Family Economics Review [1977, Number 2]

              HIGHLIGHTS/SPRING 1977
HOME GARDENING
HOME CANNING
HOUSEHOLD ENERGY ADJUSTMENTS
DATA USED IN FAMILY ECONOMICS RESEARCH
"'os\to\1.
PROPERTY OF THE
UBRARY
JU 13 1977
University of North Carolina
at Greensboro
ARS-NE-36
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
Consumer and Food Economics Institute
Agricultural Research Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Federal Building
Hyattsville, Md. 20782
HOME GARDENING AND PRESERVATION OF FRUIT AND VEGETABLES
Home gardening has been presumed to be
one of the favorite activities of Americans.
However, very little information is available on
the number of households with home gardens
and their reasons for having them, and on the
types of fruits and vegetables grown and their
use in home canning and freezing. To learn
more about home gardening and preservation
of fruits and vegetables, questions on the
subject were included in the first phase of the
National Study of Consumers' Food-Related
Behavior, Attitudes, and Motives, sponsored by
the Economic Research Service, USDA. 1
Personal interviews with the main food
shopper, or, if none, with the person who had
the major responsibility for food preparation,
were conducted in over 1,400 households. At
the conclusion of the personal interview, in
those households where the respondents
indicated that someone in the household had
1 This is a continuing survey that began in 1976 in
which consumers are interviewed periodically about a
number of issues.
canned or preserved fruits or vegetables in
1975, the home canners were asked to self­administer
and complete a supplemental
questionnaire for USDA's Agricultural
Research Service about the canning they did in
1975. Additional households were screened in
the same sampling locations used in the per­sonal
interview national probability sample, to
obtain a large enough and significant sample of
home canners. These canners were also asked
to complete the supplemental questionnaire.
The final number of home canning question­naires
completed was 900. The following two
articles, "Home Gardening and Incidence of
Freezing and Canning" and "Home Canning,"
present information on the results of these
surveys. Both articles are condensed from a
paper presented at the Agricultural Outlook
Conference on November 17, 1976, in
Washington, D.C. 2
2 The complete paper may be ordered from the
Consumer and Food Economics Institute (see inside
front cover of Family Economics Review for address).
HOME GARDENING AND INCIDENCE OF FREEZING AND CANNI~G
by Evelyn F. Kaitz 1
The Garden
There has been a slight but steady growth in
the number of households with fruit and
vegetable home gardens over the past few
years. About 43 percent of the households
surveyed by USDA's Economic Research
Service (ERS) as part of the National Study of
Consumers' Food-Related Behavior, Attitudes,
1 Social science analyst, Economic Research Service,
USDA, Washington, D.C. 20250.
SPRING 1977
and Motives planted a fruit or vegetable garden
in 1974; 46 percent planted a garden in 1975;
and 48 percent either had already planted or
intended to plant one in 1976.
The three reasons reported most frequently
for planting a garden in 1975 were: A
preference for the taste of fresh fruits and
vegetables (50 percent); a desire to save money
(40 percent); and as a hobby (33 percent). Of
the households that had gardens in 1975, those
in rural areas were more likely to have a garden
3
to save money or cut down on the food budget
and less likely to have a garden as a hobby than
those in metropolitan areas. Larger households
(those with five or more members) and those
with less income were more likely to have a
garden to save money, while smaller house­holds
and those with more income were more
likely to have a garden for a hobby.
Around 85 percent of the 1975 gardens were
located in the household yard. The tomato was
the most popular vegetable; it was grown by 95
percent of the garden households (table 1). The
next most frequently grown vegetables were
beans (such as limas, green, wax, and pole)
grown in 71 percent of the home gardens;
cucumbers, peppers, radishes, and green onions
(scallions) grown in about 60 percent of the
gardens; lettuce grown in 56 percent; and
onions, corn, and carrots grown in about 50
percent.
There were not many fruits grown in the
197 5 home gardens. Strawberries and apples
were the most popular-mentioned by about
20 percent. Melons, peaches, and pears were
the only other fruits that were grown in 10
percent or more of the home gardens.
Strawberries were more popular in the West
than in the other regions.
In those households that had a garden in
both 1974 and 1975, about 65 percent of the
Table 1. Households with a garden that grew selected fruits and vegetables
and that froze, and canned or preserved some from their home gardens, 1975
Fruits and vegetables from
Vegetables Grown the home garden that were--
and fruits
Canned or
Frozen preserved
Percent
Tomatoes 95 26 65
Beans (lima, wax, etc.) 71 54 42
Cucumbers 62 4 29
Peppers 61 28 10
Radishes 59 0 0
Green onions (scallions) 58 2 1
Lettuce 56 1 0
Onions 52 3 4
Carrots 50 15 8
Corn 50 41 15
Squash 45 21 8
Beets 40 7 29
Peas 40 27 7
Turnips 26 7 1
Strawberries 22 16 9
Apples 20 11 15
Melons 13 3 1
Peaches 13 7 10
Pears 10 3 10
Source: National Study of Consumers' Food-Related Behavior, Attitudes,
and Motives, conducted by USDA, spring 1976.
4 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
respondents answered that the garden was the
same size in 1975 as it was in 1974. About 25
percent of the households that had a garden
both of these years had a larger garden in 1975
for reasons such as: Wanted to plant more, had
more ground available, and to save money.
About 70 percent of the households that had a
garden in 197 5 already had or planned to have
one the s~me size in 1976. About 15 percent
had or expected to have a larger garden, and
about 10 percent had or expected to have a
smaller one.
Because of the interviewing time period and
climatic differences in the 48 States surveyed,
only about 20 percent of the household
gardens had already been planted in 1976.
However, to compare gardening during the
3-year period 1974-76, those households were
included in which respondents said someone in
the household planned to have a garden in
1976. About one-third of the households had a
garden in all 3 years, and about two-fifths did
not have a garden in any of these years. Very
small percentages of households were either
new gardeners or those no longer gardening.
Gardening was more prevalent by households
who had lived in the same dwelling since
January 1975. A larger percentage of the
continuous garden households (gardens in all
3 years) than the nongarden households had
incomes over $15,000 and had three or more
members (table 2).
Freezing
All respondents were asked if anyone in
their household had frozen any fruits or
vegetables in 1975 and, if so, which ones were
frozen. If there was a household garden, they
were asked which ones came from their home
garden. Forty-six percent of all households
froze fruits or vegetables in 1975. Households
most likely to freeze fruits and vegetables were
those in rural areas and those with gardens in
all 3 years. Households least likely to freeze
were those in larger metropolitan areas, those
in the Northeastern region, those in one­member
households, and those that had not
had a garden in any of the 3 years.
Although freezing was not one of the tln~e
most popular reasons for having a garden m
1975, the respondents in around 10 percent of
SPRING 1977
the garden households indicated that there was
a garden to provide food for freezing.
About 69 percent of the households with
gardens in 197 5 froze fruits and vegetables that
were grown in their home gardens. The order
of popularity was very different for freezing
the home-grown vegetables than it was for
growing them (table 1). Beans were frozen in
54 percent of the households with gardens;
corn was frozen in 41 percent; peppers, peas,
and tomatoes were frozen in about 27 percent.
Strawberries and apples were again the most
popular of the home-grown fruits for freezing
but were frozen in only 16 and 11 percent of
the garden households, respectively.
Canning and Preserving
Thirty-four percent of the households
canned or preserved fruits or vegetables in
197 5 whether or not these came from their
home gardens. Households with gardens in all
3 years were more likely to have canned or
preserved fruits and vegetables than those
without home gardens. Around 30 percent of
the garden households canned or preserved
fruits or vegetables that were grown in the
household's garden. About 14 percent of the
respondents said someone in their household
had a garden to provide food for canning.
The two most popular vegetables grown in
the 1975 home gardens were also the two
vegetables most likely to be used for
canning-tomatoes (canned in 65 percent of
the households with gardens) and beans
(canned in 42 percent) (table 1). Cucumbers
and beets were canned in 29 percent of the
households with gardens. Of the home-grown
fruits, apples were canned in 15 percent of the
garden households; strawberries, pears, and
peaches were each canned in about 10 percent.
Approximately two-thirds of the households
that canned or preserved fruits and vegetables
in 1975 had some difficulty in obtaining lids,
jars, and other items needed for canning.
Getting lids was a problem for almost all that
experienced difficulty. The respondents in 40
percent of the households that said there was
difficulty indicated that less fruits and
vegetables were canned or preserved in 1975,
and about 25 percent said some fruits and
vegetables that would have been canned were
frozen.
5
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of households having a fruit or
vegetable garden in 1974, 1975, and having or planning to have one in
1976; and of households not having a fruit or vegetable garden in
1974, 1975, and not planning to have one in 1976
Characteristic
Garden Nongarden
households households
Percent
Region:
Northeast .......................... . 22 25
North Central ...................... . 34 24
South .............................. . 28 33
West ............................... . 16 18
Type of dwelling:
Own house .......................... . 87 49
Rent house ......................... . 6 15
Other (own/rent apartment,
mobile home, etc.) ................ . 6 36
Occupany period:
Lived in same dwelling since
January 1975 ...................... . 91 84
Did not live in same dwelling
since January 1975 ................ . 8 14
Family income:
Less than $5,000 ................... . 12 19
$5' 000-9' 999 ....................... . 19 22
$10,000-14,999 ..................... . 20 20
$15,000-24,999 ..................... . 24 14
$25,000 and over ................... . 11 8
Income change:
More in 1975 than 1974 .............. 36 32
Less in 1975 than 1974 .............. 17 14
Same in 1975 and 1974 ............... 43 48
Household size:
1 member ........................... . 7 23
2 members .......................... . 32 31
3 or 4 members ..................... . 38 31
5 or more members .................. . 23 15
Source: National Study of Consumers' Food-Related Behavior, Attitudes,
and Motives, conducted by USDA, spring 1976.
Note: Sums may not add to 100 due to respondent's lack of knowledge or
refusal to answer particular questions.
6 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
HOME CANNING
by Carole Davis
Although the Department has for many
years maintained publications offering
research-based instructions to help the home
canner, reports received in recent years through
the Extension Service or directly from the
consumer · indicate that many people are
experiencing problems. These range from
difficulty in obtaining proper canning supplies
to spoilage of home-canned foods. This
spoilage results in economic loss and may
constitute a hazard to health or life if the food
is consumed.
