Family Economics Review [1989, Volume 2, Number 4]

              Editor
Joan C. Courtless
Editorial Assistant
Jane W. Fleming
Family Economics Review is written
and published each quarter by the Family
Economics Research Group, BeltsviUe
Human Nutrition Research Center,
Agricultural Research Service, United
States Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
The Secretary of Agriculture has deter­mined
that the publication of this peri­odical
is necessary in the transaction of
the public business required by law of
this Department.
Contents may be reprinted without per­mission,
but credit to Family
Economics Review would be ap­preciated.
Use of commercial or trade
names does not imply approval or con­stitute
endorsement by USDA.
Family Economics Review is for sale by
the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
Government Printing Office. Subscrip­tion
price is $5 per year ($6.25 for
foreign addresses). Single issues cost $2
each ($250 foreign). Send subscription
orders, change of address, and single
copy requests to Superintendent of
Docu.ments, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC 20402. (See
subscription form in back of this issue.)
Suggestions or comments concerning
this publication should be addressed to:
Joan C. Courtless, Editor, Family
Economics Review, Family Economics
Research Group, USDNARS, Federal
Building, Room 439A, Hyattsville, MD
20782.
F~a~i~n.i1 :y .
~.LOIIUCS
Review
Vol. 2 No.4
The Family Economics Research Group and the Family
Economics Review would like to gratefully acknowledge the
reviewers of manuscripts for this issue:
Dr. Timothy P. Daniel
Federal Trade Commission
Dr. Ann C. Foster
University of Connecticut
William D. Passero
Bureau of Labor Statistics
U.S. Department of Labor
Dr. MaryAnn Paynter
University of Illinois
Dr. Jane Schuchardt
USDA, Extension Service
Dr. Janet Wagner
University of Maryland
November 1989
Contents
Features
2 Consumer Decisions, Expenditures, and Knowledge Regarding Funerals
MarkLino
8 Household Expenditures for Services:
10 Households with Expenditures for Apparel Services
Joan C. Cowtless
15 Households with Expenditures for Housekeeping Services, Including
Child Care
Frankie N. Schwenk
21 Households with Expenditures for Entertainment Services
Mary N. Talbot
Research Summaries
25 Poverty in the 1980's
26 Spending for Food
27 Earnings of Married-Couple Families
28 Young Unwed Fathers
Regular Items
7 New USDA Charts
oeoositorv
PROPERTY OF THE
liBRARY
DEC 0 7 1989
University of r~orth Ccrolina
ct Gree!!sbo ·o
30 Updated Estimates of the Cost of Raising a Child
32 Cost of Food at Home
33 Consumer Prices
34 Index of Articles in 19891ssues
Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review 1
Consumer Decisions,
Expenditures, And Knowledge
Regarding Funerals
ByMarkLino
Consumer Economist
Family Economics Research Group
Although expenditures on a funeral can be
one of the largest costs a household will incur
in a given year, there has been little research on
this transaction. Using data from 1,004 house­holds
that had a~Jangeda funeral between Decem­ber
1986 and June 1987, this study examined
consumer decisions, expenditures, and know­ledge
regarding funerals. For most funerals no
specific preplanning was done, although aft~r a
death the decision about which funeral home to
use was made by most people before they con­tacted
any. A casket setvice with ground burial
accounted for 81% of the funerals. This type of
funeral was the most costly, with an average
expendi.ture of approximately $3,500; the average
expenditure for a cremation was approximately
$1,400. Consumers possessed inaccurate know­ledge
regarding some funeral laws, such as
whether caskets are required when a body is to
be cremated. Findings from this study can be
used by consu.mer ed~cators to develop
programs that assiSt people m the funeral decision.
Death and taxes, in addition to
being two of life's certainties, share
another common trait- they can be
very costly. Although the impact of
taxes on family fmancial well-being
has been studied extensively, expen­ses
associated with a funeral have
received little attention from re­searchers
in family economics.
Some studies (1,6,7) have focused on
those practices in the funeral in­dustry
that lead to higher funeral
costs for households. The few
studies that provide funeral expendi­t~
r~ data by households (9,10) are
hmtted geographically or contain
out-of-date expenditure data.
This study adds to the literature
?n funeral arrangements and expend­Itures
of households by using
current, national data. Findings
2
focus on: 1) decision-making be­havior
of consumers in arranging a
funeral, 2) type of funeral and ex­penditures
by funeral type, 3) con­sumers'
knowledge of funeral laws,
and 4) funeral arrangements by
consumers over time.
Source of Data
Data used for this study were col­lected
for the Federal Trade Com­mission
by a private marketing
research firm ( 4). The sample was
drawn to represent the U.S. popula­tion
and not just those who arrange a
funeral in a given year. A mail ques­tionnaire
was sent to 1,648 house­holds
that, according to the firm's
records, were primarily responsible
or shared equally in arranging a
funeral between December 1986 and
June 1987. Of the questionnaires
returned, 1,004 were deemed usable
and made up the final sample.
Although the sample was
designed to represent U.S. house­holds,
the sociodemographic charac­teristics
of the fmal sample differed
somewhat from this population,
reflecting many of the sampling
problems common to a mail ques­tionnaire
(2). The major difference
was the large percentage of females
in the sample. In 1987 females ac­counted
for approximately 52% of
the adult population (11), but they
made up 91% of the sample. Since
89% of the respondents stated they
had at least one other person help­ing
them make the funeral arrange­ments
and 70% were married, it
seems that wives were more likely
than their husbands to complete the
questionnaire.
Also, there were slightly higher
proportions of older and more edu­cated
persons in the sample. In addi­tion,
more white and higher income
households were represented in the
s.ample than are in the actual popula­tion.
The sample did reflect the U.S.
population, however, with regard to
region of residence. In summary, dif­ferences
in sociodemographic char­acteristics
were not great enough to
severely bias the sample.
Decision-making Behavior
by Consumers in Arranging
a Funeral
After a death has occurred
funeral arrangements usually :Oust
be made within a very short time.
The person making the arrange­me~
ts is often at a disadvantage,
haVing little knowledge of the costs
involved and functioning under an
emotional strain. One way this bur­den
on survivors can be eased is by
prearranging a funeral well in ad­vance.
Preplanning also can assure
that the deceased will receive the
type of funeral desired.
Specific previous funeral arrange­ments
were reported by 33% of the
sample (table 1). Among these
respondents, which cemetery to use
was prearranged by 88%; whether to
have a burial or cremation, by 80%;
and the selection of a funeral home
by 77%. Other specific arrange- '
ments made prior to a death were
whether to have a public viewing of a
body, embalm a body, have a vault or
grave liner, and selection of a casket.
Specific arrangements, however,
were sometimes made very shortly
before a death occurred. In these in­stances,
the benefits of preplanning
were probably diminished. Of those
who could specify the time in ad­vance
that arrangements were made
with the funeral home, 32% said less
than 1 month before a death.
Even when previous arrange- .
ments were made, they sometimes
were changed. Of those individuals
in the sample who stated that
specific arrangements were made
Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review
prior to a death, 12% indicated that
these arrangements were changed
after the death occurred. Type of
funeral and casket selection were the
most often changed arrangements.
No specific preplanning had been
done by 67% of the sample, although
21% indicated that discussions had
been held, but no specific arrange­ments
made. Of the respondents
who made no specific arrangements
in advance, 86% stated that after a
death they decided on a funeral
home before contacting any, 12%
contacted just one funeral home,
and 2% contacted two or more
funeral homes.
Reasons for this lack of search in­clude
the time constraints inherent
to the decision and the possibility of
limited choice in some locales, such
as rural areas, where there may only
be one funeral home. Cost, however,
does not appear to be an important
factor in the funeral decision. When
asked the most important reason for
selecting the funeral home used,
62% of the sample stated it was their
personal experience with the funeral
home, or knowing the funeral direc­tor
or the funeral home's reputation.
Only 3% stated that the most impor­tant
reason was the cost of the
funeral arrangements.
Type of Funeral Arranged
and Expenditure by Funeral
Type
Funeral expenditures can be sub­stantial
depending on the type ar­ranged.
The funeral survey asked
respondents what type of funeral
they had arranged and the total cost
of the funeral arrangement. Re­spondents
were to include all goods
and services provided by the funeral
home in the cost. These costs for a
particular type of funeral may have
varied from one respondent to
another depending on the items
selected and the price paid for the
items.
A traditional service with ground
burial was the most frequent type of
funeral arranged by households in
Table 1. Decision-making behavior by consumers in arranging a
funeral
Degree of preplanning
Specific arrangements made
33%
Discussion only
21%
No arrangements made;
no discussion held
46%
Percent
Choice of funeral home made:
Percent
What cemetery to use . . . . . . . . 88
Have burial or cremation . . . . . . 80
Selection of funeral home . . . . . n
Have viewing or not . . . . . . . . . . 62
Have body embalmed or not . . 55
Have vault or grave liner . . . . . . 55
Selection of casket . . . . . . . . . . 49
Before contacting any . . . . . . . . . . 86
After contacting one . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
After contacting two
Deviated from preplanned
arrangement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Percent
Most important reasons for selecting funeral home:
Personal experience with funeral home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Know funeral director or home's reputation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Location of funeral home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Recommendation of friends/relatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Cost of funeral arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Other reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review
the sample, reported by 81% (table
2, p. 4). This type of funeral was also
the most costly, with an average ~x­penditure
of $3,507.1 A service with
above-ground entombment ac­counted
for 4% of the funerals ar­ranged
and was most prevalent in
the West and South. The average ex­penditure
on a service with above­ground
entombment ($3,035) was
13% less than that of a ground burial.
Funeral expenditures reported in
the survey were limited to charges
billed through a funeral home. Most
cemetery costs (cemetery plot, grave
marker or headstone, etc.) are not
included in the reported expenses.
These expenses can be a substantial
proportion of the total costs
associated with a funeral involving
a burial. Although these costs vary
nationwide, a 1985 study found the
lowest cemetery costs at 11 cemeter­ies
in a metropolitan area of Califor­nia
averaged between $1,000 and
$1,600 (10). Hence, the expenditures
reported here likely underestimate
the total costs associated with a
funeral service with a burial or
entombment.
Cremations, which over the
past decade have comprised an
increasing share of all funerals (11),
accounted for 14% of the funerals ar­ranged
by households in the sample.
About half of the cremations were
arranged with a memorial service
afterward. This type of arrangement
was one of the less expensive options
($991) because the purchase of a
casket or use of a funeral home for
the viewing of a body is not required.
Average expenditure for a service
with cremation afterward was higher
($2,449) because it involves the use
of funeral home facilities and the
purchase or rental of a casket.
1 When asked to report the total cost of the
funeral arranged, respondents could choose
an expenditure range option (e.g., $2,500-
$3,000) if they could not provide a specific
dollar amount. For those who responded to
this expenditure range option (approximately
21% of the sample), the midpoint of the
range ($2,750) was used to determine average
expenditures. Also, three observations report­ing
zero expenditures were omitted because
the question was believed to have been
misinterpreted.
3
Cremation with no attendant rites or
ceremonies was the lowest average
funeral expenditure reported ($811).
Only 3% of the sample arranged this
type of funeral, however.
As with burials, the cremation ex­penditures
reported here do not in­clude
cemetery costs. Although such
costs are less prevalent with crema­tions,
if the cremated remains are
buried or entombed above ground,
the expenditures presented here are
underestimates of the total costs as­sociated
with a death involving a
cremation. Other types of arrange­ments
(direct burial, donating a
body to medical school, etc.) were
reported by only 1% of the sample;
the average expenditure for this
other category varies greatly
depending on the specific type of
funeral arranged.
4
The Funeral Rule
In 1984 the Funeral Rule, a
trade regulation rule developed by
the Federal Trade Commission
concerning funeral industry prac­tices,
became effective. The rule
enabled consumers to obtain infor­mation
about funeral arrange­ments
prior to selecting particular
goods and services. Its provisions
cover telephone price disclosures,
general price lists, and required
purchases (3).
The rule requires funeral
providers to inform consumers
who telephone to ask about terms,
conditions, or prices of funeral
goods and services that price infor­mation
is available over the
telephone. The funeral provider
must also give prices, any other in­formation
from price lists, and any
other information about prices or
offerings that is readily available
a~d reasonably answers questions.
Table 2. Type of funeral arranged and expenditure by type
Funeral type Percent
reporting
Average
expenditure
Burial/entombment ... .. . .......... . . . ..... . . ... · 85
81
4
$3,487
3,507
3,035
Service with ground burial ... .. .. ............... .
Service with above-ground entombment .......... .
Cremation .. .............................. .. .. . 14
7
4
3
1,386
991
2,449
811
Cremation and memorial service ................ .
Service with cremation 1 •..... • ............• • .• •.
Cremation only (no rites or ceremonies) .......... .
Othe~ ....... . ................. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 2,057
1 Includes the use of a casket.
2 Includes direct burial, donating body to medical school, etc.
The intent of this provision is to pro­vide
people with this information
over the telephone so that com­parison
shopping would be easier
for them in light of the time con­straints
of arranging a funeral.
When a consumer inquires in per­son
about funeral arrangements, the
funeral provider must give the con­sumer
a general price list, which can
be kept. This list must contain the
cost of each individual funeral item
and service offered. It must also dis­close
important legal rights and re­quirements
regarding funeral
arrangements, including information
on embalming, cash advance sales
(such as newspaper notices or
flowers), caskets for cremation, and
required purchases. For the pur­chase
of a casket, the funeral
provider must supply a list that
describes all the available selections
and their prices.
A consumer does not have to pur­chase
unwanted goods or services as
a condition of obtaining those
desired unless required to do so by
State law. The consumer has the
right to choose only the funeral
goods and services wanted, with
some disclosed exceptions. The
funeral provider must inform the
consumer of this right in writing on
the general price list. If a par­ticular
item is said to be required
by law, the funeral provider must
explain the specific law that re­quires
this purchase on the
statement of goods and services
selected. A written, itemized fmal
statement must be given by funeral
providers at the end of a con­ference.
This statement must in­clude
the prices of the items
selected.
At present, the Funeral Rule is
under review. After this review,
the rule may be kept as is,
amended, or terminated.
Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review
Consumers' Knowledge of
Funeral Laws
Awareness by consumers of the
rules and regulations concerning
funerals may have a substantial im­pact
on their funeral expenditures. If
a person believes certain goods or
services are required by law for a
funeral, when in fact they are not, he
or she may spend more money than
necessary. The survey asked respond­ents
to indicate how truthful were
five statements regarding funeral
laws (table 3). Although these laws
are usually determined at the State
or municipal level and can vary
between localities, the statements
encompassed specific laws so as to
apply nationally.
• Caskets are required by law when
the body is to be buried. This state­ment
is true, and 85% of the
respondents thought it was
defmitely or probably true.
• Caskets are required by law when a
body is to be cremated. This state­ment
is false, but 36% of respon­dents
thought it was definitely or
probably true or did not know.
Typically all that is required is for
the body to be in a canvas bag or
cardboard box. A small percent­age
of the sample who arranged a
funeral involving a cremation
(7%) did state that the funeral
director said a casket was re­quired.
• Embalming is required by law
when the body is to be transported
from one State to another. This
statement is true, and 75% of
respondents thought it was
defmitely or probably true.
• Embalming is always required as a
public health measure. This state­ment
is false. However, 50% of
respondents thought it was
defmitely or probably true.
Depending on the locality, em­balming
is usually required only if
the body is held over a certain
period of time or death was by a
particular disease. Related to
this, 81% of the sample indicated
the body was embalmed for the
funeral they arranged, with 26%
of these people reporting they
Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review
were not asked for prior
authorization by the funeral
home.
• A sealed casket (and/or grave
vault) preserves the body for an in­definite
time. This statement is
false, but 42% of respondents
thought this statement was
defmitely or probably true and
17% did not know. A sealed
casket or grave vault should aid
preservation, but not for an
mdefmite time.
These fmdings indicate that many
of the respondents did not possess
accurate knowledge of funeral laws.
These people would be expected to
be more cognizant of such rules and
regulations than the general popula­tion
because they were questioned
soon after arranging a funeral.
A Comparison of Funeral
Arrangements by
Consumers Over Time
To examine how the funeral
arrangements of consumers have
changed over time, the results of this
study were compared to published
results from an earlier survey of the
funeral arrangements of cew>umers
(5). This earlier survey, which was
also administered by the Federal
Trade Commission, collected infor­mation
from 1,200 people who
arranged a funeral between Novem­ber
1980 and May 1981. Many of the
same questions asked of respon­dents
on the recent funeral survey
were asked on the earlier survey so
the results are comparable.
A larger percentage of those per­sons
who arranged a funeral in
1980/81 ( 68%) compared with
1986/87 (54%) did so for one where
specific arrangements were pre­viously
made or discussions were
held regarding the arrangements
(table 4, p. 6). Although preplanning
was more frequent in the past, the
reasons for selecting a particular
funeral home have not changed sub­stantially
over time. Previous ex­perience
with a funeral home and
knowing the funeral director or
home's reputation were the two
single most important reasons
people gave for selecting a funeral
home in both surveys (knowing the
funeral director was the single most
important reason in 1980/81,
whereas previous experience with
the funeral home was most impor­tant
in 1986/87). Only 3% of respon­dents
in the 1980/81 survey, the same
percentage as in the 1986/87 survey,
stated that the cost of the funeral ar­rangements
was the most important
reason for their selection of a
funeral home.
Table 3. Consumers' knowledge of funeral laws
Statement
Caskets are required by law when
the body is to be buried (T) 1
.• •••• •••• •••
Caskets are required by law when
the body is to be cremated (F) . ....... . .. .
Embalming is required by law when
the body is to be transported
from one State to another (T) . . ..... . . . .. .
Embalming is always required as
a public health measure (F) . .... .... .. .. .
A sealed casket (and/or grave
vault) preserves the body for
an indefinite time (F) . .... .. . .. .. ... ... .
Definitely or probably
I rue Not true
Percent reporting
85 7
13 64
75 5
50 30
41 42
1 Letter indicates whether statement is in fact true or false.
Don't
know
8
23
20
20
17
5
Table 4. Trends in funeral arrangements by consumers
Funeral arrangements 1980/81 1986/87
Percent reporting
Degree of preplanning:
Specific arrangements made . . .. . .. ........ ....... . 38 33
Only discussions held .. . ... . . .. ...... . ........... . 30 21
Neither ... ....... . . .. . . . .. . . . .... . ..... .. ...... . 32 46
Most important reason for selecting funeral home:
Previous experience with funeral home . ............. . 30 32
Know funeral director or home's reputation ......... . . 38 30
Location of funeral home ..... . .. .... .. ... . .. ..... . 18 9
Recommendation of friends/relatives ............ . .. . 3 4
Cost of funeral arrangements . .......... . ... ....... . 3 3
Other reasons ....... ....... ... . . .............. . . 8 12
Type of funeral arranged and expenditure by type:
Burial/entombment .... ............ . .... . ..... . . . . 88 85
Average expenditure 1
•• •••• • • .•• • •. ••• . •• . . ... • •• $2,547 $3,487
Cremation . . . .. .................... .. . .. .... . .. . 12 14
Average expenditure .. ..... ...... .. ........... . . . $ 682 $1,386
1 Expenditures for above-ground burials were not included.
A higher percentage of people
arranged a funeral involving a crema­tion
in 1986/87 (14%) than in
1980/81 {12%). This is consistent
with the general trend towards
cremation in the United States in
recent years. The average expendi­ture
on a burial increased 37% from
1980/81 to 1986/87 ($2,547 to
$3,487), and the average expenditure
on a cremation increased 103%
($682 to $1,386) over the same
period. This increase in expendi­tures
most likely was caused by a
general rise in funeral costs and the
purchase of more goods and services
in the funeral arrangement. In both
time periods, the average expendi­ture
for a funeral involving a crema­tion
was considerably less than that
involving a burial.
6
Conclusion
Costs associated with funeral
arrangements can add up to a major
expense- several thousand dollars­for
the household involved in arrang­ing
one. Because preplanning for
funerals is not widespread- and has
declined over time- these arrange­ments
often must be completed
without delay during a period of
emotional shock and upheaval.
Consumer educators can offer
effective programs that stress the
desirability of preplannlng in making
funeral arrangements and dissemi­nate
information about memorial
societies (nonprofit membership
groups) that assist members in plan­ning
reasonably priced funerals (8).
Such programs could strengthen con­sumer
awareness of the choices to be
considered by providing information
about the various types of funerals,
average expenditures, optional ser­vices,
and the consumer's legal rights
and responsibilities.
References
1. Consumers Union of the United
States. 1977. Funerals: Consumers
Last Rights. Norton, New York.
2. Dillman, Don A. 1978. Mail and
Telephone Surveys: The Total Design
Method. John Wiley and Sons, New
York.
3. Federal Trade Commission,
Bureau of Consumer Protection.
1984. Consumer Guide to the FTC
Funeral Rule.
4. . 1988. Report on the
Survey of Recent Funeral A"angers.
[Unpublished report.]
5. . 1982. Baseline and
Follow-up Studies for Evaluating
the Effect of the Federal Trade
Commission's Funeral Home
Industry Trade Regulation Rule.
[Unpublished report.]
6. Harmer, Ruth Mulvey. 1963. The
High Cost of Dying. Crowell-Collier,
New York.
7. Mitford, Jessica. 1963. The
American Way of Death. Simon and
Schuster, New York.
8. Paynter, MaryAnn, and Marilyn
Sue Buck. 1989. Survivors' Hand­book:
Making Funeral Plans and
Obtaining Benefits When There Is a
Death in the Family. University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Col­lege
of Agriculture, Cooperative
Extension Service, North Central
Regional Publication No. 325.
9. Pine, Vanderlyn R., and Derek
L. Phillips. 1970. The cost of dying:
A sociological analysis of funeral ex­penditures.
Social Problems, Vol. 17
(Winter), pp. 405-417.
10. Sommer, Robert, Sandra Nel­son,
and Kathleen Hoyt. 1985.
Funeral price disclosure in an urban
market. The Journal of Consumer
Affairs 19(2):241-254.
11. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census. 1987. Statisti­cal
Abstract of the United States,
1988. [108th ed.) lEI
Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review
New USDA Charts
Distribution of financial assets
Government
and pensions 7.7%
Private pensions 16.6%----~
Money market funds 3.1% -------'
1987 1962
Other tangible assets Include residential and nonresidential fixed assets. consumer diXables. and inventories. 1962 money market funds were less than 1 percent.
Source: Federal Reserve Board.
Consumer loan rates
Percent
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
1981
Amual aven~ges.
82
Credit card
' ' ', ,,,
Prime rate
83 84
So~e: Fedefal Reserve Bulletin.
Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review
85 --- 86 87
Household debt and saving
% of disposable income
16
12
8
4
0
•••••••
increase rate
••••••••••••
••••••••
Saving rate
1978
......... •• " •• ••. . •••••••••
••••••
Debt increase rate equals new net labilities clvlded by disposable personal income.
Source: Federal Reserve Board and BtRau of Economic Analysis
7
Household Expenditures for
Services
Data from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics' Consumer Expenditure
Surveys show that between 1972-73
and 1984-85 expenditures for ser­vices
rose from 43% to 47% of total
household expenditures (1). Service
expenditures increased by 233%
while total expenditures increased
by 202%. Because of the growing
demand for services in the United
States, there is a need to understand
the demographic characteristics of
households that are most likely to
purchase them.
Prices for services rose more than
prices for all items between 1973 and
1988. The all-services Consumer
Price Index ( CPI) 1 increased 209%
compared to the all-items increase -
of 162%. Items designated as ser­vices
in the CPI include rent,
utilities, auto maintenance and
repair, public transportation, and
many other services. Services and
1 The CPI-W was used so that compar­isons
could be made with earlier data.
their relative importance in the 1982-
84 base period used for the 1987
revision of the CPI are shown in the
table below.
Previous articles in Family
Economics Review have provided
data on expenditures for services.
Articles on housing (2), transporta­tion
(5), education and reading (3),
and utilities ( 4) have included infor­mation
on the service components
of those expenditures. The following
articles focus on the service aspects
related to apparel, housekeeping,
and entertainment. These services
were selected because they tend to
be pure services rather than a mix­ture
of goods and services, 2 and
because they could be produced in
the home. Although services such as
utilities or public transportation
cannot be produced in the home,
2 Setvices such as car repairs may include
parts as well as labor costs. Goods such as
convenience foods may include embedded
setvices.-
Relative importance of services, by item, Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers, 1982-84
Item
Renter cost .......................... .
Homeowner cost ..................... .
Maintenance and repairs .............. .
Gas and electricity .................... .
Other utilities and public service ........ .
Housekeeping services ................ .
Apparel services ..................... .
Auto maintenance and repair .......... .
Other private transportation services .... .
Public transportation ................. .
Medical care services ................. .
Entertainment services ................ .
Personal care services ................. .
Personal and educational services ...... .
Weighting
7.485
18.569
.230
4.617
3.331
1.608
.544
1.538
3.304
1.393
3.850
2.180
.564
2.590
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index: 1987
Revision. Report 736.
8
families do have the option of provid­ing
or purchasing laundry, domestic
services, babysitting, and entertain­ment.
These articles present a
proflle of households that have
substituted marketplace economic
activity for household production.
Data and Sample
Data are from the 1985 Consumer
Expenditure Survey (CEX)(6), an
ongoing survey conducted by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS),
U.S. Department of Labor. Con­sumer
units are interviewed once
each quarter for five consecutive
quarters. Findings reported in the
following articles are based on
21,000 quarterly responses from over
5,000 consumer units that partici­pated
in the interview component of
the 1985 Survey. The sample was
weighted to represent the total U.S.
population. Characteristics of
households purchasing services are
identified and average expenditures
for purchasing households are
provided. Percentages of households
reporting an expenditure are for a
quarter; quarterly expenditures were
multiplied by four to provide annual
estimates.
References
1. Passero, William D. 1988. Goods
vs. services: From the perspective of
consumer spending. In: Vickie L.
Hampton, editor.American Council
on Consumer Interests- The Proceed­ings,
pp. 45-51. Proceedings of the
34th Annual Conference of the
American Council on Consumer
Interests. [Chicago, IL, April1988].
2. Schwenk, Nancy E. 1988. Hous­ing
expenditures. Family Economics
Review No.1, pp.l-7.
3. Schwenk, Nancy E. 1988. House­hold
expenditures for education and
reading. Family Economics Review
1(3):6-8.
4. Scoon, Lydia M. 1989. Utility ex­penditures
of homeowners. Family
Economics Review 2(2):2-6.
Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review
Definitions
Total expenditures includes
food and drink, housing, apparel
and services, transportation, health
care, entertainment, personal care,
reading, tobacco, cash contribu­tions,
life and other personal in­surance,
and miscellaneous expen­ses.
Retirement, pensions, and so­cial
security payments are not in­cluded.
Income includes the combined
money income before taxes earned
by all consumer unit members 14
years old or over during the 12
months preceding the interview.
Sources of income include wages
and salaries; self-employment in­come;
social security, private and
government retirement; interest,
dividends, rental income, and
other property income; unemploy­ment
and workers' compensation,
5. Talbot, Mary N. 1988. House­hold
transportation expenditures.
Family Economics Review 1(3):9-13.
6. U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Con­sumer
Expenditure Surveys: 1985
Interview Survey Public Use Tape
and Documentation.
7. . 1987.C:onsumer!>rice
Index: 1987 Revision. Report 736.
Related Sources
Dardis, Rachel, Horacia Soberon­Ferrer,
and Yau-Yuh Tsay.1989.
Determinants of household ex­penditures
for services. In: Mary
L. Carsky, editor. American C:oun­cil
on C:onsumer Interests- The
I>roceedings, pp. 114-120. Proceed­ings
of the 35th Annual Confer­ence
of the American Council on
Consumer Interests. [Baltimore,
MD, March 1989].
Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review
veterans' benefits; public assis­tance,
supplemental security in­come,
food stamps; regular con­tributions
for support (including
alimony and child support); other
income; Federal, State, and local
taxes and other taxes.
Consumer unit comprises
either: (1) all members of a par­ticular
household who are related
by blood, marriage, adoption, or
other legal arrangements; (2) 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; or
(3) two or more persons living
toge(her who pool their income to
make joint expenditure decisions.
To be considered fmancially
independent, at least two of the
three major expense categories
Foster, Ann C. 1988. Wife's employ­ment
and family expenditures.
