Family Economics and Nutrition Review [Volume 11, Number 3]

              Feature Articles
2 The Healthy Eati~~~~&~.·. W'9\J-96
Shanthy A. Bowman, Marf Lino, S/;l~~,A . Gerrior, and P. Peter Basiotis
15 The Influence of Comr1'fdr~aifsm on .. ht ~ ~urchasing Behavior of
Children and Teenage Youth , ~ ·~ \ ,...
Vivica Kraak and David L! .f!§Jle ·{!r -
.~.!"~ ~" ...
25 Expenditures on Children by Families, 1997
MarkLino
44 Changes in Children's Total Fat Intakes and Their Food Group
Sources of Fat, 1989-91 Versus 1994-95: Implications for Diet Quality
Joan F. Morton and Joanne F. Guthrie
Research Briefs
58 Is Total Fat Consumption Really Decreasing?
Rajen S. Anand and P. Peter Basiotis
61 Report Card on the Diet Quality of African Americans
P. Peter Basiotis, Mark Lino, and Rajen S. Anand
Research Summaries
64 The 1998 Revision of the Consumer Price Index
68 Measuring the Success of Nutrition Education and Promotion in Food Assistance
Programs
71 Poverty Among Older Women
Regular Items
74
76
78
79
80
Federal Statistics: Children and Family Compositior
Research and Evaluation Activities in USDA
USDA Food Plans: Cost of Food at Home
Consumer Prices
U.S. Poverty Thresholds
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICU LI uKt
Volume 11, Number 3
1998
U.S. DEPOSIT"
PROPERTY OF THE ~
The Umverst y ot No •J• •
at Greensboro
Dan Glickman, Secretary
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Shirley R. Watkins, Under Secretary
Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services
Rajen Anand, Executive Director
Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
CarolS. Kramer-LeBlanc, Deputy Executive Director
Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
P. Peter Basiotis, Director
Nutrition Policy and Analysis Staff
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs
and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability,
political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to
all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of
program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET
Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room
326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or
call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Editor-in-Chief
Carol S. Kramer-LeBlanc
Editor
Julia M. Dinkins
Features Editor
Mark Uno
Managing Editor
Jane W. Fleming
Contributors
Bruce W. Klein
Nancy E. Schwenk
Family Economics and Nutrition Review is written
and published each quarter by the Center for
Nutrition Poficy and Promotion, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC.
The Secretary of Agriculture has determined that
publication of this periodical is necessary in the
transaction of the public busiless required by law
of the Department.
This publication is not copyrighted. Contents may
be reprinted without permission, but credit to
Family Economics and Nutrition Review would
be appreciated. Use of commercial or trade names
does not imply approval or constitute endorsement
by USDA. Family Economics and Nutrition Review
is indexed in the folowing databases: AGRICOLA,
Ageline, Economic Literature Index, ERIC, Family
Studies, PAIS, and Sociological Abstracts.
Family Economics and NutntJon Review is for sale
by the Superintendent of Documents. Subscription
price is $12.00 per year ($15.00 for foreign
addresses). Send subscription orders and change
of address to Superintendent of Documents,
P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954.
(See subscription form on p. 81 .)
Original manuscripts are accepted for publication.
(See "guidelines for authors• on back inside cover).
Suggestions or comments concerning this publica­tion
should be addressed to: Julia M. Dinkins,
Ed~or, Family Economics and Nutrition Review,
Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
USDA,1120 20th St. NW, Suite 200 North Lobby,
Washington, DC 20036. Phone (202) 606-4876.
The Family Economics and Nutrition Review
Is now available on the Internet at
http:/fwww.usda.gov/cnpp (See p. 83.)
2
15
25
44
The Healthy Eating lnde~, 19~4-96 . oi t\o~\\\ CaN \t\
Shanthy A. Bowman, Mark Lmo, S(!~~rrwr, ~(j'(lfeter Basiotis
a\ (){ee
The Influence of Commercialism on the Food Purchasing
Behavior of Children and Teenage Youth
.Vivica Kraak and David L. Pelletier
Expenditures on Children by Families, 1997
Mark Lino
Changes in Children's Total Fat Intakes and Their Food
Group Sources of Fat, 1989-91 Versus 1994-95:
Implications for Diet Quality
Joan F. Morton and Joanne F. Guthrie
Research Briefs
58
61
Is Total Fat Consumption Really Decreasing?
Rajen S. Anand and P. Peter Basiotis
Report Card on the Diet Quality of African Americans
P. Peter Basiotis, Mark Lino, and Rajen S. Anand
Research Summaries
==================~~---
64 The 1998 Revision of the Consumer Price Index
68 Measuring the Success of Nutrition Education and Promotion
in Food Assistance Programs
71 Poverty Among Older Women
Regular Items
74 Federal Statistics: Children and Family Composition
76
78
Research and Evaluation Activities in USDA
USDA Food Plans: Cost of Food at Home
79 Consumer Prices
80 U.S. Poverty Thresholds
Volume 11, Number 3
1998
2
Research Articles
The Healthy Eating Index,
1994-96
Shanthy A. Bowman 1
Mark Lino
Shirley A. Gerrior
P. Peter Basiotis
USDA, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
To assess and monitor the dietary status of Americans, the Center for Nutrition
Policy and Promotion has periodically issued the Healthy Eating Index (HEI).
The HEI is composed of 10 components: Components 1-5 measure con­sumption
of the five major food groups; components 6 and 7 measure total
fat and saturated fat consumption; components 8 and 9 measure total
cholesterol and sodium intake; and component 10 measures dietary variety.
Each component is assessed in terms of dietary recommendations. The
HEI was computed for all people 2 years of age and over and population
subgroups using data from the 1994-96 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes
by Individuals (CSFII). Most people's diet needs improvement. About 12 percent
of the population has a good diet, and 18 percent has a poor diet. Americans
especially need to improve their consumption of fruit and milk products.
African Americans, people with low income, males age 15 to 18, and those
with a high school diploma or less education have lower quality diets. These
findings provide an awareness and better understanding of the types of
dietary changes needed to improve people's eating patterns.
orne recent reports have
indicated that in 4 of the 10
leading causes of death
(cardiovascular disease,
certain types of cancer, stroke, and
diabetes) in the United States, diet and
Jack of physical activity are significant
contributing factors (5,12). It has been
well documented that a healthful diet
reduces the risk of chronic diseases such
as cardiovascular disease and certain
forms of cancer (8,17). A study using
a healthy diet indicator, based on the
1Currently at USDA, Agricultural Research Service.
World Health Organization's dietary
recommendations, found that mortality
was lowest in people with the most
healthful diets (6). Major improvements
in the American public's health can,
therefore, be made by improving the
dietary patterns of people.
To assess the dietary status of Americans
and monitor changes in these patterns,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) Center for Nutrition Policy
and Promotion (CNPP) developed the
Healthy Eating Index (HEI) based on
Family Economics and Nutrition Review
Figure 1. Components of the Healthy Eating Index
Components 1-5
measure the degree to which a
person's diet conforms to USDA's
Food Guide Pyramid serving
recommendations for the grains,
vegetables, fruits, milk, and meat
food groups.
------Component 6 measures total fat
the work of Kennedy et al. (7) and first
computed the Index using 1989 data. The
HEI is a summary measure of people's
overall diet quality (broadly defined in
terms of adequacy, moderation, and
variety). The Index consists of scores
for consumption of the suggested number
of servings of each of the five major
Food Guide Pyramid food groups ( 15 );
intake of total fat, saturated fat, choles­terol,
and sodium; and a measure of
dietary variety (fig. 1). The HEI is the
only index issued by the Federal Gov­ernment,
and computed on a regular
basis, that gauges overall diet quality
of the population. According to the
American Dietetic Association, the
Index is "The most accurate measure­ment
to date on how Americans eat" ( 1 ).
1998 Vol. 11 No.3
The
Food Guide
Pyramid
consumption as a percentage of
total food energy intake.
Component 7 measures
saturated fat consumption as a
percentage of total food energy
intake.
Component 8 measures
total cholesterol intake.
Component 9 measures
total sodium intake.
Component 1 0 examines the
'------ variety in a person's diet.
This article presents the HEI for 1994-96-
the most recent years for which nation­ally
representative data are available to
compute the Index. The HEI is calcu­lated
for the general population and
selected subgroups. CNPP also compares
the 1996 HEI with the 1989 HEI to
examine possible trends in the diets
of Americans.
Components of the Healthy
Eating Index
The Healthy Eating Index provides an
overall picture of the types and quantity
of foods people eat, their compliance
with specific dietary recommendations,
and the variety in their diets. The total
Index score is the sum of 10 dietary
components, weighted equally (table 1).
The maximum overall HEI score is 100.
The 10 components represent various
aspects of a healthful diet.
• Components l-5 measure the
degree to which a person's diet
conforms to the USDA Food Guide
Pyramid serving recommendations
for the five major food groups:
Grains (bread, cereal, rice, and
pasta), vegetables, fruits, milk
(milk, yogurt, and cheese), and
meat (meat, poultry, fish, dry
beans, eggs, and nuts).
• Component 6 measures total fat
consumption as a percentage of
total food energy (calorie) intake.
• Component 7 measures saturated
fat consumption as a percentage
of total food energy intake.
• Component 8 measures total
cholesterol intake.
• Component 9 measures total
sodium intake.
• Component 10 measures the
variety in a person's diet.
3
Table 1. Components of the Healthy Eating Index and scoring system
Score Ranges
1
Criteria for Maximum Criteria for Minimum
Score of 10 Score ofO
Grain consumption 0 to 10 6 - 11 servings2 0 servings
Vegetable consumption 0 to 10 3 - 5 servings2 0 servings
Fruit consumption 0 to 10 2 - 4 servingi 0 servings
Milk consumption 0 to 10 2 - 3 servings2 0 servings
Meat consumption 0 to 10 2 - 3 servings2 0 servings
Total fat intake 0 to 10 30% or less energy from fat 45% or more energy from fat
Saturated fat intake 0 to 10 Less than 10% energy from 15% or more energy from
saturated fat saturated fat
Cholesterol intake 0 to 10 300 mg or less 450 mg or more
Sodium intake 0 to 10 2400 mg or less 4800 mg or more
Food variety 0 to 10 8 or more different items in 3 or fewer different items in
a day a day
~People with co~sumption or intakes between the maximum and minimum ranges or amounts were assigned scores proportionately.
Number of servmgs depends on Recommended Energy Allowance--see table 2. All amounts are on a per day basis.
USDA Food Guide Pyramid
Food Group Components
The USDA Food Guide Pyramid trans­lates
recommendations from the Dietary
Guidelines for Americans ( 16) into groups
and amounts of foods people can eat to
achieve a healthful diet The recommended
number of Food Guide Pyramid servings
depends on a person's caloric requirement.
In developing the Index, the researchers
used serving recommendations from the
Food Guide Pyramid for various age/
gender groups. Pyramid serving recom­mendations
for 1600, 2200, and 2800
calories were used as the basis to inter­polate
serving recommendations for
age/gender groups not described in the
Pyramid (table 2).
4
A maximum score of 10 was assigned
to each of the five food group com per
nents of the Index. People whose diets
met or exceeded the recommended
number of servings for a food group
received the maximum score of 10 points.
For example, if a person's diet met the
fruits group serving recommendations,
then that person's diet was awarded 10
points. For each of the five major food
groups, a score of zero was assigned to
the respective components if a person
did not consume any item from the food
group. Intermediate scores were computed
proportionately to the number of servings
consumed. For example, if the serving
recommendation for a food group was
eight and a person consumed four servings,
the component score was 5 points. Simi­larly,
if six servings were consumed, a
score of7.5 was assigned.
The Recommended Energy Allowance
(REA) (9) for children 2 to 3 years of
age is less than 1600 kilocalories. The
recommended number of servings was
kept at the minimum serving level for
these children, but the serving size was
scaled downward to be proportionate
with their food energy recommendations.
This approach is consistent with Food
Guide Pyramid guidance. In contrast,
adult males 15 to 50 years old have an REA
slightly greater than 2800 kilocalories
(9). Because the Food Guide Pyramid
does not specify additional food group
Family Economics and Nutrition Review
Table 2: Recommended number of USDA Food Guide Pyramid servings per day, by age/gender
categories
Age/gender Energy
category (kilocalories) Grains Vegetables Fruits Milk Meat1
Children 2-32 1300 6 3 2 2 2
6 2
Children 4-6 1800 7 3.3 2 2.1
Females 51+ 1900 7.4 3.5 2.5 2 2.2
Children 7-10 2000 7.8 3.7 2.7 2.3
Females 11-24 2200 9 4 2.4
j'ffi
4'~ 2.4
Females 25-50 2.4
Males 51+ 2.5
Males 11-14 2.6
' 2.8
Males 19-24 2900 11 5 4 2.8
Males 25-50 2900 11 5 4 2 2.8
Males 15-18 3000 11 5 4 3 2.8
~One_serv~ng of meat equals 2.5 ounces of lean meat.
Portion SJzes were reduced to two-thirds of adult servings except for milk for children age 2-3.
t Recommended number of servings per day at food energy levels specified in the Food Guide Pyramid ( 15 ).
servings for caloric levels above 2800
kilocalories, researchers decided that
food portions for these individuals would
be truncated at the maximum levels rec­ommended
in the Food Guide Pyramid.
For more details on determination of
Food Guide Pyramid serving definitions,
estimation of food group serving require­ments
by age and gender, and design
alternatives, the reader is referred to
the administrative report ( 3 ).
For each of the five major food groups,
serving definitions used to compute the
food group scores were intended to be as
consistent as possible with the concepts
1998 Vol. 11 No. 3
and definitions described in the Food
Guide Pyramid ( 15 ). Serving definitions
reflect consistency with the underlying
rationale in terms of nutrient contributions
from each of the five major food groups.