Results from the national survey on home
canning indicate that one out of three
households canned fruits and vegetables at
home in 197 5. These foods were canned by 20
percent of the households in large metropolitan
areas and 50 percent in rural areas. A smaller
percentage of households in the Northeast
canned fruits and vegetables than in the North
Central, Southern, and Western areas of the
country.
Tomatoes were the most popular food item
canned. Of those households canning fruits and
vegetables, 7 5 percent canned tomatoes; other
vegetables, pickles, and fruits were each canned
by 50 percent; tomato sauce and vegetable
mixtures were each canned by 20 percent; and
about 40 percent preserved jams and jellies.
Of the households who canned fruits and
vegetables, excluding jams and jellies, about 10
percent canned a total volume equivalent to
less than 12 quarts; 40 percent canned 12 to 49
quarts; 25 percent canned between 50 and 99
quarts; 20 percent canned between 100 and
249 quarts; and about 5 percent canned more
than 250 quarts.
Home canners obtained instructions from
manv sources-some more reliable than others.
Friends or relatives were the source of
instructions for almost 66 percent of the
canners, while 20 percent used cookbooks.
USDA publications, Extension Service publi­cations,
personal recipes, canning equipment
manufacturer's cookbooks, and magazines or
newspapers were each used by 10 percent of
the canners. A greater percentage of canners
with some college education than those with
less education used USDA and Extension
Service publications.
SPRING 1977
Most canners (94 percent) used jars designed
especially for home canning when canning
vegetables and fruits other than jams or jellies.
However, 33 percent used other iars, such as
those from peanut butter, coffee, and salad
dressing. Some canners used both home­canning
jars and nonstandard jars. Less than 1
percent of canners used tin cans. The USDA
recommends the use of jars designed especially
for home canning so that jars will be properly
heat tempered, resistant to mechanical shock,
the right size for the established processing
time and temperature, and the proper size to
fit standard home-canning closures.
The most popular sizes of home-canning jars
used were the quart and the pint, by 85 and 65
percent of the canners, respectively. Only
about 1 out of 10 used half-pint jars, and
relatively small percentages used 2-quart and
1%-pint jars. USDA publications primarily
t'Ontain processing recommendations for foods
canned in quart and pint jars. However,
processing recommendations are included for a
few products in half-pint iars.
About 90 percent of the canners used new
flat metal lids with metal bands for canning
fruits and vegetables, other than jams or jellies.
Porcelain-lined zinc caps and reused flat metal
lids with metal bands were each used by 10
percent of the canners. Directions are included
in USDA publications for the use of zinc caps
as well as two-piece lids with flat metal discs
and bands. However, the USDA does not
recommend reusing flat metal lids because once
an indention has been made in the sealing
compound by the jar rim, the lid may not seal
properly the second time.
Although paraffin should only be used for
jellies, 13 percent of the canners used paraffin
for sealing fruits and vegetable products. •
Processing Methods Used by Home Canners
The Department recommends the boiling­water-
bath method for processing fruits,
tomatoes, pickles, and jams, and the use of a
pressure canner or pressure saucepan for all
vegetables, except tomatoes.
Open-kettle canning is not recommended for
any foods except jellies and, in certain climatic
7
conditions, jams. With the open-kettle method,
food is cooked in an ordinary kettle, then
packed into hot iars and sealed. The food is not
processed after packing in the jars. Open-kettle
canning is not a safe practice because
temperatures obtained are not high enough to
destroy all the spoilage organisms that may be
in low-acid foods, such as vegetables other than
tomatoes. Spoilage bacteria may also enter the
food when the food is transferred from kettle
to jar, making it undesirable to can even
high-acid foods, such as fruits, pickles, and
tomatoes by this method.
Oven canning is not recommended for
canning any foods because jars sometimes
explode, causing personal injury or damage to
the oven. Temperatures obtained in the food in
jars during oven processing do not get high
enough to insure destruction of spoilage
bacteria in low-acid foods.
The table shows the processing method used
by home canners for each product they
canned. (Since some homemakers used more
than one method, the percentages given will
not total 100.) A substantial proportion of
households incorrectly used the boiling-water­bath
method for vegetables (40 percent) and
vegetable mixtures (34 percent) and the open­kettle
method for fruit ( 45 percent), tomatoes
(35 percent), and pickles (57 percent).
Fruits, tomatoes, and pickles (high-acid
foods). The boiling-water-bath method (recom­mended
by the Department for this group of
foods) was used by slightly more than 50
percent of those canning fruits and tomatoes
and was used by 45 percent of those canning
pickles. Pressure methods were used by 20
percent of those canning fruits and 25 percent
of those canning tomatoes.
Other vegetables and vegetable mixtures
(low-acid foods). The recommended pressure
methods for this group were used by over 50
percent of those canning vegetables (other than
tomatoes) and 43 percent of those canning
vegetable mixtures. The boiling-water-bath
method, which is inadequate for these
products, was used by 40 percent canning
vegetables and 34 percent canning vegetable
mixtures. The open-kettle method (not
recommended) was used by 26 percent canning
8
vegetable mixtures and 14 percent canning
vegetables.
Jams and jellies. Of those canning jams and
jellies, about 85 percent used the open-kettle
method; 10 percent used the boiling-water-bath
method; and about 10 percent used pressure
methods.
Canning Procedures Used by Home Canners
Type of pack and filling containers. Fruits
and vegetables may be packed raw into jars or
they may be preheated and packed hot. About
one-half of the canners used the raw-pack
method, and about three-fourths used the
hotpack method. (Some canners used both
methods.)
When using the raw-pack method, peas,
com, or lima beans must be packed loosely
into jars, because, unlike other raw vegetables,
they will expand during processing. If they
are packed tightly there is danger of
underprocessing. Only 15 percent of canners
used the raw pack for peas, corn, or lima beans,
and of these one out of 10 correctly packed
them loosely, 5 in 10 packed the vegetables
fairly loosely, and 4 in 10 packed them tightly.
Raw fruits and vegetables (other than raw peas,
corn, or lima beans) can be packed into jars
tightly because they will cook down or shrink
during processing. About half the canners
packed raw vegetables tightly.
With the hotpack method, jars should be
packed fairly loosely, as the food will not cook
down during processing and tight packing will
result in underprocessing. Half the canners
packed jars fairly loosely, while more than a
third incorrectly packed them tightly.
After raw or heated fruits or vegetables are
packed into jars, the food in the jar should be
covered with boiling-hot liquid. More than a
third of the canners who used the raw-pack
!!Jethod and more than a fourth of those using
the hotpack method incorrectly used cold
liquid or liquid that was not boiling.
Checking seals. Almost all canners (95
percent) checked jars the day after canning to
see if they were sealed. About one-half of those
who checked seals found jars that did not seal
properly. Among canners that found unsealed
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
r:n ;g .z...
0
.....
"~"
~
""
Processing methods used to can specified types of fruit and vegetable products, 1975
Method
Boiling-water-bath, total:
Fruits
Tomatoes
Tomato sauce
Other vegetables 2
Vegetable mixtures 2
Pickles
Jams
Jellies
Pressure cooker (saucepan),
total:
Fruits
Tomatoes
Tomato sauce
Other vegetables
Vegetable mixtures
Pickles
Jams
Jellies
Pressure canner, total:
Fruits
Tomatoes
Tomato sauce
Other vegetables
Households
Percent 1
61
53
52
41
40
34
45
13
10
10
4
4
4
10
5
2
2
3
31
16
21
18
47
Method
Pressure canner (continued)
Vegetable mixtures
Pickles
Jams
Jellies
Open-kettle, total:
Fruits 2
Tomatoes 2
Tomato sauce 2
Other vegetables 2
Vegetable mixtures 2
Pickles 2
Jams
Jellies
Oven, total : 2
Fruits
Tomatoes
Tomato sauce
Other vegetables
Vegetable mixtures
Pickles
Jams
Jellies
1Components cannot be totaled because more than one response is possible.
2Results in inadequate processing.
Households
Percent 1
38
4
2
3
70
45
35
43
14
26
57
85
87
1.
1
.6
. 5
.4
.5
.8
.6
jars, 60 percent used the food immediately,
about 33 percent discarded the food, 25
percent recanned the food-starting as if it
were fresh, and about 6 percent froze the food
from unsealed jars. Any of these responses
could be suitable, depending on the number of
jars that did not seal. If a dozen or so jars were
found to be unsealed, the food would either
need to be recanned, frozen, or discarded
because using that amount of food
immediately would be difficult.
Preparation and storage. The Department
recommends that home-canned vegetables be
boiled for at least 10 minutes before serving.
One-half of the canners prepared canned
vegetables in this way. However, one-third of
the canners only brought canned vegetables to
a boil before serving, and one-fifth served
canned vegetables without any heating.
For optimum quality home-canned foods
should be used within 1 year. However,
properly processed foods may remain safe to
eat if stored longer than a year if the seal is not
broken and other spoilage signs are absent.
Nearly 66 percent of the home canners stored
home-canned food, including jams and jellies,
for 6 months to 1 year; about 33 percent
stored food more than a year; and about
6 percent kept foods for less than 6 months.
Spoilage. Most home canners were aware of
some of the signs of spoilage in canned foods,
including jams and jellies. Ninety percent
recognized a bulging lid as ·a sign; leakage,
mold, and off-odor were each recognized by
about 75 percent of canners. About 66 percent
correctly thought off-color would be a sign,
while about 50 percent correctly thought
spurting liquid would be a spoilage sign.
Almost 33 percent of the canners incorrectly
thought floating fruit or vegetables in the jar
would be an indication of spoilage. Fruit or
vegetables may float because the pack is too
loose; some air remains in the tissues of the
product after heating and processing: or, for
fruits, the sirup is too heavy.
About one-fourth of the canners had
home-canned fruits or vegetables that spoiled
10
in 1975. Twenty percent of the households
canning tomatoes experienced spoilage; about
10 percent of the households canning other
vegetables experienced spoilage; 7 percent of
those canning fruits and vegetable mixtures,
5 percent of those canning pickles, and 3
percent of those canning tomato sauce
experienced spoilage; fewer than 2 percent of
those canning jams and jellies experienced
spoilage.
