Family Economics Review [1979, Number 4]

              HIGHLIGHTS:
CHILD CARE-I
For Building Use Only I
FALL 1979
~ ARRANGEMENTS AND COSTS
j . FAMILy DAY CARE AI
• IN RURAL AREAS
FOOD COSTS OF U.S. HOUSEHOLDS
o_epos\tor~
PROPfRTY OF THE
LIBRARY
APR 1 0 1980
University of North Carolina
:t Greensboro
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Science and Education Administration
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW is a quarterly
report on research relating to economic aspects
of . family living. It is prepared primarily for
home economics agents and home economics
specialists of the Cooperative Extension
Service.
Editor: Katherine S. Tippett
Family Economics Research Group
Science and Education Administration
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Federal Building
Hyattsville, Md. 20782
Science and Education Administration, Family Economics Review, Fall 1979
Published by Science and Education Administration-Agricultural Research,
Northeast Regi?n, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Md. 20705
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
CHILD CARE: ARRANGEMENTS AND COSTS
By Marsha Freeman Epstein and Cynthia L. jennings, Family Economists'
Child Care Arrangements
The most common arrangement for child
day care is parental care. In 1975 almost 8 out
of every 10 children ages 3 to 6 were cared for
primarily by a parent. Of families with children
under 6 who used nonparental care at least 10
hours or more a week, babysitting by a relative
was the most common-about one half ( 49 per­cent)
using relatives as their primary child care
arrangement, mostly in the relative's home.
Home care by a nonrelative either in the child's
home or a family day care home was the next
most common-used by more than one-third
(36 percent). Nursery school was used by
8 percent and day care centers, by 4 percent.
Other types of child care arrangements were
used ~y about 3 percent.
Family day care homes-home-based arrange­ments
in which an adult cares for usually six or
less children~are the fastest growing type of day
care. In the United States in 1977, more than
100,000 licensed family day care homes served
300,000 children; many more children are
served through unlicensed homes.
Day care centers serve about 900,000 chil­dren.
These centers are largely concentrated in
urban and suburban areas and are almost
always licensed by State authorities. They com­ply
with minimum safety and health standards.
Care is generally provided for at least 12 chil­dren.
some of whom attend for a full working
day.
Enrollments in both nursery schools and kin­dergartens,
totaling almost 5 million children in
1976, are increasing. Between 1970 and 1976,
nursery school enrollment increased 39 percent
and kindergarten enrollment increased 10 per­cent.
This form of child care may be supple­mented
by other methods.
The type of child care arrangement used by
families with 3- to 6-year-old children varies by
the mother's labor force status, race, and fami­ly
type. As would be expected, over 96 percent
of children whose mothers are not in the labor
1 Family Economics Research Group, Science and
Education Administration, U.S. Department of Agri­culture.
FALL 1979
force are cared for primarily by a parent. Chil­dren
of mothers in the labor force are much
more likely to be cared for by other forms of
child care, such as babysitting by a relative (18
percent), home care by nonrelative (18 per­cent),
or day care centers (4 percent). The
remainder are cared for primarily by one or
both parents.
White children are more likely than black
children to be cared for by a nonrelative in a
home-based child care arrangement. In con­trast,
black children are cared for more often
by relatives or are sent to a day care center or
nursery school. Black families, on average, have
lower incomes than white, and, therefore, they
may choose to send their children to day care
centers, many of which are subsidized by Fed­eral,
State, and local governments. Approxi­mately
75 percent of all lower income children
using day care centers and about 60 percent of
all black children enrolled in day care centers
are attending centers that receive some form of
government subsidy. The availability of subsi­dized
day care centers may also account for the
fact that children of employed single mothers,
most of whom are in lower income families are
three times as likely to be sent to a day ~are
center as children of employed wives (9 per­cent
vs. 3 percent).
Child Care Costs
Child care costs vary as to the type of child /
care used by the family. According to a study
by Richard Shortlidge and Patricia Brito of
Ohio State University, child care provided by
family members is the least expensive and is
less costly when given in the child's home than
outside the child's home. The low cost of child
care services provided by family members in
the child's home may be attributed to the fact
that family members do not always receive
cash payments for services rendered. Child care
services provided by a nonfamily member in
the child's home is the most expensive follow-ed
by those provided by a nonfamily member
outside the child's home. The cost of child care
averages 16 to 20 percent of the mother's hour-ly
earnings. This percentage is about the same
r~ardless of the mother's salary.
