;v
MICS
EW
·!ding Use Only
PROP TY OF !J ,..
L'llRARY
~p~ 21 1967
UI'<IVt:":.,tl't u~ 1\.vtd H '-·
AT GRI:.ENSt!ORO
...... L.II'lh
o4t:t7A
Consumer and Food Economies Research Division, Agricultural Research Servic·c•,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE iii.~HH~EBW
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
HOMEFREEZER MANAGEMENT SURVEY: Some Characteristics
of Freezer Use----------------------------------------
LOW-COST FOOD PLAN--CHOICES INFLUENCE COST --------
COST OF FOOD AT HOME -----------------------------------
THE EFFECT OF FAMILY SIZE ON EXPENDITURES ----------
THE CffiLD NUTRITION ACT OF 1966 ------------------------
PRICES IN POOR NEIGHBORHOODS --------------------------
THE TRUTH-IN-PACKAGING LAW ---------------------------
AGE GROUPS IN STATE POPULATIONS
INDEX OF ARTICLES IN 1966 ISSUES-------------------------
SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS ----------------------------
CONSUMER PRICES ----------------------------------------
ARS 62-5
March 1967
Page
· 3
7
10
13
16
17
19
20
22
23
24
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW is a quarterly report on research
of the Consumer and Food Economics Research Division and on
information from other sources relating to economic aspects of
family living. It is developed by Dr. Emma G. Holmes, research
family economist, with the cooperation of other staff members of
the Division. It is preparedprimarily forhome economics agents
and home economics specialists of the Cooperative Extension
Service.
HOMEFREEZER MANAGEMENT SURVEY:
Some Characteristics of Freezer Use
This is the second in a series of four articles reporting highlights from a survey
conducted by the Consumer and Food Economics Research Division in 1964-65 in the Fort
Wayne, Ind., area. The first appeared in the September 1966 issue of FAMILY ECONOMICS
REVIEW. In this survey, information was furnished by 240 urban and 242 farm
homefreezer owners.
Freezer Load
Costs of operating a freezer, except for packaging and actually freezing food,
remain the same regardless of how much frozen food is stored. The operating cost per
pound of frozen food, therefore, is lowest when the freezer is full or nearly full and when
there is a frequent turnover of foods. In the Fort Wayne survey the interviewer and homemaker
estimated the frozen food load in the freezer storage space at the time of the first
interview, which took place between July 1 and October 31, 1964. More freezers on
farms than in urban households were filled or almost filled to capacity (figure below).
The storage space in about one-half of the freezers in farm households and one-third of
those in the city was three-fourths or more full (table 1). About one-third of the freezers
in both farm and city households were approximately one-half full. An.Jther one-third in
the city and one-fifth on farms were about one-fourth full. Six urban and two farm households
had empty freezers.
FROZEN FOOD LOAD IN FREEZERS
% full
to full
1f4 full
Empty ~%
rru 2%
• FARM c;J URBAN
48%
!- ,.t+
~ .. ~ ,.,
~-,~.
DATA FROM 242 FARM. 240 URBAN HOUSEHOLDS, INTERVIEWED JULY -OCT. 1964.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUL lURE
NEG. ARS 5BIA-t67)2 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH HRVICE
MARCH 1967 3
Table 1.--Percentage bf freezers with storage area at approximate levels of
fullness y
Urbanization, Number
size of freezer, of 1:
and household size 'households !,;,
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
URBAN
All households 2/ ------- 240 23.0 9.6 33.1 31.8 2.5
Size of freezer:
10.0 cu. ft. and less _ 4o 37·5 7-5 37-5 15.0 2.5
10.1 to 15.0 cu. ft. 93 19.4 11.8 31.2 35-5 2.2
15.1 to 20.0 cu. ft. 89 16.9 9.0 31-5 4o.4 2.2
More than 20 cu. ft. 17 41.1 5-9 41.1 5·9 5-9
Household size:
1 and 2 persons ------- 50 34.0 12.0 38.0 16.0 0
3 and 4 persons ------- 80 25.0 8.8 28.8 33.8 3.8
5 and 6 persons ------- 69 14.5 10.1 39.1 34.8 1.4
7 and more ------------ 40 20.0 7-5 25.0 42.5 5.0
FARM
.All households ---------- 242 40.9 7.0 31.0 20.2 0.8
Size of freezer:
10.0 cu. ft. and less - 12 50.0 16.7 25.0 8.3 0
10.1 to 15.0 cu. ft. 62 46.8 1.6 27-4 22.6 1.6
15.1 to 20.0 cu. ft. 120 37-5 8.3 32.5 21.7 0
More than 20 cu. ft. 48 39.6 8.3 33-3 16.7 2.1
Household size:
1 and 2 persons ------- 48 50.0 4.2 33-3 12.5 0
3 and 4 persons ------- 93 41.9 4.3 33·3 19.4 1.1
5 and 6 persons ------- 68 38.2 11.8 25.0 25.0 0
7 and more ------------ 33 30.3 9-1 33-3 24.2 3.0
y Data obtained between July 1 and October 31, 1964. y One urban household did not report frozen food load.
Higher percentages of the small and large freezers than of the medium -sized ones
were three-fourths or more full in urban households. ("Small" refers to freezers of 10 cu.
ft. and less, "medium" to 11 to 20 cu. ft., and "large" to more than 20 cu. ft.) In farxn
households relatively more of the small than of the large or medium-sized freezers were
this full.
The smaller families tended to utilize the capacity of their freezers more fully
than the large families. In the city, 46 percent of the freezers in households of one and
two persons but only 2 7 percent of those in households of seven or more were three-fourths
4 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
full to full. On farms, 54 percent of the freezers in households of one and two persons
and 39 percent of those in. households of seven or more persons were three-fourths full
to full.
Kinds of Foods Stored
In the city of Fort Wayne, almost all of the households interviewed--93 percent-had
some meat stored in their freezers (table 2). Roughly 80 percent had fruits and vegetables,
70 percent some baked goods, and 60 percent some poultry.
Table 2.--Percentage of households storing specified kinds of foods in
homefreezers y
Kind of food Urban households gj
Fruits
Vegetables
Juices
Meats
Poultry
Fish
Dairy products
Baked goods
Mixtures
Other l:J
Percent
77·9
82.5
45.0
93.3
6o.8
37·5
52.9
70.4
26.2
11.7
1/ Data obtained between July 1 and October 31, 1964.
2/ Consists of 240 households.
~ Consists of 242 households.
~ Includes ice cubes, popsickles, lard, nuts, etc.
