Family Economics and Nutrition Review [Volume 8, Number 3]

              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