Journal of C:onsumer Studies and
Home Economics 12(1):15-27.
Jacobs, Eva, Stephanie Shipp, and
Gregory Brown.1989. Families of
working wives spending more on
services and nondurables. Monthly
Labor Review 112(2):15-23.
Strober, Myra H. 1977. Wives' labor
force behavior and family con­sumption
patterns. American
Economic Review 67(1):410-417.
Wagner, Janet and Laura Lucero­Campins.
1988. Social class: A
multivariate analysis of its effect
on expenditures for household
services. Journal of C:onsumer
Studies and Home Economics
12(4):373-387. ~
(housing, food, and other living
expenses) have to be provided
by the respondent. The terms
'household', 'family', and 'con­sumer
unit' are used interchange­ably
throughout the text of the fol­lowing
three articles.
Householder or reference
person is the first member men­tioned
by the respondent when
asked to "Start with the name of
the person or one of the persons
who owns or rents the home."
Services are intangible goods.
For the articles that follow, ap­parel,
housekeeping, and entertain­ment
services were limited to those
components specified by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics as ser­vices
in the Consumer Price Index,
which did not necessarily match
the CEX definitions.
9
Households with Expenditures
for Apparel Services
By Joan C. Court/ess
Family Economist
Family Economics Research Group
Purchase of apparel services is widespread
among U.S. households. In 1985, 57% of U.S.
households reported expenditures for one or
more of these services. Among households with
expenditures, the average amount spent was
$187. Households with incomes of $40,000 or
more or with a reference person who had more
than 4 years of college were most likely to pur­chase
an apparel service, 76% and 77%, respec­tively.
Highest expenditures (among purchas­ing
households) were reported by these same
households. Younger households tended to
purchase apparel services more often than
older (55 years and over) households. Renters
were six times as likely as homeowners to use
coin-operated laundry and dry cleaning services.
Factors that may affect the pur­chase
of apparel services include the
accessibility of laundry equipment
and family resources- specifically
those of knowledge, skill, time, and
financial assets. Some families may
invest in laundry equipment and
devote the time necessary to main­tain
a substantial portion of their
wardrobes, yet still depend on
professional care for shoes and some
clothing items. Other families (such
as renters) may not have access to
laundry equipment in their homes
and must rely more heavily on com­mercial
sources for apparel services.
This is borne out by Bellante and
Foster (1) who found that home
ownership had a significant negative
effect on expenditures for clothing
care.
Families that have a full-time
homemaker are in the minority.1
Time spent in all areas of housework
is less when the homemaker is
1 By 1986, 71% of women age 25 to 54 years
were in the labor force including 68% of mar­ried
women, 82% of never married women,
and 85% of divorced women (5).
10
employed ( 4). Services that can be
readily purchased, such as laundry
and dry cleaning, alleviate some of
the time pressures experienced by
these working women. According to
Schram and Hafstrom ( 4), as finan­cial
resources are perceived as more
adequate, working wives substitute
more household and food services
for their time.
Thirty years ago, Robert Ferber
(2) predicted expenditures for ap­parel
services would rise as the
proportion of women gainfully
employed increased. Not only would
the woman's income add to the level
of household income (making such
services more affordable), but
women would have less time for per­forming
these services. Subsequent
expenditure studies (1,3,12,13), how­ever,
have found family income to be
the strongest predictor of clothing
care services; wife's employment was
a secondary factor,
Nevertheless, according to data
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) for the four most recent Con­sumer
Expenditure Surveys (7-10),
the proportion of households report­ing
expenditures for apparel services
Apparel service
Laundry and dry cleaning:
Full service ................
Coin-operated 0 •••• 0 •••••••
Shoe repair •••••••••• 0 ••••••
Apparel repair ••••••• 0 ••• 0 •••
Watch and jewelry repair .......
has decreased slightly since 1982-83
(as shown in the table below).
This article examines variations in
expenditures and proportions of
households reporting any expense
for apparel services by selected
household characteristics.
Variables
Apparel services as defmed by
BLS for the Consumer Price Index
include coin-operated laundry and
dry cleaning (coin-op services),
other laundry and dry cleaning (full­service
facilities), clothing storage,
shoe repair, clothing repair, watch
and jewelry repair, and clothing
rental. Because less than 0.5% of the
Survey households had an expendi­ture
for clothing storage, this expend­iture
was included in total apparel
services but was not analyzed
separately. Also, preliminary
analysis determined that expend­itures
for repairs to shoes, clothing,
and watches and jewelry followed
similar patterns among households.
Because each of these repair ser­vices
was reported by 6.5% or fewer
households, the three categories
were combined (repair services)
for further analysis. Clothing rental
expenses reported by 1.5% of
households are summarized in the
box, p. 14.
Findings
Expenditures for one or more ap­parel
services were reported by 57%
of the sample (table 1). The average
expenditure in 1985 for all apparel
services by purchasing households
was $187. Slightly over half (52%) of
1986 1985 1984 1982/83
Percent reporting
33.8 35.0 34.6 36.1
23.8 24.4 25.2 27.2
5.8 6.0 6.6 7.0
5.7 5.9 6.1 6.2
4.1 4.2 4.5 4.7
Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review
~ Table 1. Expenditures for selected apparel services: Percent of households with the expenditure and mean expenditure :---
tv for those households, 1985
~
~ Laundry and dry cleaning
~
Qel. Total Apparel Coin-op Full Either coin-op Repairs Household characteristic expenditures 1 services service or full service
«"'
1:'!1 Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean n dollar purchasing dollar purchasing dollar purchasing dollar purchasing dollar purchasing dollar Q = Q ;a:;· All households ........... .. . . .. . . .• .. . . $20,179 56.8 $187 24.2 $124 35.0 $165 51 .5 $170 15.4 $92 ,., Income brackets:
~ Under $1 0,000 .. . ..... . . . ... . ....... . . 11,098 49.3 128 34.1 101 17.4 110 45.3 118 9.1 84 til
~ $10,000-$19,999 ........... . . .. . ..... 15,364 51 .3 161 29.1 137 25.1 123 45.9 154 11.8 83
~- $20,000 - $29,999 ......... . . ..... .. . .. 20,300 56.0 184 24.6 152 35.0 138 49.8 172 16.3 75
$30,000 - $39,999 .... . . .. . . .... . . . . .. . 24,704 59.6 190 15.7 144 45.7 156 53.1 177 20.4 72
$40,000 and over . . ........ ........... 36,538 75.6 259 11.6 125 65.8 212 69.6 221 27.4 115
Age of reference person (years):
Under 25 .. . .. . ..... . ...... . .. .. . ... . 12,278 67.5 141 56.9 106 19.8 123 65.3 130 9.6 68
25-34 ................ . ... .. . .. . .. .. 19,935 61.5 206 32.5 150 35.8 176 57.0 196 15.0 76
35-44 ........... .. .. . .. . . . .. . . . . ... 25,239 60.3 212 18.1 131 43.8 187 54.2 195 19.5 92
45-54 ..................... ... .. .. . . 25,962 61 .6 213 17.5 140 46.1 175 56.3 187 17.0 101
55-64 . . ........... . ...... . . .... . .. . 20,824 51 .9 185 15.4 116 35.2 159 45.7 162 15.7 108
65-74 .. .................... .. .. ... . 16,244 45.2 139 15.5 90 27.4 120 38.7 121 13.8 103
Over 75 . . ................... . ...... . 11 ,653 41 .2 113 21.5 70 19.0 105 35.7 98 11.7 91
Race:
White .... . ..... . ... . ....... ......... 20,965 55.7 184 22.1 120 34.7 162 50.0 166 16.1 94
Black and other ........... . . ... . ..... . 15,046 63.8 201 38.2 138 37.0 181 61.2 196 10.7 70
Education:
No high school diploma . .. . .... ... . . ... 13,437 41.7 145 24.4 130 17.2 117 37.0 140 8.6 77
High school diploma ..... ...... . .... .. 19,387 51 .0 166 20.9 137 28.9 136 44.5 152 14.0 80
1 - 4 years college .. ...... . . . ... . . . .. .. 22,903 67.6 198 27.2 110 46.2 175 62.5 177 18.7 94
More than 4 years college . .. . . .. .. ..... 31,341 77.3 255 23.4 125 62.1 214 73.0 222 26.8 117
Housing tenure:
Homeowners . . . . . .... ... ....... . . .. .. 23,667 51.0 189 8.2 110 39.0 167 44.1 168 17.8 95
Renters .... ... .. ...... .. .. . . . ...... . 14,502 66.2 184 50.3 127 28.3 162 63.4 173 11 .6 85
Family composition:
Husband and wife only . . . . .... . . ..... . . 22,220 54.1 189 15.0 137 38.1 157 47.7 168 17.3 102
Husband and wife with own children2 ....• 27,478 55.8 202 11 .8 165 41.4 168 49.2 181 18.2 87
Single parent with children . ... ... .. .... . 15,603 57.2 197 33.8 168 27.1 150 52.0 187 12.4 104
Single persons .. ..... .. ... .. ... . . .. . . 12,183 59.9 161 41 .7 90 27.6 170 56.3 150 12.4 86
Other families ...... .. ........ . ... .... 17,521 57.6 206 31 .6 156 32.2 172 54.1 193 12.3 85
Earner composition:
Husband or single male reference person . 21 ,340 60.4 209 28.6 120 38.0 194 56.2 192 14.4 99
Wife or single female reference person .. .. 15,227 61 .2 170 34.9 126 32.3 138 56.4 157 15.0 86
Husband and wife ......... . . . . ..... .. . 27,804 60.4 212 14.1 162 45.2 173 53.9 188 20.1 93
Neither husband or wife . . ... . .. ...... . . 12,307 43.4 120 23.9 94 19.2 104 38.0 111 10.6 84
1 Total expenditures are for all households surveyed.
f-'
2 "Own" children includes stepchildren and adopted children of the householder.
f-'
the respondents had expenses for
laundry and dry cleaning, either coin­operated
or full-service. Among
households having any expenditure,
average outlay for these combined
cleaning services was $170. Far
fewer households (15%) reported
expenditures for repair services;
among these households, expend­itures
for repairs averaged $92 in
1985.
Demographic
Characteristics
Income. Among purchasing
households, mean expenditures for
apparel services increased as income
increased. Although a similar rise in
expenditures was observed for total
laundry and dry cleaning and the full­service
component, there was no cor­responding
increase in spending for
repair services and coin-op services.
The proportion of households
purchasing total apparel services
and most components of apparel ser­vices
rose as income level rose. Over
three-quarters of households with
income of $40,000 and over had ex­penditures
for apparel services. In
contrast, coin-op service expendi­tures
were reported by more
households in the lower income
brackets, and percentages reporting
decreased as income increased.
Age. The average amounts spent
for apparel services by households
that had an expenditure increased
gradually with age, then declined
after age 55, similar to the pattern
for total expenditures. Mean expend­itures
for laundry and dry cleaning
also were highest during the middle
years (25-54). Expenditures for
repair services, however, were
highest in households with a refer­ence
person between 45 and 74 years
of age.
Younger households were more
likely to report an expenditure for
apparel services. They were much
more likely than older households to
use coin-op services.
12
Households with a reference
person under 25 or over 65 years of
age were more likely than other
households to have incomes of
$20,000 or less. Those whose
reference person was between the ages
of 35 and 54 were more likely to have
incomes exceeding $40,000 (table 2).
Race. Although white households
had higher total expenditures than
black and other households, expendi­tures
for apparel services were
higher in black and other house­holds.
Furthermore, spending for
laundry and dry cleaning (both coin­op
and full-service) was higher in
black and other households. Spend­ing
for repair services, however, was
higher in white households.
Except for repair services, the
percentage of households reporting
an expenditure for apparel services
was lower among whites. In par­ticular,
considerably fewer whites
(22%) than blacks (38%) reported
coin-op service expenditures.
Education. Expenditures for
apparel services increased as the
educational level of the householder
increased. Households with refer­ence
persons who had not attended
college, however, had slightly higher
expenditures for coin-op services.
Over three-quarters of house­holds
with reference persons who
had more than 4 years of college
reported expenditures for apparel
services, compared with about half
of households headed by high school
graduates. Similarly, more highly
educated households were more
likely to report expenditures for full­service
laundry and dry cleaning,
and repair services.
The percentage of households with
income under $20,000 decreased as
education increased (table 2).
Table 2. Income by age and education of the householder, and
family type, 1985
Characteristic
Age:
Less than 25 . .... . . . ...... . . . ....... ... .
25-34 ... .. .. . . .... .. ......... . .. . . .... .
35-44 .............. ... . . . . ...... . ..... .
45-54 . ..... . ..... ... .................. .
55-64 . ..... .. .... . .. . . .. . .. . . .... ... .. .
65-74 . .... . .... . . .... ............ .. . . . .
75 and over . ....... . .... . .......... . . .. .
Education:
No high school diploma ...... . ........ ... .
High school diploma .. . ... ....... . , ..... .
1-4 years college ......... . . .... ....... . .
More than 4 years of college .. ... ........ . .
Family type:
Husband-wife .. .... .... . .. . .. . . .... . .. . .
Husband-wife-own child ... .. ... ...... ... . .
Single parent . . ..... . . . .... .... . ... . . . . .
Single consumer .... . .. . ... .... .. .. .. . . .
Other families . . ....... ... ... . .... ....... .
Less than
$20,000
Income
Percent
More than
$40,000
71 .8 2.6
39.2 15.6
27.7 26.6
28.4 29.4
44.7 19.1
62.4 6.1
77.1 3.0
74.3 6.2
49.6 15.1
40.6 25.0
23.9 45.7
39.2 21.4
24.8 29.8
63.5 4.1
65.6 3.8
53.1 9.7
Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review
The number of retail estab­lishments
providing laundry,
dry cleaning, and other gar­ment
services increased from
approximately 40,000 in 1980
to almost 45,000 in 1985 (6).
Personal consumption expend­itures
for cleaning, storage,
and repair of clothing and
shoes increased by $600 mil­lion
in constant 1982 dollars
between 1987 and 1988.
Year Current Constant
dollars 1982
dollars
(in billions)
1982 7.1 7.1
1983 7.6 7.2
1984 8.5 7.7
1985 8.8 7.6
1986 9.2 7.6
1987 9.8 7.7
1988 11.0 8.3
•
Table 3. Housing tenure by age
and race of the householder,
and family type, 1985
Characteristic Percent
homeowners
Age:
Less than 25 . .. ... ...... .