About one-half of the households having
spoilage in tomatoes, other vegetables, fruits,
pickles, and vegetable mixtures; and about
one-third having spoilage in tomato sauce had
used an unrecommended canning procedure.
About two-thirds of those having spoilage of
home-canned food in 1975 had an idea as to
the cause. (However, the true cause of spoilage
was not determined by the survey.) About
three-fourths thought food spoiled because the
lids did not seal, and one-tenth thought food
was processed for too short a time. Other
reasons, such as the wrong processing method,
food having been packed too tightly into the
jar, and food having been overripe when
processed, were each given by 3 percent of the
canners as possible causes of spoilage.
Home-canning jars were used by 94 percent
of those canning fruits and vegetables other
than jams and jellies, while only about 33
percent used other jars. Therefore, it would
be expected that a larger proportion of home­canning
jars could be involved in spoilage.
Findings showed that about 9 out of 10 of the
25 percent of canners having spoilage used jars
designed for home canning, and about 1 out of
20 used other jars.
Of the 25 percent of households having
spoilage, more than three-fourths used new flat
metal lids with metal bands, about one-tenth
reused flat metal lids. Again, as with the
home-canning jars, a large proportion (90
percent) of canners used new flat metal lids for
canning fruits and vegetables, while only about
10 percent reused flat metal lids.
Porcelain-lined zinc caps and glass lids with
rubber rings and wire bails were each used by
5 percent of canners; about 3 percent of
canners used paraffin to seal jars.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
HOUSEHOLD ENERGY ADJUSTMENTS
by Richard B. Smith 1
Since the oil embargo and the resulting
energy shortages in 1973, prices for residential
fuels and gasoline have increased sharply.
Between .1970 and 1974 prices of electricity,
natural gas, fuel oil, and LP (liquefied
petroleum) gas used in households increased an
average of 65 percent, while use on a Btu basis
declined about 10 percent. Since energy is an
input into almost every household function,
these changes suggest possible changes in
lifestyles and in demand for consumer goods
and services. Households studied by USDA's
Economic Research Service in the spring of
1976 as part of the National Study of
Consumers' Food-Related Behavior, Attitudes,
and Motives, were asked about adjustments
they may have made as a result of higher
energy prices.
Types of Energy Adjustments
Three-fourths of the respondents indicated
that higher energy prices had resulted in some
type of energy reduction in their households in
1975 compared with 1974. Lighting and
heating were most frequently mentioned:
Slightly over one-half of the households
reduced lighting, and about the same
proportion reduced home heating in the colder
months. About 21 percent of all households
reduced the use of the air-conditioner during
the warmer months (this was about two-fifths
of those with air-conditioning), but only
9 percent of the households indicated they
curtailed the use of energy-using household
recreational items such as TV sets, radios, and
stereos.
Higher energy prices also affected household
laundry activities: 16 percent of all households
reduced the use of dryers (two-fifths of those
1 Economic Research Service, USDA. This article is
condensed from a paper given at the National
Agricultural Outlook Conference in November 1976, at
Washington, D.C. The complete paper may be ordered
from the Consumer and Food Economics Institute (see
inside front cover of this issue of Family Economics
Review for address).
SPRING 1977
households with dryers). Temperature settings
on hot water heaters were reduced in 14
percent of all households.
In the kitchen, the most common
adjustment was to reduce the use of ovens-17
percent indicated such a change. Other cooking
methods were also affected, though less
frequently. Eight percent reduced the use of
specialty cooking appliances such as toasters,
electric skillets, and the like, and 6 percent
reduced stove-top cooking. Eleven percent of
the households, or one-third of those
households with dishwashers, also reduced the
use of this appliance.
Fortunately, the temperature settings on
refrigerators were seldom adjusted. (An earlier
USDA study found that one-third of the
households with refrigerators had temperatures
at 45° F or higher. Temperatures higher than
45° can lower food quality and might increase
the incidence of food poisoning from bacterial
contamination.) Few households discontinued
the use of freezers or raised their temperature
settings.
Higher gasoline prices apparently didn't have
a large effect on household food shopping
habits. Only 2 percent of the respondents,
primarily those located in rural areas, indicated
they had reduced their frequency of food
shopping trips to save on fuel. However,
6 percent of the households indicated they had
shifted their food purchasing to stores located
closer to their homes to reduce gasoline use
and costs.
Respondents were asked what energy-related
adiustments they would make if energy prices
increased by 25 percent in the future. Of the
households that had already made :;orne
adjustments in 1975, 76 percent would make
additional changes-mostly by reducing lighting
and heating further. However, compared with
1975, a higher proportion of these households
would reduce the use of their clothes dryers,
recreational items, and specialty cooking
appliances. Of the households who made no
adjustments previously, nearly 50 percent
indicated they would do so with further
increases in prices.
11
Who Makes the Adjustments
Higher income households were more likely
to have made adjustments in 197 5 and would
more frequently try to make further
adiustments with increasing energy prices than
low-income households. For example, 88
percent of the households with incomes over
$15,000 made some adjustment, compared
with 57 percent of those with income less than
$5,000. More than 60 percent of the
households with higher incomes indicated they
had made reductions in lighting and home
heating, compared with 40 percent of the
households with lower incomes. Similarly, a
higher proportion of the higher income group
reduced the use of the dishwasher, hot water
heater, clothes dryer, and air-conditioner than
the under-$5,000 income group- higher income
households have more adjustment alternatives
because they frequently occupy larger living
quarters and have bigger inventories of large
and small appliances.
Age was another important factor. The
fewest adjustments were made by the
households where the respondent was over 65
years. Unlike younger households where much
time is often spent outside the home, elderly
persons often spend much time at home and
their life's satisfactions are more directly
affected by reductions in energy use. Half of
the elderly households made no adjustments,
and for most a further 25 percent increase in
energy prices would not provide the incentive
for cutting back on energy consumption.
Education also appears to be an important
factor, although some of the observed
differences may be related to income and age.
As the educational level of the respondent
increased, more energy-reducing adjustments
were made or might be made. Only about
three-fifths of households where the respond­ent
had only an elementary education had
made adjustments, compared with four-fifths
of the households where the respondent was a
college graduate.
Larger households more frequently made
energy-related adjustments than smaller house­holds.
About 80 percent of the households
with three or more members made some
adjustments, compared with 73 percent with
two members and 56 percent with only one
person. Laundry and cooking adjustments were
12
most frequent among households with five or
more members. The fact that single member
households made fewer adjustments probably
reflects the high proportion in that group of
the elderly and young households with a
smaller inventory of appliances.
Whether households were owner or renter
occupied was another distinguishing character­istic.
Almost four-fifths of the owner-occupied
households had made adjustments, and four­fifths
would make adjustments if energy prices
increased by 25 percent. Only two-thirds of the
renters had made adjustments, but almost
three-fourths would make adjustments if
energy prices increased further. The reason for
the lower incidence rate among renters appears
to be mainly related to method of payment for
energy. Payments for the two primary energy
sources, electricity and natural gas, were
included in the household rent for 20 and 30
percent of the renters, respectively. Renters
making indirect payments for energy are not
likely to be as aware of how much energy they
are using or the cost. Consequently, they had
less incentive to make adjustments.
Specific Adjustments for Food
and Appliances
Respondents who made cooking adjustments
were asked how they reduced the use of ovens,
stove-top burners, and specialty cooking
appliances. The most common practices for
reducing oven use were: ( 1) Using the oven to
cook more foods at the same time,
(2) substituting specialty cooking appliances,
and (3) purchasing more foods, such as
precooked or fresh foods, that needed little or
no cooking or baking. Respondents reducing
stove-top cooking mainly relied on greater use
of specialty cooking appliances or using the
oven to cook or bae more food at the same
time. A reduction in specialty cooking
appliance use was frequently accomplished by
using the oven to cook or bake more at the
same time. For all three groups, there was a
very small shift towards more eating away from
home because of higher energy prices. Results
indicate that only 4 percent of the households
made an effort to shift to foods needing less
cooking or heating or no cooking at all. This
change could have been accomplished by
buying more fresh fruits, prepared bakery and
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
cereal products, dairy products, processed
meats, and delicatessen items. About half the
respondents indicating a change in food
purchases were less than 35 years of age. The
lower income households were more likely to
make this adjustment, and in the process some
of them may have even increased expenditures
for more highly processed foods.
Households generally would not consider the
amount of energy used by an appliance before
purchasing a new one. Only 10 percent of the
households thought energy use would be
considered if a stove, refrigerator, or other
major appliance costing over $100 needed
replacing. Another 8 percent indicated they
would consider the cost of running the
appliance before purchasing it. Several other
aspects of an appliance would be considered
more frequently than energy use or costs. Price
of the appliance was mentioned most
frequently, followed by appliance size and
brand name. Appliance style or other features,
warranty, availability of maintenance service,
and type of energy used were mentioned more
frequently than the amount of energy used.
Respondents in the Northeast and those with
higher education levels appeared to be more
interested in energy use of appliances. Only
5 percent of those with less than a high school
education said energy use would be considered,
compared with 17 percent with a college
education. This probably reflects more
knowledge or concern about higher prices or
potential shortages in the future. In the
Northeast 13 percent would consider energy
use of the appliance, compared with 6 percent
of respondents in the South where electricity
and other energy prices were lower.
SOURCES OF GOVERNMENT DATA USEFUL
IN FAMILY ECONOMICS RESEARCH
by Cynthia L. Jennings
The FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW reports
on research of the Consumer and Food
Economics Institute, Agricultural Research
Service (ARS), and on other materials relating
to the economic aspects of family living.
Information on family income, expenditures,
and other economic conditions affecting the
'family is interpreted for the use of home
economists, nutritionists, educators, and others
concerned with families.
Much of the data used in developing articles
come from surveys conducted by ARS's
Consumer and Food Economics Institute or
other U.S. Department of Agriculture agencies.
However articles are frequently supplemented
with dat~ from other sources, and some articles
are developed entirely from sources outside the
Department.
