Family Economics Review [1973, Number 3]

              r
HIGHLIGHTS /FALL 1973
SPECIAL ISSUE:
THE ECONOMIC ROLE OF WOMEN IN FAMILY LIFE
0447A
PROPERTY OF THE
' 'llR.ARY
JAN :3 ij74
...,!\IlVEK;:,,; ~ Ut- I l-1\ In '-"('(ULINA
AT GREEN::iBORO
ARS 62-5
Consumer and Food Economics Institute
Agricultural Research Service
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW is a quarterly
report on research of the Consumer and Food
Economics Institute and on information from
other sources relating to economic aspects of
family living. It is prepared primarily for home
economics agents and home economics
specialists of the Cooperative Extension
Service.
Authors are on the staff of the Consumer and Food
Economics Institute unless otherwise noted.
Editor: Katherine S. Tippett Assistant Editor: Marilyn Doss Ruffin
Consumer and Food Economics Institute
Agricultural Research Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Federal Center Building No. 1
Hyattsville, Md. 20782
THE ECONOMIC ROLE OF WOMEN IN FAMILY LIFE
Through the years FAMILY ECONOMICS
REVIEW has had the objective of bringing to
its readers information on resources available
to families, alternative uses of resource.s, the
decisions families make regarding these
resources, and the levels of living families
attain. In selecting material to present, we have
been guided by the availability of recent data
that pertain to the economic aspects of family
living, the usability of these data to our
readers, and most importantly, the developing
social and economic trends that affect the use
of family resources.
Once previously, we published an issue with
a single focus: the special economic problems
of low-income families. In the current issue we
again focus on a specific segment of the
population and bring together information
about the economic role of women in family
life. We view this economic role broadly to
include women as producers of family
resources-at home and as wage earners, as
consumers of goods and services, and as
decision makers about the allocation of family
resources.
Women have made a substantial con­tribution
to the rising level of consumption
experienced by families in recent years. While
continuing to perform most of the household
work, women in increasing numbers earn
income for the family; some find themselves
the sole support of the family. Women's
assumption of this dual responsibility has been
facilitated in part by the trend toward families
with fewer children and less frequent presence
of older relatives in the home; by some
technological improvements in housing, house­hold
equipment and materials; and by the
availability of convenience foods and dis­posable
household products.
Even as they participate in the labor force,
however, women still provide most of the
physical care and nurture of children and retain
responsibility for the food habits and
nutritional well-being of their families. Also,
women are responsible for the increasingly
complex task of managing family resources-a
task that requires knowledge of the con­sumption
needs of other family members as
well as their own.
Women's homemaking responsibilities have
put them at a disadvantage with respect to
society's provisions for economic security, such
as retirement pensions and health and disability
benefits, which for the most part are related to
continuous full-time participation in the labor
force. Since the major contributions of women
do not entitle them to such benefits, most
women are provided for only as wives or
widows. Retirement benefits received by
women are, on the average, lower than those
received by men.
On the other hand, women in the labor
force have been slow to win some privileges
that should logically be related to earnings,
such as the granting of consumer and mortgage
credit.
The family unit, with husband and wife as
nucleus, continues for most to be more
economically viable than other living arrange­ments.
However, many women are carrying a
double load, and the nature of their respon­sibilities
is changing faster than the system of
rewards that recognizes economic contribution.
This may be a source of current stress in family
life.
EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS OF WOMEN
by Nancy Rudd
Women are playing an increasingly
important role as members of the Nation's paid
labor force. Because the number of working
women has increased at a much faster rate than
has the number of working men, women made
up a much larger proportion of the total labor
force in 1972 than they did in 1950- 38
percent compared with 29 percent. The
FALL 1973
proportion of all women 16 and over who are
employed or looking for work has increased
from 34 to 44 percent in the same time period.
Underlying these changes is the rise in
educational attainment of women. In 1972,
nearly three-fifths of all women 25 years or
over had completed at least high school,
contrasting with less than one-half 10 years
3
earlier (chart 1). Nearly 20 percent of women
in this age group had completed some college-
~EDUCATION OF WOMEN*
COLLEGE til'
14 OR MORE YEARS = % 9%
ARS 1962
9% 10%
1972
HIG.H S.CHO.OL 0. . 32%- -18% -18%
GRADE SCHOOL
• /NCLU()($'tft/OM(N1S'I'EARSOLDAHD11H)IfE S(NitCf 6UIIEAIJMTHECIN$V$..
U.S Df.t'AIITMEHT OF AGAICUUUII£ NEG. All$11083 7J I I I AGI'IICULTUII"l AESU.RCH $.EIIVICE
up from 16 percent in 1962. Each generation
of women has, on the average, attained a higher
level of education than the preceding one. For
example, women in their 20's are more likely
than those in other age groups to have com­pleted
some college, and a greater proportion
in this age group had completed some college
in 1972 than had done so in 1962. Thirty-four
percent of women ages 20 to 24 and 31
percent of women ages 25 to 29 had completed
at least 1 year of college in 1972 compared
with 22 and 20 percent, respectively, in 1962.
Women with higher levels of education,
especially those with college degrees, are more
likely to be in the labor force than women with
less education; they have employable skills and
are likely to earn higher wages and to perform
more interesting work.
Changes in the marital status of women
have also led to greater labor force partici­pation.
In both 1962 and 1972, the greatest
proportion of women in age groups between 20
and 65 were married and living with their
husbands. However, a greater proportion of
women under 30 were single in 1972 than in
1962, and a greater proportion of women in all
age groups 20 and over were divorced or
separated. Many of these women were respon­sible
for all or part of their own support, and
perhaps for the support of others .
Labor Force Participation by
Age and Marital Status
In 1972, women between the ages of 20 and
24 were more likely to be in the labor force
than those in any other age group, followed by
women ages 45 to 54, 35 to 44, and 18 and 19
(table 1). Over one-half the women in each of
these age groups were labor force participants.
Slightly less than one-half of women ages 25 to
34 were in the labor force , largely because of
child care responsibilities. In 1962, about one­half
of women ages 45 to 54 were labor force
participants, but no other age group had so
high a participation rate. During the decade,
the greatest increase in labor force partici­pation
was for women in the youngest age
groups. College education and declining
Table 1. -Labor force status of women 16 years and over, by age, March 1972 and March 1962
Labor force Participation rate
Age
1972 I 1962 1972 I 1962
Thousands Thousands Percent Percent
16 and 17 yrs ....... .... . 1,270 604 32.2 22.3
18 and 19 yrs ............ 1,963 1,286 51.8 46.3
20 to 24 yrs. ......... . .. 5,145 2,654 57.1 45.2
25 to 34 yrs . ............ 6,466 4,164 47.9 36.8
35 to 44 yrs. .... .... ... . 6,128 5,448 52.7 44.1
45 to 54 yrs. .... .... .... 6,646 5,432 54.7 49.9
55 to 59 yrs. .. ..... . . ... 2,531 1,980 48.0 44.6
60 to 64 yrs. ...... ... ... 1,729 1,231 36.7 31.9
65 yrs. and over ......... 1,098 944 9.5 10.7
Total 16 yrs. and over .. . 32,975 23,743 43.7 37.6
Source: U.S. Dept. Labor, Bur. Labor StatJs., Employment and Earnings, vol. 18, No. 10, April1972, p. 27, table
A-4, and vol. 8, No. 10, April 1962, p. 3, table A-3.
4 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
fertility rates were important factors under­lying
this increase.
Nearly three-fifths of working women were
married and living with their husbands in 1972;
somewhat over one-fifth were single. The
remaining one-fifth were widowed, divorced, or
married but not living with their husbands.
Divorced women had the highest participation
rate (70 percent), followed by single women
(55 percent), and married women not living
with their husbands (53 percent). About two­fifths
of married women living with their
husbands were in the labor force. The high
participation rate of divorced women is partly
due to the relatively small proportion who have
very young children at home. However, the
participation rate of those with young children
is much higher than for comparable married
women, suggesting a need for paid employ­ment.
Of all wives living with their husbands,
those with children between the ages of 6 and
17 were most likely to be in the labor force in
1972, followed by wives with no children
under 18 (chart 2). Wives with children under
WIVES IN THE LAlOR FORCE•
By Age of Children
CHILDREN
UNDER
6 YEARS•
6-17 YEARS
ONLY
NONE UNDER
11 YEARS
.1972
~1962
• MVEfWfrHIII.JUitiiD"f($1N1 S()(JitCF WII(I'VOI tA«Hf S1A1/S1rCS.
6-I'AUOifAV(CHitD,ENI - llf'II(S£111
6, and especially under 3, were lessJikely to be
employed, although nearly one-third of these
women were in the labor force.
Hours Worked
About three-fourths of employed women
ages 20 to 64 worked full time ( 35 hours or
more per week) in 1972 (table 2); almost one­fifth
of these worked more than 40 hours.
Women under 20 and those 65 and over were
more likely to work part time than women in
other age groups. A higher proportion of
widowed, divorced, and separated women were
FALL 1973
working full time than were married women
who lived with their husbands. Single women
were least likely to be full-time workers, partly
because of the large number still in school.
Most part-time workers worked fewer hours by
choice.
Over four-fifths of managers and admin­istrators,
operatives (excluding transport
equipment operatives) and craftsmen, and over
three-fourths of professional and technical
workers, and clerical workers were employed
full time. Relatively high rates of voluntary
part-time employment characterized transport
equipment operatives, sales workers, and
service workers (especially those in private
households).
Occupations
Women are more likely to be white-collar
workers than service, blue-collar, or farm
workers. In 1972-the greatest proportion were
in clerical positions ( 35 percent), followed by
service (18 percent), professional and technical
(15 percent), operatives (13 percent), and sales
(7 percent). Smaller proportions were managers
and administrators, craftswomen, transport
equipment operatives, nonfarm laborers, and
private household workers. The distribution of
women workers among occupations changed
between 1962 and 1972. The proportion
employed as clerical workers, professional and
technical workers, and service workers (other
than private household) increased while the
proportion in most other occupations
decreased. The proportion employed as private
household workers decreased by more than 50
percent (from 11 to 5 percent). As women
become qualified to hold higher paying jobs
that demand greater skills, fewer are willing to
engage in low paying, often unskilled, house­hold
service jobs.
Women increased their relative share of jobs
in every major occupational category between
1962 and 1972 (chart 3). However, in 1972 as
in 1962, women predominated in the clerical
and service jobs, while men held the majority
of sales, professional, managerial, and blue­collar
jobs.
Incomes
Mean 1972 money income of year-round,
full-time women workers 25 years and over was
5
$6,321. Nearly two-fifths of all women
workers (including part-time) earned less than
$2,000 and nearly one-third earned between
$2,000 and $5,000; less than 5 percent earned
$10,000 or more.
Among the measurable factors affecting the
size of income are occupation and level of skill
required, total hours worked, and education.
Women employed in full-time salaried
professional and technical jobs had the highest
incomes, followed by those employed as full­time
salaried managers and administrators
($8,757 and $8,439, respectively). Mean ·
income of full-time clerical workers ($5,988)
was next highest.