25-34 . . ...... .. . ....... .
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
75 and over . ..... ....... .
Race:
White . .. ..... . .... ..... .
Black and other .. ..... ... .
Family type:
Husband-wife .... ... .... .
Husband-wife-own child ... .
Single parent ............ .
Single consumer . ... .. ... .
Other families . .......... .
11.3
44.1
68.5
78.0
78.6
78.8
67.3
64.6
44.8
80.5
78.3
37.8
35.2
53.2
Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review
Housing tenure. Expenditures for
apparel services were only slightly
higher in households that owned
their home compared with house­holds
that were renting. Expend­itures
by renters for coin-op services
exceeded that by homeowners. One­half
of all renter households
reported an expenditure for coin-op
services? Homeowners (more likely
to own their own laundry equip­ment)
reported this expenditure
much less frequently.
Younger households were more
likely than older households to be
renters. Black and other households
were more likely than white
households to be renters (table 3).
Family Composition. Among pur­chasing
households, single-person
households had the lowest expendi­tures
for apparel services. On a per
capita basis, however, these house­holds
had the highest expenditures.
Single-person households were the
most likely of all households to
report any expense for coin-op
services (41.7%). Husband and wife
families (with and without children)
were least likely to use coin-op
services, but most likely to use full­service
facilities.
Households headed by a husband
and wife (with or without children)
were more likely than other house­holds
to have incomes exceeding
$40,000 and to own their home.
Single-parent or single-person
households were more likely than
other family types to be renters.
Earner composition. Among pur­chasing
households, those in which
both husband and wife were in the
labor force had the highest total ex­penditures
and highest expenditures
for apparel services. Highest expend­itures
for full-service laundry and
dry cleaning occurred in households
in which only the husband or single
male reference person was em­ployed.
Spending for coin-op
2 Many multi-unit rental buildings provide
coin-operated facilities on the premises.
services was highest in households
where both husband and wife were
earners.
Among households with the refer­ence
person and/or spouse earning
income, little variation in the percent
purchasing apparel services was ob­served.
Households with no spouse
earning income, however, were less
likely to report expenditures for ap­parel
services. Fewer dual earner
households, 14%, reported any ex­penditure
for coin-op services, com­pared
with 35% and 29% of house­holds
with only the wife (or single
female reference person) or hus­band
(or single male reference per­son)
employed. Households with
both husband and wife employed
were more likely than other
households to report expenses for
full-service laundry and dry cleaning.
Almost two-thirds of husband and
wife households with children
reported both parents were in the
labor force.
Conclusions
Apparel services were purchased
during the year by over half of U.S.
households. Expenditures, however,
were low, averaging $187 in 1985
among h<Qseholds incurring this
expense. In general, the kinds of
households with higher levels of total
expenditures also reported higher
expenditures for apparel services.
However, compared with total
expenditures, spending for apparel
services was higher than might be
expected in renting households, in
households headed by a single
parent or single person, and in
black households. Previous studies
corroborate these findings. Bellante
and Foster (1) suggest that renters
are less likely than homeowners to
own clothes washers and dryers, so
are more likely to purchase apparel
services. These same researchers
found black households spent more
than white households on clothing
care.
13
Demographic characteristics that
appear to affect the purchase of ap­parel
services were income, age and
education of the reference person,
and housing tenure. Wife's employ­ment
did not affect the percentage
of households reporting an expend­iture
for apparel services. This find­ing
supports those reported by
others (1,3,12,13) that subordinate
the impact of wife's employment.
Characteristics of households most
likely to report expenditures for ap­parel
services were:
Income of $40,000 or more
· Renters
Black
and a reference person
Age 25 years or less
With more than 4 years of college
Use of coin-operated laundry and
dry cleaning services was highest
among households:
Income under $10,000
Renters
Single persons
Black
Female earners
and a reference person
Age 25 years or less
In contrast, characteristics of
households favoring full-service
laundry and dry cleaning services
were:
Income of $40,000 or more
Both husband and wife in the
labor force
and a reference person
Between 35 and 54 years of age
With more than 4 years of college
Households more likely to report
expenditures for repairs had:
14
Income of $40,000 or more
and a reference person
With more than 4 years of college
Clothing Rental Expenses
Average expenditure for cloth­ing
rentals in 1985 for households
reporting any rental expenditure
was $261. Very few households,
1.5%, reported this expense,
however. Households most likely
to rent clothing had incomes of
$40,000 or more; a reference per­son
between 45 and 54; were hus­band
and wife families with
children; and had both husband
and wife in the labor force.
Occasions that usually require
rental clothing include weddings
References
1. Bellante, Don, and Ann C.
Foster. 1984. Working wives and ex­penditures
on services.Journal of
Consumer Research 11(2):700-707.
2. Ferber, Robert. 1958. A statisti­cal
study of factors influencing tem­poral
variations in aggregate service
expenditures. In: Lincoln H. Clark,
editor. Research on Consumer Reac­tions,
pp. 394-414.
3. Nickols, Sharon Y., and Karen
D. Fox. 1983. Buying time and saving
time: Strategies for managing
household production.Joumal of
Consumer Research 10(2):197-208.
4. Schram, Vicki R., and Jeanne L.
Hafstrom. 1986. Family resources
related to wife's time inputs to
housework. Journal of Consumer
Studies and Home Economics
10(3):235-245.
5. Shank, Susan E.1988. Women
and the labor market: The link grows
stronger. Monthly Labor Review ·
111(3):3-8.
6. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census. 1987. Statisti­cal
Abstract of the United States,
1988. [108th ed.]
and other formal events such as
high school proms. These oc­casions
most frequently arise in
families with young adult
children. The family composition
and age of household head
reflected in the data concur with
this observation. Clothing may
also be rented for business func­tions
and charity fundraisers,
which are more likely to be at­tended
when both spouses are
employed or earning above­average
income.
7. U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1986.
Consumer Expenditure Survey:
Interview Survey, 1982-83. Bulletin
No. 2246.
8. . 1986. Consumer
Expenditure Survey: Interview Sur­vey,
1984. Bulletin No. 2267.
9. . Consumer
Expenditure Survey: Interview Sur­vey,
1985. Unpublished data.
10. . Consumer
Expenditure Survey: Interview Sur­vey,
1986. Unpublished data.
11. . Consumer
Expenditure Surveys: 1985 Interview
Survey Public Use Tape and
Documentation.
12. Wagner,Janet.1984.
Socioeconomic and demographic
determinants of expenditures for
clothing-related services. In: Sandra
S. Hutton, et al., editors. Association
of College Professors of Textiles and
Clothing Proceedings: Combined
Central, Eastern, and Western
Regional Meetings, pp.109-110.
13. Weinberg, Charles B., and
RussellS. Winer.1983. Working
wives and major family expenditures:
Replication and extension. Journal
of Consumer Research 10(2):259-263.la
Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review
Households with Expenditures
for Housekeeping Services,
Including Child Care
By Frankie N. Schwenk
Research Leader
Family Economics Research Group
During the last 5 years, families have in­creased
their expenditures for housekeeping
services, particularly for child care and home
care of elderly or invalid persons. This article
describes who is purchasing these services and
how much they spend. A larger percentage of
persons 75 years or older purchase domestic,
gardening, and care services than other age
groups. Child care services are purchased most
often by families where both parents work, or
the single parent works. Working single parents
with child care expenses spend 9% of their in­come
for child care.
Housekeeping services, as defined
in the Consumer Price Index (CPI),
include components as diverse as
gardening services, appliance
repairs, and babysitting. The com­ponents
and the relative importance
of each, as determined by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (3), are
shown in table 1.
Since 1977, when the housekeep­ing
index began, the CPI for house­keeping
services has not increased as
Table 1. Relative importance, by
item, in the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers
Housekeeping services . . . . . . . . 1.608
Gardening and other
household services . . . . . . .383
Babysitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .302
Domestic services . . . . . . . . . . .300
Postage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .261
Appliance and furniture repair . .184
Unpriced items . . . . . . . . . . . . . .124
Care of invalids, elderly, and
convalescents in the home . .054
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. The Consumer Price Index:
1987 Revision, Report 736.
Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review
rapidly as the CPI all-items or all­services
indices. However, the
average outlay for housekeeping ser­vices
has increased, indicating that
families are purchasing more of the
services. A comparison of the 1986
Consumer Expenditure Survey
( CEX) with the 1982-83 survey
shows that families spent 33% more
for housekeeping services in 1986,
compared to a 12% increase in the
housekeeping CPI index during that
time period (2).1 This increase in the
mean expenditure was due primarily
to expenditures for babysitting (up
34%), day care (up 65%), and care
of invalids, convalescents, hand­icapped
or elderly persons in the
home (up 75%). During the 5-year
period, the percentage of house­holds
who purchased these services
remained nearly constant for the
housekeeping category and each of
its components.
Housekeeping Services
Findings from this analysis re­lated
to spending for each category
of housekeeping services are
presented in table 2, p. 16. The per­centage
of consumer units incurring
1be naming convention and definition
used for the Consumer Expenditure Survey
are different from the Consumer Price Index.
In the·CEX, the overall category is named
"Domestic" with "Housekeeping" as a subset.
The overall category in the CPI is called
"Housekeeping" with "Domestic" as a sub­category.
In this article, the naming conven­tion
of the CPI is used so "housekeeping"
always refers to the overall category. The
definitional difference is an important one.
The CEX definition for domestic services has
both babysitting and day care, whereas the
CPI has only babysitting in the housekeeping
index and includes day care in personal and
educational services.
the expenditure in a quarter of 1985
and the average annual expenditure
of those households are provided.
Almost half of the consumer units
had an expenditure for one or more
housekeeping services. For these
households who purchased a service,
the average annual expenditure was
$651, which was 3% of average total
expenditures for all households. For
the few who had expenditures for
the care of elderly, invalids, and con­valescents
in the home, the average
annual expense was $2,894.2
Nearly 8% had babysitting expend­itures
with a mean cost of $966. Only
babysitting, i.e., home care of
children, is included in the CPI
definition of housekeeping services,
but babysitting and day care may be
interchangeable for some families so
day care expenses will be included in
this discussion. The average expendi­ture
for day care was $1,372 for the
nearly 5% of households who pur­chased
this service. Six percent of all
households purchased domestic ser­vices
with an average expenditure of
$952. Other categories (e.g., garden­ing,
repairs, and other services such
as moving and rentals) were pur­chased
by larger percentages of
households, but the mean expendi­tures
were relatively low.
The characteristics of households
who purchase housekeeping services
vary greatly. Whereas babysitting ser­vices
are purchased primarily by
households with children where the
reference person is age 25 to 45,
domestic services tend to be pur­chased
by a higher percentage of
households with persons who are 75
years or older. Thus, the overall
housekeeping category conceals
2 This figure assumes that households have
expenses over the year that are similar to the
expenses they reported for the quarter. All of
the expenditure data in this survey are
quarterly data. To provide an annual figure,
the quarterly number is multiplied by four.
For expenditures that may occur only once or
twice a year, such as some cases of home care
for the elderly or invalids and especially for
convalescents, this procedure may inflate the
expenditure estimate.
15
variations within the individual
categories. Since the characteristics
of users are so different, this article
will analyze home services (table 3)
separately from child care services
(table 5, p. 19). Home services are
defined in this paper as domestic,
gardening, and invalid care. Child
care includes babysitting and day
care. Repairs and other housekeeping
services are included in the
housekeeping category but are not
considered part of home or child
care services and will be discussed
briefly in a separate section.
The care of elderly, invalids, and
convalescents in the home would
seem to be allied with child care be­cause
the nature of the two services
is similar. However, households that
need care services for the elderly, in­valids,
and convalescents tend to be
older households that also are more
likely to use domestic and gardening
services. Because this appears to be
a cluster of services older families
use, this analysis will include services
for the elderly and invalids with
home services.
Home Services
Domestic, Gardening, and
Invalid Care Services. Domestic
services include cleaning, home
laundering, and cooking. Gardening
services include services provided
under service contracts but not those
covered by management or main­tenance
fees. Examples of gardening
services are lawn cutting, lawn fer­tilizing,
pruning, and tree removal.
Care is for invalids, convalescents,
handicapped, and elderly persons in
the home and does not include in­stitutional
or medical care.
Table 3 provides information on
total expenditures, housekeeping,
and home services expenditures by
selected household characteristics.
The proportion of households that
purchased the service and the
average expenditure for these
families are shown. For example,
44.9% of all households purchased a
housekeeping service, and for these
households, the average expenditure
was $651. For home services, 16.8%
reported purchasing domestic, gar­dening,
or invalid care with an
average expenditure of $708.
Table 2. Components of housekeeping services: Percent of
households with the expenditure and mean expenditure values for
those households, 1985
Housekeeping services2
•..•••••••••••.••
Domestic services ....... ....... ..... .
Gardening and lawn care services ...... .
Care of invalids in home .............. .
Appliance and furniture repair .......... .
Other housekeeping services3 ......... .
Babysitting ......................... .
Daycare4
.•••..•••••. • ••• ••••••• • •• •
Percent
purchasing
44.9
6.4
12.6
0.5
12.9
20.5
7.6
4.7
Mean
expenditure 1
$651
952
345
2,894
390
241
966
1,372
1 The quarterly mean was multiplied by 4 to present an estimate of the annual expenditure
~~. . . 2 Postage is a component of the Consumer Price Index but not included here smce the mter-view
component of the Consumer Expenditure Survey does not include P?Stage data.
3 This category includes water softening service; moving, storage, and fre1ght ex~ress; non­clothing
laundry and dry cleaning; furniture, TV, and VCR rentals; household equ1pment
rentals; management and upkeep services fo~ security.. . .
4 Day care is included in personal and educational serv1ces, not m the housekeepmg
category, of the CPI but is listed here because it relates to babysitting.
16
Income was a primary factor in
choosing to purchase home services.
Households with incomes of $40,000
or more were about twice as likely as
other households to buy home ser­vices;
they also spent more than
other households. As with the over­all
home services category, domestic
and gardening services were pur­chased
by a higher percentage of
high-income households, especially
those with incomes over $40,000.
Age was an important factor also.
