Family Economics Review [1990, Volume 3, Number 1]

              Editor
Joan C. Cowtless
Editorial Assistant
Jane W. Fleming
Family Economics Review is written
and published each quarter by the
Family Economics Research Group,
Beltsville 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 ($2.50 foreign). Send subscription
orders, change of address, and single
copy requests to Superintendent of
Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC 20402. (See
subscription form in back of this issue.)
Suggestions or comments concerning
this publication should be addressed to:
Joan C. Courtless, Editor, Family
Economics Review, Family Economics
ResearchGroup, USDNARS, Federal
Building, Room 439A, Hyattsville, MD
20782.
Family
Economics
Review
Vol. 3 No.1
The Family Economics Research Group
and the Family Economics Review would
like to gratefully acknowledge the
reviewers of manuscripts for this issue:
Maureen Boyle
Bureau of Labor Statistics
U.S. Department of Labor
Martha M. Johnson
U.S. Department of Energy
Richard Miller
Bureau of Labor Statistics
U.S. Department of Labor
Sara Stiefvater
University of Wisconsin-Madison
February 1990
{For Building Use Only t outents
Features
U.S. DEPOSITORY
PROPERTY OF THE LIBRARY
APR 12 1990
University of North Carolina
at Greensboro
2 Households with Expenditures for Health Insurance
Nancy E. Schwenk
7 Vehicle Insurance Expenditures
LydiaM. Scoon
12 Food and Nutrient Intakes of Low-Income Women and Children, in
Metro/Nonmetro Areas, 1985/1986
Katherine S. Tippett, Sharon J. Mickle and Laurie Roidt
Research Summaries
16 The Working Poor
18 Married-Couple Families with Children
19 Singleness in America
21 Characteristics of Persons Receiving Benefits
23 Barriers to Employment of Older Workers
Regular Items
25 Regional Research Project
26 Cost of Food at Home
27 Consumer Prices
Vo/.3 No.1 Family Economics Review 1
Households with
Expenditures for Health
Insurance
By Nancy E. Schwenk
Consumer Economist
Family Economics Research Group
Data from the 1985 Consumer Ex­penditure
Survey ( CEX) were used to
report household expenditures for
health insurance made by various seg­ments
of the population. CEX data
demonstrate that 69 percent of U.S.
households paid for health insurance in
1985 and the average expenditure was
$631. Expenditures for Medicare were
reported by 97 percent of households
headed by a person 65 years or older.
Fewer than half of single-parent
households or those headed by a person
under 25 years purchased health in­surance.
Consumer educators may wish
to address the special needs of these
subgroups in their insurance program­ming.
This article also describes per­sons
covered and not covered by private
health insurance. Persons who were
white or manied were most likely to
have private health insurance.
Each year Americans spend in­creasing
amounts of money on
health care. National health expendi­tures
accounted for 5.9 percent of
the gross national product (GNP) in
1960. By 1986 health expenditures
totaled 10.9 percent of GNP and
averaged $1,837 per person (4). The
Health Care Financing Administra­tion
estimates that per capita health
care expenditures will be $2,551 in
1990 (1).
The steady increases in health
care cost can be attributed, in part,
to newer and costlier medical tech­niques
and procedures, higher
prices for medical care, an increas­ing
proportion of elderly who
2
generally have more health-related
problems than the young, and a
greater demand for health care ser­vices.
The medical care component
of the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
has been growing faster than the
overall economy every year since
1981 (table 1). Private health in­surance
premiums are rising at more
than 20 percent per year; 1989
premiums may average 22 percent
over 1988 premiums. Employers are
shifting a greater portion of health
care costs back to their employees
through higher deductibles and
greater levels of co-insurance (3).
Health Insurance
Expenditures of U.S.
Households
Household expenditures for
health insurance were obtained from
the 1985 Consumer Expenditure
Survey (CEX), an ongoing survey
conducted by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, U.S. Department of
Labor. Findings are based on
responses from 951 households that
participated in the Interview portion
of the 1985 Survey, each quarter
over a 1-year period. Data were
weighted to reflect expenditures of
the total U.S. noninstitutionalized
population.
Although 31 percent of the
CEX households did not purchase
health insurance, expenditures for
those who did ranged from $8 to
$3,937 per year. Households who
reported expenditures for health in­surance
had an average outlay of
$631 per year, or 3 percent of mean
total expenditures. Households who
did not report out-of-pocket expend­itures
for health insurance may have
had all health insurance expenses
paid by their employer or others
(such as parents or other relatives),
may have been uninsured, or were
eligible for Medicaid or public assist­ance
programs.
Expenditure data for the follow­ing
types of health insurance were
collected in the CEX: commercial
health insurance; Blue Cross and
Blue Shield; health maintenance
plans; Medicare payments; and com­mercial
Medicare supplements,
dental insurance, and other health
insurance. Households may have
expenditures in two or more of these
subcategories. For households
reporting an expenditure, mean ex­penditures
ranged from $192 for
Medicare (29 percent of households
purchasing) to $596 for Blue Cross
and Blue Shield (20 percent of
households purchasing). Percent­ages
of households with an expendi­ture
for other kinds of health
insurance and mean expenditures
are shown in table 2.
Demographic
Characteristics
Income. CEX households were
divided into five income groups. Of
those reporting a health insurance
Table 1. Year-to-year percent in­crease
in prices for all items and
medical care
All Medical
Year items care
1979 11.3 9.3
1980 13.5 10.9
1981 10.4 10.8
1982 6.1 11.6
1983 3.2 8.7
1984 4.3 6.2
1985 3.6 6.2
1986 1.9 7.5
1987 3.7 6.7
1988 4.1 6.5
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau
of Labor Statistics, CPI Detailed Report,
January 1980 to January 1989.
Vo/.3 No.1 Family Economics Review
~ Table 2. Expenditures for health insurance: Percentage of households with the expenditure and mean expenditure for :""
~ those households, 1985
~ ......
Commercial
~ Blue Cross Health Medicare
~. Total health Commercial and maintenance supEiements,
~ Household characteristics insurance health insurance Blue Shield plans Medicare den al, other
~ === puPrecrhcaesnint g dMolelaanrs puPrecrhcaesnitn g dMolelaanrs puPrecrhcaesnitn g dMoellaanr s puPrecrhcaesnitn g dMoellaanr s pPurecrhceansitn g dMoellaanr s puPrecrhcaesnitn g dMoellaanr s
9 -- -- -- -- --
;::;·
I'll All households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 $631 32 $583 20 $596 6 $508 29 $192 14 $337
:~s. Income:
~ Under $10,000 0 •• • • ••••••• ••• •• • 80 509 22 559 24 566 3 291 57 153 17 315
$10,000-$19,999 • 0 ••••• • •• 0 ••••• 70 722 26 685 24 557 5 494 32 239 18 499
$20,000 - $29,999 • • 0 . 0 •• 0 0 •••• • 0. 74 612 37 554 19 522 7 484 27 230 14 408
$30,000-$39,999 0 •• 0 •••••• 0 0 •• 0 . 63 625 40 545 14 628 10 549 13 184 9 124
$40,000 and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 659 40 608 16 674 9 494 8 181 13 186
Age of reference person (years):
Under25 • • 0 •••••••••••••••••• 47 692 21 563 11 1 '1 10 13 617 0 0 6 178
25-34 • 0 0 •• •• 0 • •• • • • • •• 0 • • • • 54 490 33 538 12 364 9 316 1 47 9 115
35-44 ••• 0 ••• •• • •• • ••• 0 •••• • 60 654 39 606 10 696 10 613 1 152 11 208
45-54 •• 0 0 • • 0 • •• •••• ••• •• • •• 57 660 33 639 16 664 3 352 12 100 16 238
55-64 ••••••• • • • 0 ••• •• • • •• •• 75 660 36 640 28 619 4 469 24 145 14 266
65-74 •••• 0 •• • • • ••••• • 0 • • •• • 100 661 24 515 30 605 2 353 97 213 24 581
75 and over • •• • ••• •• • 0 • ••••••• 99 621 16 385 46 530 2 1,345 97 202 16 498
Race:
White .. . ... . . .... . . .. ... .... 70 658 32 597 21 622 6 510 29 196 15 334
Black and other • ••• • ......••. . 0 . 65 378 27 429 15 296 4 483 26 150 6 398
Education:
Less than high school •• •• • • • 0 ••• • • • 75 534 20 497 25 484 1 360 53 183 16 512
High school graduate •• • 0 • •••• • 0 • •• 66 703 37 577 18 664 7 555 24 195 15 300
Attended college . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 647 36 603 19 675 9 495 19 205 11 244
Over 4 years college . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 629 31 680 21 503 10 475 13 210 13 187
Family composition:
Husband and wife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 713 29 618 26 637 3 352 51 238 19 500
Husband and wife with own children . . . . . . 66 672 43 658 13 571 9 556 5 142 12 192
Single parent with children • • • • •••••• 0 45 886 25 668 15 1,122 9 470 0 0 9 169
Single consumer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 429 22 367 25 481 2 120 39 162 12 257
Other households ••••••• • • • • •• 0 0. 67 665 27 491 20 664 10 610 40 160 13 408
Region:
Urban
Northeast ... ... . ......... . . .. 61 610 16 604 30 583 7 359 34 189 6 234
Midwest 0 ••• •• •••• • •••• • • ••• 72 603 34 497 21 594 4 252 29 195 17 419
South ..... ... . .. . ..... ..... 77 633 42 560 22 653 3 448 23 187 18 250
West •• • • •••••• 0 • ••• • ••• • 0. 63 638 28 586 9 571 12 745 28 193 14 291
(M Rural (all regions) •• • • •• 0 0 • •• • • • •• 72 670 35 690 15 537 7 526 31 195 13 461
expenditure, households with in­come
between $10,000 and $19,999
had the highest mean expenditure
for total health insurance ($722);
households with incomes under
$10,000 spent the least ($509).
Households earning $10,000-$19,999
had the greatest expenditures for
commercial health insurance ($685),
Medicare ($239), and commercial
Medicare supplements, dental, and
other ($499). The percentage of
households reporting expenditures
for commercial health insurance
tended to be higher for higher
income groups, whereas a higher
percentage of lower income
households purchased Medicare.
Households purchasing health main­tenance
plans ranged from 3 percent
of those earning less than $10,000 to
10 percent of those earning between
$30,000 and $39,999.
Age. Among purchasing
households, those with a reference
person under age 25 had the highest
mean expenditures for total health
insurance ($692) and Blue Cross and
Blue Shield ($1,110). However, less
than half of this group reported
health insurance expenditures, as
many in this a.pe group were full­time
students or had jobs that did
not offer coverage. Households with
a reference person age 25-34 had the
lowest mean expenditures for total
health insurance ($490), Blue Cross
and Blue Shield ($364), health
maintenance plans ($316), and com­mercial
Medicare supplements,
dental, and other ($115). Older
households ( 65 and over) were more
likely to purchase health insurance,
particularly Blue Cross and Blue
Shield, Medicare, and commercial
Medicare supplements, dental, and
other. Spending for Medicare and
commercial Medicare supplements,
dental, and other was higher for
these households, also.
Lrhe CEX includes college students as
separate consumer units (households) when
they live in college-related housing. These
college students may be eligible for health
insurance coverage under their parents' plan.
4
The 1987 National Medical Expenditure Survey
According to the 1987 National
Medical Expenditure Survey, there were
37 million Americans {15.5 percent of the
population) without health insurance in
1987. This Survey, sponsored by the Na­tional
Center for Health Services Re­search
and Health Care Technology As­sessment,
an agency of the U.S. Depart­ment
of Health and Human Services,
Public Health Service, collected data
from over 36,000 persons in almost
15,000 households selected to be repre­sentative
of the U.S. civilian noninstitu­tionalized
population.
Uninsured persons were most likely
to be 19-24 years old, black or Hispanic,
unmarried or separated, and residing in
the West or South (see table). Persons
between the ages of 19 and 24 were
twice as likely to be uninsured as other
adults. Less than 1 percent of the elderly
were uninsured because almost all per­sons
age
65 or older are covered by Medicare.
Nearly one-fourth of this group relied sole­ly
on Medicare (or a combination of
Medicare and Medicaid) to finance health
care.
Although workers and their families
were half as likely to be uninsured as the
unemployed, the employed accounted
for 78 percent of the population under
age 65 that was uninsured. Proposals re­quiring
employer-paid health insurance
for workers and their dependents have
been introduced in Congress. A variety of
other legislative approaches have been
put forward to reduce the numbers of
uninsured living in families where no one
is employed. Proposals have been
directed specifically at children (one-third
of the uninsured), the poor or near-poor,
"high health risks," and persons with out­of-
pocket expenditures exceeding a
specified threshold or percentage of
income.