Our readers frequently ask about the
published sources used for informatio~ on a
specific topic. As an aid to understanding the
SPRING 1977
number and variety of data from Government
sources used in FAMILY ECONOMICS
REVIEW and to identify sources readers may
need, the major sources of information are
listed. These sources are limited to those from
the Federal Government, and other numerous
sources of information on or related to family
economics research are excluded.
Following is a brief description of the
Federal statistical information available under
the major subjects which are of interest to
family economists. A table presents, by subject
area, detailed information on specific
publications: Their frequency, type of ~ata,
the publishing agency, and secondary subJects
covered in the publication. In general, each
publication is listed only once. However, some
publications, such as CONSUMER INCOME
and the SURVEY OF CURRENT BUSINESS,
are used so extensively that they have been
listed under two or more subject areas.
13
The prices of pubijcations were not included
because they are subject to change. Price
information and other details concerning these
publications can be obtained by contacting the
Agency publishing the information. Some
publications are available free from the
Agency, while others must be ordered from the
Government Printing Office.
Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture
(USDA) is the major source of information on
agricultural prices and outlook, and on farm
income and finances. In addition, both the
Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of
the Census, Department of Commerce (DOC),
report on agriculture population and farm
characteristics.
Budgets. The Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Department of Labor (DOL), prepares budgets
including all household items for urban and
retired couples at three levels of living. The
budgets are based on the consumer expenditure
surveys. USDA prepares separate budgets for
food and clothing expenditures.
Education. Statistics summarizing the
characteristics of education in the United
States are collected and presented periodically
by the National Center for Education Statistics
of the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare (HEW). The major sources of
expenditure data on education are the
expenditure surveys from the USDA and the
Department of Labor.
E~ployment and Income. The Department
of Labor produces most of the statistics
pertaining to employment and in<;:ome.
Information is obtained both from ongoing
surveys and from payroll and personnel
records. The Bureau of the Census of the
Department of Commerce (DOC) and the
Department of Agriculture also publish data on
employment and income.
Energy. The Federal Energy Administration
(FEA) produces most of the general
information on energy use, availability, and
cost. The Federal Power Commission provides
some data from power companies on electricity
prices and use. The major source of data on
14
transportation energy use is the Federal
Highway Administration under the Department
of Transportation (DOT). For additional
information on home use of energy, see the
section on housing.
Expenditures. The two major types of
expenditure data are (1) household data from
expenditure surveys, such as the Consumer
Expenditure Survey (CES) and the Farm
Family Living Expenditure Survey (FFLES),
and (2) aggregate data from the Personal
Consumption Expenditure series (PCE). The
most recent CES, conducted by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor
was in 1972-73; and the most recent FFLES,
conducted by the Statistical Reporting Service
of the USDA was in 1973-74. Both the CES
and the FFLES were nationwide surveys of
family income and expenditures. The PCE data
produced annually by the Department of
Commerce are part of the U.S. National
Income and Product Accounts. Estimates are
calculated from aggregate data obtained for the
most part from business transactions rather
than from consumers of the goods and services
involved. The two types of data are not
interchangeable. Whenever possible FAMILY
ECONOMICS REVIEW uses the expenditure
survey data, because information on variations
in expenditures by families of different types
are more useful to family economists than are
the PCE estimates which describe expenditures
in the economy as a whole and do not account
for variations. Either type of data is useful in
assessing trends in expenditures.
The PCE estimates are collected and
published annually and are likely to be more
up to date than data from the CES and FFLES,
which are collected about every 10 years.
In addition to the sources listed above that
give expenditures for all categories of the
household budget, there are a number of
additional data sources of expenditures on
specific categories, such as food, clothing,
transportation, and medical care. These sources
are listed under specific categories.
Financial Information. The Federal Reserve
Board, the major source of financial statistics,
collects data from member banks on credit and
sa,vings. Bankruptcy statistics are available from
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
the U.S. Courts. The main sources of mortgage
data are the Department of Housing and Urban
Development and the Federal Home Loan
Bank Board.
Food. The Agricultural Research Service,
USDA, periodically conducts household food
surveys which provide data on food
consumption and expenditures. The most
recent survey was in 1965. 1 The Economic
Research Service, USDA, reports on the
economic aspects of food and agricultural
products, and the Food and Nutrition Service,
USDA, annually reports on USDA food
programs.
Health and Social Welfare. The Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) is the
major source of health and social welfare
statistics. As a division of HEW, the National
Center for Health Statistics is responsible for
collecting and distributing health statistics. The
sources of data include birth, death, and
marriage certificates; ongoing household
interview surveys on health and demographic
factors; direct examination surveys; and
surveys of health occupations and institutions.
The Social Security Administration produces
expenditure and cost information on medical
care and social programs.
Housing. The Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) publishes major
summaries of housing statistics. The Bureau of
the Census, Department of Commerce (DOC),
also has information on housing from decennial
census, such as CENSUS OF HOUSING and
CENSUS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING,
and from ongoing surveys such as CURRENT
CONSTRUCTION REPORTS and CURRENT
HOUSING EPORTS. The most recent of these
reports is the ANNUAL HOUSING SURVEY.
Population. The Bureau of the Census of the
Department of Commerce is the major source
1 A 1977-78 USDA Nationwide Food Consumption
Survey is underway.
SPRING 1977
of population statistics. Besides the regular
decennial census of population (the most
recent is 1970), the Bureau conducts many
special studies, such as the Current Population
Surveys-ongoing sample surveys on social and
economic characteristics of the population.
Another source of population statistics is the
Economic Research Service, USDA.
Price Data. The Consumer Price Index,
developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Department of Labor (DOL), measures the
average change in prices of goods and services
purchased by urban wage earners and clerical
workers for day-to-day living. The Wholesale
Price Index, also from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, DOL, measures average price changes
of all commodities and products before they
reach the retail level. A price index of new
one-family houses sold is published by the
Bureau of the Census, DOC. The farm-retail
price spread index, developed by the Economic
Research Service, USDA, is based on a market
basket representing the average quantities of
U.S. farm foods purchased annually per
household in 1960-61. The farm-retail spread,
the difference between the retail price and the
farm value, represents charges for assembling,
processing, transporting, and distributing
foods. These indexes are all given in relation to
a base period, usually 1967 = 100. Besides
measuring price changes, the price indexes can
be used to update expenditure and cost-of­living
data.
Textiles and Apparel. Data pertaining to
textiles and apparel are produced by the
Economic Research Service, USDA, and by the
Bureau of the Census, Department of
Commerce, in the form of ongoing reports. In
addition, clothing budgets are developed by
USDA.
Transportation. The Federal Highway
Administration within the Department of
Transportation (DOT) is the main source of
data on transportation. The Bureau of the
Census, DOC, also produces some information
from the CENSUS OF TRANSPORTATION,
and the Department of Agriculture reports on
transportation as it relates to agriculture and
marketing.
15
-~ t"'
><:
~
0 z
0 :::
0 en
lXl
tzj <
ti3
~
...... m Sources of Government data useful in family economics research
Primary subject,
publication title
and number
AGRICULTURE:
AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK
AGRICULTURAL PRICES
AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS
BALANCE SHEET OF THE FARMING
SECTOR
CURRENT POPULATION REPORT:
P-27 Farm Population
FARM INCOME STATISTICS
FARM LABOR
FARM POPULATION ESTIMATES
HIRED FARM WORKING FORCE
1974 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE,
County, State, and U.S.
summaries
BUDGETS: 4
COST OF RAISING A CHILD
RETIRED COUPLE BUDGETS (3 levels)
SERVICE-LIFE EXPECTANCY OF
APPLIANCES
URBAN FAMILY BUDGETS (3 levels)
Frequency
of
issuance
or date
11 times per
year
Monthly
Annual
do.
do.
do.
Monthly
Annual
do.
1975,
preliminary
1971
Annual
1972
Annual
Data form
Secondary subjects
House- Aggre- Agency 3
covered
hold 1 gate 2
-- X USDA-ERS Price data, transportation, textiles,
food, expenditures
-- X USDA-SRS Transportation, textiles, food,
housing, energy, price data
X X USDA-SRS Agricultural population, food,
employment
-- X USDA-ERS Housing, food, transportation,
textiles, agricultural finance
X -- DOC-BOC Education, employment, income,
USDA-ERS population
-- X USDA-ERS Food, textiles, transportation,
agricultural population
-- X USDA-SRS Labor force
X -- USDA-ERS Population
X -- USDA-ERS Labor force, income
X -- DOC-BOC Employment, agricultural income, food,
energy
X -- USDA-ARS Food, clothing, education, transpor-tation,
housing, medical care
X -- DOL-BLS
X -- USDA-ARS
X -- DOL-BLS
en ~ EDUCATION:
~ z THE CONDITION OF EDUCATION Annual
0
-- X HEW-NCES Population, employment, income
,_.
<0
-..1
DIGEST OF EDUCATION STATISTICS do. -- X HEW-NCES Population, income, "expenditures
-..1
PROJECTIONS OF EDUCATION do. -- X HEW-NCES Do.
STATISTICS TO 1984-85
SELECTED STATISTICAL NOTES do. -- X HEW-NCES Do.
ON AMERICAN EDUCATION
EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME:
CHARTBOOK ON PRICES, WAGES, Monthly -- X DOL-BLS Price data
AND PRODUCTIVITY
CURRENT POPULATION REPORT:
P-60 Consumer Income Occasional X -- DOC-BOC Population, education
CURRENT WAGE DEVELOPMENTS Monthly -- X DOL-BLS
EMPLOYMENT AND EARNINGS Monthly X X DOL-BLS Population, energy
FARM LABOR do. -- X USDA-SRS Agriculture
HANDBOOK ON WOMEN WORKERS Annual -- X DOL-WB Population, education
HANDBOOK OF LABOR STATISTICS do. X X DOL-BLS Population, price data, expenditures.
THE HIRED FARM WORKING FORCE do. X -- USDA-ERS Agriculture
MANPOWER REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT do. -- X DOL-MA Population
MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW Monthly X X DOL-BLS Price data, energy
1970 CENSUS OF POPULATION
AND HOUSING:
PHC(3) Employment Profiles of 1972 X -- DOC-BOC Population
Selected Low-Income Areas (76 parts)
OCCUPATIONAL OUTLOOK HANDBOOK Biennial -- X DOL-BLS Do.