It might be expected that persons
age 25 to 44 would be consumers of
domestic and gardening services
since there may be young children in
the family and both parents working.
However, the percentage of these
households using these services was
no higher than several other age
groups. For domestic services, the
households that had the highest per­centage
of purchasers were older
households, especially those with a
reference person over 75. Similarly,
households with a reference person
65 to 74 or over 75 had the highest
percentage of purchasers for garden­ing
services.
White families were more likely
to use home services. A much higher
proportion of white families, com­pared
with black or other families,
purchased domestic, gardening, or
invalid care service.
Homeowners were more likely
than renters to have domestic and
gardening services expenses. This
was probably related to the in­creased
domestic and garden tasks
related to home ownership. Renters
may have lawn care or some cleaning
services provided, may have smaller
spaces requiring upkeep, and may
lack incentive to spend money on
another's property. About the same
percentage of husband-wife families
(with or without children) and single
persons used domestic services. Hus­band-
wife families without children
were more likely to use gardening
services, which may reflect the older
age of this family type and their
higher rate ofhomeownership (4).
Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review
~ Table 3. Expenditures for home services: Percent of households with the expenditures and mean expenditures for
:-- tv those households, 1985
~
""' "!'l
Home services
Ql
9 Household characteristic Total Housekeeping2 Domestic Gardening Care Combined home -· expenditures 1 services3 «""
~
f") 0 Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean 0= ~ 121,11:~bS!~iog ~ gyrcbS!sing d2J.l.S!( gyrch51sing d2J.l.S![ gyrcbS!sing QQ!!S!( 12Yrl<bS!~iog d2J.l.S!(
9
(;' All households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $20,179 44.9 $651 6.4 $952 "' 12.6 $345 0.5 $2,894 16.8 $708
"=' Income brackets: ~ < Under $10,000 ......... . . ... . .. .. .. . . . 11,098 39.0 425 3.9 720 9.2 351 .9 1,924 12.0 652
~- $10,000-$19,999 .. ... ... . . . .. ......... 15,364 42.4 444 4.7 641 9.8 261 .2 2,169 12.9 472
$20,000 - $29,999 .. . ... . . .............. 20,300 45.6 543 4.0 680 10.7 317 .4 2,450 13.4 533
$30,000 - $39,999 .. . . . . . . . ..... ........ 24,704 48.7 582 5.1 710 14.5 227 .4 1,841 17.8 428
$40,000 and over .... . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . 36,538 58.1 1,070 14.4 1,254 22.2 365 .5 5,237 31 .5 905
Age of reference person (years):
Under 25 ... .... . . . .... . . . . . . .. ... . ... 12,278 40.7 215 0.8 400 1.8 157 .0 116 2.6 235
25-34 . . .. .......... ... ........... .. . 19,935 48.1 659 3.7 771 7.6 243 .2 1,078 10.4 468
35-44 .... . . . ......... . . ........ ..... 25,239 46.3 722 7.7 1,005 12.5 313 .1 473 17.8 659
45-54 . . . . ......... . . . .. .. .. ... . . . . . . 25,962 43.3 630 6.9 1,100 13.7 408 .7 1,134 19.2 726
55-64 .... . . . .. ... .. . ....... .. ...... . 20,824 39.4 669 7.9 819 13.8 416 .4 3,740 18.5 737
65-74 .. .. ..... .. .. . ....... ......... . 16,244 44.0 663 6.7 840 19.8 374 .7 4,309 22.7 711
Over 75 .. . .... .. .. . .. • . .. .... ........ 11,653 50.7 837 12.5 1 '151 23.3 321 2.5 3,581 31.3 990
Race:
White ..... . . . ... . . . . .. .. .. ... .. .... . . 20,965 46.1 679 7.1 966 13.3 353 .6 2,930 18.0 735
Black and other ...... .......... ..... .. 15,046 37.1 426 1.4 497 8.0 258 .2 2,267 9.1 358
Housing tenure:
Homeowners . . ....... .. . . . ..... ..... . 23,667 47.6 778 8.4 1,024 18.9 354 .6 3,132 23.8 723
Renters . . . .. . . . ..... . ..... .. . . . .... . . 14,502 40.5 409 3.1 636 2.3 220 .4 2,221 5.4 604
Family composition:
Husband and wife only .... .. ... . ....... 22,220 42.8 669 7.0 1,038 16.5 363 .5 4,751 20.3 760
Husband and wife with own children . ... . . 27,478 49.8 854 7.5 1,073 11.2 384 .4 1,138 16.7 764
Single parent with children .... . . ..... . . . 15,603 46.5 608 2.1 833 9.7 239 .1 76 11 .1 369
Other families ... . . . . ... ... . .... . .. . . . . 17,521 39.7 556 4.1 873 9.2 372 .5 1,245 11.9 640
Single persons . . ... . .... .. ............ 12,183 43.0 417 6.4 736 12.4 293 .8 3,256 16.7 653
Earner composition:
Husband or single male reference person . . 21 ,340 41 .2 610 6.0 1,059 10.6 414 .4 4,431 14.5 852
Wife or single female reference person . . .. 15,227 43.1 450 3.9 757 10.4 267 .2 1,707 12.7 479
Husband and wife .... . . .. . . . ... . . .. ... 27,804 50.3 840 8.0 1,068 12.4 326 .4 1,150 18.2 715
Neither husband or wife . .. . . . . ......... 12,307 43.5 563 6.8 739 17.1 349 1.1 3,252 21 .3 692
1 Total expenditures are for all consumer units. Other expenditure means are for only those consumer units purchasing the service.
2 Housekeeping services as defined by the CPI: domestic, gardening, care of invalids, appliance and furn iture repair, babysitting, other.
1-0
3 Combined home services are domestic, gardening, and care of invalids, convalescents, handicapped, or elderly persons in the home.
-..)
Similar explanations may be ap­propriate
for the values related to
earner composition. For gardening,
a higher percentage of households
with no earners used the service.
These may have been retired per­sons
who were older, thus support­ing
the earlier premise that persons
over 65 years of age are more likely
to be users of gardening services.
Care services for elderly, invalids,
handicapped, and convalescents in
the home were purchased by only
0.5% of the population, but this ex­pense
can make a substantial impact
on the budget of those who have the
expenditure. These tend to be older
families, especially those with a refer­ence
person 75 years or older. Of
these households, 2.5% reported an
expenditure that averaged $3,581.
Combined Home Services for
Older Families. Because domestic,
gardening, and care services are
used by a higher percentage of older
families (as shown in table 3), addi­tional
analysis of these expenditures
by families with the reference person
over 65 years was conducted. Of
households with a reference person
over 75 years, nearly a third pur­chased
these home services. The
average outlay among purchasing
households was $990, 7% of their
average income.
It is possible that these persons
were buying home services to main­tain
a large home and yard that they
did not want to leave. Seventy-nine
percent of those between the ages of
65 and 74 owned their homes and
67% of those 75 years or older were
owners. Others may have moved into
new housing arrangements, yet
needed home services such as clean­ing,
laundry, cooking, yard, and care
services to assist them in continuing
their independent living status.
Also, the need for such services
may be greater if a person lives
alone, because households with
more persons can share the tasks
and provide care for each other.
Household heads 75 years or older
are more likely to live alone than per­sons
65 to 74 years old. Fifty-four
18
percent of the older group lived in
single-person consumer units3 com­pared
with 32% of the younger
group.
An examination of the data,
shown in table 4, suggests the follow­ing
observations:
• Households with a reference per­son
over 75 years of age were
more likely to buy home services
and to spend more than house­holds
headed by a person 65-74
years.
• If a person lived alone, she or he
":as more likely to buy home ser­VIces.
• Income, as well as need, was a fac­tor.
The percentage of consumer
units who purchased the servic~
increased as income increased.
Thus, the purchase of home ser-vices
is affected by the need for the
service and the resources available
to pay for the service. The need may
be greater for persons 75 or older,
particularly if they live alone. Of
these households, those with higher
incomes are more able to purchase
3 Although these persons lived in single­~
rson consumer units, some may not actually
hve alone. They may share a dwelling with
others but remain financially independent so
are considered separate consumer units.
4 Asset level was not analyzed for this study
but probably affected these expenditures.
services that may make their lives
more comfortable.
Repairs and Other Services
Those households most likely to
purchase appliance and furniture
repairs were white, husband-wife
families, homeowners, and consumer
units with higher incomes. The
likelihood of purchasing other
housekeeping services that included
moving and household equipment
rentals was greater for single per­sons,
renters, and those under 25
years of age.
Child Care Services
In this study, babysitting was
defined as home care for children,
whether in the respondent's home or
the caregiver's home. Day care was
participation in nursery school or
day care centers, including nonin­structional
day camps. Some families
would use both services so babysit­ting
and day care were summed for
each family and termed child care
expenditures.
The proportion of families using
child care and the average amount
spent became greater as family
income increased (table 5). Child
care expenses may be higher for
upper income families because the
greater incomes were the result of
Table 4. Home services (domestic, gardening, care) for households
with reference person 65-74 or 75 + years: Percent of households with
expenditure and mean expenditure for those households, 1985
Percent Mean
Household characteristic ~urchasing ex~enditure
65-74 75and 65-74 75and
years older years older
Total households 0 • • 0. 0 •••• 0 0 •••• 0. 23 31 $711 $990
Reference person lives alone:
All incomes ...................... 24 37 757 913
Less than $10,000 ............... 21 34 704 899
$10,000-$20,000 ••••••• 0 ••••••• 23 49 454 817
Over $20,000 ....... ...... ...... 54 63 1,298 1,337
Reference person lives with others:
All incomes ................ . ... . . 22 25 688 1 '121
Less than $10,000 ........ .. . .... 13 19 709 942
$10,000-$20,000 ............... 16 23 430 592
Over $20,000 ... ....... ......... 38 40 792 1,817
Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review
Table 5. Expenditure for child care services: Percent of households with the
expenditures and mean expenditures for those households, 1985
Child care
Household characteristic
Babysitting 1 Day care Combined child care2
Percent Mean Percent
purchasing dollar purchasing
All households . . . .. .. ... .. ....•... . .... . 7.6 $966 4.7
Income brackets:
Under $10,000 . .. . ... . ...... . .......... 3.3 867 1.5
$10,000-$19,999 .... .... ...... ........ 5.7 876 2.9
$20,000 - $29,999 ••• 0 0 0 0 • •••••• 0 ••••• • • 10.1 885 5.9
$30,000 - $39,999 • 0 • •• • 0 ••••• ••• 0 •••• 0. 11.3 1,007 7.5
$40,000 and over •• •••• 0 0 ••••• • •••••••• 13.4 1,065 9.6
Age of reference person (years):
Under25 • • • •• ••••• 0 •• • • •• •• • • • ••• • • • • 5.6 817 1.8
25 - 34 •••• •• •• 0 ••• • 0 0 • • • ••• 0 0 ••• •• •• • 18.2 1,051 10.4
35-44 •••• • •••• • 0 0. 0 • • •• • •• • • •••••••• 12.8 828 8.8
45 - 54 •• • • • 0 • •• ••• ••••• • • ••• •••• ••• • • 2.7 875 2.2
55-64 • • • • 0 • • • •••• • •••••• • •••••• ••• 0. 0.5 2,455 0.7
65-74 • •••••••• 0 • • •• •••• • • •• • 0 0 0 •••• • 0.3 888 0.3
Over75 ••••••• • •••••••• 0 0 • • •• • 0 0 0 ••• • 0.0 0 0.0
Family composition:
Husband and wife only .. . . . .... . ... . . .. . 1.0 1,331 1.2
Husband and wife with own children .. ..... 19.3 947 11.4
Single parent with children ... . ... . . .. .... 17.1 981 12.2
Other families ••• • ••• ••• 0 0 • • •••• ••• •• • • • 3.9 1,023 1.8
Single persons •••••••••• • 0 • •••• • 0 •• • •• 0.1 332 0.1
Earner composition:
Husband or single male reference person .. 5.5 521 4.0
Wife or single female reference person . ... . 5.9 996 4.1
Husband and wife ............ ..... . .... 15.7 1 '115 8.8
Neither husband or wife . . .. . .. ... .... ... 0.7 465 0.4
1 A family may report babysitting or day care expenses or be represented in both columns.
2 Combined child care services are the sum of babysitting and day care for each family.
Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review
Mean Percent Mean
dollar purchasing dollar
$1 ,372 10.6 $1 ,303
968 4.5 961
1,158 7.8 1,065
1,354 13.9 1,217
1,348 16.3 1,315
1,498 18.5 1,551
699 6.8 857
1,330 24.7 1,329
1,408 18.1 1,270
1,814 4.2 1,498
1,322 1.2 1,983
1,667 0.5 1,446
0 0.0 0
1,610 2.0 1,601
1,298 26.2 1,263
1,662 25.3 1,463
1,471 5.4 1,248
505 0.2 567
995 8.2 841
1,697 8.4 1,507
1,464 21 .1 1,440
656 1.0 580
19
both parents working (which in­creased
the need for child care ser­vices).
Also, more income allows
more opportunity to purchase child
care services so lower cost arrange­ments
such as child care exchanges
or family assistance may not be used
as extensively by higher income
families. As expected, families with
the reference person 25 to 34 and 35
to 44 years of age were more likely
to use child care services because
these are child-bearing and child­rearing
years.
One in four husband and wife
families with children or single­parent
families with children had
some expenditures for child care
during the quarter. Those without
expenditures may have children who
are old enough to care for them­selves.
Also, the care of younger
children may be provided by older
siblings, grandparents, and other
family members or some noncash
arrangement such as child care
exchanges. The mean for those with
an expenditure was $1,263 per year
for husband, wife, and children
families and $1,463 for single-parent
families. However, these averages do
not reveal the wide range of costs.
Some paid for a few hours of care
· for one child, but others paid for
child care for several children for all
the hours the parents worked. Child
care expenditures were reported by
a very small percentage of "husband­wife
only'' and "other" families.
Average expenditures for these
families, however, were substantial.
Table 5 shows that the number
of earners in the households was
related to child care expenses, but
consideration also must be given to
whether the family has one or two
parents. Table 6 provides informa­tion
on child care expenditures for
single-parent and dual-parent
families with one- or two-parent
earners. Two-parent, two-earner
families and single-parent families
with the parent working were more
likely to use child care services and
spent more than two-parent, one­earner
families. Single-parent
families spent 9% of their average
income for child care, two to three
times the share two-parent families
spent.