Farm households ~
Percent
94.6
95·5
26.4
97·9
68.6
43.4
62.0
78.5
20.2
8.3
On farms, 95 percent or more of the households had meats, fruits, and vegetables
in their freezers. Almost 80 percent had stored baked goods, and 70 percent some
poultry. A larger percentage of farm than of city households stored each kind of food
except juices and mixtures such as TV dinners and casseroles.
Freezer Space Taken up by Different Kinds of Foods
As estimated by the homemakers, meats occupied a much larger amount of space
than any other food in the freezers of both city and farm families. Fruits and vegetables
occupied the next largest amount of space. Little space was used for storing juices,
MARCH 1967
5
fish, dairy products, and mixtures. For the 240 urban and 242 farm households, the
averages were as shown in table 3.
Table 3.--Average percentage o~ used storage space in home~reezers occupied
by speci~ied ~ood y'
Kind o~ f'ood
All
Meats
Vegetables
Fruits
Baked goods
Poultry
Dairy products
Juices
Fish
Mixtures
Other 1:.J
Urban households
Percent
100.0
39.0
16.5
16.4
9-4
5.7
3.2
3.1
2.1
1.9
.8
See ~ootnotes to table 2.
gj Farm households
Percent
100.0
40.9
18.4
17.8
6.0
8.7
3-0
1.3
2.1
1.5
·5
~
In foururban ~ouseholds, theentireused spacein the freezer was taken up by one
kind of food. In three of these only meats were stored and in one only a small quantity of
dairy products.
Record Keeping and Freezer Housekeeping
The Fort Wayne survey revealed that fewer than 10 percent of the urban homemakers
and 24 percent of the farm .homemakers kept a running record of what foods they
had on hand (table 4). However, a large percentage of both--about 88 percent--grouped
similar foods in the freezer so that they had some idea when the stock of one kind of food
was getting low.
About 50 percent of theurbanhomemakers and 60percentof the farm homemakers
said that the frozen food packages in their freezers were usually dated. Most often the
dating was done by the homemaker, but in some cases the packages were already dated
when purchased. A large percentage--SO percent--of the farm homemakers said that
when they placed foods in the freezer they moved foods already stored up or forward to
more accessible positions so that they would be used first. Only 35 percent of the urban
homemakers followed this practice, and almost 60 percent said there was no difference
in the accessibilityof foods recently stored and those in storage for long periods. A few
6 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Table 4.--Percentage of households reporting se1 ect e d h omefreezer management
practices
Practice
Record keeping:
Keep records -----------------------Do
not keep records -----------------
Placement of foods:
Group similar foods ----------------Do
not group similar foods ----------
Package dating:
Usually date packages --------------Packages
already dated -------------Do
not usually date packages --------
Accessibility of packages:
Foods stored longest more accessible
Foods stored longest less accessible
No difference -----------------------
Urban
households
Percent
9.2
90.8
87.5
12.5
43.8
5.4
50.8
35.1
5·9
59.0
Farm y households
Percent
24.0
76.0
88.8
11.2
55-3
7·9
36.8
80.1
2.5
17.4
1/ Consists of 240 households--one did not report on accessibility of
paCkages.
2/ Consists of 242 households--one did not report on accessibility of
packages.
gj
city and farm homemakers said that foods stored longest were less accessible than more
recent additions to the freezer.
More to Come
Additional highlights from this study will appear in forthcoming issues of Family
Economics Review.
--Ruth Redstrom
LOW-COST FOOD PLAN--CHOICES INFLUENCE COST
Many homemakers find that they can't--or don't want to--spend as much for food
as the cost of the USDA's low-cost food plan. Can they provide their families with well-balanced
meals for less? If so, how much less?
MARCH 1967
7
The USDA food plans suggest quantities of 11 major food groups that together provide
nutritious meals. The costs given in each issue of FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
for the low-cost plan allow for choices within these groups similar to average choices of
low-income families, as reported in USDA's Nationwide Fo~d Consumption Survey of
1955. By assuming these choices the food buying and food management practices of lowincome
families are taken into account.
If the homemaker is able to select and use items within the food groups that cost
less than "average," she can buy a good diet for her family for less than the costs for the
low-cost plan given on page 10.
To see how much lower the cost of the low-cost plan might be, the cost was estimated
using foods that are less expensive than average, that provide meals similar to
those of the survey families, and that are nutritionally adequate. Foods other than those
selected might be more economical at a specific time and place. Costs could be reduced
considerably more if the meal patterns were changed markedly.
Variety in meals prepared from this market basket of less costly than average
selections would be limited. Many families would have to adjust their eating habits considerably
to economize in this way. The types of foods included in the market basket are
as follows:
Milk, cheese--Only nonfat dry milk and cheese.
Meat, poultry, fish--Stew beef, ground beef, salt pork, sausage, chicken,
and fish.
Dry beans, peas, nuts--Dry beans and peanut butter.
Flour, cereals, bake~ds--Large proportion of flour and cornmeal; only
cereals that need to be cooked (no ready-to-eat cereals); some rice and
macaroni products; some bread, crackers and sweet crackers.
Citrus fruits, tomatoes--Canned orange juice, some fresh oranges, and
canned tomatoes. (At the time of the survey these were cheaper than
other items in this group. )
Potatoes--Only fresh potatoes--no processed.
Dark green and de~ellow vegetables--Sweetpotatoes and carrots.
Other veg_etables and fruits--Cabbage, onions, bananas, and apples; canned
apples, corn, and fruit juice; and dried prunes.
Fats, oils--Margarine, lard, and salad dressings.
Sugars, sweets--Sugar, sirup, and jelly.
Accessories--Only a few seasonings; no soft drinks.
The foods in this lower-cost market basket had about the same nutritive value as
those in the average market basket for the low-cost plan.
The use of the food items listed above resulted in greater cost reductions in some
food groups than others. The greatest money savers were the substitution of nonfat dry
milk for fluid milk and the use of less costly meat items. Prices per unit of food groups
8 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Price per uni t of food gr oups used in estimating the cost of the
low -cost f ood pl an, average and .less costly selections , December 1966 y
Food gr oup
Milk, chees e , i ce cr eam
(milk equivalent) ------------ qt .--Meat,
poult ry, f i sh ------------ lb .--Eggs
---------------------------- doz .--Dry
beans, peas , nut s ------------ lb .--Flour,
cer eal s , baked goods
( f.lour equivalent) ----------- lb . __ _
Citrus fruit s , tomatoes ----- - ---- lb .--Potatoes
----------------- - ------- lb .--Other
vegetables and fruits ------ lb .--Fats
, oi.ls ------- ·---------------- lb .--Sugars,
sweets ---------------- - -- lb .-- Acces
sories ---------- per adult per week
Price per
Aver age
selections
Cents
29
62
58
33
30
18
7
19
37
23
49
unit based on--
Less costly
selecti ons
Cents
13
50
58
27
23
13
7
14
28
18
41
!} Assumes the uni t prices of the average and less costly selections had the
same r el ati onshi p to each other i n December 1966 as in 1955 (as shown by the
dat a f or l ow-income fami l i es ).
used in determining the cost of the low-cost plan, when based on average and cheaper
selections, are given in the table above.
The homemaker can buy the foods in the low-cost plan for roughly 25 percent less
than the estimate in the table on page 10 if she selects items similar to those in the less
costly market basket described above. For example, in D e ~ember 1966 a homemaker
with a family of four with school children could buy the low-cost plan for $19.30 a week,
if she used the less costly selections, compared with $26. 50, if she used the average
selections. Probably additional fuel would be needed to prepare meals from the less
costly selections, adding somewhat to actual cost.
CAUTION: A homemaker must have great skill in shopping for and preparing food to
provide her family with a well-balanced diet for as little as 25 percent less than the cost
of the low-cost plan. Because many welfare recipients donot have such skill, the lower
cost figures for the low-cost plan are not recommended to welfare administrators for use
as a base for food allotments. With such small amounts to spend for food, about one-half
of the families can be expected to have diet s that fall far short of recommended amounts
of some nutrients. This estimate is based on survey findings, which also indicate that
even when families have as much to spend as the cost of the low-cost plan with average
selections about one-fourth of them will have poor diets.
--Betty B. Peterkin
9
MARCH 1967
COST OF FOOD AT HOME
Table 1.--Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at
three cost levels, December 1966, U.S. average ~
Sex -age groups gj
FAMILIES
Family of' 2:
20 to 35 years 3/
55 to 75 years 2{
Family of 4:
Preschool children 4/
School children 2/ ~-
INDIVIDUALS 6/
Children, under 1 year
1 to 3 years --------
3 to 6 years --------
6 to 9 years --------
Girls, 9 to 12 years --
12 to 15 years ------
15 to 20 years -----Boys,
9 to 12 years ---
12 to 15 years ------
15 to 20 years ------
Women, 20 to 35 years -
35 to 55 years ------
55 to 75 years ------
75 years and over --Pregnant
-----------Nursing
-------------
Men, 20 to 35 years ---
35 to 55 years ------
55 to 75 years ------
75 years and over ---
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month
Low-cost Moderate- Liberal Low-cost Moderate- Liberal
plan cost plan plan plan cost plan plan
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
15.70
13.10
23.00
26.50
3.20
4.00
4.70
5.60
6.40
7.10
7.40
6.60
7.60
8.90
6.70
6.40
5.50
5.00
8.00
9.20
7.60
7.00
6.40
6.00
20.80
17.60
30.40
35.20
4.10
5.20
6.30
7.50
8.60
9·50
9.60
8.80
10.40
11.80
8.80
8.50
7.40
6.60
10.30
11.90
10.10
9.40
8.60
8.30
24.20
20.00
35.20
41.00
4.50
6.00
7.20
8.90
9.60
11.00
10.90
10.10
11.80
13.40
10.10
9.70
8.40
7.70
11.60
13.20
11.90
10.90
9.80
9.50
67.90
56.40
99.40
114.40
13.90
17.40
20.30
24.30
27.90
30.50
32.00
28.40
32.70
38.40
28.90
27.80
23.70
21.70
34.60
39.80
32.80
30.50
27.60
25.80
90.30
76.30
131.80
152.50
17.90
22.60
27.10
32.50
37.20
41.10
41.80
37.90
44.90
51.00
38.30
36.90
32.10
28.60
44.70
51.40
43.80
40.80
37.30
36.00
lo4.8o
86.90
152.30
177.50
19.30
25.90
31.10
38.70
41.60
47.50
47.30
43.50
50.90
58.20
43.70
42.20
36.40
33.40
50.20
57.00
51.60
47.20
42.60
41.10
1/ Estimates computed from quantities in food plans published in FAMILY ECONogiCS
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.
§/ The first age listed up to but not including the second age.
~ Ten percent added for family size adjustment. For derivation of factors
for adjustment, see Family Food Plans and Food Costs, USDA, HERR No. 20.
~ Man and woman, 20 to 35 years; children l to 3 and 3 to 6 years.
5/ Man and woman, 20 to 35 yearsJ child 6 to 9, and boy 9 to 12 years.
~ Costs given for persons in families of 4. For other size families, adjust
thus: 1-person, add 20 percentJ 2-person, add 10 percent; 3-person, add 5 percent;
5-person, subtract 5 percent; 6-or~ore person, subtract 10 percent.
10 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Table 2.--Cost of 1 week's food at home estimated for food plans at three cost
levels, December 1966, for Northeast and North Central Regions ~
Northeast Nortli Central
Sex-age groups gj Low-cost I Moderate- 1 Liberal Low-cost I Moderate- I Liberal
plan cost plan plan plan cost plan plan
FAMILIES Dollars Dollars Dollars l)ollars Dollars Dollars
Family of two, 20 to 35 years }/ -- 18.30 23.20 26.20 17.30 21.00 24.60
Family of two, 55 to 75 years }/ -- 15.10 19.60 21.70 14.30 17.70 20.50
Family of four, preschool children .!±./ 26.60 33.70 37.90 25.30 30.70 35.80
Family of four, school children 2/ 30.70 39.10 44.20 29.10 35.50 41.70
INDIVIDUALS §}
Children, under 1 year ------------ 3.60 4.50 4.70 3.50 4.20 4.60
1 to 3 years -------------------- 4.60 5.70 6.40 4.40 5.30 6.10
3 to 6 years -------------------- 5.40 6.90 7.70 5.20 6.30 7.30
6 to 9 years -------------------- 6.50 8.30 9.60 6.20 7.60 9.10
Girls, 9 to 12 years -------------- 7.40 9.60 10.30 7.10 8.70 9.80
12 to 15 years ------------------ 8.00 10.50 11.80 7.80 9.60 11.20
15 to 20 years ------------------ 8.40 10.60 11.70 8.20 9.80 11.20
Boys, 9 to 12 years --------------- 7.60 9-70 10.80 7.20 8.80 10.20
12 to 15 years ------------------ 8.70 11.50 12.60 8.40 10.50 12.00
15 to 20 years ------------------ 10.30 13.00 14.40 9-90 11.90 13.70
Women, 20 to 35 years ------------- 7.70 9.80 10.90 7.30 8.90 10.30
35 to 55 years ------------------ 7.40 9-50 10.50 7.00 8.60 9·90
55 to 75 years ------------------ 6.30 8.20 9.10 6.00 7.40 8.60
75 years and over --------------- 5.70 7.30 8.30 5.50 6.70 7.90
Pregnant ------------------------ 9.20 11.50 12.50 8.80 10.40 11.80
Nursing ------------------------- 10.50 13.10 14.10 10.20 12.00 13.50
Men, 20 to 35 years --------------- 8.90 11.30 12.90 8.40 10.20 12.10
35 to 55 years ------------------ 8.30 10.50 11.80 7.80 9.50 11.10
55 to 75 years ------------------ 7.40 9.60 10.60 7.00 8.70 10.00
75 years and over --------------- 6.90 9.30 10.20 6.60 8.30 9.60
- ---
See footnotes 1 to 6 of table 1 on page 10.
~
~
ttO
0')
~
p::
0
P:i
~
1-'
~
~
~
~
M
0
0 z
0
~
0
00
!:d
M s M
~
Table 3.--Cost of 1 week's food at home estimated for food plans at three cost levels,
December 1966, for Southern and Western Regions !/
South West
Sex-age groups gj Another
Low-cost low-cost Moderate- Liberal Low-cost Moderate-plan
plan 7./ cost plan plan plan cost plan
--
FAMILIES Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
Family of two, 20 to 35 years 3/ ---- 13.50 12.90 18.30 21.70 17.20 21.00
Family of two, 55 to 75 years 3/ ---- 11.40 10.70 15.60 18.30 14.20 17.70
Family of four, preschool children 4/ 20.00 19.10 26.70 31.60 25.00 30.70
Family of four, school children ~ ~- 22.90 21.90 30.80 36.6o 28.80 35.60
INDIVIDUALS 6/
Children, under 1 year -------------- 2.80 2.80 3-70 4.10 3.40 4.20
1 to 3 years ---------------------- 3.60 3.40 4.60 5.40 4.30 5.30
3 to 6 years ---------------------- 4.10 4.00 5-50 6.50 5.10 6.30
6 to 9 years ---------------------- 4.90 4.80 6.60 8.00 6.10 7.60
Girls, 9 to 12 years ---------------- 5-70 5.30 7.50 8.60 7.00 8.70
12 to 15 years -------------------- 6.20 5-90 8.30 9.80 7-70 9.60
15 to 20 years -------------------- 6.50 6.20 8.50 9-90 8.00 9.80
Boys, 9 to 12 years ----------------- 5-70 5.40 7.60 8.90 7-10 8.;90
12 to 15 years -------------------- 6.60 6.40 9.00 10.40 8.20 10.50
15 to 20 years -------------------- 7-70 7.40 10.20 12.00 9-70 11.90
Women, 20 to 35 years --------------- 5.80 5.50 7.80 9.10 7-30 8.90
35 to 55 years -------------------- 5.60 5-30 7-50 8.80 7.00 8.60
55 to 75 years -------------------- 4.80 4.40 6.60 7-70 6.00 7.40
75 years and over ----------------- 4.40 4.10 5.90 7.10 5.40 6.70
Pregnant -------------------------- ~.00 6.80 9.00 10.40 8.70 10.40
Nursing --------------------------- .10 7.80 10.40 11.80 10.00 12.00
Men, 20 to 35 years ----------------- 6.50 6.20 8.80 10.60 8.30 10.20
35 to 55 years -------------------- 6.10 5.80 8.20 9.70 7-70 9-50
55 to 75 years -------------------- 5.60 5.30 7.60 8.20 6.90 8.70
75 years and over ----------------- 5.20 5.00 7-30 8.50 6.50 8.40
Liberal
plan
L_____ _ -
Dollars
24.80
20.60
36.10
42.00
4.60
6.20
7.40
9.20
9.90
11.30
11.20
10.30
12.10
13.80
10.30
10.00
8.60
7-90
11.20
13.50
12.20
11.10
10.10
9-70
See footnotes 1 to 6 of table 1 on page 10.
yj Special adaptation of' low-cost plan especially suitable ±,or f'ood habits in the Southeastern States.
THE EFFECT OF FAMILY SIZE ON EXPENDITURES
How do expenditures of large families differ from those of small families, when
income is about the same? In general, the amounts spent for the various goods and services
used in current living increase with family size, but at different rates. To balance
these increases, smaller amounts go for gifts and contributions to persons and organizations
outside the family and less is saved, according to the Survey of Consumer Expenditures
in 1961. 1/
This article gives mo:te details about differences in spending of large and small
families, using farm families with incomes between $4, 000 and $5, 000 after taxes as an
example. "Large" families here include those with six or more members and "small"
families those with two members. Although both groups included families varying in age
from young to elderly, the group made up of two-person households had a larger proportion
of older families. This age difference is reflected in some expenditures, as will be
noted.
Amounts Spent
Among farm families with incomes of $4, 000 to $5, 000 after taxes in 1961, the
large families spent 40 percent more than the small for current consumption, and 14 percent
more for personal insurance. On the other hand, the large families put about 33 percent
less into gifts and contributions and 89 percent less into savings. Average dollar
expenditures of the large and small families, respectively, were: Current consumption,
$4, 303 and $3, 079; personal insurance, $179 and $157; gifts and contributions, $136 and
$204; and savings, $94 and $852 (see table). ("Savings" here refers to net change in
assets and liabilities during the year. )
The higher expenditure of the large families for current consumption was the
result of higher spending for most categories of goods and services making up the total.
As compared with families of two, families of six or more spent--
Somewhat more than twice as much for clothing, for reading and education,
and for recreation;
Somewhat less than twice as much for food;
About one-third more for housefurnishings and equipment, and for transportation;
About one-fourth more for personal care, and for tobacco and alcoholic
beverages;
About one-twelfth more for household operation;
About the same amount for shelter (rent or homeownership costs, fuel,
light, refrigeration, and water); and
A little less for medical care.
VConducted by the u. s. Departments of Agriculture and Labor. Data in this article
a~ from Consu_!l1er Expendit~res and Income, Rural Farm Population, United States,
~· USDA Reports 5 and 20.
MARCH 13
Average expenditures, income, and savings of farm families with incomes
of $41000 to $4,999, by selected family size,~ United states, 1961
Average expenditures Percent of e~rpendi tures
for current consumption
Item All 6 or All 6 or
fami - 2 per- 4 per- more fami- 2 per- 4 per- more
lies§/ sons sons persons liesV sons sons ·persons
Expenditures for current
consumption -------- $3,740 $3 , 079 $3 , 960 $4,303 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Food, total ------------ 903 640 976 1, 203 24.1 20.8 24 .6 27·9
Food at home --------- 764 560 820 1, 023 20.4 18.2 20.7 23.8
Food away from home--- 139 80 156 180 3.7 2.6 3·9 4.2
Tobacco and alcoholic
beverages ---------- 94 101 88 124 2.5 3.2 2.2 2.9
Housing, total --------- 940 872 991 940 25.1 28.3 25 .0 21.8
Shelter, fuel, light1
refrigeration, water 553 545 598 540 14 .7 17.7 15.1 12.5
Household operations - 160 150 150 162 4.3 4.9 3.8 3.8
Housefurnishings and
equipment ---------- 227 177 243 238 6.1 5·7 6.1 5·5
Clothing, materials_,
services ----------- 410 246 459 534 11.0 8.0 11.6 12.4
Personal care ---------- 107 92 112 114 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.6
Medical care ----------- 334 328 327 319 8.9 10.7 8.3 7.4
Recreation ------------- 125 77 139 159 3.3 2.5 3·5 3·7
Reading and education -- 58 29 95 67 1.6 ·9 2.4 1.5
Automobile ------------- 679 583 649 769 18.1 18.9 16.4 17.9
Other transportation --- 25 18 49 l2 ·1 .6 1.2 .3
Other ------------------ 65 93 75 62 1.7 3.0 1.9 1.4
Gifts and contributions -- 183 2o4 171 136 - - - -
Personal insurance ------- 183 157 224 179 - - - -
Money income before taxes 4,715 4,758 4,671 4, 624 - - - -
Money income after taxes - 4,451 4,438 4,488 4,420 - - - -
Other money receipts ----- 132 70 206 20 - - - -
Savings (net change in
assets and liabilities) 575 852 585 94 - - - -
Account balancing
difference ~ ---------- -98 216 -246 -272 - - - -
Average size of family --- 3.8 .2.1 4.1 7.0 - - - -
Average number of children
under 18 --------------- 1.5 .1 1.7 4.5 - - - -
Average age of head ------ 48 56 43 43 - - - -
Number of families in
sample ----------------- 215 59 36 34 - - - -
~ Family size is based on equivalent persons, 52 weeks of family membership being equal to
1 person, 26 weeks equal to 0.5 person, and so on.
~ Includes single consumers and families of all sizes .
~ The difference between receipts and disbursements, as reported. Negative when receipts are
less than disbursements.
14 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
The large families had more than three times as many members to provide for as
the small ones, so even when they spent about twice as much for an item--as they did for
food and clothing--it amounted to much less per person. However, their level of consumption
was not necessarily as much lower as their per-person expenditures. Large
families manage to achieve economies in food expense because they buy and prepare food
in quantity. Many save on clothing expense by handing garments down from older to
younger children. The fact that the large families include more young children helps cut
costs, too, because youngsters usually eat less than older children and adults, and clothing
bought new for them cost~ less.
That expense for shelter was about the same for large and small families is not
surprising. On the farm, housing is part 6f the farm plant and usually does not change
much when the size of the family changes. Furniture and equipment are another matter,
for a large family means more wear and tear and, therefore, more frequent repairs and
replacements. Higher spending for transportation (mainly automobiles) in large families
undoubtedly means more two-car families as well as more miles driven to take family
members to their various jobs, schools, and other activities.
Medical care expense amounted to about 3 percent less per family--and much less
per person--in large than small families. The higher me:iical expense of the two-person
families was partly due to the fact that they had a larger proportion of older persons,
whose needs for medical care are usually greater than those of young people.
Spending Patterns
Because family size affected the various expenditures in different ways, the division
of the family living dollar in these farm families with $4, 000 to $5, 000 income was
quite different when six than when two members were provided for. Compared with the
two-person families, the families of six or more spent larger percentages of each dollar
for--
Food (28 percent vs. 21 percent);
Clothing (12 percent vs. 8 percent); and
Recreation, reading and education (5 vs. 3 percent).
The large families spent smaller percentages of each dollar for-Housing--
including shelter, household operation, and house-furnishings
and equipment (22 vs. 28 percent);
Transportation (18 vs. 20 percent);
Medical care (7 vs. 11 percent);
Tobacco and alcoholic beverages and "other" (4 vs. 6 percent).
Large and small families spent the same percentage of each dollar for--
Personal care (3 percent)·
MARCH 1967
15
Spending at Other Income Levels
In general, average expenditures of large and small farm families with incomes
at different levels than the $4,000 to $5,000 level discussed here tend to differ in the same
directions, but not necessarily at the same rates.
--Lucile F. Mork
THE CHILD NUTRITION ACT OF 1966
The Child Nutrition Act of 1966, signed last October, marks another step toward
improving levels of living of children in low-income areas. The Act authorizes a 2-year
test of a program that will make breakfast at school available to some children who otherwise
would start the day with little or nothing to eat. It also authorizes Federal aid for
supplying schools in low-income areas with equipment for food service.
Pilot school breakfast program. --The Child Nutrition Act gives the Secretary of
Agriculture authority to plan and carry out a pilot program to help States start, maintain,
or expand nonprofit breakfast programs in schools. First consideration in selecting
schools for the pilot program is to be given to schools where many of the children
enrolled are from low-income areas or travel long distances to and from school each
day. The number of schools that can participate is limited, since the amount appropriated
for the program in fiscal 1967 is $2 million.
Breakfasts served under the pilot program are to be given free or at reduced cost
to children the school authorities consider unable to pay the full cost. Under the reg·ulations
the breakfasts are to contain, as a minimum--
One-half pint of fluid milk, served as a beverage, on cereal, or used in
part for each purpose;
One-half cup of fruit or of full-strength fruit or vegetable juice;
One slice of whole-grain or enriched bread; or an equivalent serving of
another breadstuff made of whole-grain or enriched meal or flour; or
three-fourths cup of whole-grain, enriched, or fortified cereal; or an
equivalent quantity of any combination of these.
The breakfast is also to include, as often as practicable, protein-rich foods such
as one egg; one ounce of meat, poultry or fish (edible portion as served); one ounce of
cheese; two tablespoons of peanut butter; or an equivalent quantity of any combination of
these foods.
Other ___Erovisions. --In addition to the pilot school breakfast program the Child
Nutrition Act authorizes USDA to:
16
Help States to supply schools in low-income areas with equipment for
storing, preparing, transporting, and serving food in school food service
programs. This assistance--which may be grants-in-aid or of
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
other types--cannot be used for land or buildings. The 1967 appropriation
for this is $750 000·
Extend the benefits of an' the 'school feeding programs it conducts and
supervises to preschool programs within the school system; and
Continue the Special Milk Program for 3 years in nonprofit schools and
in~titutions such :=~s high schools, grade schools, nursery schools,
ch1ld-csre centers, settlement houses, and summer camps.
Administration. --Re~ponsibility for administering the programs within the States
will be in the State educational agency. Exceptions are that (1) the special milk program
may be conducted by another State agency and (2) the Consumer Food Programs District
Office of USDA will administer the programs in nonprofit private schools or institutions
where the State agency administering the program is not permitted by law to disburse
Federal funds paid to it under the Act.
PRICES IN POOR NEIGHBORHOODS.!/
The Bureau of Labor Statistics made a special study in 1966 to find out whether
poor families pay more for the goods they buy than do families that are better off. Results
of thestudyof food prices were summarized in the September 1966 issueof FAMILY
ECONOMICS REVIEW. This article reviews briefly the findings on clothing and other
nonfood items (except housing) and on rental housing.
Clothing and Other Nonfood Items @_xcept Housing)
Findings, in brief, from the study of prices of clothing and other nonfood items
except housing were as follows:
Clothing prices in low-income areas were little different from those in
higher income areas, when the same quality, brand, and style were
compared. However, generally lower quality, lower priced items
were carried by the stores in the low-income areas.
Prices charged for washing machines and TV sets were higher in the lowincome
areas.
Drug prices varied widely among stores in each type of area. However,
no consistent differences between prices in low-income and higher
income areas were apparent.
• Prices for service items generally were lower in low-income areas. Y From two mimeographed reports of the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics: A STUDY OF PRICES CHARGED IN STORES LOCATED IN LOW-AND HIGHER
INCOMEAREAS OF SIX LARGE CITIES FOR NON-FOOD ITEMS; and DIFFERENCES IN
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF RENTAL HOUSING OCCUPIED BY FAM[LIES IN THREE
INCOME RANGES PAYING APPROXIMATELY THE SAME RENT IN 6 CITIES.
MARCH 1967
17
Household supplies and cigarettes cost about the same in low-income and
higher income neighborhoods when bought in the same types of stores.
Prices differed between types of stores, however. They were lowest
in chain stores, highest in small independent stores, and between the
two in large independent stores.
Fewer stores in the low-income areas offered credit, when compared with
the same types of stores in higher income neighborhoods.
The prices upon which these findings are based were obtained in the same six
cities used in the food portion of the survey--Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles,
New York, and Washington, D.C. In each city, low-income areas were determined from
the 1960 Census as those tracts where median f2mily incomes were in the lowest 25 percent
for that city; all other areas were defined as higher income.
The commodities priced were: Clothing (men's shirts, suits, socks, and work
trousers; women's coats, slips, and hose; and children's shoes); appliances (television
receivers and washing machines); drugs (prescription drugs--represented by sulfisoxazole,
and over-the-counter drugs--represented by cough syrup and aspirin compound);
services (women's shoe repairs, men's haircuts, and cleaning and pressing of men's
suits); cigarettes; and household supplies (detergent and toilet tissue).
Types of stores sampled were: For clothing and appliances--department, general
merchandise, clothing and shoe, and furniture and appliance stores; for services--shoe
repair shops, barber shops, and dry cleaners; for drugs--drug stores; and for cigarettes
and household supplies--grocery stores, the same ones used in pricing food items. Pricing
was done in March and April 1966.
Housing
The study of housing of low-income ~md higher income families is based on data
for rental units in the same six cities mentioned above, collected by BLS for 1960 and
1961 as part of its Comprehensive Housing Units Surveys. The report compares the
housing of low-income (under $3, 000) families with that of families at two higher income
levels ($3,000 to $5,999 and $6,000 and over) who paid about the same rent. The analysis
shows that--
•
18
In each city, low-income families lived in less desirable neighborhoods
than higher income families, even when they paid about the same rent.
In general, relatively more low-income than higher income families occupied
deteriorating or dilapidated housing at specified rent levels. The
condition of housing varied considerably among the cities.
Lower income families generally occupied dwellings having inferior types
of heating equipment. However, differences in type of heating equipment
were obscured by differences in climate among the cities surveyed.
In some cities, particularly Chicago, a relatively large proportion of
poorer families at the lower rent levels had central heating.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Low-income families were more likely to be without a full bathroom than
were higher income families paying about the same rent. Low-income
families in the two lowest rent ranges frequently shared bathroom facilities
with other families, or had less than a complete bathroom.
Low-income families generally occupied sml:lller housing units than others
paying about the same rent. However, the middle-income families appeared
more crowded because they were larger and had more persons
per room, on the average.
THE TRUTH-IN-PACKAGING LAW
The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1966 becomes generally effective on July l,
1967. It will aid consumers by requiring that packaged or labeled consumer commodities
in interstate commerce be honestly and informatively labeled. The law requires that the
label of a consumer commodity must--
identify the commodity and give the name and place of business of the
manufacturer, packer, or distributor.
contain a statement in a uniform location on the principal display panel of
net contents in units appropriate for the commodity, such as weight,
liquid measure, or numerical count.
Contents of packages under 4 pounds or 1 gallon generally must be stated
in pounds (or pints or quarts) and ounces (or fluid ounces) as well as in
total number of ounces. The statement must be easily legible.
be free of such terms as "giant quart" and "jumbo pound. "
give the net quantity per serving if number of servings is stated.
The law also authorizes the Government to establish additional regulations, on a
product-by-product basis, if it determines these are necessary to prevent deception or
facilitate value comparisons. The Government is authorized to--
establish and define standards for describing package sizes that may be
used to supplement the label statement of net contents.
regulate bargain-price labeling, such as "cents off."
require (except for food) that the label give the common name of the product
and list the ingredients in order of decreasing predominance.
prohibit a manufacturer from packaging his product in a container with an
unnecessary amount of packing material or air space.
The law gives the Secretary of Commerce responsibility for ~~questing indu.,~ry
agreements on voluntary standards of weights, measures, or quantlhe~ for packagmg
when he finds a commodity is sold in an unjustified number of package s1zes.
MARCH 1967
19
The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act does not apply to certain drugs, or to
tobacco, meat and poultry products, and other commodities that are covered by other
Federal laws. In general, provisions of the Act that affect foods, drugs, devices, and
cosmetics will be enforced by the Food and Drug Administration and those affecting other
consumer commodities will be enforced by the Federal Trade Commission.
AGE GROUPS IN STATE POPULATIONS
A recent publication of the Bureau of the Census gives inform9-tion that will be
useful to persons responsible for program planning in their States. Y It includes, for
each region and State: (1) Estimates of the number of residents, by age, each year from
1960 through 1965; (2) percentages of change between 1960 and 1965 in the number of
residents in various age groups; and (3) the percentage distribution of the population, by
age, in 1960 and 1965.
The table on page 21 includes a portion of the data mentioned in (2) above. For
the country as a whole, it shows an increase of 8 percent in total population between
April 1, 1960 and July 1, 1965. Increases within age groups varied from a high of
14 percent for 5- to- 17-year-olds to less than 1 percent for children under 5 years.
Taken State by State, the figures tell some interesting things about population changes
and indicate how different the planning problems related to age groups will be in the
various States.
The State with the largest percentage gain in population was Nevada, which had
52 percent more residents in 1965 than in 1960. The number of young people 5 to 17
years old gained by 66 percent. The State had about 55 percent more residents under
5 and 18 to 44 years old, but only 25 percent more in the 65-and-over group. Even with
its large gain, Nevada in 1965 was the fourth smallest State in the Union. Only Alaska,
Vermont, and Wyoming had fewer residents than Nevada.
West Virginia was the only State with· an appreciable drop in population. (Iowa's
population dropped, but by only a small fraction of 1 percent.) West Virginia had 2. 4
percent fewer residents in 1965 than in 1960. Its losses were in the three youngest age
groups, varying from 10 percent for the group under 5 years of age to 3 percent for the
18- to- 44-year group. The number of residents 65 years old or over increased 5 percent.
y U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Series P-25. No. 354
(December 1966).
20 FAMILY ECONOMICS-REVIEW
Percent change in the resident population, by age, for Regions and States April 1, 1960, to July 1, 1965
Total Under 5 5 to 17 18 to 44 45 to 64 65 years
State resident
population
years years years years and over
United States -------- +8.1 +0.6 +13.9 -HS.o +8.1 +9.6
Northeast: Total ---- -H'i.6 +0.2 +13.8 +3.3 -H'i.7 +8.0
Maine -------------- +1.7 -1.4 +5.2 -0.3 +1.0 +4.2
New Hampshire ------ +11.0 +4.6 +17.5 +12.3 -HS.6 +7.5
Vermont ------------ +3.7 +0.1 +7 .1 +3.5 +2.7 +1.9
Massachusetts ------ +4.1 -0.2 +11.5 +0.2 +4.1 +5.5
Rhode Island ------- +3.7 -4.7 +10.9 +0.2 +4.5 +5.5
Connecticut -------- . +11.6 +1.7 +20.3 +8.2 +14.2 +9.3
New York ----------- +7.9 +4.3 +15.8 +5.3 +5.3 +9.6
New Jersey --------- +11.8 +3.8 +20.4 +8.4 +12.1 +12.2
Pennsylvania ------- +2.3 -7.2 +8.2 -1.9 -H'i.l +5.3
North Central: Total +4.8 -4.7 +13.0 +1.1 +5.6 -HS.8
Ohio --------------- +5.5 -6.8 +14.9 +1.4 +8.5 +5.6
Indiana ------------ +4.9 -2.9 +11.8 +1.7 -HS.8 +4.8
Illinois ----------- +5.6 -0.9 +15.4 +0.5 +5.9 +7 .l
Michigan ----------- -H'i.3 -7.7 +15.3 +2.3 +9.3 +9.8
Wisconsin ---------- +4.8 -3.7 +12.2 +1.4 +3.9 +9.0
· Minnesota ---------- +4.3 -5.0 +11.8 +1.0 +3.4 +9.2
Iowa --------------- W.6 -7.3 +5.1 -3.5 +0.6 +4.8
Missouri ----------- -3.3 +11.7 +2.3 +1.8 +4.4
North Dakota ------- +3.1 -7.2 +5.6 +3.9 +4.1 +5.4
South Dakota ------- +0.9 -4.4 +5.7 -3.4 +0.7 +7.9
Nebraska ----------- +3.4 -1.5 +10.4 +0.5 +1.0 +6.0
Kansas ------------- +3.2 -8.0 +10.9 +0.3 +3.6 +5.9
South: Total -------- +9·3 +2.8 +11.6 +9.3 +8.8 +12.5
Delaware ----------- +12.7 +3.7 +25.2 +7.2 +15.0 +9.5
Maryland ----------- +14.0 +21.5 +10.7 +16.1 +12.8
District of Columbia +5.0 (g/)+6.6 +22.3 -5.8 +1.4 +3.9
Virginia ----------- +11.4 +14.8 +10.3 +14.0 +10.6
West Virginia ------ -2.4 -10.2 -5.3 -3.0 +2.9 +5.2
North Carolina ----- +8.3 +1.8 -H'i.5 +9.2 +11.6 +13.3
South Carolina ----- +7.0 +0.2 +4.6 +8.7 +11.0 +12.0
Georgia ------------ +11.4 -H'i.7 +12.2 +12.5 +11.5 +9·9
Florida ------------ +17.1 +8.1 +24.5 +16.3 +7.8 +30.0
Kentucky ----------- +4.5 -l.l +5.3 +5.3 +4.4 -HS.o
Tennessee ---------- +7.9 +0.5 +8.4 9.3 +8.6 +8.6
Alabama ------------ -H'i.7 -2.2 +7 .o =K3.3 +8.4 +8.7
Mississippi -------- -HS.o -0.6 -H'i.7 +9.7 +3.4 +5.7
Arkansas ----------- +8.7 +10.0 +5.9 +14.2 +4.2 +7.0
Louisiana ---------- +9·3 +1.9 +13.9 +9.1 +8.1 +9.3
Oklahoma ----------- +5.1 +0.6 +5.7 +6.5 +3.4 +7 .6
Texas -------------- +10.6 +3.2 +15.7 +9.0 +9.5 +14.6
West: Total --------- +14.0 -H'i.3 +20.6 +12.0 +14.2 +13.3
Montana ------------ +4.2 -6.0 +10.1 +1.3 +9·3 +1.5
Idaho -------------- +3.9 -8.5 +5.8 +2.5 +9.3 +8.9
Wyoming ------------ CY) -8.8 +4.9 -6.4 -H'i.3 +ll.O
Colorado ----------- +ll.l +1.2 +19.1 +9.2 +12.3 +7 .5
New Mexico --------- +6.7 +2.9 +12.3 -0.7 +13.9 +16.8
Arizona ------------ +20.9 +16.1 +25.1 +19.6 +16.9 +31.1
Utah --------------- +11.6 -0.9 +17.6 +10.8 +13.0 +14.0
Nevada ------------ +52.1 +54.7 -H'i5. 7 +56 .5 +35.4 +24.6
Washington --------- +4.2 -5.4 +8.7 +0.9 +8.3 -H'i.7
Oregon ------------- +9·6 -3.0 +12.2 +11.4 +9·3 +10.7
Calif'ornia --------- +17.1 +10.5 +25.2 +15.2 +15.7 +14.7
Alaska ------------- +17.9 +12.3 +41.7 +4.5 +29.4 +10.9
Hawaii ------------- +12.2 -H'i.7 +15.7 +7.4 +19.6 +24.8
y Less than 0.05.
g) Numbers for this age group are shown for the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia combined.
MARCH 1967 21
INDEX OF ARTICLES IN 1966 ISSUES
CLOTHING AND TEXTILES
Clothing expenditures of U.S. families -------------------Clothing
and textiles: Supplies, prices, and outlook -------New
developments in leather products and footwear---------
FAMILY FINANCE
A simplified method of finding the annual interest rate on
installment credit -----------------------------------Consumer
prices ---------------------------------------
Do.----------------------------------------------------
Do.---------------------------------------------------Do.--------------------~------------------------------
Cost of raising a child ---------------------------------Family
expenditures for medical care -------------------Farm
family spending for insurance, gifts, and contributions
Income and consumption as measures of economic status---Medical
care program for the aged becomes effective -----More
aged persons to receive social security payments ----Recent
publications from the Consumer Expenditure Survey -
U.S. incomes in 1965 -----------------------------------
FOOD
Changing patterns of family food spending ----------------Cost
of food at home ------------------------------------
Do.---------------------------------------------------Do.---------------------------------------------------
Do.----------------------------------------------------
Food prices in low- and high-income neighborhoods - ------Home
production and the family's food -------------------How
families spend their food dollars --------------------Implications
for consumers in the work of the National
Commission on Food Marketing -----------------------Outlook
for food consumption, prices, and expenditures ---The
cost of USDA food plans and family grocery bills ------Trends
in U. S. consumption of nutrients ----------------Twenty-
five years of cereal enrichment -------------------
HOUSING AND EQUIPMENT
Facilitating community services in low-rent public housing
developments ----------------------------------------
Homefreezer management survey: The families and their
freezers ---------------------------------------------
Page Issue
3 September
5 December
19 December
15 September
18 March
19 June
20 September
27 December
14 December
6 March
5 June
3 June
17 June
18 September
14 September
20 September
12 December
20 March
14 June
22 September
26 December
17 September
13 September
3 March
16 December
7 December
13 June
13 March
10 June
21 December
8 September
22 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
HOUSING AND EQUIPMENT (continued)
Housing: Outlook for supplies and prices ---------------Outlook
for homefurnishings and equipment --------------Telephones
in U. S. homes -------------------------
l\IIISCELLANEOUS
Bacteriology of cold-water laundering, drycleaning,
anddishwashing -----------------------------------Child
care arrangements of the Nation's working mothers -Factors
in the 1967 economy ---------------------------Household
help in U. S. homes -------------------------Population
growth and family formation -----------------Some
new USDA publications ----------------------------
Do. --------------------------------------------------Do.
--------------------------------------------------Do.-----~---------------------------------------------
Why married women work ------------------------------
SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS
Page Issue
11 December
8 December
18 March
11 March
14 March
3 December
15 March
23 December
24 March
13 June
23 September
25 December
16 March
Single free copies of U.S. Department of Agriculture publications are available
from the Office of Information, USDA, Washington, D. C. 20250. Please give your Zip
Code in your return address.
BEEF AND VEAL IN FAlVIILY MEALS--A Guide for Consumers. Home and Garden
Bulletin No. 118, January 1967.
FAMILY FOOD STOCKPILE FOR SURVIVAL. Home and Garden Bulletin No. 77, Revised
November 1966.
HOME FREEZING OF POULTRY. Home and Garden Bulletin No. 70, Revised January
1967.
STORING PERISHABLE FOODS IN THE HOME. Home andGardenBulletinNo. 78, Revised
October 1966.
HOW TO BUY EGGS BY GRADES AND WEIGHT CLASSES. Leaflet 442, August 1966.
HOW TO BUY POULTRY BY USDA GRADES. Marketing Bulletin 1, Revised September
1966.
SHOPPER'S GUIDE FOR CANNED PEAS. P rogram Aid 728, July 1966.
HOW TO BUY EGGS BY GRADES AND WEIGHT CLASSES. Leaflet 442, Revised August
1966.
HOW TO BUY POULTRY BY USDA GRADES. Marketing Bulletin 1, Revised September
1966.
SHOPPER'S GUIDE FOR CANNED PEAS. Program Aid 728, July 1966.
23
MARCH 1966
CONSUMER PRICES
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
( i ncludi ng single workers)
Group
(1957-59 = 100)
Jan.
1966
Nov.
1966
Dec.
1966
Jan.
1967
All items ---------- - -- - --------------- 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
110.4
115 -7
113.4
114.6
1:14.8
112.8
125.7
112.6
115.8
111.2
117.8
108.3
108.9
108.1
106.5
112.0
112.4
107.8
122.8
114.5
112.6
129.6
120.8
131.3
113.4
118.3
116.0
.114 . 7
114.8
112.6
126 .3
113.0
116 .4
111.3
118.6
108.4
110.2
107-9
106.7
112.3
112.6
108.1
122.9
113.8
111.7
129 .8
121.0
131.9
113.7
118.4
115.9
114.7
114.7
112.3
127.0
113.1
116 .5
111.4
118.7
108.6
110.5
108.3
106.7
111.3
111.6
106.4
122.9
ll3.4
111.4
129.8
121.4
132.9
113.8
118.5
116 .2
Food --------------------------------
Food at home ---------------------Food
away from home --------------Housing
----------------------------Shelter
---------------------------
Rent ----------------------~-----
Homeownership ------------------Fuel
and utilities ---------------Fuel
oil and coal --------------Gas
and electricity ------------Household
furnishings and operati on
Apparel and ·upkeep -----------------Men
' s and boys 1
------------------Women
's and girls' ----------------
Footwear -------------- ------------
Transportati on ----------------------
Private ---------------------------
Public ------- -- -------------------
Health and recreation --------------Medical
care ---------------------Personal
care --------------------Reading
and recreation -----------Other
goods and services ----------
Source : U. S. Department of Labor , Bureau of Labor Statistics .
Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Family Living
(1957-59 = 100)
Items
Item Feb. Oct . Nov . Dec. Jan.
1966 1966 1966 1966 1967
Feb.
1967
All items ------------------ 109 111 111 111 111 111
Food and tobacco --------- 116
Clothing --------- ---- ---- 120
Household operation ------ 112
Household furnishings ---- 97 Building materials , house 105
Autos and auto supplies -- 105 104 104
Source; U.S . Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service .
24
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
'If U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1967 0 • 250·461 (42)