Supplement . Quarterly -- X DOL-BLS Do.
,_. See footnotes at end of table, p. 26.
-..1
1-'
00
~
s:::
~
~
0 z
0
.s.:.:.:.
0 en
~
~.....
t,%j
:E!
Sources of Government data useful in family economics research
Primary subject,
publication title
and number
EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME:--continued
SURVEY OF CURRENT BUSINESS:
National Income and Product
Accounts
U. S. WORKING WOMEN - A CHARTBOOK
(Bulletin 1880)
ENERGY:
ALL-ELECTRIC HOMES: ANNUAL BILLS
AVERAGE MONTHLY Kwh CONSUMPTION
PER TOTAL CONSUMERS BY CALENDAR
YEARS 1965-1975
FEA DEMAND WATCH:
Domestic Demand for Petroleum
Products
MONTHLY ENERGY REVIEW
MONTHLY PETROLEUM STATISTICS
REPORT
RETAIL PRICES AND INDEXES OF
FUELS AND UTILITIES
TYPICAL ELECTRIC BILLS
EXPENDITURES:
CONSUMER EXPENDITURE SURVEY,
1972-73
FARM FAMILY LIVING EXPENDITURE
SURVEY, 1973-74
Frequency
of
issuance
or date
Monthly
1975
Annual
do.
Weekly
Monthly
do.
do.
Annual
1976
1975
Data form
House­hold
1
X
X
Aggre­gate
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Agency 3
DOL-BEA
DOL-BLS
FPC
USDA-REA
FEA
FEA
FEA
DOL-BLS
FPC
DOL-BLS
USDA-SRS
Secondary subjects
covered
Expenditures, transportation, housing,
food, clothing, energy, finance
Population, education
Housing
Transportation
Price data, housing, transportation
Housing
Energy, food, housing, textiles
transportation, education, health
Do.
r:n
'"0
~ z 0
.....
(0
-.J
-.J
EXPENDITURES:--continued
SURVEY OF CURRENT BUSINESS:
National Income and Product
Accounts (Detailed information
on personal consumption expen­ditures
appear in July issue.)
FINANCE:
FEDERAL RESERVE BULLETIN
FHLBB NEWS:
Housing Finance Releases:
Conventional home mortgages
HUD NEWS:
Housing Finance Releases:
FHA home mortgages
1970 CENSUS OF HOUSING:
Vol. V. Residential Finance
(data from the Residential
Finance Survey of 1971)
TABLES OF BANKRUPTCY STATISTICS
FOOD:
Monthly
Monthly
do
do
1973
Annual
ANNUAL STATISTICAL REVIEW, FINAL 1976
REPORT, FOOD AND NUTRITION PRO-GRAMS,
FISCAL YEAR 1974 - FNS 150
COST OF FOOD AT HOME FOR FOOD Monthly
PLANS AT FOUR COST LEVELS
FOOD CONSUMPTION, PRICES, AND
EXPENDITURES - AER 138
HOUSEHOLD FOOD CONSUMPTION
SURVEY 1965-66
5 1974
1972
(17 parts)
~ See footnotes at end of table, p. 26.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DOC-BEA
FRB
FHLBB
HUD
DOC-BOC
USC-DB
USDA-FNS
USDA-ARS
USDA-ERS
USDA-ARS
Energy, food, housing, textiles,
transportation, education, health
Employment, housing, textiles,
price data
Housing
Do.
Housing, population characteristics
Agricultural income
t-.:1 0 Sources of Government data useful in family economics research
Primary subject,
Frequency Data form
of Secondary subjects
publication title issuance House- Aggre- Agency 3 covered
and number or date hold 1 gate 2
FOOD:--continued
NATIONAL FOOD SITUATION - NFS 154 Quarterly -- X USDA-ERS Agricultural income
USDA FAMILY FOOD PLANS:
Family Food Budgeting ... 1977 X -- USDA-ARS
for Good Meals and Good
Nutrition, HG 94
GENERAL ECONOMIC INDICATORS:
BUDGETS:
Urban Family Budgets Annual X -- DOL-BLS
(3 levels of living)
Retired Couple's Budgets
(3 levels of living) do. X -- DOL-BLS
SOCIAL INDICATORS Occasional X X OMB
STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE Annual X X DOC-BOC - 0 -
UNITED STATES
STATUS (chartbook) Monthly X X DOC-BOC :: a:: SURVEY OF CURRENT BUSINESS do. -- X DOC-BEA
.....
t""
><
l':! HEALTH AND SOCIAL WELFARE:
0
0z HEALTH IN THE UNITED STATES - Annual -- X HEW-NCHS Expenditures, employment and income,
0 A CHARTBOOK population
.a..:.:.
0en HEALTH, UNITED STATES do. -- X HEW-NCHS Do.
~
l':! LIFE TABLES <:
do. X -- HEW-NCHS Population
.....
l':! RESEARCH AND STATISTICS NOTE
~
Occasional -- X HEW-SSA Do.
en
;;g z 0
......
<0
...;J
...;J
HEALTH AND SOCIAL WELFARE:--continued
THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE Annual
MEDICAL CARE DOLLAR
SOCIAL SECURITY BULLETIN Monthly
Supplement Annual
SOCIAL SERVICES U.S.A.
VITAL AND HEALTH STATISTICS6
HOUSING:
ANNUAL HOUSING SURVEY - H-150:
Part A. General Housing
Characteristics
Part B. Indicators of Housing
and Neighborhood Quality
Part C. Financial Characteris­tics
of the Housing Inventory
Part D. Housing Characteristics
of Recent Movers
Part E. Urban and Real Housing
Characteristics
Part F. Financial Characteris­tics
by Indicators of Housing
and Neighborhood Quality
ANNUAL HOUSING SURVEY - H-170:
Housing Characteristics for
Selected Metropolitan Areas
CONSTRUCTION REVIEW
CURRENT CONSTRUCTION REPORTS:
C-20 Housing Starts
C-22 Housing Completions
C-25 New One-Family Homes
Sold and For S&le
Quarterly
Occasional
Annual
Annual
Monthly
do.
do.
Monthly,
quarterly,
annually
~ See footnotes at end of table, p. 26.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
HEW-SSA
HEW-SSA
HEW-SSA
HEW-NCSS
HEW-NCSS
DOC- BOC
DOC-BOC
DOC-BOC
DOC-BOC
DOC-BOC, HUD
DOC-BOC, HUD
Expenditures
Population, price data, employment
and income
Do.
Population
Population, transportation, income,
finances, energy
Population, transportation, energy,
income, finances
Finances, energy
t-.:)
t-.:)
~
F
><!
~
0 z
0 s:: ......
0 en
i:Q
t:r:l .<.....
t:r:l :s
Sources of Government data useful in family economics research
Primary subject ,
publication title
and number
HOUSING:--continued
CURRENT CONSTRUCTION REPORTS-­continued
C-27 Price Index of New One­Family
Houses Sold
C-30 Value of New Construction
Put in Place
C-50 Residential Alterations
and Repairs
CURRENT HOUSING REPORTS:
H-111 Housing Vacancies
H-121 Housing Characteristics
H-130 Market Absorption of
Apartments
H-131 Characteristics of
Apartments Completed
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
TRENDS
HUD STATISTICAL YEARBOOK
1970 CENSUS OF HOUSING:
Vol. I. Housing Characteristics
for States, Cities, & Counties
Vol. II. Metropolitan Housing
Characteristics
Vol. IV. Components of
Inventory Change
Vol. V. Residential Finance
Vol. VI. Plumbing Facilities
and Estimates of Dilapidated
Housing
Frequency
of
issuance
or date
Quarterly
Monthly
Quarterly,
annually
do.
Occasional
Quarterly,
annually
Annually
Quarterly
Annual
1973
(58 parts)
1973
(248 parts)
1973
(16 parts)
1973
1973
(52 parts)
Data form
House­hold
1
X
X
X
X
X
Aggre­gate
2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Agency 3
DOC-BOC
DOC-BOC
DOC-BOC
DOC-BOC
DOC-BOC
DOC-BOC
DOC-BOC
HUD
HUD
DOC-BOC
DOC-BOC
DOC-BOC
DOC-BOC
DOC-BOC
Secondary subjects
covered
Price data
Population
Population
Do.
Do.
Do.
Price data, finances
Population, income, finance,
expenditures
Transportation, finances, population,
energy
Population, energy, finances
Population, finances
Do.
Population
r:n
"tl
::0 z 0
.....
<0
-.J
-.J
!>;)
c,.)
HOUSING:--continued
1970 CENSUS OF HOUSING--continued
Vol. VII. Subject Reports
HC(Sl) Supplementary Reports
POPULATION:
iJRRENT POPULATION REPORTS:
P-20 Population Characteristics
P-23 Special Studies
P-25 Population Estimates and
Projections
P-26 Federal-State Cooperative
Program for Population
Estimates
P-27 Farm Population
P-28 Special Censuses (of
specified areas)
1973
(9 parts)
Occasional
Occasional
do.
do.
do.
Annual
Occasional
P-60 Consumer Income do.
P-65 Consumer Buying Indicators 7 Quarterly
FINAL REPORTS OF THE 1970 CENSUS
OF POPULATION:
Vol. 1. Characteristics of the
Population
Part A - Number of
Inhabitants
Part B - General Population
Characteristics
Part C - General Social and
Economic Characteristics
Part D - Detailed
Characteristics
1972
(58 parts)
1972
(58 parts)
1972
(53 parts)
1972
(58 parts)
Vol. 2. Subject Reports 1973
See footnotes at end of table, p. 26.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
DOC-BOG
DOC-BOG
DOC-BOG
DOC-BOG
DOC-BOG
DOC-BOG
DOC-BOG
USDA-ERS
DOC-BOC
DOC-BOC
DOC-BOC
DOC-BOC
DOC-BOG
DOC-BOC
DOC-BOC
DOC-BOC
Population
Population, income
Education, employment
Income, education, employment
Farm population, employment,
education, income
Education, employment, income
Transportation, housing, expenditures,
income
Education, employment, transportation,
income
Do.
Education, labor force, income,
transportation
~
~
.s..:.:.
t-<
><
~
0 z
0 .s..:.:.