The mean incomes of full-time male
workers were substantially higher than those of
full-time female workers in every occupational
Table 2. -Women at work in nonagricultural industrii!s by full- or part-time status,
by age, marital status, and occupation, March 1972'
Total Working schedule Average hours
Item at
work All Full Voluntary Other All Full time
workers time part time part time• workers workers
Thousands Percent Percent Percent Percent Hours Hours
Age
16 and 17 yrs ............. 984 100 9.1 88.9 1.9 14.9 38.4
18 and 19 yrs .. ... ..... ... 1,591 100 53.6 40.8 5.7 28.1 39.2
20 to 24 yrs .............. 4,483 100 78.6 17.6 3.9 35.4 39.9
25 to 44 yrs . .. . ... ... . .. . 11,226 100 73.3 22.8 3.9 34.9 40.3
45 to 64 yrs . ... .......... 9,790 100 76.4 19.9 3.8 36.2 41.1
65 yrs. and over ........... 968 100 49.3 46.9 3.8 29.9 43.8
Total 16 yrs. and over .. .. .. 29,042 100 71.1 25.0 3.9 34.2 40.6
Marital status
Married, husband present ... 17,125 100 71.0 25.2 3.8 34.3 40.3
Widowed, divorced,
separated . .. .... .. . .. . . 5,463 100 78.3 16.8 4.9 36.6 41.2
Single .................... 6,454 100 65.2 31.5 3.4 31.7 40.6
Occupation
White-collar workers . . ..... 18,076 100 75.0 22.8 2.2 35.1 40.6
Professional and
technical ............. 4,461 100 77 .2 21.0 1.7 36.3 41.8
Managers and administra·
tors, except farm ...... 1,351 100 85.9 11.6 2.4 41.8 45.3
Sales workers . ... .... . .. 1,974 100 51.6 43.9 4.5 30.3 41.3
Clerical workers ......... 10,290 100 77.1 21.0 1.9 34.7 39.2
Blue-collar workers ... ..... 4,428 100 81.5 11.2 7.3 36.1 39.5
Craftsmen and kindred
workers .............. 376 100 81.2
Operatives, except
16.8 2.1 36.6 40.2
transportation ....... . . 3,699 100 84.6
Transportation equip·
7.6 7.8 36.7 39.4
ment operatives .... ... . 127 100 22.8 69.3 7.9 23.7 38.7
Nonfarm laborers ........ 226 100 64.1 29.2 6.6 33.0 40.4
Service workers .. .... ... . . 6,614 100 53.0 40.6 6.3 30.2 41.7
Private household ....... 1,457 100 31.1 59.6 9.3 22.9 44.0
Other service workers . .. .. 5,157 100 59.3 35.3 5.4 32.3 41.4
'Nonfarm only.
2 I?cludes sl~ck work, material shortages or repairs to plant and equipment, new job started during week, job
termmated dunng week, could find only part-time work.
Source: U.S. Dept. Labor, Bur. Labor Statis., Employment and Earnings, vol. 18, No. 10, April 1972, pp. 40-41,
table A-25, and pp. 42·53, table A-26.
6 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
WOMEN WORKERS IN THE LAlOR FORCE•
CLERICAL
SERVICE•
SALES
PROFESSIONAL
& TECHNICAL
MANAGERIAL &
ADMINISTRA liVE
ILUE COLLAR
••rl"tlfCtNTAGlCN rQTAt ltO<'tiCllf$ /NEACHOCC'IA"ArltNt!U. Qlf()(J#
.1972
~1962
AOTHEif TIUJIMIVAT( HOVUHOI.D $0UifCC .IJiliAVOf'l.U0A$1Ar1SrlCS-U.
S OUAIITIII(Nl Of" AGIIIIOJL TUflf. H£0 AIISeoe& 13111 MiiUCULfUitALIIU(AIIIQ(st:IIIVICl
group. A 1971 Department of Labor report1
indicated that much of the observed income
differential between men and women is due to
the specific kinds of jobs held by women as
well as to the industries in which they tend to
be employed. Within the broad category of
professional and technical workers, for
example, nurses, elementary school teachers,
and lab technicians, tend to be women, while
doctors, college professors, and scientists tend
to be men. Average incomes of the last pro­fessions
are much higher than those of the first
mentioned professions. Women are more likely
than men to be employed in lower paying,
labor-intensive industries such as apparel and
leather products, while men are found in higher
paying, capital-intensive industries such as
petroleum products and transportation equip­ment.
Women's Contribution to
Family Income
Mean 1971 money income of husband-wife
families in which both worked was
$12,798-$1,669 higher than in husband-wife
families in which the husband worked but the
wife did not. Over 64 percent of working-wife
families had total incomes of $10,000 or more,
contrasting with only 47 percent of families in
which the wife was not employed. Women in
professional and technical positions made the
greatest contribution to family income in 1971
(c4art 4), followed by clerical wo!'kers, crafts­men,
and service workers. Black women
1 U.S. Dept. Labor, Bur. of Labor Statis.,
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, "Pay Differences
Between Men and Women in the Same Job," November
1971.
FALL 1973
CONTRIBUTION OF WORKING WIVES
TO FAMILY INCOME
WIFE'S OCC 1--T_IO_N __W .:.__H....c.IT.:..E•_
PROFESSIONAL
~--~-----
CLERICAL
CRAFTSWOMEN 1,-----........l~~~
SERVICE
PROFESSIONAL t===~~lmSE~w£1
CLERICAL
CRAFTSWOMEN 1----.....J.:~~
SERVICE
5 10 15
ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME (THOUS.)
F.AM/l/C$WI1H.OrH~NOANDWIFCCAitNING '''' . Ht/UAND
$0(}/tCf .1/lf(AI.IOF fHlC£NSVS
20
Hl0 AIISIIIIO&e· 131.1 A(;lltiCUl IUIIAl. II(S(AIICHSf:IIVIC[
workers earned a greater proportion of family
income than did white women workers,
reflecting, in part, the lower incomes of black
male workers.
Unemployment
Of total women in the labor force 6'h per­cent
were unemployed in 1972; these women
accounted for about two-fifths of total
unemployment. Of unemployed women 20
years and over, 58 percent had lost or left their
last job. Thirty-nine percent were reentering
the labor force after a period away. Only 3
percent had never worked before. Married
women not living with their husbands
experienced the highest unemployment rate
(11.5 percent), followed by single women (9.9
percent). The high unemployment rate of
single women is partly a reflection of the large
number of teenagers in this group. Teenagers
are far more likely to be unemployed than any
other age group. Married women living with
their husbands experienced a somewhat lower
rate of unemployment (5.4 percent), but
because they constituted such a large
proportion of all working women, they
accounted for about one-fifth of total unem­ployment.
About 10 percent of all women in the labor
force were heads of families in 1972. About 7
percent of these women were unemployed, and
in more than two-thirds of these families, no
other member was in the labor force. These
women accounted for about 4 percent of total
unemployment.
It is sometimes said that the relatively high
total unemployment rates of recent years are
of less concern for family welfare than in the
7
past because these rates are inflated by the
large numbers of unemployed wives whose
husbands are generally employed. However, of
all wives who earned income in 1971, 10 per­cent
had husbands who earned less than $3,000
during that year; nearly three-fifths of these
wives earned less than $3,000 themselves.
Another 26 percent of working wives had
husbands whose 1971 income was between
$3,000 and $7,000. At all income levels under
$10,000 of both husband and wife, about one­fifth
of employed wives earned as much as or
more than their husbands. For many families,
the wife's income may mean the difference
between poverty and "just getting by" or
between "just getting by" and modest comfort.
Sources: U.S. Dept. Commerce, Bur. of the Census,
CURRENT POPULATION REPORTS: Series P-20,
No. 121, February 1963; No. 122, March 1963; No.
242, November 1972; No. 243, November 1972. Series
P-60, No. 85, December 1972. U.S. Dept. Labor, Bur.
of Labor Statis., EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS,
vol. 8, No. 10, April1962; vol. 18, No. 10, April1972;
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW, "An Analysis of
Unemployment by Household Relationship," August
1972, "Pay Differences Between Men and Women in
the Same Job," November 1972; SPECIAL LABOR
FORCE REPORT, "Marital and Family Characteristics
of Workers, March 1972," October 1972.
TIME AND ITS DOLLAR VALUE IN HOUSEHOLD WORK 1
by Kathryn E. Walker and William H. Gauger2
In the United States, time devoted to work
is usually compensated in dollars and cents;
however, a major exception is household work.
Household work is indispensable to the
functioning of family and society, but because
this work generally takes place outside the
context of the business world time spent at it is
not normally given a dollar value.
A family may wish to attach a dollar value
to household work for a number of reasons. A
dollar value attached to what is done at home
could give each family member an increased
sense of personal worth and a greater appre­ciation
of the work she or he performs in
behalf of the family. The dollar value may also
provide an index of the cost of living by
contributing information on (1) the cost of
raising a family, (2) how the number of
children affects household work costs, (3) how
much children contribute by their work at
home, and (4) how the loss of services of a
family member affects the economic well being
of the unit.
Once family members have an under­standing
of the economic value of their work
contributions to family life, the dollar value of
household work can be used as an aid for
deciding whether family members can make
more beneficial contributions to the family as
wage earners, in production of family services,
or in a combination of both. Also, these values
may help families to decide how to allocate
time more satisfactorily among paid work, non-
8
paid work, and leisure. Time, after all, is
money.
The dollar value of household work may
also be useful for legal settlements related to
loss of such services in individual families.
Time Used for Household Work
There have been changes in the nature of
the family's work over the years. While some of
these changes have freed time, others simply
have changed our way of using time.
Although the community provides all kinds
of child care and educational services, the
family still needs to "chauffeur" children to
1 The research reported here was conducted at the
N.Y. State College of Human Ecology-cornell
University and partially supported by two grants from
the Consumer and Food Economics Institute, Agri­cultural
Research Service. Earlier findings were
reported in the September 1969 and June 1970 issues
of FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW. This article is
condensed from THE DOLLAR VALUE OF HOUSE­HOLD
WORK, Information Bulletin 60, N.Y. State
College of Human Ecology. It is available for 25 cents
from the Mailing Room, Research Park, Cornell Uni­versity,
Ithaca, N.Y., 14850.
2 Kathryn Walker, professor, and William Gauger,
assistant professor, in the Department of Consumer
Economics and Public Policy have been coinvestigators
for this phase of the overall project on measurement of
household work. Irma Telling has been research
associate for the project and Frances Whitman, a
graduate student, has also made a significant con­tribution
in valuing the housewife's time contribution.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
the day-care center, the library, the swimming
pool, or the baseball diamond. If industry
provides convenience foods, someone in the
family must use time to choose from the ever­changing
market shelves, wait in line at the
checkout counter and at the traffic light, and
then find a place to store foods for "instant
use." Many labor-saving devices commonly
used today lighten the workload, but they
require time for service, maintenance, and
repair. Some changes in the family's work have
made it physically easier to do, and many
people mistake "easier" for "less time­consuming."
Social, cultural, and technological changes
have taken place simultaneously, and it is
difficult to assess either the cause of these
changes or their effects on household work.
The community has taken over some services
once provided by the family; technology has
eliminated the need for some services and
changed the nature of others. Nevertheless, the
family continues to provide a multitude of
services for its members. In the future, the
family will have a greater choice of which
services now performed at home will continue
to be done at home, and which ones will be
done outside. By examining both the costs and
benefits of alternate work choices, the family
can influence its future.
How much would it cost to pay someone
else to provide all the services needed to feed,
clothe, house, and nurture the family? House­hold
services take time to provide, if not the
housewife's, then the time of someone else. If,
for one reason or another, the family members
do not take care of their own house repairs,
lawn mowing, meal preparation, and laundry
car~, then someone else usually does and is
customarily paid in dollars and cents. When the
household services are turned over to someone
else to produce, they have a money value-the
value of the time spent by the worker. The
same services are just as valuable .when
provided by a family meml;>er. Consequently, a
money value can be given by valuing the time
the family spends on household work at the
wage rates that would be paid to others for the
same services.
Research with a sample of 1,378 families in
upstate New York has shown that the extent of
services that each family provides for its
members depends primarily on three things:
FALL 1973
the number of children under 18, the age of
the youngest child (or the age of the wife in
childless families), and whether the housewife
is employed in the labor force. The average
amount of time spent on household work by
each family member-as reported by the
families who participated in the study-is
shown in table 1 for each of these three
variables. There are other things, such as what a
particular family considers important, that
affect the amount of time that all the family
members contribute to the household's
operation, but these are difficult to measure.
The housewife contributed most of the time
that went into household work. In no type of
family did the average time contributed by
husband, teenager, or younger child exceed 3
hours a day. On the other hand, in no instance
did the wife's average time drop below 31h
hours a day. (To determine average time spent
per week, multiply the times reported in table 1
by 7 days-not 5 days, the typical employment
workweek.)
The housewife's daily time varied from the
low of 3% hours per day when she was young,
employed, and had no children, to a high of 12
hours per day when she was not employed and
had seven or more children, one of whom was a
baby. On the average, wives used 2 hours less
time per day in household activities if
employed than if not employed, with some
variation by composition of the family. Causes
of this reduction in time may be attributed to
more efficient use of time, leaving some of the
work undone, buying the services of industry
(as in convenience food), or by some
redistribution of family work or hiring the
services of a helper.
Time spent on household work by husbands
averaged about 1.5 hours per day with some
variation by family type. For example,
husbands contributed slightly more time in
larger families with babies. The time con­tribution
of the husband was not related to the
wife's hours of employment. It was related,
however, to his own employment hours. If
husbands were employed less than 40 hours per
week, they contributed 2.1 hours a day to
household work; if they were employed 40 to
49 hours, their contribution averaged 1. 7 hours
per day; and if they were employed 50 or more
hours per week, their contribution dropped to
1.3 hours. Since only 11 percent of the
9
husbands in the sample were employed less
than 40 hours, while one-third were employed
50 hours or more, relatively small time con­tributions
at home were common.
Children age 12 to 17 years contributed
about 1 hour per day per child, on the average.
The contributions of this age group showed
very little variation whether or not the mother
Table 1.-Average daily time contributed by various family members in all household work
Age of
wife or Time contributed by-youngest
Number child Nonemployed-wife households Employed-wife households
of
children Families Child
Wife in Wife Husband 12-17'
sample
Number Hours Hours Hours
None Under 25 16 5.1 .9 --
25-39 20 5.9 1.2 --
40-54 32 6.2 1.5 --
55 & over 39 5.4 2.0 --
Youngest
child
1 12-17 22 7.0 2.0 1.2
6-11 24 6.9 1.5 --
2-5 28 6.8 1.7 --
1 39 7.5 1.7 --
under 1 41 8.3 1.6 --
2 12-l7 27 7.1 1.7 .9
6-11 64 7.4 1.6 .8
2-5 96 8.2 1.6 .8
1 53 8.8 1.7 (')
under 1 66 9.5 1.5 {')
3 12-17 26 6.7 1.1 1.0
6-11 7.3 1.6 1.2 .6
2-5 72 8.0 1.4 1.1
1 51 8.8 1.6 .4
under 1 32 10.1 1.5 {')
4 12-17 7 6.4 1.1 .9
6-11 52 8.0 1.4 1.1
2-5 35 9.1 1.4 .9
1 23 8.7 1.9 1.0
under 1 34 10.5 2.1 {')
5-6 6-11 16 8.6 2.0 1.4
2-5 17 9.0 1.5 1.0
1 6 7.5 1.1 (')
under 1 11 10.3 2.0 1.2
7-9 2-5 10 8.8 2.1 1.2
under 1 4 11.7 1.9 {')
1 Averages for children are for each child in family.
2 Fewer than 4 families.
3 Fewer than 4 children of designated ages.
Child Families Child Child
6-11' in Wife Husband 12·17' 6·11 1
sample
Hours Number Hours Hours Hours Hours
--- 29 3.5 1.4 -- --
-- 25 3.6 1.4 - --
--- 13 4.3 .8 - --
-- 11 4.3 1.1 -- --
--- 24 5.0 1.8 1.1 --
.4 21 5.7 1.2 -- .6
-- 18 4.6 1.4 -- --
-- 6 6.4 .5 -- --
-- (') (2) (') --- --
--- 19 4.8 " 1.7 1.2 --
.5 24 5.4 1.5 1.0 .5
.3 29 6.2 1.7 1.2 .3
.4 10 rs.z_ 3.5 (') (')
.3 7 7.7 1.6 (') (')
-- 17 3.8 1.5 1.1 --
27 6.3 1.4 1.4 .8
.6 15 7.5 2.1 {') .4
4 7.5 2.4 (') (3)
.7 4 6.6 2.1 (') (')
-- 9 6.1 1.2 1.4 --
.6 18 5.3 .9 .8 .4
.5 (') (') {') (') (')
.5 {') (') (') {') (')
1.5 {') {') (') {') {')
.6 (') {') (') (') (')
.5 (') (2) (') (') (')
.4 (') (') (') (') (')
.8 (') {') (') (') (')
.5 (') (') (') (') (')
.9 --- --- -- -- --
Source: Data collected by N.Y. State College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, included 1,318
urban-suburban households, Syracuse, N.Y., 1967-68 and 60 rural households, Cortland County, N.Y., 1971. Based
on 1971 wage rates.
10 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
was employed. Children age 6 to 11 years
contributed about one-half hour per day per
child, on the average.
The averages shown in the table mask
differences between individual families. Some
received considerably greater time. con­tributions
from husbands and children than the
figures indicate, but others received consider­ably
less than average time.
The total work in families was sometimes
more than that contributed by all the
individuals in the household, since babysitters,
grandparents, neighbors, and others helped.
Including these "extras," total time of all
workers varied from a low of 5 hours in
childless households with employed wives to a
high of 18 hours in large households with non­employed
wives._
Whether or not all family members make a
time contribution to the total workload, the
major responsibility for the work of the home
continues to belong to the wife and mother.
Despite both technology and a new feminist
awareness, this common pattern has not
changed perceptibly.
Pricing Time Contributions
To put a monetary value on time con­tributed
by family members, the various
household work tasks needed to be priced. To
do this, workers were identified in the market­place
who perform services similar to the
household tasks normally engaged in by family
members. These workers included cooks, dish­washers,
cleaning women, "handymen,"
washing-machine operators, laundry workers,
clothing-maintenance specialists, child-care
women, homemaker aides, and accounting
clerks. Hourly wage rates were obtained for
each of these job categories from public and
private employment agencies in central New
York State and from publications of the
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. In
1971, when these wage rates were obtained,
rates for the various job categories in the
Syracuse, N.Y., area ranged from $1.65 per
hour for a dishwasher to $2.50 an hour for a
cleaning woman. Those paid at $1.85 per hour
included washing-machine operator, clothing­maintenance
specialist, and homemaker aide.
The hourly rate was $2.00 for a cook, presser,
and handyman; it was $2.33 and $2.40,
FALL 1973
respectively, for an accounting clerk and child­care
woman. These rates would vary somewhat
in other parts of the country.
The hourly wage rates were assigned to the
household work tasks and then applied to the
amount of time spent by each family member
in the 1,378 families surveyed. The household
tasks given a dollar value were marketing,
management and recordkeeping; food prep­aration,
aftermeal cleanup; house care and
maintenance, yard and car care; washing,
ironing, and special care of clothing; physical
and other care of family members.
These dollar estimates of the value of house­hold
work were consistently conservative, and
they provide a minimum estimate of value.
Time spent in child care, for instance, was
valued at the rates for a child-care woman, not
at the rates for a worker with specialized
education in child development. The value
assigned was the cost of hiring someone to do
the task in question, not what it would cost to
replace the family member doing it. For
instance, bill-paying and other money­management
tasks might, in one family, be
handled by a wife who is a licensed accountant,
but all such tasks were valued at accounting­clerk
pay rates. Another reason that the values
estimated are conservative is that it would be
difficult to hire someone at these rates for the
relatively small amounts of time devoted to
some of the tasks.
Families were categorized by the employ-
. ment status of the wife, number of children,
and age of the youngest child (or in childless
families the age of the wife). The money value
was calculated for the contributions of
husbands, wives, and children 12 to 17 years
old for each of the tasks and for all tasks
combined (see table 2). Contributions of
children 6 to 11 years of age were not
calculated since both the quantity and quality
of the work of this age group are hard to
evaluate. The time given by older family
members to teach the younger children to
work was included as educational activities in
the family-care category, and time thus spent
was priced for the older worker.
The value of household work for the wife
increased as the age of the youngest child
decreased regardless of family size, but number
of children also had a strong affect. Total
household contributions of employed wives
11
were less than those of their nonemployed
counterparts.
The variation in the figures shown is due to
two factors-differences in the total amount of
time spent in household tasks, and differences
in the average hourly wage rate arising from
differences among categories of families in the
"mix" of activities performed. Of these two
Table 2. -Average annual dollar value of time contributed
by various family members in all household work
(All values expressed to nearest $100)
Age of Value of time contributed by-wife
or
Number youngest
of child Nonemployed-wife households Employed-wife households
children
Wife Husband
Wife
Dollars Dollars
None Under 25 3,900 700
25-39 4,500 900
40-54 4,600 1,200
55 & over 4,100 1,600
Youngest
child
1 12-17 5,300 1,600
6-11 5,200 1,200
2-5 5,200 1,400
1 5,900 1,400
under 1 6,600 1,300
2 12-17 5,600 1,300
6-11 5,600 1,300
2-5 6,400 1,300
1 6,900 1,300
under i 7,600 1,200
3 12-17 5,000 800
6-11 5,600 1,300
2-5 6,200 1,100
1 6,900 1,300
under 1 8,000 1,200
4 12-17 4,700 800
6-11 6,100 1,100
2-5 7,000 1,200
1 6,800 1,500
under 1 8,400 1,700
5-6 6-11 6,600 1,600
2-5 6,900 1,200
1 5,800 900
under 1 8,100 1,700
7-9 2-5 6,800 1,800
under 1 9,400 1,500
1 Values for children are for each child in family.
1 Fewer than 4 families.
3 Fewer than 4 children of designated ages.
Child Wife Husband Child
12-17 1 12-17'
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
--- 2,600 1,100 ---
--- 2,800 1,100 ---
--- 3,200 600 ---
--- 3,200 900 ---
900 3,700 1,400 800
--- 4,400 900 ---
--- 3,600 1,200 ---
--- 5,000 400 ---
--- (') (') ---
700 3,600 1,300 900
600 4,100 1,200 700
600 4,800 1,400 900
(') 4,900 2,800 (')
(') 6,200 1,300 (')
800 2,800 1,200 800
900 4,800 1,200 1,000
900 5,900 1,700 (')
1,200 5,800 2,000 (')
(') 5,200 1,700 (')
700 4,600 1,000 1,000
800 4,100 700 600
600 (1) {') (')
800 (') (') (')
(') (') (') (')
1,100 {') (') (')
800 (') (') (')
(') (') (') C>
900 (') (') {')
900 (1) (') (')
(') --- --- ---
Source: Data collected by N.Y. State College of Human Ecology, Cornell University, included 1,318
urban-suburban households, Syracuse, N.Y., 1967-68 and 60 rural households, Cortland County, N.Y., 1971. Based
on 1971 wage rates.
12 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
factors, the first is a more important cause of
the differences shown than is the second. For
example, in the case of nonemployed house­wives,
the average amount of time spent in all
household work activities varies from 5 to 12
hours daily, while the variation in the average
hourly wage rate is from $2.02 to $2.20.
The wife clearly contributed the giant share
of household work-both in time and in
dollars. This was true whether or not she was
employed. On the average, husbands did not
increase their contribution if their wives were
employed. However, in some families the
husband and children made appreciable
contributions whether the wife was employed
or not.
Finding the economic measure of the value
of such services need not mean ignoring the
nondollar values, rewards, and satisfactions
that the family receives from them. Money
value is one objective measure of the work that
goes into making it possible for the household
to operate as a unit in our complex world.
Total value can be assessed only by each
individual family.
MOTHERS IN THE LABOR FORCE
by Marilyn Doss Ruffin
For many women, the birth of the first
child means leaving the labor force for a time
or perhaps even altogether. Others choose to
remain on the job with time out for maternity
leave. In 1972, more than 8 million women
with children under 18 were in the labor force.
More than a third of these women had children
under 6 years old.
A mother's decision to be in the labor force
involves many factors--cultural and family
attitudes as well as economic considerations.
Mothers continue to have the major respon­sibility
in our society for care of children and
thus are least likely to be in the labor force if
home demands on time and energy are heavy­when
children are young, for example, or if the
family is large. About a third of the mothers of
children under 6 are in the labor force, com­pared
with half of those whose youngest child
is school age. Among mothers with children
under 6, the labor force participation rate is
highest for those whose children are 3 to 5, for
black women, and for women who are
widowed, divorced, or separated (see table on
p. 15). Also, women under 25 who have young
children are more likely to be in the labor force
than women 25 and over who have children in
the same age group; in part, this reflects a trend
to smaller family size.
The 1972 distribution of wives who expect
to have more than two children illustrates the
transition from the three-child to the two-child
family:
FA4L 1973
Wife's age
Percent having or
expecting to have
more than 2 births
18 through 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.7
20 through 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.4
22 through 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.3
25 through 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.7
30 through 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.0
35 through 39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.4
According to manpower experts, this trend is
expected to have a continuing influence on the
labor force participation of women and on the
composition of the labor force.
State and Federal court decisions and equal
employment guidelines have given women
greater choice in their labor force decisions
related to childbearing. The right of mothers of
young children to participate in the labor force
was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1971. In
Phillips us. the Martin Marietta Corporation, a
case in which a woman · was refused a job
because she had preschool children, the court
held that the law forbids "one hiring policy for
women and another for men." Federal Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
guidelines, intended for employers, labor
unions, and courts, state that to dismiss or to
refuse to hire a woman because of pregnancy
violates Title VII of the amended 1964 Civil
Rights Act. In addition, it is the woman, in
consultation with her doctor-and not the
employer-who may determine when in
pregnancy she leaves her job and when she will
13
return. The guidelines further state that
employers must make maternity leave avail­able.
The Supreme Court, which ultimately
interprets civil rights law, has stated that EEOC
guidelines warrant "great deference." 1
For many woman the availability of suitable
child care arrangements is a key factor in the
decision to enter or leave the labor force. Some
mothers are able to resolve the problem by
working part time rather than full time. The
mother of a school-age child, for example, may
be able to eliminate the need for care arrange­ments
by tailoring her work hours to the
child's school day. For any age child, the hours
of care services needed could at least be
reduced. Employed mothers of school age and
younger children work part time in about equal
proportions ( 30 and 32 percent, respectively).
Working part time may not be the best solution
financially , however, particularly for the
mother who is the family's only earner.
Working fewer hours means fewer hours of
pay; moreover, employee benefits such as
health insurance and pension credits often are
not extended to part time workers. In addition,
mothers who work part time are not eligible
for the Federal Income Tax deduction for child
care and household services (seep. 14). In 1972,
about one-third of employed wives with
children under 18 compared with one-sixth of
mothers who were divorced, separated, or
widowed worked part time.
Young mothers who use child care arrange­ments
while they work most often take their
children to someone else's home for care,
according to a 1968 study sponsored by the
U.S. Department of Labor.2 Relatively small
proportions used nursery school or day-care
centers:
Type of arrangement
Own home by relative ... ..
Own home by nonrelative ..
Home of relative . . . . . . .. .
Home of nonrelative . . .. . .
Group care center or school
Total . . .. . .. ... ..... .
14
Mothers who use
child care
White I Black
Percent
18
7
28
42
5
100
Percent
26
7
34
23
10
100
During the survey week, the median daily cost
of child care was lower for black women than
white women ($1.88 and $2.82, respectively),
partly because black women were more likely
to depend on relatives. A 1970 survey indicates
that home care is preferred by parents but that
more would use centers than currently if they
were available and met requirements of quality,
closeness to home, and cost. 3 The majority of
the parents surveyed preferred care "next door
at $15" to "free and 1h hour away" (58 and 33
percent, respectively) .
A working mother's expenditures for child
care and help with household tasks may be
offset to some extent by deductions now
allowed on Federal income tax. To qualify, the
mother must be employed full time or be
looking for a job. A maximum of $400 per
month or $4,800 per year is allowed for house­hold
services and care in the home of a child
under 15. For out-of-home services such as day
care, nursery school, and after-school
programs, the deduction is limited to $200 a
month for one child, $300 for two children,
and $400 for three or more. The deduction is
reduced if the family has more than $18,000 of
adjusted gross income. Internal Revenue
Service Pub. 503, "Child Care and Disabled
Dependent Care," explains the provisions in
detail. Prior to 1972, a maximum annual
deduction of $400 was permitted; in 1971, the
most recent year for which information is avail­able,
about 565,000 taxpayers took advantage
of the deduction.
Many women choose not to return to the
labor force until their children are older and
home responsibilities are not so demanding. In
1972, 4.4 million women who had last held a
1 Griggs us. the Duke Power Company, 91 S. Ct.
849 (U.S. S. Ct. 1971) as reported by Carol Greenwald,
"Maternity Leave Policy," NEW ENGLAND
ECONOMIC REVIEW, Jan./Feb. 1973, p. 13.
-
2 Herbert S. Parnes and others, YEARS FOR
DECISION, vol. I. Issued as U.S. Department of Labor,
Manpower Administration, Manpower Research
Monograph No. 24, 1971. Chapter 6.
3 MEEP (MASSACHUSETTS EARLY EDUCA­TION
PROJECT) SURVEY, November 1970. Re­ported
in CHILD CARE, Hearings before the
Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate, 92d Congress, 1st
session, on S. 2003, Child Care Provisions of H.R. 1,
and Title VI of Printed Amendment 318 to H.R. 1.
1971.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
job 5 or more years before were planning to
look for a job within the next 12 months.
Finding a job and then advancing beyond the
career level attained before the break is a
problem for women in this group. Refresher
courses or additional training can help smooth
the transition from full-time career at home to
one that includes paid employment as well.
Labor force participation of mothers of young children, by age of child,
age of mother, and race, March 1972
Ever-married Married, Widowed,
mothers Husband present divorced, separated
Characteristic
Number in Percent Number in Percent Number in Percent
population in labor population in labor population in labor
(thousands) force (thousands) force (thousands) force
ALL RACES
Children under 6 .... .... . 13,900 31.9 12,440 30.1 1,460 47.4
Mother age 16 to 24 . . . . . 4,025 33.2 3,510 31.5 515 44.5
25 to 34 . . ... 7,326 31.7 6,640 29.8 686 50.7
35 and over .. . 2,549 30.4 2,290 28.9 259 44.4
Children 3 to 5, none
younger .. . . ... . . .. .... 5,038 38.7 4,375 36.1 663 55.8
Mother age ~6 to 24 ... . . 628 46.2 489 42.5 139 59.0
25 to 34 . .. . . 2,898 39.2 2,534 36.5 364 57.7
35 and over ... 1,512 34.7 1,352 33.1 160 48.8
Children under 3 ......... 8,862 28.1 8,065 26.9 797 40.4
Mother age 16 to 24 . . .. . 3,397 30.8 3,021 29.8 376 39.1
25 to 34 .. .. . 4,428 26.9 4,106 25 .6 322 42.9
35 and over . . . 1,037 24.2 938 22.8 99 37.4
NEGRO'
Children under 6 .. .. .. . . . 1,685 47.8 1,206 49.8 479 42.8
Mother age 16 to 34 . . ... 1,310 49.2 931 51.4 379 43.5
35 and over ... 375 42.9 275 44.0 100 40.0
'Also includes other minority races.
Source : U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Special Labor Force Report, Marital and Family
Characteristics of Workers, March 1972.
Sources: Brown III, William H., Chairman, Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, Statement to
the Joint Economic Committee, July 11, 1973. CHILD
CARE, Hearings before the Committee on Finance,
U.S. Senate, 92d Congress, 1971. Greenwald, Carol,
"Maternity Leave Policy," NEW ENGLAND
ECONOMIC REVIEW, Jan./Feb. 1973. Hedges, Janice
Neipert, and Jeanne K. Barnett, "Working Women and
the Division of Household Tasks," MONTHLY LABOR
REVIEW, April 1972. Parnes, Herbert S., and others,
DUAL CAREERS, A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF
THE LABOR MARKET EXPERIENCE OF WOMEN,
vol. 1, issued as Manpower Research Monograph No.
21, U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Admin­istration,
1970. Parnes, Herbert S., and others, YEARS
FALL 1973
FOR DECISION, A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF
THE EDUCATIONAL AND LABOR MARKET
EXPERIENCE OF YOUNG WOMEN, issued as Man­power
Research Monograph No. 24, U.S. Department
of Labor, Manpower Administration, 1971. U.S.
Department of Commerce, CURRENT POPULATION
REPORTS, Series P-20, No. 248, 1973. U.S. Depart­ment
of Labor, Manpower Report of the President,
1973. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Special Labor Force Reports 152,
CHANGES IN THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION,
1972, 1973; 153, MARITAL AND FAMILY
CHARACTERISTICS OF WORKERS, MARCH 1972,
19 7 3; and 154, CHILDREN OF WORKING
MOTHERS, MARCH 1972, 1973.
15
WOMEN AND HOMEOWNERSHIP
by Lucie G. Krassa
Adequate and pleasant housing is con­sidered
by most persons to be an important
lifetime goal. For many, this goal is met by
renting, but for the majority, the goal includes
homeownership, chiefly because a house is an
asset and may contribute to financial security.
A house may also provide more space and
better surroundings.
The probability of being a homeowner is
greatest for a woman if she is married-sharing
with her spouse a home that is owned singly or
jointly, with both enjoying the benefits. In
1970, 71 percent of the housing units occupied
by husband-wife households were owned (see
table). In contrast, slightly less than half of the
housing units occupied by households with
female heads and by female one-person house­holds
were owned.1
Two conditions must be present to acquire
a home: First, adequate savings for a down­payment
and income for keeping up with the
monthly payments for mortgage, taxes,
utilities, and maintenance; and second, the
inclination, and in some cases the ability, to
perform or contract for necessary maintenance,
repair, and household operation. Husband-wife
households are more likely to meet the first
and perhaps the second of these requirements.
The 1970 median income of husband-wife
households was $10,519. The median for
households headed by women, excluding one­person
households, was less than half that
amount ($5,154). The estimated median house
value for one-family existing homes purchased
in 1970 with Federal Housing Administration
(FHA) insured mortgages was $17,773. To
carry the mortgage and meet the median
monthly housing expense of $200 for such a
house, a family would need an income of
$10,781 according to FHA estimates. While
many husband-wife families can meet these
1 In 1970, 63 percent of adult women in the United
States were wives living with their husbands who were
household heads. Eight percent of adult women were
heads of households; 11 percent lived alone or with
nonrelatives only; and 18 percent were relatives of the
heads of households where they Jived, resident
employees or boarders, or lived in group quarters such
as institutions, rooming houses, and communes.
16
sums, the income of most female-headed
households falls far short, severely limiting the
number of houses for which these households
can qualify. For many households headed by
women renting may be the only choice. In
1970, U.S. median monthly rent was $108.
Husband-wife households are likely to have
higher incomes than female-headed households
because of the higher incomes earned by men
and because husband-wife families are more
likely to have two earners. In 1970, 41 percent
of husband-wife families had two earners
compared with 24 percent of families headed
by a woman. The employment of the second
member increases the likelihood of having
money for a downpayment and the likelihood
of qualifying financially for homeownership.
The general policy of most lenders has been
to disallow or discount the income of a
working wife, particularly in the childbearing
years. However, with the increased labor force
participation of woinen and with the recent
trend for young women to have fewer children
and to return to the labor force before the
children are grown, there has been some
relaxation of this policy, especially with FHA.
In 1972, nearly half the wives in husband-wife
families that applied for an FHA insured
mortgage had an income. In almost nine of ten
of these families the wife's income was counted
as part of the income needed to qualify for a
loan. In 1960, the income of only one in four
was accepted. The higher 1972 level reflects a
1965 policy change that allowed a wife's
income to be counted "if her working is an
established pattern in the family life. " 2
Female heads of households who own their
homes are likely to own a more modest home
than husband-wife households. In 1970, the
median value of a home owned and occupied
by households with a female head was
$14,200, compared with $18,100 for husband­wife
households. About 7 percent of the homes
owned by female headed households lacked
2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop­ment,
HUD Consumer Bulletin, IP-31, "FINANCING
HOME PURCHASES AND LOAN IMPROVEMENTS,"
July 1967, p. 6.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Occupied U.S. housing units by type of household and tenure, 1970
Tenure Husband-wife Female-headed Female, 1-person Male, 1-person Other
households' households households households households'
Millions Percent Millions Percent Millions Percent Millions Percent Millions Percent
All occupied units .. . 43.2 100 6.3 100 7.2 100 3.9 100 2.8 100
Owner occupied ... 30.6 71 3.0 48 3.4 48 1.3 34 1.6 56
Renter occupied ... 12.7 29 3.3 52 3.8 52 2.6 66 1.2 44
'No nonrelatives in the household.
2 Includes male heads without wife and husband-wife families with nonrelatives present.
Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Housing, Housing Characteristics by
Household Composition, HC(7)- 1, and unpublished data.
complete plumbing facilities, compared with 3
percent of the homes owned by husband-wife
households. Women 65 years or older who are
heads of households are worse off than
younger women. About 10 percent of homes
owned by elderly women lacked complete
plumbing facilities, compared with 6 percent of
those owned by younger women.
Women living alone are more likely to own
their homes than men living alone ( 48 and 34
percent, respectively), although the median
income of unrelated individuals is less for
women than for men ($2,483 and $4,540,
respectively, in 1970). Several factors account
for this. Many female homeowners, especially
those over 65, are widows who tend to stay in
the home they purchased with their husband,
especially if the mortgage has been paid off.
Also, men living alone may be less inclined
than women to assume the burden of caring for
a home.
Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, CONSUMER INCOME, Series P-60, No.
79, July 27, 1971, p. 14; 1970 CENSUS OF
HOUSING, METROPOLITAN HOUSING CHAR­ACTERISTICS,
HC(2)-1, pp. 1-3, 1-4, 1-9, and unpub­lished
data; and 1970 CENSUS OF POPULATION,
GENERAL, SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC CHAR­ACTERISTICS,
PC(1)-C1, p. 380. U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 1971 HUD STATIS­TICAL
YEARBOOK, p. 203, and unpublished data.
WOMEN AND CREDIT
by Katherine S. Tippett
Hearings on the availability of credit to
women, held in May 1972 by the National
Commission on Consumer Finance, focused
attention on policies of lenders toward women
and on the myths and assumptions about the
reliability and working patterns of women
borrowers that form the basis for these
policies. 1 These problems affect women in all
1 The commission was established by the Consumer
Credit Protection Act (the same act that set up the
Truth-in-Lending Law) with instructions from Congress
to study and appraise the functioning and structure of
the consumer finance industry as well as consumer
credit transactions. Congress directed the commission
to report on the adequacy of existing arrangements to
provide consumer credit at reasonable rates, to report
on the adequacy of existing supervisory and regulatory
mechanisms to protect against unfair practices and to
ensure the informed use of consumer credit.
FALL 1973
marital situations and occur at a time when the
increased labor force participation of women
demonstrates a desire and, in many cases, a
need to work and seemingly an economic
ability to use credit.
The hearings produced numerous doc­umented
accounts of difficulties that women
face in obtaining consumer and mortgage
credit. Testimony revealed few difficulties for
working single women in obtaining small loans
and charge accounts with department stores.
However, single women trying to obtain
mortgage loans are faced with the assumption
that they are poor risks because they are
unreliable, or because they will marry, have
children, and quit their jobs with no assurance
that their husband will assume the loan pay­ments.
17
Lenders who tum this myth into a policy
may deny mortgage loans to single women-:-a
situation that limits their choice of housing­while
single men, with the same income and
credit rating, are granted loans. No evidence
was presented in the hearings to support the
assumption that women are poorer risks than
men. One witness, an economist, stated, "If
single women are as a class riskier than are
other borrower groups, lenders should be
obliged to provide proof of this." 2
The problem of obtaining loans faces some
women before they are even ready for the
labor force. Referring to the difficulty that
women have in obtaining college loans from
banks, Dr. Bernice Sandler, executive associate
at the Association of American Colleges,
stated, "Young women, applying for loans, are
often seen as poor risks compared to young
men. Yet, there is no data we were able to
locate that would indicate that this was true.
Although there is data as to the number and
percentage of defaults, apparently it is not
tabulated by sex." Dr. Sandler continued, "For
young men, marriage is seen as a stabilizing
influence, for young women, marriage and even
potential marriage may prohibit her from
obtaining a loan." 3
Married couples applying for credit find
that lenders are frequently unwilling to count
all or part of the wife's income, even when the
wife has a clearly established work history, that
includes returning to work after childbirth.
This practice is most prevelent in the granting
of mortgage loans.
Granting credit based on the husband's
income alone places a particular hardship on
families where the wife earns all or the major
part of the family income-as in families where
the husband is ill, unemployed, or a student.
Women are a vital source of income (sometimes
the only source) to these families. Testimony
revealed no reason why wives who are
permanent members of the labor force should
not qualify for credit on the same basis as men
who are sole earners for their families.
2 McElhone, Josephine, "The Economic Rationale
for Mortgage Lending Standards Affecting Women
Borrowers." Testimony before the National Com­!'
flission on Consumer Finance, May 22, 1972, p. 9.
3 Sandi~, Bernice. Testimony before the National
Commission on Consumer Finance, May 23, 1972, pp.
3 and 4.
18
Women who have maintained a good
credit rating while single are generally asked to
reapply for credit in their husband's name after
marriage, even though they are still employed
at the same job and at the same salary.
Testimony at the hearings revealed several
situations where credit accounts were
immediately reissued in the husband's name
although the husband was riot employed or
otherwise would not have qualified for credit.
Because the credit rating has been carried in
the husband's name, women who are widowed
frequently face problems reestablishing credit.
In the case of divorced or separated women,
the credit accounts-and the credit rating-go
with the husband, and the wife is left with the
task of establishing her own credit. In addition,
divorced women find that alimony and child
suppport payments are not considered income
by credit grantors, although for many one­parent
households this is the only source of
income.
Representatives of industry testified at the
hearings that their standards were the same for
women as for men-that acceptance for credit
was based on individual personal circumstances
such as income and previous credit rating.
Lenders acknowledged some discrimination
against married women but defended their
policies on the basis of State laws that consider
the husband legally liable for the support of his
wife. They also cited State laws that provide
for a lower rate of interest to be paid on credit
balances over a specified amount. They
expressed concern that families with two
separate accounts could be paying higher
interest costs when their combined balances
exceeded the level at which a lower interest
rate must be charged.
In its final report the commission found
evidence of widespread instances of unwar­ranted
discrimination in the granting of credit
to women. The commission expressed the hope
that the extensive publicity of the hearings,
pointing up the changing pattern of women's
employment and the economic need of some
women for credit, would cause many lenders to
reexamine their policies. The commission
recommended that "States undertake an
immediate and thorough review of the degree
to which their laws inhibit the granting of
credit to creditworthy women and amend them
where necessary, to assure that credit is not
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
restricted because of a person's sex."4 The
commission also concluded that statistically
based discrimination is acceptable but that
lenders should be able to demonstrate a valid
basis for turning down credit applicants.
Currently, no Federal legislation specifically
prohibits discrimination solely on the basis of
sex or marital status in the granting of credit.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
prohibits discrimination in private employment
on the basis of race, color, religion, national
origin, and sex. However, this applies only to
employment and does not cover those seeking
4 "Consumer Credit in the United States." Report
of the National Commission on Consumer Finance,
December 1972, p. 153.
credit. Despite the urging of a number of
witnesses, the commission did not recommend
legislation. However, some State and local
governments have passed their own laws pro­hibiting
discrimination against women in the
granting of credit, and others are considering
such legislation.
At the Federal level, legislation was
introduced in both the House and the Senate in
January 1973 (93d Congress). In July, the
Senate passed and sent to the House a
proposed law that would prohibit discrim­ination
on the basis of sex or marital status in
extending consumer credit. At the time this
issue went to press, the bill was pending in
committee.
WOMEN 65 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER
by Lucile F. Mork
Women 65 years and over are an important
and growing part of the population. The social
and economic problems some of the women in
this age group have to deal with are different
from the problems of women in other groups.
Women predominate among older persons.
In 1970, there were 11.6 million women and
8.4 million men-four women for every three
men. There has been a steady increase in the
proportion of women age 65 and over since
1930 when there were as many older men as
older women. By 1990, it is expected that
there will be only two men for every three
women as the following shows:
Year Ratio
Men per 100 women
1900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.0
1930 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.4
1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.6
1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.1
1990 (projection) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.5
Marital Status and Living
Arrangements
The majority of older women are widowed,
divorced, or single, and a considerable pro­portion
of them live alone. In contrast, men of
this age are more frequently married and living
with their wives (see table). In March 1971, 7
out of 10 men were married and living with
their wives, compared with about 3 out of 10
FALL 1973
women who were married and living with their
husbands.
The high proportion of widows is attributed
to several factors: The life expectancy of men
is shorter, husbands are generally several years
Marital and family status of persons 65 years
of age and over, 1971
Marital Women Men
and family status
Percent Percent
Marital status:
Single ................ 7.3 7.1
Married •••• 0 •••••• 0 •• 36.2 73.1
Spouse present 0 ••• 0 •• 34.5 70.1
Spouse absent ........ 1.7 2.9
Widowed •••••••••• 0 •• 54.2 17.1
Divorced .•.....• • 0. 0. 2.3 2.7
Total 0 0 •• 0 •• 0 •• 0 0 0 100.0 100.0
Family status:
In families •• 0 ••••• 0 0 0 0 57.5 79.7
Head 0 0. 0 •• 0 ••••••• 0 8.7 72.7
Wife 0 •• 0 •• 0 ••••• 0. 0 33.8 ...
Other relatives ........ 15.0 7.0
Unrelated individuals 1 .. . 37.8 16.6
Inmates of institutions ... 4.6 3.6
Total • 0 0 •• 0 •••• 0 0. 100.0 100.0
1 Household head living alone or with nonrelatives, a
lodger or resident employee with no relatives in the
household, or a group quarters member.
Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding.
19
older than their wives, and more widowers than
widows remarry, frequently selecting wives
from among women under 65.
Most older women are members of families,
but the proportion has decreased in the past 10
years. For example, the proportion of older
women in families was about 68 percent in
1961 but only 58 percent in 1971. At the same
time, the proportion who maintain their own
households in a nonfamily situation increased
from 30 percent in 1961 to 38 percent in
1971.
Economic Security
One out of ten women 65 and over works
today compared with one out of four men. The
rates of working for these women have stayed
at about 10 percent, while rates for older men
have been decreasing.
In 1971, nearly half of all older women not
living with any relatives, or about 2.1 million,
had incomes below the low-income level.1 The
low-income rate for single men was somewhat
lower and was based on far fewer individuals. A
major proportion or about two-thirds of older
black women were below the low-income level,
compared with about two-fifths of older white
women.
Median income for unrelated individual
women was $2,093, or about 80 percent of
that of men ($2,572).
A majority of older women receive monthly
cash benefits under the Old-age, Survivors,
Disability, and Health Insurance Program
(OASDHI). These benefits may be based on
their own work, or as wives of retired workers,
or as widows of deceased workers. About half
of all the women receiving benefits at the end
of 1971 were eligible on the basis of their own
work records; the other half were eligible as
wives and widows.
1 The weighted average threshold at the low-income
level in 1971 for an unrelated individual 65 years of
age or over was $1,931 ($1,934 for nonfarm women,
$1,959 for nonfarm men, $1,643 for farm women, and
$1,666 for farm men).
Under the OASDHI program, widows are
eligible to receive a benefit at retirement age
equal to the larger of either their own retired­worker
benefit or a dependent's benefit based
on their husband's earning record.
The recent Social Security amendments (see
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW, Summer
1973) increased the survivor protection for
women who become widowed at age 65 or
older. Effective January 1, 1973, a widow who
starts to draw benefits at age 65 now receives
benefits equal to 100 percent of her husband's
retired-worker benefit. (The maximum
formerly was 82.5 percent.) Benefits for those
already receiving benefits will be changed to
reflect this increase.
Only a small proportion of older women
receive benefits from a private pension or from
a second public pension in addition to
OASDHI benefits. Among beneficiaries in
1967, 6 percent of the single women received a
private pension and another 6 percent a second
public pension.
A plan for survivor benefits that gives a
widow or widower a percentage of the normal
retirement benefit of the retiree is available in
some pension plans. However, in most cases,
the original retirement benefit is also reduced.
Sources: Ball, Robert M., "Social Security Amend­ments
of 1972: Summary and Legislative History,"
SOCIAL SECURITY BULLETIN, March 1973, vol. 36,
No. 3, pp. 3-25. Bixby, Lenore E., "Women and Social
Security in the United States," SOCIAL SECURITY
BULLETIN, September 1972, vol. 35, No.9, pp. 3-11.
Bixby, Lenore E. and Reno, Virginia, "Second
Pensions among Newly Entitled Workers: Survey of
New Beneficiaries,"· SOCIAL SECURITY BULLETIN,
November 1971, vol. 34, No. 11, p. 3. Reno, Virginia,
"Women Newly Entitled to Retired-Worker Benefits:
Survey of New Beneficiaries," SOCIAL SECURITY
BULLETIN, April 1973, vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 3-26. U.S.
Department of Commerce, CURRENT POPULATION
REPORTS, Series P-23, No. 43, "Some Demographic
Aspects of Aging in the United States," February
1973; Series P-60, No. 82, "Characteristics of the Low­Income
Population : 1971," December 1972; and Series
P-60, No. 85, "Money Income in 1971 of Families and
Persons in the United States," December 1972.
NUTRIENT NEEDS AND FOOD COSTS OF WOMEN
by Judy P. Otassy
Women need to obtain the same nutrients
from their foods as men-most nutrients in
20
about the same or lesser amounts. However,
their food energy (Calorie) needs are con-
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
siderably lower. Therefore, the assortments of
foods eaten by women must provide more
nutrients per 1,000 Calories. Because of this,
women may find it more difficult than men do
to select foods that provide the nutrients
needed while avoiding overweight.
The Recommended Daily Dietary Allow­ances
(RDA)1 of the "reference women and
man"2 are shown in table 1. This table also
shows how much of each nutrient is needed per
1,000 Calories of food energy allowance. For
nutrients other than iron, a woman needs the
same or up to 40 percent more than a man for
each 1,000 Calories. She needs 125 percent
more iron for each 1,000 Calories.3 For
1 National Academy of Sciences-National Research
Council, Pub. No. 1694, 1968. RDA were established
for food energy and 15 nutrients; for other vitamins
and minerals, RDA have not as yet been established.
2 Reference woman: age=22 years; height=64
inches; weight=128 lb. Reference man: age=22 years;
hei~ht=69 inches; weight=154 lb.
This is because of menstruation. An older woman
(55 years and over) has the same RDA for iron as an
older man, and she needs only 40 percent more iron
per 1,000 Calories.
women and men of other ages the relationship
between nutrients needed per 1,000 Calories is
generally the same as for the reference woman
and man. Children of both sexes up to age 10
have the same RDA.
Assortments of foods planned to provide
for the nutrient needs of women and men are
illustrated by the USDA moderate-cost food
plans for one week's food for a 20-to-35-year­old
woman and man (table 2).
The woman's plan and the man's plan have
similar amounts of milk and milk products;
meat, poultry, fish, eggs, dry legumes, and
nuts; and citrus fruit and tomatoes. The
nutrients in these foods are relatively high
compared to the food energy that they pro­vide.
In contrast, the woman's plan has only
one-half to three-fourths as much as the man's
plan of flour, cereals, baked goods; potatoes;
fats, oils; and sugar, sweets. However, the
woman's plan has twice as much dark-green
and deep-yellow vegetables as the man's. Dark
greens are especially important in her plan,
because they are good sources of iron but
relatively low in Calories.
Table 1. -Recommended daily dietary allowances for reference woman and man 1
Allowance Allowance per
Nutrient Unit 1,000 calories
Woman I Man Woman I Man
Food energy ............ cal 2,000 2,800 -· ---
Protein •••••••• 0 0 0 • • 0 •• g 55 65 28 23
Fat-soluble vitamins:•
Vitamin A ••• 0 . 0 0 ••••• IU 5,000 5,000 2,500 1,800
Vitamin E IU 25 30 12 11
0. 0 0 •••• 0 0 ••
Water-soluble vitamins:
Ascorbic acid mg 55 60 28 21
•• 0 •••••••
Folacin ............... mg .4 .4 .2 .1
Niacin mg equiv 13 18 6 6
••••••••••••• 0.
Riboflavin mg 1.5 1.7 .8 .6
••• 0 0 ••• 0. 0.
Thiamin mg 1.0 1.4 .5 .5
••••••• 0 0 •••••
Vitamin B6
........... mg 2.0 2.0 1.0 .7
Vitamin B12
mg 5 5 2 2
• 0 ••••• •••
Minerals:
Calcium mg 800 800 400 290
•• 0 0 •• 0 •••••• 0 Phosphorus mg 800 800 400 290
••• 0 ........ Iodine mg 100 140 50 50
• 0 •••••••••••• 0 Iron mg 18 10 9 4
0 ........ 0 •••••••• Magnesium ......... . .. mg 300 350 15 12
1 See footnotes 1 and 2 of the text.
• Need-s of reference adults for vitamin D are assumed to be met by foods in a mixed diet and usual amounts of
exposure to sunlight, so no allowance is specified.
FALL 1973 21
Table 2.-1 week's food for women and men, 20 to 35 years old, moderate-cost food plan
Quantity per week
Food Group Unit
Woman I Man
Milk (or equivalent in
milk products) ......... qt. 3-1/2 3-1/2
Meat, poultry, fish eggs,
dry legumes, nuts ....... lb. 6 6-1/8
Flour, cereal, baked goods
(flour equivalent) ....... lb. 2·1/4 4
Citrus fruit, tomatoes • 0 ••• lb. 2·1/4 2·1/4
Dark green, deep yellow
vegetables ............. lb. 1·1/2 3/4
Potatoes 0 0. 0 •• 0 •••••••• lb. 1-1/2 3
Other vegetables, fruit ..... lb. 5·3/4 6-1/2
Fats, oils ............... oz. 8 16
Sugar, sweets ............ oz. 14 20
Estimated weekly cost,
June 19731
0 0 0 •••••• 0 0 dol. 12.20 14.00
1 Costs of the moderate-cost plan for boys and girls and men and women of different ages are shown on page 30.
The woman's and man's plans call for
similar amounts of foods that are relatively
expensive-meat, poultry, fish, eggs, milk and
milk products, fruits and most vegetables.
However, the woman's plan allows much less
than the man's of less costly foods, such as
flour, cereals, some baked goods, potatoes,
fats, and oils. Although the woman needs 29
percent fewer Calories than the man, her cost­using
the moderate-cost plan-is only 13
percent lower.
The special nutritional needs of women
during pregnancy increase their RDA, allow­ances
per 1,000 Calories, and weekly foods
costs compared with those of women the same
age who are not pregnant. Nursing women have
higher nutritional needs and weekly food costs
than pregnant women.
The moderate-cost plan for a woman 55 to
75 years old costs less for a week ($10.10, June
1973) than for a woman 20 to 35 years old
($12.20). Both food plans have the same
amounts of citrus fruit, tomatoes; and milk and
milk products. However, the older woman's
plan has smaller amounts of the other food
groups. This reflects the older woman's lower
RDA for food energy and iron, with the same
or higher RDA for nutrients other than iron.
NUTRIENT INTAKE OF WOMEN
by Ruth A. Redstrom
Food selections that women make for them­selves
will affect their own well-being and may,
through example, influence the eating habits of
other members of their households. Thus, it is
important to know what their food and
nutrient intake is, and where improvements are
needed.
When the nutrient content of 1 day's food
intake in 1965 was compared with the
Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA's),
the diets of men generally met the allowances
for more nutrients than the diets of women
(U.S. averages). For most nutrients in which
22
there were shortages, the average intake of
women fell further below the allowance than
the average intake of men in each age group
(see chart).
The two nutrients most often in short
supply in women's diets are calcium and iron.
The dietary adequacy for these nutrients varies
among women of different ages and socio­economic
characteristics. An analysis of
24-hour recalls of food intake by 482 urban
women in three age groups in the North
Central Region and 501 urban women in the
same age groups in the South in Spring 1965
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
IIUTIIENT IIITAIE IELOW RECOMMENDED AllOWANCE
SU-AOI
IUA.U)
MAll
AN.D..J.lM..o U.I• ,_, .·.-.·.
,1011.. CAlCIUM
•-n •
...... ....
n-u •• •••
IJ-IP • •
Il-l·
20-M ..uu,-_- s.,..•. .•• .• 7S & O'tlll e e e
•-n • • • • • • • •
,...,_
'LAVIN
~=u :::· ::::: :· JO- U e e. * *. ::::: :::: ....e :* :• ·
.S- 74 • • • • • • • • • •
7S A OYII e e e. • *. . e * * *
IUOW IT: e 1 -10~ ee11-20S eee 21- 2t'A •• ** .J01t 01 MOlt
AYHAOI .. tAU Of OIOI.W tROW IICOMMIHOIO Olf1AIY AU.OWANCt. N.U- NlC . ••••
U.l OIIU Of .IN, WOIIIIIN, ltNO CHILDitN. I OAT IN UIINO. I*U
ASCOII/C
ACID
indicates that calcium was a problem nutrient
for women in each age group in both regions.
However, in the North Central Region, women
under 35 years of age, although not
approaching the RDA for calcium, fared better
than the older women, as follows:
Age group
20- 34 years
35- 54 years
55- 64 years
Average percent of
the RDA for calcium
72
60
58
There were no significant differences among
age groups in the South; all three groups had
diets furnishing an average of about two-thirds
of the RDA. Milk and milk products con­tributed
the largest share of the day's calcium
for each age group-roughly from slightly more
than one-third to two-fifths of the day's
supply. Using the North Central Region as an
example, whole fluid milk was included in one
meal by slightly more than 25 percent of the
women in all three age groups. Thirty percent
of the women under 35 had whole fluid milk at
two or more eating occasions, compared with
25 percent of those from 35 through 54 years
of age and 20 percent of those over 55. Grain
products contributed the next largest amount
of calcium--about one-fourth of the day's
supply for each age group.
Relationships within age groups between
dietary adequacy for calcium and certain socio­economic
characteristics pinpoint specific
problem groups. Those at a greater dis­advantage
than others within their own age
group were:
FALL 1973
• Black women 20 through 34 in the
North Central Region as compared with
white women.
• Southern women 20 through 34 years of
age and women from 35 through 54 in
the North Central Region with family
incomes of from $3,000 up to $4,000 as
compared with those at other income
levels.
• Women of 35 through 54 in North
Central households having an employed
homemaker as compared with those in
households where the homemaker did
not work away from home.
• Women 35 through 54 in the North
Central Region who had no formal
education beyond elementary school as
compared with those having high school
or college training.
• Southern women 20 through 34 having
no formal education beyond high school
as compared with those having further
formal education.
Iron was a problem nutrient for women
under 55 in both regions. The average intakes
were about 60 percent of the RDA and
differed significantly from those for women
over 55. However, the 1968 RDA for iron for
women under 55 is not expected to be met by
ordinary food products alone, according to the
Food and Nutrition Board of the National
Research Council.
Although the average number of calories in
the day was roughly 10 percent below , the
recommendation for women in each age group
in both regions, on the average their food
in take provided more than enough
protein-from 20 to 30 percent above the
recommended allowance. Average quantities of
meat, poultry, and fish consumed were about
the same for each age group.
In the North Central Region, the RDA for
vitamin A was met by average diets of the
women under 55, but those 55 and over had
diets furnishing an average of only 7 4 percent
of the RDA. Quantities of dark-green and
deep-yellow vegetables eaten and the
proportions of the day's supply of vitamin A
furnished by these vitamin A-rich foods were
similar for all age groups--about 10 percent.
Other vegetables and fruit furnished about 20
percent of the RDA for vitamin A for each
23
group. The diets of women under 55 furnished
a larger proportion of vitamin A from milk and
milk products than those of the older women.
The average diets of the Southern women
furnished from 90 to 100 percent of the RDA
for vitamin A.
Thiamin and vitamin C were furnished in
adequate or near-adequate quantities for all of
the groups of women, from 92 to 105 percent
of their recommended allowances, on the aver­age.
Riboflavin was present in near-adequate
amounts (about 90 to 93 percent of the RDA)
in diets of all groups except those of the wom­en
over 55 in the North Central Region . Their
average was 82 percent of the allowance.
Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agri­cultural
Research Service. Nationwide Survey of the
Food and Nutrient Intake of Individuals, Spring, 1965,
unpublished data. National Academy of Sciences, Food
and Nutrition Board, National Research Council,
RECOMMENDED DIETARY ALLOWANCES, Pub.
1694, 7th Rev. Ed., 1968.
WHAT HOMEMAKERS KNOW AND DO
ABOUT FEEDING THEIR FAMILIES
by Joanne Pearson
Women in the majority of households are
responsible for meal planning, food purchasing,
and food preparation. These are most
important functions for the nutritional well­being
of the family members. To determine
what homemakers know, do, and feel about
feeding their families, and about food and
nutrition in general, a study was conducted
under contract with the Consumer and Food
Economics Institute, Agricultural Research
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture by
Crossley Surveys, Inc., New York. One use of
this information will be to assist researchers
and educators in helping homemakers improve
the nutrition of the family.
Participants in the survey were from all
parts of the continental United States. The
respondent in each household was the person
with major responsibility for decisions on what
food items were used in the household. There
were 2,545 completed interviews, or
approximately 70 percent of the 3,600 house­holds
selected for the study. All data were
collected during the summer of 1971 by means
of interviews conducted in the homes of the
respondents. Of the 2,545 respondents, 2,340,
or 92 percent, were women.
Food and Nutrition Knowledge
The level of achievement by the home­makers
on a series of food and nutrition
questions was fairly high. The homemakers
were asked to respond to a series of 18 agree­disagree
statements designed to measure
awareness of general nutrition facts as well as
24
specific knowledge about the selection,
handling, and preparation of food. The average
number of correct responses was 14, with
almost 90 percent of the respondents
answering at least two-thirds of the statements
correctly. Questions most frequently answered
correctly were those that referred to handling
and storing foods to maintain nutritional value.
Statements least frequently answered correctly
involved food needs of people of different ages
and sexes, foods as sources of energy and
nutrients, and snacks as a means of upgrading
the family's diet.
The homemakers were not able to do as
well, however, when asked to apply their food
and nutrition knowledge in evaluating daily
meal plans. Five daily meal plans, each
including three meals and in several cases a
snack, were presented to each of the
respondents. They were asked to evaluate each
plan in terms of whether or not it was well
balanced. Three of the meal plans were well
balanced-that is, contained foods from each of
the basic four food groups in adequate
amounts. The other two plans were deficient in
at least two food groups.
The number of respondents correctly
identifying each meal plan ranged from 71 per­cent
for a plan that was well balanced to only
16 percent for a meal plan that was deficient in
two food groups. This last plan had steak,
baked potato, and salad in the evening meal, a
fact that might have greatly influenced the 84
percent of the respondents who said that the
plan was well balanced. Reasons given by the
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
homemakers for their responses indicated that
they th0ught in terms of food types needed for
a good diet rather than in terms of a good
assortment of foods in desirable amounts.
With one exception, total score on the series
of food and nutrition knowledge questions was
not related to ability to determine wh{!ther
daily meal plans were well balanced or not. The
one meal plan that was related to food and
nutrition knowledge contained insufficient
quantities of foods from three of the four food
groups. Only when a daily meal plan was
obviously deficient in several food groups were
people with high knowledge scores any more
likely to respond correctly than those with low
scores.
Family Eating Practices
Family food practices that were studied
included frequency with which various types of
foods were reportedly served, what foods were
said to be available for snacking in the homes,
and the foods reportedly eaten by the members
of the household. In addition to being an
indication of what homemakers were doing
about feeding their families, these practices
were another indication of how well the
respondents were applying the food and
nutrition facts they knew.
Foods from each of the four food groups
were reportedly served daily by a majority of
the homemakers. Homemakers were asked how
frequently they served each of 16 different
categories of foods. Of these categories, five
foods were from the meat group, five from the
vegetable-fruit, four from the bread-cereal, and
two from the milk group. The categories of
foods reportedly served daily in the greatest
number of households were bread, 90 perccent;
milk, 84 percent; meat, 72 percent; and citrus
fruit or juice, 57 percent. Green leafy
vegetables and dark-yellow vegetables were
served daily in a much smaller number of
families.
In almost all households, at least some
foods were reported by the homemakers to be
kept on hand for between-meal eating. Foods
from at least three food groups were available
in approximately 40 percent of the households.
In only 4 percent of the households were no
foods reportedly kept for snacking.
Respondents were asked to list all foods
eaten by each of the members of the household
FALL 1973
on a typical weekday and on one day of the
weekend. This food intake tabulation did not
consider amounts of foods eaten, only whether
a variety of foods was included. The per­centages
of household members who ate one or
more servings of food from all four food
groups on a weekday and on the weekend were
62 and 59 percent, respectively. An additional
31 to 33 percent had food intakes from three
of the four groups. Foods from the milk group
were the most likely to be missed.
Beliefs About Family Eating Practices
What homemakers feel about their family's
eating habits and the extent of control that
they exert on family members' eating habits
were determined by a series of questions. These
questions included the respondent's reaction to
her family's between-meal eating, whether or
not she believed all family members were
eating all the kinds of foods they should, and
.actions taken if family members were not
. eating the right foods or enough of them.
Forty percent of the respondents thought
that snacking by their family members was
good for nutritional and health reasons or
accepted it as part of normal eating habits.
However, 20 percent of the homemakers
looked on between-meal eating unfavorably,
and 40 percent expressed no concern one way
or the other.
Everyone in the family was eating all the
kinds of foods they should have according to
85 percent of the respondents. This was higher
than the 62 percent of all household members
whose reported weekday food intake included
items from all four food groups.
The survey homemakers were asked what
kinds of foods were missing from the family
members' diets. The foods most frequently
mentioned were dark-green and deep-yellow
vegetables, and that was said of only 5 percent
of all family members. Only 1 percent of all
household members were said to be missing
milk or milk products in their diet. However,
analysis of the diet recall records revealed that
a much larger number of individuals were
actually missing milk and milk products and
dark-green and deep-yellow vegetables in their
daily food intake. Thus, homemakers were not
fully aware of the limitations in the diets of
household members.
25
Homemakers were also asked what actions
they took when family members were not
eating the right kinds of foods. Of those who
said that not everyone in the household was
eating properly, approximately one-half said
that they did nothing about it, one-fourth
encouraged the member to eat, and one-fifth
substituted another food.
Further, the homemakers were asked
whether family members were eating sufficient
amounts of foods. They were not asked, how­ever,
if family members were eating too much.
Almost 80 percent of the respondents believed
that all household members were eating enough
of the right kinds of food. Fruits and
vegetables, rather than milk, were most fre­quently
mentioned as being eaten in too small
a quantity. Actions to remedy the situation
were again apparently not too effective. Of
those homemakers who said that not everyone
was eating enough, approximately 40 percent
did nothing to improve the situation, about 25
percent encouraged the family member to eat,
about 30 percent substituted another food, and
the remaining homemakers had other
suggestions.
In conclusion, respondents could recognize
fairly well whether or not selected food and
nutrition statements were correct, but this
knowledge was not sufficient, or was not
properly used for evaluating daily meal plans.
A wide variety of foods were reportedly served
daily in the majority of the homes, but not all
of these types of foods appeared in the
reported daily food intakes of the household
members. Homemakers were not fully aware of
the limitations in the diets of family members,
both in terms of types of foods eaten and
quantity. Even when a problem was
recognized, many homemakers did nothing to
remedy the situation.
SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS
(Please give your ZIP code in your return address when you order these.)
The following are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 20402:
• BUILDING HOBBY GREENHOUSES. AB 357. March 1973. 25 cents.
• YOUR MONEY'S WORTH IN FOODS. G 183. Revised May 1973. 50 cents.
• COMO COMPRAR LA FRUTA ENLATADA Y CONGELADA. G 191-S. March
1973. 40 cents.
• COMO COMPRAR EL QUESO. G 193-S. March 1973. 30 cents.
• COMO COMPRAR CORDERO. G 195-S. February 1973. 25 cents.
• HOMEMAKERS' OPINIONS ABOUT DAIRY PRODUCTS AND IMITATIONS: A
NATIONWIDE SURVEY. MRR 995. May 1973. $1.25.
• SIMPLE HOME REPAIRS ... INSIDE. PA 1034. April1973. 40 cents.
• POVERTY DIMENSIONS OF RURAL-TO-URBAN MIGRATION: A STATISTICAL
REPORT. POPULATION-MIGRATION REPORT. RURAL-URBAN
MIGRANTS. Vol. I, Part 1. SB 511. March 1973. $3.70.
Single copies of the following are free from the Office of Communication, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250:
• FREEZING COMBINATION MAIN DISHES. G 40. Revised June 1973.
• STORING PERISHABLE FOODS IN THE HOME. G 78. Revised July 1973.
• WOOD SIDING, INSTALLING, FINISHING, MAINTAINING. G 203. March 1973.
26 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
INDEX OF ARTICLES IN 1973 ISSUES
Page Issue
CLOTHING
Clothing and Textiles: Supplies, Prices, and
Outlook for 1973 12 March
Flammability Standard Proposed for Children's
Sleepwear, Sizes 7 through 14 14 Summer
USDA Clothing Budgets for Children are Published 14 Summer
FAMILY FINANCE
Computer Program-Budgeting for Retirement 21 Summer
The Economic Role of Women in Family Life 3 Fall
Employment and Earnings of Women 3 Fall
Factors to Consider in Selecting a Savings Account 17 Summer
Financial Assets: The Changing Family Portfolio 15 Summer
Mothers in the Labor Force 13 Fall
Social Security Amendments of 1972 20 Summer
Social Security Benefits Increase 25 March
Time and Its Dollar Value in Household Work 8 Fall
Women and Credit 17 Fall
FOOD
Fresh Beef Ads and Product Names 24 Summer
New Reports from the 1965-66 Household Food
Consumption Survey 26 March
Nutrient Intake of Women 22 Fall
Nutrient Needs and Food Costs of Women 20 Fall
Nutrition Labeling for the Consumer 7 Summer
Outlook for Food Prices, Consumption, and
Expenditures 9 March
Potassium in Common Foods 22 Summer
What Homemakers Know and Do About Feeding
Their Families 24 Fall
HOUSING
Revised Price Index of New Homes 25 Summer
Women and Homeownership 16 Fall
MISCELLANEOUS
Additional Copies of Family Economics Review 8 March
FTC Rules on Door-to-Door and Mail-Order Selling 21 March
Implications of Population Trends for Quality of Life 3 March
Issues in Controlling Pollution 22 March
National Issues in Welfare Reform 3 Summer
New Consumer Price Indexes by Size of City 25 Summer
The Older Population 19 Summer
Our New Look 3 Summer
The Outlook for Consumer Affairs 17 March
Women- A Selected Bibliography of Government
Publications 28 Fall
Women 65 Years of Age and Over 19 Fall
FALL 1973 27
WOMEN-A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF
GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS I
Education and Occupations
CAREERS FOR WOMEN IN THE SEVENTIES. 1973. 35 cents.
CAREERS FOR WOMEN, WHY NOT BE:
AN APPRENTICE? AND BECOME A SKILLED CRAFTSMAN. 1970. 10 cents.
AN ENGINEER? Rev. 1971. 10 cents.
A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIST? 1971. 10 cents.
A PUBLIC RELATIONS WORKER? Rev. 1970. 10 cents.
A TECHNICAL WRITER? Rev. 1971. 10 cents.
AN URBAN PLANNER? 1970. 10 cents.
GET CREDIT FOR WHAT YOU KNOW. 1971. 20 cents.
HELP IMPROVE VOCATIONAL EDUCATION FOR WOMEN AND GIRLS IN YOUR
COMMUNITY. Rev. 1971, published 1972. 10 cents.
JOB TRAINING SUGGESTIONS FOR WOMEN AND GIRLS. Rev. 1970. 15 cents.
JOB FINDING TECHNIQUES FOR MATURE WOMEN. 1970. 30 cents.
SPECIAL REPORT ON WOMEN AND GRADUATE STUDY. 1968. 75 cents.
Labor Force
BACKGROUND FACTS ON WOMEN WORKERS IN THE UNITED STATES. 1970. 30 cents.
CHANGING PATTERNS OF WOMEN'S LIVES. Rev. 1971. 10 cents.
DUAL CARRERS: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF LABOR MARKET EXPERIENCE OF
WOMEN. Manpower Research Monograph No. 21. Vol. 1. 1970. $2.25. Vol.
2. 1973. $2.10.
FACT SHEET ON THE EARNINGS GAP. Rev. 1971. 10 cents.
FACTS ON WOMEN WORKERS OF MINORITY RACES. 1972. 15 cents.
FEDERAL WOMEN'S PROGRAM, A POINT OF VIEW. 1972. 20 cents.
HANDBOOK ON WOMEN WORKERS. 1969. $1.50.
MANPOWER REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT. 1973. $2.85.
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW. Subscription price: $9.00 a year; 75 cents single copy. Also, may
be found in many libraries.
"Children of Working Mothers." April1973. pp. 37-40.
"Economic Status of Families Headed by Women." Dec. 1970. pp. 3-10.
"Labor Force Activity of Married Women." April1973. pp. 31-36.
"Married Women in the Labor Force: Analysis of Participation Rates." Oct. 1969. pp. 31-35.
"Pay Differences Between Men and Women in the Same Job." Nov. 1971. pp. 36-40.
"Welfare Mothers and the Work Ethic." Aug. 1972. pp. 35-37.
"Working Women and the Division of Household Tasks." April1972. pp. 9-14.
STUDY OF EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
1970. 1972. $1.75.
1 Publications are for sale by the Superintendent of Documents Government Printing Office Washington
D.C. 20402. ' ' '
28 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
UNDERUTILIZATION OF WOMEN WORKERS. Rev. 1971. 35 cents.
WHO ARE THE WORKING MOTHERS? 1972. 10 cents.
YEARS FOR DECISION. A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF THE EDUCATIONAL AND LABOR
MARKET EXPERIENCE OF YOUNG WOMEN. Manpower Research Monograph No.
24. 1971. $2.00
Rights and Responsibilities
A MATTER OF SIMPLE JUSTICE, THE REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT'S TASK FORCE ON
WOMEN'S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. 1970. 30 cents.
AMERICAN WOMEN, 1963-68, REPORT OF THE INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON
THE STATUS OF WOMEN. 1968. 70 cents.
AMERICAN WOMEN 1968, CITIZENS' ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN,
REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON:
FAMILY LAW AND POLICY. 1968. 70 cents.
HEALTH AND WELFARE. 1968. 65 cents.
LABOR STANDARDS. 1968. 60 cents.
SOCIAL INSURANCE AND TAXES. 1968. $1.25.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY REPORT NO.2, JOB PATTERNS FOR MINORITIES
AND WOMEN IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY, 1967. 1970. 2 volumes. $11.50 per set.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY UNDER FEDERAL LAW, GUIDE TO FEDERAL
LAW PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, RELIGION, SEX, OR
NATIONAL ORIGIN IN PRIVATE AND PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT. 1971. 25 cents.
EQUAL PAY FACTS. 1970. 10 cents.
THE "EQUAL RIGHTS" AMENDMENT, HEARINGS BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, SENATE,
91ST CONG. 2D SESS., ON S.J. RES. 61 TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION SO AS TO
PROVIDE EQUAL RIGHTS FOR MEN AND WOMEN, MAY 5-7, 1970. 1970. $3.25.
EQUAL RIGHTS 1970, HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
SENATE, 91st CONG. 2D SESS., ON S.J. RES. 61 AND S.J. RES. 231, PROPOSING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES RELATIVE TO EQUAL
RIGHTS FOR MEN AND WOMEN, SEPT. 9-15,1970. 1970. $1.75.
LAWS ON SEX DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT, FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, TITLE
VII, STATE FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LAWS, EXECUTIVE ORDERS. 1970. 30
cents.
MATTER OF SIMPLE JUSTICE, REPORT OF PRESIDENT'S TASK FORCE ON WOMEN'S
RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. 1970. 30 cents.
MYTH AND REALITY, MALE WORKERS MORE EQUAL THAN FEMALE WORKERS? NO!
ALL WORKERS ARE EQUAL. 1971. 10 cents.
WOMEN IN 1970, CITIZENS' ADVISORY COUNCIL ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN. 1971. 40
cents.
FALL 1973 29
COST OF FOOD AT HOME
Cost of Food at Home, Estimated for Food Plans at Three Cost Levels,
July 1973, U.S. average'
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month
Sex-age groups'
Low-cost Moderate- Liberal Low-cost Moderate
plan cost plan plan plan cost plan
FAMILIES Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
Family of 2:
20 to 35 years' ............ 22.80 29.00 35.60 98.60 126.20
55 to 75 years' •• 0. 0 •• 0 •••• 18.60 24.30 29.10 80.50 105.70
Family of 4:
Preschool children• ......... 32.80 41.90 51.00 142.30 182.00
School children• 0 ••• 0 0 ••••• 38.20 49.00 60.10 165.30 212.70
INDIVIDUALS"
Children, under 1 year ........ 4.30 5.40 6.10 18.70 23.50
1 to 3 years ............... 5.50 7.00 8.40 24.00 30.30
3 to 6 years ............... 6.60 8.50 10.20 28.70 37.00
6 to 9 years . . . . ........... 8.10 10.40 13.00 35.00 45.00
Girls, 9 to 12 years ........... 9.20 12.00 14.00 39.80 52.00
12 to 15 years ............. 10.10 13.20 16.00 43.60 57.30
15 to 20 years ............. 10.30 13.20 15.70 44.70 57.00
Boys, 9 to 12 years •• 0 •••• 0 •• 9.40 12.20 14.70 40.70 53.00
12 to 15 years ............. 10.90 14.50 17.30 47.30 63.00
15 to 20 years ............. 12.70 16.20 19.60 55.00 70.30
Women, 20 to 35 years ••• 0 ••• 9.60 12.30 14.80 41.70 53.40
35 to 55 years ............. 9.20 11.90 14.30 39.90 51.50
55 to 75 years ............. 7.80 10.20 12.10 33.60 44.30
7 5 years and over •••• ••• 0 •• 7.00 9.00 11.10 30.50 39.20
Pregnant ................. 11.30 14.30 16.90 49.20 62.10
Nursing .................. 13.10 16.40 19.10 56.70 70.90
Men, 20-35 years ............ 11.10 14.10 17.60 47.90 61.30
35 to 55 years ............. 10.30 13.20 16.00 44.50 57.00
55 to 75 years ............. 9.10 11.90 14.40 39.60 51.80
75 years and over •• 0 •••• 0 •• 8.50 11.50 13.80 36.90 50.00
Liberal
plan
Dollars
154.30
126.30
221.10
260.40
26.30
36.40
44.40
56.20
60.70
69.50
67.80
63.90
75.00
84.80
64.00
61.80
52.60
47.90
73.30
82.60
76.30
69.40
62.20
60.00
'Estimates computed from quantities in food plans published in Family Economics Reuiew, October 1964. Costs
of food plans were first estimated by using average price per pound of each food group paid by urban survey families
at three income levels in 1965. These prices were adjusted to current levels by use of Retail Food Prices by Cities,
released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
2 Persons of the first age listed up to but not including the second age.
3 10 percent added for family size adjustment.
• Man and woman, 20 to 35 years; children 1 to 3 and 3 to 6 years.
5 Man and woman, 20 to 35 years; child 6 to 9; and boy 9 to 12 years.
6 Costs given for persons in families of 4. For other size families, adjust thus: 1-person, add 20 percent; 2-person,
add 5 percent; 5-person, subtract 5 percent; 6-or-more-person, subtract 10 percent.
30
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
CONSUMER PRICES
Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers
(1967 = 100)
Group
All items ..................... .
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
operations ....... . ..... .. .
Apparel and upkeep ....... . .. .
Men's and boys' ............ .
Women's and girls' .......... .
Footwear ................. .
Transportation .............. .
Private .......... . . . ...... .
Public . ................... .
Health and recreation ......... .
Medical care . .......... .... .
Personal care .... .. .. . ..... .
Reading and recreation ....... .
Other goods and services ... .. .
July 1973
132.7
140.9
140.9
140.9
134.2
139.7
124.3
145.2
125.7
131.7
125.5
125.0
125.8
125.4
125.5
129.9
124.8
122.6
144.9
130.3
137.3
125.3
126.2
129.5
June 1973
132.4
139.8
139.9
139.8
133.9
139.4
123.9
145.0
125.6
131.6
125.4
124.7
126.8
127.1
127.1
130.0
124.6
122.4
144.9
130.3
137.0
124.9
125.9
129.0
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
May 1973
131.5
137.9
137.6
138.9
133.3
138.7
123.5
144.2
125.4
129.3
125.7
123.9
126.7
126.7
127.2
130.3
123.5
121.3
143.9
129.6
136.6
124.4
125.6
128.5
Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Family Living Items
(1967 = 100)
Item Aug. July June May Apr.
1973 1973 1973 1973 1973
All items .................... 141 138 138 136 134
Food and tobacco .. . . ...... .. -- -- 138 --- --
Clothing ..... .... ...... ..... --- -- 144 -- --
Household operation ......... --- --- 127 - --
Household furnishings ....... . --- -- 125 --- ---
Building materials, house .. ... . -- -- 156 --- -
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service.
FALL 1973
Mar.
1973
132
131
141
125
122
148
July 1972
125.5
124.2
122.4
131.3
129.5
134.9
119.0
140.7
120.2
117.7
120.3
121.1
121.1
120.4
121.2
124.6
120.3
117.8
143.3
126.3
132.7
120.0
123.0
125.8
Aug.
1972
125
-
--
-
--
---
31
CONTENTS
Page
The Economic Role of Women in Family Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Employment and Earnings of Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Nancy Rudd
Time and Its Dollar Value in Household Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Kathryn E. Walker and William H. Gauger
Mothers in the Labor Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Marilyn Doss Ruffin
Women and Homeownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Lucie G. Krassa
Women and Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Katherine S. Tippett
Women 65 Years of Age and Over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Lucile F. Mork
Nutrient Needs and Food Costs of Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Judy P. Chassy
Nutrient Intake of Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Ruth A. Redstrom
What Homemakers Know and Do About Feeding Their Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Joanne Pearson
Women-A Selected Bibliography of Government Publications 28
Regular Features
Some New USDA Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Cost of Food at Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Consumer Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Index of Articles in 1973 Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
32
FAMILY ECONOMICS R lEW