Reasons To Provide
Consumer Information on
Housekeeping Services to
Consumers
Housekeeping services, although
not a major expenditure for all
households, require substantial out­lays
for some households. For ex­ample,
households with a reference
person 75 years or older that pur­chase
home services spend 7% of
their income on those services.
Single-parent, single-earner
households allocate 9% of their in­come
to child care.
Housekeeping services may be
more difficult than goods or some
other services to evaluate and pur­chase
because they are not stand­ardized
or mass-produced. For
example, care of an invalid or child
is a very individualized service. The
nature of the service needed and the
quality of the service caretakers pro­vide
vary greatly. Other examples of
individualized needs are domestic
services such as cleaning and cook­ing
that require the service provider
to have some knowledge of the tastes
and standards of the purchaser.
Table 6. Child care expenditures: Percent of households with expendi- ·
tures and mean expenditures for those households, 1985
Percent
Earner composition purchasing
Two parents, both earners· ..... . ... .' 31
Two parents, one earner . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
One parent, one earner . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
20
Mean
expenditure
$1,439
688
1,547
Expenditure
as percent
of income
4
2
9
In addition, the nature of the in­dustry
is changing for some types of
housekeeping services. The number
of licensed day care centers has
increased greatly, and similar growth
has taken place in the lawn care
industry. Domestic services are now
available through companies, in
addition to those arrangements
made with individuals. Procurement
of these services, once personalized
and unstructured, has become- for
many consumers- a more formal
arrangement. For example, costs are
established, set by the provider after
evaluating marketplace conditions
and not negotiable on a one-to-one
basis. Similarly, other rules related
to the service transaction, such as
the hours involved, may be quite in­flexible
and not subject to variation
or substitution.
For the above reasons, consumers
may benefit from informational and
educational opportunities related to
housekeeping services. However,
such offerings must be targeted to
appropriate families because
housekeeping services are not
staples of American households but,
rather, periodic requirements of
families with particular needs or
interests at certain stages of their
lives.
References
1. Schwenk, Frankie N.1986. Child
care arrangements and expendi­tures.
Family Economics Review
No.4, pp. 1-11.
2. U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Con­sumer
Expenditure Survey: Inter­view
Survey, 1982-83, 1984, 1985,
1986. Unpublished data.
3. .1987. Consumer
Price Index: 1987 Revision. Report
736.
4. . 1987. Consumer
Expenditure Survey Results from
1985. News. USDL 87-399.
5. . Consumer Expendi-ture
Surveys: 1985 Interview Survey
Public Use Tape and Documenta­tion.
ilS
Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review
Households with Expenditures
for Entertainment Services
Income. In this analysis,
households were divided into five
income brackets- under $10,000,
$10,000 to $19,999, $20,000 to
$29,999, $30,000 to $39,999, and
$40,000 and over. The percentage of
households reporting entertainment
service expenditures increased with
each income bracket.
By Mary N. Talbot
Social Science Analyst
Family Economics Research Group
Households were studied to examine the
relationship between socioeconomic charac­teristics
and expenditures for entertainment
services. Data from the 1985 Consumer Expen­diture
SuiVey demonstrate that household ex­penditures
for entertainment services increase
as income and education increase. Husband
and wife families with and without children,
homeowners, households in the urban West,
and white households were more likely than
other households to purchase entertainment
services. These same purchasing households
also report high levels of spending for enter­tainment
services and total expenditures.
Prices for entertainment services,
as measured by the Consumer Price
Index (CPI), increased by 136%
between 1973 and 1988, less than
prices for all services (209%) and
for all items (162%). However, since
1982 the rate of increase in prices
for entertainment services has been
greater than that for all services and
all items (figure 1). ·
Entertainment services include:
admissions fees, club memberships,
fees for participant sports, fees for
recreation lessons and instructions,
and other entertainment services.
These categories, defined by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics for the
CPI and used in this study, are
described in the box on p. 23.
In 1985, 66% of the Consumer
Expenditure Survey ( CEX) house­holds
reported entertainment
expenditures (table 1, p. 22). Expend­itures
for admissions to movies, con­certs,
and sporting events were
purchased by 45%, club memberships
by 20%, fees for participant sports by
18%, recreation lessons by 10%, and
expenditures for other entertainment
services were reported by 40% of
households.
Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review
The average expenditure for all
entertainment services, by purchas­ing
households, was $574. For those
reporting an expenditure, the
average outlay was $257 for admis­sions,
$366 for club memberships,
$334 for participant sports, and $425
for recreation lessons. Mean expend­iture
by purchasing households for
other entertainment services was
$227.
Demographic
Characteristics
Characteristics of households
~ore likely to purchase entertain­ment
services were often the same
characteristics identifying house­holds
with highest mean expend­itures
for these services and highest
total expenditure level.
Households in the higher income
brackets tended to have a greater
outlay for entertainment services.
Mean total entertainment expend­itures
ranged from $340 to $996,
increasing with income. Households
with incomes of $40,000 or more
spent more than others on admis­sions
fees, club memberships, par­ticipant
sports fees, recreation
lessons, and other entertainment
services.
Age of Reference Person. House­holds
with a reference person under
age 55 were more likely to purchase
entertainment services than older
households. These younger house­holds
were also more likely to report
spending for admissions fees. The
purchase of club memberships
varied only slightly among house­holds
categorized by age of the
reference person; 21% or 22% of
households with a reference person
Figure 1 Changes in consumer prices for
entertainment services
CPI-W (1982-84= 100)
120
100
80
80
40
Year
All nems All services Entertainment services
21
~
~ :---
tv
~
:"""' e.
-<"'
~
0 a= ;:;·
C'll
~ :;.
~
Table 1. Expenditures for selected entertainment services: Percent of households with the expenditure and mean
expenditure for those households, 1985
Household characteristics
All households .. . ..... . ....... . . . . . . . .
Income brackets:
Under $10,000 ..........•.... . .....
$10,000- $19,999 .. . ......... . . . . . . .
$20,000 - $29,999 . ... ...... ... . .... .
$30,000 - $39,999 ... . . . ..... . ...... .
$40,000 and over .................. .
Age of reference person (years):
Under 25 . . .................... . . . .
25-34 .. . ... . .. . .... ... . . .... . .. . .
35-44 .. . .. ..... ..... ... . .. .. . .. . .
45-54 .. .... ...... ..... . ... ...... .
55-64 ..... ... ...... . ............ .
65-74 ........................... .
Over 75 ......... . ................ .
Race:
White ... . ... .. .... . . . .. . ... .... .. .
Black and other . ............... .. . .
Housing tenure:
Homeowners .. ............. . . . .. . .
Renters . . . ..... . . . ... . .. ........ . .
Family composition:
Husband and wife ...... . ... . ...... .
Husband and wife with own children3 ..
Single parent with children ... .. ..... .
Single person . . ........... . . : ... .. .
Other families . .. . . .. .. ... ...... . .. .
Household size:
1 member ......... . .. . .... . ...... .
2 members ...... ...... . .. . ....... .
3 members ......... . .. .. ... .. ... . .
4 members . .. ...... ..... . ... .... . .
5 members ......... ...... . .. . . .. . .
6 members or more ............ . .. . .
Region of residence:
Urban
Northeast . . .. . ... ... . . . . .. . .. .... .
Midwest .... ...... .. .. .. ... . . . ... .
South ... . . . . . ... .. ....... .. . ... . .
West . . .. ... . . ... . . .. ......... ... .
Rural ..... . ................. . .. . .. .
Total Total
expenditures 1 entertainment
Mean
dollars
$20,179
11,098
15,364
20,300
24,704
36,538
12,278
19,935
25,239
25,962
20,824
16,244
11,653
20,965
15,046
23,667
14,502
22,220
27,478
15,603
12,183
17,521
12,183
19,945
24,275
27,245
26,463
24,026
19,860
20,016
20,341
22,953
17,548
Percent Mean
purchasing dollars
66.2 $574
44.8 340
60.7 362
76.7 437
83.8 561
89.9 996
74.0 322
74.2 484
77.2 680
71 .9 726
61.5 603
50.0 564
31.3 480
69.4 590
45.5 409
70.2 662
59.8 404
65.8 631
79.0 696
58.9 408
57.3 417
57.6 428
57.3
64.3
73.4
76.7
74.5
61.4
63.2
70.4
62.8
75.6
59.8
417
565
599
720
677
643
655
586
544
640
412
1 Total expenditures are for all households surveyed.
2 Includes credit card membership fees.
3 "Own" children includes stepchildren and adopted children of the householder.
Admissions
Percent Mean
purchasing dollars
45.4 $257
29.7 161
37.2 198
51.6 216
58.1 245
67.9 378
60.6 167
52.4 207
58.3 248
51.2 324
35.7 344
25.8 346
13.5 260
47.3 265
32.9 190
45.8 288
44.6 206
37.9 295
55.7 278
45.5 179
42.3 219
40.9 244
42.3
38.7
49.7
55.7
55.0
44.4
44.1
49.9
42.9
53.7
35.7
219
275
283
273
258
211
298
252
213
318
194
Club
memberships2
Percent Mean
purchasing dollars
19.5
11 .2
16.6
20.4
25.9
34.2
14.2
18.0
21 .8
22.2
21.4
21 .1
13.5
20.9
10.3
23.3
13.4
23.8
23.0
10.8
15.8
13.8
15.8
21.8
20.5
22.5
20.2
12.5
17.1
22.0
18.1
23.6
17.0
$366
298
257
248
347
509
278
334
352
359
417
383
478
375
246
395
284
443
371
216
291
310
291
418
338
416
297
365
498
313
426
364
198
Participant
sports
Recreation
lessons
Percent Mean Percent Mean
purchasing dollars purchasing dollars
17.9 $334
8.0 263
12.9 273
19.2 258
24.3 302
34.2 434
15.9 196
21 .8 276
22.9 349
21.4 371
16.1 376
10.4 439
5.3 470
19.5 332
7.3 353
20.6 361
13.4 265
18.3 395
25.1 344
12.2 316
13.4 271
10.9 226
13.4
16.1
19.9
26.0
23.1
15.4
16.7
24.3
14.4
20.0
14.2
271
358
374
310
386
329
355
317
351
321
330
9:9 $425
3.8 359
5.5 308
11.0 322
14.9 346
21.3 524
4.0 304
11.6 352
20.7 439
11.6 583
4.2 437
3.8 250
0.8 309
10.7 404
4.9 717
12.4 438
5.7 379
6.6 409
19.4 461
10.6 390
4.1 350
4.6 255
4.1 350
5.9 362
11 .7 363
21 .3 441
20.1 497
13.5 721
9.5 544
11.5 404
9.9 394
11.0 426
7.2 348
Other
entertainment
Percent Mean
purchasing dollars
39.7
20.1
33.0
45.0
54.8
67.5
32.6
45.1
49.4
50.2
37.7
27.0
12.7
42.7
20.2
46.4
28.7
42.6
56.0
28.3
25.1
29.4
25.1
39.0
49.3
55.0
47.0
38.3
36.1
42.4
36.9
46.2
37.8
$227
179
156
196
205
304
166
199
270
258
212
209
184
230
187
242
190
232
238
195
198
230
198
224
228
240
241
281
240
222
227
251
190
Entertainment Service Definitions
Total entertainment services
Admissions
Club memberships
Fees for participant sports
Recreation lessons
Other entertainment services
The sum of the groups described below.
Fees paid both at home and on trips for
theater, concert, opera or other musical
series, season tickets, sporting events; and
events, museums, and tours when traveling.
Membership fees for country clubs, swim­ming
pools, tennis clubs or other social,
recreational or fraternal organizations, civic
organizations, automobile service clubs, and
credit card memberships. 1
Fees paid both at home or on trips for par­ticipant
sports. Excludes club membership
fees.
Fees paid for recreation lessons and
instructions.
Expenditures for film processing, pet
services, veterinary services, entertainment
expenses on out-of-town trips, rental and
repair of musical instruments, rental and
repair of photographic and sporting equip­ment,
and video rentals.
1 Credit card memberships include annual membership fees paid for credit cards
such as VISA, Mastercard, and American Express regardless of the type of purchase
made with the card (3).
between 35 and 74 years had this
expenditure. In contrast, a higher
proportion of households headed by
persons age 25 to 54 reported spend­ing
for participant sport fees, rec­reation
lessons, and other enter­tainment
services.
Of households purchasing enter­tainment
services, those whose refer­ence
person was age 45 to 54 spent
the most for entertainment ($726),
followed by households headed by
persons age 35 to 44 ($680). Dollar
amounts spent for admissions, club
memberships, and fees for partici­pant
sports generally increased as
the reference person's age in­creased.
Recreation lesson fees were
highest in households with a refer­ence
person age 45 to 54, and other
entertainment services were highest
in households headed by persons
age 35 to 44.
Analysis of individual com­ponents
of the other entertainment
services category shows that among
purchasing households, those
headed by persons age 65 to 74 (7%
Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review
purchasing) spent the most of all
groups for entertainment on trips,
and the oldest families (reference
person age 75 and over) had the
highest expenditures for recreational
vehicle rental. However, less than
1% of the families in any age sub­group
reported expenditures for the
rental of recreational vehicles.
Race. White households were
more likely than black and other
households to have expenditures for
entertainment services in each
category. Also, white households
reported spending more for total
entertainment serVices than black
and other households. Although only
5% of black and other households
purchased recreation lessons, these
households had a mean expenditure
exceeding $700, compared with
about $400 for white households
(11% purchasing).
Housing Tenure. Homeowners
were more likely than renters to
make entertainment purchases in
most categories. For admissions,
however, a similar percentage of
homeowners and renters reported
an expenditure. Expenditures for
entertainment services were consis­tently
higher among homeowners.
Further examination of other
entertainment services reveals that a
higher percentage of homeowners
(6%) than renters (2%) reported
spending for pet services. However,
renters who purchased pet services
spent more, on average, than
homeowners ($259, compared with
$199).
Family Composition. Seventy­nine
percent of husband-wife
families with own children pur­chased
entertainment services.
These families were more likely than
other families to report expenditures
in each category except club mem­berships.
Club memberships were
reported as often by husband-wife
families without children as by those
with children.
Husband-wife families with own
children had higher total expend­itures
and higher expenditures for
entertainment services than did
other types of families. Husband­wife
families without children spent
the most for admissions fees, club
memberships, and fees for par­ticipant
sports. Husband-wife
families with own children spent
more for recreation lesson fees and
other entertainment services than
did other families.
Household Size. Three-, four-,
and five-member households were
more likely to purchase entertain­ment
services than other households
(73-77% reporting). These house­holds
also were most likely to report
expenses for admissions, participant
sports, and other entertainment
services.
Four-member households had the
highest total entertainment expend­itures.
Per capita expenditures
decreased with increasing household
size. Mean expenditures for rec­reation
lesson fees and other enter­tainment
services increased with
household size, ranging from $350 to
$721 and $198 to $281, respectively.
23
Region.1 Urban households in the
West had the highest proportion
(76%) of households reporting any
entertainment expenditure. In addi­tion,
Western households were more
likely to purchase admissions, club
memberships, and other entertain­ment
expenditures than were
households in other regions. Mid­western
households reported spend­ing
for participant sports more
frequently than households in other
regions of the country.
Urban households in the North­east
and West reported the highest
expenditures for total entertainment
services. Western households spent
more than others for admissions fees
and for other entertainment services.
Northeastern households spent the
most for club memberships and
recreation lessons.
Rural households were less likely
than urban households to purchase
an entertainment service. Fewer
rural households reported spending
for admissions, 36% compared with
43% to 54% for urban households.
Average expenditures for enter­tainment
services were lower in rural
households-$412 compared with
$544 to $655 for urban households in
the four regions. Rural households
reported lower expenditures than
did urban households in all cate­gories
except participant sports.
Education of Reference Person.
Expenditures for entertainment
services were also examined for
households with reference persons
having four education levels: no
high school diploma, high school
diploma, 1 to 4 years of college,
and more than 4 years of college.
The percent of households who
purchased entertainment services
became higher with each higher level
of education. Total expenditures and
total entertainment services expend­itures
rose with increased education.
Spending for admissions fees, club
memberships, fees for participant
sports, recreation lessons, and other
1 In the CEX dataset, only urban house-holds
are reported by region; all rural
households are reported together.
24
entertainment services also were
higher as education increased
(figure 2).
Characteristics of the
Entertainment Consumer
Households more likely to
purchase entertainment services
have higher incomes, own their
home, are husband-wife families
with or without children, and live in
an urban setting. In addition, refer­ence
persons in these purchasing
households were younger, better
educated (over 4 years of college),
and more likely to be white. For
most of the demographic categories
studied, households that were most
likely to purchase any entertainment
service also had higher outlays for
total expenditures and total enter­tainment
expenditures.
Less than half of black and other
households, households with in­comes
under $10,000, and house­holds
with a reference person 75
years and older reported expend­itures
for entertainment services.
References
1. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census. 1985. Statisti­cal
Abstract of the United States,
1986. [106th ed.]
2. . 1987. Statistical
Abstract of the United States, 1988.
[108th ed.]
3. U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Consumer Expenditure Surveys:
1985 Interview Survey Public Use
Tape and Documentation; and per­sonal
communication with William
Passero.le
Figure 2 Entertainment expenditures
by educational level of respondent
Percent reporting
100 ~--------------------------------------------------,
80
60
40
20
0 '--=-ll.U_lU
Total entertainment Club memberships Recreation lessons
Admissions Participant sports Other entertainment
[]] No H.S. diploma EJ H.S. diploma ~ 1-4 yrs. college ~ Over 4 yrs. college
Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review
Research Summaries
Poverty in the 1980's
Are the poor getting poorer? Two
measures for comparing the cir­cumstances
of the poor over time
are the average or mean income
deficit and the deficit per family
member of households falling below
the poverty threshold. The poverty
threshold is a set of money income
levels that vary by family size and
number of children and are adjusted
annually for inflation by multiplying
by the change in the Consumer Price
Index. In 1986 poverty thresholds
ranged from about $5,600 for a per­son
living alone to $22,500 for a
family of nine or more.
Average Income Deficit
The income deficit is the amount
of money separating the income of a
given family from the appropriate
poverty threshold. In 1959 the
average deficit for all poor families
was $4,435 (in 1986 dollars, see
table), but decreased to $3,837 by
1969 and then varied little from this
amount during the 1970's. This
average deficit grew larger during
the 1980's, reaching $4,394 in 1986.
The average income deficit, how­ever,
masks changes in family size
over time and varying mixes of fami­ly
type. For example, if the average
family size is two persons in one year
and five persons in another, the
potential deficit for the two-person
family is restricted to a poverty
threshold that is only about half that
of the five-person family. Also, the
proportion of all poor families
headed by a woman has increased
over time.
Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review
Therefore, the average income
deficit by sex of the householder
was examined. Both male-headed
(including all married-couple
families and families with a male
householder and no spouse present)
and female-headed poor families
saw relatively large decreases in the
average deficit during the 1960's.
However, the average deficit for
poor households headed by a
woman began the decade $1,000
higher than the deficit for poor
families maintained by a man ($5,214
versus $4,202 in 1959) and remained
higher through the 1970's and 1980's.
This was the case even though the
average family size was smaller for
poor families headed by a woman
(3.31 in 1986, compared with 3.76
for other family types). Since both
male- and female-headed families
Average income deficit and deficit per family member, 1 for all poor
families, 1959-86
Average income deficit Deficit per family member
for poor families
Female Female
house- house-holder
holder
Male and no Male and no
All house- spouse All house- spouse
Year families holder2
~resent families holder ~resent
1959 $4,435 $4,202 $5,214 $1,068 $977 $1,425
1965 4,204 3,972 4,782 996 915 1,217
1969 3,837 3,511 4,406 978 888 1,137
1970 4,007 3,697 4,530 1,019 940 1,149
1971 3,914 3,625 4,356 1,018 920 1,172
1972 3,934 3,711 4,236 1,019 944 1,127
1973 3,890 3,668 4,157 1,026 955 1 '115
1974 4,101 3,959 4,270 1,078 1,003 1,172
1975 3,966 3,791 4,180 1,038 959 1,149
1976 3,836 3,771 3,908 1,038 984 1,100
1977 3,938 3,830 4,050 1,072 1,004 1,149
1978 3,983 3,791 4,174 1,102 1,017 1,195
1979 4,081 3,880 4,296 1 '119 1,040 1,210
1980 4,136 4,005 4,280 1,138 1,041 1,256
1981 4,234 4,034 4,455 1,167 1,052 1,311
1982 4,425 4,254 4,630 1,215 1,109 1,359
1983 4,426 4,188 4,700 1,216 1,083 1,391
1984 4,389 4,192 4,591 1,220 1,087 1,379
1985 4,359 4,108 4,616 1,235 1,093 1,400
1986 4,394 4,064 4,688 1,260 1,085 1,439
In constant 1986 dollars.
2 Includes all married-couple families and families with a male householder and no spouse
present.
Source: Uttman, MarkS., 1989, Poverty in the 1980's: Are the poor getting poorer? Monthly
Labor Review 112@:13-18, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
25
experienced increases in average
income deficit during the 1980's, the
overall increase cannot be attributed
to the growth in the proportion of
poor families headed by a woman.
Deficit Per Family Member
Calculating the deficit per family
member controls for changes in fami­ly
size over time, as well as differ­ences
in family size among different
types of families. The overall deficit
per family member, in constant 1986
dollars, has remained at a higher
level in the 1980's than during any
prior decade and shows no evidence
of decreasing, having reached $1,260
in 1986. The overall deficit per fami­ly
member varied only slightly (be­tween
$1,102 and $1,108) during the
1970's and was $1,068 in 1959.
The increase in the 1980's ap­pears
to be chiefly the result of an
increase in the deficit per family
member for persons in female­headed
families. The deficit per
family member has been higher for
female-headed families throughout
the 1959-86 period and increased
from $1,210 in 1979 to $1,439 in
1986. Comparable figures for
married-couple families or families
with a male as head with no wife
present varied only between $1,040
and $1,109 during the 1980's. Al­though
not increasing, the latter
deficit has shown no sign of lessen­ing
in this decade.
Noncash Benefits
If, on average, poor households
were receiving more noncash
benefits per household during the
1980's, it would explain at least some
of the apparent growth (or stability
in the case of male-headed families)
in the average income deficit of poor
families. However, the average
market value of noncash benefits for
poor families (in 1986 dollars) was
actually less in 1986 ($4,088) than in
1979 ($4,221); noncash benefits in
the form·of food and housing
declined by $195 and $1,060,
whereas that for medical benefits
rose by $63 between 1979 and 1986.
26
Conclusion
Regardless of the income
measure used, the poor appear to be
no better off in the 1980's than they
were in the 1960's and 1970's. Also,
the average market value of noncash
benefits has generally decreased
during the 1980's. Although improv­ing
economic conditions have
reduced the number of poor in the
last few years, on average, those that
fell below the poverty level in any
given year in the 1980's have not
come any closer to their poverty
threshold.
Source: Littman, MarkS., 1989, Poverty in
the 1980's: Are the poor getting poorer?
Monthly Labor Review 112@:13-18, U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statisiics.
Spending for Food
Food expenditures in the United
States1 totaled $473 billion in 1988,
5% more than in 1987. Spending for
food to be eaten at home rose 4%
and spending for meals and snacks
eaten away from home rose 6% from
1987.
In real terms (adjusted for infla­tion)
overall food expenditures in­creased
46% between 1965 and
1988, as population increased 27%.
Real spending for food at home rose
29% during the same period, less
than the 87% increase in spending
for meals and snacks away from
home. One reason for this difference
is that people are eating out more as
incomes rise and as more women
enter the work force. Also, prices for
meals and snacks have risen faster
than those for food at home.
1Include food paid for with food stamps or
donated by the Government, meals in military
and prison mess halls, and business meals.
About 16% of total food expenditures in 1987
were made by governments and businesses.
The share of food spending for
away-from-home meals and snacks
rose from 30% in 1965 to 39% in
1980, and to 45% in 1988. Because
prices for food eaten away from
home include the cost of preparing
and serving the food, the away-from-
. home share of the quantity of food
purchased was only 24% in 1965,
29% in 1980, and 31% in 1988.
In 1988 individuals and families
spent $410 billion for food. This.fig­ure
includes purchases using food
stamps since food stamps are in­cluded
as income. Food accounted
for 11.8% of after-tax income in
1988, compared with 15.3% in 1965.
The proportion of income spent on
food was much higher in low-income
households than in high-income
households; those in the lowest
income quintile averaged 42% and
those in the highest quintile, 9%.
The farm value of food accounted
for 25% of the food dollar in 1988.
For food at home the proportion
was higher, 30%, than for food away
from home, 16%.
Source: Blaylock, James, Howard Elitzak,
and Alden Manchester, 1989, Food expend­itures,
National Food Review, A-J 89/16,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service.
Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review
Earnings of
Married-Couple
Families
The working wife has become an
integral feature of the American
economy and an important influence
on the economic level of the family.
In 1987 both husband and wife had
earnings in over two-thirds (67%) of
the 43.5 million married-couple
families with at least one spouse
employed. The mean earnings of all
dual-earner couples was $41,690; in
families where both spouses worked
full time, year round, mean earnings
were $49,025. These data were ob­tained
in the March 1988 Current
Population Survey, conducted by the
Bureau of the Census.
There were substantial increases
in real terms in the mean earnings of
wives compared with husbands' earn­ings
over the 1981-87 period. In 1987
wives had mean earnings of $13,245,
2% higher in constant dollars than
the 1986 level. The difference was
significant at the 90% level of con­fidence.
Between 1981 and 1987
wives' earnings increased by 23%.
The 1987 mean earnings of husbands
was not significantly different from
1986, and the change between 1981
and 1987 was only 12%.
~ean earnings of husbands and wives and percent change of real
mcome, by selected characteristics, 1987
Characteristic Mean earnings
Husbands Wives
Total, 15 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . $29,154 $13,245
Age (years):
15-24 .. .. . ............. . ... .
25-34 ........ .. ... . ... . . ... .
35-44 . . ... . .. .. . .. . ..... . . ..
45-54 . . .. ....... . ... . . . . . .. .
55-64 .......... ....... .... . .
65 and over ........... . ..... . .
Age of own children under 18 years:
No own children . ... . .... ..... .
One or more own children
All under 6 .... . .. . .. ...... . .
Some under 6, some 6- 17 ... .
All6-17 .. . . .. ... ......... .
Work experience:
Worked at full-time jobs .. . . .... .
50 - 52 weeks . . . .... .. . .. .. .
40- 49 weeks . .... . ..... ... .
27 - 39 weeks ... .. ... .... .. .
26 weeks or less ... .. ... .... .
Worked at part-time jobs ... ... . .
50 - 52 weeks ...... . ....... .
49 weeks or less .... . . . .. ... .
Years of school completed:
Less than 12 . . .......... ..... .
High school (4 years) . . ........ .
College:
1 -3 ........ . .. .. ....... .. .
4 ..... . .... ....... . . ..... .
5 or more ...... ........... .
15,028
25,238
33,166
34,648
28,727
16,132
27,755
30,256
28,181
29,564
31 ,636
30,606
33,005
22,498
16,609
9,414
8,790
12,196
6,013
18,048
24,483
29,179
38,973
46,853
8,791
13,077
14,764
14,094
12,251
7,581
14,256
12,395
12,163
10,732
13,067
16,603
18,929
14,089
11 ,212
4,856
5,959
8,387
3,770
8,081
11,373
13,872
17,599
22,769
*Statistically significant change at the 90% confidence level.
Percent change, real
income, 1981-87
Husbands
*11 .8
-2.8
*7.9
*9.8
*15.8
* 5.1
*21.1
*11.7
*12.1
*19.6
*12.9
* 9.1
*12.0
*11.0
*5.6
- 1.7
13.7
2.9
4.5
-6.5
*4.8
* 3.3
*8.7
*14.1
*14.1
Wives
*23.3
*9.4
*18.7
*31.5
*22.5
*11 .1
10.3
*18.9
*27.5
*31 .9
*30.6
*25.7
*21 .3
*15.9
*13.7
*27.7
*14.4
*24.5
*14.2
*17.6
*8.4
*15.3
*18.7
*31.9
*22.2
Source: U.S .. ~apartment of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1989, Earnings of Married­Couple
Fam1hes: 1987, Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 165.
Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review
Wives in each of the work ex­perience
categories shown in table
registered increases in earnings
between 1981 and 1987. In contrast,
only husbands who worked full time
for 40 or more weeks during the year
showed increased earnings over this
period. Between 1981 and 1987, the
percent change in real mean earn­ings
of working wives with one or
more children under age 18 was 28%
compared with 12% for correspond­ing
working husbands. The percent
change since 1981 for wives with 4
years of college was 32%, versus
14% for husbands.
Overall, 41.1 million husbands
were employed in 1987 with mean
earnings of $29,154. Those who
worked full time, year round, earned
an average of $33,005. Earnings were
somewhat higher for husbands who
worked full time, year round, but
whose wives were not employed,
$37,067.
Mean earnings were $13,245 for
the 31.4 million working wives in
1987. About 51% of these women
worked full time, year round, with
average earnings of $18,929. About
one-third of all wives with earnings
were employed part time; their mean
earnings were $5,959.
Approximately 5.3 million wives
had earnings greater than their
husbands. This number represents
about 18% of the 29.1 million mar­ried
couples in which both spouses
were earners. Wives earning more
than their husbands were more likely
than other wives to be working in
year-round full-time jobs, have no
children at home, and have com­pleted
some college.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
~ureau of the Census, 1989, Earnings of Mar­ned-
Couple Families: 1987, Current Popula­tion
Reports, Series P-60, No. 165.
27
Young Unwed Fathers
Young unwed fathers are a
demographically heterogenous
group_ from all racial and ethnic
backgrounds, from all socio­economic
strata, and from both
urban and rural communities. Yet as
a group, these unwed fathers tend to
be educationally disadvantaged and
face poor prospects for employment.
The majority live with their parents;
few live with their children. In other
respects, black youth who father
children outside of marriage are not
very different from their peers who
have not become fathers. White
unwed fathers, however, are more
likely than their pee~s to have ~is­tories
of socially devtant behavtor
such as drug use and criminal
records.
The Young Unwed Fathers
Project was designed to review, syn­thesize,
and discuss available data
and information about young unwed
fathers. The objective of the study
was to examine characteristics and
proflles of the young unwed fathers
population, as well as Federal and
State programs and initiatives. The
project was funded in part by the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation (ASPE),
u.s. Department of Health and
Human Services, and the Employ­ment
and Training Administration,
u.s. Department of Labor. The
study was a collaboration between
ASPE, Catholic University of
America and MAXIMUS, Inc. A
symposi~m was held in 19~ with. in­vited
panelists and guests, mcludmg
policy officials and staff from
Federal, State, and local govern­ments,
courts, universities, and ser­vice
programs. The report includes
summary fmdings from the 1986
invitational symposium of profes­sionals
and 10 commissioned work­ing
papers.
28
Characteristics of Young Unwed
Fathers
A primary national data source
on unwed fathers used by many re­searchers
was the National Lon­gitudinal
Study of Labor Force
Behavior of youth (NLS) conducted
by the U.S. Department of Labor.
This study, initiated in 1979,
provides ongoing information on .
child-bearing, household and farmly
status educational attainment,
empl~yment and earnings, and fami­ly
background. For this report 1984
data on approximately 6,400 males
between the ages of 19 and 26 were
examined.
Fatherhood rates. Population
estimates of unwed fatherhood
generated by 1984 data found that
7% (1.1 million) white, black, and
Hispanic males ages 19 to 26
reported ever being unwe? fathers.
By individual race or ethmc group,
27% (599,000) of black male~ in t~s
age class, 10% (94,000) of Htspamcs,
and 3% ( 420,000) of white males
were ever unwed fathers. Although
more than one-third of these unwed
fathers had married by 1984 (not
necessarily to the mother of their
child), marriage was more likely for
white and Hispanic unwed fathers
( 49% and 44%, respectively) than
for black unwed fathers (24%). In
1984 nearly one-half of all19- and
20-year-old fathers were not mar­ried.
Socioeconomic background. NLS
data for 1984 also indicate that
young men who are black or from
low-income families are dispropor­tionately
represented in the popula­tion
of unwed fathers; whereas only
4% of all men 19 to 26 years were
never-married fathers, 20% of black
men in this age !foup wer~ nev~r­married
fathers. Also, bemg ratsed
in a family that received welfare in
1979 was a strong predictor of
whether a young man was a never­married
father in 1984.
1 Underreporting of existing. children was
considerably higher among whtte than black
never-married fathers.
Living arrangements. According
to 1984 NLS data, 80% of never­married
fathers ages 19 to 26 were
not living with their children, 54%.
were living with at least one of therr
parents, 10% were living ~th ot?er
relatives and 12% were liVIDg With a
female ~artner. Black never-mar~ied
fathers were more likely than white
never-married fathers to be living
with a parent (59% and 43%, respec­tively).
Parental involvement. In the NLS
study over one-half of unwed
fathe;s 19 to 26 years old lived within
10 miles of their children and visited
them at least once each week. Of
these fathers who regularly visited
their children, about one-half
reported making child support pay­ments.
White unwed fathers were
more likely than black or Hispanic
unwed fathers to live far away from
their children. NLS data also show
that white and Hispanic unwed
fathers were more likely to marry the
mothers of at least one of their
children than were black unwed
fathers.
Education, psychosocial behavior
and employment. Several re­searchers
indicated that unwed
fathers have a history of poor perfor­mance
in school, or they drop out of
school prior to parenthood. ~
data indicated there was a defictency
in basic academic skills among
unwed fathers. NLS fathers in 1984
had poorer school and work back­grounds,
higher incidences of
cocaine and heroin use, and greater
incidences of criminal activity than
young males of the same race who
did not become unwed fathers.
Other Sources of Data
The National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development
currently supports several studies of
family dynamics that will provide in­formation
on the behavior of unwed
fathers in the future. These include:
• The National Study of Families
and Households
(University of Wisconsin)
Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review
• The National Longitudinal Survey
of the High School Class of 1972
(U.S. Department of Education).
• The Youth Cohort of the National
Longitudinal Survey
(U.S. Department of Labor)
• The National Survey of Children
(Child Trends, Inc. and
Brandeis University)
Programs
Several federally mandated
programs, administered at the state
and local level, are designed to assist
in the well-being of unwed parents
and their children.
The Child Support Enforcement
Program administered by the Office
of Child Support Enforcement in the
Family Support Administration, U.S.
Department of Health and Human
Services, is designed to ensure that
parents fulfill their responsibility to
support their children whether or
not they live with these children. In
1985, less than 18% of unwed
mothers 18 years and older had
court-ordered child support arrange­ments,
compared with 82% of
divorced and 43% of separated
mothers. About 14% of unwed
mothers reported actually receiving
any support from their children's
fathers. For mothers who received
U.S. Government -sponsored Aid to
Families with Dependent Children
(see below), these percentages were
even lower. Many young fathers paid
no child support because they were
unemployed or lacked sufficient
education or basic skills to obtain
jobs.
One of the public assistance
programs, Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC), is the
major source of financial support for
large numbers of unwed mothers
who are required, as a condition of
receiving benefits, to identify and
cooperate in locating the children's
fathers in order that paternity
proceedings can be initiated. This
public assistance benefit in the form
of cash assistance varies in amount
from State to State and by type of
household composition. Other
public assistance programs, such as
Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review
Medicaid and Food Stamps, and
public housing provide aid to unwed
parents. In 1985 one researcher
reported mothers who had their first
child as a teenager received $8 bil­lion
of the $16 billion AFDC budget,
plus $3 billion in Food Stamps and
$5 billion in Medicaid.
More employment and training
programs have targeted young
mothers than young fathers. Both
the public and private sectors have
expressed the need to address yo~g
fathers in such programs. Also, al­though
there are hundreds of adoles­cent
pregnancy and parenting
programs for pregnant teenagers
and young mothers, few of these
programs have accommodated
young fathers. Moreover, there are
few programs designed exclusively
for fathers. Preliminary evidence
from research suggests that reaching
out to young fathers and encourag­ing
them to become involved in
parenting is helpful to the mothers,
the children, and themselves.
Source: Smollar, Jacqueline, and Theodora
Ooms, 1988, Young Unwed Fathers: Re­search
Review, Policy Dilemmas and Options,
Summary report, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Catholic University of
America, and MAXIMUS, Inc. collaborating.
29
Updated Estimates of the Cost of Raising a Child
The cost of raising urban children: June 1989; moderate-cost level1
Region and age Total Food at Food away Clothing Housing3 Medical Education Transportation All other4
of child (years) home2 from home care
MIDWEST:
Under 1 ... . .. . . . ... . .. 5,138 680 0 157 2,164 392 0 965 780
1 • •• ••••• 0 •••• • • 0 • • •• 5,293 835 0 157 2,164 392 0 965 780
2-3 . . . . .. .. ... . ...... 4,931 835 0 256 1,902 392 0 840 706
4 - 5 ...... . .... . ... .. . 5,225 958 171 256 1,902 392 0 840 706
6 • 0 • • •••• 0 •••• •••• • • • 5,489 927 171 354 1,803 392 184 840 818
7-9 . .. . . . . . . . • .. . . . .. 5,706 1,144 171 354 1,803 392 184 840 818
10-11 ... . ......... . .. 5,922 1,380 171 354 1,803 392 184 840 818
12 •• •• •• •• • 0 ••• ••• • •• 6,309 1,391 205 511 1,869 392 184 902 855
13-15 .. . .. . ...... . .. . 6,464 1,546 205 511 1,869 392 184 902 855
16-17 . .. . .... • ...... . 7,080 1,731 205 708 1,935 392 184 996 929
Total .. . ... . . ... .. ... 105,055 21 ,671 2,598 6,922 34,100 7,056 2,208 15,930 14,570
NORTHEAST:
Under 1 .... .. . ... . ... . 5,096 804 0 157 2,197 392 0 840 706
1 •••••••• •• • •••• • ••• 0 5,281 989 0 157 2,197 392 0 840 706
2-3 . ............•... . 5,146 958 0 275 2,000 392 0 778 743
4 - 5 ..... ... ... ....... 5,441 1,082 171 275 2,000 392 0 778 743
6 ........ .. ...... .... 5,883 1,082' 205 374 1,967 392 230 778 855
7 - 9 . . . .. . ..... . .... . . 6,099 1,298 205 374 1,967 392 230 778 855
10-11 .......... .. .... 6,377 1,576 205 374 1,967 392 230 778 855
12 . . . .... ... ......... 6,749 1,576 205 550 2,033 392 230 871 892
13-15 ..... - . . ... ... .• 6,935 1,762 205 550 2,033 392 230 871 892
16 - 17 . .. . . .. ... . . . .. . 7,426 1,947 240 688 2,066 392 230 934 929
Total . .. . . ..... . .. ... 110,891 24,757 2,872 7,234 36,460 7,056 2,760 14,812 14,940
SOUTH:
Under 1 .. . ... ...•. ... . 5,602 742 0 177 2,328 436 0 1,027 892
1 • ••• • 0 ••• • ••• ••• •••• 5,756 896 0 177 2,328 436 0 1,027 892
2-3 .. . .. . - .... . . . .... 5,399 865 0 275 2,066 436 0 902 855
4-5 ... . . . ... . . ... .... 5,663 958 171 275 2,066 436 0 902 855
6 .. .. ... ....... .. .. .. 6,046 958 205 374 1,967 436 275 902 929
7-9 ..... ... .... . .... . 6,232 1,144 205 374 1,967 436 275 902 929
10 - 11 ......... . •... . . 6,479 1,391 205 374 1,967 436 275 902 929
12 ... . .. . •.... .. .... . 6,893 1,391 240 550 2,033 436 275 965 1,003
13-15 ... . - . . ..•. . ..• . 7,078 1,576 240 550 2,033 436 275 965 1,003
16-17 . .. ... ... • ...... 7,587 1,731 240 708 2,099 436 275 1,058 1,040
Total .. .•. .. .. .... . .. 114,483 22,037 3,012 7,314 37,052 7,848 3,300 17,050 16,870
WEST:
Under 1 .. .. ... .• •. .. .. 5,523 742 0 157 2,263 479 0 1,027 855
1 • •• 0 . 0 •• • • • 0 •• •• •• •• 5,708 927 0 157 2,263 479 0 1,027 855
2-3 ..... - ..... • ....•. 5,421 896 0 256 2,033 479 0 902 855
4-5 .......... . •... .• . 5,750 1,020 205 256 2,033 479 0 902 855
6 .................... 6,212 989 240 374 2,000 479 230 934 966
7-9 . .. . .. . .. . • .. .. • . . 6,428 1,205 240 374 2,000 479 230 934 966
10- 11 . . . ... ... .. ... . . 6,707 1,484 240 374 2,000 479 230 934 966
12 ..... . . . ........... 7,060 1,484 240 531 2,066 479 230 1,027 1,003
13-15 . ...... .. .... .. . 7,214 1,638 240 531 2,066 479 230 1,027 1,003
16- 17 ..... . ..• .. . . •. . 7,905 1,855 274 668 2,164 479 230 1,120 1,115
Total . . ......• .... . .. 116,995 23,181 3,358 7,042 37,250 ,8,622 2,760 17,614 17,168
1 Annual cost of raising a child from birth to age 18, by age, in a husband-wife family with no more than 5 children. For more information on these and
additional child cost estimates, see USDA Miscellaneous Publication No. 1411, "USDA Estimates of the Cost of Raising a Child: A Guide to Their Use and
Interpretation," by Carolyn S. Edwards, Family Economics Research Group, Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
2 Includes home-produced food and school lunches.
3 Includes shelter, fuel, utilities, household operations, furnishings, and equipment.
4 Includes personal care, recreation, reading, and other miscellaneous expenditures.
30 Vol. 2 No. 4 Family Economics Review
The cost of raising rural nonfarm children: June 1989; moderate-cost level1
Region and age Total Food at Food away Clothing Housing3 Medical Education Transportation All other4
of child (years) home2 from home care
MIDWEST:
Under 1 ...... . . . .. .. . . 4,854 618 0 138 2,066 392 0 934 706
1 • 0 •••• •• 0 • •• 0 • • • •••• 5,009 773 0 138 2,066 392 0 934 706
2-3 . . . ...