|
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
Full Size
Full Resolution
|
|
CENTER FOR NUTRITION POLICY AND PROMOTION Feature Articles 2 Shirley Gerrior Income and Spending of Rural Single-Parent Families Mark lino Per Capita Income and Expenditures of Baby-Boomer Households julia Dinkins Research Summaries 40 Dollars for Scholars: Postsecondary Costs and Financing 1990-91 44 Food Spending in 1993 45 Prevalence of Overweight Among U.S. Adolescents, 1988-91 46 Expenditure Patterns of Retired and Nonretired People 49 Changing Social Security Benefits to Reflect Child-Care Years Regular Items 53 Recent Legislation Affecting Families 54 Charts From Federal Data Sources 56 Research and Evaluation Activities in USDA 58 Data Sources 59 Journal Abstracts 60 Poverty Thresholds 61 Cost of Food at Home 62 Consumer Prices 63 Guidelines for Authors UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUlTURE Volume 8, Number 3 1995 Dan Glickman, Secretary U.S. Department of Agriculture Ellen Haas, Under Secretary Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services Eileen Kennedy, Executive Director Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion Jay Hirschman, Director Nutrition Policy and Analysis Staff Editorial Board Mohamed Abdel-Ghany University of Alabama Rhona Applebaum National Food Processors Association Johanna Dwyer New England Medical Center Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University Helen Jensen Iowa State University Janet C. King Western Human Nutrition Research Center U.S. Department of Agriculture C.J. Lee Kentucky State University Rebecca Mullis Georgia State University Suzanne Murphy University of California-Berkeley Donald Rose Economic Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Ben Senauer University of Minnesota Laura Sims University of Maryland Retia Walker University of Kentucky Editor Joan C. Courtless Editorial Assistant Jane W. Fleming Family Economics and Nutrition Review is written and published each quarter by the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, U.S. Depal1ment of Agriculture, Washington, DC. The Secretary of Agriculture has determined that publication of this periodical is necessary in the transaction of the public business required by law of the Department. This publication is not copyrighted. Contents may be reprinted without permission, but credit to Family Economics and Nutrition Review would be appreciated. Use of commercial or trade names does not imply approval or constitute endorsement by USDA. Family Economics and Nutrition Review is indexed in the following databases: AGRICOlA, Ageline, Economic Literature Index, ERIC, Family Resources, PAIS, and Sociological Abstracts. Family Economics and Nutrition Review is for sale by the Superintendent of Documents. Subscription price is $7.50 per year ($9.40 for foreign addresses). Send subscription orders and change of address to Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. (See subscription form on p. 64.) Suggestions or comments concerning this publication should be addressed to: Joan C. Courtless, Editor, Family Economics and Nutrition Review, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, USDA, 1120 20th St., NW, Su~e 200 North Lobby, Washington, DC 20036. Phone(202)~16. ' USDA prohib~ discrimination in ~ programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of Communications at (202) 720-5881 (voice) or (202) 720-7808 (TDD). To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agricu~ure, U.S. Department of Agricu~ure , Washington, DC 20250, or call (202) 720.7327 (voice) or (202) 720-1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer. Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion PROPERTY OF THE LIBRARY OCT 10 1995 University of North Camlina at Greensboro Feature Articles 2 17 27 Does the 1983 Thrifty Food Plan Provide a Nutritionally Adequate Diet at the Cost Level Currently Used? Shirley Gerrior Income and Spending of Rural Single-Parent Families MarkLino Per Capita Income and Expenditures of Baby-Boomer Households Julia Dinkins Research Summaries 40 Dollars for Scholars: Postsecondary Costs and Financing, 1990-91 44 45 46 49 Food Spending in 1993 Prevalence of Overweight Among U.S. Adolescents, 1988-91 Expenditure Patterns of Retired and Nonretired People Changing Social Security Benefits to Reflect Child-Care Years Regular Items 53 Recent Legislation Affecting Families 54 Charts From Federal Data Sources 56 58 59 60 61 62 63 Research and Evaluation Activities in USDA Data Sources Journal Abstracts Poverty Thresholds Cost of Food at Home Consumer Prices Guidelines for Authors Volume 8, Number 3 1995 2 Feature Articles Does the 1983 Thrifty Food Plan Provide a Nutritionally Adequate Diet at the Cost Level Currently Used? By Shirley Gerrior Nutritionist Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion This study is an evaluation of USDA's thrifty food plan, revised in 1983. It consists of two components: (1) a review of the nutritional adequacy of the 1983 plan and (2) a partial revision of the 1983 plan adjusted for updated nutrient data and dietary standards at a specified cost level. Data used are from the 1977-78 and 1987-88 Nationwide Food Consumption Surveys and USDA's National Nutrient Data Bank. The review shows that with the exception of magnesium the nutritive value of the 1983 thrifty food plan meets or exceeds dietary standards used in the development of the 1983 plan. The 1983 thrifty food plan fails to meet current recommendations for total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol for most sex-age groups. The partial revision generates a nutritious diet that meets dietary guidance and 1 00 percent of the 1989 RDAs for all nutrients except zinc at the current thrifty food plan cost level. This evaluation identifies the limitations of the plan currently used but also shows that a nutritious plan can be developed that meets current dietary recommendations. These findings are useful to USDA researchers and policymakers as they prepare to revise the thrifty food plan. [!] he U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has prepared guides for selecting nutritious diets at different levels of cost for 70 years. Early diet guides or plans of the 1920's provided the consumer with practical and economical advice on healthy diets. In 1933, diet plans were developed at four levels of nutritive content and cost-the restricted diet for emergency use, the minimum cost diet, the moderate cost diet, and the liberal cost diet. The two lower cost plans were written for low-income families particularly affected by the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. Since then, food plans have been revised periodically to reflect up-to-date nutritive information, consumption behavior, and food prices (2). In the early 1960's, the economy food plan was designed to cost 75 to 80 percent of the USDA low-cost plan while providing a nutritionally adequate diet for families who had less money to spend on food (2). This plan was used as a basis of the food stamp allotment until it was replaced by the thrifty food plan (TFP) in 1975. The TFP was Family Economics and Nutrition Review based on the most recent information on food composition, food consumption, food costs, and nutritional requirements available at that time. The most recent revision of the TFP was published in 1983 (6). As do the more costly plans, the TFP specifies the quantities of different types of foods (or food groups) that households may use to provide nutritious meals and snacks for household members (table 1, p. 4). The assortment of foods in the plan is based on food consumption patterns of families with relatively low food costs and allows for a nutritious, palatable, and economical diet. The TFP includes larger proportions of foods that are economical sources of nutrients than do the other plans. A revision of this plan was scheduled for 1993 using 1987-88 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (NFCS) data. Definition of Terms This revision would have incorporated changes in nutritional recommendations, food composition, food consumption behavior, and food costs; however, because of nonresponse issues related to the data source, the revision was not completed (5). Historically, the NFCS has been a significant data source in the development of USDA food plans by providing two types of information: food used by households during a 7-day period and the costs for these foods; and the food eaten by individuals in the same households during a 3-day period (12). Because of the length of time between usable USDA surveys for food plan development, the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion1 (which develops the TFP) and the Food and Consumer Service (which administers the TFP) jointly approved an evaluation of the 1983 TFP. This article reports the results of this evaluation, which consisted of a review of the 1983 TFP (TFP-R) and a partial revision of the 1983 TFP (TFP-PR). Three research questions were addressed: (1) Is the 1983 TFP nutritionally adequate in terms of current dietary recommendations (TFP-R)? (2) Can a TFP be developed that meets dietary recommendations at current cost level (TFP-PR)? and (3) What are the implications of these fmdings? 1The 1983 TFP was developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Human Nutrition Information Service (HNlS), Nutrition Education Division. The Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP) was created December I, 1994. CNPP is comprised of the former Nutrition Education Division of HNIS and the former Family Economics Research Group of the Agricultural Research Service. 2Food and Consumer Service was formerly Food and Nutrition Service. TFP-83. Most recent revision of the thrifty food plan. TFP-R. Review of the TFP-83. TFP-PR. Partial revision of the TFP-83. Features of each term Dietary Sex-age Consumption Foods and Food Pounds of Term Methods standard groups patterns nutrient data group names food groups TFP-83 TFP-83 TFP-83 TFP-83 NFCS1 77-78 NFCS 77-78 TFP-83 TFP-83 TFP-R TFP-83 Updated TFP-83 NFCS 77-78 NFCS 87-88 TFP-83 TFP-83 TFP-PR TFP-83 Updated TFP-83 NFCS 77-88 NFCS 87-88 TFP-83 Recalculated 1Nationwide Food Consumption Survey. 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 3 Table 1. Thrifty food plan, 1983: Quantities of food for a week1 Children (years) Males (years) Females2 (years) Food group 1-2 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-50 51+ 12-19 20-50 51+ Pound~ Vegetables, fruit Potatoes (fresh wt) 0.47 0.82 1.04 1.11 1.29 2.22 1.50 1.55 1.27 1.16 0.90 High-nutrient vegetables 0.52 0.67 1.05 1.17 1.65 1.08 1.61 1.52 1.14 1.91 2.28 Other vegetables 0.60 0.70 0.97 1.25 1.35 1.15 1.86 1.33 1.08 2.68 2.03 Mixtures, mostly vegetables; condiments O.Ql 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.13 0.06 0.07 0.02 0.02 Vitamin-C rich fruit4 l.l9 1.24 1.32 1.62 1.08 1.17 1.13 1.00 2.02 1.73 1.35 Other fruit4 0.97 0.92 1.61 1.86 1.11 1.04 1.20 1.41 1.30 0.93 1.37 Grain products Whole-grain/high-fiber breakfast cereals5 0.44 0.33 0.17 0.24 0.38 0.27 0.17 0.13 0.30 0.12 0.17 Other breakfast cereals 0.30 0.27 0.19 0.26 0.05 0.12 0.21 0.12 0.39 0.19 0.27 Whole-grain/high-fiber flour, meal, rice, pasta 0.11 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.20 0.22 0.15 0.21 0.1 6 0.15 0.18 Other flour, meal, rice, pasta 0.88 1.23 1.85 1.73 2.15 2.34 1.81 1.87 1.32 1.81 1.32 Whole-grain/high-fiber bread 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.15 0.17 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.34 0.29 Other bread 0.38 0.65 1.01 1.27 1.68 1.33 1.85 1.33 1.04 0.59 0.29 Bakery products, not bread 0.06 0.10 0.42 0.58 0.19 0.43 0.56 0.30 0.36 0.12 0.10 Grain mixtures 0.08 0.06 O.D7 0.11 0.02 0.13 0.23 0.15 0.31 0.37 0.19 Milk, cheese, cream Milk, yogurt (qts)6 3.42 3.06 3.39 4.17 3.99 3.91 2.00 1.63 4.36 2.37 2.17 Cheese 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.27 0.29 0.32 Cream, mixtures mostly milk 0.15 0.15 0.34 0.30 0.10 0.24 0.41 0.26 0.35 O.D3 0.26 Meat and alternates Lower cost red meats, variety meats 0.93 0.69 0.70 0.92 1.20 1.49 1.40 1.73 1.75 1.60 1.95 Higher costredrreats, variety meats 0.15 0.11 0.13 0.19 0.18 0.26 0.39 0.54 0.20 0.35 0.55 Poultry 0.35 0.48 0.64 0.70 0.90 0.90 0.96 0.71 0.20 0.95 0.70 Fish, shellfish 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 Bacon, sausage, luncheon meats 0.18 0.32 0.31 0.24 0.26 0.27 0.56 0.49 0.24 0.45 0.45 Eggs (number) 3.00 2.90 1.90 2.50 2.20 3.10 4.10 4.30 4.10 4.40 4.10 Dry beans, peas, lentils (dry wt)7 0.27 0.18 0.18 0.24 0.59 0.58 0.45 0.59 0.35 0.41 0.43 Mixtures, mostly meat, poultry, fish, egg, legume 0.05 0.06 0.01 O.Ql 0.02 0.03 0.13 0.15 0.20 0.13 0.15 Nuts (shelled wt), peanut butter 0.09 0.24 0.13 0.15 0.37 0.14 0.17 0.22 0.09 0.28 0.08 Other foods8 Fats, oils 0.14 0.33 0.58 0.67 0.73 0.93 0.76 0.60 0.22 0.28 0.21 Sugar, sweets 0.10 0.36 0.78 0.87 1.20 0.95 1.01 0.76 0.31 0.21 0.22 Soft drinks, punches, ades (single strength) 0.39 0.57 0.65 0.87 0.87 1.51 1.17 0.32 1.12 0.40 0.38 1Quantities are for food as purchased or brought into the household from garden or farm. Food is for preparation of all meals and snacks for a week. About 5 percent 9f the edible parts of food is assumed to be discarded as plate waste, spoilage, etc. Pregnant and lactating females usually require added nutrients. ~uantities in pounds except milk, which is in quarts, and eggs, which are by number. 5 rozen concentrated juices are included as single-strength juice. Cereal fortified with iron is recommended. 6Quantities of dry and evaporated milk and yogurt included as their fluid whole milk equivalents in terms of calcium content. 7 Count one pound of canned dry beans-pork and beans, kidney beans, etc.-as 0.33 pound. 8Small quantities of coffee, tea, and seasonings are not shown. Their cost is a part of the estimated cost for the food plan. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service, /983, The Thrifty Food Plan, CND(Adm.) No. 365, p. /9. 4 Family Economics and Nutrition Review Data and Procedures Used in Evaluating the TFP The development of the 1983 TFP included four major steps: (1) identification of food consumption patterns from USDA consumption data; (2) determination of dietary standards based on scientific information and authoritative recommendations; (3) determination of cost limits for the plan; and (4) use of a computerized mathematical model to help develop the plan (1). This evaluation uses the same methods developed for the 1983 TFP (TFP-83) (15) but includes new dietary standards based on current recommendations (9) and updated food nutrient composition data for the analysis of food groups (11) (see figure). The dietary standards used in TFP-83 were based on the 1980 Recommended Dietary Allowances (10). The TFP-83 provided food energy at the midpoint of the RDA and 100 percent of the RDA (1,10) for protein, vitamins, and minerals, with the exception of vitamin B-6, zinc, folate, and vitamin E. The plan used a special ratio of 0.02 mg vitamin B-6 per gram of protein and Data and procedures used in evaluation of the 1983 thrifty food plan Sex-Age Groups n = 11 • ~ Food Groups Food n =31 Consumption Nutritive Values ~ Patterns ~ Quantity Limits Dietary Standards ' 1989RDAs ... Mathematical 1990 Dietary Guidelines Computer Food Plan Model ~ Pounds of Nutrients in Foods ... (Quadratic 31 Food Groups Programming) for 1 Week USDA Nutrient Data Bank ~ Other Factors • Cost Limit / • Discard Factor ~ • Palatability • 1994 Food Prices • Food Quantities Bold lettering indicates use of data from the 1977-78 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey. Italics indicates use of data from the 1987-88 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey or other updated information. 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 5 6 ... the TFP specifies the quantities of different types of foods (or food groups) that households may use to provide nutritious meals and snacks for household members. 80 percent of the RDA for zinc, folate, and vitamin E. Eighty percent of the RDA was used for these three nutrients because when TFP-83 was developed, the U.S. food supply did not provide sufficient zinc to meet RDA levels, and food composition data were insufficient and/or unreliable for folate and vitamin E (15) . Additionally, limits were placed on total fat, cholesterol, caloric sweeteners, and sodium. These limits were based, in part, on the 1980 Dietary Guidelines for Americans as well as on nutritional recommendations made by other authoritative groups (1). Because the use of a computerized mathematical model necessitates setting minimum or maximum levels for all food components, levels of these components were limited to 35 percent of total calories for total fat, 350 mg of cholesterol per day, 12 percent of calories from added caloric sweeteners, and 1,600 mg of sodium per 1,000 kcal (J). In 1989, the RDAs were revised for several vitamins and minerals (9). Recommended amounts of vitamin B-6, calcium, magnesium, iron, and zinc changed for some sex-age categories; those of folate and vitamin B-12 were lower for all categories. Additionally, RDAs were established for vitamin K and selenium for the first time. At about the same time, quantitative limits for total fat and saturated fat as a percentage Dietary Standards Used In the Evaluation of the 1983 TFP (TFP-R and TFP-PR) Dietary standards were based on the 1989 Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) (9) and the 1990 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (16). The RDAs and the Dietary Guidelines provide guidance for healthy people to use in choosing a diet that, based on current knowledge and research, will maintain and promote the health of most people. Dietary standards were established for each sex-age category. Energy was set at the average energy allowance for the appropriate sexage category. Levels of protein, vitamins, and minerals were set at 100 percent of the RDA. Levels for vitamin K and selenium were not included in the dietary standards because food composition data on these nutrients are incomplete or not available. When there was no comparable RDA sex-age category, dietary standards were derived by interpolation of RDA values. Maximum levels (minus discard factor) for total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol were limited to 30 percent of calories from total fat, 10 percent of calories from saturated fat, and 300 mg of cholesterol per day, respectively (8,14). No quantitative recommendations are suggested in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans for sugar and sodium. The dietary standards established for these components in TFP-83 were used, and no adjustments were made to the lower and upper limits of the TFP-83 consumption patterns. These "moderate" levels, which were originally defined as levels below those in the average food consumption patterns of most sex-age categories using 1977-78 NFCS data (15), were considered approximate for the exploratory nature of this analysis. 1This calculation computes the differences of the RDA nutrient amounts between the different sex-age categories and then reapportions this difference to derive the new RDA amount for tbe TFP sex-age categories. Family Economics and Nutrition Review of total calories (16) and for cholesterol intake were recommended (8,14). Dietary standards used to evaluate the TFP-83 were updated to reflect these recommendations. For TFP-83, data from the Survey of Food Consumption in Low-Income Households, conducted as part of the NFCS 1977-78 {1), were used as the basis for classifying approximately 2,400 foods into 1 of 31 food groups (table 2). The average nutritive value or nutrient profile per pound for each of these groups was calculated by weighting the nutritive value of each food in the food group by the average number of pounds reported as used by the survey households. Food composition data for these calculations were from USDA's Nutrient Data Bank (1,11). As part ofTFP-R and TFP-PR, the nutritive profile of each food group in TFP-83 was updated using food items reported by low-income households in NFCS 1987-88. Food items that had been reported as used by households in 1977-78 NFCS were matched with similar items from the 1987-88 NFCS household component. Each item was identified by a household code and linked to the most current nutrient values from USDA's Nutrient Data Base specific to that food code. In the event that a household food code used in the 1977-78 NFCS did not appear in the 1987-88 household food code, either a food item similar in nutrient composition was substituted, or if the food item was consumed in negligible amounts, that food code was excluded from the food group. The majority of the few codes excluded were foods of Puerto Rican origin. Each household code was placed in 1 of the 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 31 food plan food groups, and the average nutritive value per pound was recalculated for each group to reflect the current data. The nutritive value of each food in the food group was weighted by the average number of pounds reported as used by the NFCS 1977-78 survey households. The recalculated nutritive profile of several food groups differed in the level of calories and of specific nutrients from the nutritive proftle for the same groups in the TFP-83. These differences reflect the changes in food composition data due to technological developments, marketing practices, and improved analytical methods that occurred between the 1977-78 and 1987-88 surveys. For example, technological advances since the late 1970's increased the number of food items in bakery, cereal, fruit juice and drink, and milk product food gro~ps with nutrients added through fortification and enrichment. Different marketing practices altered the nutrient contributions of many grain, vegetable, and meat mixtures. Sweeteners and fat added to enhance the flavor of these mixtures contributed more calories and fat to the diet from these foods than previously calculated. Also, new or improved analytical methods provided more accurate data on several nutrients or dietary components. For example, the decrease in the level of cholesterol in the plan can be attributed to new analytical methods used to determine the nutrient composition of eggs (4). Additionally, since the 1977-78 NFCS, USDA's Nutrient Data Bank has expanded the survey data base to include nutrients previously omitted because of limited data. With the exception of magnesium, the nutritive value of food in TFP-R exceeded the dietary RDA standards originally specified in TFP-83. 7 Table 2. Food groups for USDA thrifty food plan1 Food group Potatoes High-nutrient vegetables2 Other vegetables Mixtures, mostly vegetables; condiments Vitamin-C rich fruit Other fruit Whole-grain/high-fiber breakfast cereals Other breakfast cereals Whole-grain/high-fiber flour, meal, rice, pasta Other flour, meal, rice, pasta Whole-grain/high-fiber bread Other bread Bakery products, not bread Grain mixtures Milk, yogurt Cheese 8 Food included White potatoes, dehydrated potatoes, mixtures, mostly potato Asparagus, bean sprouts, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, carrots, cauliflower, green peppers, leafy greens, okra, pumpkin, sauerkraut, summer and winter squash, sweet potatoes, tomatoes, turnips; tomato and vegetable juices All other vegetables including artichokes, beets, celery, corn, cucumbers, eggplant, lettuce, lima beans, mushrooms, onions, parsnips, peas, radishes, rutabagas, snap beans Catsup, chili sauce, barbecue sauce; tomato and cucumber pickles and relishes; olives; potato chips, sticks; other mixtures, mostly vegetables Cantaloupe, grapefruit, honeydew melon, lemons, limes, mangoes, oranges, persimmons, papayas, strawberries, tangelos, tangerines; citrus and citrus-blend juices All other fruit including apples, apricots, bananas, berries, cherries, dried fruit, grapes, nectarines, peaches, pears, pineapple, plums, watermelon Oatmeal, bran cereal, wheat germ, shredded wheat, granola type, puffed oats, other breakfast cereals made from whole or high-fiber grains Farina, ready-to-eat cereal other than those made from whole or high-fiber grains Whole wheat, buckwheat, soy, barley, rye, millet, peanut, carob, triticale flours and meal; mixes made from whole-grain/high-fiber flours; whole-ground cornmeal; whole-wheat pasta; popcorn; brown rice; leavenings White enriched flour, mixes made from white enriched flour, leavenings, degermed cornmeal, white enriched rice, grits, enriched pasta Whole wheat, pumpernickel, bran, rye, oatmeal, triticale breads, rolls, muffins, pancakes White enriched bread, rolls, muffins, bagels, biscuits, pancakes, waffles; cornbread; tortillas Enriched and unenriched cakes, pies, tarts, cobblers, crackers, cookies, pastries, doughnuts, pretzels, com and wheat snacks Soups, mostly grain; pizza; macaroni salad; egg rolls; Spanish rice; macaroni and cheese; spaghetti with tomato sauce; other pasta mixtures and plate meals Whole milk, lowfat milk, skim milk, buttermilk, nonfat dry milk, imitation milk and formulas, evaported milk, yogurt, chocolate milk, cocoa with nonfat dry milk Cheddar, swiss, cottage, other cheeses, imitation cheese, cheese dips, cheese fondue Family Economics and Nutrition Review Food group Cream, mixtures mostly milk Lower cost red meats, . 3 vanety meats Higher cost red meats, variety meats3 Poultry Fish, shellfish Food included Cream, half and half, sour cream, eggnog, nondairy creamers, puddings, ice cream, ice milk, milkshakes, other frozen desserts, sweetened liquid meal supplements, milk-based soups Ground beef and pork, beef chuck roast and steak; fresh and cured pork shoulder and boston butt; beef and lamb stew meat; canned corned beef, roast beef; chipped beef; organ meats such as liver, heart, kidney Most beef and veal steaks and roast; cured ham, boiled ham, spareribs, pork loin roast, pork chops; lamb chops, steaks, roast; variety meats such as brains, tongue, chitterlings Raw and processed chicken, turkey, and other poultry Raw and processed cod, perch, haddock, sole, and other fish; breaded fish portions and sticks; canned tuna, sardines, and other fish; raw and processed crab, lobster, clams, shrimp, and other shellfish Bacon, sausage, luncheon meats Bacon, salt pork, sausage; frankfurters, bologna, salami, liverwurst, other luncheon meats; fatback and other fatty meats; bacon and sausage substitutes Eggs Dry beans, peas, lentils Mixtures, mostly meat, poultry, fish, egg, legume Nuts, peanut butter Fats, oils Sugar, sweets S . 4 easomngs Soft drinks, punches, ades Coffee, tea 4 Eggs, egg substitutes Dry beans of all kinds; dry peas; lentils; soybeans and soya products Soups and mixtures, mostly meat, poultry, fish, egg, or legume (plate dinners, entrees such as hamburgers, corned beef hash, chili con came, chicken and tuna salad, pot pies, fish cakes, egg foo yung, beans and franks, etc.) Peanuts, tree nuts, peanut butter and other nut butters, seeds Butter, margarine, hydrogenated vegetable fat, lard, cooking oil, salad dressings Sugar, granulated, powdered, brown, maple; molasses syrup; honey, jams; jellies; preserves; powdered dessert mixes and prepared desserts; candy; fruit ices; chocolate syrup and topping; sugar substitutes Salt, seasoning, vinegar, extracts, spices, plain cocoa, baking chocolate Soft drinks, regular and diet; fruit ades, punches, drinks, nectars Coffee, tea 1Cost, nutrient composition, and use in meals are considered in grouping foods. 2Systematically selected for their relatively high nutrient-to-calorie ratios and content per serving of vitamin A, vitamin B-6, ascorbic acid, iron, and magnesium. 3Selected by their relative costs per unit of protein. 4Quantities of coffee, tea, and seasonings are not shown in quantities of food for a week tables, but their cost is part of the estimated cost of the food plan. 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 9 Table 3. Nutritive value1 of food in the 1983 thrifty food plan (TFP-83) as a percent of 1980 RDAs2 Children (years) Males (years) Females (years) Food component 1-2 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-50 51+ 12-19 20-50 51+ Percentage of Recommended Dietary Allowance ( 1980P Protein 238 204 202 200 202 165 159 155 182 196 186 Vitamin A 214 189 167 159 138 126 143 131 172 189 213 Thiamin 194 181 148 158 149 150 149 156 179 176 162 Riboflavin 237 207 171 175 155 150 144 145 205 176 173 Niacin 290 281 218 224 232 232 235 251 276 306 285 Vitamin B-64 154 114 955 100 101 955 855 825 975 945 965 Vitamin B-124 205 155 128 149 156 176 156 164 209 168 190 Folate4 263 156 103 975 905 865 915 845 945 925 895 Vitamin C 143 152 174 201 170 143 151 130 186 176 171 Vitamin E4 805 104 123 144 144 123 118 102 805 975 825 Calcium 100 100 120 120 100 103 115 100 100 113 104 Iron 905 115 151 136 116 123 209 194 105 100 171 Magnesium4 160 129 112 110 119 100 104 101 115 118 104 Phosphorus 144 148 168 165 153 162 203 197 143 201 188 Zinc 805 805 855 845 805 825 805 805 805 805 805 Composition of diet Food energy (kcal) 1300 1600 2100 2400 2700 2800 2700 2400 2100 2000 1800 Cholesterol4 (mg) 230 230 220 270 270 330 350 350 250 350 350 Sodium\mg) 1600 1900 2300 2700 3000 3700 4000 3000 3100 3000 2300 Percentage of energy Total fat 32 35 34 34 34 35 35 35 32 35 35 Protein 17 14 12 13 14 13 13 15 16 17 18 1Nutritive value of the edible portion of food as purchased, adjusted to allow for losses in cooking for vitamins, except folate. One-half of the drippings and trirnmable fat from meat, poultry, and fish was assumed as discard. 2Nutritive value per pound of food groups is based on the average quantities of foods used by a special group of about 4,400 low-income households (eligible for the Food Stamp Program) surveyed November 1977-March 1978 as part of the Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1977-78. 3RDA derived for specified sex-age categories by interpolation. 4Based on limited food composition data. 5 Although the plan failed to provide the RDA, it met standards specified for the plan. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service, 1983, The Thrifty Food Plan, CND(Adm.) No. 365, p. 25. Is the 1983 TFP Nutritionally specified in TFP-83 (table I) for each of With the exception of magnesium, Adequate? the 11 sex-age categories. These values the nutritive value of food in TFP-R were then compared with the revised exceeded the dietary RDA standards To determine the nutritional adequacy dietary standards to determine the originally specified in TFP-83 (tables 3 of TFP-R, the recalculated nutritive nutritional adequacy of the consumption and 4). Values for zinc, vitamin B-6, value for each food group was multi- pattern of a particular sex-age category. and vitamin E, which did not meet 100 plied by the food group quantity 10 Family Economics and Nutrition Review Table 4. Nutritive value1 offood in the 1983 thrifty food plan review (TFP-R) as a percent of 1989 RDAs2 Children (years) Males (years) Females (years) Food component 1-2 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-50 51+ 12-19 20-50 51+ Percentage of Recommended Dietary Allowance ( 1989P Protein 375 297 261 245 214 168 149 139 206 186 171 Vitamin A 262 236 210 199 180 160 180 160 213 237 265 Thiamin 223 207 187 197 180 158 155 168 205 177 174 Riboflavin 286 221 200 223 197 167 154 159 247 185 195 Niacin 186 167 149 162 153 130 141 162 159 158 164 Vitamin B-6 164 150 127 142 122 110 108 98 154 135 133 Vitamin B-12 886 593 403 409 357 390 342 351 448 362 412 Folate 547 407 295 294 238 176 179 152 231 195 184 Vitamin C 234 237 226 291 242 224 221 180 281 239 222 Vitamin E 107 118 140 146 137 136 126 106 105 110 96 Calcium 127 125 148 151 121 120 120 113 125 123 124 Iron 147 149 158 169 179 183 217 190 135 121 171 Magnesium 302 239 182 160 146 100 98 90 121 119 102 Phosphorus 156 160 182 183 160 162 183 189 154 182 185 Zinc 91 89 95 103 87 91 85 84 114 107 108 Composition of diet Food energy (kcal) 1400 1700 2300 2600 2900 3000 2900 2600 2400 2200 2000 Cholesterol (mg) 210 220 230 270 280 330 340 280 340 340 340 Sodium (mg) 1600 2000 2600 3000 3200 4000 4200 3100 3400 3300 2500 Percentage of energy Total fat 33 34 33 34 34 35 36 37 32 35 37 Saturated fat 13 12 12 12 11 12 12 12 13 13 14 Protein 17 14 12 13 13 13 13 14 16 16 17 !Nutritive value of the edible portion of food as purchased, adjusted to allow for losses in cooking for vitamins, except folate. One-half of the drippings and trirnrnable fat from meat, poultry, and fish was assumed as discard. 2Nutritive value per pound of food groups is based on the average quantities of foods used by about 4,400 low-income households eligible for the Food Stamp Program surveyed November 1977-March 1978 as part of the Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1977-78. 3RDA derived for specified sex-age categories by interpolation. percent of the revised dietary standard for some sex-age categories, met a higher percentage of the dietary standard than in TFP-83. For several of the sex-age categories, the TFP-R contained more calories than did the TFP-83. These 1995 Vol. 8 No. 3 additional calories reflect the updated food composition data used to recalculate the nutritive values for the food groups used in the TFP-R and TFP-PR. Overall, the improved nutritive value seen in TFP-R, compared with that in TFP-83, reflects the decrease in RDA values between the 1980 and the 1989 editions for several nutrientsparticularly, vitamin B-6 and zinc for selected sex-age groups-and more reliable and up-to-date food composition data. 11 12 This study shows that the TFP-83 does not meet current nutritional recommendations for several nutrients and dietary components. Although the nutritive value of TFP-R was much improved over that of TFP- 83 in terms of RDA, the TFP-R contained 100 to 300 more calories than TFP-83, and the levels of total fat and saturated fat for each of the 11 sex-age categories failed to meet current dietary guidance. In addition, fat levels for males 20-50 years of age and males and females 51 years of age and older exceeded the 1983 standard of 35 percent or less of total calories. No standard for saturated fat was established for TFP-83 so a comparison of saturated fat values in TFP-R and TFP-83 was not attempted. Cholesterol levels for all sex-age groups in TFP-R fell below the TFP-83 standard of 350 mg per day (table 4 ), with six of the sex-age groups falling below 300 mg per day. TFP-R sodium levels ranged from 1,100 to 1,500 mg per 1,000 kcal for the sex-age groups. Although the standard of 1,600 mg per 1,000 kcal is met, the caloric increase in the TFP-R's nutritive value contributed to an overall increase in sodium for all sex-age categories, except children 1-2 years old. Can a TFP Be Developed That Meets Dietary Recommendations at Current Cost Level? For the TFP-PR, a computerized mathematical model was used to generate a practical and acceptable consumption pattern for each of the 11 sex-age categories. This model, which was used in the development ofTFP-83 (1,15), minimizes the changes that households need to make in consumption patterns to meet the goal of obtaining a nutritious diet at the current cost level. Dietary standards used in TFP-83 (1,15) were updated in the model to reflect the 1989 RDAs and to include additional constraints for fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol. Recalculated nutritive values for the 31 food groups based on the 1987- 88 NFCS and USDA's Nutrient Data Bank data were used to update the nutritive value of foods in the consumption patterns of the TFP-83. No other data modifications were made to TFP-83, and average unit costs of each food group were held constant. The model compared the updated nutritive values to the revised dietary standards and made any necessary adjustments in the consumption patterns. Thus, the optimum food plan (quantities of the 31 food groups for a week) that met dietary standard constraints at the current cost was selected for each sex-age category. The TFP-PR generated by the model illustrates a possible and practical consumption pattern for each of the 11 sex-age groups (table 5). Current dietary standards are met for all nutrients and dietary components except zinc, for five sex-age categories (table 6). Although not a complete revision of TFP-83, TFP-PR represents a link of 1977-78 NFCS consumption data with up-to-date food composition information and food codes from the 1987-88 NFCS. This step is useful in determining the feasibility of generating a new TFP using current dietary recommendations. This plan is not currently used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture but represents the results of exploratory research on food plan development. Several shifts in food group quantities are apparent when comparing the TFP-PR and TFP-83. In the development of TFP-83, minimum and maximum quantities that could be included in the food plan were predetermined (15). Such limits helped to assure that the food plan would be practical as a basis for meal preparation. In TFP-83, the lower and upper limits were based on Family Economics and Nutrition Review Table 5. Thrifty food plan, partial revision (TFP-PR): Quantities of food for a week1 Children (years) Males (years) Females3 (years) Foodgroup2 1-2 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-50 51+ 12-19 20-50 51+ Poundi Vegetables, fruit Potatoes (fresh wt) 0.47 1.78 1.14 1.18 1.29 2.33 2.09 3.37 1.58 2.24 1.79 High-nutrient vegetables 0.52 1.40 1.08 1.23 1.65 1.08 1.61 3.17 1.78 2.33 3.77 Other vegetables 0.60 0.73 1.02 1.32 1.35 1.15 1.86 2.51 1.54 2.73 2.44 Mixtures, mostly vegetables; condiments 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 Vitamin-C rich fruits 1.20 1.24 1.35 1.72 1.08 1.17 1.13 1.00 2.25 1.73 1.35 Other fruits 0.97 0.92 1.61 1.91 1.11 1.04 1.20 1.41 1.41 0.93 1.37 Grain products Whole-gr:ainlhigh-fiber breakfast cereals6 0.44 0.42 0.39 0.41 0.53 0.43 0.23 0.15 0.30 0.12 0.17 Other breakfast cereals 0.26 0.67 0.52 0.63 0.85 0.42 0.37 0.24 0.49 0.19 0.27 Whole-grain/high-fiber flour, meal, rice, pasta 0.11 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.20 0.27 0.19 0.22 0.16 0.15 0.18 Other flour, meal, rice, pasta 0.09 1.37 1.29 1.14 1.95 3.08 2.30 2.20 1.71 1.81 2.03 Whole-grain/high-fiber bread O.Ql 0.24 0.12 0.14 0.34 0.17 0.27 0.45 0.24 0.34 0.29 Other bread 0.16 0.24 0.75 0.94 1.30 1.43 2.26 0.46 1.12 1.13 0.29 Bakery products, not bread 0.06 0.06 0.14 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.10 Grain mixtures 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.21 0.02 0.29 0.30 0.02 0.35 0.41 O.Ql Milk, cheese, cream Milk, yogurt (qts)7 5.21 3.25 3.20 3.45 3.13 4.64 2.55 1.27 3.42 1.68 1.54 Cheese 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.06 O.Q7 0.08 0.09 Cream, mixtures mostly milk 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.03 O.Q3 0.03 Meat and alternates Lower cost red meats, variety meats 1.08 0.92 0.70 0.92 1.81 1.49 2.23 2.18 1.38 1.60 1.95 Higher cost red meats, variety meats 0.33 0.11 0.30 0.19 0.18 0.26 0.31 0.24 0.20 0.35 0.18 Poultry 0.04 0.06 0.70 0.70 0.90 0.90 0.21 0.08 0.20 0.95 0.46 Fish, shellfish 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.35 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.33 0.04 0.04 0.04 Bacon, sausage, luncheon meats 0.18 0.18 0.24 0.23 0.26 0.27 0.33 0.23 0.24 0.22 0.20 Eggs (number) 1.43 1.43 2.24 2.45 1.91 3.34 4.46 3.70 3.93 5.13 2.29 Dry beans, peas, lentils (dry wt)8 0.27 0.29 0.21 0.24 0.71 0.47 0.73 0.88 0.37 0.42 0.42 Mixtures, mostly meat, poultry, fish, egg, legume 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.13 0.13 0.01 Nuts (shelled wt), peanut butter 0.04 O.Q7 0.05 0.01 0.15 0.10 0.34 0.21 0.05 0.16 0.04 Other foods9 Fats, oils 0.13 0.14 0.18 0.21 0.23 0.38 0.39 0.38 0.20 0.28 0.21 Sugar, sweets 0.10 0.17 0.83 0.94 0.38 0.66 0.64 0.29 0.25 0.21 0.22 Soft drinks, punches, ades (single strength) 0.16 0.23 0.65 0.87 0.35 1.51 1.17 0.13 1.12 1.01 0.15 1Quantities are for food as purchased or brought into the household from garden or farm. Food is for preparation of all meals and snacks for a week. About 5 percent ~f the edible parts of food is assumed to be discarded as plate waste, spoilage, etc. 3 see table 2 for foods in food groups. lregnant and lactating females usually require added nutrients. SQuantities in pounds except milk, which is in quarts, and eggs, which are by number. lrozen concentrated juices are included as single-strength juice. 7 Cereal fortified with iron is recommended. Quantities of dry and evaporated milk and yogurt included as their fluid whole milk equivalents in terms of calcium content. 8Count one pound of canned dry beans-pork and beans, kidney beans, etc.-as 0.33 pound. 9Small quantities of coffee, tea, and seasonings are not shown. Their cost is a part of the estimated cost for the food plan. 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 13 Table 6. Nutritive value1 offood in the partial revision of the thrifty food plan (TFP-PR) as a percent of 1989 RDAs2 Children (years) Males (years) Females (years) Food component 1-2 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-50 51+ 12-19 20-50 51+ Percentage of Recommended Dietary Allowance ( 1989P Protein 377 287 255 221 214 180 166 137 181 174 146 Vitamin A 271 346 230 211 206 167 187 249 241 258 347 Thiamin 189 250 201 200 220 196 184 174 216 187 185 Riboflavin 305 249 211 215 223 197 178 155 221 174 173 Niacin 150 200 174 178 198 159 166 172 167 169 176 Vitamin B-6 151 215 164 169 181 134 127 135 161 143 139 Vitamin B-12 1046 671 464 436 445 429 432 379 362 323 343 Folate 516 532 371 344 329 211 220 194 248 207 198 VitaminC 229 294 281 323 265 242 234 251 320 277 263 VitaminE 100 100 106 101 100 101 106 100 100 104 100 Calcium 151 124 130 122 100 133 133 100 100 100 100 Iron 121 192 190 191 239 223 258 216 144 130 190 Magnesium 307 258 184 150 140 106 113 105 117 120 112 Phosphorus 163 162 170 158 149 179 208 189 134 165 163 Zinc 95 97 100 100 99 100 100 88 100 100 95 Composition of diet Food energy (kcal) 1300 1600 1900 2100 2500 3000 2900 2300 2200 2200 1900 Cholesterol (mg) 190 150 200 230 240 300 300 250 250 300 210 Sodium (mg) 1400 1900 2600 3000 3100 3500 3600 2700 3200 3200 2600 Percentage of energy Total fat 38 25 26 26 28 27 30 30 26 30 28 Saturated fat 17 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Protein 19 15 14 14 15 14 14 15 15 15 15 1 Nutritive value of the edible portion of food as purchased, adjusted to allow for losses in cooking for vitamins. One-half of the drippings and trimmable fat from meat, poultry, and fish was assumed as discard. 2Nutritive value per pound of food groups is based on the average quantities of foods used by about 4,400 low-income households eligible for the Food Stamp Program surveyed November 1977-March 1978 as part of the Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1977-78. 3RDA derived for specified sex-age categories by interpolation. the 25th and the 90th percentiles on distributions of the food group quantity used per person by survey households. These same cut-offs were used for the TFP-PR. These limits not only assured practical consumption patterns but also restricted the use of foods such as salt 14 and seasonings, soft drinks, punches and ades, and coffee and tea. Shifts in food group quantities that occurred from TFP-83 to TFP-PR were constrained by the minimum and maximum limits set for TFP-83; however, these shifts showed the direction of change needed to meet the dietary standards is towards food groups with nutrientdense foods. For example, quantities of potatoes, high-nutrient vegetables, other vegetables, breakfast cereals, and pasta products were higher, and quantities of cream and fats and oils were lower in Family Economics and Nutrition Review the consumption patterns for some sexage categories (tables 1 and 5). The TFP-PR generated by the model represents a solution at the current cost level ofTFP-83. The cost ofTFP-83 established at the time of development (prices paid by survey households in the 1977-78 NFCS) has been updated monthly by USDA to reflect current prices paid for food using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for detailed food expenditure categories. The CPI is based on prices collected each month by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Zinc in TFP-R and TFP-PR In both components of the evaluation, zinc was identified as the nutrient least likely to meet 100 percent of the RDA. USDA applies the RDAs as a standard because they recommend a level of intake of specific nutrients designed to ensure that the needs of most healthy people are met (9). Although the zinc levels did not meet 100 percent of the dietary standard for all sex-age groups, the levels in both components of this evaluation were consistent with intakes by Americans. Zinc levels in the TFP-R and in TFP-PR were at least 84 and 88 percent, respectively, of the RDA (tables 4 and 6)-and better, in many cases, than observed consumption levels in American diets (7,13). In addition, the dietary changes associated with reducing total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol are likely to negatively affect the zinc content of the diet (3). To ensure adequate amounts of zinc in the revision of the plan, emphasis needs to be placed on incorporating a variety of food items (such as grains, legumes, more fruits and vegetables, and lower fat dairy products) that are higher in zinc but lower in fat than are included in the 1983 TFP. 1995 Vol. 8 No. 3 Summary of Findings and Implications for Research This study shows that the TFP-83 does not meet current nutritional recommendations for several nutrients and dietary components. Additionally, it identifies several limitations of this plan. These limitations include out-of-date consumption and cost data from 1977-78, dietary standards based on old (1980) RDAs, the exclusion of the limits contained in the most recent (1990) version of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans from the dietary standards, and incomplete and out-of-date food composition data. Concern about the quality of data from the 1987-88 NFCS and the absence of an alternative data source to revise the plan have been the major limitations to updating the TFP-83. Linking the food stamp allotment to a plan based on such data may not be defensible or acceptable. This evaluation is presented as a first step in the revision process of the 1983 TFP. Although exploratory, it is valuable because it shows that a plan (TFPPR) at the current cost level of TFP-83 can be generated that meets nutritional recommendations for all nutrients except zinc. These findings will be used by USDA to identify the data needs and to determine the steps necessary to revise the 1983 TFP. This process is currently underway by the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP), the responsible lead for the development of USDA Family Food Plans. CNPP and several other USDA agencies are developing strategies and a work plan for revision of the 1983 TFP. Discussion is focused on obtaining and incorporating several types of data into the revision process. These include updated survey data on household and individual consumption behaviors and food prices paid by households for food consumed; the most recent RDAs as well as the forthcoming Dietary Guidelines for Americans and Food Guide Pyramid serving recommendations; updated food composition data and access to food grouping systems for classification of foods (including mixtures) into appropriate groups; and menu and recipe planning software to assist with the production of educational materials that offer a variety of foods to lowincome consumers. 15 References 1. Cleveland, L.E. and Kerr, R.L. 1989. Development and uses of the USDA food plans. Journal of Nutrition Education 20(5):232-238. 2. Cofer, E., Grossman, E., and Clark, F. 1962. Family Food Plans and Food Costs. Home Economics Research Report No. 20. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 3. Dollahite, J., Franklin, D., and McNew, R. 1995. Problems encountered in meeting the recommended dietary allowances for menus designed according to the dietary guidelines for Americans. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 95(3):341-344, 347. 4. Gerrior, S.A. and Zizza, C. 1994. Nutrient Content of the U.S. Food Supply, 1909- 1990. Home Economics Research Report No. 52. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 6. Guenther, P.M. and Tippett, K.S . (eds.). 1993. Evaluation of Nonresponse in the Nationwide Food Consumption Survey, 1987-88. Nationwide Food Consumption Survey Report No. 87-M-2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service. 6. Kerr, R.L., Peterkin, B.B., Blum, A.J., and Cleveland, L.E. 1984. USDA 1983 thrifty food plan. Family Economics Review 1:18-25. 7. Moser-Veillon, P.B. 1990. Zinc: Consumption patterns and dietary recommendations. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 90(8):1089-1093. 8. National Research Council, Committee on Diet and Health Food and Nutrition Board Commission on Life Sciences. 1989. Diet and Health: Implications for Reducing Chronic Disease Risk. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 9. National Research Council, Subcommittee on the Tenth Edition of the RDAs, Food and Nutrition Board. 1989. Recommended Dietary Allowances, lOth ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 10. National Research Council, Committee on Dietary Allowances, Food and Nutrition Board. 1980. Recommended Dietary Allowances, 9th ed. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. 11. Perloff, B.P. 1989. Analysis of dietary data. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 50: 1128-1132. 12. Peterkin, B.B., Rizek, R.L., and Tippett, K.S. 1988. Nationwide food consumption survey, 1987. Nutrition Today January/February:18-24. 13. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service. 1993. Food and Nutrient Intakes by Individuals in the United States, 1 day, 1987-88. Nationwide Food Consumption Survey Report No. 87-1-1. 14. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service. 1992. The Food Guide Pyramid. Home and Garden Bulletin No. 252. 15. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service. 1983. The Thrifty Food Plan. CND (Adm.) No. 365. 16. U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1990. Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 3d ed. Home and Garden Bulletin No. 232. 16 Family Economics and Nutrition Review 1995 Vol. 8 No. 3 Income and Spending of Rural Single-Parent Families By Mark Uno Economist Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion In examining the economic status of single-parent families, the tendency has been to aggregate rural and urban families. This study examines the characteristics, income, and spending of single-parent families in the two areas separately using data from the 1990-92 Consumer Expenditure Survey. A significantly higher proportion of urban than rural single parents were never married. Slightly over one-fourth of single parents in both areas did not have a high school diploma. A significantly greater percentage of rural than urban single-parent families received alimony and child support, but a smaller percentage received public assistance. Before-tax income of rural families was significantly lower compared with urban families ($16,060 vs. $18,430). Housing accounted for the largest share of total expenses for both groups. A significantly higher proportion of rural than urban singleparent families owned a home, with 29 percent of all rural single-parent families residing in a mobile home. These results can give policymakers and professionals who develop programs targeted to single-parent families a better understanding of the differences in the two groups. []] ingle-parent families are a growing proportion of all families with children. In 1970, 13 percent of all family groups with children under age 18 were maintained by a single parent. By 1993, this figure had climbed to 30 percent (9). Families maintained by one parent are one of the more economically vulnerable groups in the population (13). Previous research has examined the economic situation of single-parent families by various characteristics. For a review of this research see (5). One aspect that has received little attention is rural residency; the tendency has been to aggregate rural and urban families. However, because social and economic conditions between the two areas differ (2), the economic wellbeing of rural and urban single-parent families would be expected to differ. Although a lower proportion of children in nonmetro versus metro areas reside with only one parent, the percentages have been rising in both areas (1 0). To delineate economic differences between rural and urban single-parent families, this study examines the characteristics, income, and spending of these families. Findings concerning the economic situation of rural and urban single-parent families can give policymakers and professionals who develop programs targeted to single-parent families a better understanding of the differences in the two groups. 17 18 About one in four single parents in both areas did not have a high school diploma. Data Data for this study are from the 1990-92 Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE), conducted by the Bureau of Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The CE is an ongoing study that collects data on expenditures, income, and major sociodemographic characteristics of consumer units. In this study, the terms consumer unit, family, and household will be used interchangeably. A national sample of consumer units, representing the civilian, noninstitutionalized population, is interviewed over four consecutive quarters. There is a rotating sample design such that each quarter a portion of the sample consists of new consumer units introduced to replace consumer units who complete their participation in the survey. Each quarter is deemed an independent sample and should be treated as such to incorporate the weights. Data from 12 quarters were therefore aggregated and expenditures annualized for this study. The 1990-92 survey contains information from about 60,000 interviews (5,000 interviews per quarter). Families maintained by single parents with at least one child under age 18 in the home were selected for analysis. Households were composed of parents and children only. Those with extended family members or nonfamily members, such as grandparents or cohabiting partners, were not included because single-parent families living with others are not always identifiable in the data, and families living with others do not represent the typical family type of interest. An estimated 72 percent of single-mother families are composed of parents and children only (1 5) (figures are not available for single-father families). The unweighted sample consisted of 261 single-parent families residing in rural areas and 3,642 single-parent families residing in urban areas. Rural areas are defmed as places of less than 2,500 people outside a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA); all places within an MSA and places of 2,500 or more people outside an MSA are classified as urban. For income, only data from consumer units that were classified as complete income reporters were used. Complete income reporters are consumer units that provide values for major sources of income such as wages and salary, self-employment income, and Social Security. About 86 percent of rural and urban single-parent families were complete income reporters. Data were weighted to obtain population estimates. Tests of significance (Chi-square and t-tests), however, were performed on the unweighted data and reported at the .01level. The .01level of statistical significance was selected rather than the more traditional .05 level to compensate for any possible clustering effect present in the data. Characteristics Average age of rural single parents was slightly, but significantly, older than that of urban single parents (38 vs. 35 years) (table 1). Average family size was similar between families in the two areas (2.8 and 2.9) denoting an average of two children. Twelve percent of rural single parents and 10 percent of urban single parents were male, a nonsignificant difference. No significant difference in educational level of single parents was observed between the two groups. About one in four single parents in both areas did not have a high school diploma. This Family Economics and Nutrition Review Table 1. Selected characteristics of single-parent families by rural-urban residence, 1990-92 Characteristic Average age of parent (years)* Average family size Parent Sex Female Male Education No high school diploma High school diploma 1 - 3 years of college 4 years of college or more Race* White Non-White Marital status* Divorced/separated Never married Widowed Rural 38 2.8 88 12 27 33 28 12 84 16 79 11 10 Percent Urban 35 2.9 90 10 26 36 27 11 64 36 69 26 5 *Statistically significant at IJ:S.Ol based on unweighted data. relatively low educational level has implications for the job prospects (and thus, income) of these people. With regard to race and marital status, there were significant differences between single parents in the two areas. A much lower percentage of single parents in rural compared with urban areas were non-White (16 vs. 36 percent), reflecting the lower percentage of nonWhites overall in rural areas (1). 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 Eleven percent of rural single parents were never married, compared with 26 percent of urban single parents. Rogers states that one of the factors associated with rural living is a more traditional attitude about families (10). So, while divorce may be increasingly acceptable in rural areas, a birth to a never-married woman probably is less so. Income Wages or salary was the income source most likely to be received by singleparent families in rural and urban areas (table 2, p. 20). Eighty-four percent of rural and 73 percent of urban singleparent families had wage or salary income, a significant difference. There was also a significant difference in employment status between rural and urban single parents (fig. 1, p. 20).1 A significantly higher proportion of rural than urban single parents worked part time.2 This has been attributed to the nature of employment available in nonmetro/rural areas. Opportunities for women are thought to be more restricted in rural areas, reflecting more traditional expectations of women (6). For rural families, alimony/child support/regular contributions3 was the second most likely received income source (39 percent), whereas food stamps was the second most likely received source by urban families (36 percent). Alimony/child support/regular contributions was received by a significantly lower percentage of urban singleparent families (31 percent) than rural families. The higher percentage of rural 1 Although 80 percent of rural single-parent families had an employed parent, 84 percent had wage or salary income. In some families, it may be an older child and not the single parent who is employed. Also, some parents may work only a small part of the year and not view themselves as employed. 2Full-time, year-round employment is defined as working 35 or more hours per week, 50 or more weeks per year, including any time off with pay. Part-time employment is defined as working less than 35 hours per week or less than 50 weeks per year, including any time off with pay. 3These three income sources were combined in the CE public use tape; regular contributions are periodic payments from a nongovernment, nonhousehold source, such as extended family. 19 single parents receiving income from this source may be because more of these people were divorced or separated rather than never married. Divorced or separated women may receive a child support award from the court at the time of the divorce or legal separation; nevermarried women usually need to initiate legal proceedings-and many do not. The percentage of rural and urban single-parent families receiving income from alimony/child support/regular contributions may appear low, especially since child support is included and these families had at least one child under age 18 in the home. Many single parents with children, however, are not awarded child support-and when it is awarded, the full amount due is often not paid (3). A significantly lower proportion of rural than urban single-parent families received income from public assistance (14 vs. 29 percent), such as Aid for Families with Dependent Children, and food stamps (24 vs. 36 percent; the value of food stamps received was included as income). Receipt of these two sources of income is likely inversely related to receipt of child support. Child support payments reduce the need to depend on government assistance to meet expenses. A small proportion of both rural and urban families received income from Social Security and interest or dividends; there was no significant difference between the two groups of single-parent families in tenns of these two income sources. Social Security is paid to widowed single parents since under the Social Security system, a household with a dependent child from a deceased parent is eligible for survivors' benefits. 20 Table 2. Percentage of single-parent families with income source by rural-urban residence, 1990-92 Income source Rural Urban Wages or salary 84 73* Alimony/child support/regular contributions 39 31* Public assistance 14 29* Interest or dividends 12 14 Food stamps 24 36* Social Security 10 6 Other1 28 20* 1 Includes income from pensions, Supplemental Security Income, unemployment compensation, or owned businesses. *Statistically significant at ps.Ol based on unweighted data. Figure 1. Employment status of single parents by rural-urban residence, 1990-92* Percent 38 Rural 42 20 44 Urban 29 27 • Employed full time Employed part time 0 Not employed *Statistically significant at ~.01 based on unweighted data. Family Economics and Nutrition Review Table 3. Income of single-parent families by rural-urban residence 1990-92 ' Before-tax income Per capita After-tax income Per capita Wages and salary Alimony/child support! regular contributions Public assistance Interest and dividends Food stamps Social Security Other1 Rural Urban $16,060 $18,430* 5,740 6,360* 15,460 17,330* 5,520 5,980* Percent of before-tax income 70 73* 11 3 2 3 2 9 6 7* 1 5* 2 6 I Includes income from pensions, Supplemental Security Income, unemployment compensation, and owned businesses. *Statistically significant at ~.01 based on unweighted data. Average before-tax income of rural single-parent families was 13 percent lower, a significantly different amount, than that of their urban counterparts ($16,060 vs. $18,430) (table 3). Per capita income was also significantly lower, but by a smaller amount as average family size was slightly larger for urban families. Per capita after-tax income was 8 percent lower for rural than urban families ($5,520 vs. $5,980). The income of both groups of singleparent families was much lower than that of married-couple families in each respective area. Most before-tax income for rural and urban single-parent families was derived from wages and salary, 70 percent and 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 73 percent, respectively. There was no significant difference in the amount received from alimony/child support! regular contributions between the two groups. Public assistance and food stamps composed significantly smaller amounts of before-tax income for rural than urban families. Together, these sources accounted for 6 percent of total income for rural single-parent families and 12 percent for urban families. Other sources of income, which include income from pensions, Supplemental Security Income, unemployment compensation, and owned businesses, accounted for 9 percent of income for rural families and 6 percent for urban families, amounts that were not significantly different. Public assistance and food stamps composed significantly smaller amounts of before-tax income for rural than urban families. 21 ... there was a significant difference in vehicle ownership between families in the two areas. 22 Table 4. Percentage of single-parent families with expenditures by ruralurban residence, 1990-92 Expenditure Rural Urban Housing 100 100 Food 100 100 At home 100 100 Away from home 74 74 Transportation 90 87 Clothing 86 91 Health care 66 55* Entertainment 89 82* Personal care 58 62 Education or reading 58 61 Child care 17 20 Home furnishings or equipment 60 64 Alcoholortobacco 55 54 Retirement or pensions 71 66 Miscellaneous 1 65 55* 1 Includes life insurance, cash contributions, finance charges excluding mortgages and vehicles, or occupational expenses. *Statistically significant at p:5;.0l based on unweighted data. The incomes of the families examined do not include the value of noncash benefits such as Medicaid, free and reduced-price school meals, WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children) and public housing. Such benefits would raise the effective incomes of singleparent families since they are likely to receive these benefits given their low incomes. A Census Bureau study found the poverty rate among female-headed households was dramatically reduced when noncash benefits were taken into consideration (12). It should be noted that not all people who are eligible for these benefits receive them; some people may not be aware of their eligibility and others may not wish to apply. Therefore, noncash benefits do not necessarily raise the effective income of all single-parent families eligible for them. Spending The percentages of rural and urban families incurring transportation expenses were not significantly different (table 4). Despite this, there was a significant difference in vehicle ownership between families in the two areas. Among rural single-parent families, 85 percent owned a vehicle, compared with 66 percent of urban families. The lack of public transportation in rural areas is likely the main reason for the greater vehicle ownership among families in these areas. Family Economics and Nutrition Review Table 5. Expenditures of single-parent families by rural-urban residence 1990-92 ' Expenditure Total expenditures Per capita Housing Food At home Away from home Transportation Clothing Health care Entertainment Personal care Education and reading Child care Home furnishings and equipment Alcohol and tobacco Retirement and pensions Miscellaneous 1 Rural $15,660 5,590 Urban $19,530* 6,730* Percent of total expenditures 27 32* 21 19* 17 16* 4 3 20 15 5 6* 5 4 5 4* 1 1* 1 2* 2 2 3 4* 2 2 5 6* 3 3 1 Inciudes life insurance, cash contributions, finance charges excluding mortgages and vehicles, and occupational expenses. *Statistically significant at ps.Ol based on unweighted data. A high proportion of both rural and urban single-parent families did not have health care expenses (34 and 45 percent-a significant difference). Health care expenses (including insurance premiums) only cover those made out-of-pocket. Whether zero out-ofpocket health care expenses translates into no health insurance coverage is unknown. Some of these families may have employer-provided insurance that covers all medical expenses. Others may depend on government programs, such 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 as Medicaid, or nonprofit organizations to provide health care. Still, it is likely that some of these families do not have any type of health insurance coverage and go without medical care altogether. A low proportion of families in rural and urban areas had child care expenses (17 and 20 percent-a nonsignificant difference). This may seem surprising given that most single parents in both areas were employed. A large proportion of child care for preschool children, however, is provided by relatives who likely are not paid (7). Children in single-parent families may also be more likely to remain home alone after school. In addition, those parents who work part time may do so to be home when their children return from school. Retirement or pension expenses, which include Social Security deductions (Social Security deductions are considered an expense in the CE and are not subtracted from after-tax income), were incurred by 71 percent of rural and 66 percent of urban single-parent families, a nonsignificant difference. For families in both areas, these percentages are lower than the proportion of employed parents. For example, 80 percent of rural single parents were employed, but 71 percent of rural single-parent families had retirement or pension expenses. Some single parents who were employed part time may not have retirement benefits. Also, single parents may be employed through informal arrangements without retirement coverage. Total expenditures averaged $15,660 for rural single-parent families and $19,530 for their urban counterparts, a significant difference (table 5). The total expenses of rural families slightly exceeded their after-tax income (by about $200); however, the expenses of urban families exceeded their after-tax income by 13 percent. The discrepancy between income and expenses may reflect underreporting income, incurring debt or using savings to cover expenses, or reporting expenses paid by others. 23 Housing accounted for the largest share of total expenses for single-parent families in rural and urban areas (27 and 32 percent) but made up a significantly larger amount for urban than rural families. It should be noted that for homeowners, the shelter component of housing expenses includes only mortgage interest and not principal payments; mortgage principal payments are considered a form of savings in the CE. The effective housing expenses of families would therefore be higher than those reported here. There was a significant difference in the housing tenure of single-parent families in the two areas. Only 30 percent of urban single-parent families owned their homes, compared with 57 percent of rural families (fig. 2; this also implies that overall housing expenses of rural, compared with urban families would be higher than reported here). Part of this difference may be explained by the type of housing. Twenty-nine percent of rural single-parent families resided in a mobile home, compared with only 5 percent of urban families, a significant difference (fig. 3). The cost of a mobile home is much less than other forms of housing; the average price of a mobile home was $28,400 in 1992 (14). Food made up the second largest share of total expenses for rural and urban single-parent families (21 and 19 percent- amounts that were significantly different), followed by transportation (20 and 15 percent-amounts that were not significantly different). Although food expenses include the value of food stamps spent, the value of other benefits received from food programs, such as WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition 24 Figure 2. Housing tenure of single-parent families by rural-urban residence, 1990-92* 43o/o Rural Urban Own D Rent *Statistically significant at pS.01 based on unweighted data. Program for Women, Infants, and Children), are not included. Given their lower income, single-parent families are more likely than other family types to receive these benefits so their effective food expenses are likely greater. Other components of the budget each made up less than 10 percent of total expenditures for both rural and urban single-parent families. Clothing accounted for 5 percent of total expenses for rural families and 6 percent for urban families, amounts that were significantly different. Health care accounted for 5 percent of total expenses for rural families and 4 percent for urban families, amounts that were not significantly different. Again, health care only includes outof- pocket expenses and not that portion covered by insurance or other programs. Child care accounted for just 2 percent of total expenses; there was no significant difference in expenses between families in the two areas. This figure is somewhat misleading as it includes families with and without the expense, and many people did not have childcare expenses; for only those with the expense, the percentage would be much higher. Alcohol and tobacco also accounted for 2 percent of total expenses, and there was no significant difference in these expenses between families in the two areas. Retirement and pensions made up 5 to 6 percent of total expenses for families in both areas and were significantly higher for urban families. Family Economics and Nutrition Review Figure 3. Type of housing inha~ited by single-parent families by rural-urban residence, 1990-92 * 56% Rural Urban • Single-family detached • Mobilehome D Other (apartment/ town house, etc.) 11ncludes both owners and renters. "Statistically significant at ~.01 based on unweighted data. Discussion This study found similarities and differences between rural and urban single-parent families with regard to sociodemographic characteristics and economic status. In terms of similarities, single-parent families in rural and urban areas had a low average income. This low income was exacerbated by the low educational level and work-force participation of single parents. Slightly over one-fourth of rural and urban single parents did not have a high school diploma. Although most rural and urban single parents were employed, 20 to 27 percent were not. A high proportion were employed part time-42 percent of rural single parents. However, wages or salary still accounted for most of 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 before-tax income. Therefore, policies or programs that help single parents move into the labor force and increase their earnings potential would be most effective in improving their economic status. Despite having dependent children in the household, most rural and urban single parents did not receive child support. This compounds the poorer economic status of single-parent families. The receipt of child support payments that reflect adequate expenses on a child would alleviate the poorer economic status of these families. It has been claimed that better child support enforcement may do more to ameliorate poverty among rural children than community economic development (4). Housing, food, and transportation accounted for about two-thirds of total expenditures for rural and urban singleparent families. It is not surprising that these necessities made up such a large part of the budget given the poorer economic circumstances of these families. A large proportion of singleparent families in both areas reported no health care expenditures. Although these expenses may be fully covered by an employer or government program, it could be that some families are going without health care. This may be the case, especially for rural single-parent families, since health care is typically more expensive and there is a shortage of medical personnel in rural areas (11). More research on the health care situation of rural and urban single-parent families is needed. The income of rural families was significantly lower than that of urban families. When cost-of-living differences between rural and urban areas are taken into account, whether rural single-parent families are still worse off is unknown. Although rural areas are thought to have a lower cost of living than urban areas, no index in the United States has ever measured costof- living differences between rural and urban areas (2). Future research needs to examine cost differences between rural and urban areas to determine its effects on the economic status of families in the two areas. 25 The higher income of urban singleparent families partly reflects the significantly greater percentage of such families receiving public assistance and food stamps. After subtracting average public assistance and food stamp income from the total income of urban single-parent families, their income was still slightly above that of their rural counterparts. Perhaps some rural singleparent families are eligible for public assistance or food stamps but are not receiving these benefits. Research has shown that rural residents are less likely than urban residents to possess accurate eligibility information and to hold more adverse attitudes toward the use of welfare (8). If they are indeed eligible, some rural single parents may also be missing out on job training programs associated with public assistance programs such as Aid for Families With Dependent Children. There was a significant difference in the type of housing inhabited by rural and urban single-parent families. A substantial proportion of rural families lived in mobile homes. Recent natural disasters in the United States have focused attention on the safety of mobile homes. Since so many rural single parents and their children reside in these homes, it is imperative that safety standards be established and enforced. 26 References 1. Dacquel, L.T. and Dahrnann, D.C. 1993. Residents of Fanns and Rural Areas: 1991. Current Population Reports, Population Characteristics. P20-472. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2. Hoppe, R.A. 1993. The Family Support Act, our beliefs, and rural America. In R.A. Hoppe, ed. The Family Support Act: Will It Work in Rural Areas? Rural Development Research Report No. 83. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 3. Lester, G.H. 1991. Child Support and Alimony: 1989. Current Population Reports, Consumer Income. Series P-60, No. 173. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 4. Lichter, D.T. and Eggebeen, D.J. 1992. Child poverty and the changing rural family. Rural Sociology 57(2): 151-172. 5. Lino, M. 1994. The economics of single parenthood: Past research and future directions. Marriage and Family Review 20(1/2):99-114. 6. McLaughlin, D.K. and Sachs, C. 1988. Poverty in female-headed households: Residential differences. Rural Sociology 53(3):287-306. 7. O'Connell, M. and Bachu, A. 1990. Who's Minding the Kids? Child Care Arrangements: 1986-87. Current Population Reports, Household Economic Studies. Series P70, No. 20. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 8. Rank, M.R. and Hirschi, T.A. 1993. The link between population density and welfare participation. Demography 30(4):607-622. 9. Rawlings, S.W. 1994. Household and Family Characteristics: March 1993. Current Population Reports, Population Characteristics. P20-477. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 10. Rogers, C. C. 1991. The Economic Well-Being of Nonmetro Children. Rural Development Research Report No. 82. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 11. Rural Sociological Society Task Force on Persistent Rural Poverty. 1992. Persistent Poverty in Rural America. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 12. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1993. Measuring the Effect of Benefits and Taxes on Income and Poverty: 1992. Current Population Reports, Consumer Income. Series P60-186RD. 13. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1993. Poverty in the United States: 1992. Current Population Reports, Consumer Income. Series P60-185. 14. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1993. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1993 (113th ed.) 15. Winkler, A.E. 1993. The living arrangements of single mothers with dependent children: An added perspective. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 52(1):1-18. Family Economics and Nutrition Review 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 Per Capita Income and Expenditures of Baby-Boomer Households By Julia M. Dinkins Consumer Economist Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion The 1992 Consumer Expenditure Survey was used to examine per capita income and expenditures for various types of households-single-parent, husband-wife only, husband-wife-child, single-person, and extended-member households-headed by baby boomers (those born between 1946-64). Per capita comparisons were undertaken because average household size ranged from one to four people. Single-parent households had significantly lower per capita income than other households. Per capita income was $6,474 for single-parent households, compared with $9,390 for extendedmember, $11,731 for husband-wife-child, $25,987 for husband-wife only, and $27,090 for single-boomer households. Single-parent households had 76 percent of income from earnings, whereas other baby-boomer households received 91 to 98 percent of their income from wages and salaries. Single-parent boomers were more likely than others to receive public assistance income. They had significantly lower expenditures than households composed of husband-wife only, husband-wife-child, and single persons. Results are useful to professionals who help families allocate their limited resources and to policymakers who evaluate the impact of different income sources used by families (especially single parents) to meet their day-to-day needs. [I] n 1992, 26 percent of all U.S. households were married couples with children, 29 percent were married couples without children, 25 percent were single persons, 9 percent were other families with children, 6 percent were other families without children, and 5 percent were nonfarnily households (4). Demographic trends indicate that the number of U.S. households headed by baby boomers (born 1946-64) has increased. In 1980, 14.0 million households were headed by boomers. By 1991, that number had risen to 21.3 million-the largest increase among householders of any age group (6). In 1993, this cohort was 30 percent of the population. At the tum of the century, there will be 76.8 million boomers (28 percent of the U.S. population) and when they are between 46 and 64 years old (2010), their number will decline to 74.2 million or 25 percent of the population (2). When boomers join the ranks of the elderly after 2010, Census estimates that the percentage of elderly will increase from 40.1 to 70.2 million (2). The size of the aging baby-boomer generation will affect its ability to meet health care needs and to borrow on the home's value equity. The uncertainty of 27 financial support systems such as Social Security, pensions, and in-kind income for health expenditures increases concern about this group's future wellbeing. Thus, it is important to study the current status of this large segment of the U.S. population. Marital status and presence of children are important factors in determining boomers' current and future economic well-being (1,3). Using the Survey of Consumer Finances data, a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) (1) study showed that unmarried boomers tend to have lower wealthl-to-income ratios and lower wealth than married-couple boomers. The CBO study found that among boomers with and without children, a higher percentage of the unmarried compared with the married had median wealth that was less than median income (fig. 1). Younger boomers were more likely than older boomers to have less wealth than income. Because the economic situation varies by household types, examination of per capita income and expenditures may indicate which households in the boomer cohort are economically vulnerable and thus less likely to accumulate wealth. Household types include single parent; husband and wife only; husband, wife, and children; single person; and extended members.2 Because reports 1Wealth includes " ... liquid as well as illiquid financial assets such as individual retirement accounts (IRA' s) or Keogh plans; the value that can be borrowed against employer-provided pension accounts; the value of any housing, land, and automobiles owned less the debt owed to them; less other nonhousing liabilities such as credit-card debt" (1, p. 12). 2Extended-member households are those with two or more related or unrelated people, excluding those that consist solely of married couples, married couples with own children, or single parents with own children. 28 Figure 1. Percentage of baby boomers with median wealth less than median income, 1989 No children present Younger boomers 1 Median income* $26 45 Older boomers 2 29 51 Children present Younger boomers 1 13 35 Older boomers 2 21 46 • Married • Unmarried 1Age 25-34. 2Age 35-44. *$ thousands. Source: The Congress of the United States, Congressional Budget Office, 1993, Baby Boomers in Retirement: An Early Perspective. generally indicate that single-parent households tend to be at greater economic risk than others, single-parent boomers will be compared with the other households. Per capita income and expenditure data are reported because comparisons are made among households of different average sizes. Source of Data and Sample Data for this study are from the interview component of the 1992 Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (7). The CE is an ongoing survey that collects data on household expenditures, income, and major socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. A national sample of Family Economics and Nutrition Review consumer units is interviewed once each quarter for five consecutive quarters; the first interview is used only for bounding3 purposes. Using a rotating sample design, about one-ftfth of the sample is replaced each quarter. Each year of CE data contains information for about 20,000 quarterly interviews. lncome4 data are annual, and quarterly expenditure data are multiplied by four to provide estimates of annual expenditures. Because of confidentiality restrictions, some income and expenditure data are subject to topcoding. The data are weighted to represent the U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized population. In 1992, there were 20,796 consumer units,S with 8,841 having reference 3Demographics, family characteristics, and a !-month recall of expenditures are collected in this interview. Expenditure data from this interview are used to prevent the reporting of expenditures for an indefinite period in the past. "'ncome is the combined income of all consumer unit members, 14 years of age or over, during the 12 months preceding the interview. Money income before taxes includes the following components: Wages and salaries; self-employment income; Social Security, private and government retirement; interest, dividends, rental income, and otber property income; unemployment and workers' compensation and veterans • benefits; public assistance, supplemental security income, and food stamps; regular contributions for support; and other income (e.g., care of foster children; cash scholarships, fellowships, or stipends; meals and rent as pay). 5 A conswner unit consists of eitber: (I) all members of a particular housing unit who are related by blood, marriage, adoption, or other legal arrangements; (2) two or more people living together who pool their incomes to make joint expenditure decisions; or (3) a person living alone or sharing a household with others or living as a roomer in a private home or lodging house or in permanent living quarters in a hotel or motel, but who is financially independent. To be considered financially independent, at least two of the three major expense categories (housing, food, and other living expenses) have to be provided by the respondent. In this article, consumer unit and household are used interchangeably. 1995 Vol. 8 No. 3 persons6 between 28 and 46 years old (members of the baby-boom cohort). Chi-square tests of independence and one-way analysis of variance were used to analyze the unweighted data. Differences were tested at p~.Ol. Characteristics of BabyBoomer Householders Table 1 shows the distribution of CE householders by age and family type. Boomer householders (28 to 46 years old) were significantly more likely than householders of other ages to be parents-either married with children or a single parent. Table 2, p. 30, shows the distribution of boomer respondents by socioeconomic 6Reference person is the first family member mentioned by the survey respondent when asked to "start" with the name of the person or one of the persons who owns or rents the home. The relationship of all other consumer unit members is determined by this person. The reference person may be the respondent. In this article, householder and reference person are used interchangeably. and demographic characteristics and consumer unit type. Chi square results indicate significant differences across households. Discussion of one-way ANOV A results focuses on significant differences between single parents and other households. Race Findings show a relationship between boomers' race and household type. A significantly higher percentage of White boomers lived in husband-wife and husband-wife-children households than in other types of consumer units. In contrast, Black boomers were less likely to live in these consumer units and more likely to live in single-parent, single-person, or extended-member households.? 7Extended-member households are those with two or more related or unrelated people, excluding those that consist solely of married couples, married couples with own children, or single parents with own children. Table 1. Distribution of consumer units, 1992 Variables Total Age (years)* Less than 28 28-46 47-65 66+ Single parent 1,392 9 12 2 0 Husband, wife only 4,308 11 11 32 37 Consumer unit Husband, wife, children 5,877 Percent 17 44 23 14 Single person 5,923 45 20 23 47 Extended member1 3,296 18 13 20 12 *Statistically significant at p<.Ol based on Chi-square analysis of unweighted data. 'Extended-member households are those with two or more related or unrelated people, excluding those that consist solely of married couples, married couples with own children, or single parents with own children. 29 Table 2. Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of baby-boomer respondents, by consumer unit, 1992 Variables Sample size Average household size2 Average number of vehicles2 Average number of earners 2 Respondent Race* White Black Asian and other3 Gender* Female Male Education* Less than high school High school Some college College graduate and more Occupation* Managerial and professional Technical, sales, administrative support and service Other4 Not working and retired5 See notes at end of the table. Gender Census data for 1990 indicate that 69 percent of all householders are male and 31 percent, female (5). CE respondents (householders) are those who own or rent the home. Sixty-four percent of householders were males and 36 percent were females. Results show there is a significant relationship between respondents ' gender and household type. Females were more likely to be 30 Consumer unit Single Husband, Husband, Single Extended parent wife only wife, children person member1 1,040 929 3,999 1,669 1,204 3.00 2.00* 1.06 2.51 * 1.03 1.85* 69 91 29 5 2 4 89 15 11 85 22 12 36 26 29 22 13 40 21 35 39 25 15 36 25 4 identified as respondents in singleparent households (89 percent). Eightyfive percent of the households identified as having husbands (husband-wife only and husband-wife-children) specified the male as the respondent. People living alone were more likely to be male than female, and respondents in extendedmember households were more likely to be males, also. 4.08* 1.00* 3.86* 2.56* 1.35* 2.28* 1.94* .93 2.06* Percent 89 82 76 7 15 19 4 3 5 15 39 45 85 61 55 13 11 24 32 22 32 25 27 24 30 40 20 30 33 21 26 31 34 37 29 35 7 7 10 (table continues) Education Education and household type were significantly associated. Respondents in single-parent (42 percent) and extendedmember ( 44 percent) households were less likely than other respondents to report having any college education. Single boomers were better educated than other boomers. Sixty-seven percent of single boomers had some college education, as did 62 percent of respondents Family Economics and Nutrition Review Table 2. (Continued) Variables Household Number of earners* None One Two Three and more Before-tax income* <$10,000 $10,000- $19,999 $20,000 - $29,999 $30,000-$39,999 $40,000+ Not reported Region* Urban Northeast Midwest South West Rural Single parent 22 60 13 5 29 27 15 10 9 10 21 25 30 Husband, wife only 0 14 86 NA 2 8 11 11 54 14 19 19 28 17 17 Consumer unit Husband, wife, children 24 59 16 4 8 12 14 48 14 19 22 26 18 15 Single person 7 93 NA NA 15 17 21 15 18 14 19 18 31 23 9 Extended member1 3 20 54 23 9 15 18 15 31 12 19 18 28 24 11 *For continuous variables, the Scheffe computed on F ratios with ps.Ol was used. For categorical data, Chi-square with ~.01 was used. Unweighted data used. 1 Extended-member households are those with two or more related or unrelated people, excluding those that consist solely of married couples, married couples with own children, or single parents with own children. 2Single parents are compared with other consumer units. 3Consists of Asian and Pacific Islander; Native American, Aleut, and Eskimo; and other. 4Consists of fanning, forestry, and fishing; precision production, craft and repair, operators, fabricators, and laborers; the Armed Forces; self-employed; and other. 50niy four boomer respondents were retired. NA =Not applicable. in husband-wife only households and 55 percent of those living with a spouse and children. Compared with other boomer respondents, those living as singles and couples without children were more likely to be college graduates (40 percent each). 1995 Vol. 8 No. 3 Occupation Respondents living in single-parent households (39 percent) were significantly more likely than those living in other boomer households (25 to 34 percent) to work in sales and service occupations. Also, one in four singleparent respondents reported not working (or retiredB)-a much higher percentage than that reported by respondents living in other types of households. 80niy four boomer respondents were retired. 31 32 Compared with other boomers, single-parent boomers spent significantly less overall on a per person basis ... Figure 2. Number of earners in baby-boomer households, by consumer unit type, 1992* 23% Single parent Husband, Husband, wife, Single person Extended wife only children member •None •one Two 0 Three or more *Statistically significant at ps.01, unweighted data. Number of Earners One-way ANOV A results indicated that the number of earners in single-parent households was significantly lower than the number in households with couples (with and without children) and extended- member units. A majority (60 percent) of single-parent households reported one earner (table 1 and fig. 2). About one in five single-parent households (22 percent) had no earners. This was a much higher rate than found for the other household types. Most people living alone were earners (93 percent). The remaining household types were more likely to report two earners than zero, one, or three or more; marriedcouple boomers without children were most likely to claim two earners-86 percent, compared with 59 percent of husband-wife-children households and 54 percent of extended-member households. Region Region and household types were significantly related. Most of the boomer respondents lived in urban areas of the United States. A higher percentage lived in the urban South9 than in the other regions-regardless of household type. Single-parent households were 9 According to the 1992 CE, a higher percentage of total households live in the South-urban South, 28 percent; urban Midwest, 21 percent; urban West, 18 percent; urban Northeast, 19 percent; and rural areas, 14 percent. Family Economics and Nutrition Review Figure 3. Housing characteristics of baby-boomer respondents, by consumer unit type, 1992* Homeowners Type of housing unit Single-family detached Multiunit Other 1 80% 75% 54% D Husband, wife only Husband, wife, children • Single parent • Single person • Extended member *Statistically significant at ~.01, unweighted data. 1Mobile homes or trailers and other. more likely to reside in the Northeast and Midwest, compared with other household types. They were less likely than other households to live in the West or in rural areas. Single-person and extended-member households were more likely than others to live in the urban West. Couples with and without children were more likely than other boomer respondents to live in rural areas. 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 Housing Figure 3 shows the housing characteristics of households headed by baby-boomer respondents. A significant difference existed between housing tenure and boomers' household types. Boomers in single-parent and single-person households were more likely to be renters (66 and 64 percent, respectively) than those living in other types of households. Single-parent households were as likely to live in a single-family detached housing unit as in a multiunit housing structure. A majority of couples with and without children were homeowners (75 percent and 71 percent, respectively). Couples with children were more likely than other boomers to live in single-family detached units (80 percent), and single boomers were more likely than other boomers to reside in multiunit structures (54 percent). Few (5 to 12 percent) of the boomer respondents resided in units other than single-family detached or multiunit structures. Compared with other boomers, couples with children lived in significantly large housing units: 8.4 rooms (including baths), compared with 7.4 (couples without children), 7.2 (boomers in extendedmember households), 6.7 (single parents), and 5.8 (single boomers). 33 34 Although not the largest household, single-parent boomers had significantly smaller average before-tax per capita income than the other boomer households. Income and Income Sources Boomers likely to have a before-tax family income below $20,000 were single parents (56 percent), single persons (32 percent), and those in extendedmember households (24 percent) (table 2). Boomer couples with and without children were more likely than others to have before-tax income of $30,000 or more. Single-parent boomers had significantly lower income than other households. Single-parent boomers had an average 1992 before-taxlO family income of $19,422 (table 3). Couples with and without children had more than twice as much. Because household size differed significantly across households (table 2), per capita data are reported. Although not the largest household, single-parent boomers had significantly smaller average before-tax per capita income than the other boomer households. Per capita income of couples with children (average family size=4.1) was nearly double that of the single parents (average family size=3.0) ($11,731 vs. $6,474) (fig. 4, p. 36). Single boomers and couples without chlldren-the smaller households-had average per capita incomes of$27,090 and $25,987, respectively. Thus, it appears that among these households, single-parent boomers had much less income on a household and per capita basis. Family income for boomers was derived mostly from earnings. Except for singleparent households that had 76 percent of income from earnings, baby boomers received 91 to 98 percent of their income 10 Averages calculated for the 87 percent of consumer units that reported major sources of income. in wages and salaries. Single parents received 12 percent of their income from public assistance and 8 percent from alimony, child support, and other regular contributions. 11 Significantly smaller percentages of single-parent boomers than other boomer households received any income from earnings; interest and dividends; and unemployment and workers' compensation and veterans' benefits. Single-parent boomer households were significantly more likely to receive income from public assistance; and alimony, child support, and other regular contributions than were other boomer households. The dollar shares of public assistance income received from different sources by boomer households are presented in figure 5, p. 37. Single-parent boomer households were more likely to receive welfare and food stamp income than other public assistance income. Couples with and without children were more likely to receive unemployment and workers' compensation and veterans' payment income than other public assistance income. Figure 5 also shows that extended-member households were as likely to receive welfare income as unemployment and workers' compensation and veterans' payment income. 11For other regular contributions, the question asked was, "During the past 12 months, did you (or any member of your CU [consumer unit]) receive income from any of the following .... Income from regular contributions from ... other sources such as from persons outside the CU?" Family Economics and Nutrition Review Table 3. Income sources of consumer units headed by baby-boomer respondents,lt992 Single Husband, wife Husband, Single Extended Income sources parent2 only wife, children person membei3 Sample size 924 797 3,422 1,431 1,049 Average total before-tax income $19,422 $51,973* $47,864* $27,090* $36,244* Average total before-tax per capita income 6,474 25,987* 11,731 * 27,090* 9,390* Earnings 14,821 50,877* 46,011 * 25,724* 32,878* Interest, dividends 115 323 522* 303 169 Pensions, annuities 127 155 140 83 269 Social Security, Railroad Retirement 397 148* 175* 273* 995* Public assistance 2,419 373* 780* 472* 1,565* Supplemental Security Income 221 46* 55* 107* 260 Welfare 1,207 15* 83* 28* 488* Food stamps 786 15* 90* 25* 319* Unemployment and worlcers' compensation, 205 297 553* 313 498 and veterans' payments Alimony, child support, 97* 236* 235* 369* other regular contributions Percent receiving income4 Earnings 77 99* 98* 92* 95* Interest, dividends 14 38* 33* 31* 18 Pensions, annuities 2 4 Social Security, Railroad Retirement 2 5 14 Public assistance 40 11* 17* 17* 30* Supplemental Security Income 5 6 Welfare 27 3* 10* Food stamps 33 4* 13* Unemployment and workers' compensation and veterans' payments 6 10 12* 10* 15* Alimony, child support, 36 5* 4* 12* other regular contributions 1 For the 87 percent of consumer units that reported major sources of income. 2Single parents are compared with other consumer units. . . . . 3Extended-member households are those with two or more related or unrelated people, excluding those that consist solely of mamed couples, mamed couples with own children, or single parents with own children. "The percentage within each consumer unit that received income from each source. -N is too small to report. *Unweighted data were used with the Scheffe computed on F ratios with J>!>.Ol. 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 35 Per Capita Expenditures for Consumer Units Headed by Baby-Boomer Respondents Compared with other boomers, singleparent boomers spent significantly less overall on a per person basis ($7,138) (table 4, p. 38). Couples without children and single persons spent 2-112 to three times as much per capita. Housing Housing is a large expenditure for all families. On a per capita basis, singleparent boomers spent significantly less ($2,612) than all other boomers except those in extended-member households. In fact, single persons and couples without children spent two to three times more per person than did single parents. Single-parent and single-person boomer households spent larger shares of their total per capita expenditures on housing (37 percent each), followed by couples with children (33 percent), couples without children, and boomers in extendedmember households (32 percent each) (table 5, p. 38). Food Compared with couples without children and single-boomer respondents, single-parent boomers had significantly lower per capita expenditures for total food ($1,310) and food at home ($1,076). Compared with couples with and without children and single persons, single parents had a significantly lower per capita expenditure for food away from home ($234). Single-parent boomers and boomers in extended households spent 18 and 17 percent, respectively, of their total per capita expenditure for food. Couples with children spent 15 percent and I 36 Figure 4. Average per capita before-tax income of baby-boomer households, 1992* Single parent Husband, wife only Husband, wife, children Single person Extended member $0 5 *Significantly different, F ratio with p,.::;.01. couples without children and single persons, 14 percent each. The percentage of total per capita expenditure spent for food at home ranged from 15 percent (single parents) to 9 percent (single persons and couples without children). The percentage spent for food away from home ranged from 5 percent (couples only and single persons) to 3 percent (couples with children and single parents). Transportation On a per-person basis, single-parent boomers had significantly lower expenditures for transportation ($1,229) than other boomers (table 4). Single persons and couples without children spent about triple this amount ($3,659 and $3,461, respectively). Single parents, 10 15 20 25 30 $thousands single persons, and couples with children spent similar shares of total per capita expenditure on transportation ( 17 to 18 percent). Compared with others, boomer couples without children and those in extended-member households spent larger shares of their total per capita expenditure for transportation (20 percent each). One factor that influences transportation expenditures is the number of vehicles owned or leased. Single parents had significantly fewer vehicles than boomers in other households. On average, the number of vehicles ranged from 1.1 (single parents) to 2.6 (couples with children). Single boomers owned 1.4, those in extended families owned 2.3, and couples without children owned 2.5 vehicles. Family Economics and Nutrition Review Figure 5. Dollar shares of public assistance received by consumer units headed by baby-boomer respondents, 1992 $2,419 $373 $780 $472 $1,565 32% 80% 71% 66% Single parent Husband, wife only Husband, wife, Single person Extended children member • Supplemental Security Income Apparel • Welfare Single-parent boomer respondents spent $407 on apparel for each person. This was significantly lower than the amount spent by husband-wife only ($890) and single-person respondents ($1,092). All boomers spent 5 to 6 percent of per capita expenditures for apparel. Health On average, single parents and extendedmember households spent significantly less for health care than the amount spent by other boomers. Shares of total per capita expenditures for health care ranged from 3 to 5 percent. Single parents spent 4 percent. Personal Insurance and Pensions Single parents spent $503 per person for personal insurance and pensions, a significantly lower amount than that 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 Food stamps 0 Unemployment and workers' compensation, and veterans' payments spent by the other households. Per capita expenditures for households spending the most-couples without children and single boomers-were about five times the expenditure of single-parent households. Compared with other boomer households, single parents spent a smaller share (7 percent) and couples without children spent a larger share (14 percent) of total per capita expenditure for insurance and pensions. Education and Reading On a per capita basis, single-parent boomers spent $110 for education and reading. This was significantly less than the amount spent by other boomers except those in extended-member households. Per capita shares used for this expenditure category were similar ( 1 to 2 percent) for all types of households. Miscellaneous Goods and Services Single-parent boomers spent the smallest amount per capita ($675) for other goods and services, followed by boomers in extended-member households, couples with children, couples without children, and single people. The amount spent by single-parent boomers was significantly different from all boomers except those in extended households. Boomers spent about 10 percent of total per capita expenditure on miscellaneous goods and services. Conclusion The primary fmding of this study is that compared with other boomers, singleparent boomers appear to be the most vulnerable economically. Single-parent boomers have the lowest before-tax household income, per capita income, and expenditures. Also, compared with other boomers, single-parent boomers spent a higher percentage of total per capita expenditure for food and clothing with less income left for discretionary expenditures. Single-parent boomers were more likely than other boomers to receive welfare and food stamps. Households headed by single-parent boomers averaged $402 in welfare income per person, compared with $126 for boomers in extendedmember units, $28 for one-person, $20 for husband-wife-children, and $8 for husband-wife only households. Per capita food stamp income for single-parent boomers was $262, compared with $83 for boomers in extended-member households, $25 for single-person, $23 for husband-wife-children, and $8 for husband-wife only households. 37 Table 4. Per capita expenditures of baby-boomer respondents, by consumer unit, 1992 Consumer unit Single Husband, Husband, wife, Single Extended Variables parent2 wife only children person member1 Sampe size 1,040 929 3,999 1,669 1,204 Average total per capita expenditure $7,138 $17,866* $9,539* $21,694* $7,731* Housing 2,612 5,757* 3,123* 7,986* 2,465 Food 1,310 2,448* 1,463 2,964* 1,311 Food at home 1,076 1,592* 1,126 1,856* 1,014 Food away from home 234 856* 337* 1,108* 298* Transportation 1,229 3,461 * 1,723* 3,659* 1,577* Apparel 407 890* 487 1,092* 402 Health care 292 694* 432* 682* 298 Insurance and pensions 503 2,576* 1,120* 2,549* 798* Education and reading 110 256* 195* 329* 126 Miscellaneous3 675 1,784* 996* 2,433* 753 !Extended-member households are those with two or more related or unrelated people, excluding those that consist solely of married couples, married couples with own children, or single parents with own children. 2Single parents are compared with other consumer units. 3Consists of expenditures for alcohol, entertainment, personal care, tobacco, cash contributions, and other goods and services. *Unweighted data were used with the Scheffe computed on F ratios with ~.01. Table 5. Per capita expenditure shares of baby-boomer respondents, by consumer unit, 1992 Consumer unit Single Husband, Husband, wife, Single Variables parent wife only children person Housing 37 32 33 37 Food 18 14 15 14 Food at home 15 9 12 9 Food away from home 3 5 3 5 Transportation 17 20 18 17 Apparel 6 5 5 5 Health care 4 4 5 3 Insurance and pensions 7 14 12 12 Education and reading 1 2 2 Miscellaneous2 10 10 10 Extended member1 32 17 13 4 20 5 4 10 2 10 1 Extended-member households are those with two or more related or unrelated people, excluding those that consist solely of married couples, married couples with own children, or single parents with own children. 2Consists of expenditures for alcohol, entertainment, personal care, tobacco, cash contributions, and other goods and services. 38 Family Economics and Nutrition Review Implications Boomers who are single parents, have a high school education or less, and work in lower skilled positions generally spend all of their before-tax income on day-to-day needs, leaving nothing for savings. Most families who purchase a house can accumulate wealth by building up equity in their home. Most singleparent boomers, however, reside in rental units so this option is unavailable to them. Thus, building wealth and net worth will be difficult if not impossible for single-parent boomers, so prospects for the retirement years are bleak. This prospect may be tempered by many factors, including employment and the level and types of benefits received. Single-parent boomers, mostly women, who rely on different types of public assistance income at this point in the life cycle, will be at a disadvantage during their later years. Although supplemental security, welfare, and food stamp incomes are important to present levels of living, these income sources are not designed to allow savings or to increase net worth. Reports indicate that some boomers will have a harder time meeting day-to-day needs during retirement. Included are those without employee pensions, single parents, renters (1), and single women (3). It will become increasingly important for policymakers and family professionals to address the concerns of the most vulnerable in this large cohort before it reaches retirement age. 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 References 1. The Congress of the United States, Congressional Budget Office. 1993. Baby Boomers in Retirement: An Early Perspective. 2. Day, J.C. 1993. Population Projections of the United States, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1993 to 2050. Current Population Reports. Series P25-1104. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 3. Kingson, E. 1992. The Diversity of the Baby Boom Generation: Implications for Their Retirement Years. American Association of Retired Persons. 4. Rawlings, S.W. 1993. Household and Family Characteristics: March 1992. Current Population Reports, Population Characteristics. Series P-20, No. 467. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 5. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1992. 1990 Census of Population, General Population Characteristics, United States. 1990 CP-1-1. 6. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1992. Household and Family Characteristics: March 1991. Current Population Reports, Population Characteristics. Series P-20, No. 458. 7. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Expenditure Surveys: 1992/nterview Survey Public Use Tape and Documentation. 39 - 40 Research Summaries Dollars for Scholars: Postsecondary Costs and Financing, 1990-91 Using data from the 1990 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), this report examines patterns of school enrollment, education costs, fmancial aid, and the associated social, demographic, and economic characteristics of postsecondary students in the United States. Information on those enrolled in undergraduate and graduate/ professional degree programs as well as those enrolled in vocational, technical, and business schools at any time during the 1990-91 school year is included in this report. Analysis of enrollment is restricted to people 17 years and older with at least a high school diploma or the equivalent. Characteristics of Postsecondary Students Enrollment as measured in this report is not necessarily continuous throughout the entire school year. As a result, the enrollment estimates shown in this report are higher than those from other surveys, such as the Current Population Survey, which uses a one-point-in-time approach in collecting the data. Since enrollment at levels beyond high school is not always a year-long activity, SIPP data may provide a more realistic picture of the total number of people enrolled in a given year than does a one-time cross-sectional survey. As shown in table 1, an estimated 20.6 million people were enrolled in postsecondary school in the 1990-91 school year, about 14 percent of the eligible population. Thirty-five percent of these students were enrolled in the first and second years of college and 25 percent were enrolled in the third and fourth years of college. More than 19 percent were in the fifth year or higher, and over 20 percent were in some type of noncollegiate postsecondary school. Some variation in the patterns of enrollment by level can be observed in various demographic subgroups. A higher proportion of women than men were enrolled in the first 2 years of college (37 vs. 32 percent). This may reflect a higher enrollment by women in 2-year associate degree programs because similar proportions of each sex were enrolled in the third and fourth years of college. A larger proportion of men than women attended a vocational, technical, business, or other school (23 vs. 18 percent). Enrollment rates also varied among race/ethnicity groups. Non-Hispanic Whites (21 percent) and non-Hispanic others (27 percent) had greater proportions enrolled at the graduate level than either Hispanics or non-Hispanic Blacks (both at 9 percent). A greater proportion of non-Hispanic Black (26 percent) and Hispanic (28 percent) students were enrolled in noncollegiate schools than were non-Hispanic Whites (20 percent) and non-Hispanic others (16 percent). Differences by age and marital status followed what may be the traditional life course pattern-school completion, followed by employment and family formation. Many students enroll in college shortly after high school graduation, and the proportion enrolled decreases with increases in age. Half of all individuals ages 17 to 24 were enrolled in some type of schooling, compared with only 16 percent of those ages 25 to 34. Never-married people Family Economics and Nutrition Review Table 1. Level of enrollment by selected characteristics for high school graduates 17 years and older 1990-91 (in thousands) ' Vocational, technical, College College College business Percent years years years school, or Characteristic Total Enrolled enrolled 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 or higher other Total 142,710 20,560 14 7,232 5,148 3,977 4,203 Sex Male 68,453 9,439 14 3,065 2,398 1,829 2,147 Female 74,257 11,121 15 4,167 2,749 2,148 2,056 Race/ethnicity Non-Hispanic White 118,214 16,761 14 5,794 4,196 3,500 3,270 Non-Hispanic Black 12,667 1,935 15 744 518 172 501 Hispanic 7,432 1,115 15 442 262 100 312 Non-Hispanic other 4,396 748 17 252 172 205 119 Age (years) 17-24 18,007 9,099 51 4,550 2,896 669 984 25-34 37,050 5,903 16 1,459 1,410 1,646 1,388 35-44 34,324 3,461 10 834 618 1,075 933 45-54 21,018 1,420 7 279 161 451 529 55-64 14,971 492 3 72 62 98 260 65 and over 17,340 185 1 38 38 109 Marital status Married 87,161 7,698 9 1,969 1,423 2,131 2,175 Widowed, separated, or divorced 23,389 2,033 9 612 389 388 643 Never married 32,160 10,829 34 4,651 3,335 1,458 1,385 Average monthly family income Less than $800 10,631 2,183 21 752 627 328 476 $800- $1,249 10,860 1,438 13 475 370 220 372 $1,250- $1,699 11,912 1,422 12 547 283 224 368 $1,700- $2,499 22,794 2,654 12 825 658 447 724 $2,500 - $3,399 24,023 3,031 13 1,129 568 651 684 $3,400- $4,199 17,434 2,537 15 888 627 469 554 $4,200 - $5,399 17,663 2,748 16 1,001 704 556 487 $5,400 or more 27,392 4,547 17 1,615 1,310 1,082 539 Dependency status1 Dependent student 6,094 6,094 100 3,382 2,002 168 540 Lives away from home 2,965 2,965 100 1,469 1,310 110 75 Lives at home 3,129 3,129 100 1,913 692 58 465 Independent student 14,466 14,466 100 3,850 3,146 3,808 3,663 Financial aid1 None received 10,099 10,099 100 3,632 2,495 1,842 2,131 Aid received 10,461 10,461 100 3,601 2,652 2,136 2,072 1 Total is that of enrolled persons only. - Represents zero. 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 41 were more likely than any other marital status group to have been enrolled in the past year. Highest overall enrollment levels were reported by people in the lowest family income category. This unusual fmding may reflect the fact that many students live independently and report their own income rather than depend on support from their parents. 1 Compared with overall enrollment distribution, those students in the highest income group were less likely to be enrolled in noncollegiate schools (12 percent) but more likely to be enrolled at the graduate level (24 percent). In this report, students are classified as independent if they are either: married; 24 years of age or older; a veteran; the reference person of the household; or if they have health insurance under their own name. The majority of students (70 percent) were classified as independent- not unexpected since 56 percent were age 25 and over. Independent students were distributed fairly evenly across the four levels of enrollment. In contrast, 55 percent of dependent students were enrolled in the first or second year of college and half of the dependent students reported living at home. Ninety-six percent of the students in year five or higher were classified as independent and were likely to be in a graduate or professional degree program. Most (87 percent) of the noncollegiate school enrollees were also independent students. 1It is important to remember when examining the relationship between income and enrollment that not all students are "traditional" students who attend college immediately after high school and who are supported by their parents; table I includes all students, the traditional and the nontraditional. 42 Table 2. Recipients of financial aid and mean amount received, 1990-91 Number of Percent Mean recipients of all amount Sources (in thousands) students received All sources 10,461 51 $2,919 Employer assistance 3,617 18 979 Loan1 3,022 15 3,155 Pell Grant 2,881 14 1,375 Other 2,788 14 1,829 Fellowship/scholarship 2,436 12 2,467 Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (SEOG)/ College work study 890 4 1,510 Veterans' Educational Assistance Programs 416 2 2,503 1 National Direct Student Loan (or Perkins loan) and Guaranteed Student Loan (of Stafford loan). Postsecondary Costs Financial costs for postsecondary education include tuition and fees, books and educational supplies, and for students living away from home, the cost of room and board. In 1990-91, the average total costs of schooling for all postsecondary students, irrespective of type of school, level of enrollment, or amount of time spent in school, were $2,653. On average, noncollegiate schools were the least costly to attend ($1,066), whereas students in the third and fourth year of college had the highest average total costs ($3,825). No significant differences in total or component costs were found for sex categories, but a sizable difference in cost was observed across race and ethnic groups. Hispanics had lower average tuition and fees ($1,275) and total costs ($1,882) than any other group. Costs did not differ between White and Black students. The average total cost for dependent students was much higher ($4,387) than that for independent students ($1,923). Dependent students may include some of the people attending higher cost colleges and universities. In addition, dependent students may be more likely to attend school on a full-time basis, driving up average costs. Independent students are probably more likely to look for low-cost educational sources and to attend school part-time-particularly if they are in the labor force supporting themselves or their familywhich would also indicate lower costs. Financial Aid Fifty-one percent of the 20.6 million students who were enrolled in the previous year received some type of fmancial assistance from at least one source. This level of aid receipt was consistent across the various enrollment levels. The average assistance package (which Family Economics and Nutrition Review may include multiple sources of assistance) among persons who received aid was $2,919 and varied significantly by level of enrollment. For people enrolled in the fifth year or higher of college, the average reported aid package was $4,223, while those enrolled in noncollegiate institutions reported average packages of $1,673. Aid packages were higher for students in the third and fourth year of college than for those in the first or second year ($3,312 and $2,573, respectively). The most common source of aid (table 2) was employer assistance or Job Training Partnership Act (JTP A) programs, but this source provided the lowest average amount of aid, $979. The single largest aid amount was that based on loans, $3,155. Although half of both men and women receive some form of assistance and both receive similar amounts, variation occurs in the sources of aid received. For example, women were more likely than men to have received aid from a Pell Grant (a need-based source) or a loan, while men were more likely to have received aid from veterans' programs or from their employer. Men were awarded a substantially higher amount than were women in terms of scholarships, fellowships, and tuition reductions ($2,971 vs. $2,068). This type of aid does not have to be repaid. Differences in sources and amounts of aid were apparent across race and ethnic groups. Black students were more likely than others to report some kind of aid (58 percent). Average amounts of aid ranged from $2,527 for Black students to $4,032 for students of "other" races. White students were less likely than either Black or Hispanic students to have received a Pell Grant. 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 The proportion of students receiving aid decreases as family income increases, ranging from 60 percent of students in the low-income category to 44 percent in the high-income category. The average amount varies substantially as well, from $2,427 for the high-income group to $3,622 for the low-inco
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.
Title | Family Economics and Nutrition Review [Volume 8, Number 3] |
Date | 1995 |
Contributors (group) | Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (U.S.) |
Subject headings |
Home economics--United States--Periodicals Nutrition policy--United State--Periodicals |
Type | Text |
Format | Pamphlets |
Physical description | v. : $b ill. ; $c 28 cm. |
Publisher | Washington, D.C. : U.S. Dept. of Agriculture |
Language | en |
Contributing institution | Martha Blakeney Hodges Special Collections and University Archives, UNCG University Libraries |
Source collection | Government Documents Collection (UNCG University Libraries) |
Rights statement | http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/ |
Additional rights information | NO COPYRIGHT - UNITED STATES. This item has been determined to be free of copyright restrictions in the United States. The user is responsible for determining actual copyright status for any reuse of the material. |
SUDOC number | A 77.245:8/3 |
Digital publisher | The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, University Libraries, PO Box 26170, Greensboro NC 27402-6170, 336.334.5482 |
Full-text | CENTER FOR NUTRITION POLICY AND PROMOTION Feature Articles 2 Shirley Gerrior Income and Spending of Rural Single-Parent Families Mark lino Per Capita Income and Expenditures of Baby-Boomer Households julia Dinkins Research Summaries 40 Dollars for Scholars: Postsecondary Costs and Financing 1990-91 44 Food Spending in 1993 45 Prevalence of Overweight Among U.S. Adolescents, 1988-91 46 Expenditure Patterns of Retired and Nonretired People 49 Changing Social Security Benefits to Reflect Child-Care Years Regular Items 53 Recent Legislation Affecting Families 54 Charts From Federal Data Sources 56 Research and Evaluation Activities in USDA 58 Data Sources 59 Journal Abstracts 60 Poverty Thresholds 61 Cost of Food at Home 62 Consumer Prices 63 Guidelines for Authors UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUlTURE Volume 8, Number 3 1995 Dan Glickman, Secretary U.S. Department of Agriculture Ellen Haas, Under Secretary Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services Eileen Kennedy, Executive Director Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion Jay Hirschman, Director Nutrition Policy and Analysis Staff Editorial Board Mohamed Abdel-Ghany University of Alabama Rhona Applebaum National Food Processors Association Johanna Dwyer New England Medical Center Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University Helen Jensen Iowa State University Janet C. King Western Human Nutrition Research Center U.S. Department of Agriculture C.J. Lee Kentucky State University Rebecca Mullis Georgia State University Suzanne Murphy University of California-Berkeley Donald Rose Economic Research Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Ben Senauer University of Minnesota Laura Sims University of Maryland Retia Walker University of Kentucky Editor Joan C. Courtless Editorial Assistant Jane W. Fleming Family Economics and Nutrition Review is written and published each quarter by the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, U.S. Depal1ment of Agriculture, Washington, DC. The Secretary of Agriculture has determined that publication of this periodical is necessary in the transaction of the public business required by law of the Department. This publication is not copyrighted. Contents may be reprinted without permission, but credit to Family Economics and Nutrition Review would be appreciated. Use of commercial or trade names does not imply approval or constitute endorsement by USDA. Family Economics and Nutrition Review is indexed in the following databases: AGRICOlA, Ageline, Economic Literature Index, ERIC, Family Resources, PAIS, and Sociological Abstracts. Family Economics and Nutrition Review is for sale by the Superintendent of Documents. Subscription price is $7.50 per year ($9.40 for foreign addresses). Send subscription orders and change of address to Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. (See subscription form on p. 64.) Suggestions or comments concerning this publication should be addressed to: Joan C. Courtless, Editor, Family Economics and Nutrition Review, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, USDA, 1120 20th St., NW, Su~e 200 North Lobby, Washington, DC 20036. Phone(202)~16. ' USDA prohib~ discrimination in ~ programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of Communications at (202) 720-5881 (voice) or (202) 720-7808 (TDD). To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agricu~ure, U.S. Department of Agricu~ure , Washington, DC 20250, or call (202) 720.7327 (voice) or (202) 720-1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer. Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion PROPERTY OF THE LIBRARY OCT 10 1995 University of North Camlina at Greensboro Feature Articles 2 17 27 Does the 1983 Thrifty Food Plan Provide a Nutritionally Adequate Diet at the Cost Level Currently Used? Shirley Gerrior Income and Spending of Rural Single-Parent Families MarkLino Per Capita Income and Expenditures of Baby-Boomer Households Julia Dinkins Research Summaries 40 Dollars for Scholars: Postsecondary Costs and Financing, 1990-91 44 45 46 49 Food Spending in 1993 Prevalence of Overweight Among U.S. Adolescents, 1988-91 Expenditure Patterns of Retired and Nonretired People Changing Social Security Benefits to Reflect Child-Care Years Regular Items 53 Recent Legislation Affecting Families 54 Charts From Federal Data Sources 56 58 59 60 61 62 63 Research and Evaluation Activities in USDA Data Sources Journal Abstracts Poverty Thresholds Cost of Food at Home Consumer Prices Guidelines for Authors Volume 8, Number 3 1995 2 Feature Articles Does the 1983 Thrifty Food Plan Provide a Nutritionally Adequate Diet at the Cost Level Currently Used? By Shirley Gerrior Nutritionist Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion This study is an evaluation of USDA's thrifty food plan, revised in 1983. It consists of two components: (1) a review of the nutritional adequacy of the 1983 plan and (2) a partial revision of the 1983 plan adjusted for updated nutrient data and dietary standards at a specified cost level. Data used are from the 1977-78 and 1987-88 Nationwide Food Consumption Surveys and USDA's National Nutrient Data Bank. The review shows that with the exception of magnesium the nutritive value of the 1983 thrifty food plan meets or exceeds dietary standards used in the development of the 1983 plan. The 1983 thrifty food plan fails to meet current recommendations for total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol for most sex-age groups. The partial revision generates a nutritious diet that meets dietary guidance and 1 00 percent of the 1989 RDAs for all nutrients except zinc at the current thrifty food plan cost level. This evaluation identifies the limitations of the plan currently used but also shows that a nutritious plan can be developed that meets current dietary recommendations. These findings are useful to USDA researchers and policymakers as they prepare to revise the thrifty food plan. [!] he U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has prepared guides for selecting nutritious diets at different levels of cost for 70 years. Early diet guides or plans of the 1920's provided the consumer with practical and economical advice on healthy diets. In 1933, diet plans were developed at four levels of nutritive content and cost-the restricted diet for emergency use, the minimum cost diet, the moderate cost diet, and the liberal cost diet. The two lower cost plans were written for low-income families particularly affected by the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. Since then, food plans have been revised periodically to reflect up-to-date nutritive information, consumption behavior, and food prices (2). In the early 1960's, the economy food plan was designed to cost 75 to 80 percent of the USDA low-cost plan while providing a nutritionally adequate diet for families who had less money to spend on food (2). This plan was used as a basis of the food stamp allotment until it was replaced by the thrifty food plan (TFP) in 1975. The TFP was Family Economics and Nutrition Review based on the most recent information on food composition, food consumption, food costs, and nutritional requirements available at that time. The most recent revision of the TFP was published in 1983 (6). As do the more costly plans, the TFP specifies the quantities of different types of foods (or food groups) that households may use to provide nutritious meals and snacks for household members (table 1, p. 4). The assortment of foods in the plan is based on food consumption patterns of families with relatively low food costs and allows for a nutritious, palatable, and economical diet. The TFP includes larger proportions of foods that are economical sources of nutrients than do the other plans. A revision of this plan was scheduled for 1993 using 1987-88 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (NFCS) data. Definition of Terms This revision would have incorporated changes in nutritional recommendations, food composition, food consumption behavior, and food costs; however, because of nonresponse issues related to the data source, the revision was not completed (5). Historically, the NFCS has been a significant data source in the development of USDA food plans by providing two types of information: food used by households during a 7-day period and the costs for these foods; and the food eaten by individuals in the same households during a 3-day period (12). Because of the length of time between usable USDA surveys for food plan development, the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion1 (which develops the TFP) and the Food and Consumer Service (which administers the TFP) jointly approved an evaluation of the 1983 TFP. This article reports the results of this evaluation, which consisted of a review of the 1983 TFP (TFP-R) and a partial revision of the 1983 TFP (TFP-PR). Three research questions were addressed: (1) Is the 1983 TFP nutritionally adequate in terms of current dietary recommendations (TFP-R)? (2) Can a TFP be developed that meets dietary recommendations at current cost level (TFP-PR)? and (3) What are the implications of these fmdings? 1The 1983 TFP was developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Human Nutrition Information Service (HNlS), Nutrition Education Division. The Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP) was created December I, 1994. CNPP is comprised of the former Nutrition Education Division of HNIS and the former Family Economics Research Group of the Agricultural Research Service. 2Food and Consumer Service was formerly Food and Nutrition Service. TFP-83. Most recent revision of the thrifty food plan. TFP-R. Review of the TFP-83. TFP-PR. Partial revision of the TFP-83. Features of each term Dietary Sex-age Consumption Foods and Food Pounds of Term Methods standard groups patterns nutrient data group names food groups TFP-83 TFP-83 TFP-83 TFP-83 NFCS1 77-78 NFCS 77-78 TFP-83 TFP-83 TFP-R TFP-83 Updated TFP-83 NFCS 77-78 NFCS 87-88 TFP-83 TFP-83 TFP-PR TFP-83 Updated TFP-83 NFCS 77-88 NFCS 87-88 TFP-83 Recalculated 1Nationwide Food Consumption Survey. 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 3 Table 1. Thrifty food plan, 1983: Quantities of food for a week1 Children (years) Males (years) Females2 (years) Food group 1-2 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-50 51+ 12-19 20-50 51+ Pound~ Vegetables, fruit Potatoes (fresh wt) 0.47 0.82 1.04 1.11 1.29 2.22 1.50 1.55 1.27 1.16 0.90 High-nutrient vegetables 0.52 0.67 1.05 1.17 1.65 1.08 1.61 1.52 1.14 1.91 2.28 Other vegetables 0.60 0.70 0.97 1.25 1.35 1.15 1.86 1.33 1.08 2.68 2.03 Mixtures, mostly vegetables; condiments O.Ql 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.13 0.06 0.07 0.02 0.02 Vitamin-C rich fruit4 l.l9 1.24 1.32 1.62 1.08 1.17 1.13 1.00 2.02 1.73 1.35 Other fruit4 0.97 0.92 1.61 1.86 1.11 1.04 1.20 1.41 1.30 0.93 1.37 Grain products Whole-grain/high-fiber breakfast cereals5 0.44 0.33 0.17 0.24 0.38 0.27 0.17 0.13 0.30 0.12 0.17 Other breakfast cereals 0.30 0.27 0.19 0.26 0.05 0.12 0.21 0.12 0.39 0.19 0.27 Whole-grain/high-fiber flour, meal, rice, pasta 0.11 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.20 0.22 0.15 0.21 0.1 6 0.15 0.18 Other flour, meal, rice, pasta 0.88 1.23 1.85 1.73 2.15 2.34 1.81 1.87 1.32 1.81 1.32 Whole-grain/high-fiber bread 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.11 0.15 0.17 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.34 0.29 Other bread 0.38 0.65 1.01 1.27 1.68 1.33 1.85 1.33 1.04 0.59 0.29 Bakery products, not bread 0.06 0.10 0.42 0.58 0.19 0.43 0.56 0.30 0.36 0.12 0.10 Grain mixtures 0.08 0.06 O.D7 0.11 0.02 0.13 0.23 0.15 0.31 0.37 0.19 Milk, cheese, cream Milk, yogurt (qts)6 3.42 3.06 3.39 4.17 3.99 3.91 2.00 1.63 4.36 2.37 2.17 Cheese 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.27 0.29 0.32 Cream, mixtures mostly milk 0.15 0.15 0.34 0.30 0.10 0.24 0.41 0.26 0.35 O.D3 0.26 Meat and alternates Lower cost red meats, variety meats 0.93 0.69 0.70 0.92 1.20 1.49 1.40 1.73 1.75 1.60 1.95 Higher costredrreats, variety meats 0.15 0.11 0.13 0.19 0.18 0.26 0.39 0.54 0.20 0.35 0.55 Poultry 0.35 0.48 0.64 0.70 0.90 0.90 0.96 0.71 0.20 0.95 0.70 Fish, shellfish 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 Bacon, sausage, luncheon meats 0.18 0.32 0.31 0.24 0.26 0.27 0.56 0.49 0.24 0.45 0.45 Eggs (number) 3.00 2.90 1.90 2.50 2.20 3.10 4.10 4.30 4.10 4.40 4.10 Dry beans, peas, lentils (dry wt)7 0.27 0.18 0.18 0.24 0.59 0.58 0.45 0.59 0.35 0.41 0.43 Mixtures, mostly meat, poultry, fish, egg, legume 0.05 0.06 0.01 O.Ql 0.02 0.03 0.13 0.15 0.20 0.13 0.15 Nuts (shelled wt), peanut butter 0.09 0.24 0.13 0.15 0.37 0.14 0.17 0.22 0.09 0.28 0.08 Other foods8 Fats, oils 0.14 0.33 0.58 0.67 0.73 0.93 0.76 0.60 0.22 0.28 0.21 Sugar, sweets 0.10 0.36 0.78 0.87 1.20 0.95 1.01 0.76 0.31 0.21 0.22 Soft drinks, punches, ades (single strength) 0.39 0.57 0.65 0.87 0.87 1.51 1.17 0.32 1.12 0.40 0.38 1Quantities are for food as purchased or brought into the household from garden or farm. Food is for preparation of all meals and snacks for a week. About 5 percent 9f the edible parts of food is assumed to be discarded as plate waste, spoilage, etc. Pregnant and lactating females usually require added nutrients. ~uantities in pounds except milk, which is in quarts, and eggs, which are by number. 5 rozen concentrated juices are included as single-strength juice. Cereal fortified with iron is recommended. 6Quantities of dry and evaporated milk and yogurt included as their fluid whole milk equivalents in terms of calcium content. 7 Count one pound of canned dry beans-pork and beans, kidney beans, etc.-as 0.33 pound. 8Small quantities of coffee, tea, and seasonings are not shown. Their cost is a part of the estimated cost for the food plan. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service, /983, The Thrifty Food Plan, CND(Adm.) No. 365, p. /9. 4 Family Economics and Nutrition Review Data and Procedures Used in Evaluating the TFP The development of the 1983 TFP included four major steps: (1) identification of food consumption patterns from USDA consumption data; (2) determination of dietary standards based on scientific information and authoritative recommendations; (3) determination of cost limits for the plan; and (4) use of a computerized mathematical model to help develop the plan (1). This evaluation uses the same methods developed for the 1983 TFP (TFP-83) (15) but includes new dietary standards based on current recommendations (9) and updated food nutrient composition data for the analysis of food groups (11) (see figure). The dietary standards used in TFP-83 were based on the 1980 Recommended Dietary Allowances (10). The TFP-83 provided food energy at the midpoint of the RDA and 100 percent of the RDA (1,10) for protein, vitamins, and minerals, with the exception of vitamin B-6, zinc, folate, and vitamin E. The plan used a special ratio of 0.02 mg vitamin B-6 per gram of protein and Data and procedures used in evaluation of the 1983 thrifty food plan Sex-Age Groups n = 11 • ~ Food Groups Food n =31 Consumption Nutritive Values ~ Patterns ~ Quantity Limits Dietary Standards ' 1989RDAs ... Mathematical 1990 Dietary Guidelines Computer Food Plan Model ~ Pounds of Nutrients in Foods ... (Quadratic 31 Food Groups Programming) for 1 Week USDA Nutrient Data Bank ~ Other Factors • Cost Limit / • Discard Factor ~ • Palatability • 1994 Food Prices • Food Quantities Bold lettering indicates use of data from the 1977-78 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey. Italics indicates use of data from the 1987-88 Nationwide Food Consumption Survey or other updated information. 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 5 6 ... the TFP specifies the quantities of different types of foods (or food groups) that households may use to provide nutritious meals and snacks for household members. 80 percent of the RDA for zinc, folate, and vitamin E. Eighty percent of the RDA was used for these three nutrients because when TFP-83 was developed, the U.S. food supply did not provide sufficient zinc to meet RDA levels, and food composition data were insufficient and/or unreliable for folate and vitamin E (15) . Additionally, limits were placed on total fat, cholesterol, caloric sweeteners, and sodium. These limits were based, in part, on the 1980 Dietary Guidelines for Americans as well as on nutritional recommendations made by other authoritative groups (1). Because the use of a computerized mathematical model necessitates setting minimum or maximum levels for all food components, levels of these components were limited to 35 percent of total calories for total fat, 350 mg of cholesterol per day, 12 percent of calories from added caloric sweeteners, and 1,600 mg of sodium per 1,000 kcal (J). In 1989, the RDAs were revised for several vitamins and minerals (9). Recommended amounts of vitamin B-6, calcium, magnesium, iron, and zinc changed for some sex-age categories; those of folate and vitamin B-12 were lower for all categories. Additionally, RDAs were established for vitamin K and selenium for the first time. At about the same time, quantitative limits for total fat and saturated fat as a percentage Dietary Standards Used In the Evaluation of the 1983 TFP (TFP-R and TFP-PR) Dietary standards were based on the 1989 Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) (9) and the 1990 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (16). The RDAs and the Dietary Guidelines provide guidance for healthy people to use in choosing a diet that, based on current knowledge and research, will maintain and promote the health of most people. Dietary standards were established for each sex-age category. Energy was set at the average energy allowance for the appropriate sexage category. Levels of protein, vitamins, and minerals were set at 100 percent of the RDA. Levels for vitamin K and selenium were not included in the dietary standards because food composition data on these nutrients are incomplete or not available. When there was no comparable RDA sex-age category, dietary standards were derived by interpolation of RDA values. Maximum levels (minus discard factor) for total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol were limited to 30 percent of calories from total fat, 10 percent of calories from saturated fat, and 300 mg of cholesterol per day, respectively (8,14). No quantitative recommendations are suggested in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans for sugar and sodium. The dietary standards established for these components in TFP-83 were used, and no adjustments were made to the lower and upper limits of the TFP-83 consumption patterns. These "moderate" levels, which were originally defined as levels below those in the average food consumption patterns of most sex-age categories using 1977-78 NFCS data (15), were considered approximate for the exploratory nature of this analysis. 1This calculation computes the differences of the RDA nutrient amounts between the different sex-age categories and then reapportions this difference to derive the new RDA amount for tbe TFP sex-age categories. Family Economics and Nutrition Review of total calories (16) and for cholesterol intake were recommended (8,14). Dietary standards used to evaluate the TFP-83 were updated to reflect these recommendations. For TFP-83, data from the Survey of Food Consumption in Low-Income Households, conducted as part of the NFCS 1977-78 {1), were used as the basis for classifying approximately 2,400 foods into 1 of 31 food groups (table 2). The average nutritive value or nutrient profile per pound for each of these groups was calculated by weighting the nutritive value of each food in the food group by the average number of pounds reported as used by the survey households. Food composition data for these calculations were from USDA's Nutrient Data Bank (1,11). As part ofTFP-R and TFP-PR, the nutritive profile of each food group in TFP-83 was updated using food items reported by low-income households in NFCS 1987-88. Food items that had been reported as used by households in 1977-78 NFCS were matched with similar items from the 1987-88 NFCS household component. Each item was identified by a household code and linked to the most current nutrient values from USDA's Nutrient Data Base specific to that food code. In the event that a household food code used in the 1977-78 NFCS did not appear in the 1987-88 household food code, either a food item similar in nutrient composition was substituted, or if the food item was consumed in negligible amounts, that food code was excluded from the food group. The majority of the few codes excluded were foods of Puerto Rican origin. Each household code was placed in 1 of the 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 31 food plan food groups, and the average nutritive value per pound was recalculated for each group to reflect the current data. The nutritive value of each food in the food group was weighted by the average number of pounds reported as used by the NFCS 1977-78 survey households. The recalculated nutritive profile of several food groups differed in the level of calories and of specific nutrients from the nutritive proftle for the same groups in the TFP-83. These differences reflect the changes in food composition data due to technological developments, marketing practices, and improved analytical methods that occurred between the 1977-78 and 1987-88 surveys. For example, technological advances since the late 1970's increased the number of food items in bakery, cereal, fruit juice and drink, and milk product food gro~ps with nutrients added through fortification and enrichment. Different marketing practices altered the nutrient contributions of many grain, vegetable, and meat mixtures. Sweeteners and fat added to enhance the flavor of these mixtures contributed more calories and fat to the diet from these foods than previously calculated. Also, new or improved analytical methods provided more accurate data on several nutrients or dietary components. For example, the decrease in the level of cholesterol in the plan can be attributed to new analytical methods used to determine the nutrient composition of eggs (4). Additionally, since the 1977-78 NFCS, USDA's Nutrient Data Bank has expanded the survey data base to include nutrients previously omitted because of limited data. With the exception of magnesium, the nutritive value of food in TFP-R exceeded the dietary RDA standards originally specified in TFP-83. 7 Table 2. Food groups for USDA thrifty food plan1 Food group Potatoes High-nutrient vegetables2 Other vegetables Mixtures, mostly vegetables; condiments Vitamin-C rich fruit Other fruit Whole-grain/high-fiber breakfast cereals Other breakfast cereals Whole-grain/high-fiber flour, meal, rice, pasta Other flour, meal, rice, pasta Whole-grain/high-fiber bread Other bread Bakery products, not bread Grain mixtures Milk, yogurt Cheese 8 Food included White potatoes, dehydrated potatoes, mixtures, mostly potato Asparagus, bean sprouts, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, carrots, cauliflower, green peppers, leafy greens, okra, pumpkin, sauerkraut, summer and winter squash, sweet potatoes, tomatoes, turnips; tomato and vegetable juices All other vegetables including artichokes, beets, celery, corn, cucumbers, eggplant, lettuce, lima beans, mushrooms, onions, parsnips, peas, radishes, rutabagas, snap beans Catsup, chili sauce, barbecue sauce; tomato and cucumber pickles and relishes; olives; potato chips, sticks; other mixtures, mostly vegetables Cantaloupe, grapefruit, honeydew melon, lemons, limes, mangoes, oranges, persimmons, papayas, strawberries, tangelos, tangerines; citrus and citrus-blend juices All other fruit including apples, apricots, bananas, berries, cherries, dried fruit, grapes, nectarines, peaches, pears, pineapple, plums, watermelon Oatmeal, bran cereal, wheat germ, shredded wheat, granola type, puffed oats, other breakfast cereals made from whole or high-fiber grains Farina, ready-to-eat cereal other than those made from whole or high-fiber grains Whole wheat, buckwheat, soy, barley, rye, millet, peanut, carob, triticale flours and meal; mixes made from whole-grain/high-fiber flours; whole-ground cornmeal; whole-wheat pasta; popcorn; brown rice; leavenings White enriched flour, mixes made from white enriched flour, leavenings, degermed cornmeal, white enriched rice, grits, enriched pasta Whole wheat, pumpernickel, bran, rye, oatmeal, triticale breads, rolls, muffins, pancakes White enriched bread, rolls, muffins, bagels, biscuits, pancakes, waffles; cornbread; tortillas Enriched and unenriched cakes, pies, tarts, cobblers, crackers, cookies, pastries, doughnuts, pretzels, com and wheat snacks Soups, mostly grain; pizza; macaroni salad; egg rolls; Spanish rice; macaroni and cheese; spaghetti with tomato sauce; other pasta mixtures and plate meals Whole milk, lowfat milk, skim milk, buttermilk, nonfat dry milk, imitation milk and formulas, evaported milk, yogurt, chocolate milk, cocoa with nonfat dry milk Cheddar, swiss, cottage, other cheeses, imitation cheese, cheese dips, cheese fondue Family Economics and Nutrition Review Food group Cream, mixtures mostly milk Lower cost red meats, . 3 vanety meats Higher cost red meats, variety meats3 Poultry Fish, shellfish Food included Cream, half and half, sour cream, eggnog, nondairy creamers, puddings, ice cream, ice milk, milkshakes, other frozen desserts, sweetened liquid meal supplements, milk-based soups Ground beef and pork, beef chuck roast and steak; fresh and cured pork shoulder and boston butt; beef and lamb stew meat; canned corned beef, roast beef; chipped beef; organ meats such as liver, heart, kidney Most beef and veal steaks and roast; cured ham, boiled ham, spareribs, pork loin roast, pork chops; lamb chops, steaks, roast; variety meats such as brains, tongue, chitterlings Raw and processed chicken, turkey, and other poultry Raw and processed cod, perch, haddock, sole, and other fish; breaded fish portions and sticks; canned tuna, sardines, and other fish; raw and processed crab, lobster, clams, shrimp, and other shellfish Bacon, sausage, luncheon meats Bacon, salt pork, sausage; frankfurters, bologna, salami, liverwurst, other luncheon meats; fatback and other fatty meats; bacon and sausage substitutes Eggs Dry beans, peas, lentils Mixtures, mostly meat, poultry, fish, egg, legume Nuts, peanut butter Fats, oils Sugar, sweets S . 4 easomngs Soft drinks, punches, ades Coffee, tea 4 Eggs, egg substitutes Dry beans of all kinds; dry peas; lentils; soybeans and soya products Soups and mixtures, mostly meat, poultry, fish, egg, or legume (plate dinners, entrees such as hamburgers, corned beef hash, chili con came, chicken and tuna salad, pot pies, fish cakes, egg foo yung, beans and franks, etc.) Peanuts, tree nuts, peanut butter and other nut butters, seeds Butter, margarine, hydrogenated vegetable fat, lard, cooking oil, salad dressings Sugar, granulated, powdered, brown, maple; molasses syrup; honey, jams; jellies; preserves; powdered dessert mixes and prepared desserts; candy; fruit ices; chocolate syrup and topping; sugar substitutes Salt, seasoning, vinegar, extracts, spices, plain cocoa, baking chocolate Soft drinks, regular and diet; fruit ades, punches, drinks, nectars Coffee, tea 1Cost, nutrient composition, and use in meals are considered in grouping foods. 2Systematically selected for their relatively high nutrient-to-calorie ratios and content per serving of vitamin A, vitamin B-6, ascorbic acid, iron, and magnesium. 3Selected by their relative costs per unit of protein. 4Quantities of coffee, tea, and seasonings are not shown in quantities of food for a week tables, but their cost is part of the estimated cost of the food plan. 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 9 Table 3. Nutritive value1 of food in the 1983 thrifty food plan (TFP-83) as a percent of 1980 RDAs2 Children (years) Males (years) Females (years) Food component 1-2 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-50 51+ 12-19 20-50 51+ Percentage of Recommended Dietary Allowance ( 1980P Protein 238 204 202 200 202 165 159 155 182 196 186 Vitamin A 214 189 167 159 138 126 143 131 172 189 213 Thiamin 194 181 148 158 149 150 149 156 179 176 162 Riboflavin 237 207 171 175 155 150 144 145 205 176 173 Niacin 290 281 218 224 232 232 235 251 276 306 285 Vitamin B-64 154 114 955 100 101 955 855 825 975 945 965 Vitamin B-124 205 155 128 149 156 176 156 164 209 168 190 Folate4 263 156 103 975 905 865 915 845 945 925 895 Vitamin C 143 152 174 201 170 143 151 130 186 176 171 Vitamin E4 805 104 123 144 144 123 118 102 805 975 825 Calcium 100 100 120 120 100 103 115 100 100 113 104 Iron 905 115 151 136 116 123 209 194 105 100 171 Magnesium4 160 129 112 110 119 100 104 101 115 118 104 Phosphorus 144 148 168 165 153 162 203 197 143 201 188 Zinc 805 805 855 845 805 825 805 805 805 805 805 Composition of diet Food energy (kcal) 1300 1600 2100 2400 2700 2800 2700 2400 2100 2000 1800 Cholesterol4 (mg) 230 230 220 270 270 330 350 350 250 350 350 Sodium\mg) 1600 1900 2300 2700 3000 3700 4000 3000 3100 3000 2300 Percentage of energy Total fat 32 35 34 34 34 35 35 35 32 35 35 Protein 17 14 12 13 14 13 13 15 16 17 18 1Nutritive value of the edible portion of food as purchased, adjusted to allow for losses in cooking for vitamins, except folate. One-half of the drippings and trirnmable fat from meat, poultry, and fish was assumed as discard. 2Nutritive value per pound of food groups is based on the average quantities of foods used by a special group of about 4,400 low-income households (eligible for the Food Stamp Program) surveyed November 1977-March 1978 as part of the Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1977-78. 3RDA derived for specified sex-age categories by interpolation. 4Based on limited food composition data. 5 Although the plan failed to provide the RDA, it met standards specified for the plan. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service, 1983, The Thrifty Food Plan, CND(Adm.) No. 365, p. 25. Is the 1983 TFP Nutritionally specified in TFP-83 (table I) for each of With the exception of magnesium, Adequate? the 11 sex-age categories. These values the nutritive value of food in TFP-R were then compared with the revised exceeded the dietary RDA standards To determine the nutritional adequacy dietary standards to determine the originally specified in TFP-83 (tables 3 of TFP-R, the recalculated nutritive nutritional adequacy of the consumption and 4). Values for zinc, vitamin B-6, value for each food group was multi- pattern of a particular sex-age category. and vitamin E, which did not meet 100 plied by the food group quantity 10 Family Economics and Nutrition Review Table 4. Nutritive value1 offood in the 1983 thrifty food plan review (TFP-R) as a percent of 1989 RDAs2 Children (years) Males (years) Females (years) Food component 1-2 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-50 51+ 12-19 20-50 51+ Percentage of Recommended Dietary Allowance ( 1989P Protein 375 297 261 245 214 168 149 139 206 186 171 Vitamin A 262 236 210 199 180 160 180 160 213 237 265 Thiamin 223 207 187 197 180 158 155 168 205 177 174 Riboflavin 286 221 200 223 197 167 154 159 247 185 195 Niacin 186 167 149 162 153 130 141 162 159 158 164 Vitamin B-6 164 150 127 142 122 110 108 98 154 135 133 Vitamin B-12 886 593 403 409 357 390 342 351 448 362 412 Folate 547 407 295 294 238 176 179 152 231 195 184 Vitamin C 234 237 226 291 242 224 221 180 281 239 222 Vitamin E 107 118 140 146 137 136 126 106 105 110 96 Calcium 127 125 148 151 121 120 120 113 125 123 124 Iron 147 149 158 169 179 183 217 190 135 121 171 Magnesium 302 239 182 160 146 100 98 90 121 119 102 Phosphorus 156 160 182 183 160 162 183 189 154 182 185 Zinc 91 89 95 103 87 91 85 84 114 107 108 Composition of diet Food energy (kcal) 1400 1700 2300 2600 2900 3000 2900 2600 2400 2200 2000 Cholesterol (mg) 210 220 230 270 280 330 340 280 340 340 340 Sodium (mg) 1600 2000 2600 3000 3200 4000 4200 3100 3400 3300 2500 Percentage of energy Total fat 33 34 33 34 34 35 36 37 32 35 37 Saturated fat 13 12 12 12 11 12 12 12 13 13 14 Protein 17 14 12 13 13 13 13 14 16 16 17 !Nutritive value of the edible portion of food as purchased, adjusted to allow for losses in cooking for vitamins, except folate. One-half of the drippings and trirnrnable fat from meat, poultry, and fish was assumed as discard. 2Nutritive value per pound of food groups is based on the average quantities of foods used by about 4,400 low-income households eligible for the Food Stamp Program surveyed November 1977-March 1978 as part of the Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1977-78. 3RDA derived for specified sex-age categories by interpolation. percent of the revised dietary standard for some sex-age categories, met a higher percentage of the dietary standard than in TFP-83. For several of the sex-age categories, the TFP-R contained more calories than did the TFP-83. These 1995 Vol. 8 No. 3 additional calories reflect the updated food composition data used to recalculate the nutritive values for the food groups used in the TFP-R and TFP-PR. Overall, the improved nutritive value seen in TFP-R, compared with that in TFP-83, reflects the decrease in RDA values between the 1980 and the 1989 editions for several nutrientsparticularly, vitamin B-6 and zinc for selected sex-age groups-and more reliable and up-to-date food composition data. 11 12 This study shows that the TFP-83 does not meet current nutritional recommendations for several nutrients and dietary components. Although the nutritive value of TFP-R was much improved over that of TFP- 83 in terms of RDA, the TFP-R contained 100 to 300 more calories than TFP-83, and the levels of total fat and saturated fat for each of the 11 sex-age categories failed to meet current dietary guidance. In addition, fat levels for males 20-50 years of age and males and females 51 years of age and older exceeded the 1983 standard of 35 percent or less of total calories. No standard for saturated fat was established for TFP-83 so a comparison of saturated fat values in TFP-R and TFP-83 was not attempted. Cholesterol levels for all sex-age groups in TFP-R fell below the TFP-83 standard of 350 mg per day (table 4 ), with six of the sex-age groups falling below 300 mg per day. TFP-R sodium levels ranged from 1,100 to 1,500 mg per 1,000 kcal for the sex-age groups. Although the standard of 1,600 mg per 1,000 kcal is met, the caloric increase in the TFP-R's nutritive value contributed to an overall increase in sodium for all sex-age categories, except children 1-2 years old. Can a TFP Be Developed That Meets Dietary Recommendations at Current Cost Level? For the TFP-PR, a computerized mathematical model was used to generate a practical and acceptable consumption pattern for each of the 11 sex-age categories. This model, which was used in the development ofTFP-83 (1,15), minimizes the changes that households need to make in consumption patterns to meet the goal of obtaining a nutritious diet at the current cost level. Dietary standards used in TFP-83 (1,15) were updated in the model to reflect the 1989 RDAs and to include additional constraints for fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol. Recalculated nutritive values for the 31 food groups based on the 1987- 88 NFCS and USDA's Nutrient Data Bank data were used to update the nutritive value of foods in the consumption patterns of the TFP-83. No other data modifications were made to TFP-83, and average unit costs of each food group were held constant. The model compared the updated nutritive values to the revised dietary standards and made any necessary adjustments in the consumption patterns. Thus, the optimum food plan (quantities of the 31 food groups for a week) that met dietary standard constraints at the current cost was selected for each sex-age category. The TFP-PR generated by the model illustrates a possible and practical consumption pattern for each of the 11 sex-age groups (table 5). Current dietary standards are met for all nutrients and dietary components except zinc, for five sex-age categories (table 6). Although not a complete revision of TFP-83, TFP-PR represents a link of 1977-78 NFCS consumption data with up-to-date food composition information and food codes from the 1987-88 NFCS. This step is useful in determining the feasibility of generating a new TFP using current dietary recommendations. This plan is not currently used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture but represents the results of exploratory research on food plan development. Several shifts in food group quantities are apparent when comparing the TFP-PR and TFP-83. In the development of TFP-83, minimum and maximum quantities that could be included in the food plan were predetermined (15). Such limits helped to assure that the food plan would be practical as a basis for meal preparation. In TFP-83, the lower and upper limits were based on Family Economics and Nutrition Review Table 5. Thrifty food plan, partial revision (TFP-PR): Quantities of food for a week1 Children (years) Males (years) Females3 (years) Foodgroup2 1-2 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-50 51+ 12-19 20-50 51+ Poundi Vegetables, fruit Potatoes (fresh wt) 0.47 1.78 1.14 1.18 1.29 2.33 2.09 3.37 1.58 2.24 1.79 High-nutrient vegetables 0.52 1.40 1.08 1.23 1.65 1.08 1.61 3.17 1.78 2.33 3.77 Other vegetables 0.60 0.73 1.02 1.32 1.35 1.15 1.86 2.51 1.54 2.73 2.44 Mixtures, mostly vegetables; condiments 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 Vitamin-C rich fruits 1.20 1.24 1.35 1.72 1.08 1.17 1.13 1.00 2.25 1.73 1.35 Other fruits 0.97 0.92 1.61 1.91 1.11 1.04 1.20 1.41 1.41 0.93 1.37 Grain products Whole-gr:ainlhigh-fiber breakfast cereals6 0.44 0.42 0.39 0.41 0.53 0.43 0.23 0.15 0.30 0.12 0.17 Other breakfast cereals 0.26 0.67 0.52 0.63 0.85 0.42 0.37 0.24 0.49 0.19 0.27 Whole-grain/high-fiber flour, meal, rice, pasta 0.11 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.20 0.27 0.19 0.22 0.16 0.15 0.18 Other flour, meal, rice, pasta 0.09 1.37 1.29 1.14 1.95 3.08 2.30 2.20 1.71 1.81 2.03 Whole-grain/high-fiber bread O.Ql 0.24 0.12 0.14 0.34 0.17 0.27 0.45 0.24 0.34 0.29 Other bread 0.16 0.24 0.75 0.94 1.30 1.43 2.26 0.46 1.12 1.13 0.29 Bakery products, not bread 0.06 0.06 0.14 0.20 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.10 Grain mixtures 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.21 0.02 0.29 0.30 0.02 0.35 0.41 O.Ql Milk, cheese, cream Milk, yogurt (qts)7 5.21 3.25 3.20 3.45 3.13 4.64 2.55 1.27 3.42 1.68 1.54 Cheese 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.06 O.Q7 0.08 0.09 Cream, mixtures mostly milk 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.03 O.Q3 0.03 Meat and alternates Lower cost red meats, variety meats 1.08 0.92 0.70 0.92 1.81 1.49 2.23 2.18 1.38 1.60 1.95 Higher cost red meats, variety meats 0.33 0.11 0.30 0.19 0.18 0.26 0.31 0.24 0.20 0.35 0.18 Poultry 0.04 0.06 0.70 0.70 0.90 0.90 0.21 0.08 0.20 0.95 0.46 Fish, shellfish 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.35 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.33 0.04 0.04 0.04 Bacon, sausage, luncheon meats 0.18 0.18 0.24 0.23 0.26 0.27 0.33 0.23 0.24 0.22 0.20 Eggs (number) 1.43 1.43 2.24 2.45 1.91 3.34 4.46 3.70 3.93 5.13 2.29 Dry beans, peas, lentils (dry wt)8 0.27 0.29 0.21 0.24 0.71 0.47 0.73 0.88 0.37 0.42 0.42 Mixtures, mostly meat, poultry, fish, egg, legume 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.13 0.13 0.01 Nuts (shelled wt), peanut butter 0.04 O.Q7 0.05 0.01 0.15 0.10 0.34 0.21 0.05 0.16 0.04 Other foods9 Fats, oils 0.13 0.14 0.18 0.21 0.23 0.38 0.39 0.38 0.20 0.28 0.21 Sugar, sweets 0.10 0.17 0.83 0.94 0.38 0.66 0.64 0.29 0.25 0.21 0.22 Soft drinks, punches, ades (single strength) 0.16 0.23 0.65 0.87 0.35 1.51 1.17 0.13 1.12 1.01 0.15 1Quantities are for food as purchased or brought into the household from garden or farm. Food is for preparation of all meals and snacks for a week. About 5 percent ~f the edible parts of food is assumed to be discarded as plate waste, spoilage, etc. 3 see table 2 for foods in food groups. lregnant and lactating females usually require added nutrients. SQuantities in pounds except milk, which is in quarts, and eggs, which are by number. lrozen concentrated juices are included as single-strength juice. 7 Cereal fortified with iron is recommended. Quantities of dry and evaporated milk and yogurt included as their fluid whole milk equivalents in terms of calcium content. 8Count one pound of canned dry beans-pork and beans, kidney beans, etc.-as 0.33 pound. 9Small quantities of coffee, tea, and seasonings are not shown. Their cost is a part of the estimated cost for the food plan. 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 13 Table 6. Nutritive value1 offood in the partial revision of the thrifty food plan (TFP-PR) as a percent of 1989 RDAs2 Children (years) Males (years) Females (years) Food component 1-2 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-50 51+ 12-19 20-50 51+ Percentage of Recommended Dietary Allowance ( 1989P Protein 377 287 255 221 214 180 166 137 181 174 146 Vitamin A 271 346 230 211 206 167 187 249 241 258 347 Thiamin 189 250 201 200 220 196 184 174 216 187 185 Riboflavin 305 249 211 215 223 197 178 155 221 174 173 Niacin 150 200 174 178 198 159 166 172 167 169 176 Vitamin B-6 151 215 164 169 181 134 127 135 161 143 139 Vitamin B-12 1046 671 464 436 445 429 432 379 362 323 343 Folate 516 532 371 344 329 211 220 194 248 207 198 VitaminC 229 294 281 323 265 242 234 251 320 277 263 VitaminE 100 100 106 101 100 101 106 100 100 104 100 Calcium 151 124 130 122 100 133 133 100 100 100 100 Iron 121 192 190 191 239 223 258 216 144 130 190 Magnesium 307 258 184 150 140 106 113 105 117 120 112 Phosphorus 163 162 170 158 149 179 208 189 134 165 163 Zinc 95 97 100 100 99 100 100 88 100 100 95 Composition of diet Food energy (kcal) 1300 1600 1900 2100 2500 3000 2900 2300 2200 2200 1900 Cholesterol (mg) 190 150 200 230 240 300 300 250 250 300 210 Sodium (mg) 1400 1900 2600 3000 3100 3500 3600 2700 3200 3200 2600 Percentage of energy Total fat 38 25 26 26 28 27 30 30 26 30 28 Saturated fat 17 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Protein 19 15 14 14 15 14 14 15 15 15 15 1 Nutritive value of the edible portion of food as purchased, adjusted to allow for losses in cooking for vitamins. One-half of the drippings and trimmable fat from meat, poultry, and fish was assumed as discard. 2Nutritive value per pound of food groups is based on the average quantities of foods used by about 4,400 low-income households eligible for the Food Stamp Program surveyed November 1977-March 1978 as part of the Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1977-78. 3RDA derived for specified sex-age categories by interpolation. the 25th and the 90th percentiles on distributions of the food group quantity used per person by survey households. These same cut-offs were used for the TFP-PR. These limits not only assured practical consumption patterns but also restricted the use of foods such as salt 14 and seasonings, soft drinks, punches and ades, and coffee and tea. Shifts in food group quantities that occurred from TFP-83 to TFP-PR were constrained by the minimum and maximum limits set for TFP-83; however, these shifts showed the direction of change needed to meet the dietary standards is towards food groups with nutrientdense foods. For example, quantities of potatoes, high-nutrient vegetables, other vegetables, breakfast cereals, and pasta products were higher, and quantities of cream and fats and oils were lower in Family Economics and Nutrition Review the consumption patterns for some sexage categories (tables 1 and 5). The TFP-PR generated by the model represents a solution at the current cost level ofTFP-83. The cost ofTFP-83 established at the time of development (prices paid by survey households in the 1977-78 NFCS) has been updated monthly by USDA to reflect current prices paid for food using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for detailed food expenditure categories. The CPI is based on prices collected each month by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Zinc in TFP-R and TFP-PR In both components of the evaluation, zinc was identified as the nutrient least likely to meet 100 percent of the RDA. USDA applies the RDAs as a standard because they recommend a level of intake of specific nutrients designed to ensure that the needs of most healthy people are met (9). Although the zinc levels did not meet 100 percent of the dietary standard for all sex-age groups, the levels in both components of this evaluation were consistent with intakes by Americans. Zinc levels in the TFP-R and in TFP-PR were at least 84 and 88 percent, respectively, of the RDA (tables 4 and 6)-and better, in many cases, than observed consumption levels in American diets (7,13). In addition, the dietary changes associated with reducing total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol are likely to negatively affect the zinc content of the diet (3). To ensure adequate amounts of zinc in the revision of the plan, emphasis needs to be placed on incorporating a variety of food items (such as grains, legumes, more fruits and vegetables, and lower fat dairy products) that are higher in zinc but lower in fat than are included in the 1983 TFP. 1995 Vol. 8 No. 3 Summary of Findings and Implications for Research This study shows that the TFP-83 does not meet current nutritional recommendations for several nutrients and dietary components. Additionally, it identifies several limitations of this plan. These limitations include out-of-date consumption and cost data from 1977-78, dietary standards based on old (1980) RDAs, the exclusion of the limits contained in the most recent (1990) version of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans from the dietary standards, and incomplete and out-of-date food composition data. Concern about the quality of data from the 1987-88 NFCS and the absence of an alternative data source to revise the plan have been the major limitations to updating the TFP-83. Linking the food stamp allotment to a plan based on such data may not be defensible or acceptable. This evaluation is presented as a first step in the revision process of the 1983 TFP. Although exploratory, it is valuable because it shows that a plan (TFPPR) at the current cost level of TFP-83 can be generated that meets nutritional recommendations for all nutrients except zinc. These findings will be used by USDA to identify the data needs and to determine the steps necessary to revise the 1983 TFP. This process is currently underway by the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP), the responsible lead for the development of USDA Family Food Plans. CNPP and several other USDA agencies are developing strategies and a work plan for revision of the 1983 TFP. Discussion is focused on obtaining and incorporating several types of data into the revision process. These include updated survey data on household and individual consumption behaviors and food prices paid by households for food consumed; the most recent RDAs as well as the forthcoming Dietary Guidelines for Americans and Food Guide Pyramid serving recommendations; updated food composition data and access to food grouping systems for classification of foods (including mixtures) into appropriate groups; and menu and recipe planning software to assist with the production of educational materials that offer a variety of foods to lowincome consumers. 15 References 1. Cleveland, L.E. and Kerr, R.L. 1989. Development and uses of the USDA food plans. Journal of Nutrition Education 20(5):232-238. 2. Cofer, E., Grossman, E., and Clark, F. 1962. Family Food Plans and Food Costs. Home Economics Research Report No. 20. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 3. Dollahite, J., Franklin, D., and McNew, R. 1995. Problems encountered in meeting the recommended dietary allowances for menus designed according to the dietary guidelines for Americans. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 95(3):341-344, 347. 4. Gerrior, S.A. and Zizza, C. 1994. Nutrient Content of the U.S. Food Supply, 1909- 1990. Home Economics Research Report No. 52. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 6. Guenther, P.M. and Tippett, K.S . (eds.). 1993. Evaluation of Nonresponse in the Nationwide Food Consumption Survey, 1987-88. Nationwide Food Consumption Survey Report No. 87-M-2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service. 6. Kerr, R.L., Peterkin, B.B., Blum, A.J., and Cleveland, L.E. 1984. USDA 1983 thrifty food plan. Family Economics Review 1:18-25. 7. Moser-Veillon, P.B. 1990. Zinc: Consumption patterns and dietary recommendations. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 90(8):1089-1093. 8. National Research Council, Committee on Diet and Health Food and Nutrition Board Commission on Life Sciences. 1989. Diet and Health: Implications for Reducing Chronic Disease Risk. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 9. National Research Council, Subcommittee on the Tenth Edition of the RDAs, Food and Nutrition Board. 1989. Recommended Dietary Allowances, lOth ed. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 10. National Research Council, Committee on Dietary Allowances, Food and Nutrition Board. 1980. Recommended Dietary Allowances, 9th ed. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. 11. Perloff, B.P. 1989. Analysis of dietary data. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 50: 1128-1132. 12. Peterkin, B.B., Rizek, R.L., and Tippett, K.S. 1988. Nationwide food consumption survey, 1987. Nutrition Today January/February:18-24. 13. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service. 1993. Food and Nutrient Intakes by Individuals in the United States, 1 day, 1987-88. Nationwide Food Consumption Survey Report No. 87-1-1. 14. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service. 1992. The Food Guide Pyramid. Home and Garden Bulletin No. 252. 15. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service. 1983. The Thrifty Food Plan. CND (Adm.) No. 365. 16. U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1990. Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 3d ed. Home and Garden Bulletin No. 232. 16 Family Economics and Nutrition Review 1995 Vol. 8 No. 3 Income and Spending of Rural Single-Parent Families By Mark Uno Economist Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion In examining the economic status of single-parent families, the tendency has been to aggregate rural and urban families. This study examines the characteristics, income, and spending of single-parent families in the two areas separately using data from the 1990-92 Consumer Expenditure Survey. A significantly higher proportion of urban than rural single parents were never married. Slightly over one-fourth of single parents in both areas did not have a high school diploma. A significantly greater percentage of rural than urban single-parent families received alimony and child support, but a smaller percentage received public assistance. Before-tax income of rural families was significantly lower compared with urban families ($16,060 vs. $18,430). Housing accounted for the largest share of total expenses for both groups. A significantly higher proportion of rural than urban singleparent families owned a home, with 29 percent of all rural single-parent families residing in a mobile home. These results can give policymakers and professionals who develop programs targeted to single-parent families a better understanding of the differences in the two groups. []] ingle-parent families are a growing proportion of all families with children. In 1970, 13 percent of all family groups with children under age 18 were maintained by a single parent. By 1993, this figure had climbed to 30 percent (9). Families maintained by one parent are one of the more economically vulnerable groups in the population (13). Previous research has examined the economic situation of single-parent families by various characteristics. For a review of this research see (5). One aspect that has received little attention is rural residency; the tendency has been to aggregate rural and urban families. However, because social and economic conditions between the two areas differ (2), the economic wellbeing of rural and urban single-parent families would be expected to differ. Although a lower proportion of children in nonmetro versus metro areas reside with only one parent, the percentages have been rising in both areas (1 0). To delineate economic differences between rural and urban single-parent families, this study examines the characteristics, income, and spending of these families. Findings concerning the economic situation of rural and urban single-parent families can give policymakers and professionals who develop programs targeted to single-parent families a better understanding of the differences in the two groups. 17 18 About one in four single parents in both areas did not have a high school diploma. Data Data for this study are from the 1990-92 Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE), conducted by the Bureau of Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The CE is an ongoing study that collects data on expenditures, income, and major sociodemographic characteristics of consumer units. In this study, the terms consumer unit, family, and household will be used interchangeably. A national sample of consumer units, representing the civilian, noninstitutionalized population, is interviewed over four consecutive quarters. There is a rotating sample design such that each quarter a portion of the sample consists of new consumer units introduced to replace consumer units who complete their participation in the survey. Each quarter is deemed an independent sample and should be treated as such to incorporate the weights. Data from 12 quarters were therefore aggregated and expenditures annualized for this study. The 1990-92 survey contains information from about 60,000 interviews (5,000 interviews per quarter). Families maintained by single parents with at least one child under age 18 in the home were selected for analysis. Households were composed of parents and children only. Those with extended family members or nonfamily members, such as grandparents or cohabiting partners, were not included because single-parent families living with others are not always identifiable in the data, and families living with others do not represent the typical family type of interest. An estimated 72 percent of single-mother families are composed of parents and children only (1 5) (figures are not available for single-father families). The unweighted sample consisted of 261 single-parent families residing in rural areas and 3,642 single-parent families residing in urban areas. Rural areas are defmed as places of less than 2,500 people outside a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA); all places within an MSA and places of 2,500 or more people outside an MSA are classified as urban. For income, only data from consumer units that were classified as complete income reporters were used. Complete income reporters are consumer units that provide values for major sources of income such as wages and salary, self-employment income, and Social Security. About 86 percent of rural and urban single-parent families were complete income reporters. Data were weighted to obtain population estimates. Tests of significance (Chi-square and t-tests), however, were performed on the unweighted data and reported at the .01level. The .01level of statistical significance was selected rather than the more traditional .05 level to compensate for any possible clustering effect present in the data. Characteristics Average age of rural single parents was slightly, but significantly, older than that of urban single parents (38 vs. 35 years) (table 1). Average family size was similar between families in the two areas (2.8 and 2.9) denoting an average of two children. Twelve percent of rural single parents and 10 percent of urban single parents were male, a nonsignificant difference. No significant difference in educational level of single parents was observed between the two groups. About one in four single parents in both areas did not have a high school diploma. This Family Economics and Nutrition Review Table 1. Selected characteristics of single-parent families by rural-urban residence, 1990-92 Characteristic Average age of parent (years)* Average family size Parent Sex Female Male Education No high school diploma High school diploma 1 - 3 years of college 4 years of college or more Race* White Non-White Marital status* Divorced/separated Never married Widowed Rural 38 2.8 88 12 27 33 28 12 84 16 79 11 10 Percent Urban 35 2.9 90 10 26 36 27 11 64 36 69 26 5 *Statistically significant at IJ:S.Ol based on unweighted data. relatively low educational level has implications for the job prospects (and thus, income) of these people. With regard to race and marital status, there were significant differences between single parents in the two areas. A much lower percentage of single parents in rural compared with urban areas were non-White (16 vs. 36 percent), reflecting the lower percentage of nonWhites overall in rural areas (1). 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 Eleven percent of rural single parents were never married, compared with 26 percent of urban single parents. Rogers states that one of the factors associated with rural living is a more traditional attitude about families (10). So, while divorce may be increasingly acceptable in rural areas, a birth to a never-married woman probably is less so. Income Wages or salary was the income source most likely to be received by singleparent families in rural and urban areas (table 2, p. 20). Eighty-four percent of rural and 73 percent of urban singleparent families had wage or salary income, a significant difference. There was also a significant difference in employment status between rural and urban single parents (fig. 1, p. 20).1 A significantly higher proportion of rural than urban single parents worked part time.2 This has been attributed to the nature of employment available in nonmetro/rural areas. Opportunities for women are thought to be more restricted in rural areas, reflecting more traditional expectations of women (6). For rural families, alimony/child support/regular contributions3 was the second most likely received income source (39 percent), whereas food stamps was the second most likely received source by urban families (36 percent). Alimony/child support/regular contributions was received by a significantly lower percentage of urban singleparent families (31 percent) than rural families. The higher percentage of rural 1 Although 80 percent of rural single-parent families had an employed parent, 84 percent had wage or salary income. In some families, it may be an older child and not the single parent who is employed. Also, some parents may work only a small part of the year and not view themselves as employed. 2Full-time, year-round employment is defined as working 35 or more hours per week, 50 or more weeks per year, including any time off with pay. Part-time employment is defined as working less than 35 hours per week or less than 50 weeks per year, including any time off with pay. 3These three income sources were combined in the CE public use tape; regular contributions are periodic payments from a nongovernment, nonhousehold source, such as extended family. 19 single parents receiving income from this source may be because more of these people were divorced or separated rather than never married. Divorced or separated women may receive a child support award from the court at the time of the divorce or legal separation; nevermarried women usually need to initiate legal proceedings-and many do not. The percentage of rural and urban single-parent families receiving income from alimony/child support/regular contributions may appear low, especially since child support is included and these families had at least one child under age 18 in the home. Many single parents with children, however, are not awarded child support-and when it is awarded, the full amount due is often not paid (3). A significantly lower proportion of rural than urban single-parent families received income from public assistance (14 vs. 29 percent), such as Aid for Families with Dependent Children, and food stamps (24 vs. 36 percent; the value of food stamps received was included as income). Receipt of these two sources of income is likely inversely related to receipt of child support. Child support payments reduce the need to depend on government assistance to meet expenses. A small proportion of both rural and urban families received income from Social Security and interest or dividends; there was no significant difference between the two groups of single-parent families in tenns of these two income sources. Social Security is paid to widowed single parents since under the Social Security system, a household with a dependent child from a deceased parent is eligible for survivors' benefits. 20 Table 2. Percentage of single-parent families with income source by rural-urban residence, 1990-92 Income source Rural Urban Wages or salary 84 73* Alimony/child support/regular contributions 39 31* Public assistance 14 29* Interest or dividends 12 14 Food stamps 24 36* Social Security 10 6 Other1 28 20* 1 Includes income from pensions, Supplemental Security Income, unemployment compensation, or owned businesses. *Statistically significant at ps.Ol based on unweighted data. Figure 1. Employment status of single parents by rural-urban residence, 1990-92* Percent 38 Rural 42 20 44 Urban 29 27 • Employed full time Employed part time 0 Not employed *Statistically significant at ~.01 based on unweighted data. Family Economics and Nutrition Review Table 3. Income of single-parent families by rural-urban residence 1990-92 ' Before-tax income Per capita After-tax income Per capita Wages and salary Alimony/child support! regular contributions Public assistance Interest and dividends Food stamps Social Security Other1 Rural Urban $16,060 $18,430* 5,740 6,360* 15,460 17,330* 5,520 5,980* Percent of before-tax income 70 73* 11 3 2 3 2 9 6 7* 1 5* 2 6 I Includes income from pensions, Supplemental Security Income, unemployment compensation, and owned businesses. *Statistically significant at ~.01 based on unweighted data. Average before-tax income of rural single-parent families was 13 percent lower, a significantly different amount, than that of their urban counterparts ($16,060 vs. $18,430) (table 3). Per capita income was also significantly lower, but by a smaller amount as average family size was slightly larger for urban families. Per capita after-tax income was 8 percent lower for rural than urban families ($5,520 vs. $5,980). The income of both groups of singleparent families was much lower than that of married-couple families in each respective area. Most before-tax income for rural and urban single-parent families was derived from wages and salary, 70 percent and 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 73 percent, respectively. There was no significant difference in the amount received from alimony/child support! regular contributions between the two groups. Public assistance and food stamps composed significantly smaller amounts of before-tax income for rural than urban families. Together, these sources accounted for 6 percent of total income for rural single-parent families and 12 percent for urban families. Other sources of income, which include income from pensions, Supplemental Security Income, unemployment compensation, and owned businesses, accounted for 9 percent of income for rural families and 6 percent for urban families, amounts that were not significantly different. Public assistance and food stamps composed significantly smaller amounts of before-tax income for rural than urban families. 21 ... there was a significant difference in vehicle ownership between families in the two areas. 22 Table 4. Percentage of single-parent families with expenditures by ruralurban residence, 1990-92 Expenditure Rural Urban Housing 100 100 Food 100 100 At home 100 100 Away from home 74 74 Transportation 90 87 Clothing 86 91 Health care 66 55* Entertainment 89 82* Personal care 58 62 Education or reading 58 61 Child care 17 20 Home furnishings or equipment 60 64 Alcoholortobacco 55 54 Retirement or pensions 71 66 Miscellaneous 1 65 55* 1 Includes life insurance, cash contributions, finance charges excluding mortgages and vehicles, or occupational expenses. *Statistically significant at p:5;.0l based on unweighted data. The incomes of the families examined do not include the value of noncash benefits such as Medicaid, free and reduced-price school meals, WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children) and public housing. Such benefits would raise the effective incomes of singleparent families since they are likely to receive these benefits given their low incomes. A Census Bureau study found the poverty rate among female-headed households was dramatically reduced when noncash benefits were taken into consideration (12). It should be noted that not all people who are eligible for these benefits receive them; some people may not be aware of their eligibility and others may not wish to apply. Therefore, noncash benefits do not necessarily raise the effective income of all single-parent families eligible for them. Spending The percentages of rural and urban families incurring transportation expenses were not significantly different (table 4). Despite this, there was a significant difference in vehicle ownership between families in the two areas. Among rural single-parent families, 85 percent owned a vehicle, compared with 66 percent of urban families. The lack of public transportation in rural areas is likely the main reason for the greater vehicle ownership among families in these areas. Family Economics and Nutrition Review Table 5. Expenditures of single-parent families by rural-urban residence 1990-92 ' Expenditure Total expenditures Per capita Housing Food At home Away from home Transportation Clothing Health care Entertainment Personal care Education and reading Child care Home furnishings and equipment Alcohol and tobacco Retirement and pensions Miscellaneous 1 Rural $15,660 5,590 Urban $19,530* 6,730* Percent of total expenditures 27 32* 21 19* 17 16* 4 3 20 15 5 6* 5 4 5 4* 1 1* 1 2* 2 2 3 4* 2 2 5 6* 3 3 1 Inciudes life insurance, cash contributions, finance charges excluding mortgages and vehicles, and occupational expenses. *Statistically significant at ps.Ol based on unweighted data. A high proportion of both rural and urban single-parent families did not have health care expenses (34 and 45 percent-a significant difference). Health care expenses (including insurance premiums) only cover those made out-of-pocket. Whether zero out-ofpocket health care expenses translates into no health insurance coverage is unknown. Some of these families may have employer-provided insurance that covers all medical expenses. Others may depend on government programs, such 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 as Medicaid, or nonprofit organizations to provide health care. Still, it is likely that some of these families do not have any type of health insurance coverage and go without medical care altogether. A low proportion of families in rural and urban areas had child care expenses (17 and 20 percent-a nonsignificant difference). This may seem surprising given that most single parents in both areas were employed. A large proportion of child care for preschool children, however, is provided by relatives who likely are not paid (7). Children in single-parent families may also be more likely to remain home alone after school. In addition, those parents who work part time may do so to be home when their children return from school. Retirement or pension expenses, which include Social Security deductions (Social Security deductions are considered an expense in the CE and are not subtracted from after-tax income), were incurred by 71 percent of rural and 66 percent of urban single-parent families, a nonsignificant difference. For families in both areas, these percentages are lower than the proportion of employed parents. For example, 80 percent of rural single parents were employed, but 71 percent of rural single-parent families had retirement or pension expenses. Some single parents who were employed part time may not have retirement benefits. Also, single parents may be employed through informal arrangements without retirement coverage. Total expenditures averaged $15,660 for rural single-parent families and $19,530 for their urban counterparts, a significant difference (table 5). The total expenses of rural families slightly exceeded their after-tax income (by about $200); however, the expenses of urban families exceeded their after-tax income by 13 percent. The discrepancy between income and expenses may reflect underreporting income, incurring debt or using savings to cover expenses, or reporting expenses paid by others. 23 Housing accounted for the largest share of total expenses for single-parent families in rural and urban areas (27 and 32 percent) but made up a significantly larger amount for urban than rural families. It should be noted that for homeowners, the shelter component of housing expenses includes only mortgage interest and not principal payments; mortgage principal payments are considered a form of savings in the CE. The effective housing expenses of families would therefore be higher than those reported here. There was a significant difference in the housing tenure of single-parent families in the two areas. Only 30 percent of urban single-parent families owned their homes, compared with 57 percent of rural families (fig. 2; this also implies that overall housing expenses of rural, compared with urban families would be higher than reported here). Part of this difference may be explained by the type of housing. Twenty-nine percent of rural single-parent families resided in a mobile home, compared with only 5 percent of urban families, a significant difference (fig. 3). The cost of a mobile home is much less than other forms of housing; the average price of a mobile home was $28,400 in 1992 (14). Food made up the second largest share of total expenses for rural and urban single-parent families (21 and 19 percent- amounts that were significantly different), followed by transportation (20 and 15 percent-amounts that were not significantly different). Although food expenses include the value of food stamps spent, the value of other benefits received from food programs, such as WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition 24 Figure 2. Housing tenure of single-parent families by rural-urban residence, 1990-92* 43o/o Rural Urban Own D Rent *Statistically significant at pS.01 based on unweighted data. Program for Women, Infants, and Children), are not included. Given their lower income, single-parent families are more likely than other family types to receive these benefits so their effective food expenses are likely greater. Other components of the budget each made up less than 10 percent of total expenditures for both rural and urban single-parent families. Clothing accounted for 5 percent of total expenses for rural families and 6 percent for urban families, amounts that were significantly different. Health care accounted for 5 percent of total expenses for rural families and 4 percent for urban families, amounts that were not significantly different. Again, health care only includes outof- pocket expenses and not that portion covered by insurance or other programs. Child care accounted for just 2 percent of total expenses; there was no significant difference in expenses between families in the two areas. This figure is somewhat misleading as it includes families with and without the expense, and many people did not have childcare expenses; for only those with the expense, the percentage would be much higher. Alcohol and tobacco also accounted for 2 percent of total expenses, and there was no significant difference in these expenses between families in the two areas. Retirement and pensions made up 5 to 6 percent of total expenses for families in both areas and were significantly higher for urban families. Family Economics and Nutrition Review Figure 3. Type of housing inha~ited by single-parent families by rural-urban residence, 1990-92 * 56% Rural Urban • Single-family detached • Mobilehome D Other (apartment/ town house, etc.) 11ncludes both owners and renters. "Statistically significant at ~.01 based on unweighted data. Discussion This study found similarities and differences between rural and urban single-parent families with regard to sociodemographic characteristics and economic status. In terms of similarities, single-parent families in rural and urban areas had a low average income. This low income was exacerbated by the low educational level and work-force participation of single parents. Slightly over one-fourth of rural and urban single parents did not have a high school diploma. Although most rural and urban single parents were employed, 20 to 27 percent were not. A high proportion were employed part time-42 percent of rural single parents. However, wages or salary still accounted for most of 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 before-tax income. Therefore, policies or programs that help single parents move into the labor force and increase their earnings potential would be most effective in improving their economic status. Despite having dependent children in the household, most rural and urban single parents did not receive child support. This compounds the poorer economic status of single-parent families. The receipt of child support payments that reflect adequate expenses on a child would alleviate the poorer economic status of these families. It has been claimed that better child support enforcement may do more to ameliorate poverty among rural children than community economic development (4). Housing, food, and transportation accounted for about two-thirds of total expenditures for rural and urban singleparent families. It is not surprising that these necessities made up such a large part of the budget given the poorer economic circumstances of these families. A large proportion of singleparent families in both areas reported no health care expenditures. Although these expenses may be fully covered by an employer or government program, it could be that some families are going without health care. This may be the case, especially for rural single-parent families, since health care is typically more expensive and there is a shortage of medical personnel in rural areas (11). More research on the health care situation of rural and urban single-parent families is needed. The income of rural families was significantly lower than that of urban families. When cost-of-living differences between rural and urban areas are taken into account, whether rural single-parent families are still worse off is unknown. Although rural areas are thought to have a lower cost of living than urban areas, no index in the United States has ever measured costof- living differences between rural and urban areas (2). Future research needs to examine cost differences between rural and urban areas to determine its effects on the economic status of families in the two areas. 25 The higher income of urban singleparent families partly reflects the significantly greater percentage of such families receiving public assistance and food stamps. After subtracting average public assistance and food stamp income from the total income of urban single-parent families, their income was still slightly above that of their rural counterparts. Perhaps some rural singleparent families are eligible for public assistance or food stamps but are not receiving these benefits. Research has shown that rural residents are less likely than urban residents to possess accurate eligibility information and to hold more adverse attitudes toward the use of welfare (8). If they are indeed eligible, some rural single parents may also be missing out on job training programs associated with public assistance programs such as Aid for Families With Dependent Children. There was a significant difference in the type of housing inhabited by rural and urban single-parent families. A substantial proportion of rural families lived in mobile homes. Recent natural disasters in the United States have focused attention on the safety of mobile homes. Since so many rural single parents and their children reside in these homes, it is imperative that safety standards be established and enforced. 26 References 1. Dacquel, L.T. and Dahrnann, D.C. 1993. Residents of Fanns and Rural Areas: 1991. Current Population Reports, Population Characteristics. P20-472. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2. Hoppe, R.A. 1993. The Family Support Act, our beliefs, and rural America. In R.A. Hoppe, ed. The Family Support Act: Will It Work in Rural Areas? Rural Development Research Report No. 83. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 3. Lester, G.H. 1991. Child Support and Alimony: 1989. Current Population Reports, Consumer Income. Series P-60, No. 173. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 4. Lichter, D.T. and Eggebeen, D.J. 1992. Child poverty and the changing rural family. Rural Sociology 57(2): 151-172. 5. Lino, M. 1994. The economics of single parenthood: Past research and future directions. Marriage and Family Review 20(1/2):99-114. 6. McLaughlin, D.K. and Sachs, C. 1988. Poverty in female-headed households: Residential differences. Rural Sociology 53(3):287-306. 7. O'Connell, M. and Bachu, A. 1990. Who's Minding the Kids? Child Care Arrangements: 1986-87. Current Population Reports, Household Economic Studies. Series P70, No. 20. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 8. Rank, M.R. and Hirschi, T.A. 1993. The link between population density and welfare participation. Demography 30(4):607-622. 9. Rawlings, S.W. 1994. Household and Family Characteristics: March 1993. Current Population Reports, Population Characteristics. P20-477. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 10. Rogers, C. C. 1991. The Economic Well-Being of Nonmetro Children. Rural Development Research Report No. 82. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 11. Rural Sociological Society Task Force on Persistent Rural Poverty. 1992. Persistent Poverty in Rural America. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 12. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1993. Measuring the Effect of Benefits and Taxes on Income and Poverty: 1992. Current Population Reports, Consumer Income. Series P60-186RD. 13. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1993. Poverty in the United States: 1992. Current Population Reports, Consumer Income. Series P60-185. 14. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1993. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1993 (113th ed.) 15. Winkler, A.E. 1993. The living arrangements of single mothers with dependent children: An added perspective. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 52(1):1-18. Family Economics and Nutrition Review 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 Per Capita Income and Expenditures of Baby-Boomer Households By Julia M. Dinkins Consumer Economist Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion The 1992 Consumer Expenditure Survey was used to examine per capita income and expenditures for various types of households-single-parent, husband-wife only, husband-wife-child, single-person, and extended-member households-headed by baby boomers (those born between 1946-64). Per capita comparisons were undertaken because average household size ranged from one to four people. Single-parent households had significantly lower per capita income than other households. Per capita income was $6,474 for single-parent households, compared with $9,390 for extendedmember, $11,731 for husband-wife-child, $25,987 for husband-wife only, and $27,090 for single-boomer households. Single-parent households had 76 percent of income from earnings, whereas other baby-boomer households received 91 to 98 percent of their income from wages and salaries. Single-parent boomers were more likely than others to receive public assistance income. They had significantly lower expenditures than households composed of husband-wife only, husband-wife-child, and single persons. Results are useful to professionals who help families allocate their limited resources and to policymakers who evaluate the impact of different income sources used by families (especially single parents) to meet their day-to-day needs. [I] n 1992, 26 percent of all U.S. households were married couples with children, 29 percent were married couples without children, 25 percent were single persons, 9 percent were other families with children, 6 percent were other families without children, and 5 percent were nonfarnily households (4). Demographic trends indicate that the number of U.S. households headed by baby boomers (born 1946-64) has increased. In 1980, 14.0 million households were headed by boomers. By 1991, that number had risen to 21.3 million-the largest increase among householders of any age group (6). In 1993, this cohort was 30 percent of the population. At the tum of the century, there will be 76.8 million boomers (28 percent of the U.S. population) and when they are between 46 and 64 years old (2010), their number will decline to 74.2 million or 25 percent of the population (2). When boomers join the ranks of the elderly after 2010, Census estimates that the percentage of elderly will increase from 40.1 to 70.2 million (2). The size of the aging baby-boomer generation will affect its ability to meet health care needs and to borrow on the home's value equity. The uncertainty of 27 financial support systems such as Social Security, pensions, and in-kind income for health expenditures increases concern about this group's future wellbeing. Thus, it is important to study the current status of this large segment of the U.S. population. Marital status and presence of children are important factors in determining boomers' current and future economic well-being (1,3). Using the Survey of Consumer Finances data, a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) (1) study showed that unmarried boomers tend to have lower wealthl-to-income ratios and lower wealth than married-couple boomers. The CBO study found that among boomers with and without children, a higher percentage of the unmarried compared with the married had median wealth that was less than median income (fig. 1). Younger boomers were more likely than older boomers to have less wealth than income. Because the economic situation varies by household types, examination of per capita income and expenditures may indicate which households in the boomer cohort are economically vulnerable and thus less likely to accumulate wealth. Household types include single parent; husband and wife only; husband, wife, and children; single person; and extended members.2 Because reports 1Wealth includes " ... liquid as well as illiquid financial assets such as individual retirement accounts (IRA' s) or Keogh plans; the value that can be borrowed against employer-provided pension accounts; the value of any housing, land, and automobiles owned less the debt owed to them; less other nonhousing liabilities such as credit-card debt" (1, p. 12). 2Extended-member households are those with two or more related or unrelated people, excluding those that consist solely of married couples, married couples with own children, or single parents with own children. 28 Figure 1. Percentage of baby boomers with median wealth less than median income, 1989 No children present Younger boomers 1 Median income* $26 45 Older boomers 2 29 51 Children present Younger boomers 1 13 35 Older boomers 2 21 46 • Married • Unmarried 1Age 25-34. 2Age 35-44. *$ thousands. Source: The Congress of the United States, Congressional Budget Office, 1993, Baby Boomers in Retirement: An Early Perspective. generally indicate that single-parent households tend to be at greater economic risk than others, single-parent boomers will be compared with the other households. Per capita income and expenditure data are reported because comparisons are made among households of different average sizes. Source of Data and Sample Data for this study are from the interview component of the 1992 Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics (7). The CE is an ongoing survey that collects data on household expenditures, income, and major socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. A national sample of Family Economics and Nutrition Review consumer units is interviewed once each quarter for five consecutive quarters; the first interview is used only for bounding3 purposes. Using a rotating sample design, about one-ftfth of the sample is replaced each quarter. Each year of CE data contains information for about 20,000 quarterly interviews. lncome4 data are annual, and quarterly expenditure data are multiplied by four to provide estimates of annual expenditures. Because of confidentiality restrictions, some income and expenditure data are subject to topcoding. The data are weighted to represent the U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized population. In 1992, there were 20,796 consumer units,S with 8,841 having reference 3Demographics, family characteristics, and a !-month recall of expenditures are collected in this interview. Expenditure data from this interview are used to prevent the reporting of expenditures for an indefinite period in the past. "'ncome is the combined income of all consumer unit members, 14 years of age or over, during the 12 months preceding the interview. Money income before taxes includes the following components: Wages and salaries; self-employment income; Social Security, private and government retirement; interest, dividends, rental income, and otber property income; unemployment and workers' compensation and veterans • benefits; public assistance, supplemental security income, and food stamps; regular contributions for support; and other income (e.g., care of foster children; cash scholarships, fellowships, or stipends; meals and rent as pay). 5 A conswner unit consists of eitber: (I) all members of a particular housing unit who are related by blood, marriage, adoption, or other legal arrangements; (2) two or more people living together who pool their incomes to make joint expenditure decisions; or (3) a person living alone or sharing a household with others or living as a roomer in a private home or lodging house or in permanent living quarters in a hotel or motel, but who is financially independent. To be considered financially independent, at least two of the three major expense categories (housing, food, and other living expenses) have to be provided by the respondent. In this article, consumer unit and household are used interchangeably. 1995 Vol. 8 No. 3 persons6 between 28 and 46 years old (members of the baby-boom cohort). Chi-square tests of independence and one-way analysis of variance were used to analyze the unweighted data. Differences were tested at p~.Ol. Characteristics of BabyBoomer Householders Table 1 shows the distribution of CE householders by age and family type. Boomer householders (28 to 46 years old) were significantly more likely than householders of other ages to be parents-either married with children or a single parent. Table 2, p. 30, shows the distribution of boomer respondents by socioeconomic 6Reference person is the first family member mentioned by the survey respondent when asked to "start" with the name of the person or one of the persons who owns or rents the home. The relationship of all other consumer unit members is determined by this person. The reference person may be the respondent. In this article, householder and reference person are used interchangeably. and demographic characteristics and consumer unit type. Chi square results indicate significant differences across households. Discussion of one-way ANOV A results focuses on significant differences between single parents and other households. Race Findings show a relationship between boomers' race and household type. A significantly higher percentage of White boomers lived in husband-wife and husband-wife-children households than in other types of consumer units. In contrast, Black boomers were less likely to live in these consumer units and more likely to live in single-parent, single-person, or extended-member households.? 7Extended-member households are those with two or more related or unrelated people, excluding those that consist solely of married couples, married couples with own children, or single parents with own children. Table 1. Distribution of consumer units, 1992 Variables Total Age (years)* Less than 28 28-46 47-65 66+ Single parent 1,392 9 12 2 0 Husband, wife only 4,308 11 11 32 37 Consumer unit Husband, wife, children 5,877 Percent 17 44 23 14 Single person 5,923 45 20 23 47 Extended member1 3,296 18 13 20 12 *Statistically significant at p<.Ol based on Chi-square analysis of unweighted data. 'Extended-member households are those with two or more related or unrelated people, excluding those that consist solely of married couples, married couples with own children, or single parents with own children. 29 Table 2. Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of baby-boomer respondents, by consumer unit, 1992 Variables Sample size Average household size2 Average number of vehicles2 Average number of earners 2 Respondent Race* White Black Asian and other3 Gender* Female Male Education* Less than high school High school Some college College graduate and more Occupation* Managerial and professional Technical, sales, administrative support and service Other4 Not working and retired5 See notes at end of the table. Gender Census data for 1990 indicate that 69 percent of all householders are male and 31 percent, female (5). CE respondents (householders) are those who own or rent the home. Sixty-four percent of householders were males and 36 percent were females. Results show there is a significant relationship between respondents ' gender and household type. Females were more likely to be 30 Consumer unit Single Husband, Husband, Single Extended parent wife only wife, children person member1 1,040 929 3,999 1,669 1,204 3.00 2.00* 1.06 2.51 * 1.03 1.85* 69 91 29 5 2 4 89 15 11 85 22 12 36 26 29 22 13 40 21 35 39 25 15 36 25 4 identified as respondents in singleparent households (89 percent). Eightyfive percent of the households identified as having husbands (husband-wife only and husband-wife-children) specified the male as the respondent. People living alone were more likely to be male than female, and respondents in extendedmember households were more likely to be males, also. 4.08* 1.00* 3.86* 2.56* 1.35* 2.28* 1.94* .93 2.06* Percent 89 82 76 7 15 19 4 3 5 15 39 45 85 61 55 13 11 24 32 22 32 25 27 24 30 40 20 30 33 21 26 31 34 37 29 35 7 7 10 (table continues) Education Education and household type were significantly associated. Respondents in single-parent (42 percent) and extendedmember ( 44 percent) households were less likely than other respondents to report having any college education. Single boomers were better educated than other boomers. Sixty-seven percent of single boomers had some college education, as did 62 percent of respondents Family Economics and Nutrition Review Table 2. (Continued) Variables Household Number of earners* None One Two Three and more Before-tax income* <$10,000 $10,000- $19,999 $20,000 - $29,999 $30,000-$39,999 $40,000+ Not reported Region* Urban Northeast Midwest South West Rural Single parent 22 60 13 5 29 27 15 10 9 10 21 25 30 Husband, wife only 0 14 86 NA 2 8 11 11 54 14 19 19 28 17 17 Consumer unit Husband, wife, children 24 59 16 4 8 12 14 48 14 19 22 26 18 15 Single person 7 93 NA NA 15 17 21 15 18 14 19 18 31 23 9 Extended member1 3 20 54 23 9 15 18 15 31 12 19 18 28 24 11 *For continuous variables, the Scheffe computed on F ratios with ps.Ol was used. For categorical data, Chi-square with ~.01 was used. Unweighted data used. 1 Extended-member households are those with two or more related or unrelated people, excluding those that consist solely of married couples, married couples with own children, or single parents with own children. 2Single parents are compared with other consumer units. 3Consists of Asian and Pacific Islander; Native American, Aleut, and Eskimo; and other. 4Consists of fanning, forestry, and fishing; precision production, craft and repair, operators, fabricators, and laborers; the Armed Forces; self-employed; and other. 50niy four boomer respondents were retired. NA =Not applicable. in husband-wife only households and 55 percent of those living with a spouse and children. Compared with other boomer respondents, those living as singles and couples without children were more likely to be college graduates (40 percent each). 1995 Vol. 8 No. 3 Occupation Respondents living in single-parent households (39 percent) were significantly more likely than those living in other boomer households (25 to 34 percent) to work in sales and service occupations. Also, one in four singleparent respondents reported not working (or retiredB)-a much higher percentage than that reported by respondents living in other types of households. 80niy four boomer respondents were retired. 31 32 Compared with other boomers, single-parent boomers spent significantly less overall on a per person basis ... Figure 2. Number of earners in baby-boomer households, by consumer unit type, 1992* 23% Single parent Husband, Husband, wife, Single person Extended wife only children member •None •one Two 0 Three or more *Statistically significant at ps.01, unweighted data. Number of Earners One-way ANOV A results indicated that the number of earners in single-parent households was significantly lower than the number in households with couples (with and without children) and extended- member units. A majority (60 percent) of single-parent households reported one earner (table 1 and fig. 2). About one in five single-parent households (22 percent) had no earners. This was a much higher rate than found for the other household types. Most people living alone were earners (93 percent). The remaining household types were more likely to report two earners than zero, one, or three or more; marriedcouple boomers without children were most likely to claim two earners-86 percent, compared with 59 percent of husband-wife-children households and 54 percent of extended-member households. Region Region and household types were significantly related. Most of the boomer respondents lived in urban areas of the United States. A higher percentage lived in the urban South9 than in the other regions-regardless of household type. Single-parent households were 9 According to the 1992 CE, a higher percentage of total households live in the South-urban South, 28 percent; urban Midwest, 21 percent; urban West, 18 percent; urban Northeast, 19 percent; and rural areas, 14 percent. Family Economics and Nutrition Review Figure 3. Housing characteristics of baby-boomer respondents, by consumer unit type, 1992* Homeowners Type of housing unit Single-family detached Multiunit Other 1 80% 75% 54% D Husband, wife only Husband, wife, children • Single parent • Single person • Extended member *Statistically significant at ~.01, unweighted data. 1Mobile homes or trailers and other. more likely to reside in the Northeast and Midwest, compared with other household types. They were less likely than other households to live in the West or in rural areas. Single-person and extended-member households were more likely than others to live in the urban West. Couples with and without children were more likely than other boomer respondents to live in rural areas. 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 Housing Figure 3 shows the housing characteristics of households headed by baby-boomer respondents. A significant difference existed between housing tenure and boomers' household types. Boomers in single-parent and single-person households were more likely to be renters (66 and 64 percent, respectively) than those living in other types of households. Single-parent households were as likely to live in a single-family detached housing unit as in a multiunit housing structure. A majority of couples with and without children were homeowners (75 percent and 71 percent, respectively). Couples with children were more likely than other boomers to live in single-family detached units (80 percent), and single boomers were more likely than other boomers to reside in multiunit structures (54 percent). Few (5 to 12 percent) of the boomer respondents resided in units other than single-family detached or multiunit structures. Compared with other boomers, couples with children lived in significantly large housing units: 8.4 rooms (including baths), compared with 7.4 (couples without children), 7.2 (boomers in extendedmember households), 6.7 (single parents), and 5.8 (single boomers). 33 34 Although not the largest household, single-parent boomers had significantly smaller average before-tax per capita income than the other boomer households. Income and Income Sources Boomers likely to have a before-tax family income below $20,000 were single parents (56 percent), single persons (32 percent), and those in extendedmember households (24 percent) (table 2). Boomer couples with and without children were more likely than others to have before-tax income of $30,000 or more. Single-parent boomers had significantly lower income than other households. Single-parent boomers had an average 1992 before-taxlO family income of $19,422 (table 3). Couples with and without children had more than twice as much. Because household size differed significantly across households (table 2), per capita data are reported. Although not the largest household, single-parent boomers had significantly smaller average before-tax per capita income than the other boomer households. Per capita income of couples with children (average family size=4.1) was nearly double that of the single parents (average family size=3.0) ($11,731 vs. $6,474) (fig. 4, p. 36). Single boomers and couples without chlldren-the smaller households-had average per capita incomes of$27,090 and $25,987, respectively. Thus, it appears that among these households, single-parent boomers had much less income on a household and per capita basis. Family income for boomers was derived mostly from earnings. Except for singleparent households that had 76 percent of income from earnings, baby boomers received 91 to 98 percent of their income 10 Averages calculated for the 87 percent of consumer units that reported major sources of income. in wages and salaries. Single parents received 12 percent of their income from public assistance and 8 percent from alimony, child support, and other regular contributions. 11 Significantly smaller percentages of single-parent boomers than other boomer households received any income from earnings; interest and dividends; and unemployment and workers' compensation and veterans' benefits. Single-parent boomer households were significantly more likely to receive income from public assistance; and alimony, child support, and other regular contributions than were other boomer households. The dollar shares of public assistance income received from different sources by boomer households are presented in figure 5, p. 37. Single-parent boomer households were more likely to receive welfare and food stamp income than other public assistance income. Couples with and without children were more likely to receive unemployment and workers' compensation and veterans' payment income than other public assistance income. Figure 5 also shows that extended-member households were as likely to receive welfare income as unemployment and workers' compensation and veterans' payment income. 11For other regular contributions, the question asked was, "During the past 12 months, did you (or any member of your CU [consumer unit]) receive income from any of the following .... Income from regular contributions from ... other sources such as from persons outside the CU?" Family Economics and Nutrition Review Table 3. Income sources of consumer units headed by baby-boomer respondents,lt992 Single Husband, wife Husband, Single Extended Income sources parent2 only wife, children person membei3 Sample size 924 797 3,422 1,431 1,049 Average total before-tax income $19,422 $51,973* $47,864* $27,090* $36,244* Average total before-tax per capita income 6,474 25,987* 11,731 * 27,090* 9,390* Earnings 14,821 50,877* 46,011 * 25,724* 32,878* Interest, dividends 115 323 522* 303 169 Pensions, annuities 127 155 140 83 269 Social Security, Railroad Retirement 397 148* 175* 273* 995* Public assistance 2,419 373* 780* 472* 1,565* Supplemental Security Income 221 46* 55* 107* 260 Welfare 1,207 15* 83* 28* 488* Food stamps 786 15* 90* 25* 319* Unemployment and worlcers' compensation, 205 297 553* 313 498 and veterans' payments Alimony, child support, 97* 236* 235* 369* other regular contributions Percent receiving income4 Earnings 77 99* 98* 92* 95* Interest, dividends 14 38* 33* 31* 18 Pensions, annuities 2 4 Social Security, Railroad Retirement 2 5 14 Public assistance 40 11* 17* 17* 30* Supplemental Security Income 5 6 Welfare 27 3* 10* Food stamps 33 4* 13* Unemployment and workers' compensation and veterans' payments 6 10 12* 10* 15* Alimony, child support, 36 5* 4* 12* other regular contributions 1 For the 87 percent of consumer units that reported major sources of income. 2Single parents are compared with other consumer units. . . . . 3Extended-member households are those with two or more related or unrelated people, excluding those that consist solely of mamed couples, mamed couples with own children, or single parents with own children. "The percentage within each consumer unit that received income from each source. -N is too small to report. *Unweighted data were used with the Scheffe computed on F ratios with J>!>.Ol. 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 35 Per Capita Expenditures for Consumer Units Headed by Baby-Boomer Respondents Compared with other boomers, singleparent boomers spent significantly less overall on a per person basis ($7,138) (table 4, p. 38). Couples without children and single persons spent 2-112 to three times as much per capita. Housing Housing is a large expenditure for all families. On a per capita basis, singleparent boomers spent significantly less ($2,612) than all other boomers except those in extended-member households. In fact, single persons and couples without children spent two to three times more per person than did single parents. Single-parent and single-person boomer households spent larger shares of their total per capita expenditures on housing (37 percent each), followed by couples with children (33 percent), couples without children, and boomers in extendedmember households (32 percent each) (table 5, p. 38). Food Compared with couples without children and single-boomer respondents, single-parent boomers had significantly lower per capita expenditures for total food ($1,310) and food at home ($1,076). Compared with couples with and without children and single persons, single parents had a significantly lower per capita expenditure for food away from home ($234). Single-parent boomers and boomers in extended households spent 18 and 17 percent, respectively, of their total per capita expenditure for food. Couples with children spent 15 percent and I 36 Figure 4. Average per capita before-tax income of baby-boomer households, 1992* Single parent Husband, wife only Husband, wife, children Single person Extended member $0 5 *Significantly different, F ratio with p,.::;.01. couples without children and single persons, 14 percent each. The percentage of total per capita expenditure spent for food at home ranged from 15 percent (single parents) to 9 percent (single persons and couples without children). The percentage spent for food away from home ranged from 5 percent (couples only and single persons) to 3 percent (couples with children and single parents). Transportation On a per-person basis, single-parent boomers had significantly lower expenditures for transportation ($1,229) than other boomers (table 4). Single persons and couples without children spent about triple this amount ($3,659 and $3,461, respectively). Single parents, 10 15 20 25 30 $thousands single persons, and couples with children spent similar shares of total per capita expenditure on transportation ( 17 to 18 percent). Compared with others, boomer couples without children and those in extended-member households spent larger shares of their total per capita expenditure for transportation (20 percent each). One factor that influences transportation expenditures is the number of vehicles owned or leased. Single parents had significantly fewer vehicles than boomers in other households. On average, the number of vehicles ranged from 1.1 (single parents) to 2.6 (couples with children). Single boomers owned 1.4, those in extended families owned 2.3, and couples without children owned 2.5 vehicles. Family Economics and Nutrition Review Figure 5. Dollar shares of public assistance received by consumer units headed by baby-boomer respondents, 1992 $2,419 $373 $780 $472 $1,565 32% 80% 71% 66% Single parent Husband, wife only Husband, wife, Single person Extended children member • Supplemental Security Income Apparel • Welfare Single-parent boomer respondents spent $407 on apparel for each person. This was significantly lower than the amount spent by husband-wife only ($890) and single-person respondents ($1,092). All boomers spent 5 to 6 percent of per capita expenditures for apparel. Health On average, single parents and extendedmember households spent significantly less for health care than the amount spent by other boomers. Shares of total per capita expenditures for health care ranged from 3 to 5 percent. Single parents spent 4 percent. Personal Insurance and Pensions Single parents spent $503 per person for personal insurance and pensions, a significantly lower amount than that 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 Food stamps 0 Unemployment and workers' compensation, and veterans' payments spent by the other households. Per capita expenditures for households spending the most-couples without children and single boomers-were about five times the expenditure of single-parent households. Compared with other boomer households, single parents spent a smaller share (7 percent) and couples without children spent a larger share (14 percent) of total per capita expenditure for insurance and pensions. Education and Reading On a per capita basis, single-parent boomers spent $110 for education and reading. This was significantly less than the amount spent by other boomers except those in extended-member households. Per capita shares used for this expenditure category were similar ( 1 to 2 percent) for all types of households. Miscellaneous Goods and Services Single-parent boomers spent the smallest amount per capita ($675) for other goods and services, followed by boomers in extended-member households, couples with children, couples without children, and single people. The amount spent by single-parent boomers was significantly different from all boomers except those in extended households. Boomers spent about 10 percent of total per capita expenditure on miscellaneous goods and services. Conclusion The primary fmding of this study is that compared with other boomers, singleparent boomers appear to be the most vulnerable economically. Single-parent boomers have the lowest before-tax household income, per capita income, and expenditures. Also, compared with other boomers, single-parent boomers spent a higher percentage of total per capita expenditure for food and clothing with less income left for discretionary expenditures. Single-parent boomers were more likely than other boomers to receive welfare and food stamps. Households headed by single-parent boomers averaged $402 in welfare income per person, compared with $126 for boomers in extendedmember units, $28 for one-person, $20 for husband-wife-children, and $8 for husband-wife only households. Per capita food stamp income for single-parent boomers was $262, compared with $83 for boomers in extended-member households, $25 for single-person, $23 for husband-wife-children, and $8 for husband-wife only households. 37 Table 4. Per capita expenditures of baby-boomer respondents, by consumer unit, 1992 Consumer unit Single Husband, Husband, wife, Single Extended Variables parent2 wife only children person member1 Sampe size 1,040 929 3,999 1,669 1,204 Average total per capita expenditure $7,138 $17,866* $9,539* $21,694* $7,731* Housing 2,612 5,757* 3,123* 7,986* 2,465 Food 1,310 2,448* 1,463 2,964* 1,311 Food at home 1,076 1,592* 1,126 1,856* 1,014 Food away from home 234 856* 337* 1,108* 298* Transportation 1,229 3,461 * 1,723* 3,659* 1,577* Apparel 407 890* 487 1,092* 402 Health care 292 694* 432* 682* 298 Insurance and pensions 503 2,576* 1,120* 2,549* 798* Education and reading 110 256* 195* 329* 126 Miscellaneous3 675 1,784* 996* 2,433* 753 !Extended-member households are those with two or more related or unrelated people, excluding those that consist solely of married couples, married couples with own children, or single parents with own children. 2Single parents are compared with other consumer units. 3Consists of expenditures for alcohol, entertainment, personal care, tobacco, cash contributions, and other goods and services. *Unweighted data were used with the Scheffe computed on F ratios with ~.01. Table 5. Per capita expenditure shares of baby-boomer respondents, by consumer unit, 1992 Consumer unit Single Husband, Husband, wife, Single Variables parent wife only children person Housing 37 32 33 37 Food 18 14 15 14 Food at home 15 9 12 9 Food away from home 3 5 3 5 Transportation 17 20 18 17 Apparel 6 5 5 5 Health care 4 4 5 3 Insurance and pensions 7 14 12 12 Education and reading 1 2 2 Miscellaneous2 10 10 10 Extended member1 32 17 13 4 20 5 4 10 2 10 1 Extended-member households are those with two or more related or unrelated people, excluding those that consist solely of married couples, married couples with own children, or single parents with own children. 2Consists of expenditures for alcohol, entertainment, personal care, tobacco, cash contributions, and other goods and services. 38 Family Economics and Nutrition Review Implications Boomers who are single parents, have a high school education or less, and work in lower skilled positions generally spend all of their before-tax income on day-to-day needs, leaving nothing for savings. Most families who purchase a house can accumulate wealth by building up equity in their home. Most singleparent boomers, however, reside in rental units so this option is unavailable to them. Thus, building wealth and net worth will be difficult if not impossible for single-parent boomers, so prospects for the retirement years are bleak. This prospect may be tempered by many factors, including employment and the level and types of benefits received. Single-parent boomers, mostly women, who rely on different types of public assistance income at this point in the life cycle, will be at a disadvantage during their later years. Although supplemental security, welfare, and food stamp incomes are important to present levels of living, these income sources are not designed to allow savings or to increase net worth. Reports indicate that some boomers will have a harder time meeting day-to-day needs during retirement. Included are those without employee pensions, single parents, renters (1), and single women (3). It will become increasingly important for policymakers and family professionals to address the concerns of the most vulnerable in this large cohort before it reaches retirement age. 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 References 1. The Congress of the United States, Congressional Budget Office. 1993. Baby Boomers in Retirement: An Early Perspective. 2. Day, J.C. 1993. Population Projections of the United States, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1993 to 2050. Current Population Reports. Series P25-1104. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 3. Kingson, E. 1992. The Diversity of the Baby Boom Generation: Implications for Their Retirement Years. American Association of Retired Persons. 4. Rawlings, S.W. 1993. Household and Family Characteristics: March 1992. Current Population Reports, Population Characteristics. Series P-20, No. 467. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 5. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1992. 1990 Census of Population, General Population Characteristics, United States. 1990 CP-1-1. 6. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1992. Household and Family Characteristics: March 1991. Current Population Reports, Population Characteristics. Series P-20, No. 458. 7. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Expenditure Surveys: 1992/nterview Survey Public Use Tape and Documentation. 39 - 40 Research Summaries Dollars for Scholars: Postsecondary Costs and Financing, 1990-91 Using data from the 1990 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), this report examines patterns of school enrollment, education costs, fmancial aid, and the associated social, demographic, and economic characteristics of postsecondary students in the United States. Information on those enrolled in undergraduate and graduate/ professional degree programs as well as those enrolled in vocational, technical, and business schools at any time during the 1990-91 school year is included in this report. Analysis of enrollment is restricted to people 17 years and older with at least a high school diploma or the equivalent. Characteristics of Postsecondary Students Enrollment as measured in this report is not necessarily continuous throughout the entire school year. As a result, the enrollment estimates shown in this report are higher than those from other surveys, such as the Current Population Survey, which uses a one-point-in-time approach in collecting the data. Since enrollment at levels beyond high school is not always a year-long activity, SIPP data may provide a more realistic picture of the total number of people enrolled in a given year than does a one-time cross-sectional survey. As shown in table 1, an estimated 20.6 million people were enrolled in postsecondary school in the 1990-91 school year, about 14 percent of the eligible population. Thirty-five percent of these students were enrolled in the first and second years of college and 25 percent were enrolled in the third and fourth years of college. More than 19 percent were in the fifth year or higher, and over 20 percent were in some type of noncollegiate postsecondary school. Some variation in the patterns of enrollment by level can be observed in various demographic subgroups. A higher proportion of women than men were enrolled in the first 2 years of college (37 vs. 32 percent). This may reflect a higher enrollment by women in 2-year associate degree programs because similar proportions of each sex were enrolled in the third and fourth years of college. A larger proportion of men than women attended a vocational, technical, business, or other school (23 vs. 18 percent). Enrollment rates also varied among race/ethnicity groups. Non-Hispanic Whites (21 percent) and non-Hispanic others (27 percent) had greater proportions enrolled at the graduate level than either Hispanics or non-Hispanic Blacks (both at 9 percent). A greater proportion of non-Hispanic Black (26 percent) and Hispanic (28 percent) students were enrolled in noncollegiate schools than were non-Hispanic Whites (20 percent) and non-Hispanic others (16 percent). Differences by age and marital status followed what may be the traditional life course pattern-school completion, followed by employment and family formation. Many students enroll in college shortly after high school graduation, and the proportion enrolled decreases with increases in age. Half of all individuals ages 17 to 24 were enrolled in some type of schooling, compared with only 16 percent of those ages 25 to 34. Never-married people Family Economics and Nutrition Review Table 1. Level of enrollment by selected characteristics for high school graduates 17 years and older 1990-91 (in thousands) ' Vocational, technical, College College College business Percent years years years school, or Characteristic Total Enrolled enrolled 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 or higher other Total 142,710 20,560 14 7,232 5,148 3,977 4,203 Sex Male 68,453 9,439 14 3,065 2,398 1,829 2,147 Female 74,257 11,121 15 4,167 2,749 2,148 2,056 Race/ethnicity Non-Hispanic White 118,214 16,761 14 5,794 4,196 3,500 3,270 Non-Hispanic Black 12,667 1,935 15 744 518 172 501 Hispanic 7,432 1,115 15 442 262 100 312 Non-Hispanic other 4,396 748 17 252 172 205 119 Age (years) 17-24 18,007 9,099 51 4,550 2,896 669 984 25-34 37,050 5,903 16 1,459 1,410 1,646 1,388 35-44 34,324 3,461 10 834 618 1,075 933 45-54 21,018 1,420 7 279 161 451 529 55-64 14,971 492 3 72 62 98 260 65 and over 17,340 185 1 38 38 109 Marital status Married 87,161 7,698 9 1,969 1,423 2,131 2,175 Widowed, separated, or divorced 23,389 2,033 9 612 389 388 643 Never married 32,160 10,829 34 4,651 3,335 1,458 1,385 Average monthly family income Less than $800 10,631 2,183 21 752 627 328 476 $800- $1,249 10,860 1,438 13 475 370 220 372 $1,250- $1,699 11,912 1,422 12 547 283 224 368 $1,700- $2,499 22,794 2,654 12 825 658 447 724 $2,500 - $3,399 24,023 3,031 13 1,129 568 651 684 $3,400- $4,199 17,434 2,537 15 888 627 469 554 $4,200 - $5,399 17,663 2,748 16 1,001 704 556 487 $5,400 or more 27,392 4,547 17 1,615 1,310 1,082 539 Dependency status1 Dependent student 6,094 6,094 100 3,382 2,002 168 540 Lives away from home 2,965 2,965 100 1,469 1,310 110 75 Lives at home 3,129 3,129 100 1,913 692 58 465 Independent student 14,466 14,466 100 3,850 3,146 3,808 3,663 Financial aid1 None received 10,099 10,099 100 3,632 2,495 1,842 2,131 Aid received 10,461 10,461 100 3,601 2,652 2,136 2,072 1 Total is that of enrolled persons only. - Represents zero. 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 41 were more likely than any other marital status group to have been enrolled in the past year. Highest overall enrollment levels were reported by people in the lowest family income category. This unusual fmding may reflect the fact that many students live independently and report their own income rather than depend on support from their parents. 1 Compared with overall enrollment distribution, those students in the highest income group were less likely to be enrolled in noncollegiate schools (12 percent) but more likely to be enrolled at the graduate level (24 percent). In this report, students are classified as independent if they are either: married; 24 years of age or older; a veteran; the reference person of the household; or if they have health insurance under their own name. The majority of students (70 percent) were classified as independent- not unexpected since 56 percent were age 25 and over. Independent students were distributed fairly evenly across the four levels of enrollment. In contrast, 55 percent of dependent students were enrolled in the first or second year of college and half of the dependent students reported living at home. Ninety-six percent of the students in year five or higher were classified as independent and were likely to be in a graduate or professional degree program. Most (87 percent) of the noncollegiate school enrollees were also independent students. 1It is important to remember when examining the relationship between income and enrollment that not all students are "traditional" students who attend college immediately after high school and who are supported by their parents; table I includes all students, the traditional and the nontraditional. 42 Table 2. Recipients of financial aid and mean amount received, 1990-91 Number of Percent Mean recipients of all amount Sources (in thousands) students received All sources 10,461 51 $2,919 Employer assistance 3,617 18 979 Loan1 3,022 15 3,155 Pell Grant 2,881 14 1,375 Other 2,788 14 1,829 Fellowship/scholarship 2,436 12 2,467 Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (SEOG)/ College work study 890 4 1,510 Veterans' Educational Assistance Programs 416 2 2,503 1 National Direct Student Loan (or Perkins loan) and Guaranteed Student Loan (of Stafford loan). Postsecondary Costs Financial costs for postsecondary education include tuition and fees, books and educational supplies, and for students living away from home, the cost of room and board. In 1990-91, the average total costs of schooling for all postsecondary students, irrespective of type of school, level of enrollment, or amount of time spent in school, were $2,653. On average, noncollegiate schools were the least costly to attend ($1,066), whereas students in the third and fourth year of college had the highest average total costs ($3,825). No significant differences in total or component costs were found for sex categories, but a sizable difference in cost was observed across race and ethnic groups. Hispanics had lower average tuition and fees ($1,275) and total costs ($1,882) than any other group. Costs did not differ between White and Black students. The average total cost for dependent students was much higher ($4,387) than that for independent students ($1,923). Dependent students may include some of the people attending higher cost colleges and universities. In addition, dependent students may be more likely to attend school on a full-time basis, driving up average costs. Independent students are probably more likely to look for low-cost educational sources and to attend school part-time-particularly if they are in the labor force supporting themselves or their familywhich would also indicate lower costs. Financial Aid Fifty-one percent of the 20.6 million students who were enrolled in the previous year received some type of fmancial assistance from at least one source. This level of aid receipt was consistent across the various enrollment levels. The average assistance package (which Family Economics and Nutrition Review may include multiple sources of assistance) among persons who received aid was $2,919 and varied significantly by level of enrollment. For people enrolled in the fifth year or higher of college, the average reported aid package was $4,223, while those enrolled in noncollegiate institutions reported average packages of $1,673. Aid packages were higher for students in the third and fourth year of college than for those in the first or second year ($3,312 and $2,573, respectively). The most common source of aid (table 2) was employer assistance or Job Training Partnership Act (JTP A) programs, but this source provided the lowest average amount of aid, $979. The single largest aid amount was that based on loans, $3,155. Although half of both men and women receive some form of assistance and both receive similar amounts, variation occurs in the sources of aid received. For example, women were more likely than men to have received aid from a Pell Grant (a need-based source) or a loan, while men were more likely to have received aid from veterans' programs or from their employer. Men were awarded a substantially higher amount than were women in terms of scholarships, fellowships, and tuition reductions ($2,971 vs. $2,068). This type of aid does not have to be repaid. Differences in sources and amounts of aid were apparent across race and ethnic groups. Black students were more likely than others to report some kind of aid (58 percent). Average amounts of aid ranged from $2,527 for Black students to $4,032 for students of "other" races. White students were less likely than either Black or Hispanic students to have received a Pell Grant. 1995 Vol. 8 No.3 The proportion of students receiving aid decreases as family income increases, ranging from 60 percent of students in the low-income category to 44 percent in the high-income category. The average amount varies substantially as well, from $2,427 for the high-income group to $3,622 for the low-inco |
OCLC number | 888048507 |
|
|
|
A |
|
C |
|
G |
|
H |
|
I |
|
N |
|
P |
|
U |
|
W |
|
|
|