~ ui!ding Us~ Only )
MICS
EW
Consumer and Food Economics Research Division, Agricultural Research Servit·•·~
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRI ~ULTURE mii•g:i!H!iiiiiii'ii!:miim:iim•ii:::~'inii!!iirdE \J ili!l!Uifilmiliiti!:!imiililllilliiliiiliii1i~
A quarterly report on current developments in family and food economics and economic aspects
of home management, prepared for home economics agents and home economics specialists of
the Cooperative Extension Service.
CONTENTS
HOW FAMILIES SPEND THEIR FOOD DOLLARS ----------------FAMILY
EXPENDITURES FOR MEDICAL CARE -----------------BACTERIOLOGY
OF COLD-WATER LAUNDERING, DRYCLEANING, AND
DISHWASHING --------------------------------------
TRENDS IN U.S. CONSUMPTION OF NUTRIENTS --------------CHILD
CARE ARRANG»-1ENTS OF THE NATION 1 S WORKING MOTHERS
HOUSEHOLD HELP IN U.S. HOMES --------------------------
WHY MARRIED WOMEN WORK--------------------------------
TELEPHONES IN U.S. HOMES ------------------------------
CONSUMER PRICES ---------------------------------------
COST OF FOOD AT HOME ---------------------------------INDEX
OF ARTICLES IN 1965 ISSUES ---------------------SOME
NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS ----------------------------
l)ROt"JER"!Y C'F TI-lE
UBRARY
AP ;~~~9o6
L.[,!'.•L,,~ITY C.l' hLi • i
f•l r~'.[L' ::.~u~u
Page
3
6
11
13
14
15
16
18
18
20
23
24
HOW FAMILIES SPEND THEIR FOOD DOLLARS
About one-third of every dollar spent by nonfarm families for food at home
goes for meat, poultry, and fish (see chart). The next largest share--16 percent--
goes for fruits and Yegetables. Milk, cream, and cheese take 15 percent,
and cereals and bakery products 13 percent.. All other foods combined take
about one-fourth of the dollar for food prepared at home.
This pattern of spending the dollar for food at home is based on information
obtained in the SurYey of Consumer Expenditures, made jointly by the u.s.
Bureau of Lallor Statistics and the U.S. Department of .Agriculture.Y It shows
THE FAMILY FOOD DOLLAR
Nonfarm Families, l96l-62
frtlts, Y•••••ltlts
BASED ON EXI'EHDITUREJ FOR '000 AT HOME FOR J WEEK. .DOES HOT IHCLUOE ALCOHOLIC lEVERAGES.
BLS DA.TA ,
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ARS NEG. S7411!1-66(3) AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
how the average nonfarm family divided the $21 it spent for food prepared at
home the week preceding the interview, in the first half of 1961 or 1962. It
does not tell the complete story about family food consumption, of course,
since it does not take into acqount the foods bought in restaurants and other
eating places away from home.~ (In this article, "families" include families
and single consumersJ "nonfarm" includes urban and rural nonfarm.)
Amounts spent for food prepared at home Yaried considerably among nonfarm
families differing in income, place of residence (region), size and composition,
and age of family head (see table). However, differences in the spending
y The data on food expenditures in 1 week were published in "Expenditure
Patterns of the American Family," by the National Industrial Conference Board,
Inc., 845 Third Ave., New York, N.Y. 10022.
g( Expenditures for alcoholic beYerages not included.
-3-
patterns of these families--that is, the way they divided each grocery dollar
among the major food groups--were not great. The range in the share of each
dollar allocated to any food group was less thall 5 cents.
Differences among income groups.--Families with incomes over $10,000
before taxes spent twice as much for food at home, on the average, as those
with incomes under $5,000. Part of this difference is accounted for by the
greater number of families with 3 or more members in the high income group.
But on a per person basis, also, the high income group spent more--$7.66 per
week, compared with $5.89 in families with incomes under $5,000.
Families with high incomes (over $10,000) spent a few cents more of each
grocery dollar for the meat group and for the fruit and vegetables group than
did low-income ·families (under $5,000). To make up for this they spent a few
cents less for cereal and bakery products, fats and oils, sugars and sweets,
eggs, and beverages •
Regional variations.--Families in the Northeast spent $25 a week for food
at home, compared with $22 in the West, $20 in the North Central, and $18 in
the South. Regional differences in income, family composition, number of
meals eaten away from home, and food prices account in part for these
differences.
Families in the Northeast spent 3 to 4 cents more of each dollar for the
meat group than those in other regions. Families in the West used a penny or
two more for fruits and vegetables, while those in the ~orth Central region
tended to spend a greater share for milk. Southern families allocated more
of their grocery dollar for cereals and bakery products, particularly cereals,
and for other item£ used in baking--fats and oils, sugars and sweets, and eggs.
Southern families also tended to spend more of each dollar for beverages.
Differences related to family size and composition.--The more persons
there are in the family, the higher the food bill tends to be. But this survey
shows, as others have before it, that the large family spends considerably
less per person for food than the small one. Families of five or more spent
about $5 per personJ those of one or two persons spent over $8. This is due
in part to economies possible when large numbers are served. Another reason
is that large families, with more expenses, frequently have to budget more
closely than small ones. Furthermore, the large families needed less food per
person than the small because they included more preschool-age children.
Large families--those with five or more persons--spent a few cents less
of each food dollar for the meat group and for fruits and vegetables and a few
cents more for cereals and bakery products than did smaller families. They
also budgeted more of each dollar for milk, probably because they had more
children.
Spending patterns for families with at least one child under 6 years of
age were like those for large families • As the makeup of the family became
more adult, the shares of the grocery dollar spent for cereal and bakery
products and for milk declined, while the shares for meat, fruits and
-4-
Expenditures for food prepared at home by nonfarm families and single consumers,
percent spent :for major food categories, a.nd distribution of :families by family characteristics
All
Income before taxes Region Family size Family type Aae of head
Item Under $5, 000- $10,000 North- North 5 or With With All- Under 35 to 55 and
families $5,000 ~, 999 and east Central South West 1 or 2 3 or 4 more children children adult 35 54 over
over under 6 6-17 only
Food :11urchased in a week
El<pendi ture per family ------- $21.17 $14.72 $24.39 $29.87 $25.13 $20.18 $18.01 $21.86 $14.00 $24 .39 $30.40 $25 -73 $26.11 $14 . o4 $22 .o4 $25 .34 $15 .33
Expenditure per person ij----- $6.62 $5 .89 $6 .78 $7 .66 $7.85 $6 .31 $5.63 $6.83 $8.24 $6 .76 $5.07 $5.59 $6 . 53 $8.26 $6.12 $6 .67 $7 .30
Share spent for : Percent of dollar for food at home
Meat, poultry, and fish --- 32.0 30 .8 31.9 33 .7 34.0 31.1 31.5 30 .1 33 .8 32.5 29-5 29 -5 32.5 34 .3 30 .2 32 .2 33 -3
Fruits and vegetables ----- 16 .1 15.4 16.0 17 .4 16.1 15-9 15.6 17.4 17 .o 16.2 15.2 15.1 16.4 17.0 15.4 16.1 16.9
Milk, cream_, and cheese --- 14.5 14 .1 14 .8 14 .3 14 .2 15-3 13-7 15.0 12.9 14 .4 16.1 16.5 14 .0 12 .5 15.8 14 .5 13 .2
Cereals and bakery products 13-5 14.4 13 .4 12.4 13.2 13.4 13.8 13.4 12 .5 13.0 14.9 14.0 13.6 12.5 13 .5 13-5 13.2
Eggs - --------------------- 3.7 4 .3 3-5 3 -2 3.4 3-4 4.3 3.8 3-9 3-5 3.7 3-7 3 -5 3-9 3.6 3 -5 4.0
Fats and oils - ------------ 4 .5 4.9 4.5 4 .1 4.2 4.7 4.7 4.4 4.5 4 .3 4.7 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.3 4.5 4.7
SUgars and sweets ------- 3.5 3 -9 3 .4 3 -1 3 -1 3-7 4.0 3.4 3.2 3.4 4.0 3-7 3.6 3-3 3-4 3 .6 3-5
Beverages gj -------------- 5-5 6 .0 5.4 5 -l 5.4 5-5 6 .1 4.8 6 .2 5-5 4 .8 4.9 5-5 6.3 5.0 5-3 6.3
other ':j ------------------ 6.8 6 .1 7 .2 6 .8 6.3 7.2 6.3 7.8 6 .0 7-3 7-0 8 .4 6 .2 5-4 8 .8 6 .7 4.9
Famil;r characteristics Percent of families J:}
Income before taxes:
Under $5,000 ------------ ---- 43 100 0 0 36 41 56 36 62 27 28 34 25 62 39 28 65
$5,000-$9,999 --------------- 42 0 100 0 46 45 34 47 30 53 52 54 49 30 53 50 26
$10,000 and over ------------ 15 0 0 100 18 14 10 17 8 20 20 12 26 8 8 22 9
Region:
Northeast ------------------- 27 22 29 33 100 0 0 0 26 29 25 25 29 26 23 28 29
North Central --------------- 28 27 30 27 0 100 0 0 28 27 28 30 25 28 30 26 28
South ----------------------- 29 38 23 20 0 0 100 0 29 29 30 27 30 30 28 29 29
West ------------------------ 16 13 18 20 0 0 0 100 17 15 17 18 16 16 19 17 14
Family size:
One or two ----------------- 46 66 33 24 45 47 46 47 100 .o 0 8 ll 95 30 27 80
Three or four - - ------------ 34 21 42 48 36 33 34 32 0 100 0 47 64 4 45 42 17
Five or more ---------------- 20 13 25 28 19 20 20 21 0 0 100 45 25 1 25 31 3
Family type :
With children under 6 ------- 27 21 35 22 25 30 26 29 5 38 61 100 0 0 69 25 1
With children 6-17 only ----- 30 17 35 54 33 27 31 29 7 57 38 0 100 0 9 50 21
All-adult ------------------- 43 62 30 24 42 43 43 42 88 5 1 0 0 100 22 25 78
Aae of head:
n ... A ~ ..... "\ -------------------- 24 22 30 14 21 26 23 27 15 32 30 61 7 l2 100 0 0
\ -------------------- 42 26 49 64 42 39 42 42 25 51 64 38 69 24 0 100 0
'ler ---- ------------- 34 52 21 22 37 35 35 31 60 17 6 1 24 64 0 0 100
-
Y Elcpenditure per person in 1 week during first half of 1961 or 1962_, based on average size of families that provided data on expenditures for all goods and services. The :following
:families were excl~ed from the tabul.ations of weekl.y food expenditures: Those in which no member ate at least 10 meals :from food at home; those that shared food expense with other
families) and those with boarders.
gf Includes coffee, t ea, cocoa, and soft drinks.
3/ Includes soups, prepared dishes, baby and junior :foods, and nd..scellaneous items . f!J Distributions of families that provided data on expenditures 1n 1960-61 for all goods and services.
Source: Survey of Consumer Expenditures_, conducted by BLS and USDA. Data on the veek 's food expenditures were published in ''Expendi ture Patterns of the American Family'' by The
National Industrial Conference Board, Inc., 845 Third Ave ., New York, N.Y. 10022.
I
tr\
I
vegetables, and beverages increased. Greater emphasis on meats, fruits and
vegetables, and beverages was apparent for 1- and 2-person families, all-adult
families, and older families.
In general, the di~erences in spending patterns noted above were associated
with differences in the amount spent per pe~son for food. Comparisons
between low- and high-income families, families in the Southern and Northeastern
regions, large and small families, and families with children and
those with adults only were all comparisons between one group of families that
averaged less than $6 per person for food at home and one that averaged $7 or
$8 per person. Generally speaking, groups that spent less than $6 per person
spent a little larger share of each food dollar for cereals and bakery p~oducts
and a little smaller share for meat, poultry, and fish and for fruits and vegetables
than those spending $1 or $8 per person. There were a few exceptionst
Large families and families with amall children spent a larger share of their
grocery dollar for milk and less for beverages than other types of families
with the same per person expenditure. Western families spent relatively more
for fruits and vegetables, North Central families more for milk, and Southern
families more for beverages than other groups spending similar amounts per
person for food at home.
--Betty Peterkin and Faith Clark
FAMILY EXPENDITURES FOR :MEDICAL CARE y
In 1961, U.S. families51 spent T percent of their total expenditures for
current consumption for medical care. Virtually all families--98 percent-reported
some expenditure, the average amount being $345 (see table). These
are findings of the 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures, undertaken cooperatively
by the USDA and the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the u.s. Department
of Labor.
The major part of the $345 spent for medical care went to pay for health
services or goods already received, but about one-fourth--$91--was used to buy
health insurance. About three-fourths of all families paid for some protection
of this kind in forms ranging from major medical coverage and the relatively
complete care provided by some medical groups to insurance for hospitalization
for specified risks such as polio or accidents to school children.
Of the $254 used for direct expenses, about a fifth--$49--was spent for
care in hospitals. This amount includes not only the services provided by
~ Condensed from a paper presented by Jean L. Pennock, ARS at the National
Agricultural Outlook Conference, Washington, D.C., November 196 5. Copies of
the complete paper are available upon request from the Consumer and Food
Economics Research Division, ARS, USDA, Federal Center Building, Hyattsville,
Maryland 20782.
g/ "Family" includes financially independent single individuals.
-6-
Expenditures ror medical care, value of care received without expenditure,
and percentages of families reporting, by urbanization, 1961
Average expenditure, Percent of
dollars families reporting
Item All Rural All Rural
fami- Urban non- Farm fami- Urban non- Farm
lies farm lies farm
Total expenditure ---- 345 362 297 310 98 98 98 98
Prepaid care -------- 91 94 83 83 72 75 66 63
Direct expenditure -- 254 268 215 226 97 97 96 97
Hospitalized illness 49 50 43 57 24 24 25 28
Physicians' services
outside hospitals 55 58 47 48 75 75 76 78
Dental services ---- 47 53 32 31 57 58 52 55
Eye care !/ -------- 16 17 15 16 37 38 34 37
Other practitioners 3 3 2 4 5 5 5 8
Medicines and drugs 68 69 66 59 91 91 91 91
Medical appliances - 4 4 3 4 34 35 33 32
Other medical care g) 8 9 5 7 20 21 16 14
Free care ------------ 34 36 30 22 24 25 22 13
Total families
(thousands) -------- 55,306 40,131 11,663 3,512 - - - -
Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
y Includes glasses. g) Includes nursing care in the home.
hospitals but those of physicians and surgeons. One-fourth of all families
spent something on illnesses or accidents re~uiring hospitalization, and the
average bill they paid was $200. This includes the total cost of care in
hospitals when families had no insurance, and the part they paid when insurance
did not cover the costs in fUll.
Of the direct expenditures the bulk.--$205--went for care not involving
hospitalization. Medicines and drugs, the largest single item in this total,
took $68. Physicia.D.B' care outside of hospitals took $55, dental care $47,
and eye tests and glasses $16.
Almost all families--97 percent--reported some direct expenditure. About
9 out of 10 had some expenditure for medicines and drugs, and three-fourths
had bills for physicians' services outside of hospi tala. Dental care was
bought by about three-fifths of all families and eye care by about two-fifths.
In addition to the care they paid for, either directly or through insurance
one-fourth of all families received care for which they did not pay.
This ' free care includes services fUrnished on the basis of need by public and
private agencies or on the basis of legal entitlement--as ror veterans or
-7-
victims of on-the-job accidents--and services paid for by others either as a
gift or because of legal responsibility in accidents. Free care al£o includes
health in£urance premiums paid in whole or in part by employers •
The reported value of free care averaged $34 per family. Howeverr it is
obvious that families who have paid a bill are better able to report dollar
values than those who have received free care. While some families may overestimate
the value of free care, it seems likely that the figures reported
are too low.
Rural-Urban Differences
In 1961 spending for medical care was highest in urban areas--averaging
$362 per family--and lowest in rural nonfarm areas, where the average Wa£ $297·
Farm families spent about the same as nonfarm families, averaging $310 (see
chart below). Since urban families were the smallest and farm families the
largest, spending per capita was almost half again as large in urban as in
farm areas. Rural nonfarm spending per capita wa£ £lightly higher than farm.
The relative spending positions of the three groups on a per family ba£is
--urban high and rural nonfarm low--is not in line with their relative income
posi tiona. Farm families had a slightly lower average income than rural nonfarm
families--$4,424 compared to $4,700 after taxes. Farm families put a
larger proportion of their total expenditures for current consumption into
medical care than did the others--9 percent as compared with 7 percent by
both urban and rural nonfarm.
The difference in the spending of farm and rural nonfarm families is
mainly in direct payments for hospitalized illness and accidents. Farm
EXPENDITURES FOR MEDICAL CARE
Average Per Family
4!81 $310
FARM
11!1 Prepayment Direct payment: ~Other
f:::::J:=J Hospitalized illness
USDA AHO 4LS OA TA FOR ""·
U, S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NEG. 65 (6) 5780 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
-8-
families spent an average of $57, rural nonfarm families $43. A somewhat
larger proportion of farm than rural 'nonfarm families--28 as compared wit h
25 percent--had expenditures for in-hospital care. Also, the average payment
per family spending was considerably larger--$2o4 as cpmpared with $170.
About three-fourths of' all farm and rural nonfarm families reported some
expenditure for physicians' care in the home, office, or clinic. About onehalf'
had dental expenditures, one-third expenditures for eye care, and 9 out
of 10 for medicines and drugs. Average expenditures of the two groups were
very 'similar. The greatest difference was that farm families spent about
lO .percent leas than nonfarm families for medicines and drugs.
Although urban famil~es spent more for medical care than rural nonfarm
families, they both divided their medical dollar in much the same way. Urban
families spent a slightly smaller share on insurance eyen though a larger proportion
of them paid for insurance. Urban families spent somewhat more heavily
on dental care--15 percent of their total expenditures as compared with 10 percent
by rural nonfarm families--partly because a sl ightly larger proportion of
them had dental expenditures. Balancing this, urban families put a slightly
smaller proportion of the total. into medicines and drugs.
Differences Associated with Income Level
As the economic level of families rose their expenditures for medical care
increased. Families with incomes below $1,000 spent $126, on the averageJ
fa.m.ilies with incomes of $15,000 and over spent $884--a sevenfold increase.
Per capita expenditures show a smaller gain--about threefold--because families
with high incomes were larger than those at the bottom of the income scale.
These increases in expenditures for medical care were somewhat smaller
than increases in the sum of expenditures for all other current consumption.
As a result, medical care took a amaller proportion of the family budget at
high than at low income levels. The range was from .6 to 10 percent.
Health insurance took more than 25 percent of total medical expenditures
in the range of income between $21 000 and $15,000. Above and below this range
it took less than 20 percent. Expenditures for illnesses and accidents requiring
hospitalization took 23 percent of the total at incomes of $1,000 to
$21 0001 but only 10 percent at $7,500 to $15,000. Taken in conjunction with
the peaking of ihe value of free care in tne middle income range, this indicates
increasing use of hospitals at middle and higher levels financed in
greater part through health insurance and in decreasing part by direct payment.
Dental services took a sharply increasing percentage of medical expenditures
at higher income levels, varying from 4 percent among families with
incomes under $1,000 to 23 percent among those with $15,000 and more. Medicines
and drugs decreased in importance as income rose, falling from 30 percent
of the total at the bottom of the range to 12 percent at the top. Eye
care took 4 to 5 percent of the total at all income levels •
-9-
The value of free care reached a peak of $42 at the $1,000 to $2,000
income level, followed by a ·decline and a lesser rise above the· $6,000 level.
The proportion of families reporting free care rose more or less regularly to
the top income class, where it declined sharply. The high value of free care
at low income levels is probably accounted for in large part by the receipt of
services by families who could not pay. The high value of free care at upper
income levels is undoubtedly made up la.!'gely of health insurance premiums paid
by employers.
Variation Among Regions
Ranked in order of spending for medical care, the West was in the lead,
followed by the Northeast, the North Central, and the South. The range in
spending by region was from $409 to $302 per family. The West also led in the
value of free care, followed in order by the North Central, the South, and the
Northeast. Average values ranged from $46 to $28 per family.
Changes in Expenditures Over Time
This survey and a similar nationwide survey of spending in 1941 provide .an
opportunity to assess the changes that have occurred in spending for medical
care over a 20-year period. The surveys reflect very different economic climates.
In 1941 the Nation was recovering from the great depression, whereas
1961 was preceded by a decade of prosperity.
Over this period there has been a sizable change in the level of medical
care ~penditures. The 1961 average expenditure of $345 compares with $79 in
1941.~ The share of total spending taken by medical care rose from 5 to
7 percent.
Increases in medical care prices, as measured by the Consumer Price Index,
account for 42 percent of the increase in family expenditures for medical care,
leaving 58 percent to be attributed to other causes. Of primary importance is
the rise in the level of real income, since such a rise reduces the competition
of the basic necessities, particularly food, for a major share of total spending.
According to estimates of the Department of Commerce, real income per
family rose 31 percent over the 20-year period. Also contributing to rising
medical care expenditures are the recent improvements in medical care available,
and the growing realization by families that they stand to gain by buying
medical care.
The outstanding change in the pattern of .spending for medical care has
been in spending for health insurance. From an average of $3 per family in
1941, it has risen to $91 in 1961. The proportion of families paying premiums
increased from 14 to 72 percent, and the size of the average premium from
and Saving in Wartime. United States Department of Labor,
Adjustment has been made for comparability of data. )
-10-
$20 to $126. In 1941 health insurance was almost completely limited to coverage
of hospital expenses. By 1961 surgical benefits and major medical insurance
were also important.
Even though familie~ are now paying through insurance for care they
formerly paid for directly, direct payments in 1961 were more than three timeB
as great as in 1941--$254 as compared with $76. In terms of constant doll~
there has been a 50 percent increase.
Increasing d~pendence on insurance make~ comparisons of direct expenditures
for hospital care and physicians' services of little meaning. It also
results in some understatement of the changes that have occurred in other
categories of medical spepding. The greatest understatement is in medicines
and drugs. Even so, expenditures for this category increased more than any
other during the 20 years--fourfold in current dollars and twofold in constant
dollars. This results from the change in the kinds of drugs being bought-from
aspirin to antibiotics, to overstate the case alliteratively--rather than
from higher prices. The same list of drugs, priced over the years, has
remained remarkaPly stable.
Dental care also took more in 1961 than in 1941, increasing 213 percent
in current dollars and 40 percent in constant dollars. Eye care increased
l29 percent in current dollars but remained at the same level in constant
dollars. In both of these items, the increase is in part due to use by a
larger proportion of families, and this is heartening. In 1961, 57 percent of
famili~ had expenditures for dental care as contrasted with 47 percent in
1941.
Increasing dependence on health insurance to meet our medical expenses
may be added to the list of factors explaining the rise in expenditures. When
a family can budget for an expense, setting aside a known amount every pay
day, it can pay out larger amounts with less strain than when it is faced with
varying demands unexpectedly and at irregular intervals.
BACTERIOLOGY OF COLD-WATER LAUNDERING, DRYCLEANING, AND DISHWASHING
Cold-water Laundering
The recent appearance on the market of cold-water detergents aroused much
interest in cold-water laundering. It also raised question~ as to whether
cold-water laundering would be satisfactory from a bacteriological standpoint.
Research in the .Agricultural Research Service had already shown that large
numbers of bacteria survived even hot-water laundering unless a disinfectant
was added. Further experiments proved that many more bacteria survived coldthan
hot-water washing when a detergent but no disinfectant was used. However
when chlorine disinfectant in the wash cycle or quaternary disinfectant
in th' e rinse cycle was used in an appropriate amount the bacterial count at
the end of the spin-dry cycle was low in the cold-water washing just as it had
-ll-
been in hot water. The phenolic and pine oil disinfectants that had proved
effective in warm- and hot-water laundering were not effective in reducing the
number of bacteria in cold-water washing with the detergent used.
The general conclusion is that cold-water laundering is satisfactory from
the standpoint of bacterial safety if a chlorine or quaternary disinfectant is
used in the same amounts recommended for hot-water laundering. These amounts,
as given in U.S. Department of Agriculture Home and Garden Bulletin No. 97,
SANITATION IN HOME LAUNDERING, are as follows t (1) For a quaternary disinfectant,
which is added at the beginning of the rinse cycle, use one-half cu~ful
in a top-loading machine,. 6 tablespoonsful in a front-loading machine, or
the amount recommended on the label; (2) for a liquid chlorine disinfectant,
added at the beginning of the wash cycle, use 1 cupful in a top-loading and
one-half cupful in a front-loading machine, or follow the directions given on
the label for bleaching ..
Each type of disinfectant is available on the market under various trade
names. ~amples of the two types found effective in cold-water laundering
are: Y
Liquid chlorine disinfectants: Clorox, King (liquid) Bleach,. and
Pu.rex (liquid )
Quaternary disinfectants: Co-op Sanitizer,. Roccal
Drycleaning
A popular impression has existed that drycleaning disinfects garments.
ARS scientists haye recently conducted some tests to find out whether this is
true. They did these tests in a commercial drycleaning plant so that conditions
would be similar to those in establishments where the family drycleaning
is usually done. They found that the number of bacteria declined during various
stages of the process--especially the steam pressing. However, some living
organiams still remained even after pressing if they were in a protected area,
such as an inner pocket.
When clean fabrics were put through the process along with ordinary soiled
fabrics a significant number of bacteria were deposited on the clean ones.
These bacteria apparently came mainly from the soiled fabrics rather than the
cleaning solvent, since the solvent contained few bacteria at the end of the
procedure. It appeared that under certain conditions disease-bearing
organisms could be spread by drycleaning.
Dishwashing
Another popular impression is that washing dishes and utensils in a hometype
dishwasher sterilizes them. Tests done in a laboratory byARS researchers
showed that it did not actually sterilize them, because it did not destroy all
!( Mention of these products does not imply recommendation or endorsement
by the USDA over other products not mentioned.
-12-
microorganisms. However, it can he saiO. to have 11sanitized 11 them, for it reduced
the number of microorganisms to a low level. Washing plates in a dishwasher
was much more effective in destrQying bacteria than washing them by
hand.
TRENDS IN U.S. CONSUMPTION OF NUTRIENTS
The two charts below show trends over the past half century in diets of
the average U.S. ciyilian. Amounts of ascorbic acid and vitamin A value are
now at about the same level as in 1909-13, after moving upward to a peak in the
midforties and then declining (chart 1). The peak of the forties ref.lects the
high consumption of fruits and vegetables during World War II. Since that time
consumption of some of the good sources of ascorbic acid and vitamin A value-for
example, potatoes, sweetpotatoes, citrus, and some other fruits and vegetables--
has decreased.
CALCIUM, VITAMIN A, THIAMINE,
AND ASCORBIC ACID
Per Capita Civilian Consumption
so~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
It ((;. tS t t i ~SH .t.GRICUlfUIIAl IUUAIIf ( H SlflVI( I
Chart 1
FOOD ENERGY, PROTEIN,
FAT, AND CARBOHYDRATE
Per Capita Civilian Consumption
%OF 1909-13'---r---.----,.-------.----,---
125 ~--+----+-
75
so~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
Chart 2
Calcium and thiamine consumption are about 16 and 12 percent higher,
respectively, than in 1909-13. These also reached a peak in the midforties,
but have declined less than ascorbic acid and Yi tamin A value. The changes in
the consumption of calcium reflect changes in consumption of milk, which furnishes
over 75 percent of this nutrient. The compulsory enrichment of bread
initiated in the early 1940's caused a sharp rise in thiamine in the average
diet. Declining consumption of grain products in recent years has reduced the
amount of thiamine consumed per person. It has also contributed to decreased
food energy (calories) in the diet.
The number of calories consumed per ca;pi ta is about 10 ·percent lower than
in 1909-13 (chart 2). Consumption of the nutrients providing calories has
changed as follows: Carbohydrate down about 25 percent, protein down 5 percent,
and fat up 15 percent.
-13-
CHILD CARE A.RRANGlMENTS OF THE NATION 1 S WORKING MOTHERS y
The U.S. labor force now includes about 3.6 million mothers of preschoolage
children (under 6 years) and 5.9 million mothers with school-age children
only (6 to 17). Both of these groups have just about doubled in size since
1950, and indications are that they will continue to grow.
The widespread employment of mothers of school- and preschool-age children
has caused public concern about the welfare of these children,. and the kind of
care they receive. Early in 1965 a survey cosponsored by the Children's Bureau
and the Women's Bureau was conducted to find out what arrangements employed
mothers made for child care. The survey included a nationwide sample of the
women who worked 27 or more weeks in 1964, either full time or part time, and
had at least one child under 14 at home. A preliminary report of findings
describes briefly the arrangements for care that were in effect during the
mother's most recent workweek.
Almost one-half of the children of the mothers interviewed were cared for
in their own homes (see table) . The person in charge was usually their father
or another relative--who in some cases (5 percent) was not yet 16 himself.
About 10 percent of the youngsters were looked after at home by a nonrelative,.
such as a babysitter,. maid, houseworker, or neighbor. This type of arrangement
applied to 15 percent of the children in families with $10,.000 or more, compared
with 5 percent of those with less than $3,.000.
Care in someone else's home was provided for 15 percent of the children,.
about half of whom were supervised by a relative. This arrangement was used
more frequently for young than older children--30 percent of those under 6,
but only 5 percent of the 12- or 13-year-olds.
Group care facilities--such as nursery schools, day care or other group
centers--were provided for only 2 percent of the children, mostly those under
6 years of age. This type of care occurred just about as frequently at all
income levels.
About 13 percent of the children were looked after by their mothers at
work. Such an arrangement might have been used, for example, by mothers who
worked as housekee·pers, babysi tters, or nursery school teachers where they
could have their own children with them. This type of care was more common in
low- than in high-income families.
About 15 percent of the children had mothers who worked only during school
hours, so they presumably needed no special provision for care. The proportion
with this arrangement was almost twice as large at the high- as the low-income
level (20 and 11 percent, respectively).
Y From a report with the same title, published by the Children's Bureau
of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare and the Women's
Bureau of the U.S. Department of Labor, 1965.
-14-
Cause for greatest concern, perhaps, were the children who were left with
no supervision and were expected to look after themselves while their mothers
worked. This arrangement was reported tor 8 percent of the children, including
1 percent of those under 6, 8 percent of ages 6 through 11, and 20 percent of
the 12- and 13-year-olds.
Arrangements for care of children of employed mothers, by age of child
Type of child care
arrangement Total Under
6 years
6 - 11
years
Percent Percent Percent
Total ------------------------
At home byr --------------Father
------------------Other
relative:
Under 16 years ---------
16 years and over ------
Nonrelative --------------
At caretaker 1s home by: --Relative
-----------------
Nonrelative
Group care ~ -------------Child
looked after self ----
Mother looked after child
while working -----------Mother
worked only during
school hours -------------
Other ----------------------
Number of children (millions)
100
46
15
5
17
10
15
8
8
2
8
13
15
1
12.3
Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.
100
47
15
2
16
15
30
15
15
6
1
15
1
1
3.8
~ Includes day care centers, after school centers, etc.
g( Less than one-half of one percent.
HOUSEHOLD HELP IN U.S. HOMES ~
100
47
15
6
17
8
11
5
6
1
8
12
21
1
6.1
12 or 13
years
Percent
100
38
14
5
16
4
5
3
2
(gj)
20
11
24
1
2.4
About 1 out of every 12 U.S. households pays help to come to the home on
a regular basis --daily, weekly, or at other intervals not less than every
2 weeks--to do household chores. A total of 4.8 million households reported
~ Adapted from "Regula:r Jobs fo:r Household Help," by Samuel Saben.
Monthly Labor Review, :pp. 1228-.1229, October 1965.
-1:5-
regular employment o~ household help in January 1965, according to the Bureau
o~ Labor Statistics.
The number o~ regular household jobs reported was about twice as large as
the estimated number o~ persons employed in household work at the time o~ the
BLS survey. This means, o~ course, that many o~ the workers ~illed two or more
jobs. For example, the woman who goes out to work 4 days a week, but in a di~~
erent home each day, ~ills ~our jobs. About three-~i~ths o~ the jobs reported
proyided no more than 1 day o~ work a week, and only one-fourth of them o~~ered
a ~ull week's work.
The household chores ~or which help was hired were o~ many kinds, Yarying
from cleaning to practical nursing and cooking to child care.. About one -hal~
of the household jobs reported were for "dayworkers, 11 which usually means the
employee does genera+ housework and cleaning. Another one-~ifth of the jobs
were for babyt3i tters, h~ o~ whom worked in the same place 5 or more days a
week. Doubtless many o~ these full-time babysitters were caring ~or the children
of other women who had jobs away from home too. It is interesting to note
~n this connection that households with both wi~e and husband employed were the
ones moat likely to have regular paid household help.
WRY MARRIED WOMEN WORK
For the last decade or so about one-third of all married women haYe been
in the labor ~orce--that is, employed or looking ~or employment. What . is it
that takes so many wives job-hunting? Why do many who have jobs leave them?
The Bureau of Labor Statistics conducted a sur.vey in 1964 to get answers
to these and other questions about working women.!7 From a nationwide sample
o~ women 18 to 64 years old they interviewed two groups: . (1) Those who took
jobs in 1963 and were still in the labor force as of February 1964, and (2)
those who had stopped working in 1962 or early 1963 and had not reentered the
labor ~orce as of February 1964. About 64 percent in the first group and 89
percent in the second group were married women (husband present). Information
obtained from these wives is summarized below.
Married Women Who Took Jobs in 1963
Almost one-half (49 percent) of the wives who took jobs in 1963 did so
mainly because o~ economic necessityw These included 7 percent whose husbands
had lost their jobs or were unable to work, and 42 percent with a ~eeling o£
~inancial need stemming from some other cause. For many this cause was evidently
the fact that their husbands did not earn enough to meet the basic
requirements o~ their families.
y' Carl Rose~eld and Vera C. Perrella, "Why Women Start and Stop Working.:
A Study in Mobility," Monthly Labor Review, pp. 1077-1082, September 1965.
-16-
Money was also the motivating force for an additional 17 percent of the
wives who took jobs in 1963, but for these it was an "extra" rather than a
necessity~ Doubtless many in this group were women whose husbands' incomes
provided the essentials but who wanted more for family comforts, luxuries, and
advancement. About the same proportion (19 percent) said they went to work
mainly for the personal satisfaction they hoped to get from the job. And
10 percent just "fell into" a job--that is, they had one offered without
actively looking for it. The rest of the women gave various other reasons for
working.
Economic necessity was. the motivating force for a much larger proportion
of wives with children under 6 than of those with all-adult families--that is,
with no children under 18 (56 and 40 percent, respectively). On the other
hand, only 12 percent of the mothers of children under 6, compared with 24 percent
of the other wives who went to work in 1963, did so mainly to achieve personal
satisfaction. Mothers of children under 6 were a large proportion o~ the
married women who took jobs that year--43 percent. Wives with children 6 to 17
years only were 35 percent and those with all-adult families 22 percent of the
total ..
Married Women Who Stopped Working in 1963
Reasons given for stopping work by the wives who left the l abor force in
1963 were as follows:
Main reason for stopping work:
Pregnancy ---------------------------------
Family responsibilities -------------------
Illness ----------------------------------Moved
------------------------------------Laid
off ----------------------------------
Job unsatisfactory ------------------------
Other ---------------------~---------------
Percent of wives
43
14
13
8
7
3
12
Pregnancy and family responsibilities were the two most frequently mentioned
reasons for young wives (under 35) leaving the labor force. Together
these accounted for more than three-fourths of the separations in -this age
group. .Among older wives ( 45 to 64 years old) the most important single
reason, reported by 32 percent, was their own illness.
Withdrawal from the labor force was only temporary for many of the women
even though they had not reentered it by February 1964. About 20 percent were
either back at work at the time of the survey or were thinking of going back
within a year. Another 20 percent said they would go back if condi tiona were
right--that is, if the pay were right, the work or hours were suitable, or
family responsibilities were lightened.
-17-
TELEPHONES IN U.S. HOMES y
Almost as many u.s. homes now have telephones as television sets, according
to the Bureau o£ .the Census. In 1965, 81 percent of all households had a
telephone available and 92 percent had a TV. Five years earlier 75 percent
had a telephone and 88 percent a TV. The t€lephones reported were usually in
the dwelling unit, but occasionally in some other easily reached place, such as
a common hall in the apartment building.
About 86 percent of the households in the Northeast and North Central
Regions had telephones, compared with 81 percent in the West and 70 percent in
the South. The lower proportion in the South reflects in part the fact that
this region is more rural than the others, and that incomes tend to be lower
there. The percentage of households with phones is considerably smaller in
low- than in higher income groups, ranging from 56 percent in households with
less than $1,000 to 96 percent in those with $10,000 or more. It is also
smaller in nonmetropolitan than metropolitan areas, as the following shows:
Urbanization
Metropolitan areas -------------Inside
central cities -------Outside
central cities ------Nonmetropolitan
areas -----------
Nonfarm ---------------------Farm
-------------------------
Percent of households
with telephones
85
81
88
73
73
69
!( From: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Series P-20, No. 146 (December 1965);
Series H-121, No. 7 (August 1960) and No • .12 (January 1966).
CONSUMER PRICES
Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Family Living Items
(1957 - 59 = 100)
Feb. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.
Item. 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 1966
All items ----------------- 106 107 107 107 108 108
Food and tobacco -------- -- 109 -- -- 111 -- Clothing ---------------- -- 113 -- -- 115 --
Household operation ----- -- 110 -- -- 110 --
Household furnishings --- -- 96 -- -- 96 --
Building materials, house -- 102 -- -- 102 -- Autos and auto supplies - -- 101 101 102 104 --
Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service.
-18-
Feb.
1966
109
-- --
--
--
--
--
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
(including single workers)
(1957-59 = 100)
Group
All items
Food --------------------------------
Food at home ---------------------Food
away from home ---------------
Housing -~---------------------------
Shelter !/ ------------------------
Rent ----------------------------
Homeownership gj ---------------Fuel
and utilities 2/ ------------Fuel
oil and coal --------------Gas
and electricity ------------Household
furnishings and operation
Apparel and upkeep ~ --------------Men's
and boyst ------------------Women's
and girls' ----------------
Footwear --------------------------
Transportation ----------------------
PriYate --------------------------Public
----------------------------
Health and recreation ---------------
Medical care ---------------------Personal
care --------------------Reading
and recreation -----------Other
goods and services 2/ -------
108.9
106.6
lo4.8
116.1
108.1
109-9
108.4
110.6
107 ·9
106.5
108.0
102.8
105.6
106.2
101.4
111.5
111.1
109.7
120.6
114.5
120.6
110.0
115.0
109-3
110.6
109-7
107.8
119.6
109.2
111.5
109.3
112.5
107.9
107.2
1o8.o
103.3
lo8.1
109.2
lo4.6
115.1
111.5
110.1
121.6
116.4
123.4
109.6
115.4
113.3
111.0
110.6
108.9
119-9
109.4
111.8
109.5
112.9
108.1
108.6
108.0
103.6
108.1
109-3
lo4.3
115.6
111.6
110.1
122.0
116.6
123-7
110.0
115.4
113.4
Jan.
1966
111.0
111.4
109.8
120.4
109.2
112.0
109-7
113.1
106.4
108.9
107.9
103.6
107.3
108.6
102.6
115 .. 6
111.2
109.6
122.0
116.9
124.2
.uo.4
115.7
113.4
!/ Also includes hotel and motel rates not shown separately.
gj Includes home purchase, mortgage interest, taxes, insurance, and
maintenance and repairs.
~ Also includes telephone, water, and sewerage service not shown
separately. Y Also includes infants' wear, sewing materials, jewelry, and apparel
upkeep services not shown separately. 2/ Includes tobacco, alcoholic beYerages, and funeral, legal~ and bank
service charges •
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
-19-
Table 1.--Cost of Food at Home Estimated for Food Plans at
Three Cost Levels, December 1965, U.S. Average ~
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month
Sex-age groups gj low-cost Moderate- Liberal low-cost Moderate- Liberal
plan cost plan plan plan cost plan plan
FAMILIES Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
Family of 2:
20-35 years~------ 15.20 20.20 23.60 65.70 88.00 102.30
55-75 years l/------ 12.60 17.20 19.60 54.70 74-50 84.80
Family of 4:
Preschool children ~ 22.20 29.40 34.20 95-90 127.80 148.00
School children 2/-- 25.50 34.10 40.00 110.30 148.10 172.70
INDIVIDUALS §/
Children, under 1 year 3.10 4.00 4.30 13.30 17.10 18.50
1-3 years ---------- 3-90 5.00 5.80 16.70 21.70 25.00
3-6 years ---------- 4.50 6.00 6.90 19.50 26.10 30.00
6-9 years ---------- 5.40 7.20 8.70 23.40 31.40 37-50
Girls, 9-12 years ---- 6.20 8.30 9-30 26.80 36.10 4o.4o
12-15 years -------- 6.80 9.20 10.60 29.30 39-70 46.10
15-20 years -------- 7.10 9.30 10.60 30.80 40.50 45-90
Boys, 9-12 years ----- 6.30 8.50 9.80 27.20 36.70 42.20
12-15 years -------- 7.20 10.00 ll.4o 31.30 43.30 49-30
15-20 years -------- 8.50 11.40 13.00 36.90 49-30 56.40
Women, 20-35 years --- 6.50 8.60 9-90 28.00 37-40 42.70
35-55 years -------- 6.20 8.30 9-50 27.00 36.00 41.30
55-75 years -------- 5.30 7.20 8.20 23.00 31.30 35.60
75 years and over -- 4.90 6.40 7-50 21.00 27-90 32.60
Pregnant ----------- 7-70 10.10 11.30 33-50 43.50 49.00
Nursing ------------ 8.80 ll.50 12.70 38.30 49-70 55.20
Men, 20-35 years ----- 7-30 9.80 11.60 31-70 42.60 50.30
35-55 years -------- 6.80 9.20 10.60 29-50 39-70 46.oo
55-75 years -------- 6.20 8.40 9.60 26.70 36.40 41.50
7 5 years and over -- 5.80 8.10 9.20 25.00 35.10 4o.oo
~ Estimates computed from quantities in food plans published in Family Economics
Review, October 1964. Costs of the plans were first estimated by using
average price per pound of each food group paid by nonfarm survey families at
3 income levels in 1955. These prices were adjusted to current levels by use
of Retail Food Prices by Cities, released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
g/ Age groups include persons of the first age listed up to but not
including those of the second age.
~ Ten percent added for family size adjustment. For derivation of factors
for adjustment, see Family Food Plans and Food Costs, HERR No. 20. Y Man and woman, 20-35 years; children, 1-3 and 3-6 years.
5/ Man and woman, 20-35 years; child, 6-9 and boy, 9~12 years. £{ Costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For those in other
size families, suggested adjustments are: 1-person, add 20%; 2-person, add
10%; 3-person, add 5%J 5-person, subtract 5%J 6-or-more-person, subtract 10%.
-20-
Table 2.--Cost of 1 Week's Food at Home Estimated for Food Plans at Three Cost
Levels, December 1965, for Northeast and North Central Regions !/
Sex-age groups ?./
FAMILIES
Family of two, 20-35 years 2/ ------Family
of two, 55-75 years ~ ------'
Family of four, preschool children 1j}
'Family of four, school children 2/ --
INDIVIDUALS §./
Children, under 1 year --------------
1-3 years -------------------------
3-6 years -------------------------
~ 6-9 years - - ----------------------i
Girls, 9-12 years -------------------
12-15 years -----------------------
15-20 years ----------------------Boys,
9-12 years --------------------
12-15 years -----------------------
15-20 years -----------------------
Women, 20-35 years ------------------
35-55 years -----------------------
55-75 years -----------------------
75 years and over -----------------
Pregnant -------------------------Nursing
---------------------------
Men, 20-35 years --------------------
35-55 years -----------------------
55-75 years -----------------------
75 years and over -----------------
Low-cost
plan
Dollars
17.30
14.30
25.10
28.90
3.40
4.30
5.10
6.10
7.00
7.50
7.90
7.10
8.20
9.60
7.30
7.00
6.00
5.40
8.70
9.90
8.40
7.80
7.00
6.50
See footnotes 1 to 6 of Table 1 on page 20.
Northeast
Moderatecost
plan
Dollars
22.10
18.60
32.00
37.10
4.30
5.40
6.50
7.80
9.00
9.90
10.00
9.20
10.90
12.30
9.40
9.00
7.80
7.00
10.90
12.40
10.70
10.00
9.10
8.80
Liberal
plan
Dollars
. 24.90
20.70
35.90
41.90
4.40
6.00
7.30
9.10
9.80
11.20
11.10
10.20
11.90
13.70
10.40
10.00
8.70
7.90
11.90
13.40
12.20
11.20
10.10
9.70
Low-cost
plan
Dollars
16.50
13.80
24.10
27.80
3.30
4.20
4.90
5.90
6.70
7.30
7.80
6.90
7.90
9.40
7.00
6.80
5.80
5.30
8.40
9.70
8.00
7.50
6.70
6.30
North Central
Moderatecost
plan
Dollars
20.20
17.00
29.40
34.00
3.90
5.00
6.00
7.20
8.30
9.10
9.40
8.40
10.00
11.40
8.60
8.30
7.20
6.40
10.00
11.50
9.80
9.10
8.30
8.10
Liberal
plan
Dollars
23.80
19.80
34.40
40.10
4.30
5.80
7.00
8.70
9.40
10.70
10.70
9.80
11.40
13.10
9.90
9.60
8.30
7.60
11.40
12.90
11.70
10.70
9.70
9.30
I
1\)
1\)
I
Table 3.--Cost of 1 Week's Food at Home Estimated for Food Plans at Three Cost Levels,
December 1965, for Southern and Western Regions ~
South West
low-coat Another Sex-age groups gj low-cost Moderate- Liberal Low-cost Moderate- plan
plan 7}
cost plan plan plan coat plan
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dol.lars
FAMILIES
Family of two, 20-35 years 'H ------- 13.40 12.70 18.00 21.60 16.70 20.70
Family of two, 55-75 years 3/ ------- 11.20 10.50 15.40 18.00 14.00 17.40
Family of four, preschool children ~ 19.70 18.70 26.30 31.30 24.40 30.10
Family of four, school children ~ -- 22.60 21.50 30.30 36.20 28.20 34.90
INDIVIDUALS §/
Children, under l year -------------- 2.70 2.70 3.60 3.90 3.30 4.00
1-3 years ------------------------- 3-50 3.30 4.50 5·30 4.20 5.10
3-6 years ------------------------- 4.00 3.90 5.40 6.40 5.00 6.20
6-9 years ------------------------- 4.80 4.70 6.40 7.80 6.00 7.40
Qirls, 9-12 years ------------------- 5.50 5.20 7.40 8.50 6.80 8.50
12-15 years ----------------------- 6.00 5.70 8.20 9.70 7.40 9.40
15-20 years ----------------------- 6.30 6.00 8.40 9.80 7.80 9.60
Boys, 9-12 years -------------------- 5.60 5.30 7.50 8.80 7.00 8.70
12-15 years ----------------------- 6.40 6.20 8.80 10.20 8.00 10.20
15-20 years ----------------------- 7.50 7.10 10.00 .11.80 9.4o 11.70
Women, 20-35 years ------------------ 5.80 5.40 7.70 9.10 7.10 8.80
35-55 years --~-------------------- 5.50 5.20 7.40 8.80 6.80 8.40
55-75 years ----------------------- 4.70 4.-30 6.50 7.60 5.90 7.30
75 years and over ----------------- 4.30 4.00 5.80 7.00 5.30 6.60
Pregnant -------------------------- 6.90 6.60 9.00 10.40 8.50 10.20
Nursing ---------------·------------ 7.80 7.60 10.20 11.60 9.80 11.80
Men, 20-35 years -------------------- 6.4o 6.10 8.70 10.50 8.10 10.00
35-55 years ----------------------- 6.00 5.70 8.10 9·70 7.60 9.30
55-75 years ----------------------- 5.50 5.20 7.50 8 • .80 6.80 8.50
75 years and over ----------------- 5.10 4.90 7-30 8.50 6.40 8.20
See footnotes 1 to b of table 1 on page 20·
Liberal
plan
Dollars
24.20
20.10
35.20
41.10
4.50
6.00
7.20
9.00
9.70
11.00
11.00
10.10
11.80
13.50
10.10
9.80
8.40
7.80
11.70
13.20
11.90
10.90
9.90
9-50
rJ Special adaptation of low-cost plan especially suitable for food habits !Ln the Southeastern States.
INDEX OF ARTICLES IN 1965 ISSUES
FAMILY FINANCE
Aid to families with dependent children --------------Assets
of the aged -----------------------------------College
education on borrowed money -------------------
Consumer prices --------------------------------------Do.
--------------------------------------------------Do.
------------------------------------------------- --
Do. ---------------------------------------------------
Developments in installment credit -------------------The
Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 -----------------Expenditures
of low-income families ------------------Home
freezer costs -----------------------------------Installment
debt of low-income families --------------Net
worth of low-income families ---------------------Old-
age insurance after 30 years ---------------------Regional
dif~erences in income, savings, and
expenditures of farm families ----------------------Social
Security amendments affecting OASDI -----------Spending
of rural farm families, 1955 and 1961 --------
Where are the poor? ----------------------------------Who
are the poor? -------------------------------------
FOOD
Cost of food at home ----------------------------------
Do. ----------------------------------------------- ---Do.
----------------------------------- ---------------Do.
---------------------------------------------------
Diet quality related to food expenditure and
income of older families ---------------------------Food
consumption, prices, and expenditures ------------
Home-produced food of farm families ------------------The
nutritive value of donated foods -----------------Prices
in a food store giving trading stamps ---------USDA
food plans and cost--tools ~or deriving food cost
standards for use in public assistance -------------USDA
nationwide food consumption survey --------------Variations
in food prices in one shopping area --------
HOUSING AND HOUSEHOLD EQUIPMENT
Household equipment and furnishings:
Supplies and prices --------------------------------Housing
of low-income families -----------------------Housing:
Supplies, prices, and outlook for 1966 ------
Some provisions of 1965 housing legislation -----------
MISCELLANEOUS
Clothing and textiles --------------------------------Educational
attainment projections to 1985 ------------
-23-
Page
14
7
10
27
16
17
26
13
18
6
15
14
15
8
3
21
23
6
3
21
15
20
25
5
9
3
12
6
19
7
13
12
16
16
19
5
11
Issue
October
June
June
March
June
October
December
October
March
March
October
March
March
June
June
December
March
March
March
March
June
October
December
J'une
December
October
March
June
March
June
June
December
March
December
December
December
June
MISCELLANEOUS (Continued) Page Issue
Index of articles in 1964 issues ---------------------National
economic situation and outlook for 1966 ------
New publications ----------------------------~---------
Do. -------------------------~------------------------Do.
--------------------------------------------------Do.
---------------------------------------------------
Reporting on the President's Committee
on Consumer Interests ------------------------------Tomorrow's
jobs --------------------------------------U.
S. families--a review of recent Census findings -----
Variations in unemployment ----------------------------
SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS
28
3
26
13
18
24
12
25
6
18
March
December
March
June
October
December
October
March
October
October
Single free copies of the listed publications are available. The number
after each item indicates which of the following agencies requests should be
addressed to:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Consumer and Food Economics Research Division, ARS, USDA, Federal
Center Building, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782
Office of Information, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
D.C. 20250
Information Division, Office o:f Management Services, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250
NUTRITIVE VALUE OF FOOD AVAILABLE FOR CONSUMPTION, UNITED STATES, 1909-64,
by Berta Friend. U.S. Agr. Res. Serv. ARS 62-14 (January 1966). (1)
PROXIMATE COMPOSITION OF BEEF FROM CARCASS TO COOKED MEAT, by Rebecca Pecot,
Carol Jaeger, and Bernice Watt. U.S. Dept. Agr. Home Economics Research
Report No. 31 (December 1965). (1)
VEGETABLES IN FAMILY MEALS: A GUIDE FOR CONSUMERS. U.S. Dept. Agr. Home and
Garden Bulletin No. 105 (September 1965). (2)
CLOTHING REPAIRS. U.S. Dept. Agr. Home and Garden Bulletin No. 107 (October
1965). (Supersedes Farmers' Bulletin 1925.) (2)
PATTERN ALTERATION: A GUIDE FOR LEADERS IN CLOTHING PROGRAMS.
Agr. Home Economics Research Report No. 32 (November 1965).
Farmers' Bulletin 1968.) (2)
U.S. Dept.
(Supersedes
SOCIAL SECURITY l\MENDMENTS OF 1965: IMPORTANCE TO FARM AND RURAL PEOPLE, by
Lawrence A. Jones and Edward I. Reinsel. USDA, ERS-257 (October 1965).
(3)
FRUITS : CONSUMER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS, YIELD, AND PREPARATION TIME OF
VARIOUS MARKET FORMS, by Velma Chapman, James Sweeney, Margaret Martin,
and Elsie Dawson. U.S. Dept. Agr. Home Economics Research Report No. 29
(June 1965). (2)
-24-