0
(/l
::tl
t_:l:j
.<....
t_:l:j
~
Sources of Government data useful in family economics research
Primary subject
publication title
and number
POPULATION:--continued
FINAL REPORTS OF THE 1970 CENSUS
OF POPULATION--continued
Supplementary Reports PC(Sl)
(Individual subjects)
FINAL REPORTS OF THE 1970 CENSUS
OF POPULATION AND HOUSING:
PHC(l) Census Tracts (General
characteristics & housing units)
PHC(2) General Demographic
Trends for Metropolitan Areas,
1960-70
PHC(3) Employment Profiles of
Selected Low-Income Areas
PRICE DATA:
CHARTBOOK ON PRICES, WAGES, AND
PRODUCTIVITY
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX
CURRENT CONSTRUCTION REPORTS:
C-27 Price Index of New
One-Family Houses Sold
ESTIMATED RETAIL FOOD PRICES
BY CITY (Based on CPI)
FARM-FOOD MARKET BASKET
STATISTICS (Published in
Agricultural Outlook)
Frequency
of
issuance
or date
Occasional
1971
1971
(52 parts)
1972
(76 parts)
Monthly
do.
Monthly
do.
Quarterly
Data form
House­hold
1
X
X
X
X
Aggre­gate
2
X
X
X
X
X
Agency 3
DOC-BOG
DOC-BOG
DOC-BOG
DOC-BOG
DOL-BLS
DOL-BLS
DOC-BOG
DOL-BLS
USDA-ERS
Secondary subjects
covered
Education, employment, housing
Housing, labor force, income
Housing
Employment, education, income
Employment, income
Food, energy, housing, textiles,
health, transportation
Housing, expenditures
Food
Food, agriculture, income,
expenditures
r:n
"'CC
-::0 PRICE DATA:--continued z
0 INDEXES OF PRICES RECEIVED AND Monthly -- X USDA-ERS Food, agriculture, income, ..... PAID BY FARMERS (Published in expenditures <D
-..J Agricultural Prices) -..J
RETAIL PRICES AND INDEXES OF do. -- X DOL-BLS Energy
FUELS AND ELECTRICITY
WHOLESALE PRICES AND PRICE do. -- X DOL-BLS Food, textiles, housing
INDEXES
TEXTILES:
CLOTHING BUDGETS FOR CHILDREN 1975 X -- USDA-ARS
CLOTHING QUANTITY BUDGETS FOR 1975 X -- USDA-ARS
INDIVIDUALS
COTTON AND WOOL SITUATION 5 times a year -- X USDA-ERS
CURRENT INDUSTRIAL REPORTS :
Textiles Mills (8) -- X DOC-BOC
Apparel and Leather (9) -- X DOC-BOC
TRANSPORTATION:
COST OF OWNING AND OPERATING 1976 X -- DOT-FHWA
AN AUTOMOBILE 1976
HIGHWAY STATISTICS Annual -- X DOT-FHWA Energy
(Published in sections)
Sec. 1. Vehicles, fuels,
and drivers
HIGHWAY STATISTICS SUMMARY Decennial -- X DOT-FHWA Do.
BULLETIN (Historical tables)
NATIONWIDE PERSONAL TRANSPOR- 1972 X -- DOT-FHWA
TATION STUDY 1969-70
I" c:n See footnotes at end of table, p. 26.
~
~
~
~
0 z
0 s:: n CD
~
t:r-1
.<....:.
tzj
:E
Sources of Government data useful in family economics research
Primary subject
publication title
and number
TRANSPORTATION:--continued
1972 CENSUS OF TRANSPORTATION:
Vol. I. National Travel Survey
Vol. II. Truck Inventory and
Use Survey
Vol. III. Commodity Transpor­tation
Survey
Travel and Related Data
(table RD-2)
Frequency
of
issuance
or date
1973
(3 reports)
1974
(52 reports)
1976
(51 reports)
Annual
Data form
House­hold
1
X
X
X
--
Aggre­gate
2
--
--
--
X
Agency 3
DOC-BOC
DOC-BOC
DOC-BOC
DOT-FHWA
Secondary subjects
covered
Population, employment and income,
education
Energy
Textiles, energy
Energy
1Household data are collected directly from individuals or households and are generally reported as averages or percentages.
Data of this type usually are the best source of information on families.
2Aggregate data are collected from business transactions and generally reported as totals or as the average amount for each
individual or household in the U.S. population.
3See agency names and addresses on p. 27.
~Budgets for food are listed under the food category and budgets for clothing under the clothing category.
Ssupplement to 1968 report.
6various reports presenting data from the Health Interview Survey, the Health Examination Survey, the Institutional Popula­tion
Surveys, the Hospital Discharge Survey, the National Natality and Mortality Surveys, and on health resources.
7Discontinued in 1974.
BNumerous periodic reports covering production, shipment, or present stock of textiles. Various publication schedules.
Subjects include: Woven fabrics, woolen and worsted systems, spun yarn, textured yarn, narrow fabrics, nonwoven fabrics,
cotton broadwoven goods, manmade fiber broadwoven goods, and wool broadwoven goods.
9Numerous periodic reports covering production, shipment, or present stock of apparel. Various publication schedules.
Subjects include: Men's apparel; knit underwear and nightwear; gloves and mittens; women's, misses', and junior's apparel;
shoes and slippers.
fig
::0 z 0
.....
~
-.)
-.)
~
-.)
AGENCIES AND ADDRESSES
DOC-BEA
U.S. Department of Commerce
Bureau of Economic Analysis
14 & K Streets, NW.
Washington, D.C. 20235
DOC-BOC
U.S. Department of Commerce
Bureau of the Census
Washington, D.C. 20233
DOL-BLS
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics
200 Constitution Avenue, NW.
Washington, D.C. 20212
DOL-MA
U.S. Department of Labor
Manpower Administration
(same address as above)
DOL-WB
U.S. Department of Labor
Women's Bureau
(same address as above)
DOT-FHWA
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
400 7th Street, SW.
Washington, D.C. 20591
FEA
Federal Energy Administration
National Information Center
12th & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.
Washington, D.C. 20461
FHLBB
Federal Home Loan Bank Board
320 First Street, NW.
Washington, D.C. 20552
FPC
Federal Power Commission
825 N. Capitol Street
Washington, D.C. 20426
FRB
Federal Reserve Board
Constitution Avenue bet. 20th
& 21st Street, NW.
Washington, D.C. 20551
HEW-NCES
U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare
National Center for Education
Statistics
1200 19th Street, NW.
Washington, D.C. 20202
HEW-NCHS
U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare
National Center for Health
Statistics
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, Md. 20852
HEW-NCSS
U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare
National Center for Social
Statistics
300 C Street, SW.
Washington, D.C. 20201
HEW-SSA
U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare
HUD
Social Security Administration
300 Independence Avenue, SW.
Washington, D.C. 20201
U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development
451 7th Street, SW.
Washington, D.C. 20410
OMB
Office of Management and Budget
Executive Office Building
17th & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW .
Washington, D.C. 20503
USC-DB
U.S. Courts
Administrative Office
Division of Bankruptcy
1 First Street, NE.
Washington, D.C. 20544
USDA-ARS
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service
Independence Avenue bet. 12th
& 14th Streets, SW.
Washington, D.C. 20250
USDA-ERS
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Economic Research Service
(same address as above)
USDA-FCA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Farm Credit Administration
(same address as above)
USDA-FNS
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
500 12th Street, SW.
Washington, D.C. 20251
USDA-REA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Rural Electrification Administration
Independence Avenue bet. 12th
& 14th Streets, SW.
Washington, D.C. 20250
USDA-SRS
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Statistical Reporting Service
(same address as above)
FAMILY FOOD BUDGETING
"Family Food Budgeting for Good Meals
and Good Nutrition," Home and Garden
Bulletin No. 94, has been revised. It presents
the USDA family food plans at four levels of
cost (developed in 1974 and 1975 to take into
account new information about food that
families use), the nutrient content of foods,
nutritional needs of individuals, and food
prices. This publication is designed for use by
families and by teachers and others who help
families to plan nutritious and satisfying meals
for the money they can afford. To obtain a
free copy, send a post card to the Office of
Communication, U.S. Department of Agri­culture,
Washington, D.C. 20250. Request
publication by name and number and include
your ZIP code.
THREE BUDGETS FOR A RETIRED COUPLE, AUTUMN 1975
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), U.S.
Department of Labor, has updated to autumn
1975 its three hypothetical annual budgets for
a retired couple. The updated budget costs
represent the costs at autumn 197 5 prices of
three hypothetical lists of goods and services
that were specified in the mid-1960's to
portray three relative levels of living-lower,
intermediate, and higher-for a retired couple.
In the autumn of 1975, the estimated U.S.
average annual cost of the lower level budget
for an urban retired couple (excluding personal
income taxes) amounted to approximately
$4,500. At the intermediate and higher levels,
the budget costs amounted to $6,500 and
$9,600, respectively. Costs for all the budgets
are about 7 percent greater than the estimated
budget costs for the autumn of 1974. Tables
are given showing costs for comparative
indexes and for 39 metropolitan areas, 4
nonmetropolitan regions, and Anchorage, Al.
The sources of data, methods of calculation,
and quantities of goods and services for all the
components in the three budgets are described
in detail in BLS Bulletin 1570-6, "Three
Budgets for a Retired Couple in Urban Areas of
the United States, 1967-68." Copies may be
obtained for $4.7 5 from the National
Technical Information Service, U.S. Depart­ment
of Commerce, Springfield, Va. 22151.
(Ask for Accession No. PB227521/AS.)
Supplements, with budgets for spring 1969-70
and autumn 1971-74, are available free of
charge from BLS Regional Offices.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Three Budgets for a Retired Couple, Autumn
197 5. News, U.S. Dept. of Labor Release 76·1133,
April 1976.
1977 GAS MILEAGE GUIDE FOR NEW CAR BUYERS
The "1977 Gas Mileage Guide" for new car
buyers is now available. This guide helps in
selecting a vehicle for both transportation
needs and fuel economy savings. The guide is
made available through the joint efforts of the
Federal Energy Administration and the
Environmental Protection Agency. The 1977
guide has two important features that the 1976
guide did not include: (1) All vehicles are
divided into different size classes according to
28
their interior size, and (2) the average annual
fuel cost for each car is now given.