Prevalence of employment-related health insurance among employed
adults
Most likely to have
Work full time
Employed in:
Mining
Manufacturing
Transportation, communication
Financial services, insurance
Professional services
Working in a large establishment
(over 100 workers)
Earn over $10 per hour
Least likely to have
Work part time 1 or self-employed
Employed in:
Agriculture, forestry, fishery
Personal services
Construction
Entertainment
Repair services
Sales
Working in a small establishment
(less than 10 workers)
Earn $5 or less per hour
11n 1988 nearly 20 million Americans were part-time workers {35 hours a week or
less). Only about one in six obtained health insurance coverage on the job. Most part­time
workers had independent policies or insurance coverage through relatives, bring­ing
the number of part-time workers covered by health insurance up to 83 percent com­pared
with 87 percent of full-time workers@.
Race. Of those reporting health
insurance expenditures, the average
amount spent by white households
was almost twice as much as non­white
households on total health in­surance
($658 and $378, respective­ly).
White house-holds spent more
for every type of health insurance
with the exception of commercial
Medicare supplements, dental, and
other. A slightly higher percentage
of white than black and other
households purchased each type of
health insurance.
Education. The educational
attainment of the reference person
was classified into four categories:
no high school diploma, high school
diploma, 1 to 4 years of college, or
more than 4 years of college. Among
purchasing households, high school
graduates spent the most for total
health insurance ($703), whereas
households with a reference person
who did not graduate from high
school spent the least ($534). The lat­ter
group spent more than the other
groups on commercial Medicare sup­plements,
dental, and other ($512).
Vo/.3 No.1 Family Economics Review
HeaHh insurance coverage by selected characteristics, 1987
Type of health insurance
Population
characteristics Private coverage
Employment- Public
Total related1 coverage None2
Percent
All persons3 74.5 64.3 10.0 15.5
Age (years):
Under5 • 0 0 ••••• . . . . . 67.1 61.8 16.3 16.6
5- 18 . . . . . . . . . . ... 71.6 67.6 11.4 17.0
19-24 . . • 0. 0 • ...... 63.3 55.2 6.5 30.2
25-54 . . •• 0 •• . . . . . . 78.8 73.2 5.5 15.7
55-64 . . . . . . . • 0 •••• 79.0 65.2 7.6 13.4
65 and over . . . . . . . ... 74.7 35.4 24.4 0.9
Sex:
Male . . . . . . . .. 75.1 65.9 8.3 16.6
Female . . . . . . . . . ... 74.0 62.8 11.7 14.3
Racial/ethnic background:
White . . . ... . . 80.8 69.1 6.8 12.4
Black . . . . . . . .. 52.9 48.5 25.1 22.0
Hispani~4• . . . . .. . . 50.1 45.9 18.3 31 .5
Marital status
(adults 19 years or older):
Married . . . . . . . .... 83.5 72.5 5.5 11.0
Never married . . .. . . 66.1 57.0 8.5 25.4
Widowed . . . . . . . . 66.9 30.9 26.6 6.6
Divorced . . . . . . ... 65.0 55.5 13.9 21.1
Separated . . . . . . . .. 49.6 43.7 25.0 25.4
Region:
Northeast .. . . . . . 78.5 68.9 10.3 11.3
Midwest . . . . . ... 79.7 68.1 9.2 11.2
South . . . . .. . . . . . 69.7 59.4 11.4 18.9
West . . . . . . . . . . ... 72.2 63.0 8.5 19.3
1From current or prior employment of self or other family member.
2Defined by default as persons not covered by Medicare, CHAMPUS/CHAMPVA
(Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services and Veterans Administra­tion),
Medicaid, other public assistance, or private insurance.
31ncludes persons of race and ethnic origin not specified.
4Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Source: National Center for Health Services Research and Health Care Technology Assess­ment:
1987 National Medical Expenditure Survey.
The percentage reporting expendi­tures
for health maintenance plans
increased as educational attainment
increased, from 1 percent of those
who did not graduate from high
school to nearly 10 percent ofthose
with over 4 years of college. Those
with less than a high school educa­tion
were less likely than those with
more education to purchase com­mercial
health insurance, but more
likely to have expenditures for
Medicare. Reference persons with
less than a high school education
were older than those with more
Vo/.3 No.1 Family Economics Review
education; 43 percent were 65 and
over compared with 18 percent of
high school graduates, 16 percent
with some college, and 14 percent
with over 4 years of college.
Family Composition. Although
less than half of the CEX single­parent
households with children
under age 18 reported expenditures
for health insurance, those who did
report had the highest expenditures
($886). Husband and wife house­holds
with children were more likely
than other household types to pur­chase
commercial health insurance.
Not surprisingly, one-member house­holds,
many of whom were elderly,
had the lowest expenditures for total
health insurance ($429), commercial
health insurance ($367), Blue Cross
and Blue Shield ($481), and health
maintenance plans ($120) (reported
by only 2 percent of these house­holds).
Region. Total health insurance
expenditures were similar for urban
households in the four regions, rang­ing
from $603 in the Midwest to $638
in the West. The percentage report­ing
an expenditure for commercial
health insurance ranged from 16 per­cent
in the Northeast to 42 percent
in the South. Only 9 percent of
Western households reported ex­penditures
for Blue Cross and Blue
Shield, compared with 30 percent in
the Northeast. Health maintenance
plans were most popular in the
West, with 12 percent of households
purchasing; also, mean expenditures
among purchasing households were
highest in the West ($745) .
Farmers and others living in
rural areas are often self-employed
and must provide their own health
insurance. Mean expenditure for
total health insurance in rural areas
for all four regions was $670, higher
than that reported by urban families.
Households in rural areas also paid
the most for commercial health
insurance ($690).
Conclusions
Findings reflect out-of-pocket
household expenditures for health
insurance. Households without ex­penditures
may be covered by in­surance
fully paid for by an
employer as part of an employee's
benefit package. College students
may have coverage provided by
parents or by the college in a student
health plan. Fewer than half of
households headed by someone
under age 25 or single-parent house­holds
had health insurance expendi­tures.
These two groups may be
more dependent on other sources,
such as parents or public programs,
for their health insurance needs.
5
Types of Health Insurance
Private heaHh insurance
Traditional health insurance
can be purchased by individuals or
groups from commercial insurance
companies, medical service plans
(such as Blue Cross and Blue
Shield), labor unions, fraternal
societies, communities, and rural
and consumer health cooperatives.
Benefits generally are subject to
some form of deductible or
co-insurance paid by the enrollee.
A number of alternatives to
traditional health insurance have
emerged in recent years. In 1973 the
Health Maintenance Organization
Act assisted in the establishment
and expansion ofHMO's (J). An
HMO provides comprehensive
health care service to members for a
fixed periodic payment. A group
HMO contracts with one or more
medical groups to provide all ser­vices
except hospital care under one
roof (4). Enrollment in HMO's in­creased
from 18.9 million persons in
1985 to nearly 28.6 million in 1987
and the number of plans available in­creased
from 393 to 662 (4). The
Health Care Financing Administra­tion
predicts that more than half of
the U.S. population will belong to
an HMO or some other alternative
health care system by the mid-1990's
(3).
An independent practice as­sociation
(IPA) contracts with a
physician organization that in turn
contracts with individual physicians;
IP A physicians provide care to
HMO members from their private
office and continue to see their fee­for-
service patients (4). Preferred­provider
organizations (PPO's) are
networks of hospitals and doctors
established to provide health care
services at a discounted rate (3). In
1986 there were 505 PPO's in the
United States, with the greatest
number (173) in the West, and the
fewest ( 47) in the Northeast (J).
Government health insurance
Ten percent of the U.S. popula­tion
rely exclusively on public
6
programs for health insurance
coverage (5). Medicaid, established
in 1965, is a program of medical as­sistance
for low-income individuals
and families. To qualify for
Medicaid, persons must be eligible
to receive payment under one of the
cash assistance programs (Aid to
Families with Dependent Children
and Supplemental Security In­come).
Medicaid is administered by
each State within broad Federal re­quirements
and guidelines. The pro­gram
is fmanced jointly by State and
Federal funds. State participation in
Medicaid is optional and coverage
varies by State. In 1985, 21.8 million
people received $37.5 billion in
benefits from the Medicaid program
(1).
Medicare, which went into
effect in 1966 under the Social
Security Act of 1965, is a federally
administered program that provides
hospital and medical insurance
protection to Americans aged 65
and older and for persons under age
65 who receive cash benefits under
the Social Security or Railroad
Retirement programs because of
disability or certain chronic kidney
diseases. Medicare consists of two
parts: Part A-compulsory
hospitalization insurance, financed
by contributions from employers
and employees; and Part B-volun­tary
supplemental medical in­surance,
financed by enrollees'
monthly premiums and by the
Federal government. Part B helps
pay for physicians' services and
some medical services and supplies
not covered under Part A. Nearly all
persons eligible for Part B have ·
elected to enroll in the program.
Medicaid recipients who are aged
or disabled are covered also by
Medicare; in most States Medicaid
pays for Medicare premiums, de­ductibles
and copayments, and for
services not covered by Medicare.
In 1985, 31.1 million persons
received Medicare benefits totaling
$70.5 billion (J).
Other households without
health insurance expenditures may
be uninsured, see box. In 1987
persons between 19 and 24 years old
were twice as likely to be uninsured
as other adults. Also, they were less
likely to be employed on a per­manent
basis or to be eligible for a
work-related group health plan.
Households most likely to report ex­penditures
for health insurance were
those headed by someone age 65 or
over; nearly all elderly households
participate in the Medicare pro­gram.
Commercial health insurance
was most likely to be purchased by
higher income households, husband
and wife households with children,
or those living in the urban South.
Health maintenance plans were
most popular among households
with higher income, higher level of
education, a reference person
younger than 45, or that live in the
urban West.
References
1. Health Insurance Association
of America, Public Relations
Division. Source Book of Health
Insurance Data. [1986-1987 ed.]
2. Samuelson, Robert J.1989.
Temps: The New Work Force. The
Washington Post, July 11 issue.
3. Standard and Poor's Industry
Surveys. 1989. Hemorrhaging Costs
Bode Ill for Insurers. Vol. 1, A-L,
pp. 134-138.
4. U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
1988. Statistical Abstract of the
United States, 1989. [109th ed.]
5. U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Public Health
Service, National Center for Health
Services Research and Health Care
Technology Assessment. 1988.
Uninsured Americans: A 1987 Profile.
6. U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Con­sumer
Expenditure Survey: 1985
Interview Survey Public Use Tape
and Documentation. ~
Vo/.3 No.1 Family Economics Review
Vehicle Insurance
Expenditures
approximately 5,000 consumer units
(households) interviewed once each
quarter for up to five consecutive
quarters. Data are weighted to repre­sent
the U.S. population. This report
is based on a sample of 951 house­holds
that provided expenditure and
household information over a one­year
period. Vehicle insurance ex­penditures
were reported by 75 per­cent
of the sample; average annual
household expenditures are
By Lydia M. Scoon
Social Science Analyst
Family Economics Research Group
Vehicle insurance expenditures have
received much public attention because
of ever increasing costs. Between 1983
and 1988 vehicle insurance prices rose
three times faster than the overall infla­tion
rate. Three in four households
reported vehicle insurance expenditures
in the 1985 Consumer Expenditure Sur­vey;
average expenditure was $546.
Households exceeding this average by
$100 or more were most likely to have
income over $40,000, own four or more
vehicles, live in the Northeast or West,
or were headed by persons between 45
and 54 years of age or with more than 4
years of college. Households most likely
to own uninsured vehicles had either
income under $10,000 or a household
head under 25 years of age.
Between 1970 and 1988 vehicle in­surance
prices, as measured by the
Consumer Price Index, 1 increased
270 percent, new car prices in­creased
119 percent, and prices for
all goods and services increased 200
percent (10) (see figure). Since 1983
annual vehicle insurance price in­creases
surpassed those for all goods
and services, rising over three times
the inflation rate between 1983 and
1988. Vehicle insurance expendi­tures
accounted for approximately
2 percent of total household expendi­tures
in 1985 (11,12). This paper
1Based upon the Consumer Price Index
(CPI-W) for automobile insurance that in­cludes
insurance for cars, trucks, and motor­cycles.
Vo/.3 No.1 Family Economics Review
examines vehicle insurance expendi­tures
of households by various
socioeconomic characteristics and
discusses reasons for the high costs.
Data
Data are from the 1985 Con­sumer
Expenditure Survey (CEX),
an ongoing, national survey conduct­ed
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
U.S. Department of Labor. The
CEX collects information on house­hold
expenses, income, and socio­economic
characteristics from
reported below.
Findings
Vehicle insurance expenditures
are defined by the CEX as pre­miums
paid for insuring owned cars,
trucks, vans, motorbikes, campers,
trailers, and other vehicles, such as
planes or boats, used for personal
transport. The mean 1985 vehicle in­surance
expenditure for households
with vehicle insurance was $546 for
an average of 2.4 vehicles per house­hold-
1.6 cars and 0.8 other vehicles.
Insurance owners' before-tax in­come
was $31,364.
Changes in Consumer Prices for Selected Items
CPI-W (1967= 100)
500
All Items New Cars Automobile Insurance
Automobile Insurance as defined in the Consumer Price Index includes
cars, trucks, and motorcycles.
7
Ill
Socioeconomic characteristics
and average vehicle insurance ex­penditures
of vehicle insurance pur­chasers
are reported in the table.
Households with the highest average
vehicle insurance expenditures were
those with:
• an income of $40,000 or above
• four or more vehicles
• a reference person age 45 to 54
years
• a household head with more than
four years of college
• husband-wife and own children
• an urban residence in the North­east
or West
Demographic
Characteristics
Income. Higher income house­holds
were more likely to have
vehicle insurance expenditures than
households at lower income levels.
About 97 percent of households with
income $40,000 and over had ex­penditures
for vehicle insurance,
compared with only 44 percent with
income under $10,000. Vehicle in­surance
expenditures generally
increased with increasing income,
from $394 for those with income
between $10,000-$19,999 to $738 for
those with income of $40,000 and
over.
It is likely that higher income
households had higher insurance
expenditures because they owned
more vehicles (8,11). On average,
households in the highest income
bracket ($40,000 and over) owned
three vehicles, compared with two
vehicles owned by households with
incomes $10,000-$19,999 (11). Also,
higher income households own
newer (9) and more expensive
vehicles that generally carry higher
insurance premiums (3). Owners of
new and/or more expensive cars
tend to purchase higher amounts
and more types of coverage; they are
more likely to retain collision and
comprehensive coverage than
owners of older, less valuable cars,
who tend to drop these coverages as
the automobile's market value falls
near or below premium costs. A
8
Expenditures for annual vehicle insurance services: Percentage of
households with the expenditure and mean expenditure for those
households, 1985
Household characteristic
All households . .
Income:
Under $10,000 .
$10,000-$19,999 .
$20,000 - $29,999 .
$30,000 - $39,999 .
$40,000 and over .
Number of vehicles:
1
2 .. . .. ..... . .
3 . . . . .. . .... .
4 or more . ..... . ... .
Age of reference person (years):
Under 25 .
25-34 ...
35-44 ..
45-54 ..
55-64 . .
65-74 . .
75 and over
Race:
White ...
Black and other . . . . .
Education:
No high school diploma
High school diploma .
1 - 4 years of college .
Over 4 years of college
Family composition:
Husband and wife only ...... . .
Husband and wife with own children 1
Single parent with children
Single persons .. .
Other families .. .
Region of residence:
Urban
Northeast
Midwest . .
South
West
Rural
Vehicle insurance
Percent Mean
!;!urchasing dollar
75.1 $546
44.4 417
75.0 394
83.2 430
85.6 595
96.8 738
82.2 381
83.7 540
87.3 606
91 .6 784
46.0 425
80.7 495
79.2 621
83.8 647
73.5 538
78.1 471
51 .8 421
77.5 542
55.0 606
63.3 428
74.7 589
81 .9 549
84.9 650
83.5 517
83.6 630
59.7 424
58.1 399
74.0 596
68.3 776
75.6 483
77.5 471
80.4 652
74.5 413
1 "Own" children includes stepchildren and adopted children of the householder.
Vo/.3 No.1 Family Economics Review
1985 U.S. Department of Energy,
Energy Information Administration
survey found that 38 percent of the
vehicles owned by households with
income greater than $20,000 were
model year 1981-1986, compared
with 20 percent of vehicles owned by
households with income less than
$20,000 (9).
Number of Vehicles. Ap­proximately
92 percent of house­holds
with four or more vehicles
reported vehicle insurance expendi­tures,
compared with 82 percent of
households with one vehicle. As ex­pected,
vehicle insurance expendi­tures
increased as the number of
vehicles owned increased, from $381
for households with one vehicle to
$784 for households with four or
more vehicles.
Age of Reference Person. Be­tween
74 percent and 84 percent of
households headed by persons 25 to
74 years reported expenditures for
vehicle insurance, compared with 46
percent of younger households and
52 percent of older households.
Households headed by persons
under 25 years or 75 years and older
also reported the lowest vehicle in­surance
expenditures ($425 and
$421, respectively). These house­holds
owned fewer vehicles ( 8, 11)
and had fewer household members
covered by insurance. Vehicle in­surance
expenditures were highest
for households with a reference
person 45 to 54 years of age ($647).
These households owned more
vehicles and were more likely to
have children who were driving and
needed insurance coverage. Accord­ing
to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, however, drivers
under the age of 25 were involved in
a disproportionately high number of
fatal traffic accidents in 1985 (7). Be­cause
accident rates affect premium
rates, vehicle insurance expenditures
are often high for young, unmarried
males (4).
Vo/.3 No.1 Family Economics Review
Race. Of households with
vehicle insurance expenditures,
approximately 78 percent of white
households had vehicle insurance,
compared with 55 percent of black
and other households. Average ex­penditures
($606) of black and other
households with vehicle insurance,
however, were 12 percent greater
than those of white households
($542). This was surprising, given
that the average number of vehicles
in the household was greater for
white households (2.5) than for
black and other households (2.0).
Also, among households with vehicle
insurance expenditures, average
household income was slightly
higher for black households than
white households. It may be
reasonable, therefore, to infer that it
is a more economically advantaged
group of minorities that owns
vehicles and insurance, compared
with white households.
Differences in the year and
model of vehicles owned by each
group might help to explain differ­ences
in average vehicle insurance
expenditures. According to the U.S.
Department of Energy study, white
households owned newer vehicles
than black or other households.
About 35 percent of the vehicles
owned by white households were
1981-1986 models, compared with
24 percent of vehicles owned by
black and other households. The
higher vehicle insurance expendi­tures
reported by black and other
households may reflect their pro­pensity
for residing in urban areas,
which typically have higher in­surance
rates (2,13).
Education. The percentage of
households reporting vehicle insur­ance
expenditures increased with
the education level of the reference
person, from 63 percent of
households headed by persons
without a high school diploma to
85 percent for households headed
by persons with a graduate school
education. Similarly, vehicle in­surance
expenditures
generally increased with the educa­tional
attainment of the reference
person, from $428 for households
headed by persons who did not have
a high school diploma to $650 for
households headed by persons with
a graduate school education. Heads
of households with more education
tend to have higher household in­comes
and consequently, are likely
to own newer, more expensive
vehicles with greater insurance
coverage.
Household Composition. Hus­band
and wife households (with and
without children) were most likely to
purchase vehicle insurance (84 per­cent
each), compared with 58 per­cent
of single persons, 60 percent of
single-parent households, and
74 percent of other households.
Husband and wife with children
households tended to have the
highest vehicle insurance expendi­tures
($630), followed by other
households ($596), husband-wife
only households ($517), single­parent
households ($424), and single
persons ($399).
Region. Percentages of urban
households reporting vehicle
insurance expenditures ranged
between 68 percent in the Northeast
to 80 percent in the South. Vehicle
insurance expenditures for in­surance
owners were highest in the
Northeast ($776) and lowest in the
South ($471). The higher average ex­penditure
in the Northeast was due,
in part, to the higher proportion of
late model cars reported (9), result­ing
in higher rates and/or more
coverage. Moreover, 10 ofthe 20
States with above national average
premiums were in the Northeast (J).
The average number of vehicles per
household was highest in the urban
Midwest (3 vehicles). Rural house­holds
from all regions had lower ex­penditures
($413) than urban
households, reflecting the lower
vehicle accident and theft rates in
rural areas.
9
10
Comparison of Vehicle Owners with and without Vehicle Insurance
Expenditures
In 1985 approximately 15 per­cent
of the CEX households that
reported owning vehicles had no
expenditures for vehicle in­surance.
1 These households may
have resided in 1 of the 15 States
that did not require drivers to
purchase vehicle insurance, some
vehicle owners may not drive, and
some may be illegally uninsured
motorists.
1Some households, 11 percent,
reported having neither a vehicle nor
vehicle insurance expenditures. These
households had the lowest average in­come,
followed by households with
vehicles but without vehicle insurance.
Households with vehicles and vehicle in­surance
had the highest average income.
A higher percentage of low­income
households and those
headed by a person with a high
school education (or less) owned
vehicles but did not report
vehicle insurance expenditures,
see table. Over one-fourth of
those with income less than
$10,000 and one-fifth of those
with income between $10,000 and
$19,999 were uninsured. Also,
younger households were more
likely to be uninsured than other
age groups; 34 percent of those
with a reference person under
age 25 were uninsured, compared
with 10 percent to 19 percent in
other age categories.
A higher percentage of non­white
than white households
owned vehicles and did not
report vehicle insurance expendi­tures,
23 percent and 14 percent,
respectively. Single person house­holds
(20 percent) were more
likely than other types of house­holds
(12 percent-15 percent)
to be uninsured. A higher per­centage
of rural households
owned vehicles but reported no
vehicle insurance expenditures
(19 percent), compared with
urban households (13 percent-
15 percent).
Percentage of households owning vehicles with no expenditures for vehicle insurance, 1985
Household characteristic
All households .
Income:
Under $10,000 ..
$10,000.$19,999
$20,000 • $29,999
$30,000 • $39,999
$40,000 and over
Age of reference person (years):
Under25
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65· 74
75 and over
Race:
White ....
Black and other
Percent
uninsured
14.9
26.6
19.9
14.0
9.8
3.2
33.6
15.1
15.2
11.3
16.1
9.9
18.8
14.1
23.2
Household characteristic
Education:
No high school diploma .
High school diploma .
1 - 4 years of college .
Over 4 years of college
Family composition:
Husband and wife only . . . . . . . . .
Husband and wife with own children 1
Single parent with children .
Single persons . . . .
Other faiT)ilies . . . . .
Region of residence:
Urban
Northeast
Midwest
South .
West
Rural
Percent
uninsured
18.7
17.5
10.7
12.6
11.7
15.3
13.5
20.0
13.2
14.7
13.7
13.3
13.2
19.4
1 "Own" children includes stepchildren and adopted children of the householder.
Vo/.3 No.1 Family Economics Review
High Cost of Automobile
Insurance
Consumer costs for automobile
insurance are affected by the in­surance
industry's loss and expense
experience, reflecting claims for
highway accident-related death, dis­ability,
and injury, auto theft, and
property damage. Between 1980 and
1986 there was an increase in the
frequency and cost of claims. There
were 9 million more accidents in
1986 than 1980, caused in part by
20 million more registered vehicles.
Between 1983 and 1988 there was a
71 percent increase in the average
cost of a bodily injury claim and a
57 percent increase in ftrst party
medical claims (6).
Claims are affected by the rising
costs for lawsuits, medical care, auto
repair (3,6), and other factors such
as automobile theft and fraud (6).
Attorney representation in bodily in­jury
claims rose from 31 percent in
1977 to 45 percent in 1987, increas­ing
outlays for legal services. Health
care costs were inflated by more
than 8 percent a year between 1977
and 1987. Inflation for hospital costs,
frequently a part of treating auto­mobile
accident injuries, increased
more than 10 percent a year during
that same period (10). Auto repair
claims and related expenses rose
75 percent from 1982 to 1987 as a
result of high costs for auto-repair
parts and labor (6).
There are various ways to
reduce the high costs of vehicle in­surance.
Increasing highway safety is
one measure, including the use of
seatbelts and mandatory passive
restraints such as airbags; reducing
speeding and drunk driving; improv­ing
truck safety; and adding crash
protection features in cars (2).
Lowering the costs of losses after
they occur is another way (2,5,6). No
fault insurance may decrease the
need for expensive legal assistance.
Also, revised medical fee limits are
being proposed to manage health
care costs (2,5).
Vo/.3 No.1 Family Economics Review
State legislatures are acting to
end escalating automobile insurance
rates. Several States are seeking rate
rollbacks. Also, some States are
trying to increase competition in the
automobile insurance market (and
consequently, reduce rates) by allow­ing
banks to offer auto insurance. At
the very least, consumer groups ad­vocate
fuller disclosure of price and
service information by insurers (2).
References
1. A.M. Best Company.1989.
Average Automobile Insurance
Premiums by State. Best's Insurance
Management Reports, Release No.
1.
2. Consumer Federation of
America, Consumers Union, Nation­al
Insurance Consumer Organiza­tion,
and Public Citizen. 1989.
Reducing Auto Insurance Rates: A
Comprehensive Program.
3. Consumer Guide. 1988.
Automobile Book. Publications Inter­national,
Ltd., Lincolnwood, IL.
4. Garman, E. Thomas, SidneyW.
Eckert, and Raymond E. Forgue.
1985. Personal Finance. Houghton,
Mifflin Co., Boston, MA.
5. National Insurance Consumer
Organization. 1988. How to Cut Auto
Insurance Rates by 25%: A Four-Part
Plan. [Unpublished report.]
6. Snyder, David F. 1989. State­ment
on Automobile Insurance. In:
Mary L. Carsky, editor.American
Council on Consumer Interests-The
Proceedings, pp. 372-378. Proceed­ings
of the 35th Annual Conference
of the American Council on Con­sumer
Interests. [Baltimore, MD,
April1989].
7. U.S. Department of Com­merce,
Bureau of the Census. 1987.
Statistical Abstract of the United
States, 1988. [108th ed.]
8. U.S. Department of Energy,
Energy Information Administration.
1987. Residential Transportation
Energy Consumption Survey: Con­sumption
Patterns of Household
Vehicles, 1985. EIA-0464(85).
9. . Unpublished table
from the 1985 Residential Transpor­tation
Energy Consumption Survey.
10. U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics. CPI
Detailed Report. (January 1978 to
January 1988) and personal com­munication.
11. . Consumer Expendi-ture
Survey: 1985 Interview Survey
Public Use Tape and Documenta­tion.
12. . 1987. Consumer Ex-penditure
Survey Results from 1985.
News. USDL87-399.
13. U.S. Department of Transpor­tation,
Federal Highway Administra­tion.
1984. Cost of Owning and
Operating Automobiles and Vans:
1984. HHP-41. ~
11
Food and Nutrient Intakes of
Low-Income Women and
Children, in Metro/N onmetro
Areas, 1985/86
By Katherine S. Tippett, Sharon J. Mickle, and Laurie Roidt
Home Economists and Mathematical Statistician
Nutrition Monitoring Division
Human Nutrition Infonnation Service
Data from the 1985 and 1986 Con­tinuing
Survey of Food Intakes by In­dividuals
(CSFII) conducted by
USDA's Human Nutrition Infonnation
Service (HNIS) were used to compare
food and nutrient intakes by low-in­come
women and children in
metropolitan and nonmetropolitan
areas. In 1985!86 the diets of low-in­come
women and their children in non­metropolitan
areas were similar to
those in metropolitan areas. Diets of
women in both environments were
similar regardless of Food Stamp Pro­gram
participation. Children living in
nonmetropolitan areas who par­ticipated
in the Food Stamp Program
drank more milk and ate more
vegetables and yeast bread and rolls
than children who did not participate in
the Food Stamp Program. In 1985!86
the diets of low-income women and
their children living in nonmetropolitan
areas were similar to those of low-in­come
women and children living in
metropolitan areas. The diets of women
in both urbanization categories were
similar regardless of their participation
in the Food Stamp Program.
Information Service.1 The food and
nutrient intakes presented here are
weighted group means for women
age 19 to 50 years and their children
age 1 to 5 years based on 1 day of
dietary information collected by
personal interview in the spring of
1985 and the spring of 1986.
The CSFII included two sam­ples-
a sample of all-income house­holds
and a sample of low-income
households. Low-income households
are those having incomes before
taxes for the previous year at or
below 130 percent of the poverty
guidelines. This income level was
selected because nonelderly house­holds
at this level meet one of the
criteria for participating in the Food
Stamp Program. The poverty guide­lines
are based on household income
and size. The data presented here
are unpublished data from the com­bined
low-income samples from
1Previous articles on the CSFII appeared
in the following issues of Family Economics
Review: 1986 No. 2, 1987 No. 1, 1988 Nos. 1
and4.
1985 and 1986. Data from each of
the separate years have been publish­ed
(3,4).
The urbanization categories
(nonmetropolitan and metropolitan)
are based on the Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Areas
(SMSA) defined by the U.S. Depart­ment
of Commerce for the 1980
Census of Population. Metropolitan
(metro) includes individuals living in
central cities and suburban areas. A
central city is defined as a city that
has a population of 50,000 or more
and is within an SMSA. A suburban
area is generally within the bound­aries
of an SMSA but not within the
legal limits of the central city. Non­metropolitan
(nonmetro) refers to
areas not within an SMSA. The dis­tributions
of women and children by
urbanization status are shown in the
box below.
Low-income nonmetropolitan
and metropolitan households had
similar mean incomes (70 percent
and 71 percent of the poverty guide­lines,
respectively). Low-income
households participating in the Food
Stamp Program (FSP) had a mean
income of 55 percent of the poverty
guidelines, significantly lower than
that of nonparticipants (NFSP),
87 percent.
The estimated food intakes
provided here include the mean in­take
in grams of specific food groups
and the percentages of individuals
reporting a specific food group. The
estimated nutrient intakes are ex­pressed
as percentages of the 1980
Recommended Dietary Allowances
(RDA). Means and standard errors
of food intakes (in grams) and of
proportions of RDA's provided by
foods were estimated for different
Non metro Metro
These fmdings are from the Con­tinuing
Survey of Food Intakes by
Individuals (CSFII) conducted by
USDA's Human Nutrition
12
Total
number*
Women, 19-50 years . . . . 803
Children, 1 - 5 years 414
*Unweighted count
Total
FSP NFSP number* FSP NFSP
Percent
47 53 1,827 49 51
49 51 1,095 58 42
Vol.3 No.1 Family Economics Review
sample subsets using R TI SAS
SESUDAAN software to adjust
for the complex survey design (2).
The SESUDAAN DIFV AR option
was used to estimate standard errors
of differences between groups.
These estimates were included in
t -statistics used to compare means.
Differences cited in the text include
all those that reached the 95 percent
level of significance.
Intakes by Women and
Children
Low-income nonmetro women
had food intakes that were generally
similar to their metro counterparts
(table 1). Nonmetro women had
slightly higher intakes of coffee and
tea and slightly lower intakes of fish
than did metro women. These fairly
minor differences in food intakes by
women do not translate into any dif­ferences
in food energy intake or
intakes of those nutrients that are
below the RDA.2 The mean nutrient
intakes by women in both urbaniza­tion
groups were above the RDA for
2Mean intakes below the RDA do not
necessarily mean that individuals in the group
were malnourished. Nutrient requirements
for individuals differ, and the RDA are set
high enough to meet the requirements of
nearly all healthy individuals in a given sex
and age group. Thus, the RDA for nutrients
exceed the requirements of many individuals.
Although intakes below the RDA are not
necessarily inadequate, the risk of some
individuals having inadequate intakes
increases as the mean intake for the group
falls further below the RDA(!).
Table 1. Mean intakes and percentages of individuals using selected foods, low-income women and
children, by urbanization, 1 day, 1985/86
Women Children
Food group/subgroup
Non- Non- Non- Non-metro
Metro metro Metro metro Metro metro Metro
Grams Percent Grams Percent
Total meat, poultry, and fish 170 175 90 88 115 111 84 89
Meat mixtures ....... 74 75 32 31 49 45 30 31
Beef ............. 26 25 22 22 13 14 18 20
Frankfurters, sausages, & luncheon meats 14 15 27 25 19 18 39 32
Pork ............ . ..... 19 17 26 23 10 10 22 22
Poultry ••• 0 •• • 0 •• 21 24 19 20 16 15 21 20
Fish and shellfish 7 * 11 5 9 3 5 6 7
Total fluid milk 0 •••••• 169 160 50 52 371 358 87 86
Whole ... • • 0 •• 0 •• 106 105 34 35 277 274 64 66
Lowfat/skim 62 54 17 16 93 81 23 21
Eggs • 0 •• 24 23 32 29 26 22 37 36
Total vegetables 157 147 80 73 106 * 87 79 70
Total fruits .......... 90 102 36 38 147 155 57 56
Citrus fruits and juices .... 50 56 21 20 56 59 27 29
Other fruits, mixtures, juices .... .. . 40 46 20 23 91 95 43 40
Total grain products 0 •• 0 •••• 202 207 93 91 193 226 98 99
Yeast breads and rolls .. . ..... .. 43 41 66 62 38 37 73 69
Other baked goods . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 39 52 47 30 * 38 58 63
Cereals and pastas . . . •• • • 0. 47 53 29 35 50 63 65 68
Grain mixtures •• 0 0. 66 73 25 26 75 88 37 37
Alcoholic beverages ... 35 42 6 7 0 0 0 0
Fruit drinks and ades . . • . . . . . 67 79 18 18 118 91 38 31
Carbonated soft drinks . . . . . . . . . . 257 278 49 49 77 64 28 26
Coffee .....•..•.......... 333 * 251 48 41 0 0
Tea • 0 0 0 0 •••• 0 •••• 0. 190 * 102 34 19 49 * 17 17 7
*Significantly different, p < .05.
Vo/.3 No.1 Family Economics Review 13
,,..
8 of 15 nutrients examined (protein,
vitamin A, ascorbic acid, thiamin,
riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B-12, and
phosphorus) and below the RDA for
food energy and 7 nutrients (vitamin
B-6, calcium, magnesium, iron,
vitamin E, folacin, and zinc). For the
7 nutrients below the RDA, the
mean RDA levels of the two groups
were almost identical (table 2).
Nonmetro low-income children
had intakes that were similar to
those of low-income metro children
for total meat, poultry, fish; fluid
milk; eggs; fruits; grain products;
fruit drinks; and soft drinks. They
had higher intakes of vegetables and
tea and lower intakes of "other"
baked goods such as cookies, dough­nuts,
and pastries. Low-income non­metro
children had intakes of food
energy, protein, fat, and all vitamins
and minerals that were similar to or
higher than intakes by low-income
metro children. Average nutrient in­takes
by children in both urbaniza­tion
groups were above the RDA for
13 of 15 nutrients examined. Intakes
of iron and zinc were below the
RDA for children in both urbaniza­tion
categories.
Food Stamp Participation
In general, low-income non­metro
women had food intakes that
were similar regardless of their par­ticipation
(FSP) or nonparticipation
(NFSP) in the Food Stamp Program
(table 4). There were several excep­tions.
FSP women had a lower intake
of tea and a higher intake of grain­based
mixtures. Both FSP and NFSP
nonmetro women had intakes of
vitamin B-6, magnesium, iron,
folacin, and zinc that were below 65
percent of the RDA (table 3).
Metro FSP women had higher
intakes of pork and alcoholic
beverages and lower intakes of skim
milk than did metro NFSP women.
Average nutrient intakes were
similar for FSP and NFSP metro
women for all nutrients except
vitamin E. Vitamin E intakes of FSP
women were significantly higher
than those of NFSP women.
14
Table 2. Mean intakes of food energy and selected nutrients below the
1980 Recommended Dietary Allowances by low-income women and
children, by urbanization, 1 day, 1985/86
Women Children
Food energy/nutrient
Nonmetro Metro Nonmetro Metro
Percent of RDA
Food energy 77 75 (1) 99
Vitamin B-6 57 57 (1) (1)
Calcium 76 71 (1) (1)
Magnesium 64 63 (1) (1)
Iron 59 58 87 84
Vitamin E 82 84 (1) (1)
Folacin 46 46 (1) (1)
Zinc 58 57 82 78
1 Mean intakes above 1980 RDA.
Table 3. Mean intakes of food energy and selected nutrients below the
1980 Recommended Dietary Allowances by low-income women 19 to
50 years, by urbanization and Food Stamp Program status, 1 day,
1985/86
Food energy/nutrient
Food energy
Vitamin B-6
Calcium
Magnesium
Iron
Vitamin E
Folacin
Zinc
Vitamin A
*Significantly different, p < .05.
Nonmetro FSP children had
higher intakes of fluid milk,
vegetables, and yeast breads and·
rolls than did NFSP children. FSP
children had higher intakes of
calcium than did NFSP children,
probably reflecting their higher
intakes of milk. Nonmetro FSP
children also had higher intakes of
iron than NFSP children. Metro FSP
children had lower intakes of tea
and higher intakes of vitamins B-6
and E than did metro NFSP
children.
Non metro Metro
FSP NFSP FSP NFSP
Percent of RDA
76 77 77 74
58 55 60 55
80 72 70 72
65 63 64 62
62 56 59 56
85 80 93 * 76
49 44 46 45
60 56 58 56
137 98 111 109
Food Sufficiency
Households participating in the
CSFII were asked a question about
the household's food sufficiency:
"Which one of the following
statements best describes the food
eaten in your household during the
last two months:
• Enough of the kinds of food we
want to eat;
• Enough but not always what we
want to eat;
Vo/.3 No.1 Family Economics Review
Table 4. Mean intakes and percentages of individuals using selected foods by low-income women 19 to 50
years, by urbanization and Food Stamp Program status, 1 day, 1985/86
Non metro
Food group/subgroup
FSP1 NFSP1 FSP NFSP
Grams Percent
Total meat, poultry, and fish 0 •••••• 0. 171 169 88 92
Meat mixtures •••••••• 0 •••••• 78 70 29 34
Beef ••••• 0 ••• 0. 0 ••• 0 0 ••• 0 26 25 22 21
Frankfurters, sausages, & luncheon meats 14 15 25 29
Pork •• 0 ••••• 0 •••••••••••• 17 21 22 30
Poultry •••••••••••••• 0 •• 0. 21 22 18 20
Fish and shellfish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8 4 6
Total fluid milk •••• 0 •• 0 • ••••••• 181 157 54 47
Whole ••••••••• 0 ••••••• 0 •• 104 107 35 33
Lowfat/skim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 49 19 14
Eggs •••••••••• 0 ••••••• 0 0. 22 26 31 33
Total vegetables 0 ••• 0 •••••••••• 158 156 78 83
Total fruits ••••••••••••••• 0 0. 88 92 33 39
Citrus fruits and juices 0 •• 0 ••• 0 ••• 49 50 18 24
Other fruits, mixtures, juices .. ' ..... 39 41 19 21
Total grain products •• 0 0 ••••• 0 ••• 214 191 95 92
Yeast breads and rolls •••• 0 •••••• 41 45 65 67
Other baked goods • 0 0. 0 ••••••• 43 47 51 53
Cereals and pastas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 47 30 28
Grain mixtures ............... 82 * 53 27 24
Alcoholic beverages ••••••••• 0 ••• 42 28 4 7
Fruit drinks and ades . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 57 19 16
Carbonated soft drinks . . . . . . . . . . . 264 251 46 51
Coffee .................... 336 330 48 49
Tea • 0 ••••••••• 0 •• 0 •• 0 ••• 165 * 212 31 36
1FSP refers to Food Stamp Program participants, NFSP to nonparticipants.
*Significantly different, p < .05.
• Sometimes not enough to eat; or
• Often not enough to eat."
A lower proportion of low-income
nonmetro than metro households
reported sometimes or often not
enough food to eat {12 percent and
19 percent, respectively). Almost 22
percent of FSP households reported
sometimes or often not enough to
eat compared with 12 percent of
NFSP households.
Vo1.3 No.1 Family Economics Review
References
1. National Academy of Scien­ces,
National Research Council,
Food and Nutrition Board. 1980.
Recommended Dietary Allowances.
[9th ed.] National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.
2. Shah, B.V. 1981.
SESUDAAN: Standard Errors Pro­gram
for Computing of Standardized
Rates from Sample Survey Data. Re­search
Triangle Institute, Research
Triangle Park, NC.
Metro
FSP NFSP FSP NFSP
Grams Percent
176 174 86 89
67 83 27 36
24 26 20 25
18 13 28 22
22 * 13 27 20
25 23 20 20
13 10 8 9
149 170 51 54
109 100 37 34
39 * 69 13 20
25 21 31 27
154 141 72 74
101 104 36 40
57 55 20 21
43 48 21 26
213 201 92 90
40 43 62 62
41 38 46 48
54 53 35 36
79 68 28 25
53 * 31 8 7
91 68 20 16
275 280 48 50
246 256 38 44
100 104 17 20
3. U.S. Department of Agricul­ture,
Human Nutrition Information
Service. 1985. Nationwide Food Con­sumption
Survey, Continuing Survey
of Food Intakes by Individuals:
Women 19-50 Years and Their
Children1-5 Years, 1 Day, 1985.
Rpt. No. 85-1.
4. __ .1987. Nationwide
Food Consumption Survey, Continu­ing
Survey of Food Intakes by In­dividuals:
Women 19-50 Years and
Their Children 1- 5 Years, 1 Day,
1986. Rpt. No. 86-1.
15
Research Summaries
The Working Poor
Of the 112 million persons who
spent at least half a year in the labor
force in 1987, 6.4 million were mem­bers
of poor families. Thus, the
poverty rate among workers was
5.6 percent. Although persons from
every age, race, sex, and educational
group are found among the working
poor, characteristics that relate most
closely to poverty among workers
are family relationships and educa­tion.
Family structure determines
the number of potential wage
earners, and education is the best
predictor of earnings. The working
poor, as a group, owe their poverty
status to low earnings (from un­employment,
inability to find full­time
work, and low-wage rates) and
a family structure that is conducive
to poverty, such as the presence of
dependent children and only one
earner.
Black workers have very high
poverty rates (13.2 percent, com­pared
with 4.7 percent for whites).
Black men are more likely to be
single than other men, and black
women are far more likely than
other women to maintain families
themselves. These women have the
highest poverty rate of any major
group (see table 1). Also, employed
blacks are almost 50 percent more
likely than whites not to have com­pleted
high school, with low earnings
as a result.
Nearly half ( 45 percent) of the
working poor experienced unemploy­ment
at some time during 1987, com­pared
with 12 percent of the non­poor.
The median number of weeks
16
of unemployment was much higher
for the poor than for the nonpoor
workers (26 and 13, respectively).
Also, the working poor were nearly
four times as likely to have been
limited, for at least part of the year,
to working part time when they
would have preferred full-time work.
The working poor have a strong ten­dency
to work in jobs that pay low
wages, and unemployment is most
common among workers with low­wage
jobs.
Table 1. Characteristi.cs of poor and nonpoor workers, 1987
Characteristics
Age (years):
16 and over
16- 19
20-24 ..
25 - 54 . .
55 and over
Sex:
Male ..
Female
Race:
White
Black
Family relationship:
Husbands ... .. . .
Wives ...... .. .
Women who maintain familes .
Men who maintain families
Others in families . . . .
Unrelated individuals . . . .
Education:
Fewer than 4 years of high school .
4 years of high school . . .
1 to 3 years of college . . .
4 years of college or more .
Poor
workers
100.0
7.7
18.4
65.0
8.9
52.3
47.7
72.6
24.4
26.1
10.7
17.0
2.5
13.4
30.3
38.5
41 .0
13.5
7.0
Non poor
workers
Percent2
100.0
4.0
11 .1
71.4
13.5
56.0
44.0
87.4
9.6
35.6
25.3
4.7
1.7
16.0
16.7
15.0
40.5
20.7
23.8
Poverty
rate1
5.6
10.4
9.0
5.2
3.8
5.3
6.1
4.7
13.2
4.2
2.5
17.7
7.8
4.8
9.8
13.3
5.7
3.8
1.7
1The number of poor workers as a percent of all workers who spent 27 weeks or more in
the labor force in 1987.
2Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal 100.
Source: Klein, Bruce W. and Philip L. Rones, 1989, A profile of the working poor, Monthly
Labor Review 112ill1}:3-13, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Vo/.3 No.1 Family Economics Review
Table 2. Nominal, real, and
average value of the minimum
wage, 1967 - 1987
Legislated minimum wage
Year Nominal Real value
dollars 1987 dollars
1967 $1.40 $4.43
1968 1.60 4.88
1969 1.60 4.67
1970 1.60 4.45
1971 1.60 4.27
1972 1.60 4.14
1973 1.60 3.90
1974 2.00 4.43
1975 2.10 4.29
1976 2.30 4.45
1977 2.30 4.18
1978 2.65 4.51
1979 2.90 4.51
1980 3.10 4.33
1981 3.35 4.27
1982 3.35 4.03
1983 3.35 3.87
1984 3.35 3.71
1985 3.35 3.58
1986 3.35 3.51
1987 3.35 3.35
Average
1967- 1987 2.47 4.18
Source: Klein, Bruce W. and Philip L.
Rones, 1989, A profile of the working poor,
Monthly Labor Review 112(1m:3-13, U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
Low-wage level was defined as the
average minimum-wage level for
1967-87, calculated from each year's
value, expressed in 1987 dollars
(table 2). This value was $4.18 per
hour or $167.20 for a 40-hour work
week. Two-thirds of poor full-time
workers experienced low earnings.
Among those who had been
unemployed, the poverty rate for
persons with low earnings was
37 percent, compared with 7 percent
for those who had not experienced
low earnings.
Most low-wage earners were not
in poverty because they were not the
sole support of their families. When
wives or other persons related to a
householder work for low pay, their
earnings are usually supplemented
Vo/.3 No.1 Family Economics Review
Comparing Poor with Nonpoor Workers
Poor workers
Definition
Industry
and class
of worker
Work
schedules
Location
Family
relationship
Race
Education
Persons who worked or sought
work for 27 weeks or more during
the year and lived below the
poverty level --
About 10 percent were agricul­tural
workers; 12 percent were
nonagricultural self-employed;
and 78 percent were nonagricul­tural
wage and salary workers
Of the 6.4 million working poor,
1.9 million {29 percent) worked
full time, year round
Three in ten lived in non­metropolitan
areas
26 percent were husbands; 11
percent were wives; 17 percent
were women who maintained
families; and 30 percent were
persons living outside of families
73 percent were white;
24 percent were black
About 40 percent were dropouts;
40 percent had completed high
school; only 20 percent had
attended college
Nonpoor workers
Those who worked or sought
work for 27 weeks or more during
the year and lived at or above the
poverty level
Only 3 percent worked in agricul­ture;
9 percent were nonagricul­tural
self-employed; and 88 per­cent
were nonagricultural wage
and salary workers
Of the 107 million non poor
workers, 75 million (70 percent)
worked full time, year round
Two in ten lived in non­metropolitan
areas
36 percent were husbands; 25
percent were wives; 5 percent
were women who maintained
families; and 17 percent were
persons living outside of families
87 percent were white;
10 percent were black
15 percent were dropouts;
40 percent were high school
graduates; 45 percent had
attended college
by the earnings of others. The group
most affected by low wages was
women heading families with
children; 75 percent of these women
who worked full time at low wages
were living below the poverty level.
The strong impact of family com­position
on poverty is supported by
the percentages of families of the
working poor with children (83 per­cent)
and families of the nonpoor
with children (55 percent). Most
poor families (76 percent) had only
one working member, whereas the
majority ( 61 percent) of non poor
families had two or more earners.
Almost 40 percent of poor families
were maintained by women, com­pared
with just 12 percent of non­poor
families. Women who maintain
families actually have median
average weekly earnings for full-time
work that are very similar to those of
married women. However, families
maintained by women have only half
the median earnings of married­couple
families, even though average
family size is about the same. Pover­ty
is also relatively common among
workers living alone or with unre­lated
individuals (three of ten poor
workers); they are younger than
most workers and generally work at
low wages.
Source: Klein, Bruce W. and Philip L.
Rones, 1989, A profile of the working poor,
Monthly Labor Review 112(1Q):3-13, U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
17
Married-couple
Families with
Children
Between 1980 and 1985 there was
a 6 percent decline in the number of
children living with both of their
biological parents in family situa­tions.
Two trends explain this
phenomenon. First, the proportion
of divorced Americans was higher
than at any time in U.S. history. As
of June 1985, 23 percent of those
who had ever been married (age 15
years and over) had been divorced.
Second, a record-breaking propor­tion
of children (23 percent in 1986)
were born to unmarried mothers.
Data from the Current Popula­tion
Survey, collected by the U.S.
Bureau of the Census, were used to
report on married-couple families
with at least one biological child,
stepchild, or adoptive child in the
household, with an emphasis on
families with stepchildren. The study
consisted of approximately 66,000
households surveyed in June 1980
and 60,000 households surveyed in
June 1985. A child who was the
biological child of one parent in a
married-couple family, but not of the
other, was classified as a stepchild.
A child who was the biological child
of both parents was classified as a
biological child, and all children who
were not biological children of either
parent were classified as adoptive
children. The number of children
living with either a stepmother or a
stepfather increased by nearly
12 percent between 1980 and 1985.
Of all children in married-couple
families, 15 percent were step­children
in 1985, compared with
13 percent in 1980.
In white1 married-couple
families, 85 percent of children lived
with their two biological parents in
1980, 12 percent lived with one
biological parent and one step­parent,
and 3 percent lived with
adoptive parents. By 1985 these
1In this study, race refers to the race of
the mother.
18
percentages were 83 percent,
14 percent, and 2 percent, respective­ly.
In black married-couple families,
a smaller percentage of children
(72 percent in 1980, 70 percent in
1985) lived with their two biological
parents, but a larger percentage
lived with one biological parent and
one stepparent (24 percent in 1980,
26 percent in 1985). Percentages for
other races, a category consisting
mainly of American Indians,
Alaskan Natives, Asians, and Pacific
Islanders, were similar to those for
whites in 1980, and did not change
significantly by 1985.
In 1985, 19 percent of all married­couple
families with children had at
least one stepchild living in the
household, compared with 16 per­cent
in 1980. Of these married­couple
families with stepchildren,
10 percent contained the biological
children of only one of the parents
and 9 percent had a "yours-ours"
mix (both biological children and
stepchildren). The great majority of
stepchildren (89 percent) in married­couple
families were living with their
biological mothers and stepfathers.
Family Type Classification
The mix of children in a married­couple
family was greatly affected by
the number of times each spouse
had been married. Married-couple
families that contained only biologi­cal
children were more likely to con­tain
parents who had been married
only to each other (88 percent in
1980, 86 percent in 1985) and for a
longer period of time, than parents
in families that contained step­children.
For there to be a stepchild,
at least one of the parents had to be
married twice or the child had to
have been born to the woman prior
to her first marriage (31 percent of
biological mother-stepfather families
in 1980, and 34 percent in 1985).
Also, adoptive families were more
likely to have intact first marriages
and to have been married longer
than stepfamilies.
In 1985 the average age for a
mother in a married-couple family
with own children under age 18 in
the household was 35.2 years.
Mothers in stepfamily situations
were younger, averaging 31.9 years
of age in joint biological-step
families and 34.1 years of age in
stepfather-only families. Mothers in
All families were classified according to their various parent-child
relationships.
1. Biological families-All children were biological children of both parents.
2. Adoptive families-All children were adoptive children of both parents.
3. Biological mother-stepfather families-All children were biological children of the
mother and stepchildren of the father.
4. Biological father-stepmother families-All children were biological children of the
father and stepchildren of the mother.
5. Joint biololical-step families-At least one child was a biological child of both
parents, at east one was a biological child of one parent and a stepchild of the other
parent, and no other type of child was present; or a stepchild of each parent and no
other type of child was present.
6. Joint biological-adoptive families-At least one child was a biological child of both
parents, at least one was an adopted child of both parents, and no other type of child
was present.
7. Joint step-adoptive families-At least one child was a biological child of one parent
and a stepchild of the other parent, at least one was an adopted child of both
parents, and no other type of child was present.
8. Joint biological-step-adoptive families-At least one child was a biological child of
both parents, at least one was the biological child of one parent and the stepchild of
the other, and at least one was an adopted child of both parents.
9. Type-unknown families-At least one child had at least one parent for whom the
nature of the relationship could not be designated.
Vo/.3 No.1 Family Economics Review
adoptive family situations were
older, averaging 44.7 years of age in
adoptive-only families and 39.3 years
of age in joint biological-adoptive
families. The mean age of fathers in
the various family types followed a
similar pattern, although husbands
were 2.0 to 5.5 years older than their
wtves.
Parents in stepfamilies had less
formal education than parents in
general in 1985. Whereas 17 percent
of all mothers in married-couple
families had not graduated from
high school, this was true for 23 per­cent
of mothers in joint biological­step
families and 20 percent of those
in stepfather-only families. Findings
for fathers were similar: 18 percent
of all married-couple fathers had not
graduated from high school, com­pared
with 22 percent of fathers in
joint biological-step families and
23 percent of fathers in stepfather­only
families. Parents in stepfamilies
also were less likely than the average
parent to have had any college
education.
Married-couple families that con­tained
only stepchildren in 1985
were the most likely of the family
types to have mothers in the labor
force (59 percent) and joint biologi­cal-
adoptive families were the least
likely (35 percent). Between 1980
and 1985 the proportion of married­couple
families with children in
which both parents were in the labor
force increased from 41 percent to
46 percent.
Median family income for all
married-couple families in 1985 was
$28,160. The family type with the
lowest median income ($22,930) was
the joint biological-step family, and
the stepfather-biological mother
family had the second lowest median
income ($25,270). The family type
with the highest median income
($34,850) was the stepmother­biological
father family.
Source: Miller, Louisa F. and Jeanne E.
Moorman, 1989, Married-couple families
with children, Studies in Marriage and the
Family, Current Population Reports, Special
Studies, Series P-23, No. 162, U.S. Depart­ment
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Vo/.3 No.1 Family Economics Review
Singleness in
America
In 1988, 66 million or 37 percent
of all adults were single, a 9 percent
increase over 1970. The increase was
due, in part, to a growing proportion
of persons who have never married,
rising age at ftrst marriage, higher
divorce rates, and an increasing
proportion of the elderly among the
U.S. population.
Singles were defined as unmar­ried
adults age 15 years and over,
including never-married, divorced,
and widowed persons. Data were
from the March 1988 Current
Population Survey (CPS) conducted
by the Bureau of the Census. CPS
surveys approximately 57,000
households in 50 States and the
District of Columbia. Additional
data were obtained from decennial
censuses dating back to 1890, and
the National Center for Health
Statistics, Department of Health and
Human Services.
In 1988, 61 percent of women and
78 percent of men 20 to 24 years old,
had never married (compared with
36 percent and 55 percent, respec­tively,
in 1970) (see table 1). Black
women (75 percent) were more like­ly
to delay marriage than white
women (59 percent). Similarly,
87 percent of black men 20 to 24
years old had never married, com­pared
with 76 percent of white men.
The never-married young Hispanics
were more similar to whites than
blacks.
The estimated median age at ftrst
marriage is increasing-25.9 years
for men and 23.6 years for women
(up from 22.8 years and 20.3 years,
respectively, in 1950) (table 2, pg 20).
Table 1. Never-married Americans, by age, sex, race, and
Hispanic origin:1 1988 and 1970
Women Men
Age (years) 1988 1970 1988 1970
Percent
All races:
20-24 ... . . 61.1 35.8 77.7 54.7
25-29 . . .. 29.5 10.5 43.3 19.1
30-34 .... 16.1 6.2 25.0 9.4
35-39 .. . . . 9.0 5.4 14.0 7.2
White:
20-24 .. . . 58.5 34.6 76.1 54.4
25-29 26.3 9.2 41.3 17.8
30-34 13.0 5.5 22.6 9.2
35-39 7.5 4.6 12.8 6.1
Black:
20-24 .. 75.0 43.5 86.7 56.1
25-29 ..... 49.6 18.8 55.0 28.4
30-34 ... 36.9 10.8 42.0 9.2
35-39 .. 19.8 12.1 24.5 15.8
Hispanic:
20-24 . . . .... 52.7 33.4 72.5 49.9
25-29 ... . . . 26.9 13.7 39.3 19.4
30-34 .... 16.7 8.4 27.9 11.0
35-39 .. . . . . 9.9 6.9 12.1 7.6
1 Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Source: Saluter, Arlene F., 1989, Singleness in America, Studies in Marriage and the Family,
Current Population Reports, Special Studies, Series P-23, No. 162, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
19
Table 2. Median age at first
marriage, by sex: 1950 to 1988
Year Men Women
1988 ...•... 25.9 23.6
1985 ..•.... 25.5 23.3
1980 ....... 24.7 22.0
1975 .....•. 23.5 21.1
1970 ....•.. 23.2 20.8
1965 ....... 22.8 20.6
1960 ....... 22.8 20.3
1955 ....... 22.6 20.2
1950 ... 0 ••• 22.8 20.3
Source: Saluter, Arlene F., 1989, Singleness
in America, Studies in Marriage and the
Family, Current Population Reports, Special
Studies, Series P-23, No. 162, U.S. Depart­ment
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
The marriage rate, defined as
the number of marriages per
1,000 unmarried females age 15 and
over, is declining and reached a
record low of 57 marriages per
1,000 in 1985 (compared with a high
of 118 reported in 1946). Of the
1,858,783 marriages documented in
the 1985 Marriage Registration Area
(MRA),1 about two-thirds were first
marriages and one-third were
remarriages.
Of all adults who had been mar­ried,
10 percent or 14 million had
been divorced and never remarried
in 1988; comparable figures in
1970 were 4 percent and 4.3 million.
The divorce ratio, defined as the
number of divorced persons per
1,000 intact marriages, increased
from 47 per 1,000 in 1970 to 133 in
1988, see table 3. Men had lower
divorce ratios than women (110 com­pared
with 156), because divorced
men are more likely to remarry.
Blacks had a higher average divorce
ratio than whites (263 vs. 124). The
average Hispanic divorce ratio was
137. In 1985 mean age at divorce
1 In 1985, MRA included the District of
Columbia, and all States except Arizona,
Arkansas, Nevada, New Mexico, North
Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, and Washington.
20
was 33.7 years for women and 34.4
years for men. Teenage marriages
were at highest risk.
The over-65 age group has been
steadily increasing in proportion to
the total population (12 percent in
1987, up from 10 percent in 1970).
About 25 percent or 72 million
people are expected to be elderly by
the year 2080. Of the 11.2 million
widows and 2.3 million widowers in
1988 (excluding persons in nursing
homes and other institutions),
72 percent are 65 years or older.
Increasing life expectancy is likely
to prolong singleness among widows
and widowers. The estimated
average expected life span for men
increased from 67.1 years in 1970 to
71.3 years in 1986. The correspond­ing
increase for women was from
74.7 to 78.3 years. Average life ex­pectancy
for blacks is lower than for
whites (65.2 and 73.5 years for black
men and women in 1986, compared
with 72.0 and 78.8 years for white
men and women).
Living Arrangements of
Singles
The increase in singleness has
affected the living arrangements of
children, young adults, and the
elderly. A greater number of
children under age 18 are living with
one parent (15.3 million in 1988,
compared with 8.2 million in 1970).
Over one-half (54 percent) of all
black children, 30 percent of
Hispanic children, and 19 percent of
white children lived with a single
parent in 1988.
Divorce and record high birth­rates
among unmarried women are
the primary reasons for the increase
in number of children living with a
single parent. The number of
children living with a divorced
parent rose from 2.5 million in 1970
to 5.9 million in 1988. The corres­ponding
number of children living
with a never-married parent in­creased
from 557,000 to 4.7 million
children.
Table 3. Number of divorced persons per 1,000 married persons
with spouse present, by sex, race, and Hispanic origin: 1
1988, 1980, and 1970
Year and sex Total White Black Hispanic
Both sexes:
1988 •• 0 0 •••• 133 124 263 137
1980 ............ 100 92 203 98
1970 • 0 ••• • •• 0 ••• 47 44 83 61
Male:
1988 ............ 110 102 216 106
1980 ............ 79 74 149 64
1970 ............ 35 32 62 40
Female:
1988 0 ••••••••••• 156 146 311 167
1980 •••••••• 0 ••• 120 110 258 132
1970 • 0 0 0 •••• 0 ••• 60 56 104 81
1 Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Source: Saluter, Arlene F., 1989, Singleness in America, Studies in Marriage and the
Family, Current Population Reports, Special Studies, Series P-23, No. 162, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Vo/.3 No.1 Family Economics Review
An increasing proportion of
young adults are living at home with
their parents, instead of establishing
separate households (54 percent of
all young adults who were 18 to
24 years old in 1988, up from 47 per­cent
in 1970). Of the 14.2 million
young adults who relied on their
parents for housing in 1988, only
1.9 million lived in a college dorm.
Men were more likely to live at
home than women ( 61 percent com­pared
with 48 percent). This living
arrangement is increasing among
young adults for two major reasons:
the 18- to 24-year age group is delay­ing
a first marriage; and income in­creases
for this group have not kept
pace with housing costs. In 1985 for
example, average monthly income
for 18- to 24-year-olds was $639, up
from $539 in 1980. Median gross
rent was 57 percent of income, up
from 45 percent in 1980. Owner
costs required 89 percent of income,
up from 68 percent of income in
1980, table 4.
Young adults, aged 18 to 24 years,
who did not live with their parents
either maintained their own family
household (with or without spouse),
lived alone, or shared a household
with an unrelated person or persons.
In 1988, 6 million young adults
(23 percent of all persons in the
18-24 age group) maintained
families as either the householder
(one of the persons in whose name
the home is owned or rented) or the
householder's spouse; 2.3 million
young adults or 9 percent of persons
18-24 years old lived alone or with
an unrelated adult.
Living arrangements of the elder­ly
noninstitutional population varied
by age and sex. Elderly women were
more likely than men to live alone
(33 percent of women, 13 percent
of men age 65 to 74; 51 percent of
women, 22 percent of men over 75).
A majority of elderly men lived with
their wives (80 percent of men age
65 to 74; 67 percent of men over 75). ·
Table 4. Mean income of 18- to 24-year-olds, by marital status and
housing costs: 1985 and 1980
Characteristic
Mean income, annual:
Total ....................... .
Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Married ............. . ... .... .
Widowed ..... .. . .... .. . ...... .
Divorced ..................... .
Mean income, monthly: 1
Total ....................... .
Never married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Married ............. .. ...... .
Widowed . .................... .
Divorced ..................... .
Housing costs:
Gross rent2
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • . • •
Gross owner costs3
• . . . . • . . • . . • • . . •
• Numbers were too small to calculate a mean.
1 Annual income divided by 12.
2 Specified renter-occupied housing units.
3 Specified owner-occupied housing units with a mortgage.
1985
$7,670
7,046
9,407
*
8,812
639
587
784
*
734
365
566
1980
$6,467
5,821
7,909
*
7,622
539
485
659
*
635
243
366
Source: Saluter, Arlene F., 1989, Singleness in America, Studies in Marriage and the
Family, Current Population Reports, Special Studies, Series P-23, No. 162, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Vo/.3 No.1 Family Economics Review
Based on the 1980 decennial cen­sus,
about 2 percent of the 65- to
74-year age group and 10 percent of
those over age 75, lived in nursing
homes. Similar proportions of men
and women, 65-74 years old, lived in
nursing homes. After age 75, the
proportion of women to men in nurs­ing
homes nearly doubled (12 per­cent
compared to 7 percent).
Source: Saluter, Arlene F., 1989, Single­ness
in America, Studies in Marriage and the
Family, Current Population Reports, Special
Studies, Series P-23, No. 162, U.S. Depart­ment
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
Characteristics of
Persons Receiving
Benefits
Information on persons receiving
welfare assistance was collected over
a 32-month period between 1984 and
1986. Data reported are from the
Survey of Income and Program
Participation (SIPP), conducted by
the Bureau of the Census. Persons
were classifed by the number of
months of participation in one or
more major assistance programs
over the 32-month period. The
programs include: (1) Aid to
Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC), (2) General Assistance,
(3) Supplemental Security Income
(SSI), (4) Medicaid, (5) food
stamps, and (6) Federal and State
rent assistance.
The table on page 22 shows data
for persons who are recipients of
AFDC, General Assistance, or food
stamps if they are the primary
recipient or if they are the spouse or
minor child of the primary recipient.
Also included are persons receiving
SSI payments, those covered by
Medicaid, and those living in public
or subsidized housing. Overall, the
21
proportion of persons who received
benefits from at least one of the
major assistance programs over the
32-month period was 18 percent,
and 7 percent received benefits
during the entire period.
When persons are classified by
various demographic characteristics,
differences in the level of welfare
assistance reflect their degree of
poverty. For example, about 20 per­cent
of females received assistance
from a major program at some time
during the 32-month period, and
9 percent received assistance during
the entire period. For males, com­parable
figures were 16 percent and
6 percent. In 1986 the poverty rate
for females, 15 percent, was higher
than the rate for males, 12 percent,
because of two factors. First, women
were more likely than men to live in
a family in which no spouse was
present, and the poverty rate among
persons in such families was higher
than the rate among persons in mar­ried-
couple families or among unre­lated
individuals. Second, most of
the persons who were age 65 and
over were women. Women in this
age group had a higher poverty rate
than did younger women, whereas
the poverty rate for men age 65 and
over was the same as for younger
men.
There was a strong relationship
between race (and Hispanic origin)
and the likelihood of receiving wel­fare
assistance. The proportion of
persons who received assistance at
some time during the 32-month
period was 14 percent among whites,
48 percent among blacks, and 34 per­cent
among Hispanics. Twenty-four
percent of blacks received benefits
during the entire period, as did
5 percent of whites and 15 percent
of Hispanics.
When classified by age, the
population group with the strongest
dependence on welfare benefits was
the very young. Of children under
age 6, 30 percent received welfare
assistance at some time during the
survey period, and 13 percent
received benefits during the entire
period. Among those age 65 and
over, comparable figures were
22
18 percent and 11 percent. There
also were differences among age
groups in the likelihood of being a
welfare recipient during the entire
32-month period. Among welfare
recipients, 62 percent of those age
65 and over were recipients for
the entire period, compared with
43 percent of child ren under age 6.
Persons who did not fmish high
school were much more likely to
receive welfare benefits than high
school graduates, and those who
finished college rarely participated
in welfare programs. Among those
who did not fmish high school,
30 percent received welfare
Recipients of welfare benefits
Characteristics
All persons
Male ..
Female
Race:
White
Black .
Hispanic2
Age (years):
Under 18 .
Under6
18-24 .
25-44 ..
45-64 ..
65 and over
Education:
Less than 12 years
12 to 15 years ...
16 years and over .
Residence:
Central city . . . . . . . . . . • .
Suburban ...... ...... .
Outside of metropolitan area
Region:
Northeast ..
Midwest ...
South
West .. ...
assistance at some time during the
survey period, compared with
12 percent of high school graduates
and 3 percent of college graduates.
Receiving benefits during the entire
period were 15 percent of those who
did not fmish high school, 3 percent
of high school graduates, and less
than 1 percent of college graduates.
Persons who lived in central cities
had a higher rate (24 percent) of
participation in welfare assistance
programs than persons who lived in
suburban areas (12 percent) or
outside metropolitan areas (20 per­cent).
Also, 11 percent of central city
residents received benefits during
Receipt of major assistance 1
One or more months 32 months
Percent
18.3 7.2
15.8 5.5
20.5 8.8
13.9 4.7
48.5 24.0
34.2 15.2
26.6 10.9
30.1 12.8
19.9 5.0
14.7 5.2
10.8 4.5
17.9 11 .1
29.6 14.6
11.7 3.4
3.2 0.6
23.7 11.2
12.3 4.1
20.5 7.1
16.8 7.8
16.7 7.1
20.7 7.5
18.0 6.4
1Major assistance programs include Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC),
General Assistance, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), food stamps, Medicaid, and
housing assistance.
2Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1989, Characteristics of
Persons Receiving Benefits From Major Assistance Programs, Current Population Reports,
Household Economic Studies, Series P-70, No. 14.
Vo/.3 No.1 Family Economics Review
the entire period, compared with
4 percent of suburban residents and
7 percent of persons living outside of
metropolitan areas.
There were only minor differen­ces
among the four regions of the
country in the likelihood of residents
receiving welfare assistance. The per­centage
of persons who received
some assistance was 21 percent in
the South, 18 percent in the West,
and 17 percent in both the Northeast
and the Midwest.
Persons who were not part of a
married-couple family were over
three times as likely to have received
some welfare assistance as persons
who were part of such a family
during the entire survey period
(37 percent vs. 11 percent), and they
were seven times as likely to have
received assistance during the entire
survey period (21 percent vs. 3 per­cent).
The proportion of persons
living in female-headed households,
no husband present, with related
children under age 18 and who
received some welfare assistance
was 67 percent; the proportion who
received assistance during the entire
period was 42 percent.
Among men age 20 to 64 years,
35 percent who were not working at
a full-time job received some welfare
benefits, whereas 3 percent who
worked full time during the entire
survey period received benefits.
Among women in the same age
group, 23 percent who were not
working at a full-time job received
some welfare benefits, compared
with 5 percent who worked full time
the entire period.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, 1989, Characteristics
of Persons Receiving Benefits From Major
Assistance Programs, Current Population
Reports, Household Economic Studies,
Series P-70, No. 14.
Vo/.3 No.1 Family Economics Review
Barriers to
Employment of
Older Workers
Retirement ages have fallen
steadily since World War II. Early
retirement (labor force withdrawal
prior to age 65) has become the
norm. By age 62, almost half of all
men are out of the labor force-that
is, neither working nor looking for
work. Anticipating a dramatic
decline in the ratio of workers to
retirees as the baby-boom genera­tion
becomes eligible for retirement
early in the next century, Federal
policy has been directed toward en­couraging
workers to extend their
work lives. However, older workers
who might want to work still face
various institutional barriers
through: (1) the impact of Social
Security regulations and pension
policies on work activity, (2) the
market for part-time jobs, and
(3) age discrimination.
Social Security Regulations
Social Security benefits are the
major source of income for the
elderly. In 1986, 9 of 10 nonmarried
persons or married couples in which
the husband was age 65 or older
received some portion of their
income from Social Security, and
60 percent relied on Social Security
for more than half their total in­come.
These benefits are based on
lifetime earnings in covered
employment. Currently, individuals
are eligible to receive full benefits at
age 65. If an individual chooses to
continue working beyond age 65, he
or she receives a delayed retirement
credit. Many studies have found,
however, that although benefit levels
increase for each year of additional
work, the gains from higher benefits
are more than offset by the fewer
number of years benefits are
received.
In addition, Social Security
recipients who work may only earn
up to a specified amount before
their Social Security benefits are
reduced. Not only are half of any
excess earnings lost through Social
Security reductions, but all earnings
are subject to Federal, State, and
local income taxes as well as Social
Security withholdings. Thus, some
retirees could actually reduce their
work effort without a loss in income.
The Social Security amendments
of 1983 contained several long-term
provisions designed to remove work
disincentives. These included:
• An increase in the nonnal retire­ment
age. Beginning in the year
2000, the retirement age at which
beneficiaries are eligible to
receive full benefits will increase
gradually from 65 to 67.
• An increase in the early retirement
penalty. Reduced benefits will
continue to be available at age 62,
but reduction factors will be
revised to a maximum of 30 per­cent
(for workers entitled at 62
when normal retirement age is
67) compared to the prior 20 per­cent
reduction.
• An increase in the delayed retire­ment
credit. The delayed retire­ment
credit will increase by half a
percentage point every other
year, from 3 percent for workers
age 62 prior to 1987 to 8 percent
per year for workers age 62 after
2004.
• A decrease in the withholding rate
under the earnings test. Beginning
in 1990, the withholding rate will
decrease from $1 of every $2
above the exempt amount for per­sons
who attain full retirement
age to $1 of every $3.
23
Pension Policies
Pension policies do not affect all
workers. Of those persons receiving
Social Security benefits in 1980-81,
only about 57 percent of men and
31 percent of women were either
receiving or expecting to receive a
pension. For these people, many
provisions in pension plans also
encourage them to take an early
retirement. Although individuals are
not eligible for full Social Security
benefits before age 65, full-benefit
retirement ages in private and
governmental pension plans tend to
be much lower. In recent years,
retirement programs have become
increasingly liberal, allowing full
benefits at earlier ages; 79 percent
of pension plans surveyed by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1983
had no minimum retirement age or
provided full benefits at age 62 or
earlier, up from 55 percent in 1974.
Individuals who opt for early
retirement usually receive reduced
pension benefits. As with Social
Security, however, reduction
benefits are not always actuarially
neutral. The greater number of years
of pension receipt due to early retire­ment
often more than offset any
decline in benefits. Also, in many
cases pension benefits are derived
using a formula that accounts for
Social Security benefits. Thus, public
policy efforts to increase incentives
to work by reducing Social Security
benefits are countered by an in­crease
in private benefits.
Early Retirement Incentive Plans
(ERIP's) are in many ways an exten­sion
of early retirement provisions in
pension plans. These plans allow
workers to retire earlier than the
normal terms of their pension plans
would allow. Typically, ERIP's
either liberalize the requirements
for pension eligibility or provide
employees with richer pension
benefits. ERIP's are usually offered
for only a short period, after which
the normal plan rules apply.
24
Age Discrimination and the
Market for Part-time Jobs
Relatively few older persons
choose to work after first receiving
retirement benefits, and those who
do usually have very low levels of
nonwage retirement income. The
Social Security New Beneficiary
Survey found that fewer than 1 in
4 persons were employed at all
within 18 months to 2 years after first
receiving retired-worker benefits.
Because of the work disincentives
inherent in Social Security and pen­sion
policies, older workers are
expected to take part-time jobs,
where options are frequently limited
to low-paid employment. Well­paying
part -time jobs are relatively
scarce, reflecting the high cost of
such schedules to employers. Train­ing
costs and many administrative
costs are similar for full- and part­time
workers. In contrast, jobs that
generally require little training, by
their nature, are usually low skilled
and provide low pay.
Age Discrimination
Although research suggests that
age discrimination exists regarding
older workers' employment and ad­vancement
opportunities, relatively
few older workers state they have
been the victims of age discrimina­tion.
Unemployed older persons
may be more likely to have been
affected by discriminatory employ­ment
practices. However, few older
workers search for a job whereby
they would be most exposed to dis­crimination.
Also, experience on the
job may provide many older workers
with the skills and abilities that
prevent them from being marginal
employees. In addition, the promo­tion
expectations of some workers
may decline with age.
Source: Herz, Diane E. and Philip L.
Rones, 1989, Institutional barriers to employ­ment
of older workers, Monthly Labor
Review 112(1.):14-21, U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Vo/.3 No.1 Family Economics Review
CURRENT REGIONAL RESEARCH PROJECT
NC 178. Economic, Social,
Psychological, and Health
Consequences of the
Housing Decisions of
Rural Families
Administrative advisor:
Dr. S.T. Betsinger
University of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN 55108
Cooperating States: University of
Illinois, Iowa State University,
University of Minnesota, University
of Missouri, University of Nebraska,
University of Wisconsin, and Cornell
University (New York)
Project dates: August 1984 to Sept­ember
1989
Objectives: To analyze the
economic, social, psychological, and
health consequences of housing
decisions and conditions for North
Central rural families. The decisions
of interest were those related to
financing, energy use and conserva­tion,
type and location of housing,
and remodeling or retrofitting of the
dwelling. The primary focus of the
research was on decisions and conse­quences
at the household level.
Approach: Approximately 500 inter­views
were conducted with rural
househ'olds living in the North
Central region. Over one-third of
the households were headed by an
elderly individual. Over 80 percent
were homeowners, and one-third of
these were making mortgage pay­ments.
A parallel study undertaken
in New York interviewed 253
households from nonmetropolitan
counties in Central and Western
Vo/.3 No.1 Family Economics Review
New York State. Responsibility for
analyzing separate sections of the
data was assumed by the six States in
the North Central region.
Progress: A "basebook" containing
descriptive and bivariate analyses by
region and by State was compiled
and published in mimeographed
form for distribution to researchers
from each of the participating States
and to their Experiment Stations. In­dividual
researchers are responsible
for doing further analysis and
rewriting specific chapters of the
basebook. A second publication, a
monograph, has a much broader
distribution. Event -history analysis
of family-residential histories was
conducted and reported. Also,
nonlinear effects of variables such as
age and housing conditions on
housing behavior were analyzed.
Findings: Over one-half of the
sample have done major remodeling
or additions during the past 5 years.
Those who remodel want to maxi­mize
the fit between their activities
and their environment and, thereby,
improve their quality of life. Results
suggest there are two types of well­being
associated with remodeling:
(1) psycho/social-i.e., issues of
privacy, socialization, safety,
security, accessibility, comfort and
(2) financial/economic-i.e., issues of
value added at time of resale,
payback for dollars and time in­vested.
The level of well-being reported by
farmers was slightly lower than
nonfarmers' well-being. Housing
satisfaction was lower for renters
than for owners, and lower for resi­dents
of apartments than for resi­dents
of mobile homes and single­family
dwellings.
Selected publications:
Cook, Christine C., Earl W.
Morris, and Mary Winter, editors.
1988. Economic, Social, Psychologi­cal,
and Health Consequences of the
Housing Decisions of Rural Families.
St. Paul: Department of Design,
Housing and Apparel.
Chi, P.S.K. and J. Laquatra.
1987. Methods of Assessing Health
Consequences of Residential Environ­ment
and Energy Decisions. Paper
presented at the Socioeconomic
Energy and Analysis Conference.
[Washington, DC, May 1987].
Johnston, C. and E. R. Combs.
1988. 17te Well-Being of Midwest
Fanners in Comparison to 17wt of
Other Rural Occupational Groups.
A research abstract presented at the
annual meeting of the American
Home Economics Association.
[Baltimore, MD, June 1988].
Memken, Jean A., Earl W.
Morris, and Mary Winter. 1988. The
use of event-history data in mobility
studies. Housing and Society 15:94-
104.
Morris, Earl W. and Marianna
Jakubczak. 1988. Tenure-structure
deficit, housing satisfaction, and the
propensity to move: A replication of
the housing-adjustment model.
Housing and Society 15:41-55.
Phillips, Ronald G., et. al. 1988.
Remodeling: I11e Decision-Making
Process. University of Missouri
Extension.
25
Cost of Food at Home
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at four cost levels, December 1989, U.S. average 1
Sex-age group
FAMILIES
Family of 22:
20 - 50 years
51 years and over
Family of 4:
Couple, 20 - 50 years and children
1 -2 and 3 - 5 years . .
6 - 8 and 9 - 11 years . .. .. . ..
INDIVIDUALS3
Child:
1 - 2 years
3-5 years
6-8 years
9- 11 years
Male:
12- 14 years
15- 19 years
20-50 years
51 years and over
Female:
12- 19 years . . ..
20-50 years 0 0 0
51 years and over 0 0
Thrifty
plan
$45.40
43.00
66.20
75.70
12.00
12.90
15.70
18.70
19.60
20.30
21.70
19.70
19.60
19.60
19.40
Cost for 1 week
Low-cost
plan
$57.20
54.90
82.50
96.90
14.60
15.90
21.00
23.90
27.10
28.00
27.70
26.30
23.50
24.30
23.60
Moderate­cost
plan
$70.40
67.50
100.60
121 .00
17.00
19.60
26.30
30.70
33.70
34.70
34.50
32.30
28.40
29.50
29.10
Uberal
plan
$87.50
80.90
123.50
145.60
20.50
23.50
30.60
35.50
39.60
40.20
41.80
38.70
34.40
37.70
34.80
Thrifty
plan
$196.70
186.00
286.90
328.20
52.10
56.00
68.20
81 .20
84.80
88.00
93.90
85.20
85.10
84.90
83.90
Cost for 1 month
Low-cost
plan
$247.90
237.60
357.50
419.80
63.20
68.90
91 .00
103.40
117.30
121 .30
120.00
113.80
101.70
105.40
102.20
Moderate­cost
plan
$305.40
292.70
436.10
524.20
73.60
84.90
113.80
132.80
146.20
150.40
149.70
139.90
123.20
127.90
126.20
Liberal
plan
$378.70
350.10
534.80
630.70
88.80
101 .70
132.70
153.70
171 .50
174.20
180.90
167.60
148.90
163.40
150.70
1 Assumes that food for all meals and snacks is purchased at the store and prepared at home. Estimates for the thrifty food plan were
computed from quantities of foods published in Family Economics Review 1984(1). Estimates for the other plans were computed from
quantitites of foods published Family Economics Review 1983(2). The costs of the food plans are estimated by updating prices paid by
households surveyed in 1977-78 in USDA;s Nationwide Food Consumption Survey. USDA updates these survey prices using information
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI Detailed Report, table 3, to estimate the costs for the food plans.
2 10 Percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 3 . .
3 The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size families, the following adjustments are
suggested: 1-person-add 20%; 2-person-add 10%; 3-person-add 5%; 5- or 6-person-subtract 5%; 7- or more-person-subtract 10%.
26 Vo/.3 No.1 Family Economics Review
Consumer Prices
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers [1982-84 = 100]
Group
All items .. . .... . ...... ......... . . ...... ..... .. . . . .
Food . . ... . ...... ... .. . . . ......... .. .. .. . .. .... .
Food at home .... ... . ......... . .. . . . .. .... ... . .
Food away from home . .. ... . .... . . . .... . . .. ... . .
Housing . . ..... .. . ...... . . .. .. . ..... . . . .. ....... .
Shelter . ... . . ..... .............. .. . .. . . ....... .
Renters' costs 1 .... . ......... . •....•. •• .. • . . ...
Homeowners' costs 1 ••..•• • ...••.•• •• • •• • • •••.•
Household insurance 1
• ••• •• • ••• •• • ••.••• •••••
Maintenance and repairs . ....... ..... . ......... .
Maintenance and repair services ..... . ... .. .. .. .
Maintenance and repair commodities . .... . .. .. .
Fuel and other utilities ........ .. ..... . ...... .. .. .
Fuel oil and other household fuel commodities .... . .
Gas (piped) and electricity ...... . . . ...... .. .. . . .
Household furnishings and operation . . . .. ...... ... .
Housefurnishings .. . ...... . ........... . ....... .
Housekeeping supplies ... ... . . .... .. . . . ....... .
Housekeeping services . ... . . . ... .. . . ... . ... .. . .
Apparel and upkeep . ... . . . .. .. ... . .. . .. . ........ . .
Apparel commodities ... . ... . . .. .. . .... . .... . . . . .
Men's and boys' apparel .... . ..... . .. . ....... . . .
Women's and girl's apparel ....... . ... . ...... . . .
Infants' and toddlers apparel .............. .. ... .
Footwear ..... . ......... . ...... . .. ... .... ... .
Apparel services ...... .. ........ . .... . . . . . .. . .. .
Transportation ......... . ............ . ........ .. . . .
Private transportation . . . . . .. ...... . ... . ...... . .. .
New vehicles .. . ........ . ..... . ..... . ........ .
Used vehicles! .......... . .... . . . .. . ...... . ... .
Motor fuel . . ..................... . ...... .. .. . .
Automobile maintenance and repair ........ . .... .
Other private transportation ...... . ...... . . . . . .
Other private transportation commodities ....... .
Other private transportation services .... .... ... .
Public transportation . . ............ . .. . ..... . .. .
Medical care . ... . .... . ......... ......... . .. ... .. .
Medical care commodities ...... . ........... . ... . .
Medical care services . .... . ..... . ... . ........... .
Professional medical services .. .............. . .. .
Entertainment .... . .... . . ... . .. . ... . ........... . . .
Entertainment commodities .. . .... . ......... . .... .
Entertainment services .. ............ . .......... . .
Other goods and services . .. . ...... . ........... . .. .
Personal care . . ... .. . ... . .... .. ... ... ... . ..... .
Toilet goods and personal care appliances .. . . . ... .
Personal care services .... . .... .. ......... .. . .. .
Personal and educational expenses .... . .......... .
School books and supplies . . ...... . .. . ... ... . .. .
Personal and educational services ...... • .........
1 Indexes on a December 1982 = 100 base.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Vo/.3 No.1 Family Economics Review
November
1989
125.9
126.9
125.8
129.5
124.5
135.2
140.1
140.3
133.8
119.3
121.7
116.2
107.5
83.9
106.1
111 .9
106.0
122.5
117.6
122.1
120.4
121.1
121.3
117.2
116.6
130.8
115.0
113.7
120.6
120.1
87.2
126.7
138.2
102.1
146.0
131.3
153.9
155.3
153.6
149.3
128.6
121.3
138.2
151 .9
127.0
125.1
129.0
163.5
163.9
163.7
Unadjusted indexes
October September November
1989 1989 1988
125.6 125.0 120.3
126.5 126.1 120.2
125.4 125.0 118.7
129.1 128.8 123.7
124.4 124.3 119.9
134.8 134.1 129.1
140.0 139.4 134.2
139.7 138.9 133.8
133.7 133.6 130.2
118.6 118.6 115.4
121 .0 120.9 118.2
115.5 115.6 111.7
108.0 109.7 104.3
82.0 79.3 75.0
107.6 111.0 103.7
111 .9 111.7 110.6
106.1 105.7 106.1
122.5 122.3 116.5
117.4 117.5 115.7
122.7 120.0 119.9
121.1 118.2 118.4
120.3 117.7 118.2
123.1 119.0 120.2
118.3 118.0 117.2
117.6 114.1 114.5
129.8 129.7 126.3
114.5 113.7 110.7
113.3 112.4 109.6
118.5 117.1 118.4
119.7 119.8 119.7
88.9 88.8 81.5
126.7 126.2 121.5
137.1 135.7 132.1
101 .9 102.0 99.4
144.8 142.9 139.1
130.6 130.1 125.3
152.7 151.7 141.8
154.1 153.3 143.3
152.3 151.3 141 .5
148.6 148.0 140.4
128.4 127.8 122.2
121 .2 120.5 117.2
137.8 137.2 129.3
151 .8 151.2 141.0
126.4 125.9 121 .8
124.4 124.0 120.7
128.5 127.7 122.7
163.5 162.9 152.7
163.6 163.0 152.1
163.7 163.1 152.9
27
Subscription Order Or
Change Of Address Form
Enclosed iss. ______ _
0 Check
0 Money order
0 Charge to my Deposit Account
No. _______ _
Order No·-------
Make check payable to.
Superintendent of Documents
CREDIT CARD ORDERS ONLY
(Visa and Mastercard)
Total charges S
Credit card No.
Expiration Date Month/Year
28
FAMILY
ECONOMICS
REVIEW
Annual subscription Single copies
$S.OO domestic $2.00 domestic
($6.2S foreign) ($2.SO foreign)
Please print or type
Company or Personal Name
1111111111111
Additional Address I Attention Une
I II II I
Street Address
I I I
City
I I I
Country
I I I I
CHANGE OF ADDRESS
Please attach mailing label here and
send this fonn when requesting a
change of address.
MAIL ORDER FORM TO,
Superintendent of Documents
Government Prtnting 0111ce
Washington, D.C. 20402
(202) 783-3238
Stale ZIP Code
LLJ I I I I
I I I
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Quantity
___ Publica1ions
Charges
___ Subscrtptions ___ _
Special Shipping Charges __ _
intema1ional Handling ___ _
Special Charges _____ _
OPNR
____ UPNS
____ Balance Due
____ Discount
____ Refund
Vo/.3 No.1 Family Economics Review