These definitions are also consistent with
the Pyramid concept of defining servings
in common household measures and
easily recognizable units. The servings
calculated for the HEI were based on the
Pyramid Servings database developed
by the USDA's Agricultural Research
Service.
In calculating the HEI, USDA researchers
found it necessary to assign the foods in
mixtures, in the appropriate amounts, to
their constituent food groups. Pizza, for
example, can make significant contribu­tions
to several food groups, including
grains, vegetables, milk, and meat. The
approach used was a straightforward
extension of the one used to estimate
serving sizes. Commodity compositions
of foods were identified. Commodities
were then assigned to appropriate food
groups based on the gram/serving size
· factors that were calculated. Dry beans
and peas were first assigned to the meat
group if the meat serving recommenda­tions
were not met, after which they
were added to the vegetables group.
5
6
Fat and Saturated Fat
Components
Index scores for fat and saturated fat
intakes were examined in proportion to
total food energy expressed as kilocalories.
Total fat intake of less than or equal to
30 percent of total calories in a day was
assigned a maximum score of 10 points.
This percentage is based on the 1995
recommendations of the Dietary Guide­lines
for Americans. Fat intake equal
to, or greater than, 45 percent of total
calories in a day was assigned a score
of zero. Intake of fat between 30 and 45
percent was scored proportionately.
Saturated fat intake ofless than 10 percent
of total calories in a day was assigned
a maximum score of 10 points. This
percentage is also based on the 1995
recommendations of the Dietary Guide­lines
for Americans. Saturated fat intake
equal to, or greater than, 15 percent of
total calories in a day was assigned a
score of zero. Intake of saturated fat
between 10 and 15 percent was scored
proportionately. The upper limit percent­ages
for fat ( 45 percent) and saturated
fat (15 percent) were based on consult­ation
with nutrition researchers and
exploration of the consumption
distribution of these components.
Cholesterol Component
The score for cholesterol was based on
the amount consumed in milligrams. A
score of 10 points was assigned when
daily cholesterol intake was 300 milli­grams
or less. This amount is based on
recommendations of the Committee on
Diet and Health of the National Research
Council and represents a consensus of
experts in foods and nutrition, medicine,
epidemiology, public health, and related
fields (8). A score of zero was assigned
when daily intake reached a level of 450
milligrams or more. Intake between 300
and 450 milligrams was scored propor­tionately.
The upper limit for cholesterol
intake was based on consultation with
nutrition researchers and exploration
of the consumption distribution of this
component.
Sodium Component
The score for sodium was based on the
amount consumed in milligrams per
day. A score of 10 points was assigned
when daily sodium intake was 2400
milligrams or less, the amount based on
recommendations of the Committee on
Diet and Health of the National Research
Council (8). A daily intake of 4800
milligrams or more received zero points.
Intake between 2400 and 4800 milligrams
was scored proportionately. The upper
limit for sodium intake was based on
consultation with nutrition researchers
and exploration of the consumption
distribution of this component.
Variety Component
The Dietary Guidelines, the Food Guide
Pyramid, and the National Research
Council's diet and health report all
stress the importance of variety in a diet
( 4,8, 15 ). There is no consensus, however,
on how to quantify variety. Dietary
variety was assessed by totaling the
number of different foods that a person
ate in a day in amounts sufficient to
contribute at least one-half of a serving
in a food group. Food mixtures were .
disaggregated into their food ingredi­ents
and assigned to the appropriate
food category. Foods that differed only
by preparation method were grouped to­gether
and counted as one type of food.
For example, baked, fried, or boiled
potatoes were counted once. Different
types of a food were considered to be a
different food. For example, each type
of fish-mackerel, tuna, and trout-was
considered to be a different food. A
Family Economics and Nutrition Review
maximum variety score of 10 points
was assigned if a person consumed at
least half a serving each of 8 or more
different types of foods in a day. A
score of zero was assigned if 3 or fewer
different foods were consumed by a person
in a day. Intermediate scores were
computed proportionately. These upper
and lower limit amounts to gauge food
variety were based on consultation with
nutrition researchers. For more details
on the coding structure used to compute
the variety component of the HEI, the
reader is referred to the administrative
report (3).
Data and Methods Used
to Calculate the
Healthy Eating Index
USDA's Continuing Survey of Food
Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) provides
information on people's consumption
of foods and nutrients and extensive
information about Americans' demo­graphic
and socioeconomic characteristics.
CNPP used CSFII data for 1994-96-
the most recent data available-to
compute the HEI.
For the 1994-96 CSFII ( 13 ), dietary
intakes of individuals were collected
on 2 nonconsecutive days. Data were
collected through an in-person interview
using the 24-hour dietary recall method,
with the parent or main meal planner
reporting information for individuals
under age 12. The survey was designed
to be representative of the U.S. popula­tion
living in households, and lower
income households were oversampled
to increase the precision level in analyses
of this group. Weights were used to
make the sample representative of the
U.S. population.
1998 Vol. 11 No.3
Table 3. Healthy Eating Index: Overall and component mean
scores, 1994-96
Year
1994 1995 1996 1994-96
Overall ·' 63.6 63.5 63.8 63.6
Components
Grains 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.7
Vegetables 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.2
Fruits 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.9
Milk 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4
Meat 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.5
Total fat 6.8 6.8 6.9 6.8
Saturated fat 6.4 6.3 6.4 6.4
Cholesterol 7.9 7.7 7.9 7.8
Sodium 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3
Variet y 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.6
Note: The overall HEI score ranges from 0-100. An HEI score over 80 implies a "good" diet, an HEI
score between 51 and 80 implies a diet that "needs improvement," and an HEI score les.s ~an 51
implies a "poor" diet. HEI component scores range from 0-10. High com~~nt scores tndu;~te
intakes close to recommended ranges or amounts; low component scores tndJcate less comphance
with recommended ranges or amounts.
The HEI was computed for people with
complete food intake records for the
first day of the survey: this allows for
comparisons across the years. Prior
research has indicated that food intake
data based on 1-day dietary provide
reliable measures of usual intakes of
groups of people (2). The HEI was
computed for all individuals 2 years
and older~etary guidelines apply to
people of these ages only. Pregnant and
lactating women were excluded because
of their special dietary needs. Final sample
sizes were 5,167 in 1994, 4,904 in 1995,
and 4,791 in 1996.
Results
Overall Healthy Eating Index
Scores
The mean HEI score is 63.6 for 1994,
63.5 for 1995, and 63.8 for 1996 (table
3). An HEI score over 80 implies a
"good" diet; an HEI score between 51
and 80, a diet that "needs improvement;"
and an HEI score less than 51 , a "poor"
diet.2 Between 1994 and 1996, the diets
of most people (70 percent) needed
improvement (fig. 2). About 12 percent
of the population had a good diet, and
18 percent had a poor diet.
21n the initial HEI work, KeMedy et al. (7), in .
consultation with nutrition experts, developed this
scoring system for a "good" diet, a die~ that
"needs improvement," and a "poor" d1et.
7
Figure 2. Healthy Eating Index Rating, U.S. population, 1994-96
1994 1995 1996
D Diet classified as "Good" (Healthy Eating Index score greater than 80)
D Diet classified as "Needs Improvement• (Healthy Eating Index score between 51 and 80)
• Diet classified as "Poor" (Healthy Eating Index score less than 51)
Healthy Eating Index
Component Scores
During the 1994-96 period, the highest
or best mean HEI component score for
the U.S. population was for cholesterol
(table 3). The cholesterol score averaged
7.8 on a 10-point scale. With an average
score of 7 .6, variety accounted for the
second highest component score. The
fruits and milk components of the HEI
had the two lowest mean scores over the
period: 3.9 and 5.4, respectively. Average
scores for the other HEI components
were between 6 and 7.
Overall, 71 percent of people had a
maximum score of I 0 for cholesterol­that
is, they met the dietary recommen­dation
(table 4). Fifty-two percent had
a maximum score for variety over the
3 years. Fewer than 50 percent of the
population met the dietary recommenda­tions
for the other 8 HEI components
8
during 1994-96. About 17 percent of
people consumed the recommended
number of servings of fruit each day.
Twenty-two to 31 percent of people
met the dietary recommendations for
the grain, vegetables, milk, and meat
components of the HEI, and 35 to 40
percent met the dietary recommenda­tions
for total fat, saturated fat, and
sodium. In general, most people could
improve all aspects of their diets.
Healthy Eating Index Scores by
Population Characteristics
HEI scores varied by Americans'
demographic and socioeconomic charac­teristics
(table 5). Females had slightly
higher scores than did males. Children
ages 2 to 3 had the highest average HEI
score (74 for 1994-96) among all children,
as well as among all age/gender groups.
Older children had lower HEJ scores
than did younger children. Children
ages 2 to 3 scored particularly higher on
the fruits and milk components of the
HEI than did older children. For example,
the average fruit score for children ages
2 to 3 was 7 for 1994-96, compared
with 3.5 for males ages 11 to 14; the
average milk score for children ages 2
to 3 was 7.3, compared with 5.2 for
females ages 11 to 14 (data not shown
in tables). Most age/gender groups had
HEI scores in the 60- to 69-point range.
Both females and males age 51 and over
had higher HEI scores than did other
adults.
Asian and Pacific Islander Americans
had the highest HEI score among the
racial groups-an average of 67 for
1994-96. Asian and Pacific Islander
Americans had higher average scores on
the grain and fat components of the HEI
than was the case for other racial groups.
(Data are not shown in the tables.)
Family Economics and Nutrition RevieW
Table 4. Percent of people meeting the dietary recommendations
for Healthy Eating Index components
Year
Components 1994 1995 1996 1994-96
Grains 21.9 23.0 22.2 22.4
Vegetables 29.4 30.8 31.8 30.7
Fruits 17.8 17.4 17.1 17.4
Milk 25.4 25.4 25.5 25.4
Meat 29.8 29.1 26.4 28.4
Total fat 36.8 36.5 37.5 36.9
Saturated fat 40.3 39.1 40.1 39.8
Cholesterol 71.2 68.8 71.9 70.6
Sodium 35.4 34.5 34.7 34.9
Variety 52.2 52.0 53.0 52.4
Note: For each component, a person received a maximum score of I 0 for meeting the dietary
recommendations.
Whites had a higher average HEI score
than African Americans had for 1994-96
(64 vs. 59). African Americans scored
particularly lower on the milk and fat
components of the HEI-an average of
4.2 and 6.2, respectively. Whites scored
an average of 5.7 and 6.8 on these two
components, respectively. (Data are not
shown in the tables.) There was almost
no difference in diet quality between
Hispanics and those not Hispanic.
REI scores increased modestly with
income. People with household income
at or below 50 percent of the poverty
thresholds had an average HEI score of
60 for 1994-96, and those with house­hold
income between 51 and 100 percent
of the poverty thresholds had an average
1998 Vol. 11 No.3
HEI score of 61.3 People with a house­hold
income over three times the poverty
thresholds scored higher on the HEI: 65.
People in higher income households
scored better on the saturated fat and
sodium components of the HEI than
did people in lower income households.
People with household income over
three times the poverty threshold had
an average score of 6.6 for saturated fat
and 7.9 for sodium; those with house­hold
income 50 percent or below the
poverty threshold had an average score
of 5.7 for saturated fat and 6.6 for sodium.
(Data are not shown in the tables.)
3Jn 1995, the poverty thresholds were $9,935 for
a family of two, $12,156 for a family of three,
$15,570 for a family offour, and $18,407for a
family of five.
African Americans
scored particularly
lower on the milk and
fat components of
the HEI ....
9
Table 5. Healthy Eating Index, overall mean scores by selected characteristics, 1994-96
Characteristic
Gender
Male
Female
Age/gender
Children 2-J
Children 4-6
Children 7-10
Females 11-14
Females 15-18
Females 19-50
Females 51+
Males 11-14
Males 15-18
Males 19-50
Males 51+
Race
White
African American
Asian/Pacific Islander American
Other1
Ethnicity
Hispanic
Not Hispanic
Income as % of poverty
0-50
51-100
101-130
131-200
201-299
300 plus
Education
4 years high school or less
Some college
4 years college
More than 4 years college
Region
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Urbanization
MSA,2 central city
MSA, outside central city
Non-MSA
1lncludes American Indians and Alaskan Natives.
2Metropolitan Statistical Area.
Index score
1994 1995 1996 1994-96
63.0 63.0 62.6 62.9
64.2 64.0 65.0 64.4
74.4 74.0 73.2 73.9
66.4 68.8 68.0 67.7
66.9 67.1 65.9 66.6
63.1 63.5 64.0 63.5
61.4 58.4 62.5 60.8
61.8 61.2 62.7 61.9
67.1 67.6 67.5 67.4
62.4 63.2 61.2 62.3
60.4 61.4 60.2 60.7
61.2 60.6 60.6 60.8
64.0 64.0 65.2 64.4
64.2 63.9 64.4 64.2
58.9 59.5 59.4 59.3
65.8 66.7 68.0 66. ~
64.8 64.5 64.0 64.4
63.8 64.5 63.2 63.8
63.6 63.4 63.9 63.6
58.8 61.2 60.7 60.2
60.5 61.4 60.5 60.8
61.5 61.6 61.6 61.6
62.8 61.4 63.7 62.6
63.8 63.6 63.6 63.7
65.0 64.9 65.0 65.0
60.8 60.6 61.0 60.8
63.5 63.0 63.2 63.2
66.6 65.4 67.1 66.4
67.6 68.1 68.4 68.0
65.3 65.0 65.8 65.4
64.1 64.0 65.2 64.4
61.7 61.7 61.3 61.6
64.5 64.6 64.7 64.6
64.0 63.2 64.3 63.8
64.5 64.6 64.7 64.6
61.0 61.6 61.6 61.4
Note: The overall HE! score ranges from 0-100. An HEI score over 80 implies a "good" diet, an HEI score between 51 and 80 implies a diet that "needs
improvement," and an HEI score less than 51 implies a "poor" diet.
lO Family Economics and Nutrition RevieW
Education level was positively associated
with a better diet. People with a high
school diploma or less had an average
HEI score of 61 for 1994-96, 5 to 7
points less than the scores for those
with 4 years of college (66) and those
with more than 4 years of college (68).