According to the requirements of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (1975), car
dealers are required to make this guide
available in their showrooms. You may write
for copies to: Fuel Economy, National Energy
Information Center, Federal Energy Admin­istration,
Room 1407, Washington, D.C.
20461.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
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:
• WINTER RECREATION SAFETY GUIDE. PA 1140. August 1976. 90 cents.
Single. copies of the following are available free from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Please
address your request to the office indicated.
From Office of Communication, Washington, D.C. 20250:
• HOW TO PREVENT AND REMOVE MILDEW. G 68. Revised September 1976.
• CONSERVING THE NUTRITIVE VALUES IN FOODS. G 90. Revised August 1976.
• CHEESE IN FAMILY MEALS. G 112. Revised August 1976.
• CONTROLLING THE JAPANESE BEETLE. G 159. Revised December 1976.
• FOOD IS MORE THAN JUST SOMETHING TO EAT. G 216. July 1976.
• METHODOLOGY FOR LARGE-SCALE SURVEYS OF HOUSEHOLD AND
INDIVIDUAL DIETS. HERR 40. November 1976.
• DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, and EVALUATION OF A LOW-COST PANELIZED
HOUSE. TB 1544. September 1976.
From Economic Research Service, Division of Information, Washington, D.C. 20250:
• THE HIRED FARM WORKING FORCE OF 1975. AER 355. December 1976.
• FOOD SAFETY: HOMEMAKERS' ATTITUDES AND PRACTICES. AER 360. January
1977.
• THE REVIVAL OF POPULATION GROWTH IN NONMETROPOLITAN AMERICA.
ERS 605. Revised December 1976.
From Food and Nutrition Service, Food Stamp Division, Washington, D.C. 20250:
• THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM. PA 1123. Revised December 1976.
CONSUMER LEASING ACT OF 1976
The Consumer Leasing Act of 1976 became
effective on March 23, 1977. Provisions of this
act require that companies leasing merchandise
make an accurate and detailed disclosure of all
terms and costs to the customer. The purpose
of the act is to protect the consumer against
inadequate or misleading leasing information
and to enable the consumer to compare the
various lease terms available and, where
appropriate, to compare lease terms with credit
terms. The act also limits balloon payments.
SPRING 1977
The law applies to the leasing of personal
property (basically automobiles and other
durable goods) for more than 4 months, and
for which the total cost of the transaction is
under $25,000. Provisions of the Consumer
Leasing Act become additions to the Truth in
Lending Act.
Source: Public Law 94-240, 94th Congress,
H.R. 8835, Consumer Leasing Act of 1976, March 23,
1976.
29
c:,.)
0
'%.1
-~ t"' ><
~
0 z
-~ til
~
t':l <....
t':l
~
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at four cost levels, March 1977, U.S. average 1
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month
Sex-age groups Thrifty Low-cost Moderate- Liberal Thrifty Low-cost Moderate- Liberal
plan2. plan cost plan plan plan2. plan cost plan plan
DoUa:rs DoUa:rs
FAMILIES
Family of 2: 3
20-54 years .............. 23.10 30.40 38.20 45.80 100.00 131.60 165.10 198.20
55 years and over ........ 20.80 27.20 33.70 40.30 90.10 117.70 145.80 174.50
Family of 4:
Couple, 20-54 years and
children--
1-2 and 3-5 years ...... 32.70 42.50 53.10 63.70 141.40 183.90 229.80 275.70
6-8 and 9-11 years ..... 39.30 51.20 64.30 77.20 169.90 221.70 278.40 334.20
INDIVIDUALS 4
Child:
7 months to 1 year ....... 4.70 5.80 7.10 8.40 20.40 25.20 30.80 36.50
1-2 years ................ 5.30 6.80 8.40 10.00 22.90 29.40 36.30 43.20
3-5 years ................ 6.40 8.10 10.00 12. 10 27.60 34.90 43.40 52.30
6-8 years ................ 8.10 10.50 13.10 15.80 35.00 45.40 57.00 68.40
9-11 years ............... 10.20 13.10 16.50 19.80 44.00 56. 70 71.30 85 .60
Male:
12-14 years .............. 10.80 13.90 17.40 20.90 46.90 60.10 75.40 90.40
15-19 years .............. 11.90 15.30 19.20 23.20 51.50 66.40 83.30 100.30
20- 54 years .............. 11.50 15.20 19.20 23.10 49.90 65.70 83.10 100.20
55 years and over ........ 10.30 13.40 16.70 20.10 44.50 58.20 72.40 87.20
Female:
12-19 years .............. 9. 70 12.50 15.50 18.50 42.10 54.10 67.10 80.20
20-54 years .............. 9.50 12.40 15.50 18.50 41.00 53.90 67.00 80.00
55 years and over ........ 8.60 11. 30 13.90 16.50 37.40 48.80 60.10 71.40
Pregnant ................. 11.90 15.40 18.90 22.50 51.70 66.60 82.10 97.60
Nursing .................. 12.60 16.30 20.30 24.10 54.70 70.50 87.80 104.50
lAssumes that food for all meals and snacks is purchased at the store and prepared at home. Estimates for each plan
were computed from quantities of foods published in the Winter 1976 (thrifty plan) and Winter 1975 (low-cost, moderate­cost,
and liberal plans) issues of FamiZy Economics Review. The costs of the food plans were first estimated using
prices paid in 1965-66 by households from USDA's Household Food Consumption Survey with food costs at 4 selected
levels. These prices are updated by use of "Estimated Retail Food Prices by Cities" released monthly by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
2.coupon allotment in the Food Stamp Program based on this food plan.
310 percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 4.
4The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size families, the following
adjustments are suggested: 1-person--add 20 percent; 2-person--add 10 percent; 3-person--add 5 percent; 5-or-6-person-­subtract
5 percent; 7-or-more-person--subtract 10 percent.
n
Q
(I)
-1
.Q,
.,
Q
Q c
~
:z:
Q
3:
.m.
c
en
l> z
c
:a
m
-C') Q z
(I)
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at three cost levels,
March 1977, Northeast Region 1
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month
Sex-age groups Low-cost Moderate- Liberal Low-cost Moderate- Liberal
plan cost plan plan plan cost plan plan
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dolla:t's Dollars DoZZar>s
FAMILIES
Family of 2: 2
20-54 years ............. 32.10 41.20 49.60 139.30 178.60 214.80
55 years and over ....... 28.60 36.20 43.40 124.00 156.90 188.40
Family of 4:
Couple, 20-54 years
and children--
1-2 and 3-5 years ..... 44.80 57.20 68.70 194.30 247.80 297.90
6-8 and 9-11 years .... 54.00 69.20 83.20 234.10 0 299.90 360.60
INDIVIDUALS 3
Child:
7 months to 1 year 0. 0 •• 0 6.00 7.50 8.90 26.00 32.60 38.60
1-2 years 0. 0 ••• 0. 0 •••••• 7.10 9.00 10.70 30.90 38.90 46.50
3-5 years •••••• 0 0 0 • ••• •• 8.50 10.70 12.90 36.80 46.50 56.10
6-8 years • 0 •• 0 ••••••• 0 0 0 11.00 14.10 16.90 47.80 61.00 73.40
9-11 years • 0. 0. 0 •• 0 0 •• 0 0 13.80 17.60 21. 20 59.70 76.50 91.90
Male:
12-14 years •• 0 ••• 0 0. 0. 0. 14.70 18.70 22.50 63.60 81.10 97.40
15-19 years • 0 •• 0 •••••••• 16.20 20.80 25.00 70 .30 89.90 108.30
20-54 years •••••• 0 0 ••••• 16.10 20.80 25.10 69.70 90.00 108.70
55 years and over ....... 14.20 18.00 21.80 61.50 78.10 94.40
Female:
12-19 years •••• 0 •• 0 0 •• •• 13.10 16.60 19.90 56.90 72.10 86.20
20-54 years •• 0. 0 0 ••••••• 13.10 16.70 20.00 56.90 72.40 86.60
55 years and over ••• 0 0 •• 11.80 14.90 17.70 51.20 64.50 76.90
Pregnant ••••••••• 0 •••••• 16.20 20.40 24.30 70.20 88.30 105.30
Nursing •••••• 0 ••••••• ••• 17.20 21.80 26.10 74.40 94.60 112.90
1Assumes that food for all meals and snacks is purchased at the store and prepared at home.
Estimates for each plan were computed from quantities of foods published in the Winter 1975
issue of PamiZy Economics Review. The costs of the food plans were first estimated using
prices paid in 1965-66 by households in the Northeast from the USDA's Household Food Consump­tion
Survey with food costs at three selected levels. These prices are updated by use of
"Estimated Retail Food Prices by Cities" (Boston; New York, Northeastern New Jersey;
Philadelphia) released monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
210 percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 3.
3The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size
families, the following adjustments are suggested: 1-person--add 20 percent; 2-person--add
10 percent; 3-person-add 5 percent; 5-or-6-person--subtract 5 percent; 7-or-more-person--
subtract 10 percent.
