Family Economics Review [1988, Volume 1, Number 3]

              Editor
Joan C. Courtless
Managing Editor
Sherry Lowe
Editorial Assistant
Francena A. Phillips
Family Economics Review is published
each quarter by the Family Economics
Research Group, Beltsville Human
Nutrition Research Center, Agricul­tural
Research Service, U.S. Depart­ment
of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
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. Subscrip­tion
price is $5 per year ($6.25 for
foreign addresses). Single issues cost $2
each ($2.50 foreign). Send subscription
orders, change of address, and single
copy requests to Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC 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, USDNARS, Federal
Building, Room 439A, Hyattsville, MD
20782.
~
Econolnics
Review
Vol.1 #3
To Our Readers:
If you're familiar with Family Economics Review, you'll notice a
change in format with this issue. Our new look reflects the first stages
of Family Economics Review's conversion to desktop publishing.
We also are beginning a new volume and number format, which will
make bibliographic entries simpler and in conformance with similar
periodicals.
Major articles in this issue of Family Economics Review are based on
the Consumer Expenditure Survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. The Bureau is changing the
abbreviation for the Survey from CES to CEX to avoid conflict with
other major surveys. Reference to the Survey in future issues of Family
Economics Review will reflect this change.
Joan C. Courtless
Editor
Sherry Lowe
Managing Editor
August 1988
2
6
9
14
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
28
Contents
Features
Consumer Expenditure Survey:
Methodological Issues for Today and Tomorrow
Thesia I. Gamer
Household Expenditures for Education and Reading
Nancy E. Schwenk
Household Transportation Expenditures
Mary N. Talbot
Research Summaries
Expenditure Patterns of Single Women and Single Men
Comparing Nutrients in the Soviet and U.S. Food Supplies
Characteristics and Housing Problems of Mobile Home Owners
Caregivers of the Frail Elderly: A National Profile
Regular Items
New Publications
New USDA Charts
Cost of Food at Home
Index of Articles Printed in Family Economics Review, 1979-88
Consumer Prices
Vol.l #3 Family Economics Review 1
Methodological Issues for
Today and Tomorrow 1
By 17zesia I. Garner
Economist
t~Z~e;ta;;::,~o,;; ~?f~~~~ 2
The Consumer Expenditure Sur­vey
(CES) data are a collection of
detailed consumer expenditures, in­come,
and consumer unit charac­teristics.
The data set is a rich source
of information available to re­searchers
to conduct economic
analysis. Historically, the survey was
important primarily because of its
role in the periodic revision of the
Consumer Price Index. However,
with increasing demand for more
timely data concerning the spending
habits of different types of
households, the CES has gained im­portance
as a source of information.
A Brief History of the Survey
The Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) has been conducting expendi­ture
surveys since the late 19th cen­tury.
The first survey, conducted in
1888-91, provided U.S. Government
policy makers with cost-of-living
data for American wage earners.
This survey emphasized the worker's
role as producer rather than as con­sumer.
Information from this survey
was used for tariff negotiations be­tween
the United States and
European countries.
In response to rapid price chan­ges
occurring at the turn of the cen­tury
and during the first World War,
expenditure surveys were conducted
again in 1901 and 1917-19. These sur­veys
provided information on the ef­fects
of rising prices on the living
1 This article is condensed from a paper
presented at the Annual Agricultural Outlook
Conference, December 1987, Washington, DC.
2 This paper does not represent an official
position of the U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics ..
conditions of urban wage earners
and clerical workers.
The use of consumer surveys ex­tended
from the study of the welfare
of selected groups to more general
economic analysis during the
economic depression of the 1930's.
The BLS conducted its own inves­tigation
and cooperated with other
Federal agencies during the 1934-36
period to collect data on consumer
purchases. These data permitted
more extensive analysis of the in­come
and expenditure behavior of
American families, revision of the
cost-of-living index (now known as
the Consumer Price Index), and the
selection of a new list of items to be
priced in the index.
The survey methodology used to
collect expenditure and household
characteristics data became increas­ingly
more sophisticated beginning
in the early forties. In 1941-42, for
the first time, the entire sample
population to be surveyed was
chosen using scientific sampling
methods. The 1941-42 expenditure
survey was a cooperative effor~ of
BLS and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. This was the first nation­wide
survey from which data could
be used to estimate national con- .
sumption expenditures and savings
classified by income class.
Approximately 10 years later, in
1950, an expenditure survey of the
civilian noninstitutional population
living in urban areas was conducted.
The 1950 survey provided data for
the CPI and for analyses of consump­tion
patterns.
The 1960-61 Survey of Consumer
Expenditur~;s followed an extensive
testing of t:1e latest collection and
processin~ methodology and, thus,
was the most ambitious survey to
date. As in the past, a major justificn­tion
for the survey was to support r,
revision of the CPl. However, the
growing interest of market re­searchers,
government officials, and
other private users interested in cur­rent
detailed consumer expenditure
and income information had an ef­fect
on the scope and coverage of
the survey. The sample included
urban and rural families and single
consumers. Two different question­naires
were used to o0tain data. An­nual
recall schedule:;, administered
by interviewers, were used to collect
all information or. income, savings,
and expenditure3, with the exception
of food detail a.1d related purchases.
Information 0•1 these latter
categories w~ts collected by the inter­viewers
usir.g a supplementary 7-day
recall questionnaire. The reference
period for these purchases was the
week preceding the interview.
The next major survey effort was
cond•Jcted in 1972-73. The survey
provided continuity with the content
of the Bureau's previous expenditure
surveys; however, it departed in its
collection techniques. Data were col­lected
using two separate com­ponents--
a Quarterly Interview
Panel Survey and a Diary. Also, un­like
previous surveys, the Bureau of
the Census, under contract with
BLS, conducted all sample selection
and field work. A third major
change was the switch from an an­nual
recall to a quarterly recall
(Interview) and a daily recall (Diary)
of expenditures. The new format and
procedures were adopted based on
extensive collection methodology
studies.
Current Surveys
The rapidly changing economic
conditions of the 1970's intensified
the need for more timely data than
could be supplied by surveys con­ducted
every 10 to 12 years. The new
continuing Survey, initiated in 1979,
extended the BLS tradition of
providing data describing the con­sumption
behavior of American
families. Because of the ongoing
Vol. 1 #3 Family Economics Review 2
nature of the Survey, data are now
released in published form at the
annual level; quarterly data will be
published beginning in July 1988.
As with the previous survey, the
collection of data for the continuing
CES is conducted by the Bureau of
the Census. The data are collected
from a national probability sample
of "households" designed to repre­sent
the total civilian noninstitutional
population (and a portion of the in­stitutional
population). The objec­tives
of the survey remain the same,
"to provide the basis for revising the
weights and associated pricing
samples for the CPI and to meet the
need for timely and detailed informa­tion
on consumption patterns of dif­ferent
kinds of families."
The ongoing Survey also is com­posed
of two components, the Inter­view
and the Diary, each with its
own questionnaire and sample. The
unit from which the data are col­lected
is the consumer unit (CU). A
consumer unit is defined as (1) all
members of a particular housing unit
who are related by blood, marriage,
adoption, or some other legal
arrangement, such as foster
children; (2) a person living alone or
sharing a household with others, or
living as a roomer in a private home,
lodging house, or in permanent
living quarters in a 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. In
the ongoing Survey, students living in
university-sponsored housing are in­cluded
in the sample as separate
CU's. This is in contrast to the 1972-
73 survey, in which these students
were considered as a part of their
parents' CU's.
Using the Interview component,
approximately 5,000 CU's are inter­viewed
once each quarter for five
consecutive quarters. After the fifth
interview, the consumer unit is
dropped from the Survey and is
replaced by a new CU. For the Sur­vey
as a whole, 20% of the sample is
dropped and a new group is added
each quarter. Because the sample
has this rotating design feature, with
families rotated into and out of the
sample, the Survey is continuous.
The Interview is designed to collect
data on relatively large or major ex­penditure
items and for expendi­tures
that occur at fairly regular in­tervals
(e.g., housing, rent, utility
bills, and clothing). Information is
also collected on the sociodemo­graphic
characteristics of CU's, their
income, assets, and liabilities. The In­terview
collects detailed data on an
estimated 60% to 70% of total ex­penditures;
an additional 20% to
25% are accounted for using global
questions for food and other
selected items. The Survey takes an
average of 90 to 120 minutes to com­plete.
The response rate of eligible
housing units for 1986 was 86%.
Another sample of approximately
5,000 CU's are surveyed for the
Diary annually. For this Survey,
respondents are requested to record
a detailed description of all expenses
for two consecutive 1-week periods.
The Diary Survey is divided by day
of purchase and by broad classifica­tion
of goods and services. The
categories include food and
beverages both at home and in
eating places, housekeeping supplies
and services, nonprescription drugs,
and personal care products and ser­vices.
The Diary Survey is not
limited to these types of expendi­tures
but includes all expenses that
the consumer unit incurs during the
survey week. Expenses incurred by
family members while away from
home overnight are excluded. Again,
data are collected on CU charac­teristics
and income. The Diary
takes approximately 90 to 105
minutes each week to complete. It
has been estimated that it takes the
interviewer an average of 20 minutes
to collect the demographic data and
to instruct the respondent on how to
keep the Diary during the initial
visit. The response rate of eligible
housing units for 1986 was 90%.
The sociodemographic informa­tion
collected in the Interview and
Diary Surveys is used by the BLS to
classify CU's for the publication of
statistical tables and for economic
analysis. Data on CU characteristics
will be used to integrate expenditure
data from the Interview and Diary
Surveys to provide a "full profile" of
consumer expenditures by demo­graphic
characteristics. Integrated
data are expected to be released in
the fall of 1988.
Uses of CES Data
Uses of the CES data are exten­sive.
These include analyses of con­sumer
behavior, adjustment of
weights and item selection for the
CPI market basket, policy impact
evaluations, marketing research,
input into the National Account es­timates,
and forecasting. Govern­ment
and private agencies use the
data to study the welfare of par­ticular
segments of the population,
such as the elderly, low-income
families, urban and rural families,
and those receiving food stamps.
The Family Economics Research
Group, of the USDA, uses the data
to construct their cost-of-raising-a­child
estimates. Econometricians
fmd the data useful in constructing
economic models.
CES data are available through
various sources. Those produced by
the BLS include news releases and
bulletins, public use computer tapes,
floppy disks, detailed computer
printouts, Monthly Labor Review
articles, working papers, and
conference papers.
BLS re&earch using the CES data
can be divided into two broad
categories- economic analysis and
survey research methodology.
Economic analysis
Economic studies focus on en­hancing
methods of using the CES
data (1) to construct index numbers
to evaluate economic performance,
and (2) to estimate the parameters
of econometric models that may be
useful in policy analysis. Index num­ber
research includes studies of
price indexes for demographic sub­groups
and interarea price indexes.
Research in econometric mbdeling
includes demand analysis, the
econometrics of panel data, and
Vol. 1 #3 Family Economics Review 3
studies of the distribution of con­sumption
expenditures.
Demand analysis. There are
several household demand studies in
which data from the continuing CES
have been used. These focus on
quantity aggregation and price varia­tion
in consumer demand for food,
estimation of income elasticity of ex­penditures
for food, individual con­sumption
of clothing within the
household, omission bias in the es­timation
of household durable goods
expenditures, expenditure patterns
of single men and women, an
economic perspective of gift-giving
behavior, and housing structure
attributes and tenure status.
Statistical and econometric
studies have been conducted to
provide additional information con­cerning
the quality of the data from
the economist's perspective and to
develop approaches that can be used
to improve demand model specifica­tion.
Quality studies include an
evaluation of the food quantity data
from the Diary and an analysis of the
reporting of income using data from
the Interview. Among the techniques
developed to improve model
specifications for use with the CES
data are the development of
(1) grouping tests for regression
misspecification, and (2) diagnostic
tools applicable to regressions
estimated with panel data or cross­sectional
data drawn from a popula­tion
with a grouped structure.
Econometrics of panel data.
Given the sample and questionnaire
designs, there are up to five observa­tions
for each consumer unit in the
sample. This was also true for the
1972-73 Survey; however, with the
rotating panel design, the survey
period no longer coincides with the
calendar year. Thus, examining the
CES data in a panel framework be­comes
a potentially desirable option
for mimy researchers using the
quarterly data. Thus far, research in
this area has focused on the auto­covariance
of aggregate expenditure
share estimates over time.
Distribution of consumption ex­penditures.
In the examination of
consumption expenditures across
demographic subgroups of the
population, two types of studies are
being conducted-those in which
mean expenditures and aggregate
shares of expenditures are ex­amined,
and those in which con­centrations
of expenditures are the
focus. The former studies include an
examination of expenditures for
goods versus services, and com­parisons
of the consumption pat­terns
of the elderly versus the non­elderly,
rural versus urban consumer
units, and Hispanic versus non­Hispanic
consumer units. Recent re­search
from the second type of study
focuses on the inequality in con­sumption
e'Y'enditures using the
Gini index.
Survey methodology
The second major category of re­search
on the CES being conducted
within BLS is in the area of survey
methodology, specifically (1) survey
methods and management, and (2)
statistical methodology. The overall
purpose of this research is to im­prove
the measurement of the vari­ables
used in economic analyses.
Survey methods and manage­ment.
Over the years, the BLS has in­troduced
improvements in the CES
methodology to produce comprehen­sive
data sets on consumer expendi­tures
and income. With the continu­ing
Survey, changes in survey
methodology were introduced.
These changes can have important
implications for researchers using
the CES data, especially when com­paring
results from the continuing
CES to the earlier 1972-73 survey.
The primary changes can be
grouped, based on the scope of th¥
change, into the following four
categories: Overall design, defmi­tions,
Interview-specific changes,
and Diary-specific changes.
Overall, the two surveys differ in
terms of timeframe, sample design,
variance.estimation, and weighting.
One of the most important
methodological differences is the
3The Gini index, which measure inequality of
i:lcome distributions, takes the value of zero for
no kcquality and one for total inequality.
change in timeframe. As noted pre­viously,
the current Survey is cen­tinuous.
Balanced repeated replica­tion
is used to estimate variances. A
new weighting methodology, general­ized
least squares (GLS) weighting,
is being used to produce published
estimates. GLS weighting is used to
narrow discrepancies between the
Diary and Interview components of
the Survey on estimates of the num­ber
of CU's in a variety of CU
categories. GLS weights are avail­able
on the public use tapes for the
1984 data and forward.
Four definitional changes were in­troduced
with the continuing Survey
that can potentially influence the
results and conclusions of re­searchers
using the CES data. Defini­tions
of the population, consumer
unit, reference person, and complete
income reporters have all changed in
some way. As noted earlier, the
population has been redefined to in­clude
college students as separate
consumer units when they live in col­lege-
or university-related housing.
By including students in the popula­tion
sample as separate CU's, results
from any analysis conceming single
CU's will be affected.
There are five primary differen­ces
in survey methodology that are
Interview specific. These include the
introduction of a panel-rotation
sample design, a different target
sample size, a change in reference
periods, different procedures to deal
with changes in consumer units or
sample address composition, and a
different procedure to determine
which consumer units are included
in the CES data base. The introduc­tion
of the panel-rotation sample
design has implications for re­searchers
interested in conducting
longitudinal analysis because of the
overlap of successive cross-sections
of data.
The primary changes in the Diary
for the continuing Survey were a
change in the target sample size and
a forms redesign. For the earlier sur­vey,
items were listed in the Diary in
line-specific blocks. Line-block
specificity was eliminated for the
continuing Survey. Research is being
Vol. 1 #3 Family Economics Re~·iew 4
conducted within the Bureau to
determine which forms design
produces better estimates.
Since the continuing Survey was
initiated, additional changes have
been implemented. Due to budget­ary
limitations in 1981, only urban
CU's were included in the CES
sample for calendar quarter four in
1981 through August 1983 for the In­terview
and through November for the
Diary. The total population, urban
and rural CU's, has been surveyed
since these times. A new sample
design, ·based on the 1980 census
rather than the 1970 census, was in­stituted
in 1986. The new design
reflects changes in primary sampling
units (geographic areas) from which
the sample is drawn. The new design
was introduced in February 1986 for
the Interview and January 1986 for
the Diary. Public use tapes for the
quarter one Interview will contain
data collected using the previous
sample design as well as the new
sample design.
Minor changes in the survey in­struments
and data codes have re­sulted
due to the changes in record­ed
expenditure patterns of CU's and
to refinements in expenditure item
definitions. For example, additions
to the Diary and Interview include
specific reference to video games
(hardware and software), computers
for nonbusiness use, and telephone
answering devices. Specific
reference to the rental of video cas­settes,
tapes, and discs has also been
added to the Interview and cor­responding
data base. Additional
changes in survey questions are ex­pected
as expenditure patterns
change to reflect changes in tastes
and preferences, and as procedures
for collecting CES data improve.
Statistical methodology research.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is in­vestigating
ways to improve the
measurement of CES variables.
Through the years, several topics for
study have been identified to meet
this goal. These include the
following:
1. Differential effects of recall
length bias and telescoping for the In­terview
Survey.
Recall bias and telescoping have
been identified as potential concerns
in data collection for the Interview.
Recall bias results from the selective
recollection of past events and is
common in retrospective interviews.
It is related to memory and tends to
increase with longer recall periods
and for less salient events. The incor­rect
reporting of events' time of oc­currence,
or "telescoping," interferes
with an analysis of recall bias since it
often affects reporting in a forward
direction. Thus, a combination of
"recall effects" results.
Researchers within BLS have ex­amined
time-in-sample and recall ef­fects
in two studies using aggregate
data from 1982-83 and microlevel
data from 1984. The first study
revealed that recall bias, more than
panel conditioning, contributed to
the underreporting of expenditures.
The researchers noted that internal
telescoping; or erroneous reporting
of the expenditure month, would not
account solely for the systematic
variations in mean expenditure by
recall month. .
The second study tested the im­portance
of the relationship of CU
characteristics and recall bias. The
most important variables were the
size, composition, and income level
of the CU. Age and education of the
survey respondent were important
respondent characteristics. This
study also pointed out how sensitive
reporting patterns are to changes in
interview week. As noted by the re­searcher,
this was "a variable in­fluencing
not only the length of the
reporting period but also the
respondents' perception of it."
Related research, focusing on the
Diary component, examined the
record-keeping behavior of Diary
respondents. Data collected in a
1984 supplemental survey indicated
that almost 20% of the respondents
completed at least one of the two
diaries by total recall- an obvious
threat to the quality of the data
received from the Diary Survey.
2. Development of composite
estimates for quarterly change for the
Interview Survey.
Directly linked to BLS plans to
publish data routinely on a quarterly
basis, composite estimation is used
to combine data from several sour­ces
into a single estimate in such a
way that the resulting estimate is
more accurate than any of the com­ponent
estimates. Future research in
this area includes the development
of composite estimators that
measure quarterly level and change
estimates.
3. Development of a multivariate
analysis package for nonnonnal dis­tribution
testing.
Hypothesis testing based on the
assumption of normality of the un­derlying
data may permit improper
inferences if the data are substantial­ly
nonnormal. To detect significant
changes and trends in mean expendi­tures
or relative importances for the
CES, statistical tests need to be
developed that are resistant to non­normality.
Researchers within BLS
are conducting preliminary work on
this issue; however, more com­prehensive
analysis is needed before
an automated statistical system can
be developed.
4. Development of an income im­putation
methodology for small size
sample surveys.
Imputation methods are used to
account for question nonresponse.
Frequently, the failure of an in­dividual
to respond to particular
items is related to item sensitivity. In­come
questions tend to be highly sen­sitive
to many people; consequently,
item nonresponse for income is ex­pected
to be high. Historically, for
the CES, data imputation has not
been used to account for missing or
invalid entries for income. However,
from a research viewpoint, there is
interest within BLS to develop an in­come
imputation methodology for
the CES. Research being conducted
on this topic currently focuses on the
characteristics of CU's who fail to
report complete income. This re­search
should have important im­plications
for developing imputation
methods that could be used to im­
·pute inco,me for nonrespondents.
Vol. 1 #3 Family Economics Review 5
Household Expenditures for
Education and Reading
By Nancy E. Schwenk
Consumer Economist
Family Economics Research Group
There were 57.3 million students
ages 3 to 34 years enrolled in schools
in the United States in 1984. School
expenditures totaled $226.5 billion
that year, and included expenditures
for nursery, kindergarten, special
programs, elementary, secondary,
and institutes of higher education.
Approximately 49 million students,
or 86%, were enrolled in public
schools. Annual expenditure per stu­dent
(in average daily attendance) in
public elementary and secondary
schools was $3,182 (2).
Household Expenditures
Household education expendi­tures
include purchases of books
and supplies for college, high school,
elementary school, and day care; tui­tion
for college, high school, elemen­tary
school, and other school tuition;
and other school expenses, including
rentals. Reading expenditures in­clude
purchases of newspapers,
magazines, periodicals, books, en­cyclopedias,
and reference
materials.
Beginning with the 1984 Con­sumer
Expenditure Survey, a student
living in college- or university-regu­lated
housing was considered to be
an independent consumer unit (5).
As such, while at school, the student
reported expenditures directly,
rather than being included as a mem­ber
of a parental household. The
high portion of total expenditures al­located
to education and reading
among single consumers can be at­tributed,
in part, to this change in
methodology.1
Education expenditures
In 1984, CES households
reported mean annual expenditures
for education of $298, with a range
from $0 to $71,200. Consumers' in­direct
expenditures on education
were much greater, however, be­cause
26% of all tax dollars spent by
Federal, State, and local govern­ments
in 1984 were spent on educa­tion
(2).
The most costly education sub­category
in 1984 was college tuition,
which averaged $2,610 per year for
those who reported having that ex­penditure
(7% of surveyed
households). College tuition ranged
as high as $60,500 annually for an in­dividual
household. The next most
costly subcategory was elementary
and high school tuition, which
averaged $1,813 per year. This ex-
1 See p. 2 of this issue, Methodological Issues
for Today and Tomorrow, by Thesia I. Garner.
Individual household expenditures for education were obtained from the
1984 Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES), an ongoing survey conducted by
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. Expenditures for
reading, a consumption category closely related to education, are also included.
Findings reported here are based on responses from 18,538 households who
participated in the Interview portion of the 1984 Survey and who reported posi­tive
income. Households were asked about expenditures for education and
reading for the previous 3 months, and these expenditures were projected for
the year. Comparisons over time were made using data from the 1972-73 CES.
penditure was reported by 3% of
CES households, and ranged as high
as $18,000 per year.
Other annual education expenses
incurred by CES households were
books and supplies for daycare
($258), books and supplies for
elementary and high school ($142),
books and supplies for college
($427), other school tuition ($1,426),
and other school expenses, including
rentals ($247).
Reading expenditures
Mean annual household expendi­ture
for reading in 1984 was $134,
with a range from $0 to $4,232. The
most costly reading expense in 1984
was the purchase of encyclopedias
and reference books, which
averaged $306 for those CES
households (1%) that incurred this
expenditure. Books purchased
through book clubs averaged $127,
and other books cost $111. In 1984
consumers purchased 111 million
books through book clubs, spending
$519 million; 10 years previously con­sumers
purchased 202 million books
through book clubs, spending $307
million. The average retail price of a
hardcover book in 1984 was $30.00,
and a paperback book averaged
$3.41 (2).
The most common purchase by
CES households in the reading
category (reported by 69%) was
newspapers, which averaged $89 an­nually.
In 1984 there were 9,151
newspapers published in this
country, with a total daily circulation
of 63.1 million. The next most com­mon
reading purchase (occurring in
38% of households) was magazines
and periodicals.
Expenditures reported by CES
households in 1984 and 1972-73
were compared by updating both to
1987 dollars, using the Consumer
Price Index. Expressed in 1987
dollars, real spending on education
increased over the years from $339
in 1972 to $375 in 1984. Similarly,
real spending for reading materials,
expressed in 1987 dollars, increased
from $123 in 1972 to $146 in 1984.
Vol. 1 #3 Family Economics Review 6
Subgroups of the Population
Income
For this analysis, households were
divided into five income brackets­under
$10,000,$10,000 to $19,999,
$20,000 to $29,999,$30,000 to
$39,999, and $40,000 and over.
Households with annual incomes
under $10,000 in 1984, which in­cluded
many college students, spent
more on education than did
households in the $10,000 to $19,999
and $20,000 to $29,999 income brack­ets
(see table, p. 8). With the excep­tion
of the lowest income bracket,
dollar amounts spent on education
increased as income increased.
Households were also contrasted
by income quintiles. Households in
the lowest income quintile spent
more on education than did
households in the next three income
quintiles. Expenditures for reading
increased across the quintiles from
$72 per year for those households in
the lowest 20% of income to $255
for those in the highest 20% of
income.
Age of reference person 2
Those households in which the
reference person was under age 25
spent the greatest amount on educa­tion
in 1984 ($601), followed by
households in which the reference
person was between 45 and 54 years
of age ($517). The age group with
the lowest expenditure for education
($88) was the 65- to 74-year-old age
group. Those under age 25 allocated
5% of their total expenditures to
education, whereas other age groups
allocated between 1% and 2%.
Expenditures for reading ranged
from $66 for households with
reference persons under age 25
years, to $173 for households with
reference persons 35 to 44 years old
and 45 to 54 years old. After age 54,
reading expenditures decreased as
age increased.
2 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."
Housing tenure
In 1984, 62% of CES house­holders
were homeowners and 38%
were renters. Although homeowners
had total expenditures that were
59% higher than renters, their yearly
expenditures for education were
very similar, $295 and $274, respec­tively.
Renters spent less than two­thirds
as much as homeowners spent
on reading, although both groups al­located
the same proportion of their
total expenditures to reading ( 1%).
Household size
CES households consisting of five
members had the highest total expen­ditures
and spent the most money on
education in 1984 ($427). House­holds
consisting of two members
spent the least on education ($220).
Households with four members
spent more than households of other
sizes on reading ($152). One-person
households spent the least on read­ing
($104); however, reading com­prised
a larger share of total expendi­tures
in one-person households than
in larger households.
Family composition
Husband and wife families with
children had the highest total expen­ditures
and the highest expenditures
for education ($407) and reading
($163) of any family type in 1984.
Single parents living with children
under age 18 had the next highest ex­penditures
for education ($278) but
the lowest expenditures for reading
($89). Single consumers spent a
greater proportion of their total ex­penditures
on both education and
reading than any other family type.
Region
In 1984, annual amounts spent on
education varied among the four
geographic regions of the country,
from a low of $253 in the South to a
high of $437 in the Northeast.
Similar expenditure patterns were
found for reading, which ranged
from a low of $122 in the South to a
high of $161 in the Northeast. Also,
households in the Northeast spent a
larger portion of their total expendi­tures
on both education and reading
than households in the other three
regions. Households living in the
West spent more on education
($308) than Midwestern households
($293) but less on reading ($141,
compared with $151).
Race
White3 households spent one­third
more on education than black
households and twice as much on
reading in 1984. Total expenditures
for white households were 57%
higher than for black households.
However, blacks spent a greater
proportion of their total expendi­tures
on education than whites did.
Predicting Expenditures
To determine what demographic
factors were related to education
and reading expenditures for CES
households, a multiple regression
was conducted.4 For this analysis,
expenditures for education and ex­penditures
for reading were added
together. Total expenditures, the
educational attainment of the
reference person, residency in the
Northeast region of the country, the
number of earners in the household,
and before-tax income were positive­ly
related to education and reading
expenditures. Home ownership and
the number of members in the
household were negatively related.
The age of the reference person,
presence of children, and race were
not significant factors (p > .05).
Overall, total expenditures and the
educational attainment of the
reference person were the best
predictors of education and reading
expenditures.
3 Group includes American Indian, Aleut,
Eskimo, Asian or Pacific Islander, and other.
4 The multiple R2 for the equation was .07.
lntercorrelations of all the independent vari­ables
in this regression analysis were less than
59.
Vol. 1 #3 Family Economics Review 7
Mean annual education and reading expenditures of Consumer Expenditure Survey households, by
household characteristics, t984
Household characteristic Total expenditures Education Reading
I nco me brackets:
Under $10,000 ..... , . . . . ....•.. . . . •
$10,000-$19,999 ....... . ... . . . .... .. .
$20,000-$29,999 .... ' .. •... .. .•.. . . ..
$30,000-$39,999 . . . . . . . .. . . . • . .....
$40,000 and over . . . . . . . . .. . ... . .
Income quintiles:
lowest .............. . .... ..... ..
Second ..........•... . ..•......•.. .
Third .............. ... ..• . .... . •.. .
Fourth ........................ .. ..•
Highest . . . . . .. .. . ............ .. •.. .
Age of reference person (years):
Under 25 .... .... ....... ... ... ..... .
25-34 ........................ . ... . .
35-44 ....... ... ..•......•...... . .. .
45-54 ......... • .. • ......•......•..
55-64 .. ... .. . .. .. . . ..... . .
65-74 ..... .. .. . .......... . .
Over 75 ... .. ....... ..•.. ..
Housing tenure:
Homeowners .........•...•..•.
Renters .. . ...... . .•..... .• .. •.
Household size:
1 member . .. . .....•... . .. • .
2 members ... .•..... .... .•.
3 members . . ..•. ..•.. . . ..•.
4members ...............•......•..
5 members . . ........ ... ..•..
6 members or more ........... .
Family composition:
Husband and wife with children
Single parent with children .... .
Other families ............. . . .. .. ... .
Single persons ..... .... ... ...• . . . . . .
Region of residence:
Northeast ...... . . .. . . . .. •......•...
Midwest .. .. . .. . ... .. . .. •..... . •..•
South ..... . .• . . .. ..•...•..•.. .. .. •
West ...............•. .. • ..• ... .. • .
Race:
White and other .... . ..... .... . .....•
Black .. . ...... . ... ..• ... . ......... .
College Costs
The cost of fmancing a child's
education beyond high school is of
great concern to most parents today.
In 1984, charges at institutes of
higher learning for tuition, required
fees, room, and board averaged
$3,156 at public schools and $7,509
at private schools (1). Between 1983
and 1984 there was a 9.7% rise in the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) for
education, which was the largest per­cent
change of any consumer expen­diture
category (4). Between 1977
and 1987, private 4-year colleges
raised tuition by an average of 141%
and public schools by 114%, com­pared
with a rise in the CPI of 87%
over the same period. The cost of a
4-year education at many private col­leges
is approaching the median
$10,912
15,003
19,699
24,387
36,018
11 ,347
13,864
18,981
25,525
40,935
13,178
21,506
27,702
28,623
23,000
15,873
11,196
22,462
14,096
12,009
19,037
22,967
24,304
25,597
24,595
25,478
15,126
20,025
12,009
19,748
18,766
19,845
21,596
20,006
12,780
$271
168
208
299
568
353
150
201
271
540
601
209
367
517
275
88
101
295
274
245
220
335
352
427
363
407
278
215
245
437
293
253
308
295
215
$70
105
144
168
261
72
92
128
163
255
66
136
173
173
149
130
93
158
97
104
144
150
152
148
130
163
89
142
104
161
151
122
141
142
70
price of a home in the United States.
For the 1987-88 school year, private
colleges averaged $11,982 and public
colleges, $5,789 (1).
Depending on the child's age,
there are a number of options avail­able
to parents concerned with
financing their child's college educa­tion.
Those parents with a child near­ing
college age might investigate ·
scholarships, Federal loans, and col­lege
work-study programs. Parents
of a young child can choose from a
number of investment plans to pay
for future tuition. Some banks issue
a certificate of deposit with invest­ment
income guaranteed to keep up
with rising college costs.
Many private colleges and several
State university systems offer "pay
now, attend later" plans, which
enable parents to prepay a young
child's tuition at today's prices. Inter­est
earned on the invested money
should make up the difference be­tween
current tuition and what will
be charged in the future. The State
of Michigan's tuition prepayment
plan, the first to be proposed by a
State, received a favorable ruling
from the Internal Revenue Service in
March 1988 (6). The ruling states
that although the State must pay
taxes on the deposited funds,
families who purchase prepaid tui­tion
have no tax obligation on their
investment, but students may be
taxed later. The Michigan plan has
inspired more than three dozen
other States to consider similar
programs.
Senator Edward Kennedy has in­troduced
a tuition savings bill that
encourages families to use U.S.
savings bonds to pay college tuition
by exempting the interest from
Federal income tax. The Reagan ad­ministration
included a similar
program in its fiscal1989 education
budget.
References
1. Putka, Gary. T11e Wall Street Jour­nal,
1987. Tracking tuition: Why col­lege
fees are rising so sharply.
December 11 issue, p. 27.
2. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census. 1986. Statisti­cal
Abstract of the United States:
1987. [107th ed.]
3. U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1976.
Consumer Expenditure Survey Series:
Interview Survey 1972 and 1973, BLS
Report No. 455-3.
4. . 1986. Consumer
Expenditure Survey Results from
1984. News USDL Publications
No. 86-258.
5. . 1987. 1984 Inter-view
Survey Public Use Tape
Documentation.
6. Vobejda, Barbara. The
Washington Post. 1988. Michigan's
tuition prepayment plan is given
favorable ruling by IRS. March 16
issue, p. A4.
Vol. 1 #3 Family Economics Review 8
Household Transportation
Expenditures
By Mary N. Talbot
Social Science Analyst
Family Economics Research Group
Data are from the 1982-83 Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES) (9), a con­tinuing
survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department
of Labor. Findings reported here are based on responses from over 18,000
households who reported positive income and who participated in the Inter­view
portion of the Survey in 1983. Comparisons were made with data from the
two previous Consumer Expenditure Surveys of 1973 and 1980-81
(approximately 10,000 households and 18,000 households, respectively). For
more infonnation regarding the CES, see Housing Expenditures by Nancy
Schwenk in Family Economics Review 1988( 1):1.
In the decade between 1973 and
1983, household expenditures for
transportation were affected by
1. the oil embargo of 1973, 2. the
recessionary periods that occurred
between 1973-75 and 1981-82, and
Comparisons Over Time
In 1983, CES households
reported that a slightly higher share
of total expenditures was spent for
Figure 1
Changes In Consumer Prices for Selected Items
%of 1967
420
380
3. increased fuel efficiency for newer
vehicles. Expenditures for transpor­tation
increased more than total
household expenditures between
1973 (7) and 1983 (146% and 127%,
respectively). Similarly, transporta­tion
prices, as measured by the Con­sumer
Price Index, rose 142%, com­pared
with 123% for all items. In
contrast, prices for gasoline and oil
increased by 220% over the decade
and 110% between 1978 and 1981
(see fig. 1). This very rapid price in­crease
made automobiles with better
gas mileage more attractive to con­sumers.
340
300
G"o"oo ~ /
I
What adjustments do families
make when confronted with rapidly
rising prices, particularly in one
budget category? This article ex­amines
changes in household
transportation expenditures over
time, reports spending for subgroups
of the U.S. population, and
describes transportation patterns
and trends.
260
220
1975 1977
I
I
I
I
I
1979
transportation (22%) than reported
in 1980-81 (20%) or 1973 (20% ).
Transportation expenditures for
1983 were $4,028; expenditures for
gasoline and oil averaged $1,058,
comprising 26% of all transportation
expenses. In contrast, respondents in
the 1980-81 CES (8) reported spend­ing
34% of their transportation dol­lars
for gasoline and oil. Other
transportation expenditures in­curred
in 1983 included those for
new cars and trucks ($931); used
cars and trucks ($699); vehicular
maintenance and repairs ($440); in­surance
($332); public transporta­tion
($247); financing ($177); and
rentals, licenses, and various fees
($114) (see table 1, p. 10).
Transportation expenditures
reported in the three surveys were
compared by updating to 1987 dol­lars,
using the Consumer Price
Index. Expressed in 1987 dollars,
real spending for transportation fluc­tuated
over the years from $4,206 in
1973 to $4,127 in 1980-81 and $4,266
in 1983. In contrast, real spending
for the gasoline and oil component
decreased from $950 in 1973 to $916
/',
/ / ........... ..... _
I --
1
Transportation , .. ! ... .·
1981 1983 1985 1987
Vol. 1 #3 Family Economics Review 9
Table 1. Transportation expenditures, by family Income level, 1983
Income level
Item All Under $10,000 to $20,000 to $30,000 to $40,000 and
families $10,000 $19,999 $29,999 $39,999 over
Mean transportation
expenditures .... . ... .. ... .. .. . . $4,028 $1,501
Transportation as a percent of total
expenditures · · · · ·· ·· ·· · · ······ · 22
Transportation component as a
percent of transportation expenditures:
Cars and trucks, (net outlay) :
New . .. . . ..... . . . . . . .. ... . .. . 23
Used .. . . .. .. . ..... . . .. . . . . . .. 17
Other vehicles ....... .. .. .. ... .. 1
Vehicle financing · ····· ·· ·· ·· ··· · 4
Gasoline and oil . . . . . . . . • ... . •. . . 26
Maintenance and
repairs ....... .... . ... ... ... .. 11
Vehicle Insurance .. .. . ... ...... • . 8
Public transportation ... . . . • .. • . • . 6
Vehicle rent, licenses
and other charges . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 3
* Less than .5%
in 1980-81 and $854 in 1983. Defmi­tional
changes between the 1972-73
CES and later surveys made com­parisons
of other transportation com­ponents
inappropriate. For a com­plete
description of the various items
included in each component for
1972-73 and 1980-81 forward, see
table 2 on page 12.
Subgroups of the Population
Income
Household expenditures for
transportation increased as
household incomes increased
(table 1). Also, households earning
less than $10,000 allocated a smaller
percentage of their total expendi­tures
for transportation than did
other families.
As household income increased,
the percentage of the transportation
dollar spent on new cars and trucks
increased and the percentage spent
on used cars and trucks and gasoline
and oil decreased. Gasoline and oil
expenditures represented over one­third
of the transportation dollars
spent by families earning less than
$10,000.
Race1
Because white and other
households had higher average in-
16
8
23
1
3
35
13
8
7
3
$3,122 $4,657 $5,284 $7,898
Percent
22 24 23 23
17 25 23 33
19 17 16 12
1 1 1 (*)
4 5 5 5
30 27 27 22
12 11 12 10
8 8 9 8
6 4 5 6
3 3 3 4
comes in 1983 than black households
($24,042, compared with $15,351), it
was not unexpected to fmd that ex­penditures
for transportation by race
reflect patterns similar to those ob­served
for income level. White and
other households spent a higher per­centage
of their total transportation
expenditures for new cars and trucks
than did black households, 24% and
13% respectively. In contrast,
gasoline and oil expenditures com­prised
a larger share of transporta­tion
expenditures in black
households than in other
households. In ·1983 black families
spent 35% of their transportation
dollar for gasoline and oil, whereas
white and other families spent 26%.
Housing tenure
Housing tenure made little dif­ference
in overall transpor~ation ex­penditures.
Both homeowners (with
a mean income of $28,290) and
renters (with a mean income of
$15,240) spent 22% of their total ex­penditures
on transportation in
1983. Also, both groups spent 27%
of their total transportation dollars
1 Refers to the race of the reference person,
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."
for gasoline and oil. However,
homeowners spent 26% of their
transportation expenditures on new
cars and trucks, compared with 17%
for renters. In contrast, renters spent
23% of their transportation dollars
on used cars and trucks and
homeowners spent 14%.
Homeowners spent a slightly higher
percentage than renters for vehicle
insurance (9%, compared with 7%)
but less for public transportation
(5%, compared with 7% ).
Age of householder
Households headed by an in­dividual
between 45 and 54 years of
age had the highest income, total ex­penditures,
and overall transporta­tion
expenses. In addition, these
households spent more than other
households for gasoline and oil,
vehicle maintenance, and insurance.
Younger households (householder
under age 25) spent a higher share
of total expenditures for transporta­tion
than other households, whereas
older households (headed by an in­dividual
over age 65) allocated the
lowest percent of total expenditures
for transportation (26% and 18%,
respectively). Older households
were more likely to spend money for
new cars and trucks, and younger
households spent the highest share
of their transportation dollar for
used cars and trucks. In all other
households (with a householder be­tween
25 and 64 years) the largest
share of the transportation dollar
was spent for gasoline and oil.
Family composition
Transportation expenditures were
compared for husband and wife
families with and without children,
single-parent households, individual
consumers, and all other families
(see fig. 2, p. 11). All other families
spent the largest share of total expen­ditures
for transportation (24%) and
single-parent households spent the
smallest share (18% ). This compares
with a 23% share for husband and
wife households with children, 22%
for husband and wife families with
Vol. 1 #3 Family Economics Review 10
no children, and 20% for individual
consumers.
Husband and wife households
with no children spent 29% of their
transportation dollar for new cars
and trucks and 25% for gasoline and
oil (see fig. 2). All other household
categories spent a 12% to 23% share
for new cars and trucks and between
26% and 30% for gasoline and oil.
Household size
Households composed of two or
more members spent a greater share
of their total expenditures on
transportation than did single per­sons.
Larger households (six or more
persons) spent more than other
households on used cars and trucks
and less on new cars and trucks. The
greatest transportation expenditure
for these larger households was for
· gasoline and oil. Compared with
other households, individual con­sumers
spen,t a higher percentage of
total transportation expenditures on
public transportation.
Figure 2
Region
In 1983, Western households
spent the most on transportation
($4,297) and households in the
Northeast spent the least ($3,730).
Midwestern households spent $3,914
on transportation and Southern
households $4,004. Transportation
represented a slightly smaller share
of total expenditures for households
in the Northeast than in other
regions.
In comparing the proportion of
the transportation dollar spent on
the various transportation
categories, Northeastern households
spent less than households in other
regions on used cars and trucks
(12%, compared with 18% ). In con­trast,
households in the West spent
less than households in other regions
for new cars and trucks (17%, com­pared
with 24% to 27%).
Northeastern and Western
households spent more of their total
transportation dollars on public
transportation (8%) than
households in the Midwest and
Transportation Expenditures by
Family Composition
$ thousand
6
5
4
3
2
0
Husband. Husband. All other
wife wife. families
own children
Other
Public transport
Insurance
Maintenance
Gas. oil
Used car. truck
New car. truck
Single Individual
parent. consumer
own children
1983 Con1uner Expencltln Survey datL Sauce: &nau of Labor Stalilllca.
South ( 4% ). This reflects, in part,
the greater availability and use of
mass transit in and around large
urban areas. Western households
spent 26% more for public transpor­tation
in 1983 than in 1980-81,
whereas spending by households in
the three other regions decreased
slightly.
Predicting Transportation
Expenditures
Transportation expenditures were
found to vary with the level of total
expenditures, age of householder,
presence of children, and region of
residence.Z Total household expendi­tures
was positively related to
transportation expenditures and was
the best predictor of these expenqi­tures.
Age of householder and ·
presence of children were negatively
related to transportation expendi­tures.
Households in the Northeast
and West spent less on transporta­tion
than those in the Midwest. Fac­tors
that had little effect on these ex­penditures
included housing tenure,
race, and residence in the South.
Transportation Patterns and
Trends
During the decade between 1973
and 1983, volatility in the price of
gasoline led to the increased produc­tion
of smaller vehicles. Consumers
demanded improved fuel efficiency
in newer vehicles, and the Federal
Government mandated increases in
corporate average fuel economy
standards. In 1973 the average miles
per gallon (mpg) attained by current
model domestic and imported cars
was 14.2; average mpg climbed to
25.9 by 1981 and 26.4 by 1983. This
increase can be attributed,. in part, to
the expanded U.S. production of
2 A multiple regresson was conducted to
determine what factors were related t<z
transportation expenditures. The multiple R
for the equation was .31. Intercorrelation of
total expenditures and income was .48. Inter­correlations
of all other independent variables
in this regression analysis were no greater than
.35 in either 'direction.
Vol. 1 #3 Family Economics Review 11
~ :-
......
'il::
\...l
~
~
i g
Q.
::0
"..":;'
~·
~
......
tv
Table 2. Definitions related to transportation expenditures in the Consumer Expenditure Survey
1972-73
Transportation, total, excluding trips.
Vehicle purchases (net outlay) includes the net outlay (purchase price
minus trade-in value) on new and used, domestic and imported cars and
trucks; excludes recreational vehicles such as attachable campers, trailers,
motorcycles, boats, private planes, and other (such as snowmobiles and
dune buggies).
Vehicle finance charges includes the dollar amount of interest paid for a
loan contracted for the purchase of vehicles.
Vehicle operations, total:
Gasoline and fuels includes gasoline expenses for cars, as well as com­bined
gas and oil expenses for trucks, self-propelled campers, vehicles
owned outside the family (e.g., car pools), and multiple vehicle types
from the quarterly Interview; and includes other fuels from the Diary.
Other vehicle operations includes the expense of lubrications and fil­ters,
and oil changes for automobiles; the combined expense of
gasoline and oil for other vehicles not mentioned above; and the ex­pense
of tires and tubes, batteries, air conditioners, other major equip­ment,
vehicle insurance, and repairs not paid for by insurance for all
cars, trucks, and self-propelled campers from the quarterly Interview;
and includes oil and gasoline additives, and brake and transmission
fluid from the Diary.
Other transportation includ~s leased cars, rental cars, combined expen­ses
for vehicle operations, fees for State and local registration, vehicle in­spection,
driver's license, parking, towing, and the cost of nonvacation
travel within and outside the commuting area through use of public
transportation such as buses, trains, ships, airplanes, and other from the
quarterly Interview; and includes chauffeur services, car washing, tolls,
and other carpooling expenses from the Diary.
1980-81 to present
Transportation, total.
Cars and trucks, new (net outlay).
Cars and trucks, used (net outlay).
Other vehicles include attachable campers, trailers, motorcycles, and
private planes.
Vehicle finance charges includes the dollar amount of interest paid for a
loan contracted for the purchase of vehicles.
(Vehicle operations, total--discontinued.)
Gasoline and motor oil includes gasoline, diesel fuel, and motor oil.
Maintenance and repairs includes tires, batteries, tubes, lubrication; fil­ter,
coolant, additives, brake and transmission fluid, oil change, front end
alignment, wheel balancing, shock absorber replacement; repairs to steer­ing,
clutch, transmission, electrical, exhaust and cooling systems, drive
train, drive shaft, rear end, and motor; other maintenance; and auto repair
policy.
Vehicle insurance includes the premium paid for insuring cars, trucks,
and other vehicles.
Public transportation includes fares for mass transit, buses, trains, air­lines,
taxis, private school buses; and the fares paid on trips for trains,
boats, taxis, buses, and airlines.
Vehicle rent, licenses, and other charges includes leased and rented cars,
trucks, motorcycles, campers, trailers, and aircraft; inspections; State and
local registration; and fees for driver's license, parking, towing, landing,
and docking; and tolls on trips.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1976, Consumer fupendjture Survey Series· InteiYiew Survey 1972 and 1973 Report No:455-3 (6); and U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985, Consumer Expenditure Survey: lnteiYiew Survey 1980-81. Bulletin No. 2225 (8).
smaller cars (fig. 3.) and growth in
sales of imported cars. From 1973 to
1983, domestic auto sales declined
by 30%, while imported auto sales
rose by 35% (3). Also, the average
speed traveled in miles per hour
dropped from 65.0 in 1973 to 59.1 in
1983 ( 4). Each of these factors con­tributed
to the decrease in average
annual fuel consumption per car
from 736 gallons in 1973 to 555
gallons in 1983 (4).
Households owned an average 1.8
cars in 1983 (4); 86% of all
households in the United States
owned or had regular use of a
vehicle for personal transportation.3
The number of registered passenger
cars increased by 24% between 1973
and 1983. Families drove an average
16,830 miles and used 1,112 gallons
of motor fuel (5). About 75% of all
cars were registered in metropolitan
areas in 1983 (3).
Traffic in the metropolitan areas
of the United States increased 50%
between 1970 and 1980. Increases in
3 Regular use of a vehicle includes company­owned
vehicles that are regularly available for
personal household transportation and cars
that are rented or leased for 1 month or more.
Figure 3
Engine Size of Automobiles
6 cylinder
(9.8%)
4 cylinder
(8.6%)
V-8 cylinder
(81.6%)
1973
population (7%) and in the number
of persons working in metropolitan
areas (22%) contributed to this traf­fic
increase. Also, the number of
workers in metropolitan areas who
used public transportation
decreased by 9% between 1970 and
1980 (2).
Conclusions
The average American household
allocates about one-fifth of its total
expenditures for transportation.
Over the years, this share has ex­panded
from 20% in 1973 to 22% in
1983. Transportation was the second
largest component of the budget in
1973, exceeded only by housing ex­penditures
(33%). Forces
throughout the international
economy that impact on price and
supply of automobiles and gasoline
directly affect the household budget.
When the price of gasoline peaked
in 1981, CES households were spend­ing
34% of their transportation dol­lar
for gasoline and oil. By 1983
gasoline prices had moderated some­what
and CES households spent a
26% share for gasoline and oil.
In contrast, automobile prices
have risen steadily, making it more
difficult for families to afford new
4 cylinder
(39.7%)
1983
V·8 cylinder
(31.0%)
6 cylinder
(29.3%)
cars. In 1983, CES households with
low incomes (single-parent
households, renters, households
headed by blacks or young persons)
were more likely to spend money for
used, rather than new, cars and
trucks. Nevertheless, the availability
of an increasing number of smaller
vehicles with improved fuel efficien­cy
has helped to keep the overall
costs of transportation affordable for
most U.S. households.
References
1. Bradley, Kathleen. 1986. Nation­al
Transportation Statistics, Annual
Report 1986. U.S. Department of
Transportation, Research and
Special Programs Administration,
Office of Budget and Programs.
2. McDonnell, James. 1986.
Journey-to-Work Trends Based on the
1960, 1970, and 1980 Decennial
Censuses. U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Office of Highway
Information Management.
3. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census. 1985. Statisti­cal
Abstract of the United States,
1986. [106th ed.J
4. . 1986. Statistical
Abstract of the United States, 1987.
[107th ed.]
5. U.S. Department of Energy,
Energy Information Administration.
1985. Residential Transportation
Energy Consumption Swvey: Con­sumption
Patterns of Household
Vehicles 1983.
6. U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1976.
Consumer Expenditure Survey Series:
Interview Survey, 1972 and 1973.
Report No. 455-3.
7. . 1978. Consumer Ex-penditure
Survey: Integrated Diary
and Interview Survey Data, 1972-73.
Bulletin No. 1992.
8. . 1985. Consumer Ex-penditure
Survey: Interview Survey,
1980-81. Bulletin No. 2225.
9. . 1985. 1982-83/nter-view
Survey Public Use Tape
Documentation.
Vol. I -#3 Family Economics Review 13
Research Summaries
Expenditure Patterns
of Single Women and
Single Men
The labor force participation rate
for women 25-54 years of age was over
70% in 1986. As more and more
women work, their economic in­fluence
becomes an important factor
in the economy. However, little re­search
has been done on the role of
gender in consumer behavior patterns
because consumption data is not
usually recorded for men and women
separately. As a first step in isolating
expenditure differences by sex, a study
by the Bureau ofLabor Statistics, U.S.
Department of Labor, examined data
for single men and single women using
the 1984-85 Consumer Expenditure
Survey. Demographics, sources of in­come,
and expenditure patterns of
single men and women were reported.
The demographic characteristics
identified for single men and women
were age, income, and race. Single
men were younger than single women,
with mean ages of 40 and 54 years,
respectively. Over half of single men
were under age 35, whereas more than
half of single women were over age 55.
In all age groups, men earn more than
women. Single men, on average, earn
about $7,000 more a year than women.
Three-fourths of the women com­pared
to about half the men earned
less than $15,000 a year. A slightly
larger percentage of single men than
single women were black, 12% and
9% respectively.
Sources of income differed
markedly for single men and women
(fig.1, p.15). Single men earn more. of
their income from wages and salanes
compared to single women. Social
security income, pensions, and
government retirement are more im­portant
sources of income for single
women because many more women
are in the older age groups. Men earn
a larger share of their income from
self-employment than do women.
Single men reported total expendi­tures
of$15,338 per year, compared to
$11,095 per year for single women
(fig. 2, p. 15). Budget shares (the
proportion of an item relative to to~al
expenditures) were tested for sig­nificant
differences between men and
women. Results showed that single
women spent a larger share of their
total expenditures on food at home,
housing, apparel, and health care.
Single men spent a larger share. on
food away from home; transportation;
entertainment; cash contributions;
miscellaneous items; and retirement,
pensions, and Social Security. .
More single women than smgle
men were homeowners, 41% and 29%
respectively. Because utilities are
often included in the rent of many
units and more men than women are
renters, the bu.dget share for utilities
reported by men was lower than that
reported by women. Although men
spent a smaller share of their total ex­penditures
than women for apparel
and services, 25% of their apparel
budget was spent on gifts. About half
of men's gift purchases were for
jewelry and watches.
Further analysis of the expenditure
data was undertaken by controlling for
income, age, and race. Gender dif­ferences
in mean expenditures were
found for alcoholic beverages, shelter,
vehicles, gasoline and motor oil, other
vehicle expenses, health care, per­sonal
care services, and life and other
personal insurance. Single women
spent more for health care and life and
other personal insurance; single men
spent more for all other expenditures.
Expenditure differences by gender for
housing, transportation, and perso~al
care services diminish as income m­creases.
In contrast, single men and
women do not spend significantly dif­ferent
amounts on apparel. What is
notable, however, is that as income in­creases
women spend significantly
more than men on apparel. There
were only four items for which gender
was not significant- food at home,
household operations, cash contribu­tions
and miscellaneous goods and servic' es.
Source: Shipp, Stephanie, 1987, Expenditure
Patterns ofSing'leWomen and Sing-le Men U:S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Stalls­tics,
paper presented at the American Statisti­cal
Association meeting, August 17 to 22, 1987,
San Francisco, CA.
Vol. 1 #3 Family Economics Review 14
Figure 1
Sources of Income
Single men
Self-employment
(6.6%)
Interest/ dividends/
other property
income
(5.7%)
Social Security/pensions/
government retirement
(8.2%)
Wages/salary
(76.4%)
$18,270
Single women
Self-employment
(2.0%)
Interest/ dividends/
other property
income
(8.4%)
Social Security I pensions/
government retirement
(26.6%)
Other
(4.7%)
$11,021
Wages/salary
(58.3%)
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1984-85 Consumer Expenditure Survey.
Figure 2
Expenditure Shares
Single men
Health Care
(3.1%)
Miscellaneous
(10.5%)
Cash Contributions
(4.7%)
Apparel
(4.8%)
Entertainment
(5.3%)
Retirement/
Social Security I
Pensions
(7.7%)
Food Away
(7.3%)
Food At Home
(7.6%)
$15,338
Single women
Housing
(29.4%)
Health Care
(6.2%)
Miscellaneous
(8.0%)
Cash "''"""n'""'"'
(3.6%)
Entertainment
(3.8%)
Retirement/
Social Security/
Pensions
(5.4%)
Food Away
(4.7%)
Food At Home
(9.6%)
$11,095
Housing
(35.9%)
Transportation
(16.9%)
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1984-85 Consumer Expenditure Survey.
Vol. 1 -#3 Family Economics Review 1.5
Comparing Nutrients
in the Soviet and U.S.
Food Supply
Information is now available on
food use in the Soviet Union. A recent
study estimated and compared levels
and sources of food energy (calories),
nutrients, and other food components
in the food supplies of the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.)
and the United States for 1965 and
1981 (see box). The study was initiated
by the Office of Soviet Analysis of the
Central Intelligence Agency and con­ducted
jointly with USDA's Human
Nutrition Information Service
(HNIS).
Comparison of Food Use
In both the Soviet Union and the
United States, per capita quantities of
food in most food groups increased
between 1965 and 1981 (table 1).
During this period, use of potatoes
and grain products declined in the
Soviet Union; in the United States, use
of eggs, dairy products, potatoes, and
animal fats decreased. Per capita
levels of food use in both years were
generally higher in the United States
except for potatoes, grain products,
fish, and animal fats.
Between 1965 and 1981, high per­centage
increases (over 40%) in the
Soviet Union were attained by
poultry, eggs, fruit, fish, vegetable
fats, and dairy products. The only
food groups with comparable gains
in the United States were poultry
and vegetable fats.
Nutrient Levels and Sources
Levels of calcium, vitamin A,
vitamin B12, fat, and cholesterol in the
Soviet food supply increased between
1965 and 1981. However, levels of
these nutrients and those for iron,
thiamin, and riboflavin remained
lower in the Soviet Union than in the
United States (table 2). Carbohydrate
and magnesium levels were higher in
the U.S.S.R. food supply during this
period, reflecting greater use of grain
products.
Sources of food energy differed in
the two countries, especially the
shares from fat and carbohydrate.
During the 1965-81 period, food ener­gy
supplied by fat increased from 24%
to 28% in the Soviet food supply, far
below the 42% in the U.S. supply in
1965 and 1981. The share of food ener­gy
from carbohydrate in the U.S.S.R.
declined from 64% to 60% but still
topped the U.S. share of 46% in both
years. Cholesterol in the Soviet food
supply rose markedly, whereas in the
U.S. the level declined-paralleling
egg use (the major source of
cholesterol in both food supplies). In
1981, grains supplied almost 50% of
the iron and 45% of the protein in the
Soviet food supply. In the United
States grains supplied 32% of the iron
and 19% of the protein; and the meat,
poultry, and fish group provided 31%
and 43%, respectively.
Source: Economic Research Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, 1988, Na.tiQnal
Food Review 11(1):18-23.
Published and unpublished sources within the USDA provided the nutrient content of food of both countries. The types
and amounts of food used in the two countries were the basis for calculating nutrient levels of the food supplies. HNIS an­nually
prepares infonnation on nutrients in the U.S. food supply based on Economic Research Service estimates of food
available for consumption. U.S. food composition values were applied to foods in the U.S.S.R. when they were similar.
Values used for other Soviet items were developed by HNIS because composition data from Soviet sources are available
only for a limited number of foods and nutrients.
The Office of Soviet Analysis (OSA) of the Central Intelligence Agency supplied data on Soviet per capita food use from
various published and unpublished sources. However, in many cases Soviet data were not as specific as the U.S. infonna­tion.
To make the data more comparable, quantities of some foods within major groups were estimated. For example,
Soviet data on meat consumption initially included slaughter fat and offal. Using OSA infonnation, HNIS researchers ad­justed
the quantities of meat to count fat and offal as individual items in the Soviet food supply.
Food use in both countries was derived by subtracting exports, yearend stocks, and nonfood use from food production
(including home produce), imports, and beginning stocks. These data represent the amounts of food available for con­sumption
and do not indicate actual household use or individual intakes.
Vol. 1 #3 FanJily Economics Review 16
Table 1. Food use in the Soviet Union and the United States
Soviet Union United States
Food group
Dairy products, excluding butter 1 ......... .
Eggs .................................. .
Meat, poultry, fish .................... . .
Meat ................................ .
Poultry ............................... .
Fish ................................. .
Fats and oils ........................... .
Animal fats .......... . .... ..... ....... .
Vegetable fats ......................... .
Legumes and nuts ...................... .
Potatoes 2
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Vegetables ............................. .
Fruits ................................. .
Grain products ......................... .
Sugars and sweeteners ........... ...... .. .
Miscellaneous 3 ......................... .
1965
244
16
112
78
6
28
39
18
21
1
313
148
60
343
77
1
1981 1965
Pounds per capita
347
32
157
98
19
40
51
21
30
2
232
197
88
304
98
1
453
40
201
146
41
14
51
18
33
16
86
196
163
145
112
16
1981
405
34
234
154
63
17
61
13
48
15
78
203
187
151
135
12
1 Based on calcium equivalent of fluid whole milk.
2 U.S. data include sweetpotatoes.
3 U.S.S.R. data include tea. U.S. data include coffee, chocolate liquor equivalent of cocoa beans, and fortification not assigned to a specific
food group.
Source: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1988, Natjonal Food Beyjew 11 (1 ): 18-23.
Table 2. Nutrient Levels in Soviet and U.S. Food Supplies [per capita per day]
Soviet Union United States
Nutrient (unit)
1965 1981 1965 1981
Food Energy (calories) ................... 3,100 3,200 3,200 3,400
Protein (grams) ......................... 90 100 100 100
Fat (grams) ............................. 80 100 150 160
Cholesterol (milligrams) .................. 270 400 520 490
Carbohydrate (grams) .................... 500 490 370 390
Minerals:
Calcium (milligrams) .................... 590 760 920 870
Zinc (milligrams) ....................... 11 12 12 12
Iron (milligrams) ....................... 15 15 16 17
Magnesium (milligrams) ................. 430 420 330 330
Vitamins:
Thiamin (milligrams) .................... 1.9 1.8 1.8 2.1
Riboflavin (milligrams) .................. 1.7 1.8 2.2 2.3
Ascorbic acid (milligrams) ............... 120 120 100 120
Vitamin A (international units) ........... 4,200 5,800 7,500 7,700
Vitamin B6 (milligrams) ................. 2.1 2.0 1.8 2.0
Vitamin B12 (micrograms) ............... 4.7 6.6 8.9 9.1
Note: U.S. data include iron, thiamin, riboflavin, ascorbic acid, vitamin A, vitamin Be, and vitamin 812 added by enrichment and fortification.
Data are rounded.
Source: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1988, Natjonal Food Review 11 (1):18-23.
Vol. 1 #3 Family Economics Review 17
Characteristics and
Housing Problems of
Mobile Home Owners
Mobile homes 1 have been an im­portant
source of housing for over two
decades especially in nonmetro areas,
where one in five new homes and one
in eight existing units are mobile
homes. They are more prevalent in the
South and West than in the Northeast
and North Central regions. Variation
in local zoning regulations affects the
availability of mobile homes. Rural
areas often place fewer restrictions on
their location. One of the key attrac­tions
of mobile homes is their affor­dability,
not their mobility. Once in­stalled
on a site, most are never
moved.
Data from the 1983 Annual Hous­ing
Survey 2 were used to examine the
characteristics of mobile home owners
and the housing problems they ex­perienced.
Comparisons were made
with owners of conventional homes
and renters. The analysis was based on
a sample of 1,211 owners of mobile
homes, 13,255 owners of conventional
single-family homes, and 4,228
renters. Location of housing units was
restricted to nonmetro areas, and
households were restricted to those
with family incomes less than $24,580
(the U.S. median in 1983).
Looking at the demographics,
owners of mobile homes were younger
than owners of conventional homes,
1 A manufactured home, or mobile home as
defined by Federal law, is a structure transport­able
in one or more sections, which in the travel­ing
mode is 8 feet wide or more or 40 feet long
or more, when erected on site, is 320 or more
square feet, and which is built on a permanent
chasis and designed to be used as a dwelling
with or without a permanent foundation when
connected to the required utilities. These
homes are often referred to as HUD-code
homes since they are built to the National
Manufactured Home Construction and Safety
Standards.
2 In 1984 the Annual Housing Survey, un­dertaken
by the Bureau of the Census, U.S.
Department of Commerce, was renamed
"American Housing Survey• and is currently
being conducted every other year.
Profile of mobile and conventional home owners, and renters 1
Characteristic Mobile home owners Conventional home owners Renters
Marital status:
Married ..........•.
Widowed ........ .
Divorced or separated
Never married
Education:
Elementary
Part high school ....
High school
Beyond high school ........... .
Age of head (years):
Less than 30
30-49 ........... .
50-64. . ......... .
More than 65 ...... .
Female head of household
Black head of household ..
Average yearly income ..... .
Average monthly housing cost
61
15
16
8
23
22
43
12
29
32
17
22
29
10
12,236
217
Percent
58 44
23 13
12 23
6 19
25 21
18 19
37 32
20 23
8 37
29 34
25 13
38 17
35 40
13 14
Dollars
12,886 10,127
256 247
1 Sample restricted to households in non metro areas with income below the national median ($24,580 in 1983).
Source: Me~ks, Carol, 1988, ~obile homes a viable alternative in rural America, Aural peye!opmeot perspectjyes 4(2):29-32, u.S. De art-ment
of Agnculture, Econom1c Research Service. p
had a bit less schooling, and had lower
incomes. They were more likely to be
married but less likely to be widowed.
Compared with renters, they were
somewhat older, had a bit less school­ing,
and had higher incomes. Owners
of mobile homes had lower monthly
housing costs than either renters or
owners of conventional homes.
The number of problems reported
by occupants was used as an indication
of housing quality. Owners of mobile
homes averaged somewhat more
problems (1.6) than owners of conven­tional
homes (1.5), but 66% of conven­tional
homeowners and 54% of mobile
homeowners reported no problems.
Mobile homes had fewer structural
problems than rental units. However,
mobile homes had more roofleaks and
holes in the floor than conventional
single-family homes. Conventional
homes and rent!J-1 units were sig­nificantly
more likely to have electrical
problems (lack of working electrical
outlets and exposed wiring) than
mobile homes.
In 1974 Congress passed the Na­tional
Manufactured Home Construc­tion
and Safety Standards Act. The
purpose of the standards was to
reduce personal injuries and property
damage and to improve the quality
and durability of manufactured
homes. The Act regulates design; con­struction;
strength; durability; fire
resistance; energy efficiency; and
plumbing, heating, cooling, and
electrical systems of manufactured
housing. In addition, some com­munities
have established appearance
criteria for mobile homes that specify
the types of materials acceptable for
siding and roof exterior. Others re­quire
permanent foundations,
garages, and a minimum floor area.
Source: Meeks, Carol, 1988, Mobile homes a
viable alternative in rural America, lli.I.IaJ.
Development Perspectives 4(2):29-32, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service.
Vol. 1 #3 Family Economics Review 18
Caregivers of the Frail
Elderly
Informal caregivers to the disabled
elderly were predominantly female
and three-quarters of them lived with
the care recipient in 1982, according
to the Informal Caregivers Survey
(ICS).1 The data suggest that
caregivers as well as care recipients
are a vulnerable group- one-third
were over age 65, reported incomes in
the poor to near-poor category, and
described their health status as fair or
poor. There also is evidence of com­peting
familial and employment
demands among a subgroup of
caregivers.
The Long-Term Care Survey
(LTCS) population consisted of ap­proximately
6,400 persons drawn from
the medicare enrollment files and
identified as having long-term
problems with at least one activity of
daily living (AD L) (such as dressing or
bathing) or one instrumental activity
of daily living (lAD L) (such as shop­ping).
The ICS was designed to
provide national data on informal sys­tems
of long-term care. Interviews
were conducted with a sample of 1,924
persons who were at least 14 _years of
age and were identified by the elderly
participants of the LTCS as providing
unpaid assistance with at least one
ADL.
Characteristics of Caregivers
Approximately 2.2 million
caregivers 14 years or older provided
unpaid assistance to the noninstitu­tionalized
elderly in 1982. The family
was the primary source of care for the
frail or disabled elderly. Nearly three­fourths
of disabled older persons who
lived in the community relied solely on
family and friends. Most of the others
depended on a combination of family
care and paid help. The majority
(72%) of the caregivers were female;
1 A component of the 1982 National Long­Term
Care Survey, sponsored by the Depart­ment
of Health and Human Services.
adult daughters (29%) and wives of
the care recipients (23%) represented
over half of all caregivers. Husbands
of the care recipients constituted 13%
of the caregivers.
The average age of the caregivers
was 57.3 years; 36% were 65 years or
older. Husbands were the oldest
caregivers-91% were over age 65,
compared with 73% of the wives.
About 60% of children (both sons and
daughters) who provided care lived
with the parent.
About 70% of the caregivers
provided primary care. Of these
primary care providers, 33% were sole
providers of care, 29% had one or
more unpaid helpers, and almost 10%
purchased services in addition to
receiving unpaid assistance. Sole
providers of care were most often
wives (60%) or husbands (55%);
daughters (23%) and sons (11%) also
provided primary care without assis­tance.
Sons more frequently (52%)
provided secondary care, compared
with daughters (30%).
Characteristics of Care
Recipients
Of the 1.2 million frail elderly who
received informal care in 1982, 21%
were 85 years and older (mean age was
77.7 years). Most (60%) care
recipients were women; about 51%
were married and 41% were widowed.
Most of these persons (75%) lived
with a spouse only or with a spouse
and/or children; only 11% of the
recipients lived alone.
One-third of the disabled care
recipients had adjusted family in­comes
that were in the poor/near poor
category; only 5% had high incomes.
Health status was perceived as fair or
poor by 70% of the frail elderly.
Assistance Provided by
Caregivers
A majority ( 67%) of the caregivers
provided assistance with one or more
personal activities such as feeding,
bathing, dressing, and toileting; and
46% helped the disabled person get in
and out of bed. Of the caregivers, 86%
gave assistance with instrumental
tasks related to shopping and
transportation; 81% spent extra time
on one or more household tasks in­cluding
meal preparation, cleaning,
and laundry; 53% administered
medication; and 49% assisted with
fmancial matters.
Daughters of the care recipients
( 69%) were more likely than sons
(54%) to provide assistance with per­sonal
hygiene activities; 55% of the
husbands and 41% of the wives helped
their spouses get around. Husbands
reported spending extra time for
household tasks more frequently than
did wives, 89% compared with 74%.
Since wives are more likely than hus­bands
to perform household activities,
it is possible that caregiving husbands
would perceive themselves as spend­ing
extra time on tasks, whereas wives
would consider these activities to be
an integral part of their role.
The number of tasks performed
varied with the level of caregiver assis­tance.
Primary caregivers with infor­mal
or formal helpers performed the
greatest number of ADL's (three) and
IADL's (six). Sole providers assisted
with an average of two ADL's and five
IADL's.
About 44% of the caregivers had
been providing unpaid assistance for
1 to 4 years, and 20% had been provid­ing
assistance for 5 or more years.
Only 18% of the caregivers had
provided care for less than 1 year.
Unpaid care was provided 7 days a
week by 80% of the caregivers. In an
average day, caregivers spent 4 hours
providing care.
Competing Demands on the
Caregiver
Family needs often conflict with the
role of the caregiver. One-quarter of
caregiving children and one-third of
other caregivers reported children
under age 18 in the home. Employ­ment
also conflicted with the caregiv­ing
role- some care providers had left
the labor force. Husbands, wives, and
daughters left the labor force more
often than sons. Of caregivers who
remained employed, 29% rearranged
schedules, 21% reduced work hours,
Vol. 1 #3 Family Economics Review 19
and 19% took leave without pay to ac­commodate
their role as caregiver.
Wives were more likely than husbands
to rearrange schedules; husbands
more often than wives worked fewer
hours, and daughters were more like­ly
than sons to experience all three
types of adjustments in their work pat­terns.
These competing demands may
represent an even greater challenge to
future cohorts of caregivers. Due to
longer life expectancy and delayed
childbearing, an increasing propor­tion
of women will be in the position
of providing care to both children
under the age of 18 as well as elderly
parents. These demographic trends,
coupl~d with the projected increase in
labor force participation rates among
older women, suggest that future work
and family obligations may conflict
with caregiving responsibilities to a
greater extent than they do today.
Source: Stone, Robyn, Gail Lee Cafferata,
and Judith Sang!. (1986]. Can:giyersofthe FraU
Elderly: A Natjonal Profile U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service, National Center for Health Services
Research and Health Care Technology Assess­ment.
New Publications
The following publications are for
sale from the Superintendent of
Documents, U.S . Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC
20402. (202) 783-3238:
• Food Cost Variations: Implica­tions
for the Food Stamp Program.
SN001-019-00557-2. February
1988.$3.00. (68 pp.)
This report examines whether equally
needy Food ·Stamp Program
households receive equal benefits by
analyzing purchase practices and
market basket cost differences across
cities and regions.
• 1988 Agricultural Chartbook.
SN001-019-00487-8. April 1988
$15.00. (119 pp.)
The 1988 chartbook includes over 300
charts covering numerous subjects on
the farm, population and rural
development, the consumer, food and
nutrition programs, U.S. trade and
world production, and commodity
trends.
S~gle copies of the following are
available free from the Consumer In­formation
Center. Write to S. James,
Consumer Information Center-F,
P.O. Box 100, Pueblo, CO 81002.
• Medicare and Prepayment Plans.
574T. 1988. (8 pp.)
This booklet contains information on
joining Health Maintenance or Com­petitive
Medical Plans without giving
up medicare benefits, how the. plans
work, and what the plans cover.
• Grants for Research and Educa­tion
in Science and Engineering.
507T. 1987. (32 pp.)
Included in this booklet are instruc­tions
on how to submit scientific and
engineering research proposals for
National Science Foundation Grants:
• Antitrust Enforcement and the
Consumer. 595T. 1987. (17 pp.)
An explanation of enforcement of
laws governing competition in busi­ness
and how consumers can benefit is
covered in this booklet from the
Department of Justice.
Single copies of the following are
available from the Consumer Infor­mation
Center. Write to R. Woods,
Consumer Information Center-F,
P.O. Box 100, Pueblo, CO 81002:
• Health Care and Finances: A
Guide for Adult Children and
Their Parents. 459T. December
1987. $0.50. (21 pp.)
This publication is designed to identify
some common problems, raise ques­tions,
and present possible answers.
Includes the types of services that may
be available, how to find them, and the
extent of assistance provided. A list of
other resources to help families make
sound decisions is given.
• Getting Started: Establishing
Your Financial Identity. 453T.
1987. $0.50. (15 pp.)
Helpful suggestions for those starting
college or living on their own for the
first time are given in this booklet.
Also included are tips on opening
bank accounts, establishing credit,
and choosing health and life
insurance.
• Home Equity Credit Lines. 456T.
$0.50. (3 pp.)
This fact sheet gives information for
the homeowner on home equity credit.
(With this type of loan, you borrow a
certain amount of money from the
equity you've built up in your home,
and then pay it back in monthly install­ments.)
Included is a checklist which
can be used to compare loan packages
from a variety of lenders.
Vol. 1 #3 Family Economics Review 20
New USDA Charts
Chart 136
Household Debt and Saving
% of disposable income
16
14
increase rate
12
10
8
6
Saving rate •• ••••••••• .. ••••• •••• ••• •• •••• • ••• • ~ ~ , ····· .... ~. .. 4 •••••••••
1978 80 82 84 86
Deb! Increase rate equals new net liabilities divided by disposable personal Income.
Source: Federal Reserve Board and Bureau of Economic Analysis
Chart 135
Distribution of Financial Assets
Other tangible assets
Government lns:uratnc,e ______ ----c
and pensions 7.5%
Private pensions 14.6% ----
Private life insurance 2.9% -------'1~
Money market funds 2.6%----..._.
Chart 140
Median Net Worth of Married-Couple
Households
$ thousand
14.7~ Total
Under age 35
4.8 Excluding home equity
63.1~ Age35-54 -
15.9
91.2~ Age55-64 ~
32.8
90.3~ Age 65 and over c--~
37.8
1984 data. Source: Bureau of the Census.
1986 1976
Other tangible assets Include residential and nonresidential fixed assets. consumer durable&. and lnVW~tortea. 1978 money market lunda were lese than 1 percent.
Source: Federal Reaerve Board.
Vol. I #3 Family Economics Review 21
~ :-
.....
~
~
~
g~
g
~-
"' ~ "<:
~·
~
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at 4 cost levels, June 1988, U.S. average
Sex-age group
FAMILIES
Family of 2:
20-50 years ........................
51 years and over •••••••••••..•••••
Family of 4:
Couple, 20-50 years and children--
1-2 and 3-5 years ••••••••••••••••
6-8 and 9-11 years •••••••••••••••
INDIVIDUALS
Child:
1-2 years ..........................
3-5 years ••••.•••••••••••••.•.•••••
6-8 years ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
9-11 years .........................
Male:
12-14 years ••••••••••••••••••••••••
15-19 years •••••••••••••••• · ••••••••
20-50 years ••••••••••••••.•••••••••
51 years and over ••••••••••••••••••
Female:
12-19 years ••••••••••••••••••••••••
20-50 years ••••••••••••••••••••••••
51 years and over •••••••••••••••••
Thrifty
plan
$41.20
39.00
60.00
68.80
10.80
11.70
14.30
17.00
17.70
18.40
19.70
17.90
17.70
17.80
17.60
Cost for 1 week
Low-cost
plan
$52.10
50.20
74.90
88.20
13.10
14.40
19.10
21.70
24.60
25.50
25.20
24.00
21.30
22.20
21.60
Moderate­cost
plan
$64.60
62.00
91.80
110.70
15.30
17.80
24.00
28.00
30.80
31.60
31.70
29.60
25.90
27.00
26.80
Liberal
plan
$80.40
74.40
113.00
133.60
18.50
21.40
28.00
32.50
36.20
36.80
38.40
35.60
31.30
34.70
32.00
Thrifty
plan
$178.60
169.50
259.80
298.10
46.80
50.60
62.00
73.70
76.80
79.80
85.40
77.80
76.70
77.00
76.30
Cost for 1 month
Low-cost ~~erate- Liberal
plan cost plan plan
$226.10 $279.90 $348.30
217.10 268.70 322.40
324.90 398.10 489.90
382.00 479.40 578.60
57.00 66.40 80.40
62.40 77.20 92.90
82.60 103.80 121.30
93.90 121.10 140.70
106.60 133.50 156.70
110.30 137.10 159.30
109.30 137.40 166.40
104.00 128.40 154.30
92.10 112.00 135.80
96.20 117.10 150.20
93.40 115.90 138.80
Assumes that food for all meals and snacks is purchased at the store and prepared at home. Estimates for the thrifty food
plan were computed from quantities of foods published in Family Economics Review, 1984(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.
10 percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 3.
The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size families, the following adjustments
are suggested: !-person--add 20 percent; 2-person--add 10 percent; 3-person--add 5 percent; 5- or 6-person--subtract
5 percent; 7- or more-person--subtract 10 percent.
Q
tl)
t""'f'- s,
~
8.
a r
Index of Major Articles Printed in
Family Economics Review, 1979-88 1
Author
CHILD CARE
Edwards, C.S.
Edwards, C.S.
Edwards, C.S., and
Beckham, L.J.
Edwards, C.S., and
Gray, B.
Epstein, M.F.
Epstein, M.F., and
Jennings, C.L.
Jennings, C.L.
Lamar,C.G.
Pine, B.A.
Schwenk, F.N.
Shoffner, S.M.
CLOTHING
Courtless, J.C.
Courtless, J.C.
Courtless, J.C.
Courtless, J.C.
Courtless, J.C.
Courtless, J.C.
Courtless, J.C.
Courtless, J .C.
Courtless, J.C.
Courtless, J.C.
Courtless, J.C.
Courtless, J.C.
Courtless, J.C.
Dardis, R.
Dickerson, K.G.
Polyzou,A.
Polyzou, A., et al.
Polyzou, A., et al.
Title
Users' Guide to USDA Estimates of the Cost of Raising A Child
Users' Guide to USDA Estimates of the Cost of Raising A Child: Part II
Child Cost User Data Updated to 1983
The Cost of Raising Farm Children
Children Living in One-Parent Families
Child Care: Arrangements and Costs
Children in the United States
Quality Child Care and the Informed Parent
Family Day Care Pilot Program of Cooperative Extension, New York State
Child Care Arrangements and Expenditures
Child Care in Rural Areas: Needs, Attitudes, and Preferences
Clothing and Textiles: Supplies, Prices, and Outlook for 1980
Clothing and Textiles: Supplies, Prices, and Outlook for 1981
Clothing and Textiles: Supplies, Prices, and Outlook for 1982
Cost of Doing Laundry
Home Sewing Trends
Recent Trends in Clothing and Textiles
Recent Trends in Clothing and Textiles
Recent Trends in Clothing and Textiles
Recent Trends in Clothing and Textiles
Recent Trends in Clothing and Textiles
Recent Trends in Clothing and Textiles
Textile Fibers in Clothing, Home Furnishings, and Other Consumer Products
Time Spent in Sewing by Employed Women
International Textile Trade: The Consumer's Stake
Consumer Perspectives: Imported vs. U.S.-Made Apparel
Energy Consumption for Textiles and Apparel
Clothing Budgets for Farm Children, 1977
Clothing Budgets for Farm Adults, 1978
1 Some articles may be listed under more than one categ01y.
Issue
Summer I979
Winter I98I
I984 (3)
Winter I979
Winter I979
Fal/I979
Winter I979
Fall I979
Fall I979
I986 (4)
Fal/I979
Spring I980
Spring I98I
Spring I982
Winter I982
I982 (4)
I983 (2)
I984 (2)
I985 (2)
I986 (2)
I987 (I)
I988 (2)
I983 (4)
I985 (4)
I987 (2)
I983 (3)
Spring I979
Winter I979
Summer I979
Note: This index covers the last 10 years-from Winter 1979 to Vol. 1 No.3. Articles appearing in issues Winter 1979 through Spring 1982 are
cited by season and year. Year and issue number are used for the 1982 No.3 to 1988 No.2 issues. Beginning with this issue, Vol. 1 No.3, the
volume and issue number are used. Only those articles that have been authored are included in this index. A complete list of articles and
abstracts is included in the annual index.
Vol. I #3 Family Economics Review 23
ELDERLY
Hefferan, C.
Ingwersen, L.W., and
Hama,M.Y.
Pitts, J.M.
Pitts, J.M.
Pitts, J.M.
Rizek, R.L., and
Peterkin, B.B.
Ruffln,M.D.
Ryscavage, P.
Schwenk, F.N.
EMPLOYMENT
Courtless, J.C.
Hefferan, C.
Hefferan, C.
Marano, C.E., et al.
ENERGY
Meeks, C.B.
Polyzou, A.
Ruffin, M.D.
Thompson, W.
FAMILY LIVING
Ferber, M.A., and
Birnbaum, B.G.
Goebel, K.P.
Jennings, C.L.
Johnson, A. S.
Johnson, B.L.
Kobbe,A.M.
O'Neill, J.A.
Payton, I.S.
Schwenk, F.N.
Scholl,K.K.
FARM FAMILY LIVING
Kalbacher, J.Z.
Scholl,K.K.
Scholl,K.K.
Scholl,K.K.
Retirement Income
Value of Food Used in Households with Elderly Members
Economic Well-Being of the Elderly: Recommendations from the White
House Conference on Aging
Housing Alternatives for the Elderly
Planning for Tomorrow's Elderly
Food Costs and Practices of Households with Working Women and Elderly
Persons, Spring-Summer 1977
Contribution of the Family to the Economic Support of the Elderly
Income Trends ofthe Young and the Elderly
Pensions
Work-Related Transportation Costs
Employee Benefits
Unemployment: The Effects on Family Income and Expenditures
Displaced Homemakers: Critical Needs and Trends
Household Energy Use and Conservation
Energy Consumption for Textiles and Apparel
Energy-Saving Home Improvements
Residential Energy Consumption Surveys
Economics of the Family: Who Maximizes What?
Time Use and Family Life
WHCF Recommendations Relating to the Economic Well-Being of Families
Family Support Seminar
Single-Parent Families
Research Report--Major Concerns of Families
Economic Outlook for Families
Single-Parent Households: An Alternative Approach
Developments in Consumer Product Standards
The Family in the Eighties' Economy
Women Farm Operators
Classification of Women as Farmers: Economic Implications
Farm Families: Economic Outlook for 1986
Farm Operator Households Receiving Social Security Income, 1979
Winter 1981
1985 (4)
1982 (4)
1986 (3)
1986 (4)
Winter 1980
1984 (4)
1987 (2)
Spring 1981
Winter 1981
1985 (1)
1983 (1)
Sum/Fal/1980
Summer 1981
Spring 1979
Winter 1980
·Summer 1981
Sum/Fal/1980
Summer 1981
Winter 1981
Spring 1982
Sum/Fal/1980
1985 (3)
1985 (2)
Winter 1982
1984 (3)
Spring 1982
1983 (4)
1983 (4)
1986 (2)
1984 (4)
Vol. 1 #3 Family Economics Review 24
Scholl, K.K.
Scholl,K.K.
Scholl, K.K.
Scholi,K.K.
SchoU, K.K.
FINANCES
Craig, K.E.
Dunkelberg, W.C.
Epstein, M.P.
Evans, R.B.
Hefferan, C., and
Pitts, J.M.
Hefferan, C.
Hefferan, C.
Hefferan, C.
Hefferan, C.
Hefferan, C.
Hefferan, C.
Hefferan, C.
Hefferan, C.
Hogan,M.J.
Jennings, C.L.
Pitts, J.M.
Scholl,K.K.
Schwenk, F.N.
Schwenk, N.E.
Schwenk, N.E.
Shaber, S.
Talbot, M.N.
Poverty
McNeil, J.M.
Weinberg, D.H.
FOOD
Costs
Cleveland, L.E., and
Peterkin, B.B.
Farrell, K.R.
Ingwersen, L.W., and
Hama,M.Y.
Isom, P.
Jansen, L.
Junker, C.C.
Farm Women's Triad of Roles
Female Farm Landlords, 1979
Household and Farm Task Participation of Women
Income and Poverty Rates: Farm and Nonfarm Residence
The Social Security Program of Self-Employed Farm Operator Families
Family Financial Management Curriculum Sourcebook
Bankruptcy in the United States
Credit Use in the Purchase of Household Appliances
The Outlook for Consumer Credit
Consumer Spending and Saving: The Outlook for 1988
Economic Outlook for Families-1984
Economic Outlook for Families -1986
Family Budget Guidelines
Family Financial Planning- Research
Family Savings: Another Victim oflnflation?
Federal Income Taxation and the Two-Earner Couple
Household Wealth, 1962-81
New Savings and Transaction Instruments
Family Adjustments in Financial Management
EFTS-Electronic Funds Transfer Systems
Terms, Concepts, and Acronyms in Family Financial Planning
Contributions and Gifts of Cash
Reassessing Life Insurance Needs
Household Expenditures for Education and Reading
Measurements of Family Income
Consumer Spending: Recovery and Beyond
Household Transportation Expenditures
In-Kind Income-Effect on Poverty
Measuring Poverty
USDA 1983 Family Food Plans
Food Prices in 1980
Value of Food used in Households with Elderly Members
Frozen-Prepared Plate Dinners and Entrees-Cost vs. Convenience
Milk and Milk Products- Cost and Nutritional Return
Cost of Meats and Meat Alternates
1983 (1)
1985 (3)
1982 (3)
1983 (1)
1984 (3)
1983 (2)
Spring 1982
Fa//1981
Spring 1981
1988 (2)
1984 (2)
1986 (2)
1987 (4)
Spring 1981
Sum/Fall 1980
Winter 1982
1983 (3)
1984 (1)
Sum/Fa//1980
Winter 1980
1986 (1)
1986 (4)
1985 (1)
Vol. I No.3
1985 (3)
1984 (2)
Vol. I No.3
1985 (2)
1985 (2)
1983 (2)
Spring 1980
1985 (4)
Summer 1979
Sum/Fal/1980
Winter 1982
Vol. 1 #3 Family Economics Review 25
Kerr, R.L., et al.
Kinsey,J.
Kolodinsky, J.
Lippert, A., and Love,
D.O.
Odland, D.O.
Odland, D.O., and
Behlen, P.M.
Odland, D.D., et al ..
Penn,J.B.
Peterkin, B.B.
Peterkin, B.B., and
Hama,M.Y.
Ritzmann, L.J.
Rizek, R.L.,et al.
Love, D.O., et al..
Diets
Behlen, P.M., and
Cronin, FJ.
Evans, M.D., and
Cronin, F.J.
Jones, J .L., and
Weimer,J.
Junker, C.C.
Peterkin, B.B., and
Kerr, R.L.
Shaw, A.M.,et al ..
Tippett, K.S., and
Riddick, H.A.
Tong, A.
Nutrients
USDA 1983 Thrifty Food Plan
Impacts of Imports on Food Prices and Choices
Consumer Reactions to Price Savings on Food
Family Expenditures for Food Away From Home and Prepared Foods
Bulk Foods- Cost and Other Considerations
Calcium: Food Sources and Costs
Convenience and the Cost ofthe "Newer" Frozen Plate Dinners and Entrees
The Food Price Outlook for 1979
Making Food Dollars Count
Food Shopping Skills of the Rich and the Poor
Household Size and Prices Paid for Food
Food Costs and Practices of Households with Working Women and Elderly
Persons, Spring, Summer 1977'
Food Costs of U.S. Households, Spring 1977
Dietary Recommendations for Healthy Americans Summarized
Diets of School-Age Children and Teenagers
Health-Related Food Choices
Children's Diets
Food Stamp Allotment and Diets of U.S. Households
Better Eating for Better Health
Diets of American Women by Income, Spring 1977 and Spring 1985
Food Habits of Vietnamese Immigrants
Cronin, F.J. Nutrient Levels and Food Used by Households, 1977 and 1965
Enns, C.W., and Women's Food and Nutrient Intakes Away From Home, 1985
Guenther, P.M.
Guenther, P.M., and Nutrients in Foods at Home and Away
Chandler, C.A.
Pao, E.M. Nutrient Consumption Patterns of Individuals, 1977 and 1965
Pao, E.M., Mickle, S.J. Nutrients from Meals and Snacks Consumed by Individuals
Peterkin, B.B., and National Nutrition Monitoring System
Rizek, R.L.
Posati, L.P., and Rizek, Nutrient Data Base for Continuing Food Intake Survey
R.L.
Zellner, J.A., and Economic and Regulatory Policies: Implications for Nutrition
Morrison, R.M.
1984 (1)
1987 (2)
1988 (2)
1986 (3)
1986 (1)
1987 (3)
1986 (1)
Spring 1979
1983 (4)
1983 (3)
1982 (4)
Winter 1980
Fall 1979
1985 (3)
1986 (3)
Summer 1981
Winter 1979
Winter 1982
1984 (4)
1987 (1)
1986 (2)
Spring 1980
1988 (1)
Summer 1981
Spring 1980
Summer 1981
1984 (4)
1985 (3)
1988 (1)
Vol. 1 fl3 Family Economics Review 26
General
Hama,M.Y.
Hama, M.Y., and
Riddick, H.A.
Hegsted, D.M.
Lamm, R.M., and
Wescott, P.C.
Morgan, K.J.
Rizek, R.L., and
Posati, L.P.
Westcott, P.C.
Household Food Consumption, 1977 and 1965
Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1987
Nationwide Food Consumption Survey-Implications
Food Outlook
Socioeconomic Factors and Food Usage Patterns
Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals
The Outlook for Food
Spring 1980
1988 (2)
Spring 1980
Spring 1982
1988 (1)
1985 (1)
Spring 1981
HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION
Hefferan, C.
Hefferan, C.
Peskin, J.
Robinson, J.P.
HOUSING
Bird, R.
Edwards, C.S.
Edwards, C.S., and
Payton, I.S.
Elwell, L.D.
Meeks, C.B.
Pitts, J.M.
Riordan, D.P.
Schwenk, N.E.
Schwenk, N.E.
Sheehan, R.J.
Sheehan, R.J.
Summers, C.E.
Treadway, P.
Young, A.F., and
Devaney, F.J.
MISCELLANEOUS
Garner, T.I.
Goldfeld, S.M.
Hefferan, C., Tippett,
K.S.,and Pitts, J.M.
Jacobs. E.E.
Pitts, J.M.
Schwenk, F.N.
Schwenk, F.N.
New Methods for Studying Household Production
Workload of Married Women
Measuring Household Production for the GNP
Of Time, Dual Careers, and Household Productivity
Status of Housing in Nonmetropolitan Areas
Alternative Mortgage Instruments
Creative Residential Finance
Farmers Home Administration Rural Housing Programs
Housing Quality and Affordability
Housing Alternatives for the Elderly
The Outlook for Housing and Mortgage Markets
Housing Expenditures
Housing Situation of American Children
The Outlook for Housing in 1979
The Outlook for Housing
Adjustable Rate Mortgages: Consumer Information Needs
Outlook for Housing
Urban and Rural Housing Characteristics
Methodological Issues for Today and Tomorrow
The Outlook in General
Interpreting Statistical Data in Family Economics
The Continuing Consumer Expenditure Survey
Federal Consumer and Educational Publications Relating to Family
Economics
Federal Sources of Family Economic Data
Two Measures of Inflation: The Consumer Price Index and the Implicit Price
Deflator
1982 (3)
1982 (3)
1982 (3)
1982 (3)
Spring 1979
1982 (4)
1984 (1)
Spring 1979
1984 (2)
1986 (3)
Spring 1982
1988 (1)
1987 (3)
Spring 1979
Spring 1981
1985 (4)
Spring 1980
1984 (2)
Vo/.1 No.3
Spring 1981
1983 (1)
Spring 1982
1987 (4)
1986 (1)
Winter 1981
Vol. 1 #3 Family Economics Review 27
Consumer Prices
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers [ 1982-84 = 100, unless otherwise noted]
Group
All items ................................... .
Food ......................... · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Food at home .............•.•....•.......
Food away from home ••••••••••••••••••••
Housing .................................. .
Shelter ................................. .
Renters' costs ....................... .
Rent, residential ................... .
Homeowners' costs ................... .
Maintenance and repairs •••••••••••••••
Maintenance and repair services •••••
Maintenance and repair commodities ••
Fuel and other utilities •••••••••••••••••
Fuel oil and other household fuel
com modi ties • ..•....•.•.......•...••.•.
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 repairs •••••••••••••••••
Public transportation ••••••••••••••••••••
Medical care .. ..........•.........•........
Medical care commodities •••••••••••••••••
Medical care services ••••••••••••••••••••
Professional services ••••••••••••••••••
Entertainment ............................ .
Other goods and services ••••••••••••••••••
Personal care .................•..........
Personal and educational expenses •••••••
June
1988
118 .o
117.6
115.8
121.5
118.6
126.6
133.7
127.3
130.4
114.7
118.1
110.1
105.9
79.1
107.8
109.6
105.3
114.7
114.8
114.6
112.9
112.5
114.1
116.5
109.2
123.1
108.5
107.4
116.1
117.6
81.4
119.7
123.2
138.2
139.4
137.9
137.5
120.1
135.5
119.0
146.0
Unadjusted indexes
May
1988
117.5
117 .o
115.1
121.0
117.7
126.2
133.1
126.9
129.9
114.3
117.8
109.8
103.5
80.0
102.6
109.3
104.9
114.1
114.8
116.3
114.8
113.6
117.3
117.7
109.7
122.8
108.1
107.0
115.9
117 .o
81.4
119.3
122.4
137.5
139.0
137.2
136.4
119.7
135.1
118.7
145.5
April
1988
117.1
116.6
114.6
120.7
117.3
125.8
132.9
126.6
129.4
115.3
119.4
109.7
102.8
80.2
101.6
109.1
104.9
113.8
114.7
117 .o
115.5
112.9
119.6
117.1
109.4
122.6
107.2
106.0
115.6
116.6
79.4
118.8
122.4
136.9
138.1
136.6
136.0
119.6
134.8
118.5
145.2
June
1987
113.5
113.8
112.6
116.8
114.3
120.8
127.9
122.3
124.2
111.1
113.7
107.8
104.9
77.2
108.1
107.1
103.5
111.9
110.5
109.3
107.6
109.0
107.6
110.1
105.6
119.5
105.4
104.3
114.1
114.7
80.8
114.4
120.2
129.9
130.8
129.6
128.8
114.9
127.2
114.9
136.7
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Vol. I #3 Family Economics Review 28
Subscrlption Order Or
Change Of Address Form
Enclosed is$ _____ _
0 Check
0 Money order
0 Charge to my Deposit Account
No. _______ _
Order No. ______ _
Make check payable to
Superintendent of Documents
CREDIT CARD ORDERS ONLY
(Visa and Mastercard)
Total charges S
Credit card No.
Expiralion Dale Month/Year
FAMILY
ECONOMICS
REVIEW
Annual subscrlption Single copies
$5.00 domestic $2.00 domestic
($6.25 foreign) ($2.50 foreign)
Please print or type
Company or Personal Name
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Additional Address I Attention Une
I I I I I I
Street Address
I I
City
I I I
Country
I I I I
CHANGE OF ADDRESS
Please altach mailing label here and
send this form when requesting a
change of address.
MAIL ORDER FORM TO,
Supertntendentot~enb
Government Printing Otttce
Washington, D.C. 20402
Stale ZIP Code
L1J
I I I
FOR OmCE USE ONLY
Quantity
___ Publications
Charges
___ Subscriptions ___ _
Special Shipping Charges __ _
International Handling ___ _
Special Charges _____ _
OPNR
____ UPNS
____ Balance Due
____ Discount
_ _ __ Refund