Education may be a predictor of people's
ability to translate nutrition guidance
information into better dietary practices.
Higher education is also associated with
higher earnings.
There were regional differences in diet
quality. People in the Northeast had the
highest HEI score, an average of 65 for
1994-96, and those in the South had the
lowest score, an average of 62. People
in the South scored lower on the total
fat component of the HEI than did people
in other regions (data not shown in the
tables). People who lived in an urban
area (a Metropolitan Statistical Area
in or outside a central city) also had a
slightly higher HEI score than did people
who lived in a nonurban area. This
could be because average income, which
is an indicator of one's ability to purchase
food, is lower in nonurban than in urban
areas.
Based on the demographic and socio­economic
characteristics examined, no
subgroup of the population had an average
HEI score greater than 80-a score that
implies a good diet. Certain segments of
the American population have a poorer
qu~ty diet, compared with other groups.
Thts underscores the need to tailor nutri­tion
policies and programs to meet the
n~ds of different segments of the popu­latiOn,
particularly those at a higher risk
of having a poor diet.
1998 Vol. 11 No.3
Table 6. Mean Body Mass Index by Healthy Eating Index rating
for adults, 1994-96
Age/gender
group Good Improvement Poor
1994
Females 19+ 25.1 25.6 26.0
Males 19+ 25.4 26.4 26.6
1995
Females 19+ 25.3 25.6 26.3
Males 19+ 25.6 26.5 26.5
1996
Females 19+ 24.8 25.7 26.4
Males 19+ 25.7 26.4 26.8
1994-96
Females 19+ 25.1 25.6 26.2
Males 19+ 25.6 26.4 26.6
Note: The overall HEI s~re ~ges ~m 0-100. An HEI score over 80 implies a "good" diet, an HEI
~con: between 51 and 80 unpbes a diet that "needs improvement," and an HEI score Jess than 51
1mphes a "poor" diet.
Healthy Eating Index and
Body Mass Index
Obesity is a significant health problem
in the United States. Physical measures
of appropriate body weight, such as the
Body Mass Index (BM1),4 are influenced
by eating patterns and physical activity.
For adults, a BMI of 25 is defined as the
upper boundary of healthy weight for
both men and women (4).
4BMI = weight(in kilograms)lheight(in metersl
For the CSFII, mean BMI values are based on self­reported
height and weight.
Both females and males age 19 and over
with a better diet had a lower BMI (table
6). This finding implies a connection
between people' s diet quality and their
BMI. People with a poor diet are more
likely to have a higher BMI, while people
with a good diet are more likely to have
a lower BMI. Although people with a
diet rated as good had a lower BMI than
others had, the BMI for many of these
people was slightly over 25. This is
because, in addition to eating patterns,
other factors such as physical activity
influence BMI.
11
Trends in the Healthy Eating
Index: 1989 vs. 1996
How has the quality of the American
diet changed from 1989 to 1996 (the
first and latest years the Index was
calculated) (table 7)? This comparison
examines overall HEI scores and Index
component scores based on 1-day intake
data. The 1989 HEI results are from the
previous HEI report ( 14 ).
The diets of Americans have slightly,
but significantly, improved since 1989.
However, people's diets still need to
improve further. In 1989, the HEI score
for all people was 61.5 .5 By 1996 it was
63.8-a 4-percent increase.6 Scores in­creased
for all HEI components from
1989 to 1996, with the exception of milk,
meat, and sodium. The decrease in the
sodium score may be related to the in­crease
in the grain score; grain products
contribute large amounts of dietary
sodium ( 11 ). Noticeable gains in HEI
component scores were made in satu­rated
fat and variety.
The increase in the HEI since 1989 may
be due to several factors. Since then
the Federal Government began various
nutrition initiatives-the Food Guide
Pyramid, revised Dietary Guidelines for
Americans, and the Nutrition Labeling
and Education Act. These initiatives
were aimed at improving the eating
habits of Americans. Also, since 1989,
many people have become more aware
of the health benefits of a better diet
through various nutrition campaigns.
5Based on !-day intake data (14).
6secause methods changed from 1989 to 1996 in
food group serving calculations, food group scores
in 1994-96 may be smaller than they would be
using 1989 methods. Hence, the improvement in
people's diets between 1989 and 1996 is likely
greater than reported here.
12
Table 7. Healthy Eating Index, overall and component mean
scores, 1989 versus 1996
1989 1996
Components
Grains 6.1 6.7
Vegetables 5.9 6.3
Fruits 3.7 3.8
Milk 6.2 5.4
Meat 7.1 6.4
Total fat 6.3 6.9
Saturated fat 5.4 6.4
Cholesterol 7.5 7.9
Sodium 6.7 6.3
Variety 6.6 7.6
Note: The overall HEI score ranges from 0-100. An HEI score over 80 implies a "good" diet, an HEI
score between 51 and 80 implies a diet that "needs improvement." and an HEI score less than 51
implies a "poor" diet. HEI component scores range from 0-10. High component scores indicate
intakes close to recommended ranges or amounts; low component scores indicate less compliance
with recommended ranges or amounts. For 1989, scores are based on 1-day intake data.
Conclusions
Americans' eating patterns, as measured
by the Healthy Eating Index (HEI), have
slightly, but significantly improved since
1989. Although this trend is in the
desired direction, the diets of most
Americans still need improvement. In
1994-96, only 12 percent of Americans
had a diet that could be considered
good.
From 1989 to 1996, the average scores
increased for 7 of the 10 HEI components:
Grains, vegetables, fruits, total fat, satu­rated
fat, cholesterol, and variety. Grains,
vegetables, and fruits are generally high
in fiber and low in total fat, saturated
fat, and cholesterol, thereby influencing
these latter three components. Although
fruit scores increased, in 1996 only 17
percent of all Americans ate the recom­mended
number of fruit servings on a
given day.
From 1989 to 1996, the average score
for the milk, meat, and sodium compo­nents
declined. In 1996, only 26 percent
of people consumed the recommended
number of servings of milk products on
a given day. Before then, there had been
a decline in milk consumption and a
simultaneous increase in carbonated soft
drink consumption ( 10 ). The decrease in
the sodium score is likely related to the
increase in the grains score because
many grain products, such as breads,
are high in sodium.
One of the factors that influence dietary
quality is income. The impact of income
on the ability to purchase a variety of
Family Economics and Nutrition Review
foods is evident in the variety scores for
different income groups. People with a
higher income are able to afford more
variety-more types of fruits and vege­tables-
in their diets, and their HEI
scores tend to increase. People with a
household income 50 percent of the
poverty thresholds or below had an
average variety score of 6.9 for 1994-96;
whereas, those with a household income
of 300 percent of the poverty thresholds
or more had an average variety score of
7.9 (data not shown in the tables).
Education, age, gender, race, and area
of residence also influence diet quality.
People with 4 years of college have a
better diet than those without. People
with more education may acquire more
nutrition information, which improves
the quality of their diets ( 18). In general,
children less than 11 years of age have
a better diet than others: perhaps parents
are more attentive to children's diets.
Adults over 50 years of age have better
diets than other adults have, and females
tend to have a slightly more healthful
diet than males do. African Americans
and people living in the South and
non urban areas have a poorer quality
diet than do their respective counterparts.
These findings provide an awareness
and better understanding of the types
of dietary changes needed to improve
people's eating patterns. USDA and
other Federal Departments conduct
various nutrition education and promc:r
tion activities designed to improve
people's diets. USDA also has a number
of partnerships with the private sector to
achieve this goal. The HEI is an impor­tant
tool that can be used to assess the
effect of these activities and to provide
guidance to better target and design
nutrition education and public health
interventions.
1998 Vol. 11 No.3
References
1. American Dietetic Association. 1995 (July 19). Nutrition experts respond to new
government report card on American diet. News Release.
2. Basiotis, P.P., Welsh, S.O., Cronin, FJ., Kelsay, J.L., and Mertz, W. 1987. Number
of days of food intake records required to estimate individual and group nutrient
intakes with defined confidence. The Journal of Nutrition 117(9):1638-1641.
3. Bowman, SA, Lino, M., Gerrior, SA, and Basiotis, P.P. 1998. The Healthy Eating
Index: 1994-96. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and
Promotion. CNPP-5.
4. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. 1995. Report of the Dietary Guidelines
Advisory Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 1995. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service.
5. Frazao, E. 1996. The American diet: A costly health problem. FoodReview
19( 1 ):2-6.
6. Huijbregts, P., Feskens, E., Rasanen, L., Fidanza, F., Nissinen, A., Menotti, A.,
and Kromhout, D. 1997. Dietary pattern and 20 year mortality in elderly men in
Finland, Italy, and the Netherlands: Longitudinal cohort study. British Medical Journal
315:1-10.
7. Kennedy, E.T., Ohls, J., Carlson, S., and Fleming, K. 1995. The Healthy Eating
Index: Design and applications. Journal of the American Dietetic Association
95(10):1103-1108.
8. National Research Council, Committee on Diet and Health, Food and Nutrition
Board. 1989. Diet and Health: Implications for Reducing Chronic Disease Risk.
National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
9. National Research Council, Subcommittee on the Tenth Edition of the RDAs,
Food and Nutrition Board. 1989. Recommended Dietary Allowances. (lOth ed.).
National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
13
10. Putnam, J. and Gerrior, S. 1997. Americans consuming more grains and vegetables,
less saturated fat. FoodReview 20( 3 ):2-12.
11. Saltos, E. and Bowman, S. 1997 (May). Dietary guidance on sodium: Should we
take it with a grain of salt? Nutrition Insights No.3. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion.
12. Shaw, A. and Davis, C. 1994. The Dietary Guidelines focus on reducing excessive
intakes. FoodReview 17(1):4-7.
13. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 1998 (February).
1994-96 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals and 1994-96 Diet and
Health Knowledge Survey and related materials [CD-ROM].
14. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion.
1995. The Healthy Eating Index. CNPP-1.
15. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information Service. 1992.
The Food Guide Pyramid. Home and Garden Bulletin Number 252.
16. U.S. Department of Agricul'ture and U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. 1995. Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
(4th ed.). U.S. Department of Agriculture. Home and Garden Bulletin No. 232.
17. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1988. The Surgeon General's
Report on Nutrition and Health. DHHS (PHS) 88-50210, Washington, DC.
18. Variyam, J.N., Blaylock, J., Smallwood, D., and Basiotis, P.P. 1998. USDA's
Healthy Eating Index and Nutrition Information. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service. Technical Bulletin No. 1866.
14 Family Economics and Nutrition Review
1998 Vol. 11 No.3
The Influence of
Commercialism on the
Food Purchasing Behavior of
Children and Teenage Youth
Vivica Kraak
David L. Pelletier
Division of Nutritional Sciences
Cornell University
The nutritional well-being of children is a high priority, given our knowledge
relating nutrition to health risks in this group and the importance of early
childhood experiences· in forming lifetime behavioral patterns. Children
are becoming consumers at younger ages, and a variety of influences and
experiences shapes their consumer habits. This paper reviews the marketing
literature to gain insight into the purchasing power, habits, and purchase
influence of children and teenage youth and also to examine the influence
of commercialism on their food purchasing behavior. The findings are discussed
within the context of building young consumers' information-processing skills
in order to help them make informed dietary choices in the marketplace.
triving to achieve optimal
nutritional well-being among
children is a high priority,
given our knowledge relating
nutrition to disease risks and the impor­tance
of early childhood experiences
in forming lifetime behavioral patterns.
The eating patterns of children and teen­agers
have changed significantly over
the past two decades. Children and teen­age
youth are eating more frequently,
getting a greater proportion of their
nutrient intake from snacks, eating more
meals away from home, and consuming
more fast food (4,16). Nationwide surveys
show that food consumption patterns of
most American children do not meet the
Dietary Guidelines. The average diet
of American children exceeds the
recommendations for fat, saturated fat,
and sodium, and childhood obesity is a
growing problem across all income strata
( 16). Thus, it appears unlikely that the
goals for children's diets for fat and
saturated fat set forth in the Healthy
People Objectives 2000 will be reached
by the year 2000 ( 16).
Children are becoming consumers at
younger and younger ages, and a variety
of influences and experiences shapes
their consumer habits. Of particular
interest and concern are factors that
affect their food- and nutrition-related
15
decisions and behavior. Many factors
interplay to affect children's and teenage
youths' consumer decisionmaking skills
and behavior that can directly influence
their dietary choices and eating patterns.
The family has been identified as one of
the most influential environmental factors
affecting food- and nutrition-related
decisions and behavior, operating at the
levels of parent modeling and parent­child
interactions (7).
Recent changes in American family
structure, intrafamilial decisionmaking,
and women's work patterns have had
a profound influence on the growing
economic power, control, and inde­pendence
of children and teenage youth,
with the result that they now exert a
stronger influence on family decision­making
than their cohorts did in previous
years (2 1 ). Other factors that may poten­tially
affect children's and teenage youths'
consumer habits are peer influence,
ethnicity and culture, the school environ­ment,
and commercialism (4,21,25).
Commercialism is broadly defined as the
vehicle of communication that creates
consumer awareness and induces the
desire for specific products; its goal is
to increase consumer demand and com­mercial
profit (25). Commercial pressures
on children and teenage youth may
encourage continual consumption and
acquisition at the expense of informed
consumer decisionmaking and environ­mental
sensitivity (2). Children with
poorly developed consumer decision­making
skills are unprepared to make
wise purchases as adults, a situation
that has serious implications for the
consumer habits and nutritional health
of future generations.
16
The purpose of this paper is to review
the general purchasing power, purchase
influence, and habits of children, ages
4-11, and teenage youth, ages 12-19.
The review is followed by an examina­tion
of the influence of commercialism
on food purchasing behavior. In particular,
this paper reviews the findings and
trends from the marketing literature,
rather than from the nutrition education
literature, in order to share the marketing
perspective with nutrition professionals.
Specifically, it aims to integrate what
has been learned from consumer behavior
research into nutrition education inter­ventions
so that young consumers can
make informed choices and purchases
in the marketplace. The findings are
discussed within the broader context
of consumer socialization.
Purchasing Power, Purchase
Influence, and Habits
Descriptive data from marketing surveys
provide useful information about children's
and teenage youths' amount and sources
of income, as well as their saving and
spending habits. Data from the 1987-88
National Survey of Families and House­holds
indicate that about 47 percent of
teenagers ages 12-18 living in two­parent
families receive an allowance,
and an estimated 62 percent report
earned income (9). According to the
1990 Consumer Expenditure Survey,
teenage youth, ages 14-19, employed
outside the home had mean annual
earnings of$2,611 in two-earner, two­parent
families, compared with $2,704
in one-earner, two-parent families.
These results suggest that the direct
monetary contribution of teenage youths'
employment on middle-class family
income and expenditures appears to
be minimal (9), compared with their
influence on family purchases.
In 1989, the income of 4- to 12-year-olds
averaged $4.42 each week or about $230
each year (22). Between 1989 and 1991,
the income of this age group increased
82 percent despite an economic recession.
This is a significant figure to marketers,
because the majority of children can use
most of their money for discretionary
purposes (22). Children receive more
than 80 percent of their income from the
family and the remainder from other
sources such as outside jobs. Income
sources include gifts from parents, rela­tives,
and friends; household chores;
and work done outside the home (20).
The purchasing power of children and
teenage youth increases significantly
beyond what they earn or receive as
gifts when their "purchase influence" 1
is considered (27).
Each year the purchase influence of
children increases with age: $15 billion
for 3- to 5-year-olds, $45 billion for 6-
to 8-year-olds, $65 billion for 9- to 11-
year-olds, $80 billion for 12- to 14-year­olds,
and $90 billion for 15- to 17 -year­olds
(table I) (27). Teenage youth are
spending more of the family dollar as
they take on increasing responsibilities
in the home. They are exerting more
independence than in the past because
a growing number of them have a car,
a job, dual-earner parents, and access to
family credit cards. The total amount of
family income teenagers spend increases
as they get older ( 12).
1 Purchase influence is a term used by marketers
and is defined as a child's or teenager's influence
on family purchases. Children's items include toys
and clothes; housing i terns, televisions and stereo
equipment; and family items, vacations and food.
Family Economics and Nutrition Review
Table 1. The spending power of children and teenage youth
Ages
3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-17
Spending
$/week/person $2.40 $3.80 $4.80 $22.00 $43.00
$ billion/year $1.50 $2.20 $2.80 $12.00 $23.00
Purchase influence
of segment
$billion $15.00 $45.00 $65.00 $80.00 $90.00
Source: Stipp, H., 1993, New ways to reach children, American Demographics 15:50-56.
Children make independent shopping
trips, and their saving and spending habits
differ by gender. Nearly 75 percent of
7- to 9-year-olds make an average of
two independent trips to the store each
week. A 10-year-old averages 5 visits
each week to 5 different stores, repre­senting
250 store visits each year (20).
Children save an average of 40 percent
of their income. Girls and boys ages
4-12 have significantly different saving
and spending habits (22). Although girls
have a lower income and expenditures
than boys have, girls are in stores more
often. Girls receive lower weekly incomes
than boys receive ($7.66 versus $8.87);
the greatest difference is attributed to a
lower weekly allowance. However, girls
save about 25 percent more than boys
save. Compared with boys, girls go to
stores by themselves less frequently, a
weekly average of .84 times, compared
with 1.11 times for boys. On a weekly
basis, girls, however, visit stores more
often with their parents, averaging 2.65
visits, compared with 2.34 visits for
boys.
1998 Vol. 11 No. 3
Food Purchasing Behavior
Because the current generation of young
consumers is making more decisions
than previous generations of children
and teenage youth, they are influencing
more family decisions concerning food
( 30 ). Findings from the 1989 USA
Weekend/Roper Report on Consumer
Decision-Making in American Families
suggest that 78 percent of children and
teenage youth influence where the family
goes for fast food; 55 percent, the choice
of restaurant for dinner; 50 percent, the
type of food the family eats at home;
and 31 percent, the specific product
brands that families purchase. Parents
are two to three times more likely to
name a child-not themselves-as the
family expert for selection of fast food,
snack food, restaurants, and new break­fast
cereals ( 30 ).
Another survey confirms these findings.
It indicates that nearly 50 percent of
parents believe that meal and grocery
choices and restaurant selection are
influenced by their children ( 3 ). When
Parents are two to
three times more
likely to name a child­not
themselves-as
the family expert for
selection of fast food,
snack food, restaurants,
and new breakfast
cereals.
17
asked to describe the barriers that inter­fere
with their family changing to a
healthful diet, parents identified two:
varying food preferences of family
members and children's desire to eat
advertised foods ( 3 ).
Almost half of family food expenditures
(46 percent) are for food and beverages
served outside the home, with 34 percent
of the total food dollar spent on fast foods
( 4 ). When families eat at home and their
food has been prepared elsewhere, they
support a $45.5 billion restaurant take-out
market (4). Marketers have identified
several characteristics children look for
in their favorite restaurants: Best food,
best toys and prizes, best meal packs,
the most fun, best playgrounds, and the
opportunity to accompany friends with
their parents ( 11 ).
McNeal investigated the total sales,
percent of sales influenced by children,
and the volume of child-influenced sales
in billions of 1990 dollars (21 ). These
findings suggest that on average, children
influence 17 percent of family spending
in 62 product categories totaling $132
billion. At least one-third of the industry
sales of fast foods, candy and gum,
packaged cookies, hot cereals, juices
and juice drinks, peanut butter, frozen
pizza, and toaster products are influ­enced
by children (table 2) (21 ).
Television commercials and prime-time
programs have been identified as impor­tant
influences on the types of food that
children ask their parents to buy for them
and the food they buy for themselves.
Sweetened breakfast cereals, candy,
desserts, low-nutrient beverages, and
salty snack foods are the most commonly
advertised products to children and are
also the items most frequently requested
of parents (6,14,17,28,29).
18
Table 2. Selected food-related product categories, percent of sales
influenced by children, and volume of child-influenced sales ($ billions
of 1990 dollars)
Total industry Percent of sales Volume of child-sales
influenced by influenced sales
Category ($ billions) children ($billions)
Bakery goods $26.10 10% $2.61
Candy and gum 10.43 33 3.44
Cereals (cold) 6.90 20 1.38
Cereals (hot) 0.74 50 .037
Cookies (packaged) 4.30 40 1.72
Dairy goods 40.20 10 4.02
Fast foods 65.00 35 22.75
Fruits and vegetables
Canned 3.00 20 0.60
Fresh 43.40 6 2.60
Ice cream 7.60 23 1.75
Juices and juice drinks 10.00 33 3.30
Meats
Packaged 17.10 13 2.20
Fresh 43.10 10 4.30
Microwave meals 2.30 30 .069
Peanut butter 1.40 40 .056
Pizza (frozen) 0.92 40 0.37
Salty snacks 8.30 25 2.08
Soda 46.60 30 13.98
Toaster products 0.25 45 0.11
Yogurt 1.20 10 0.12
Total $338.84* $67.49**
*This figure represents 44.1 percent of total sales in 19 of 62 product categories.
**This figure represents 50.8 percent of the total volume of child-influencedsales in 19 of 62 product
categories.
Source: McNeal, J. U., 1992, The littlest shoppers, American Demographics 1 4(2):48-53.
Family Economics and Nutrition Review
Isler et al. explored the nature and
frequency of products and services that
children ages 3-11 requested of their
mothers during a 28-day period, how
and where they made purchase requests,
and mothers' perceptions of the key
reasons for children's specific requests
(14). Results suggest the following:
• Preschool children make signifi­cantly
more requests than made
by older, elementary school-age
children.
• Food accounts for over half (54.5
percent) of total requests made by
children, representing snack foods
(23.9 percent), candy (16.8 percent),
cereal (6.8 percent), fast foods (3.6
percent), and fruit and vegetables
(3.4 percent).
• Children's desire for cereal and
snack foods remains constant
across all age categories.
• Children request more presweetened
cereals than other types, accounting
for nearly two-thirds (64.9 percent)
of all cereal requests.
• Sugared dessert products account
for most snack items requested,
followed by beverages and salty
snacks such as chips and pretzels.
• Most of the older children's requests
are made at home; whereas, younger
children tend to make requests
while shopping with their mothers.
• Mothers indicate that seeing the
product in the store is the primary
reason younger children request
candy, but the mothers believe that
several influences besides television
advertising account for older chil­dren's
purchase requests ( 14 ).
In 8 of I 0 cases, the supermarket is the
first store that children visit. This is
where more than 75 percent of children
make their first purchase request;
1998 Vol. lJ No. 3
56 percent, their first self-selection; and
20 percent, their first assisted purchase.
A discount store is the most likely site
of a child's first independent purchase,
where 43 percent of children buy their
first item unassisted. Almost half (47
percent) of children's in-store requests
are for ready-to-eat cereals, and 30 per­cent
of first product requests are for
snack items such as candy, cookies, and
frozen desserts. Marketers believe that
parents often give these items to their
children as rewards. Hence marketers
reinforce this practice through targeted
advertising (23 ).
To increase their share of the future adult
market, product manufacturers and
advertisers share the common objective
of building brand loyalty among children
and teenage youth ( 12). Market research
reveals that children and teenage youth
identify products more frequently by
brand name rather than food category
( 1,10). Product usage information also
indicates that children have significant
influence over what brands are bought
for them. One study revealed that 65
percent of mothers shopping for food
and beverages divided their purchases
equally between store brands and national
brands. When a child influenced a pur­chase,
the child requested a national
brand by name 80 percent of the time
and a product by category only 20 per­cent
of the time ( 1 ).
Differences in age and cognitive devel­opment
appear to affect the purchasing
behavior of young consumers in the
marketplace. When a group of 4- to I 0-
year-old children were asked to classify
cereal and beverage products based on
either perceptual attributes (e.g., product
shape, color, or package size) or under­lying
attributes (e.g., flavor, sweetness,
and nutritional content), younger children
used perceptual attributes to group
products; whereas, older children relied
more on underlying attributes. Extending
these findings to a marketing context,
advertisers might expect younger children
to use perceptual cues and older children
to use underlying cues to classify brands.
Marketers commonly use both types of
attributes to market products to children
and teenagers because there are few real
differences between brand products ( 1 5).
Among 16- to 17 -year-olds, girls spend
more of the family income than boys do
because girls shop for groceries more
frequently . Over half of the 29 million
12- to 19-year-oldgirls in the United
States shop for part or all of the families'
groceries each week. Teenage boys are
less likely than teenage girls to shop for
groceries. More than two-thirds of teen­agers
have working mothers, and half of
their mothers work full-time ( 12).
A geodemographic cluster analysis
suggests a strong relationship between
working mothers and teenage grocery
shopping ( 12). Upper and lower income
urban households, as well as lower income
households in small towns, are above
average in the proportion of mothers
of teenagers employed full-time. These
clusters also have the highest percentage
of teenagers who do the grocery shopping
for the family , each month spending,
on average, $100 of the family budget.
Nearly 85 percent of teenagers who do
the family grocery shopping say they
shop at a large supermarket where a
full range of brand products is available.
Fifteen percent shop at convenience
stores or small family-owned stores.
Because a majority of teens are making
food-related brand choices for their
families, advertisers are using teen­targeted
media to build or reinforce
brand loyalty during the teenage years
( 12).
19
20
Market research
reveals that children
and teenage youth
identify products
more frequently by
brand name rather
than food category.
Implications
Given the widespread influence of
commercialism on the purchasing
power, purchase influence, and habits
of children and teenage youth, researchers
believe that building children's and
teenage youths' consumer information
processing skills is essential if they are
expected to make informed choices and
purchases in the marketplace ( 31 ). A
knowledge of consumer information­processing
skills is useful to understand
the process that children and teenage
youth use to make consumer decisions.
By taking a broad approach to improve
children's and teenagers' overall ability
to act as informed consumers in the
marketplace, nutritionists can work
collaboratively with potential allies and
stakeholders who are also interested in
building or strengthening relevant skills.
The desirable result is to influence posi­tively
children's and teenagers' overall
consumer behavior, including their food­and
nutrition-related behavior.
Most children will master the basic
consumer skills they will use all of their
lives before they start school (23 ). Prior
to formal schooling, children have already
acquired consumption experiences, atti­tudes,
and motives for their purchases.
Using their own and other's experiences,
children learn the value of money, what
money can buy, how to shop, and what
to choose (23 ).
McNeal proposes a five-stage process
that children go through as they become
consumers: Observing, making requests,
making selections, making assisted
purchases, and making independent
purchases (23 ). Several factors shape
children's consumer habits at different
ages, and their consumer behavior can
be described by age and developmental
patterns (24 ). Elementary school-age
children are in a stage of mastering
consumer literacy skills. Older children
move from perceiving information to
inferring what the information means
and move to progressively learning the
consumer decisionmaking sequence that
provides the basis for their marketplace
interactions as they become adults (24 ).
Consumer socialization refers to the
continual process by which children
acquire knowledge and skills and develop
attitudes relevant to their present and
future behavior as consumers. Consumer
socialization is best understood in the
context of children developing abilities
to select, evaluate, and use information
relevant to purchasing. These abilities are
also referred to as consumer information­processing
skills, examples of which are
understanding the purpose of television
commercials, differentiating between
product brands and attributes, and
demonstrating how to spend and save
discretionary income effectively ( 31 ).
The stages of the information processing
model are exposure, attention, compre­hension,
retention and retrieval, and
decisionmaking (5). The information­processing
sequence that a consumer
typically goes through consists of envi­ronmental
influences, initial processing,
central processing, and outcome (see
figure). The two major environmental
influences on a child's purchase decision
that are identified in this example are
the family and television; many others
exist. Initial and central processing
describes the different cognitive abilities
that children use to acquire information
(e.g., searching for it, listening to it,
selecting what to use, structuring it,
interpreting it, and using it). The purchase
decision refers to the outcome of a
child's decision. A decision to make a
purchase requires the child to design a
strategy to obtain what is desired ( 31 ).
Family Economics and Nutrition Review
An inforr'natiot)-ng model of a specific f¥Chase decision
Environment Initial Processing Central ProctSsin'g Outcome
information
search
interpretation &
comprehension
purchase
·~ ,decision
~ attention ..,.. structuring
information
information evaluation
selection
Understanding how consumers process
information can assist in designing edu­cation
strategies that will help consumers'
food decisionmaking (5). Because
children are active participants in the
consumer socialization process, it is
important to know why they listen to
some messages and not others and how
environmental factors influence how
they process information. Consumer
socialization research has helped to
identify children's abilities to process
the information they receive from the
marketplace and has helped to identify
gaps in their knowledge and skills that
can be addressed within a variety of
environmental settings, including home
and school (31).
For instance, children and teenagers
who shop for themselves and for others
require different types of shopping
skills. Some skills can be learned by
observing and imitating the behavior
1998 Vol. 11 No.3
of others, but most require underlying
cognitive skills in order to understand
goal-oriented shopping. Some of these
skills develop naturally in children;
whereas, other skills must be taught.
According to the marketing literature,
children and teenagers require a range
of cognitive skills to be "effective"
shoppers, such as classification (e.g.,
the ability to read and express oneself);
arithmetic (e.g., the ability to read
numerals, to know ordinal values, to
divide, and to count money); and social
cognition (e.g., the ability to identify the
sales representative and cashier) (26).
Nonmarketers, however, may value
different types of skills for children and
youth to be "effective" shoppers, such
as being able to evaluate information
critically, to make the wisest purchase
among many options, and to buy based
on need instead of fashion or product
promotion.
A difference exists between what a
child ought to be able to do based on
his/her level of cognitive development
or age and the skills that a child actually
applies within a specific context. In one
instance, even though fourth graders
knew how to use division to calculate
unit prices, the majority did not apply
this skill in a consumer context. Neither
are adult consumers always aware of, or
use, unit prices when making purchase
decisions (26).
Building Young Consumers'
Information-Processing Skills
The recent literature in consumer behavior
and nutrition education notes the impor­tance
of teaching children consumer
skills (5,18,26). Parents who teach
consumer skills to their children can
increase young consumers' appreciation
for the challenges families face. Shopping
trips are an opportunity for parents to
teach their children valuable consumer
skills (5). Parents can help children
learn consumer skills by having them
make a list of items that fit within a
budget; visiting stores with familiar
layouts; selecting items from short shop­ping
lists; allowing them to spend small
amounts of money; helping them make
comparisons on the basis of values
other than unit price; and purchasing
the food that the family needs for one
or several days following the guideline
that each day's meal should be nutrition­ally
balanced and fit within the family's
food budget (26 ). The benefits of these
recommendations will depend, of course,
upon the quality of a parent's nutrition
knowledge and consumer skills.
21
Parents appear to be especially interested
in promoting good nutrition habits for
their children ( 4, 7). However, parents
need knowledge, tools, incentives, and
environmental support to provide health­ful
food choices and to help teach sound
eating practices to their children ( 4 ).
Nutrition educators and other informa­tion
multipliers can encourage parents
to participate in convenient and intensive
education efforts involving " hands on"
activities that they can share with their
children at home and in school ( 3 ).
Parents can also take on greater respon­sibility
to discuss with their children the
purpose of advertising, how to analyze
commercial messages, how to apply
consumer information-processing skills
in the marketplace, and even limiting
television viewing as needed ( 13 ).
School-based interventions designed to
improve young consumers' information­processing
skills can be made at multiple
levels. Consumer education may begin
at school in the early grades when chil­dren's
learning and behavior pertaining
to food- and nutrition-related decisions
can be influenced.
According to the recommendations pre­sented
at the National Action Conference
on Healthy Eating for Children, schools;
school districts; and local, State, and
Federal governments must commit
resources to comprehensive, school­based
nutrition education programming
where healthful eating practices are
integrated into other core school subjects.
Hence behavioral skills can be established
among elementary school-age children
and built upon with more abstract problem­solving
skills for older children and
teenagers ( 18 ).
22
School teachers need comprehensive
knowledge of the content of nutrition
and fitness education and curricula for
integrating nutrition and fitness into
broader concepts such as well ness (1 8).
School curricula also need to encourage
media literacy to help students become
critical viewers of television, movies,
and advertising (2). Multiple instruc­tional
techniques (e.g., experiential and
interactive learning and group problem
solving) can be used to convey consumer
information-processing skills and health­ful
eating principles and practices to
children and teenagers (2,1 3,26).
Curricula have been developed to
assist children at specific grade levels
to understand, assess, and evaluate the
intent and sources of advertisements,
with special emphasis on improving
food purchases in the marketplace ( 19 ).
Nevertheless, comprehensive evaluations
of these curricula are needed to determine
effectiveness, and multiple, complemen­tary
approaches will be required to raise
children's awareness and build consumer
information-processing skills, given
the growing and lasting presence of
commercialism in the lives of young
consumers. Nutrition research conducted
with adult consumers indicates that this
group wants nutrition information, but it
is often unutilized because it is difficult
to use, not readily available, or not
perceived as being useful or new (8).
Summary
A va,riety of sociocultural, economic,
and demographic factors has had a
significant influence on the growing
economic power, control, and indepen­dence
exerted by children and teenage
youth and also influences their dietary
choices and eating patterns. Given the
pervasive influence of commercialism
in the lives of young consumers and
their increasing purchasing power,
purchase influence, and habits, special
efforts are required to help them make
informed choices and purchases in the
marketplace. Consumer information­processing
theory can be a helpful frame­work
for future research and practice.
Building children's and teenage youths'
consumer information-processing skills
is one strategy, when combined with
parental guidance and environmental
support (including government and
industry partnerships), that can help
young consumers make healthful dietary
choices before undesirable dietary
behaviors have developed.
Family Economics and Nutrition Review
References
l. Arnott, N. 1993. Kids are a brand manager's best friend. Sales and Marketing Management
145:18.
2. Consumer's Union Education Services. 1990. Selling America's Kids: Commercial Pressure
on Kids in the 90's. Consumers Union of the United States, Inc., NY.
3. Crockett, S.J., Perry, C.L., and Pirie, P. 1989. Nutrition intervention strategies preferred by
parents: Results of a marketing survey. Journal of Nutrition Education 21:90-94.
4. Crockett, S.J. and Sims, L.S. 1995. Environmental influences on children's eating. Journal of
Nutrition Education 27:235-249.
5. Cronin, F.J., Achterberg, C., and Sims, L.S. 1993. Translating nutrition facts into action:
Helping consumers use the new food label. Nutrition Today September/October:30-36.
6. Galst, J. and White, M. 1976. The unhealthy persuader: The reinforcing value of television
and children's purchase-influencing attempts at the supermarket. Child Development 47: I 089-
1096.
7. Gillespie, A. H. 1989. Comparison of family interaction patterns related to food and nutrition.
Journal of the American Dietetic Association 89:509-512.
8. Glanz, K., Hewitt, A.M., and Rudd, J. 1992. Consumer behavior and nutrition education:
An integrated review. Journal of Nutrition Education 24:267-277.
9. Guadagno, M.A.N. 1992. Impact of children's employment on the economic status of two­parent
families. Family Economics Review 5(4 ):9-16.
10. Guber, S.S. 1987. The teenage mind. American Demographics 9:42-44.
II. Guber, S.S. and Berry, J. 1993. War stories from the sandbox: What kids say. Brandweek
34:26-30.
12. Hauser, G. 1986. How teenagers spend the family dollar. American Demographics 8:38-41 .
13. Hite, R.E. and Eck, R. 1987. Advertising to children: Attitudes of business vs. consumers.
Journal of Advertising Research 27(5):40-53.
14. Isler, L., Popper, H.T., and Ward, S. 1987. Children's purchase requests and parental
responses: Results from a diary study. Journal of Advertising Research 27(5):28-39.
15. John, D.R. and Sujan, M. 1990. Age difference in product categorization. Journal of Consumer
Research 16:452-460.
1998 Vol. 11 No.3
23
16. Kennedy, E. and Goldberg, J. 1995. What are American children eating? Implications for
public policy. Nutrition Reviews 53:111-126.
17. Kotz, K. and Story, M. 1994. Food advertisements during children's Saturday morning
television programming: Are they consistent with dietary recommendations? Journal of the
American Dietetic Association 94: 1296-1300.
18. Lytle, L. and Achterberg, C. 1995. Changing the diet of America's children. Journal of
Nutrition Education 27:250-260.
19. Mapes, M.C. and Thonney, P. 1985. Nutrition Comes Alive: The Food Peddlers-Level].
Nutrition Educator's Guide. Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
20. McNeal, J. 1990. Children as customers. American Demographics 12(9 ):36-39.
21. McNeal, J. U. 1992. The littlest shoppers. American Demographics 14(2 ):48-53.
22. McNeal, J.U. 1992. Growing up in the market. American Demographics 14( 10):46-50.
23. McNeal, J.U. and Yeh, C.H. 1993. Born to shop. American Demographics 15(6):34-39.
24. Morton, L.W. 1994. Kid's in the Marketplace: Preschoolers, Kindergarten to Preteen,
Teens in the Marketplace, and Getting the Money to Spend (series). Department of Consumer
Economics and Housing, Cornell Cooperative Extension, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
25. Morton, L.W. 1994-95. Commercialism, materialism, and young consumers. Cornell
Consumer Close-Ups 4:1-6. Department of Consumer Economics and Housing, Cornell
Cooperative Extension, Cornell University,lthaca, NY.
26. Reece, B. B. 1986. Children and shopping: Some public policy questions. Journal of
Public Policy and Marketing 5:185-194.
27. Stipp, H. 1993. New ways to reach children. American Demographics 15:50-56.
28. Story, M. and Faulkner, P. 1990. The prime time diet: A content analysis of eating behavior
and food messages in television program content and commercials. American Journal of
Public Health 80:738-740.
29. Sylvester, G.P., Achterberg, C., and Williams, J. 1995. Children's television and nutrition:
Friends or foes? Nutrition Today 30:6-15.
30. USA Weekend!fhe Roper Organization. 1989. A USA Weekend/Roper Report On
Consumer Decision-Making in American Families. New York, NY.
31. Ward, S., Wackman, D., and Wartella, E. 1977. How Children Learn to Buy: The
Development of Consumer Information-Processing Skills. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills,
CA.
24 Family Economics and Nutrition Review
1998 Vol. JJ No.3
Expenditures on Children
by Families, 1997
Mark Lino
Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
Since 1960, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has provided estimates of
expenditures on children from birth through age 17. This article presents the
most recent estimates for husband-wife and single-parent families. Data are
from the 1990-92 Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE). The Consumer Price
Index is used to update income and expenditures to 1997 dollars. Data and
methods used in calculating child-rearing expenses are described. Estimates
are provided for major components of the budget by age of child, family
income, and region of residence. Expenses on the younger child in a two­child,
husband-wife household for the overall United States averaged $5,820
to $13,260 in 1997, depending on the child's age and family income group.
Adjustment factors for number of children in the household are also pr<Nided.
Results of this study can be used in developing State child support guidelines
and foster care payments and in developing family educational programs.
ince 1960, the U.S. Depart­ment
of Agriculture (USDA)
has provided estimates of
expenditures on children
from birth through age 17. These esti­mates
are used in setting child support
guidelines and foster care payments and
in developing educational programs on
parenthood. This study presents the latest
child-rearing expense estimates, which
are based on 1990-92 expenditure data
updated to 1997 dollars. The study pre­sents
these new estimates for husband­wife
and single-parent families. It briefly
describes the data and methods used in
calculating child-rearing expenses 1 and
then discusses the estimated expenses.
1The report "Expenditures on Children by Families:
1997 Annual Report'' provides a more detailed
description of the data and methods. To obtain a
copy, contact USDA, Center for Nutrition Policy
and Promotion, 1120 20th Street NW, Suite 200
North Lobby, Washington, DC 20036 (telephone:
202-418-2312).
The estimates are provided for the overall
United States. To adjust partially for price
differentials and varying patterns of
expenditures, the child-rearing expense
estimates for husband-wife families are
also provided for urban areas in four
regions (Northeast, South, Midwest,
and West) and rural areas throughout the
United States.2 For single-parent families,
estimates are provided only for the over­all
United States because of sample size
limitations. Expenditures on children
are estimated for the major budgetary
components: Housing, food, transporta­tion,
clothing, health care, child care and
education, and miscellaneous goods and
services. The box describes each expendi­ture
component.
2Urban areas are defined as Metropolitan Statistical
Areas (MSA's) and other places of 2,500 or more
people outside and MSA; rural areas are places of
Jess than 2,500 people outside an MSA.
25
Categories of Household Expenditures
Housing expenses consists of shelter (mortgage interest, property taxes, or rent; maintenance and repairs; and insurance),
utilities (gas, electricity, fuel~ telephone, and water), and house furnishings and equipment (furniture, floor coverings, major
appliances, and small appliances). For homeowners, housing expenses do not include mortgage principal payments; in the
Consumer Expenditure Survey, such payments are considered to be part of savings. So, total dollars allocated to housing by
homeowners are underestimated in this report.
Food expenses consists of food and nonalcoholic beverages purchased at grocery, convenience, and specialty stores, including
purchases with food stamps; dining at restaurants; and household expenditures on school meals. ·
Transportation expenses consists ofthe net outlay on purchase of new and used vehicles, vehicle finance charges, gasollile
and motor oil, maintenance and repairs, insurance, and public transportation.
Clothing expenses consists of children's apparel such as diapers, shirts, pants, dresses, and suits; footwear; and clothing services
such as dry cleaning, alterations and repair, and storage.
Health care expenses consists of medical and dental services not covered by insurance, prescription drugs and medical supplies
not covered by insurance, and health insurance premiums not paid by employer or other organizations.
Child care and education expenses consists of day care tuition and supplies; baby-sitting; and elementary and high school
tuition, books, and supplies.
Miscellaneous expenses consists of personal care items, entertainment, and reading materials.
Source of Data
The 1990-92 Consumer Expenditure
Survey (CE) is used to estimate expendi­tures
on children. Administered by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the
CE collects information on socio­demographic
characteristics, income,
and expenditures of households.
The CE has been conducted annually
since 1980 and interviews about 5,000
households each quarter over a 1-year
period. Each quarter is deemed an inde­pendent
sample by BLS; thus, the total
number of households in the 1990-92
survey is about 60,000.
From these households, husband-wife
and single-parent families were selected
for this study if ( 1) they had at least one
child of their own-age 17 or under-in
26
the household, (2) they had six or fewer
children, (3) ·there were no other related
or unrelated people present in the house­hold
except their own children, and ( 4)
they were complete income reporters.
Complete income reporters are house­holds
that provide values for major
sources of income, such as wages and
salaries, self-employment income, and
Social Security income. Quarterly ex­penditures
were annualized. The sample
consisted of 12,850 husband-wife house­holds
and 3,395 single-parent households.
BLS weighting methods were used to
weight the sample to reflect the U.S.
population of interest. Although based
on 1990-92 data, the expense estimates
were updated to 1997 dollars using the
Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). (Expendi­ture
and income data for 1990 and 1991
were first converted to 1992 dollars; then
all 3 years of data were updated to I 997
dollars.)
Methods
The CE collects overall household
expenditure data for some budgetary
components (housing, food, transporta­tion,
health care, and miscellaneous
goods and services) and child-specific
expenditure data for other components
(clothing, child care, and education).
Multivariate analysis was used to esti­mate
household and child-specific
expenditures. Income level, family size,
and age of the younger child were con­trolled
so that estimates could be made
for families with these varying charac­teristics.
Regional estimates were derived
by controlling for region. The three
income groups of husband-wife households
were determined by dividing the sample
for the overall United States into equal
thirds. The income groups were before-taX
income under $31 ,000, between $31,000
Family Economics and Nutrition RevieW
and $52,160, and over $52,160 in 1992
dollars.
For each income level, the estimates
were for husband-wife families with
two children. The younger child was in
one of six age categories: 0-2, 3-5, 6-8,
9-11 , 12-14, and 15-17 years. Households
with four members (two children) were
selected as the standard because in 1990-
92 this was the average household size
of two-parent families. The focus was
on the younger child in a household
because the older child was sometimes
over age 17.
The estimates are based on CE interviews
of households with and without specific
expenses; so for some families, expendi­tures
may be higher or lower than the
mean estimates, depending on whether
they incur the expense. This particularly
applies to child care and education for
which about 50 percent of families in the
study had no expenditure. Also, the esti­mates
only cover out-of-pocket expendi­tures
on children made by the parents
and not by others, such as grandparents
or friends. For example, the value of
clothing gifts to children from grand­parents
would not be included in clothing
expenses. Likewise, some of the expendi­tures
reported by parents may be gifts
for children other than their own.
Regional income categories were based
on the national income categories in 1992
dollars, updated to 1997 dollars using
regional CPI' s. The regional income
categories were not divided into equal
thirds for each region as was done for
the overall United States.
After the various overall household and
child-specific expenditures were esti­mated,
these total amounts were allocated
among the four family members (husband,
wife, older child, and younger child).
1998 Vol. 11 No. 3
The estimated expenditures for clothing
and child care and education were only
for children. It was assumed that these
expenses were equally allocated to each
child; therefore, the estimated expendi­tures
were divided by two (the number
of children in the household).
Because the CE did not collect expendi­tures
on food and health care by family
member, data from other Federal studies
were used to apportion these budgetary
components to children by age. Food
budget shares as a percentage of total
food expenditures-for the younger
child in a husband-wife household with
two children-were determined using
the 1994 USDA food plans (9 ). These
shares were estimated by age of the
child and household income level. The
food budget shares were then applied to
estimated household food expenditures
to determine food expenses on children.
Health care shares as a percentage of total
health care expenses for the younger
child in a husband-wife household with
two children were calculated from the
1987 National Medical Expenditure
Survey (NMES) (5). These shares were
estimated by age of the child and applied
to estimated household health care
expenditures to determine expenses
on children.
No research base exists for allocating
estimated household expenditures on
housing, transportation, and miscellaneous
goods and services among household
members. Two of the most common
approaches for allocating these expenses
are the marginal cost method and the
per capita method.
The marginal cost method measures
expenditures on children as the difference
in expenses between couples with children
and equivalent childless couples. This
method depends on development of an
27
equivalency measure; however, there
is no universally accepted measure.
Proposed methods have produced different
estimates of expenditures on children?
Some of the marginal cost approaches
assume that parents or couples do not
alter expenditures on themselves after
a child is added to a household. Also,
couples without children often buy
larger-than-needed homes at the time
of purchase in anticipation of children.
Comparing the expenditures of childless
couples to expenditures of similar couples
with children could lead to underestimated
expenditures on children.
For these reasons, the USDA uses the
per capita method to allocate housing,
transportation, and miscellaneous goods
and services among household members.
The per capita method allocates expenses
among household members in equal
proportions. Although the per capita
method has limitations, these limitations
were considered less severe than those
of the marginal cost approach.
A major limitation of the per capita
method is that expenditures for an addi­tional
child may be less than average
expenditures. Consequently, adjustment
formulas were devised to estimate ex­penditures
on one child or three or more
children for households of different
sizes. These formulas are discussed later
in the paper. Transportation expenses
resulting from employment activities
are not related to expenses on children,
so these costs were excluded from the
estimated household transportation
expenses. Data used to do this were
from a 1990 U.S. Department of
Transportation study ( 12 ).
3For a review of equivalency measures and estimates
of expenditures on children resulting from them,
see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation, 1990, Estimates of Expenditures on
Children and Child Support Guidelines ( 11 ).
28
Figure 1. Estimated 1997 annual family expenditures on a child,
by before-tax income level and age of child1
Dollars
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
0-2 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-17
Age of child
D Less than $35,500 $35,500-$59,700 • More than $59,700
1 U.S. average for the younger child in husband-wife families with two children.
Although the USDA uses the per capita
approach rather than a marginal cost
approach in allocating housing, transpor­tation,
and miscellaneous expenditures
to children in a household, a USDA study
(6) examined how these expenses would
be allocated using different marginal cost
approaches. These approaches produced
estimates of expenditures on children
for housing and miscellaneous goods
and services below those produced by the
per capita method. In addition, these
approaches produce estimates of trans­portation
expenditures on children above
those produced by the per capita method.
Estimated Expenditures on
Children by Husband-Wife
Households
Estimates of family expenditures on the
younger child in husband-wife households
with two children for the overall United
States, urban regions of the country, and
overall rural areas are presented in tables
2 through 7 on pp. 37-43. Household
income levels were updated to 1997
dollars using the all-items category of
the CPI-U, and expenditures were updated
using the CPI for the corresponding item
(that is, the CPI's for housing, food,
etc.). Regional estimates were updated
to 1997 dollars using the regional CPI' s.
The following subsections highlight the
child-rearing expense estimates for the
younger child in a two-child household
for the overall United States by income
level, budgetary component, age of the
child, and region.
Income Level
Estimated expenses on children vary
considerably by household income level
(fig. 1). Depending on age ofthe child,
the annual expenses range from $5,820
to $6,880 for families in the lowest
income group (1997 before-tax income
less than $35,500), from $8,060 to $9,170
Family Economics and Nutrition Review
Figure 2. Estimated family expenditures on a child through
age 17, by budgetary share 1
Food
Transportation
Clothing Health
care
Child care
and education
Total expenditures in 1997 dollars= $153,660
1U.S. average for the younger child in middle-income (1997 before-tax income between
$35,500 and $59,700), husband-wife families with two children.
for families in the middle-income group
(1997 before-tax income between $35,500
and $59,700), and from $11,990 to
$13,260 for families in the highest
income group ( 1997 before-tax income
more than $59,700). On average, house­holds
in the lowest group spend 28 per­cent
of their before-tax income per year
on a child, those in the middle-income
group, 18 percent, and those in the highest
income group, 14 percent. The range in
these percentages would be narrower if
after-tax income were considered, because
a greater proportion of income in higher
income households goes toward taxes.
1998 Vol. 11 No.3
Although families in the highest income
group spend slightly less than twice the
amount that families in the lowest income
group spend on a child, on average, the
amount varies by budgetary component.
In general, expenses on a child for goods
and services considered to be necessities
(such as food and clothing) do not vary
as much as those considered to be
discretionary (such as miscellaneous
expenses) among households in the three
income groups. For example, clothing
expenses on a child age 15-17 average
$670 in the lowest income group and
$1 ,020 in the highest income group, a
52-percent difference. Miscellaneous
expenses on the same age child average
$600 in the lowest income group and
$1 ,530 in the highest income group, a
155-percent difference.
Budgetary Component
Housing accounts for the largest share
of total child-rearing expenses; figure 2
shows this for families in the middle­income
group. Based on an average for
the six age groups, housing accounts for
33 percent of child-rearing expenses for
a child in the lowest and middle-income
groups and 37 percent in the highest
income group. Food is the second largest
average expense on a child for families
regardless of income level. It accounts
for 20 percent of child-rearing expenses
for a child in the lowest income group,
18 percent in the middle-income group,
and 15 percent in the highest income
group. Transportation is the third largest
child-rearing expense, making up 14 to
15 percent of child-rearing expenses
across income levels.
Across the three income groups, miscel­laneous
goods and services (personal
care items, entertainment, and reading
materials) is the fourth largest expense
on a child for families (10 to 13 percent).
Clothing (except that received as gifts
or hand-me-downs) accounts for 6 to 8
percent of expenses on a child for families,
child care and education accounts for 7
to I 0 percent, and health care, 5 to 7
percent of child-rearing expenses across
income groups. Estimated expenditures
for health care include only out-of-pocket
expenses (including insurance premiums
not paid by an employer or other organi­zation)
and not that portion covered by
health insurance.
29
Figure 3. Estimated 1997 annual family expenditures on a child, by age and budgetary share 1
Percent
100
80
60
40
20
0
0-2 3-5 6-8 9-11
Age of child
12-14 15-17
Miscellaneous
Child care and education
Clothing
Health care
Transportation
Food
Housing
1U.S. average for the younger child in middle-income (1997 before-tax income between $35,500 and $59,700), husband-wife families with two
children.
Age of Child
Expenditures on a child are lower in the
younger age categories and higher in the
older age categories. Figure 3 depicts
this for families in the middle-income
group. This held across income groups
even though housing expenses, the highest
child-rearing expenditure, generally
decline as the child grows older. The
decline in housing expenses reflects
diminishing interest paid by homeowners
over the life of a mortgage. Payments
on principal are not considered part of
housing costs in the CE; they are
deemed to be part of savings.
Child-rearing food, transportation, clothing,
and health care expenses generally
increase over the age of a child for all
three income groups. Transportation
expenses are highest for a child age 15-17,
when he or she would start driving. Child
30
care and education expenses are highest
for a child under age 6. Most of this
expense may be attributable to child
care at this age. The estimated expense
for child care and education may seem
low for those with the expense. The
estimates reflect the average of house­holds
with and without the expense.
Region
Child-rearing expenses in the various
regions of the country reflect patterns
observed in the overall United States:
in each region, expenses on a child
increase with household income level,
and generally, with age of the child.
Overall child-rearing expenses are high­est
in the urban West, followed by the
urban Northeast, and urban South. Figure
4 shows total child-rearing expenses
by region and age of a child for middle­income
families. Child-rearing expenses
are lowest in the urban Midwest and
rural areas. Much of the difference in
expenses on a child among regions is
related to housing costs. Total housing
expenses on a child are highest in the
urban West and urban Northeast and
lowest in rural areas. However, child­rearing
transportation expenses are
highest for families in rural areas.
This likely reflects the longer traveling
distances and the lack of public transpor­tation
in these areas.
Adjustments for Older Children
and Household Size
The expense estimates on a child repre­sent
expenditures on the younger child
at various ages in a husband-wife house­hold
with two children. It cannot be
assumed that expenses on the older
child are the same at these various ages.
Family Economics and Nutrition Review
Figure 4. Estimated 1997 annual family expenditures on a child,
by region and age 1
Dollars
10,000
9,500
9,000
8,500
8,000
7,500
7,000
0-2 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-17
Age of child
Urban Midwest
-11-
Rural Urban South Urban Northeast
-a-
Urban West
~ ..... - __._
1U.S. average for the younger child in middle-income, husband-wife families with two children.
For the urban West, the middle-income group had a 1997 before-tax income between $35,200
and $59,300; for the urban Northeast, between $35,300 and $59,300; for the urban South,
between $35,600 and $60,000; for the urban Midwest, between $35,700 and $60,1 00; and for
rural areas, between $35,900 and $60,400.
Expenses may vary by birth order. To
determine whether a difference exists,
the extent of this difference, and how
the expenditures may be adjusted to
estimate expenses on an older child,
the method described on pp. 26-28 was
repeated. The focus was on the older
child in each of the same age categories
as those used with the younger child. A
two-child family was again used as the
standard. Household income and region
of residence were not held constant, so
findings are applicable to all families.
On average, for husband-wife households
with two children, expenditures do not
vary by birth order. So, the expenditures
1998 Vol. 11 No.3
in tables 2 through 7 reflect those on
either child in a two-child family. Thus,
annual expenditures on children in a
husband-wife, two-child family may be
estimated by summing the expenses for
the two appropriate age categories. For
example, annual expenditures on children
ages 9-11 and 15-17 in a husband-wife
family in the middle-income group for
the overa11 United States would be
$17,490 ($8,320 + $9, 170). For specific
budgetary components, annual expenses
on an older child vary, compared with
those on a younger child: families spend
more on clothing and education for an
older child but less on transportation.
... families spend
more on clothing
and education for an
older child but less
on transportation.
31
Expenditures on Children Over Time
Since 1960, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been prov~~ng
estimates of expenditures on children from birth through age 17. The ongmal
estimates were based on the 1960 Consumer Expenditure Survey. The figure below
examines how these expenditure estimates have changed over time at 5-year intervals.
Depicted are the average total expenditures on a child fro~ birth. through a~e 17
in a middle-income, husband-wife family. Expenditures are m nommal (not adjusted
for inflation) dollars.
Expenses to raise a child to age 18 have increased dramatically, from $25,230
in 1960 to $153,660 in 1997. Even when adjusted for inflation and converted to
1997 dollars, real expenditures on children have risen-from about $136,800 in
1960. New components of child-rearing costs, particularly child care, are among
factors causing this increase. In 1960, child care expenses were negligible because
many mothers were not in the labor force. In 1997, child care ~xpen~es were
among the largest expenditures made on preschool children by Ollddle-mcome
families.
The original intent of USDA's research on expenditures on children ~as p~ly
educational: expenditure estimates on child-rearing were to be used m financtal
planning guides and budgeting programs. Although still used for this .purpose, ~e
child-rearing expense estimates have gained new applications, such as m developmg
State child support guidelines and foster care payments. These ne~ u~s of ~e
child-rearing expense estimates reflect the changing structure of families wtth children
in the United States and thus the importance of the ongoing nature of this research
area.
Total expenditures on a child for the first 18 years of life1
$Not..­lorlnhlon
180,000
1~. 000
120,000
100,000
80,000
80,000
~.000
20,000
70
$153,880
75 10 115 110 85 87
Year
1Average expenditures for a middle-income, husband-wife family, not adjusted for inflation.
32
The estimates should also be adjusted if
a household has only one child or more
than two children. Families will spend
more or less on a child depending on the
number of other children in the household
and economies of scale. Multivariate
analysis was used to estimate expendi­tures
for each budgetary component to
derive these estimates. Household size
and age of the younger child were con­trolled
for; household income level and
region of the country were not. The
results, therefore, are applicable to all
families. These expenditures were then
assigned to a child using the method
described earlier. Compared with expendi­tures
for each child in a husband-wife,
two-child family, expenditures for the
child in a one-child family average 24
percent more and for those with three or
more children, 23 percent less on each
child.
Therefore, to adjust the figures in tables
2 through 7 to estimate annual overall
expenditures on an only child, users of
this report should add 24 percent to the
total expense for the child's age category.
To estimate expenditures on three or more
children, users should subtract 23 percent
from the total expense for each child's age
category, and sum the totals. As an example
of adjustments needed foc different numbers
of children, the total expenses for a
middle-income family in the overall
United States on a child age 15-17 with
no siblings would be $11 ,370 ($9, 170 x
1.24) and the total expenses on three
children ages 3-5, 12-14, and 15-17 would
be $20,400 (($8,270 + $9,050+ $9,170)
x .77). For a particular budgetary com­ponent,
the percentages may be more or
less. As family size increases, food costs
per child decrease less than housing and
transportation costs per child decrease.
Family Economics and Nutrition Review
Estimating Future Costs
The estimates presented in this study represent household expenditures on a child of a certain age in 1997. To estimate these
expenses for the first 17 years, future price changes need to be incorporated in the figures. To do this, a future cost formula is
used such that:
where:
Cp projected future annual dollar expenditure on a child of a particular age
Cp= present ( 1997) annual dollar expenditure on a child of a particular age
i= projected annual inflation (or deflation) .
n= number of years from present until child will reach a particular age
An example of estimated future Estimated annual expenditures on a child born in 1997, by income group1
expenditures on the younger child
in a husband-wife family with two Income group
children for each of the three income Year Age Lowest Middle Highest
groups for the overall United States
is presented. The example assumes a
child is born in 1997 and reaches age 1997 <1 $5,820 $8,060 $11,990
17 in the year 2014. The example also I998 I 6,1IO 8,460 12,590
assumes that the average annual infla- 1999 2 6,420 8,890 13,220
tion rate over this time is 5.0 percent
2000 3 6,850 9,570 I4,I60
(the average annual inflation rate over
the past 20 years) ( 10 ). Thus, total 200I 4 7,200 I0,050 14,870
family expenses on a child through 2002 5 7,560 10,550 I5,6IO
age 17 would be $178,840, $242,890, 2003 6 8,130 II,I90 I6,320
and $353, I30 for households in the
2004 7 8,540 11,750 I7,I40
lowest, middle-, and highest income
groups, respectively. In 1997 dollars, 2005 8 8,970 12,340 18,000
these figures would be $112,710, 2006 9 9,450 12,9IO 18,760
$I53,660, and $224,040. 2007 IO 9,920 13,550 I9,690
Inflation rates other than 5.0 percent 2008 II 10,420 I4,230 20,680
could be used in the formula if pro- 2009 I2 12,360 I6,250 23,220
jections of these rates vary in the 2010 I3 12,970 I7,070 24,380
future. Also, it is somewhat unrealistic 201I I4 13,620 17,920 25,600
to assume that households remain in
20I2 I5 I4,I20 19,060 27,570
one income category as a child ages.
For most families, income rises over 2013 16 14,820 20,020 28,940
time. In addition, such projections 20I4 17 15,560 21,020 30,390
assume child-rearing expenditures Total $178,840 $242,890 $353,130
change only with inflation, but parental
expenditure patterns also change 'Estimates are for the younger child in husband-wife families with two children for the overall United
over time. States.
1998 Vol. 11 No.3 33
Table 1. A comparison of estimated 1997 expenditures on a child by
lower income single-parent and husband-wife families1
Single-parent Husband-wife
Age of child households households
0-2 $4,900 $5,820
3-5 5,510 5,920
6-8 6,230 6,070
9- II 5,820 6,090
12- 14 6,270 6,880
15- 17 6,970 6,790
Total (0 - 17) $107,100 $112,710
1
Estimates are for the younger child in two-child families in the overall United States with 1997 before­tax
income less than $35,500.
Expenditures by Single-Parent
Families
The estimates of expenditures on children
by husband-wife families do not apply
to single-parent families, a group that
accounts for an increasing percentage
of families with children. Therefore,
separate estimates of child-rearing
expenses in single-parent households
were made using the CE data. Most
single-parent families in the survey
were headed by a woman: 90 percent.
The method used in determining child­rearing
expenses for two-parent house­holds
was followed. Multivariate analysis
was used to estimate expenditures for
each budgetary component. Control
variables were income level, household
size, and age of the younger child (the
same age categories as used with children
in two-parent families). A single parent
with two children was used as the standard
for household size.
Income groups of single-parent house­holds
(before-tax income under $31 ,000
34
and $31 ,000 and over in 1992 dollars,
inflated to 1997 dollars) were selected to
correspond with the income groups used
in estimating child-rearing expenditures
in husband-wife households. This income
includes child support payments. The
two higher income groups of two-parent
families (income between $31,000 and
$52,160 and over $52,160 in 1992 dollars)
were combined because only 17 percent
of single-parent households had a before­tax
income of $31 ,000 and over. The
sample was weighted to reflect the U.S.
population of interest.
Children's clothing and child care and
education expenditures were divided
between the two children in the one­parent
household. For food and health
care, household member shares were
calculated for a three-member household
(single parent and two children, with
the younger child in one of the six age
categories). The USDA food plans and
the 1987 National Medical Expenditure
Survey findings were used. These shares
for the younger child in a single-parent
family were then applied to estimated
food and health care expenditures to
determine expenses on the younger
child in each age category.
Housing, transportation, and miscellaneous
expenditures were allocated among
household members on a per capita
basis. Transportation expenses were adjusted to account for nonemployment-related
activities in single-parent families.
Income and expenses were updated to
1997 dollars.
Child-rearing expense estimates for single­parent
families are in table 8, p. 43. For
the lower income group (1997 before-tax
income less than $35,500), a comparison
of estimated expenditures on the younger
child in a single-parent family with two
children with those of the younger child
in a husband-wife family with two children
is presented in table 1. As discussed
earlier, 83 percent of single-parent families
and 33 percent of husband-wife families
were in this lower income group. More
single-parent than husband-wife families
were in the bottom range of this lower
income group. Average income for single­parent
families in the lower income
group is $14,800; for husband-wife
families it is $22,100. However, total
expenditures on a child through age 17
are, on average, only 5 percent lower in
single-parent households than in two­parent
households.
Single-parent families in this lower
income group, therefore, spend a larger
proportion of their income on children
than do two-parent families. On average,
housing expenses are higher; whereas,
transportation, health care, child care and
education, and miscellaneous expendi­tures
on a child are lower in single-parent
than in husband-wife households. Child­related
food and clothing expenditures
are similar, on average, in single- and
two-parent families.
Family Economics and Nutrition Review
For the higher income group of single­parent
families ( 1997 before-tax income
of $35,500 and over), child-rearing
expense estimates are about the same as
those for two-parent households in the
before-tax income group of $59,700 and
over. Total expenses, in 1997 dollars,
for the younger child through age 17 are
$225,360 for single-parent families versus
$224,040 for husband-wife families.
Child-rearing expenses for the higher
income group of single-parent families,
therefore, also are a larger proportion of
income than they are in husband-wife
families. Thus, expenditures on children
do not differ much between single-parent
and husband-wife households. What
differs is household income levels.
Because single-parent families have one
less potential earner than do husband­wife
families, on average, their total
household income is lower and child­rearing
expenses are a greater percentage
of this income.
Estimates cover only out-of-pocket
child-rearing expenditures made by the
parent with primary care of the child
and do not include child-related expendi­tures
made by the parent without primary
care or made by others, such as grand­parents.
Such expenditures could not be
estimated from the data. Overall expenses
by both parents on a child in a single­parent
household are likely greater than
this study's estimates.
The procedure detailed earlier was repeated
to determine the extent of the difference
in expenditures on an older child in single­parent
households. The focus was on the
older child, and a family with two children
was used as the standard. On average,
single-parent households with two children
spend 7 percent less on the older than
on the younger child (in addition to age­related
differences). This contrasts with
1998 Vol. 11 No.3
husband-wife households whose expendi­tures
are unaffected by birth order.
As with husband-wife households, single­parent
households spend more or less if
there is only one child or three or more
children. Multivariate analysis was used
to estimate expenditures for each budgetary
component in order to determine these
differences. Household size and age of
the younger child were control variables.
Expenditures were then assigned to a
child using the method described earlier.
Compared with expenditures for the
younger child jn a single-parent, two­child
family, expenditures for one child
in a single-parent household average 35
percent more on the single child, and
those with three or more children average
28 percent Jess on each child.
Other Expenditures
on Children
Expenditures on a child estimated in this
study are composed of direct parental
expenses made on a child through age
17 for seven major budgetary components.
These direct expenditures exclude costs
related to childbirth and prenatal health
care. In 1995, these particular health
care costs averaged $6,378 for a normal
delivery and $10,638 for a cesarean
delivery ( 3 ). These costs may be reduced
by health insurance.
One of the largest expenses made on
children after age 17 is the cost of a
college education. The College Board
(2) estimates that in 1997-98, average
annual tuition and fees are $3,027 at
4-year public colleges and $11,721 at
4-year private colleges. Annual room
and board is $4,152 at 4-yearpublic
colleges and $4,883 at 4-year private
colleges. For 2-year colleges in 1997-98,
average annual tuition and fees are
$1,538 at public colleges and $7,100 at
private colleges. Annual room and board
is $4,240 at 2-year private colleges. No
estimates are given for 2-year public
colleges. Other parental expenses on
children after age 17 include those
associated with children living at home
or, if children do not live at home, gifts
and other contributions to them.
The estimates do not include all govern­ment
expenditures on children. Examples
of excluded expenses would be public
education, Medicaid, and school meals.
The actual expenditures on children (by
parents and the government) would be
higher than reported in this study, espe­cially
for the lowest income group.
Indirect child-rearing costs are also not
included in the estimates. Although
these costs are typically more difficult
to measure than are direct expenditures,
they can be substantial. The time involved
in rearing children is considerable. In
addition, one or both parents may need
to cut back on hours spent in the labor
force to care for children, thus reducing
current earnings and future career oppor­tunities.
The indirect costs of child rearing
may exceed the direct costs. For more
on these indirect costs, see Bryant et al.
( 1 ), Ireland and Ward (4), Longman (7),
and Spalter-Roth and Hartmann (8).
35
36
References
1. Bryant, W.K., Zick, C.D., and Kim, H. 1992. The Dollar Value of Household
Work. College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
2. The College Board. 1997. News from the College Board. September 24 issue.
3. Health Insurance Association of America. 1996. Source Book of Health Insurance
Data. [1996ed.] Washington, DC.
4. Ireland, T.R. and Ward, J.O. 1995. Valuing Children in Litigation: Family and
Individual Loss Assessment. Lawyers and Judges Publishing Company, Inc., Tucson, AZ.
5. Lefkowitz, D. and Monheit, A. 1991. Health Insurance, Use of Health Services,
and Health Care Expenditures. National Medical Expenditure Survey Research
Findings 12. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,
Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Publication No. 92-0017.
6. Lino, M. and Johnson, D.S. 1995. Housing, transportation, and miscellaneous
expenditures on children: A comparison of methodologies. Family Economics
Review 8( 1 ):2-12.
7. Longman, P.J. 1998 (March 30). The Cost of Children. U.S. News & World Report
124( 12):50-58.
8. Spalter-Roth, R.M. and Hartmann, H.l. 1990. Unnecessary Losses: Costs to
Americans of the Lack of Family and Medical Leave. Institute for Women's Policy
Research, Washington, DC.
9. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 1994. Cost of
food at home. Family Economics Review 7(4):45.
10. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1996. Statistical Abstract
of the United States, 1996. [116th ed.]
11. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Planning and Evaluation. 1990. Estimates of Expenditures on Children and
Child Support Guidelines.
12. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 1994.
1990 Nationwide Personal Transportation Study.
Family Economics and Nutrition Review
Table 2. Estimated annual expenditures* on a child by husband-wife families, overall United States, 1997
Child care
Transpor- Health and Miscel-
Age of child Total Housing Food tation Clothing care education laneoust
Before-tax income: Less than $35,500 (Average=$22,100)
0-2 $5,820 $2,220 $830 $730 $370 $400 $690 $580
3-5 5,920 2,190 920 700 360 380 780 590
6-8 6,070 2,120 1,190 820 410 440 460 630
9-11 6,090 1,910 1,420 890 450 480 280 660
12-14 6,880 2,130 I 1,490 1,000 760 480 200 820 15-17 6,790 1,720 1,610 1,350 670 510 330 600
Total $112,710 $36,870 $22,380 $16,470 $9,060 $8,070 $8,220 $11,640
Before-tax income: $35,500 to $59,700 (Average=$47,200)
0-2 $8,060 $3,000 $990 $1,090 $440 $520 $1 '130 $890
3-5 8,270 2,970 1,140 1,060 430 500 1,260 910
6-8 8,350 2,900 1,460 1,180 480 570 810 950
9-11 8,320 2,700 1,710 1,250 530 620 530 980
12-14 9,050 2,920 1,730 1,360 890 620 390 1,140
15-17 9,170 2,500 1,920 1,720 790 660 660 920
Total $153,660 $50,970 $26,850 $22,980 $10,680 $10,470 $14,340 $17,370
Before-tax income: More than $59,700 (Average=$89,300)
0-2 $11,990 $4,770 $1,310 $1,520 $580 $600 $1,710 $1,500
3-5 12,230 4,740 1,480 1,490 570 580 1,860 1,510
6-8 12,180 4,670 1,790 1,610 620 660 1,280 1,550
9-11 12,090 4,470 2,080 1,680 680 710 890 1,580
12-14 12,930 4,690 2,180 1,790 1,120 710 690 1,750
15-17 13,260 4,270 2,300 2,180 1,020 750 1,210 1,530
Total $224,040 $82,830 $33,420 $30,810 $13,770 $12,030 $22,920 $28,260
"Estimates are based on 1990-92 Consumer Expenditure Survey data. The Consumer Price Index is used to update income and expenditures to
1997 dollars. The figures represent estimated expenses on the younger child in a two-child family. Estimates are about the same for the older child.
Therefore, to calculate expenses for two children, figures should be summed for the appropriate age categories. To estimate expenses for an only
child, multiply the total expense for the appropriate age category by 1.24. To estimate expenses for each child in a family with three or more children,
multiply the total expense for each appropriate age category by 0. n. For expenses on all children in a family, these totals should be summed.
tMiscellaneous expenses consists of personal care items, entertainment, and reading materials.
1998 Vol. 11 No.3 37
Table 3. Estimated annual expenditures* on a child by husband-wife families, urban West, t 1997
Child care
Transpor- Health and Miscel-
Age of child Total Housing Food tation Clothing care education laneous*
Before-tax income: Less than $35,200 (Average=$22,000)
0-2 $6,420 $2,650 $900 $790 $360 $340 $700 $680 3-5 6,560 2,630 1,000 770 350 320 790 700
6-8 6,730 2,600 1,290 880 390 370 470 730
9-11 6,820 2,450 1,540 950 430 400 280 770
12-14 7,570 2,630 1,610 1,070 720 410 200 930
15-17 7,520 2,260 1,740 1,410 640 430 330 710
Total $124,860 $45,660 ·$24,240 $17,610 $8,670 $6,810 $8,310 $13,560
Before-tax income: $35,200 to $59,300 (Average=$46,900)
0-2 $8,670 $3,410 $1,060 $1,160 $420 $460 $1,160 $1,000
3-5 8,900 3,390 1,220 1,140 410 440 1,280 1,020
6-8 8,990 3,350 1,560 1,250 460 500 820 1,050
9-11 9,030 3,210 1,840 1,310 510 540 530 1,090
12-14 9,720 3,390 1,840 1,440 850 550 400 1,250
15-17 9,900 3,020 2,050 1,790 750 580 680 1,030
Total $165,630 $59,310 $28,710 $24,270 $10,200 $9,210 $14,610 $19,320
Before-tax income: More than $59,300 (Average=$88,700)
0-2 $12,450 $5,040 $1,370 $1,600 $550 $540 $1,760 $1,590
3-5 12,740 5,030 1,550 1,580 540 520 1,910 1,610
6-8 12,680 4,990 1,870 1,680 590 590 1,320 1,640
9-11 12,630 4,840 2,180 1,750 640 630 910 1,680
12-14 13,430 5,020 2,280 1,870 1,070 640 710 1,840
15-17 13,800 4,650 2,400 2,250 960 670 1,240 1,630
Total $233,190 $88,710 $34,950 $32,190 $13,050 $10,770 $23,550 $29,970
*Estimates are based on 1990.92 Consumer Expenditure Survey data. The regional Consumer Price Index is used to update income and expenditures
to 1997 dollars. The figures represent estimated expenses on the younger child in a two-child family. Estimates are about the same for the
older child. Therefore, to calculate expenses for two children, figures should be summed for the appropriate age categories. To estimate
expenses for an only child, multiply the total expense for the appropriate age category by 1.24. To estimate expenses for each child in a family
with three or more children, multiply the total expense for each appropriate age category by 0.77. For expenses on all children in a family,
these totals should be summed.
tThe Western region consists of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington,
and Wyoming.
:t:Miscellaneous expenses consists of personal care items, entertainment, and reading materials.
38 Family Economics and Nutrition Review
Table 4. Estimated annual expenditures* on a child by husband-wife families, urban Northeast,t 1997
Child care
Transpor- Health and Miscel-
Age of child Total Housing Food tation Clothing care education laneous:f:
Before-tax income: Less than $35,300 (Average=$22,000)
0-2 $6,100 $2,650 $930 $610 $400 $390 $560 $560
3-5 6,210 2,640 1,020 580 390 370 630 580
6-8 6,420 2,600 1,310 690 430 420 360 610
9-11 6,570 2,450 1,570 760 480 450 210 650
12-14 7,390 2,630 1,640 880 820 460 150 810
15-17 7,300 2,260 1,760 1,220 720 490 250 600
Total $119,970 $45,690 $24,690 $14,220 $9,720 $7,740 $6,480 $11,430
Before-tax income: $35,300 to $59,300 (Average=$46,900)
0-2 $8,280- $3,410 $1,080 $980 $470 $510 $950 $880
3-5 8,500 3,390 1,240 960 460 490 1,060 900
6-8 8,660 3,360 1,580 1,060 510 560 660 930
9-11 8,740 3,210 1,850 1,130 560 600 420 970
12-14 9,520 3,390 1,860 1,260 950 610 310 1,140
15-17 9,620 3,020 2,060 1,610 850 640 520 920
Total $159,960 $59,340 $29,010 $21,000 $11,400 $10,230 $11,760 $17,220
Before-tax income: More than $59,300 (Average=$88,800)
0-2 $12,010 $5,050 $1,380 $1,420 $610 $600 $1,480 $1,470
3-5 12,260 5,030 1,560 1,400 590 570 1,620 1,490
6-8 12,300 4,990 1,880 1,510 650 650 1,090 1,530
9-11 12,320 4,840 2,190 1,580 710 700 740 1,560
12-14 13,190 5,020 2,280 1,700 1,180 710 570 1,730
15-17 13,430 4,650 2,410 2,070 1,070 740 980 1,510
Total $226,530 $88,740 $35,100 $29,040 $14,430 $11,910 $19,440 $27,870
*Estimates are based on 1990-92 Consumer Expenditure Survey data. The regional Consumer Price Index is used to update income and expenditures
to 1997 dollars. The figures represent estimated expenses on the younger child in a two-child family. Estimates are about the same for the
older child . Therefore, to calculate expenses for two children, figures should be summed for the appropriate age categories. To .es~imate .
e~penses for an only child, multiply the total expense for the appropriate age category by 1.24. To estimate expenses for ~ach c~1ld 1n a !am1ly
With three or more children, multiply the total expense for each appropriate age category by 0.77. For expenses on all children 1n a family,
these totals should be summed.
tThe Northeast region consists of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and
Vermont.
:f:Miscellaneous expenses consists of personal care items, entertainment, and reading materials.
39
1998 Vol. 11 No.3
Table 5. Estimated annual expenditures* on a child by husband-wife families, urban South,t 1997
Child care
Transpor- Health and Miscel-
Age of child Total Housing Food tation Clothing care education laneous*
Before-tax income: Less than $35,600 (Average=$22,200)
0-2 $5,890 $2,190 $800 $720 $400 $450 $780 $550
3-5 6,030 2,170 900 700 390 430 870 570
6-8 6,140 2,130 1,160 800 430 490 530 600
9-11 6,220 1,980 1,410 870 480 520 320 640
12-14 7,020 2,170 1,470 1,000 800 540 230 810
15-17 6,970 1,790 1,600 1,330 710 560 390 590
Total $114,810 $37,290 $22,020 $16,260 $9,630 $8,970 $9,360 $11,280
Before-tax income: $35,600 to $60,000 (Average=$47,400)
0-2 $8,220 $2,960 $970 $1,090 $470 $590 $1,270 $870
3-5 8,440 2,940 1,120 1,070 460 560 1,400 890
6-8 8,500 2,910 1,430 1,170 510 640 910 930
9-11 8,500 2,760 1,700 1,240 560 680 600 960
12-14 9,210 2,940 1,710 1,360 930 690 450 1,130
15-17 9,420 2,560 1,910 1,720 830 720 770 910
Total $156,870 $51,210 $26,520 $22,950 $11,280 $11,640 $16,200 $17,070
Before-tax income: More than $60,000 (Average=$89,700)
0-2 $12,080 $4,630 $1,270 $1,530 $610 $680 $1,890 $1,470
3-5 12,360 4,610 1,450 1,510 600 650 2,050 1,490
6-8 12,280 4,580 1,750 1,610 650 740 1,430 1,520
9-11 12,200 4,420 2,040 1,680 710 780 1,010 1,560
12-14 13,020 4,610 2,140 1,800 1,160 800 790 1,720
15-17 13,440 4,230 2,260 2,170 1,060 820 1,390 1,510
Total $226,140 $81,240 $32,730 $30,900 $14,370 $13,410 $25,680 $27,810
*Estimates are based on 199Q-92 Consumer Expenditure Survey data The regional Consumer Price Index is used to update income and expenditures
to 1997 dollars. The figures represent estimated expenses on the younger child in a two-child family. Estimates are about the same for the
older child. Therefore, to calculate expenses for two children, figures should be summed for the appropriate age categories. To estimate
expenses for an only child, multiply the total expense for the appropriate age category by 1.24. To estimate expenses for each child in a family
with three or more children, multiply the total expense for each appropriate age category by 0.77. For expenses on all children in a family,
these totals should be summed.
tThe Southern region consists of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Rorida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
:j:Miscellaneous expenses consists of personal care items, entertainment, and reading materials.
40 Family Economics and Nutrition Review
Table 6. Estimated annual expenditures* on a child by husband-wife families, urban Midwest,t 1997
Child care
Transpor· Health and Miscel-
Age of child Total Housing Food tation Clothing care education laneous*
Before-tax income: Less than $35,700 (Average=$22,300)
0-2 $5,270 $1,970 $760 $640 $350 $360 $670 $520
3-5 5,400 1,960 850 620 340 340 750 540
6-8 5,540 1,920 1,100 720 380 390 450 580
9-11 5,640 1,770 1,340 790 430 430 270 610
12-14 6,400 1,950 1,400 920 720 440 190 780
15-17 6,330 1,570 1,530 1,260 630 460 320 560
Total $103,740 $33,420 $20,940 $14,850 $8,550 $7,260 $7,950 $10,770
Before-tax income: $35,700 to $60,100 (Average=$47,500)
0-2 $7,540 $2,740 $920 $1,010 $420 $490 $1,110 $850
3-5 7,760 2,730 1,070 990 410 460 1,230 870
6-8 7,830 2,690 1,370 1,100 450 530 790 900
9-11 7,870 2,540 1,640 1,170 500 570 510 940
12-14 8,560 2,720 1,640 1,290 850 580 380 1,100
15-17 8,720 2,340 1,840 1,650 750 600 650 890
Total $144,840 $47,280 $25,440 $21,630 $10,140 $9,690 $14,010 $16,650
Before-tax income: More than $60,100 (Average=$89,900)
0-2 $11,350 $4,410 $1,230 $1,460 $550 $570 $1,690 $1,440
3-5 11,620 4,390 1,400 1,440 540 550 1,840 1,460
6-8 11,550 4,350 1,690 1,540 590 620 1,260 1,500
9-11 11,500 4,200 1,980 1,610 640 660 870 1,540
12-14 12,330 4,390 2,070 1,740 1,070 680 680 1,700
15-17 12,650 4,010 2,190 2,110 970 700 1,190 1,480
Total $213,000 $77,250 $31,680 $29,700 $13,080 $11,340 $22,590 $27,360
•Estimates are based on 1990-92 Consumer Expenditure Survey data. The regional Consumer Price Index is used to update income