SPRING 1977
31
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at three cost levels,
March 1977, North Central Region 1
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month
Sex-age groups Low-cost Moderate- Liberal Low-cost Moderate- Liberal
plan cost plan plan plan cost plan plan
DoZZars DoZZars DoZZars DoZZars DoZZars DoZZars
FAMILIES
Family of 2: 2
20-54 years 30.50 37.50 45.10 132.10 162.50 195.50 ••••• 0. 0 •• 0. 0
55 years and over 27.30 33.00 39.60 118.00 143.20 171.90 •• 0 0 •••
Family of 4:
Couple, 20-54 years
and children--
1-2 and 3-5 years • 0 0 •• 42.70 52.30 62.90 185.00 226.80 272.30
6-8 and 9-11 years 0 •• 0 51.50 63.60 76.30 223.30 275.20 330.80
INDIVIDUALS 3
Child:
7 months to 1 year • • 0 ••• 5.80 7.00 8.30 25.30 30.40 35.90
1-2 years • 0 ••• 0 ••• 0 ••• 0 0 6.80 8.30 9.90 29.60 36.00 42.70
3-5 years 0 0 • •• 0. 0. 0 ••••• 8.20 9.90 12.00 35.30 43.10 51.90
6-8 years 0 0 •• 0 0 ••••••• 0. 10.60 13.10 15.70 45.90 56.60 68.00
9-11 years ••••• 0 •• 0. 0 ••• 13.20 16.40 19.60 57.30 70.90 85.10
Male:
12-14 years • 0 0. 0 •••• 0 •• 0 14.10 17.30 20.80 60.90 75.00 90.00
15-19 years 0 • ••••• 0 •• 0. 0 15.50 19.10 23.10 67.20 82.90 99.90
20-54 years •• 0 0 ••••••• 0. 15.20 18.90 22.80 66.00 81.80 98.80
55 years and over ... . 0. 0 0 13.50 16.40 19.80 58.40 71.20 85.90
Female:
12-19 years 0 ••••• 0 0. 0. 0. 12.60 15.40 18.40 54.70 66.60 79.70
20-54 years •• 0 0 ••••••••• 12.50 15.20 18.20 54.10 65.90 78.90
55 years and over •• 0 . 0 •• 11.30 13.60 16.20 48.90 59.00 70.40
Pregnant •• 0 ••• 0 • •••••••• 15.40 18.60 22.20 66.80 80.80 96.40
Nursing 0 0 ••••• 0 •• 0 0 •• 0 •• 16.30 20.00 23.80 70.70 86.50 103.20
lAssumes that food for all meals and snacks is purchased at the store and prepared at home.
Estimates for each plan were computed from quantities of foods published in the Winter 1975
issue of FamiZy Economics Review . The costs of the food plans were first estimated using
prices paid in 1965-66 by households in the North Central Region from the USDA's Household
Food Consumption Survey with food costs at three selected levels. These prices are updated
by use of "Estimated Retail Food Prices by Cities" (Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis)
released monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
210 percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 3.
3The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size
families, the following adjustments are suggested: 1-person--add 20 percent; 2-person--add
10 percent; 3-person--add 5 percent; 5-or-6-person--subtract 5 percent; ?-or-more-person-­subtract
10 percent.
32 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at th ree cost levels,
March 1977, Southern Region 1
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month
Sex-age groups Low-cost Moderate- Liberal Low-cost Moderate- Liberal
plan cost plan plan plan cost plan plan
Dollars DoUars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
FAMILIES
Family of 2: 2
20-54 years ••••• 0 •• 0. 0. 30.70 37.80 44.00 132.60 164.10 190.50
55 years and over 0 0 •••• 27.30 33.30 38.50 118.10 144.10 166.80
Family of 4:
Couple, 20-54 years
and children--
1-2 and 3-5 years • 0 0. 42.70 52.50 61.20 184.60 227.70 264.80
6-8 and 9-11 years ... 51.60 63.80 74.00 223.00 276.60 320.50
INDIVIDUALS 3
Child:
7 months to 1 year • 0 0 0. 5. 70 7.00 8.10 24.90 30.20 35.30
1-2 years 0 0 •• 0 ••••• 0 •• 0 6.70 8.20 9.60 29.20 35.60 41. so
3-5 years •••••••• 0 • • 0 •• 8.10 9.90 11.60 34.90 42.90 50.10
6-8 years • 0. 0 •• 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 10.50 13.00 15.10 45.50 56.50 65.40
9-11 years • 0 0. 0 0 0 ••• 0 •• 13.20 16.40 18.90 57.00 70.90 81.90
Male:
12-14 years ••••• 0 0 ••••• 14.00 17.30 20.00 60.60 75.00 86.80
15-19 years • 0 •• 0 ••••••• 15.50 19.20 22.30 67.30 83.20 96.50
20-54 years 0 ••••••• 0 0 0. 15.30 19.00 22.10 66.10 82.40 95.80
55 years and over 0 •• 0 •• 13.50 16.50 19.20 58.30 71.40 83.00
Female:
12-19 years ••••• 0. 0 0 0 •• 12.70 15.50 17.90 54.90 67.10 77.60
20-54 years 0 ••••••• • 0 •• 12.60 15.40 17.90 54.40 66.80 77.40
55 years and over 0 ••• 0. 11.30 13.80 15.80 49.10 59.60 68.60
Pregnant •• 0 •• 0 •• 0 •• 0 0. 0 15.50 18.90 21.80 67.30 82.00 94.70
Nursing •• 0 •• 0 0 •• 0 •• 0 0. 0 16.40 20.20 23.40 71.20 87.70 101.30
1Assumes that food for all meals and snacks is purchased at the store and prepared at home.
Estimates for each plan were computed from quantities of foods published in the Winter 1975
issue of Family Economias Review. The costs of the food plans were first estimated using
prices paid in 1965-66 by households in the South from the USDA's Household Food Consumption
Survey with food costs at three selected levels. These prices are updated by use of "Esti­mated
Retail Food Prices by Cities" (Atlanta; Baltimore; Washington, D.C.; Maryland; Virginia)
released monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
210 percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 3.
3The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size
families, the following adjustments are suggested: 1-person--add 20 percent; 2-person--add
10 percent; 3-person--add 5 percent; 5-or-6-person--subtract 5 percent; ?-or-more-person--
subtract 10 percent.
SPRING 1977
33
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at three cost levels,
March 1977, Western Region 1
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month
Sex-age groups Low-cost Moderate- Liberal Low-cost Moderate- Liberal
plan cost plan plan plan cost plan plan
Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars
FAMILIES
Family of 2: 2
20-54 years •••• 0 ••••••• 0 30.10 38.30 46.10 130.90 165.70 199.50
55 years and over • 0 ••••• 27.10 33.80 40.50 117.20 146.00 175.50
Family of 4:
Couple, 20-54 years
and children--
1-2 and 3-5 years 0 •• 0. 42.10 53.10 64.10 182.90 229.70 277.70
6-8 and 9-11 years 0 ••• 51.00 64.50 78.00 221.20 279.40 337.80
INDIVIDUALS 3
Child:
7 months to 1 year ••••• 0 5.70 6.90 8.40 24.50 29.70 36.20
1-2 years ••••••••• 0. 0 ••• 6.70 8.30 10.00 29.10 35.80 43.40
3-5 years •• 0 0. 0 0. 0 0 ••••• 8.00 10.00 12.20 34.80 43.30 52.90
6-8 years • 0 ••••••••••••• 10.50 13.20 16.00 45.40 57.10 69.40
9-11 years •• 0. 0 ••• 0 ••••• 13.10 16.50 20.10 56.80 71.70 87.00
Male:
12-14 years •••• 0 •••••••• 13.90 17.50 21.20 60.20 75.80 91.90
15-19 years 0 0. 0. 0 0 •••••• 15.30 19.30 23.50 66.40 83.80 101.90
20-54 years •• 0. 0 •••••• 0. 15.10 19.30 23.30 65.50 83.50 100.90
55 years and over ••••• 0. 13.40 16.80 20.20 58.00 72.60 87.70
Female:
12-19 years ••• 0 ••••• 0 ••• 12.50 15.50 18.80 54.00 67.30 81.30
20-54 years ••••••• 0 ••• 0 0 12.30 15.50 18.60 53.50 67.10 80.50
55 years and over • 0 ••••• 11.20 13.90 16.60 48.50 60.10 71.80
Pregnant •• 0 ••••••••••• 0. 15.20 18.90 22.70 65.90 82.10 98.20
Nursing •••••••••• 0 •• 0. 0. 16.10 20.30 24.30 69.80 88.00 105.10
1Assumes that food for all meals and snacks is purchased at the store and prepared at home.
Estimates for each plan were computed from quantities of foods published in the Winter 1975
issue of Family Economies Review. The costs of the food plans were first estimated using
prices paid in 1965-66 by households in the West from the USDA's Household Food Consumption
Survey with food costs at three selected levels. These prices are updated by use of "Esti­mated
Retail Food Prices by Cities" (Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland) released monthly
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
210 Percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 3.
3The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size
families, the following adjustments are suggested: !-person--add 20 percent; 2-person--add
10 percent; 3-person--add 5 percent; 5-or-6-person--subtract 5 percent; 7-or-more-person-­subtract
10 percent.
34 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 operation .......... .
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
March
1977
178.2
188.6
186.9
195.2
185.5
186.3
150.8
199.3
198.5
281.4
208.5
174.6
151. 7
152.6
143.3
155.4
174.8
174.1
180.4
170.7
197.6
167.3
155.8
157.3
Feb.
1977
177.1
187.7
186.2
193.6
184.3
185.3
150.2
198.1
196.4
278.3
205.4
173.6
150.8
150.6
143.3
154.4
173.3
172.7
178.9
169.8
195.8
166.7
155.5
156.9
Jan.
1977
175.3
183.4
181.2
192.2
183.1
184.1
149.5
196.7
194.8
271.7
204.2
172.6
150.0
148.8
143.0
153.2
172.1
171.4
178.7
169.0
194.1
166.2
154.9
156.7
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
March
1976
167.5
178.7
177.7
182.8
174.5
176.3
142.7
188.7
178.9
247.6
183.7
166.6
145.0
145.4
138.5
147.5
159.8
158.5
172.3
160.6
180.6
157.4
149.0
151.8
INDEX Of PRICES PAID BY FARMERS DISCONTINUED
The Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for
Family Living Items, which usually appears in
this spot, has been discontinued by the
Department because of similarities in prices
paid by farmers and urban dwellers. Data from
the Consumer Price Index is being used for
calculating the monthly parity index.
35
SPRING 1977
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
SPRING 1977
CONTENTS
Home Gardening and Preservation of Fruits
Page
and Vegetables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Home Gardening and Incidence of Freezing and Canning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Evelyn F. Kaitz
Home Canning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Carole Davis
Household Energy Adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Richard B. Smith
Sources of Government Data Useful
in Family Economics Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Cynthia L. Jennings
Family Food Budgeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Three Budgets for a Retired Couple, Autumn 1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1977 Gas Mileage Guide for New Car Buyers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Consumer Leasing Act of 197 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Index of Prices Paid by Farmers Discontinued 35
Regular Features
Some New USDA Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Cost of Food at Home, U.S. and Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Consumer Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Issued May 1977
36 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW