitamin A, than central city house­holds.
Suburban households also had greater
levels per food dollar than did central city
households for all nutrients except vitamin A.
The last of the three studies (!.!) by this
research team used the values for each of
the six dietary components per dollar of
food (used in ..!Q_) for each household and
ranked them in order by dietary component
return, per food dollar. Then for each of
these corresponding six arrays of house­holds,
the upper and lower quartiles were
identified for use in investigating shopping
expertise. These quartiles are referred to
hereafter as "high-return" and "low-return"
households. For each of the six sets of
high- and low-return households, assessments
were made to determine the average percent­age
of total food cost allocated to each of
the 12 food groups (used in ~). The mean
percentages allocated to the 12 food groups
by the high- and low-return households were
evaluated for significant differences.
Assessments were also made for quality of
at-home food consumption for high- and
low-return households.
Table 1. Socioeconomic characteristics affecting the proportionate allocation of total food
dollars to 12 food groups
Food group
Vegetables
Fruits
Higher cost meats
Lower cost meats
Eggs, beans, nuts
Milk and cheese
Cereals, rice,
pasta
Mixtures, condiments,
bakery
Bread
Fats and oils
Sweets and sugar
Beverages
Characteristic
Higher proportion
Southern region
Western region
Increased per capita income
Southern region
Spanish origin
Southern region
Spanish origin
Southern region
Increased household size
White race
Southern region
Increased household size
Spanish origin
Southern region
White race
Southern region
Northeast region
Southern region
White race
Southern region
Increased per capita income
White race
Southern region
Lower proportion
Increased household size
Increased per capita income
Black race
Spanish origin
Increased household size
Increased per capita income
Black race
Increased household size
White race
Increased per capita income
White race
Increased household size
Increased per capita income
White race
Increased per capita income
Increased per capita income
White race
Increased per capita income
Spanish origin
Increased per capita income
Black race
Increased household size
Increased per capita income
White race
Increased per capita income
Increased household size
1988 No.1 Family Economics Review 23
For all dietary components evaluated, the
high-return households allocated signifi­cantly
smaller proportions of their total
food value to high-cost meats and beverages
than did the low-return households. In all
cases except food energy and calcium, house­holds
with high return also allocated lower
average proportions of total food value to
mixtures, condiments, and bakery products.
These households allocated, on average,
greater proportions of their total food
value to cereals, rice, and pasta; milk and
cheese; eggs, beans, and nuts; and fats and
oils than households with low return. Except
for vitamin A, households with high return
also allocated larger proportions of food
value to bread. Results for vegetables,
fruits, lower-cost meats, and sugar and
sweets were mixed, indicating that no con­sistent
relationship existed between levels
of dietary components per food dollar and
allocations of food dollars to these food
groups. Assessments of diet quality obtained
from at-home food consumption revealed that
households with high nutrient return per
food dollar were more likely to meet the
National Research Council's Recommended
Dietary Allowance than were those with low
nutrient return.
Table 2. Socioeconomic characteristics associated with quantity of food energy and
5 nutrients obtained per food dollar
Food nutrient
Higher level
Food energy Increased household
Spanish origin
Black race
Southern region
Vitamin A Decreased household
Black race
Western region
Protein Increased household
Spanish origin
Black race
Southern region
Calcium Increased household
Western region
Iron Increased household
Spanish origin
Black race
Southern region
Magnesium Increased household
Southern region
24 Family Economics Review 1988 No.1
Characteristic
size
size
size
size
size
size
Lower level
Northeast region
Increased income
Northeast region
Increased income
Northeast region
Increased income
Black race
Northeast region
Increased income
Northeast region
Increased income
Black race
Northeast region
Conclusions
Economic research on food consumption and
nutrition can contribute to a better under­standing
of individual and household food
selection. It can further policymakers'
understanding of nutrition-related behavior
and guide them in allocating scarce nutri­tion
program resources to meet public health
needs. However, the usefulness of economics
in describing food selection patterns can be
improved by working within multidisciplinary
research teams including nutritionists,
economists , p sy chologis ts, ant h ro pologis ts,
and others. The interdisciplinary approach
would make it easier to identify problems,
plan educational programs with a higher
probability of compliance over extended
periods of time, and provide meaningful
input into national food and nutrition
policy-making decisions.
REFERENCES
1. Bunch, Karen, and Lana Hall. 1983.
Factors affecting nutrient consumption.
~ricultural Economics Research Report
~o. 22. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
2. Capps, Oral, Jr., John R. Tedford,
and Joseph Havlicek, .Jr. 1985.
Household demand for convenience and
nonconvenience foods. American Journal
of Agricultural Economics 67:862-869.
3. Guenther, Patricia M., and Carolyn A.
Chandler. 1980. Nutrients in Foods at
Home and Away. Talk given at 1981
Agricultural Outlook Conference.
[Washington, DC, November 1980.]
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human
Nutrition Information Service.
4. Haines, Pamela S. 1983. Away From
Home Food Consumption Practices and
Nutrient Intakes of Young Adults.
Proceedings of the 29th Annual
Conference of the American Council on
Consumer Interests. [Columbi'li, MO.]
5. Havlicek, Joseph, Jr., et al. 1982.
Nutritional and Economic Aspects of
Convenience and Nonconvenience Foods.
1983 Agricultural Outlook Conference.
[Washington, DC, November 1982.] U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
6. Kinsey, Jean. 1981. Food Away From
Home Expenditures by Source of House­hold
Income. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American
Agricultural Economics Association.
[Clemson, SC .]
7. Lippert, Alice, and Douglas 0. Love.
Family expenditures for food away from
home and prepared foods. Fap1!Y_
Economics Review 86(3): 9-14.
8. Morgan, Karen J., and Basile
Gou ngetas. 1986. Snacking and Eating
Away From Home. Proceedings from
What is America Eating? 1984 Food and
Nutrition Board Symposium.
[Washington, DC.] National Academy of
Sciences/National Research Center.
9. Morgan, Karen J., et al. 1985. Use of
12 groups of foods in households differ­ing
in size, income and receipt of food
stamps. Journal of Consumer Studies
and Home Economics 9:113-131.
10. Morgan, KarenJ., etal.1985. Food
energy and nutrients per dollar's worth
of food from available home food sup­plies.
Home Economics Research Journal
14(2) :241-251.
11. Morgan, Karen J., et al. 1986. Food
usage patterns as related to nutritional
quality of household food supplies.
Home Economics Research Journal
15(2):148-159.
12. Prochaska, Fred J., and Ronald A.
Schrimper. 1973. Opportunity cost of
time and other socioeconomic effects on
away from home food consumption.
American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 53: 597-603.
13. Putnam, Judith J., and Michael G.
VanDress. 1984. Changes ahead for
eating out. National Food Review.
NFR-16, pp. 15-17.
14. Redman, Barbara J. 1980. The impacts
of women's time allocation on expendi­tures
for meals away from home and pre­pared
foods. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics 62(2): 234-237.
Note: For information on USDA's National
Food Consumption Survey, see Family
Economics Review Fall 1978, pp. 3-7.
1988 No.1 Family Economics Review 25
Child Care Arrangements of
Working Women 1
Data on child care arrangements of
employed mothers, for the period December
1984 through March 1985, were collected in a
supplement to the Survey of Income and
Program Participation (SIPP), conducted by
the Bureau of the Census. Earlier surveys of
child care arrangements for children under
age 5 were conducted in 1977 and 1982 •
The data collected in the SIPP include
information on the three youngest children
under age 15 of working women and refer to
their usual weekly child care arrangements·
There were an estimated 26.5 million
children under the age of 15 whose mothers
were employed during the Survey period.
Because some women used more than one
type of child care arrangement during a
typical work week, two categories of
arrangements were reported. The primary
child care arrangement refers to the way
the child was cared for during most of the
hours the mother worked •2 The secondary
child care arrangement is the one used
second most frequently while the mother
worked. Children of full-time working
mothers were more likely to require
secondary child care arrangements than
the children of part-time working mothers
(33% and 13%, respectively). Secondary
child care arrangements were used by 32% of
children 5 to 14 years of age and by 13%
of children under age 5.
Of the 8. 2 million preschool-age children
of working women, 23% attended organized
child care facilities 3 as their primary care
arrangement during their mothers' work
hours (table). Others were cared for in
their own homes (31%), in someone else's
home (37%), or by the mother herself while
1For additional information on "Child Care
Arrangements and Expenditures," see Fami!Y_
Economics Review 1986(4):1-7.
2Primary child care could include being
enrolled in grade school.
3Includes day and group care services and
nursery or preschool prograrns.
26 Family Economics Review 1988 No.1
working either at home or away from home
(8%). Preschoolers whose mothers worked
part time were more likely to receive super­vised
care at home than were preschoolers
with full-time working mothers (42%,
compared with 24%). Child care for pre­schoolers
of full-time working mothers was
more frequently located outside the child's
home and with nonrelatives rather than with
family members or relatives.
Fathers provided child care more often if
their wives worked part time than if their
wives worked full time. Married fathers of
preschoolers were much more likely to pro­vide
child care than unmarried fathers (19%,
compared with 2%). Unmarried women more
often depended on their children's grand­parents
for child care in the child's home
than did married women (16% and 3% of all
primary child care) •
About 1.4 million infants under 1 year of
age required child care services while their
mothers worked. Of these infants, 78% were
cared for either in the child's home or in
another home. Another 14% were cared for in
organized child care facilities. The labor
force participation rate among women with
infants increased from 44% in 1982 to 48% in
1985, with a corresponding rise in the use
of day care centers for infants (4% in 1982
and 8% in 1984-85).
Women employed in service occupations
made less use of organized child care
facilities for children under 5 years (11%)
than women in managerial or professional
occupations (30%). Women in service occupa­tions
were more likely to work non-day
shifts and, therefore, depended more heavily
on parental child care. 3etter educated
mothers made greater use of organized child
care facilities for their preschool-age
children. Organized child care facilities
were used by 31% of the children of employed
mothers who completed 4 or more years of
college, compared with 15% of the children
of employed mothers who did not complete
high school. The use of these facilities by
black women for their preschoolers was
significantly higher (31%) than for either
white women (21%) or Hispanic women (20%) •
Also, preschool children of unmarried women
were more likely to be in organized child
care facilities (27%) than children of
married women (22%).
_.
\l)
CX>
CX>
z
0
...,. ,
3 ..... ....
'<
,...,
(")
0
::J
0
3... ..
(")
(J)
"ct"l
<.... .
ctl
:E
N
-..I
Primary child care arrangements of children under 15, by employment status of their mothers, winter 1984-85
[Numbers in thousands]
Type of child
care arrangement
B:nployed rrothers with Employed mothers with B:nployed mothers with
Number of children •••••••••••
Care in child's home ••••••••••
By father ........•.........
By grandparent ••••••••••••
By other relative •••••••••••
By nonrelative •••••••••••••
Care in another home •••••••••
By grandparent ••••••••••••
By other relative •••••••••••
By nonrelative •••••••••••••
Organized child care
facilities .................. .
Day or group care center ••
Nursery school or
preschool ..... ............ .
Kindergarten or grade
school .. .................... .
Child cares for self ••••••••••
Parent cares for child1
•••••••
children under 15 years
Total
26,455
17.8
9.4
2.7
3.0
2.6
14.4
4.3
1.13
13.3
9.1
5.4
3.7
52.2
1.8
4.7
Enployed
full time
16,812
14.8
6.7
2.5
3.2
2.3
15.9
4.4
1.7
9.8
10.8
6.3
4.5
53.4
2.1
3.0
---------
Fmployed
part time
9,643
23.0
14.1
3.0
2.7
3.1
11.7
4.1
1.9
5.7
6.1
3.9
2.2
50.2
1.4
7.8
1 Includes women working at home or away from home.
children under 5 years
- -
Total Enployed Bnployed
full time part time
8,168 5,060 3,108
Percent of children
31.0
15.7
5.7
3.7
5.9
37 .o
10.2
4.5
22.3
23.1
14.0
9.1
0.8
8 .1
24.4
10.7
5.1
3.6
5.0
42.2
10.5
4.2
27.5
28.0
16.5
11.5
0.4
5.0
41.8
23.8
6.7
4.0
7.3
28.4
9.7
5.0
13.8
15.2
9.9
5.3
1.3
13.3
children 5 to 14 years
Total
18,287
u.s
6.6
1.3
2.7
1.1
4.3
1.7
0.5
2.1
2.8
1.6
1.2
75.2
2.7
3.2
&nployed
full time
11,752
10.6
s.o
1.4
3.0
1.1
4.6
1.8
0.6
2.2
3.6
2.0
1.6
76.2
3.0
2.1
----
B:nployed
part time
6,535
14.1
9.5
1.2
2.2
1.1
3.7
1.5
0.4
1.8
1.6
1.0
0.6
73.4
2.1
5.1
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1987, Who's Minding the Kids? Child Care Arrangements:
Winter 1984-85, Current Population Reports, Household Economic Studies, Series P-70, No. 9.
The percentage of women using organized
child care facilities for children under age
5 increased from 13% in 1977 to 16% in 1982
and 25% during winter 1984-85. Mothers
working full time were more likely to use
day or group care arrangements (17%) and
nursery or preschool facilities (12%) than
mothers employed part time (10% and 5%,
respectively).
For the first time in a Census Bureau
survey, an attempt was made to estimate the
incidence of child-care-related disruptions
in the daily work schedule among women.
Work disruptions (loss of time from work)"
caused by failures in child care arrange­ments
affected 6% of surveyed working women
with one child under age 15, using only one
type of arrangement. Women who used day
care or group care centers experienced a
smaller incidence of work disruptions (1%)
than did women whose children were cared
for in someone else's home (8%).
Estimated annual child care expenditures
of working women exceed $11 billion annually.
Among mothers employed full time, 72% paid
for child care services, compared with 60%
of mothers who were employed part time.
Payments for child care were made more
frequently by married women (72%) than by
unmarried women (61%). The median child
care expenditure for the 5. 3 million women
paying cash for child care was $38 per week,
with 29% of these women paying $50 or more
per week.
"Estimates of time lost reflect work
disruptions experienced during the more
inclement winter months.
Source: U.s. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, 1987, Who'~ Minding
the Kids? Child Care Arrangements: Winter
1984-85, Current Population Reports,
Household Economic Studies, Series P-70,
No. 9.
28 Family Economics Review 1988 No.1
After-School Care of School-Age
Youth
Nonsupervision of school-age children is a
major social issue. A supplement to the
Current Population Survey (CPS), conducted
in December 1984 by the Bureau of the
Census, measured the extent to which school­age
children, 5 to 13 years of age, were
without the care of a parent or another
adult (14 years old and over) during non­school
hours. Although the report focused on
after-school care, care during other periods
of the day was also determined.
There were 29 million children between the
ages of 5 and 13 years enrolled in school in
December 1984. Eight million of these chil­dren
(28%) regularly spent time either alone
or supervised by someone other than a parent
during at least one period of nonschool
hours--2. 4 million (8%) before school, 7 .1
million (25%) after school, and 1.7 million
(6%) at night. The majority of these chil­dren
were cared for by another adult. Only
2% were unsupervised by an adult before
school, 7% after school, and 1% at night.
The proportion of children not cared for by
an adult varied markedly by age, from 1% of
5-year-olds to 14% of 13-year-olds.
Children whose mothers had not completed
high school or were in occupations subject
to shift work or who lived in geographically
isolated areas were more likely than others
to be in parental care only. Children in
higher income households and children with
1 . mothers who were better educated or m
white-collar professions were more likely
than others to be unsupervised by an adult
after school. Black children were more
likely than white children to be cared for
by a parent or by an adult sibling or
relative, whereas white children were more
likely than black children to be cared for
by a nonrelative or to care for themselves
(see table) •
1 Includes mothers who graduated from high
school, those who had attended college, and
those who were college graduates.
After-school caretaker of 5- to 13-year old children enrolled in school, by labor force
status of mother and race, December 1984
[Numbers in thousands]
Caretaker
Status Number
Parent Adult Other Non- tb
sibling relative relative adult
(percent)
All children:
All races ................. 28.8 52 75.5 2.7 6.6 7.8 7.2
White • •••••..•.•••..• • • • • • 23,350 75.4 2.6 5.7 8.3 7.8
Black ... ........... · . • · • • · 4,316 7 5.9 3.0 10.7 5.6 4.3
Mother in labor force:
All races ................. 17,027 63.2 4.1 9.5 11.8 10.9
White • •••....•••••••••• · • • 13.715 62.5 3.9 8.6 12.7 12.0
Black ...... ............ • · · 2,626 67.2 4.7 13.4 8.1 5.9
Mother employed full time:
All races ................. 10,559 54.3 5.2 11.7 14.8 13.5
White . ............... · • · · · 8. 307 52.8 5.0 10.8 15.9 15.0
Black . ............ · · · · · · · · 1,788 60.9 5.5 15.2 10.3 7.4
--------·--
Source: Bruno, Rosalind R., 1987, After-School Care of School-Age Children, December
1984, Special Studies, Series P-23, No. 149, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census.
Other supplements to the CPS that assessed
after-school care of children were conducted
in 1965 and 197 4. The 1965 survey, which
related to care while the mother worked,
found less parental care and more super­vision
by other relatives than did the 1984
survey or the 1974 survey (on daytime care
of children). The percent of elementary
school-age children whose mothers were
employed full time increased from 18% in
1965 to 26% in 197 4 and 37% in 1984. Between
197 4 and 1984, the proportion of school-age
children, with mothers employed full time,
who were without adult supervision after
school dropped from 16% to 12%.
Source: Bruno, Rosalind R., 1987, After­School
Care of School-A_g_e Children, December
1984, Special Studies, Series P-23, No. 149,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census.
1988 No.1 Family Economics Review 29
Living Arrangements and
Marital Status of Households
and Families 1
In 1986 there were 88.5 million households
in the United States (see table), an
increase of7.7 million since 1980 and 25.1
million since 1970. Of these households,
families accounted for 72%, compared with
74% in 1980 and 81% in 1970. The decline in
the share of households consisting of fami­lies
since 1970 is attributable to a drop in
the proportion of married-couple households.
1 The terms household and family, used by
the Bureau of the Census, do not necessarily
describe the same type of living arrange­ment.
Family households consist of at least
two persons--the householder and one or more
additional persons related to the house-holder
through birth, marriage, or adoption.
Nonfamily households include persons living
alone and householders living with one or
more other persons who are not related to
the householder.
Household composition, 1970 to 1986
[Numbers in thousands]
Married-couple families accounted for 58% of
all households in 1986, compared with 71% in
1970.
Nonfamily households accounted for over
half (52%) of the total net increase in
households from 1970 to 1986. About 85% of
nonfamily households in 1986 were persons
living alone. Almost one-half of the multi­person
nonfamily households were unmarried
couples.2 About 52% of unmarried-couple
householders in 1986 were persons who had
never married, and an additional 34% were
divorced. In 1986 there were four times as
many unmarried couples as in 1970.
Nevertheless, they represented only 4 of
every 100 couples in the Nation.
2 The Bureau of the Census defines an
unmarried couple as no more than two
persons (unless children are present),
consisting of a householder sharing the
household with an unrelated adult of the
opposite sex. Unmarried couples may include
boyfriend I girlfriend relationships, tenant­owner
situations, or paid employees of the
householder.
Number of households Percent
contribution to
Type of household net increase
1986 1980 1970
1980-86 1970-80
Total ................ · · • · · · · · · 1313,458 80,776 63,401 100.0 100.0
Family households •••••••••• 1)3,558 59,550 51,456 52.2 46.6
Married-couple family ••••• 50,933 49,112 44.7 28 23.7 25.2
Other family, male
householder ••••••••••••• 2,414 1, 733 1·, 228 8.9 2.9
Other family, female
householder ••••••••••••• 10.211 8,705 5,500 19.6 18.4
Nonfamily households ••••••• 24,900 21,226 11,945 47.8 53.4
Living alone . ............. 'H,178 18,296 10,851 37.5 42.8
Male householder ••••••••• 10,648 8,807 4,063 24.0 27.3
Female householder ••••••• 14,252 12,419 7,882 23.9 26.1
Source: u.s. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1986, Hous~holds, Families,
Marital Status, and Living Arrangements: March 1986 JAdvance Report), Series P-20, No. 412.
30 Family Economics Review 1988 No.1
Changes in household composition--fewer
children per family, an increase in one­parent
families, and more people living
alone--contributed to a decline in the
average number of persons per household.
Average persons per household reached a
new low of 2.67 in 1986, compared with 2.76
in 1980, and 3.14 in 1970. Average family
size has also declined, falling to 3.21
persons in 1986.
The median age at first marriage in 1986
was 25.7 years for men and 23.1 years for
women. Since 1956 (when median age had
declined to 22.5 for men and 20.1 for women)
there has been an increase in the median age
at first marriage, reversing the pattern ob­served
during the first half of the century.
The recent trend toward postponing marriage
may reflect a greater tendency among some
young adults to pursue advanced education or
to establish themselves in a career prior to
assuming family responsibilities.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, 1986, Households,
Families, Marital Stat_llS, and Living
Arrangements: March 1986 (Advance R~ort),
Series P-20, No. 412.
Minimum Wage-Its Relation to
Incomes and Poverty1
In March 1985 more than 5 million workers
were paid at or below the Federal minimum
wage rate. 2 About 1 million of these low­wage
earners lived in households with
incomes below Federal poverty thresholds,
as shown below:
Family size and composition
1 person, nonelderly
1 person, elderly ••••••••••••••
2 persons, nonelderly
householder ................. .
2 persons, elderly
householder ................. .
3 persons
4 persons .................... .
Threshold
$5,590
5,160
7, 230
6,510
8,570
10,990
The current m1mmu:n rate of $3.35 per hour
has remained unchanged since January 1981.
Because prices and average wages have risen
since then, the real value of the minimum
wage is less than at any time since the mid­fifties.
Trends in minimum wage rates,
average prices and wages, and poverty
thresholds are reported in an analysis by
the U.S. Congressional Budget Office.
Factors that affect poverty status are also.
examined.
1 The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
established a floor on the hourly wage rate
that employers are allowed to pay most
workers. In 1985, 90% of nonsupervisory
civilian workers received earnings subject
to this law. Exceptions to the law include
executive, administrative, and professional
personnel; employees in some small firms;
and the self-employed.
2 Data are from the March 1985 Current
Population Survey, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
1988 No.1 Family Economics Review J1
Purchasing power of the m1mmum wage
(its real value after accounting for
inflation) has fluctuated considerably since
the law was enacted in 1938. That first
year's minimum wage ($0.25, table 1) was
worth $2.00 in 1985 dollars. By 1968 the
real value of the minimum wage reached a
high of nearly $5.00 in 1985 dollars. To
match the purchasing power of the minimum
wage in January 1981, the rate in January
1986 would have had to have been about
$4.22.
Minimum wage has also declined as a share
of average wages in private nonagricultural
industries. From 50% of average hourly
earnings during the fifties and sixties,
the minimum wage declined to just over 45%
in the seventies, and by 1985 it had fallen
to about 39% of average wages.
A person working 40 hours per week for
52 weeks at the current minimum wage would
have earned an income ($6, 968) about equal
to the poverty threshold for a two-person
family in 1985 (table, p. 31). During most
of the sixties and seventies, however, a
person working full time, year round at the
minimum wage would have received an income
approximately equal to the poverty threshold
for a three-person family. Earnings have
declined relative to poverty thresholds
Table 1. Minimum wage rates, 1938 to present
Effective date Mi nilllllil wage
October 24, 1938 ........... $0.25
October 24, 1939 ........... 0.30
October 24, 1945 ........... 0.40
January 25, 19 50 .•.•••.•••• 0.75
March 1' 1956 ..•.•••••.••.. 1.00
September 3, 1961 .........• 1.15
September 3, 1963 ••••••.••• 1. 25
February 1' 1967 ••••••••••. 1.40
since the seventies because the latter have
been updated annually to account for changes
in prices, whereas the minimum wage has not
increased since 1981.
The relationship between a worker's wage
rate and his or her poverty status depends
on several factors, including number of
hours worked per year, the amount of income
received by the worker and other family mem­bers,
and the applicable poverty threshold
for the worker's family.
Hours worked. Minimum wage workers
(workers paid at or below the minimum wage)
were generally employed fewer hours and
more intermittently than were other hourly
paid workers in 1985. Only 18% of minimum
wage workers, compared with 59% of the
workers paid above the minimum wage,
worked full time, year round.
Presence of other paid workers in the
family. In 1985 minimum wage workers were
just as likely as other hourly paid workers
to be in families in which other members
worked during the year (69% for each).
Minimum-wage earners who were the only
jobholders in their families had a poverty
rate of 44%, compared with 8% for those with
other working family members (table 2). This
Effective date Minirrun wage
February 1, 1968 .•..•....• $1.60
May 1' 197 4 ••.••••.••..•.• 2.00
January 1' 1975 . .......... 2.10
January 1' 1976 ........... 2.30
January 1' 1978 .•...•.•..• 2.65
January 1' 1979 ••••...••.• 2.90
January 1' 198 0 •••.••.••.• 3.10
January 1, 1981 ..•........ 3.35
Source: Smith, Ralph E., and Bruce Vavrichek, 1987, The m1mmum wage: Its relation to
incomes and poverty, Monthly Labor Review 110(6) :25, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor S ta tis tics.
32 Family Economics Review 1988 No.1
Table 2. Poverty rates of workers paid hourly rates, March 1985
Characteristic
Total ................. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Age and sex:
Teenagers .................................... .
_t\.dult men ••••••••••••••.••••••.••••..••••.•••.
Adult women . ................•..•.•.•...•.....•
Employment status:
Full tirne ..................................... .
Part time ............•...............••.•.•....
Other workers in family:
None ............. · · · · · · · · · • • • • • • • • • · · · · · • · · · · ·
One or rnore ••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Work experience in 1984:
Full time, year round ........................ .
Part titne, year round ........................ .
Full time, part year ........................•..
Part time, part year .......................... .
No em ploy men t ......•..•••.••.•........•••••.•
No other workers in family in 1984 ••••••••••••••
Poverty threshold $10,500 or more •••••••••••••
Other workers in family in 1984 •••••••••••••••••
Poverty threshold $10,500 or more •••••••••••••
Poverty rate
(percent)
Paid at or Paid over
below $3.35 $3.35
19.2 6.2
12.5 9.3
22.0 5.5
22.5 6.3
22.4 5.4
17.7 8.6
44.3 12.2
8.2 2.8
12.7 2.7
18.6 5.7
27.1 11.6
16.3 12.8
28.2 25.9
44.5 13.7
61.7 27.2
7.9 2.7
7.0 4.1
Source: Smith, Ralph E., and Bruce Vavrichek, 1987, The m1mmum wage: Its relation to
incomes and poverty, Monthly Labor Review 110(6):28, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
comparison was more dramatic for those in
families of four or more people--62% and 7%.
Teenagers held almost one-third of all jobs
paying at or below the minimum wage in
1985.
Family size. Workers paid at the
minimum wage level were more likely to live
in poor families if family size was large.
Poverty rates were higher for families of
four or more persons than for families of
one, two, or three persons.
Source: Smith, Ralph E., and Bruce
Vavrichek, 1987, The minimum wage: Its
relation to incomes and poverty, Monthly
Labor ~evie~ 110(6):24-30, U.S. Department
of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
1988 No.1 Family Economics Review JJ
New Publications
Single copies of the following are avail-able
free from the Federal Trade Commission,
Room B-3, 6th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20580:
Facts for Consumers--Bestsellers. July
1987.
This information sheet lists the most
popular consumer publications on a variety
of subjects, including home financing,
credits, professional services, and sales
practices. Publications available for busi­ness
use, such as "Writing a Care Label" and
"Complying with the Credit Practices Rule,"
are included.
* * * * * * *
The following are for sale from the Super­intendent
of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402,
(202)783-3238:
Composition of Foods: Finfish and
Shellfish. AH 8-15. September 1987.
SN001-000-04497-4. $10.
Major Statistical Series of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture: Agricultural
Marketing Costs and Charges. AH-671.
July 1987. 44 pp. SN001-019-00523-8. $2.
This handbook describes how the market
basket, marketing bill, and food marketing
cost index are constructed and used to ana­lyze
changes in food prices and expenditures.
Sources of current and historical data on
food marketing costs and charges are
identified.
* * * * * * * *
The following is available free from the
Consumer Information Center. Write to
Consumer Information Center, Dept. 600R,
Pueblo, CO 81009:
Meat and Poultry Labels Wrap It Up.
March 1987.
Subscription Order Or
Change Of Address Form
FAMILY
ECONOMICS
REVIEW
Annual subscription Single copies
Enclosed is$ _____ _
0 Check
0 Money order
0 Charge to my Deposit Account
No. ________ _
Order No. ______ _
Make check payable to,
Superintendent ol Documents
CREDIT CARD ORDERS ONLY
(Visa and Mastercard)
Total charges S
Credit card No.
Expiralion Dale Month/Year
$5.00 domestic $2.00 domestic
($6.25 foreign) ($2.50 foreign)
Please prtnt or type
Company or Personal Name
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
City
I I
Country
I I I I
CHANGE OF ADDRESS
Please altach mailing label here and
send this lorm when requesting a
change ol address
l4AlL ORDER FORM TO,
Supertntendent of Documents
Govemment Prtnting Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
34 Family Economics Review 1988 No.1
Stale ZIP Code
LJ_J
I I I
FOR OmCE USE ONLY
Quantity
___ Publicalions
Charges
___ Subscriptions ___ _
Special Shipping Charges __ _
International Handling ___ _
Special Charges _____ _
OPNR
____ UPNS
____ Balance Due
____ Discount
____ Refund
~
co
co
z
0
,
3" ' .....
~
'< ,.,
()
0
::J
0
3... ..
()
"'
;;o
(I)
<.... .
(I)
:(
.....
VI
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at 4 cost levels, November 1987, U.S. average 1
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month
Sex-age group
Thrifty Low-cost Moderate- Liberal Thrifty Low-cost Moderate- Liberal
plan plan cost plan plan plan plan cost plan plan
FAMILIES
Family of 2: 2
20-50 years •••••••••••••••••••••••• $39.80 $50.50 $62.40 $77.60 $172.80 $218.80 $270.60 $336.30
51 years and over •••••••••••••••••• 37.70 48.40 59.80 71.60 163.50 209.80 259 .20 310.40
Family of 4:
Couple, 20-50 years and children--
1-2 and 3-5 years ••••••••••••••.• 57.90 72.50 88.70 108.90 251.10 314.00 384.50 472.20
6-8 and 9-11 years ••••••••••••••• 66.40 85.20 106.80 128.70 287.60 369.30 463.20 558 .oo
INDIVIDUALS 3
Child:
1-2 years •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 10.40 12.70 14.80 17.80 45.20 54.80 64.00 77.10
3-5 years •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 11.:l0 13.90 17.20 20.60 48.80 60.30 74.50 89.40
6-8 years •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 13.~0 18.40 23.10 27 .oo 59.60 79.70 100.20 116.90
9-11 years ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 11).40 20.90 27 .oo 31.20 70.90 90.70 117 .oo 135.40
Male:
12-14 years •••••••••••••••••••••••• 17.10 23.80 29.70 34.90 74.20 103.00 128.70 151.40
15-19 years •••••••••••••••••••••••• 17.80 24.70 30.60 35.50 76.90 106.90 132.70 153.70
20-50 years ........................ 19.00 24.40 30.60 37 .00 82.50 105.70 132.80 160.40
51 years and over •••••••••••••••••• 17.30 23.20 28.60 34.30 74.90 100.50 123.80 148 .60
Female:
12-19 years ........................ 17.10 20.60 25.00 30.30 74.30 89.20 108.50 131.40
20-50 years •••••••••••••••••••••••• 17.20 21.50 26.10 33.50 74.60 93.20 113.20 145.30
51 years and over ••••••••••••••••• 17 .oo 20.80 25.80 30.80 73.70 90.20 111.80 133.60
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(1). Estimates for the other plans were
computed from quantities of foods published in Family Economics Review, 1983(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.
210 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.
()
0
~
9.
~
0
0. a.
::z::
0
~
Consumer Prices
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers [ 1967 = 100, unless otherwise noted]
Group Nov.
1987
Unadjusted indexes
Oct.
1987
Sept.
1987
Nov.
1986
---------
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 and other household fuel
commodities .......................... .
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.
345.8
335.1
319.0
379.6
374.9
429.2
129.2
295.5
127.4
393.2
453.1
283.1
378.2
2
') 18.8
428.4
255.6
203.9
332.0
355.1
226.4
209.9
211.9
190.1
326.3
223.9
352.0
324.1
316 .o
235.7
389.0
315.2
383.5
444.8
471.7
299.1
')09.3
425.6
288.1
376.1
302.7
477.1
345.3
335.3
319.9
378.4
375.2
428.6
129.4
295.4
127 .1
390.9
451.0
281.0
381.3
2 507.0
436.6
255.6
203.9
331.7
355.3
226.3
209.9
211.0
191.0
324.9
222.4
351.0
321.9
313.8
233.0
388 .o
315.2
382 .o
442.0
469.8
297.4
507.4
424.4
287.1
375.5
302.5
476.2
2 Includes wood, charcoal, and peat, not previously priced.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
36 Family Economics Review 1988 No.1
344.4
334.9
319.8
377.4
375.4
426.2
129.8
294.5
126.0
390.5
450.8
280.4
389.8
2 501.0
457.4
255.8
204.6
330.4
354.6
222.2
206.0
208.4
186.2
313.6
219.1
348.4
320.4
312.1
230.6
387.3
318.4
380.7
445.1
467.8
295.8
505.4
422.8
285.2
373.9
301.8
473.7
330.8
324.6
309.9
365.8
361.7
410.2
124.3
285.6
121.5
377.1
433.7
272.9
371.1
452.0
426.7
251.2
201.4
320.4
348.5
213.1
197.4
205.3
175 .o
307.0
215.1
339.0
304.3
295.8
230.2
361.0
260.9
368.4
431.7
444.6
278.2
481.5
399.8
277.4
354.9
293.4
448.2