3
Data from the 1972-73 Consumer Expendi­ture
Survey provide detailed information on
child care expenditures made by families with
at least one member under age 6. Included are
expenditures for babysitting, day care centers,
private nursery school or kindergarten or both,
and public nursery school or kindergarten or
both.2 These expenditures record, on average,
how families spend their child care dollars but
do not necessarily reflect actual child care
usage. Families reporting little or no child care
expenditures may rely on child care services
provided free of charge by relatives, friends, or
federally funded day care centers.
Of the families surveyed who had at least
one member under age 6, three out of five paid
for at least one form of child care. Most of
these families (95 percent) reported babysitting
expenditures. Much smaller percentages of the
sample reported expenditures for private
schooling, public schooling, or day care cen­ters-
13, 4, and 2 percent, respectively. Of all
the families that reported babysitting, four out
of five reported no other form of child care
expenditures. The average annual expenditure
for babysitting ($440) was highest followed by
day care ($389), private nursery school or kin­dergarten
or both ($309), and public nursery
school or kindergarten or both ($127).3
A greater percentage of husband-wife fami­lies
than single-parent families reported child
care expenses although single-parent families
averaged considerably larger expense (see
table). Single-parent families averaged $700
annually for child care-68 percent more than
husband-wife families. In addition, single­parent
families averaged lower total expendi­tures
than husband-wife families. As a result,
child care expenses claimed more than 7 per­cent
of the single-parent family's total expendi­tures
compared with less than 3 percent of the
husband-wife family's total expenditures.
Families with child care expenses were more
likely than_ families without. child care expenses
to have higher incomes, higher total family
expenditures, and a working wife or working
single parent. Total expenditures for families
2 Data derived from Public Use Tapes, Consumer
Expenditure Survey-197 2·7 3, U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
3 All expenditure averages are based on only those
families reporting the particular expenditures. Figures
are updated to 1979 prices.
4
with child care expenditures averaged $15,901
for husband-wife families and $9,536 for sin­gle-
parent families. In comparison, total 1./
expenditures for families with no child care
expenditures averaged $12,488 for husband-wife
families and $7,556 for single-parent fami-lies.
About 50 percent of husband-wife families
with child care expenses had working wives
compared with 32 percent of families without
child care expenses. In both cases, approxi­mately
twice as many wives worked full time
rather than part time. The presence of a work-ing
wife influenced the amount spent on child
care, with families averaging $398 more on
child care when the wife worked than when she
did not work. Families in which.the wife work-ed
full time paid more than twice as much for
child care as families in which the wife worked
part time. Among single-parent families, about
73 percent of the parents with child care
expenses worked compared with 40 percent of
parents without child care expenses. The
employed single parents spent the most ($848)
for child care, or 8 percent of their total family
expenditures.
Single-parent families were much more likely
to have other relatives present in the household
than the husband-wife family (22 percent com­pared
with 7 percent). Of single-parent families
with other relatives present, only 22 percent
reported child care ~xpenditures at an annual
average of $345, while 56 percent of single­parent
families with no other relatives present
reported such expenditures at an annual aver­age
of $739.
Expenditures for child care may be an
important consideration in the family budget ..,
for all families, especially for families where
the mother works. About 7 million children
under age 6 had mothers in the labor force in
1978, compared with approximately 51,-'2 mil­lion
in 1972-a 23-percent increase. While older
children are likely to be in school for a good
part of the day, children under age 6 whose
parents work are more likely to need other
than parental care for all or part of the working
day.
Changes in the tax laws can help lower the
cost of child care. A tax credit is available to
families with children under age 15 who have
child care expenses related to their employ­ment
or education. Payments for child care
provided by anyone . other than a dependent
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
'1j > t"'
t"'
......
(J:)
-..]
(J:)
c:.n
Spending for child care by families with at least 1 member under 6 years
Family type
All families .••.•••......
Husband-wife family •...
Nonblack •.•....••...•
Black .....•••.....•..
Wife employed •••••.•.
Wife not employed •...
Single-parent family ...
Nonblack .•....•••••..
Black .•..•...••......
Parent employed ..... .
Parent not employed .•
Number of
families
with at least
1 member
under 6
Thousands
27' 139
23,627
21,266
2,361
10,044
13,071
3,513
2,231
1,282
1,964
1,471
Percentage of
families
reporting
60
62
63
50
71
55
48
54
39
63
27
Expenditures for child care
Average annual
amount 1
Dollars
444
415
400
578
611
213
700
784
495
848
188
As a percentage
of all family
spending 2
2.9
2.6
2.5
3.9
3.9
1.3
7.3
7.9
5.7
8.4
2.5
1All expenditure averages are based on only those families reporting child care expenditures.
Figures are updated to 1979 prices.
2Includes spending on food, alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, housing, clothing, drycleaning
and laundry, transportation, health care, personal care, recreation, reading, education, and.,
miscellaneous; excludes personal insurance, retirement, pensions, gifts, and contributions.
Source: Data derived from Public Use Tapes, Consumer Expenditure Survey--1972-73, U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
relative and provided inside or outside the
home (including day care and nursery school)
may qualify for the tax credit. The credit is
limited to 20 percent of the expenses incurred,
up to a maximum expenditure of $2,000 for
one child and $4,000 for two or more. Internal
Revenue Service Publication No. 503, "Child
Care and Disabled Dependent Care," explains
in detail the provisions for a credit. In 1976,
the most recent year for which information is
available, about 2.5 million tl:).xpayers took
advantage of the tax credit. ,·
REFERENCES
Johnson, Beverly L. 1979. Changes in marital
and family characteristics of workers,
1970-7 8. Monthly Labor Review 102( 4):
49-52. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau
of Labor Statistics, Washington, D.C.
Shortlidge, Richard L., Jr., and Patricia Brito.
1977. How women arrange for the care of
their children while they work: a study of
child care arrangements, costs, and prefer­ences
in 1971, 55 pp. Center for Human
Resource Research, The Ohio State Univer­sity,
Columbus, Ohio.
U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office.
1978. Childcare and preschool: options for
Federal support, background paper, 65 pp.
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census. 1976. Daytime care of children:
October 1974 and February 1975. Current
Population Reports, Population Character­istics,
Series P-20, No. 298, 23 pp. Washing­ton,
D.C.
--- 1978. Nursery school and kindergar­ten
enrollment of children and labor force
status of their mothers: October 1967 to
October 1976. Current Population Reports,
Population Characteristics, Series P-20,
No. 318, 27 pp. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of the Treasury, Internal
Revenue Service. 1978. Statistics of
Income-1976 individual income tax
returns, Preliminary Report, Publication
198, 35 pp. Washington, D.C.
Young, Anne M. 1973. Children of working
mothers, March 1972. Special Labor Force
Report 154, pp. 37-40 and supplementary
tables. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau
of Labor Statistics, Washington, D.C.
QUALITY CHILD CARE AND THE INFORMED PARENT
By Canary Girardeau Lamar, Project Director 1
Parents everywhere-from all walks of life
and with all sorts of needs--are concerned
about finding and keeping a day care arrange­ment
that is suitable for their children. Much
of this concern is focused not merely on find­ing
day care but on finding high-quality day
1 Parent Guid e, Center for Systems and Program
Development, Inc., Washington, D.C. Condensed from
a paper presented at the Food and Agricultural Out­look
Conference in November 1978, at Washington,
D.C.
6
care that will provide a positive learning experi­ence
for their children. However, what consti­tutes
quality day care? How can a parent evalu­ate
his or her child's day care arrangement?
What steps can a parent take to improve the
arrangement?
Some answers to these and other questions
on day care arrangements are being provided
through a joint project between the Center for
Systems and Program Development, Inc.,
(CSPD) and the Administration for Children,
Youth and Families (ACYF) of the Depart­ment
of Health, Education, and Welfare. This
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
project is the development of FINDING AND
KEEPING CHILD CARE: A PARENT GUIDE.
The purpose of the PARENT GUIDE is to
create more awareness in users of day care serv­ices,
so they will be able to demand high-quali­ty
care.
In the development of the PARENT GUIDE,
CSPD reviewed several hundred publications
which included experimental, theoretical, and
statistical studies in day care and related areas.
Day care experts from throughout the country
were consulted. This group of experts included
advocates from national and local organiza­tions;
people from Federal, State, and local
government agencies; researchers; directors of
centers; day care providers; and, by no means
least, parents themselves. These specialists pro­vided
a wealth of child care information, both
theoretical and "on the job."
FINDING AND KEEPING CHILD CARE: A
PARENT GUIDE is a comprehensive volume
designed to help parents select appropria~e day
care for their children. It addresses, in detail,
many considerations parents will want to think
about before they select care, during the selec­tion
process, and after their child is in the day
care arrangement.
Children have different day care needs at dif­ferent
stages of their development. Therefore,
throughout this guide, age-specific checklists
are provided to help parents determine whether
the day care situations they are considering
meet their children's needs. The checklists are
directed at these age groups:
• Infants and toddlers, for children from
birth to about age 3.
• Preschoolers, for children from about
age 3 until they begin school.
• School-aged children, for children from
the time they begin 'school until they are
14.
As a child grows and moves into another age
group, or if care is needed for more than one
child, parents will simply select the checklists
that apply.
The design and format of the guide will play
a large part in helping parents absorb and use
the information in a meaningful way. The use
FALL 1979
of colors, the size of the book, the illustrations
and photographs, as well as the typeface are all
designed to help involve p~ents in the guide.
Other devices to draw parents into the guide
include the checklists, sample forms to fill out,
and a growth and development chart.
Chapter 1 provides parents with an overview
of child care: Who uses child care, why the
need for it has grown, and Federal policy
toward it. Three major types of child care are
defined (in~home, family, and center based)
and advantages and disadvantages of each type ·
are cited. This chapter concludes with a section
on very practical things, such as finances, trans­portation,
and location, which all parents,
regardless of their children's ages, or the type
of care they select, will have to consider.
Chapter 2 discusses child growth and
development and the necessity of matching the
child's needs to the right caregiver and day care
program. A chart sets out child development at
five distinct stages-infant, toddler, preschool­er,
school-age, and early adolescent-and shows
caregiver and program characteristics that are
needed for children at those stages.
Chapters 3, 4, and 5-one for each of the
three major types of day care-take parents
through a series of steps that culminate in
selecting the right day care program for their
children. These chapters also discuss way-s of
developing and maintaining a good parent-care­giver
relationship after the child is in the day
care program.
Chapter 6, "What to. Do If ... ," discusses
some common problems many parents face
with their day care arrangements and suggests
solutions to them. Communication between
parents and caregivers is stressed; tips on how
to discuss a problem are given.
Chapter 7 contains resources (people, organi­zations,
and government agencies) that can be
of help to parents in their search for a good
child day care program.
Printed copies of the guide will be available
around the end of 1979. For information on
ordering, write to: Day Care Division, Adminis­tration
for Children, Youth, and Families,
HEW, P.O. Box 1182, Washington, D.C. 20013.
7
FAMILY DAY CARE PILOT PROGRAM OF COOPERATIVE
EXTENSION, NEW YORK STATE
By Barbara A. Pine, Extension Associate 1
In the United States the number of mothers
working outside their homes increases each
year. Almost 53 percent of all mothers were in
the labor force in 1978-up from 22 percent in
1950. Working parents must seek substitute
care for their children, and they find a variety
of arrangements. One of these child care
arrangements is family day care-day care of a
child in the home of another family including
before and after school care.
Family day care is a viable alternative to care
in the child's own home or at a day care center.
It is chosen by many families because it is
usually less expensive than in-home care but
still provides care in a family setting with the
personal attention of a single caregiver. Also,
available day care centers accommodate only a
small percentage of children under 6 whose
families need child care services. The family
day care home is often located in the neighbor­hood
offering convenience and familiarity for
both parent and child. Hours during which care
is provided can be flexible, accommodating
parents who work evenings and weekends.
Since family day care homes usually include
children of various ages from infancy to adoles­cence,
siblings can be cared for together.
Family day care is the oldest nonparental,
out-of-home child care in our society. It is also
the most widespread, most used type of child
care, but the least studied and least supported.
Systematic efforts to study and evaluate family
day care have often been thwarted by the large­ly
invisible nature of this child care system,
which consists of mainly informal private
arrangements between parents and caregivers.
In 1972, Cooperative Extension sought to learn
more about this widely used child care option.
1 Department of Human Development and Family
Studies at the New York State College of Human Ecol­ogy,
Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. 14853. Summa·
rized from a slide show presented at the Food and
Agricultural Outlook Conference in November 1978 at
Washington, D.C. '
8
The Cooperative Extension Family Day Care
Pilot Program was initiated with special needs
funding from Science and Education Adminis­tration-
Extension, U.S. Department of Agri­culture.
What began as an exploratory effort
resulted in the development of a demonstration
model of education and support for people
who provide child care in their homes for other
people's children-family day care providers.
The program was extended from 1975 to 1977
with funds from the Carnegie Corporation of
New York.
Program Goals
The major goal of the program was to ~
strengthen the existing system of family day
care by identifying family day care providers,
by learning the needs of providers as they per­ceive
them, and by designing, with them, a con­tinuing
education program.
A secondary goal was to build a support
system for family day care, linking it to the
existing human service network in the county,
which includes Cooperative Extension. Parents
were encouraged to become a part of this sup­port
system and to learn about and use services
and resources available in the community.
The program also had several implied goals.
First, as people began to understand the
importance of the roles family day care provid­ers
share with parents-providing warm, loving
care and being the child's teacher-and to value
their service, the self-concept of providers
would improve as would the quality of the
child care they provide. Second, program par­ticipants
would develop leadership skills so that
they could work with community leaders to
gradually assume responsibility for the
program.
Program Operation
Operated out of a highly visible storefront
resource center in Nassau County, Long Island,
N.Y., elements of the Cooperative Extension
Family Day Care Pilot Program included:
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
• A community-based resource center pro­viding
a meeting place on a daily basis for
family day care providers, parents, and
staff of community service agencies.
• A regular informal educational program
planned with family day care providers
and parents using family day care-includ­ing
meetings, workshops, and trips to
community resources.
• Planned activities for children while care­givers
attend program activities.
• Toys, books, and equipment available on
a free-loan basis.
• A monthly family day care newsletter.
• A 16-hour Certificate Training Course for
family day care providers in cooperation
with the local Department of Social
Services.
• A home visit program in which teenaged
staff members were recruited and trained
in child development for work with chil­dren
in family day care homes.
• A referral and information service for
parents seeking child care.
• The development and implementation of
methods to reach parents who use family
day care and to involve them in educa­tional
activities.
• The linking of family day care providers
and parents to a broad range of communi­ty
resources.
Accomplishments
What evolved during the 5-year pilot process
was a program with a number of dimensions,
each of which had implications for the final
phases of the pilot effort as well as an impact
on future programing both in family day care
and in Cooperative Extension. Briefly. these
dimensions were:
• The development of a nationally known
comprehensive model program in family
day care with the development and provi­sion
of a variety of resources for replica­tors.
• The establishment of a local program as
an integral part of the community serving
FALL 1979
prior unmet needs of families and chil­dren.
• The expansion of program area and audi­ence
by the local Cooperative Extension
Association.
• The evolving and increasing complexity of
supports provided to local family day care
providers.
• The integral relationship between the
developing program and statewide
Cooperative Extension program thrusts
toward establishment of Family Resource
Centers.
The program's viability has been clearly
demonstrated as an ongoing and integral part
of the formal child care network in Nassau
County. During its 5 years, over 400 family
day care providers in Nassau County participat­ed
in programs at the resource center. One of
the most obvious results has been the allevi­ation
of day care mothers' feelings of isolation.
Many of the providers who come to the
resource center have said that they particularly
like the opportunity to get together with
others to share ideas and experiences, or just to
get to know each other. In addition, each
month between 200 to 300 visits to the
resource center were made by parents seeking
information or referral services, by representa­tives
of community service agencies, and by
other interested community members. Follow­ing
the fifth year of the pilot phase, the pro­gram
has been continued under the shared lead­ership
of staff from Cooperative Extension, the
Department of Social Services, the Day Care
Council, and the Family Day Care Association
of Nassau County, which formed in part as a
result of support generated by the pilot
project.
Note: A booklet, "Family Day Care: An Education
and Support System Model Developed by Cooperative
Extension, New York State," by Natalie D. Crowe and
Barbara A. Pine, provides additional information on
the program and includes a workbook to help others
assess needs and determine the resources needed to
develop a similar program. Single copies are available
free from Barbara A. Pine, Cornell University /Coopera·
tive Extension, Suite 1700, 111 Broadway, New York ,
N.Y. 10006.
9
CHILD CARE IN RURAL AREAS: NEEDS, ATTITUDES,
AND PREFERENCES
By Sarah M. Shoffner, Assistant Professor and Director1
Planning for child care services in rural
communities must begin with an assessment of
the needs of parents. The type of child care
needed in rural areas may differ to some extent
from that needed in urban areas because many
rural families with small children have a large
number of relatives living nearby. Also, the dis­tances
between rural residences and places of
employment or child care facilities may limit
access to some types of child care.
To determine the needs for child care, the
type of child care being used, and the type of
child care preferred by parents in rural areas,
researchers at the University of North Carolina
at Greensboro and Winthrop College in South
Carolina interviewed 525 mothers of children
from birth to 12 years of age in 12 rural com­munities2
of the Carolinas. The study was part
of the Southern Regional Project on "Needs
for Child -Care and Potential for Rural Family
and Community Developments" funded by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and
Education Administration, and the North Caro­lina
and South Carolina Agricultural Experi­ment
Stations. Characteristics of the mothers
interviewed were as follows:
• Mothers' ages ranged from 14 to 60 years
with 86 percent under 40.
• About one-third of the mothers did not
complete high school, one-third were high
school graduates, and the remaining third
had completed some higher education.
• The number of children in each family
ranged from 1 to 7 with an average of
2.26 each, and an average of 1.76 children
under 12 years.
' Home Economics Center for Research, School of
Home Economics, University of North Carolina at
Greensboro. Condensed from a paper presented at the
Food and Agricultural Outlook Conference in Novem·
her 1978, at Washington, D.C. Complete copies are
available from the Family Economics Research Group
(see p. 2 of this issue for address).
2 For the purpose of this study, a rural community
was defined as an incorporated county seat town of
2,500 to 5,000 population not within 25 miles of the
center of a small metropolitan area or not within 25
miles of the outer boundary of a large metropolitan
area .
10
• About 7 5 percent of the families were
nuclear and 14 percent were single-parent
families with the mother serving as the
household head. The rest were single­parent
homes in which someone other
than the mother was household head.
• About half of the mothers were employed
either full or part time; the rest were full­time
homemakers. Of the mothers who
were employed, 53 percent worked 40
hours per week, 16 percent worked more
than 40 hours, and 31 percent worked at
part-time jobs ranging from 1 to 39 hours
per week.
• A fourth of the mothers had no relatives
living in the area, and another fourth had
all their relatives nearby. The rest had at
least one relative living in their area.
Needs for Child Care
The need for child care services is related not
only to the number of mothers employed or
planning to seek employment, but also to the
number of mothers who desire to participate in
personal and family developmental activities.
Many women today view employment, person­al
development, and community interests, as
well as motherhood, as a part of their adult
role.
In the study .many of the women who were
full-time homemakers did not see themselves
remaining in that role. Over half of them indi­cated
definite plans to seek employment when
their children were older, with nearly all of
these planning to work before their youngest
children were age 6, and a third intending to
work by the time their children were age 1.
Younger mothers, mothers who were house­hold
heads, and mothers in larger households
were those more likely to plan to seek employ­ment
in the future. Three-fourths of the
mothers who were full-time homemakers at the
time of the study had been employed at some
time since the birth of their children; a third of
these reported choosing to leave employment
because of problems connected with their chil­dren.
Of the full-time homemakers, 46 percent
would seek employment if more child care
facilities were available.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Nine out of 10 mothers expressed a desire
for more time to pursue developmental activi­ties.
If more child care services were available,
mothers indicated they would like to be involv­ed
in seven activities: Arts and crafts, continu­ing
education programs, church school activi­ties,
getting together with friends or relatives
for school activities, gardening, ·volunteering
for charity organizations, and participating in
Cooperative Extension programs.
While the need for child care services in rural
areas is apparent, these services are not readily
available or accessible to many families. For
example, in North Carolina half the respond­ents
were four miles or more from the nearest
day care center, and several communities had
virtually no accessibility to a day care center.
Family day care homes were generally more
widely available than were day care centers.
About 83 percent of the respondents were
within 4 miles of a registered family day care
home while 50 percent were within 1 mile. The
number of registered homes, however, is small
in relation to the size of the population served.
Homes generally do not advertise and are likely
to be known to residents only by word-of­mouth.
Types of Child Care Used and Preferred
In view of lack of available and accessible
day care centers and registered day care homes,
it is not surprising that a relative giving care
either in the child's home or in the relative's
home was the most frequently used child care
plan. Neighbors, friends, "baby sitters," and
day care centers were the next most often
used. More than a third (35 percent) employed
mothers used day care in their home; 38 per­cent
.used a combination of in-home and away­from-
home care, and 27 percent used out-of­home
care en'tirely.
A large majority of the mothers reported
that they were well satisfied with their present
child care arrangements. Employed mothers
were more satisfied with their present child
care arrangement than nonemployed mothers.
For most employed mothers, child care prob­lems
had not interfered with their work, and
finding summer arrangements for school-aged
children was not a problem-perhaps because
of the nearness of relatives and friends. About
a fourth did worry about having undependable
FALL 1979
arrangements. The employed mothers cited
such dislikes of their present arrangement as
not having the same arrangement for all chil­dren
in the family, inconvenient hours, and
what to do if a child became ill during the day.
They also worried that their children were not
receiving enough discipline. The nonemployed
mothers wan ted more time for themselves, dis­liked
that their children were bored, felt out of
touch with the outside world, and wanted to
spend more time with their husbands and
friends.
Child care in a day care center would be the
preferred arrangement as often as care in one's
own home, according to survey respondents.
This statement, however, needs to be viewed in
the perspective that responses were based on
limited knowledge about the experience with a
variety of types of child care arrangements.
Therefore, in using this information for pro­gram
development or policymaking, more
importance should be accorded to specific
aspects of care desired rnther than to the stated
type of care desired.
Survey mothers were given a list of many
characteristics that described day care features,
programs, or services. The day care characteris­tics
that the mothers preferred can be summa­rized
through the following description of a
hypothetical "ideal type" of child care arrange­ment.
This facility would be either a day care
center or a family day care home in which
parents would be involved in decisionmaking
processes regarding program and operation of
the facility. The facility would be located near
the mothers' homes or places of work. Children
ages 3 to 6 years would be cared for from
8:00a.m. to 4:00p.m.; and after school care
would be available for children ages 6 to 12
years. Flexibility in organization would allow a
child to be cared for at this facility for a few
hours during typically nonworking hours. A
trained staff would provide a developmentally
focused program, including effective discipline,
and education and recreational components.
This "ideal" situation would provide medical
services and would make arrangements for the
care of handicapped children.
Attitudes About Child Care
Most mothers showed favorable attitudes
toward other-than-mother child care. They
11
believed that children should be cared for by
someone other than the mother part of the
time and that such an arrangement is needed
for developing independence in children.
Mothers agreed almost unanimously that hav­ing
a reliable place to leave children gives them
peace of mind and that fathers should help
with child care if mothers work outside the
home. In contradiction, however, most of the
mothers also thought caring for children is a
"mother's place;" and 60 percent of the
mothers thought that they "ought" to care for
their children all the time during the formative
years. Half the mothers reported that their
husbands wanted them to stay home to care
for the children. Thus, an ambivalence in atti­tudes
is suggested, even though mothers had no
trouble specifying their need for child care and
identifying arrangements and characteristics
they desired.
Implications
Results of the study showed several ways in
which professionals can assist rural families in
clarifying their needs for child care and in find­ing
that care.
First, although the mothers interviewed
expressed a good deal of ambivalence about
their roles as mothers, they expressed a desire
and a need for child care. There is a need for
providing families and individuals with a way
to identify and clarify personal and family
goals, to express their ambivalence about
women's roles, and to become familiar with the
developmental needs of children and the ways
of meeting these needs.
Second, rural mothers were, for the most
part, unaware of the variety of facilities that
can be designed for child care. Providing fami­lies
with this type of information would help
them evaluate their needs.
Third, mothers expressed a desire to partici­pate
in the establishment and operation of
local child care programs. Such involvement
could reduce the operating costs of centers and
the fees charged to users.
SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS
(Please give your ZIP code in your return address when you order these.)
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 Governmental and Public Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20250:
• LAWN INSECTS: HOW TO CONTROL THEM. G 53. Revised January 1979.
• A GUIDE TO BUDGETING FOR THE YOUNG COUPLE. G 98. Revised November 1978.
• CONTROLLING CLOVER MITES AROUND THE HOME. Revised February 1979.
• YOUR MONEY'S WORTH IN FOODS. G 183. Revised April1979.
• BREADS, CAKES, AND PIES IN FAMILY MEALS. G 186. Revised January 1979.
• FOOD FOR THE FAMILY-A COST SAVING PLAN. Revised December 1978.
• HOW TO DETERMINE YOUR INSULATION NEEDS. AFS 2-3-8 [fact sheet]. December
1978.
• HOME MANAGEMENT TIPS TO CUT HEATING AND COOLING COSTS. AFS 2-3-9 [fact
sheet]. November 1978.
From Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service, Publications Unit, Room 0054, South
Building, Washington, D.C. 20250:
12
• THE EDUCATION LEVEL OF FARM RESIDENTS AND WORKERS. RDRR 8. March
1979.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
PERSPECTIVES ON AMERICAN HUSBANDS AND WIVES
In the past few years, the Census Bureau
reports on the current composition of the
American household and family have tended to
emphasize such changes as increases in the
number of persons living alone, gains in the
number of unmarried couples, anp the growing
proportion of mothers maintaining one-parent
families. As striking as the growth of these
groups has been, only a minority of the total
population is likely to experience any of these
types of living arrangements for more than a
short-term interval. Often that interval is a
transitional period between marriages or a
period that precedes or follows the far more
universal living experience of marriage.
Traditionally, most married women, and par­ticularly
those who were mothers, have accept­ed
the demands and rewards of work inside the
home. Only the husband was encouraged to
continue his education, or enter the labor
force, and thereby provide most, if not all, of
the family's income. As long as this situation
continued, it was perhaps not surprising that
many persons considered it sufficient to
describe the social and economic status of the
family by referring only to the characteristics
of the husband-his education, his occupation,
his income, and so forth.
Today's wives, however, are increasingly
likely to have completed high school and per­haps
some years of college, to participate in the
labor force, and to contribute to the family
income. Thus, the demarcation between many
of the roles of husbands and wives has become
less distinct. The sole breadwinner has given
way in many instances to dual breadwinners.
Similarly, many working wives and mothers are
coming to expect more involvement and assist­ance
from their husbands in carrying out the
childrearing and housekeeping responsibilities
of the family.
In light of these developments, total reliance
on the characteristics of the man when describ­ing
married couples is likely to result in mis­leading
conclusions which do not always cor­respond
to reality. A recent report by the
Bureau of the Census presents an analysis of
the demographic and economic characteristics
of married couples that permits an examination
of the joint characteristics of husbands and
wives.
FALL 1979
Highlights from the report are:
• Most men and women marry at some time
during their lives. In 1977, only about
6 percent of men and 4 percent of women
in their early fifties had never married.
• Typically, a person who has entered a
marital union will stay in that union for
the rest of her or his life, although a grow­ing
proportion will not. In 1977, 85 per­cent
of the men and 88 percent of the
women had been married only once.
• The number of interracial couples has
been increasing (a one-third increase
between 1970 and 1977), but that
number still comprises only about 1 per­cent
of all married couples.
• Husbands and wives tend to have similar
levels of education. Among men who had
completed high school but no college,
about two-thirds of their wives had the
same amount of education.
• Most married persons will eventually have
children or take a job, or both, although
some husbands and wives will forego one
or both of these options.
• Young children living with two parents
are likely to have the company of at least
one brother or sister.
• Both the husband and the wife are likely
to vote in a Presidential election; among
two-thirds of all married couples, both the
husband and wife voted in 1976.
• Most married men (81 percent) and nearly
half of the married women (47 percent)
were in the labor force in 1977.
• Among a minority of married couples
(about one in every six) both spouses
work at year-round full-time jobs.
• The median family income in 1976 for
families with two earners (the husband
and wife) was $17,570.
• The earnings of the wife were about equal
to or greater than the husband's earnings
among one married couple in three in
which the wife had earnings.
Source: Rawlings, Stephen. 1978. Perspectives on
American husbands and wives. Current Population
Reports, Special studies, Series P-23, No. 77, 48 pp.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
13
FOOD COSTS OF U.S. HOUSEHOLDS, SPRING 1977
By Robert L. Rizek, Chairman, and Betty B. Peterkin, Home Economist 1
This article summarizes preliminary findings
on food costs from the USDA's 1977-78
Nationwide Food Consumption Survey
(NFCS). 2 Findings are for the money value of
food used at home and expenditures for food
away from home for about 3,500 housekeeping
households in the 48 conterminous States in
April to June 1977. Housekeeping households
are those with at least one person having 10 or
more meals from home food supplies during
the 7 days prior to the interview.
The value of food at home refers to food
used by household members and guests that
was bought and home produced or otherwise
received without direct expense. The value of a
food that was home produced or received with­out
direct expense was based on the average
price per pound paid for that food by survey
households in the same region. Food prepared
at home and carried to work, school, and recre­ational
or other events is included as food at
home. Food away from home includes only
food paid for by household members. The
value of food received as guests or in payment
for services is not available from this survey.
Information on the history of USDA food
surveys, the scope of the 1977-78 survey, and
the data collection methods were summarized
in the Fall 1978 issue of FAMILY ECO­NOMICS
REVIEW : "The 1977-78 Nationwide
Food Consumption Survey," by Robert L.
Rizek. Copies are available from the Family
Economics Research Group at the address on
page 2 (see box).
Money Value of Food Used in a Week
The money value of food used in spring
1977 averaged $60.90 per household (fig. 1) or
$19.90 per household member per week.
Households averaged 3.1 household members.
' Consumer and Food Economics Institute, Human
Nutrition Center, Science and Education Administra­tion,
USDA.
1 Free copies of the Preliminary Report, "Money
Value of Food Used by Households in the United
States, Spring 1977 ," are available from the Consumer
and Food Economics Institute, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Room 325A, Federal Building, Hyattsville,
Md. 20782.
14
About three-fourths of the money value was
for food used at home and one-fourth for food
bought and eaten away from home. Of the
$14.50 spent per household for food away
from home, meals cost $11.40 and snacks
$3.10 on the average.
Food prices increased 20 percent between
spring 1977 and February 1979, as measured
by the Consumer Price Index (CPI}. 3 Updating
weekly food costs from the survey to February
1979 using the CPI raises the money value of
all food to $7 3; the money value for food at
home to $56; and the expense for food away
from home to $17.
Of households in the four census regions,
those in the Northeast used food with the high­est
average money value ($68.60 per week), in
spring 1977 dollars, and those in the South
used food with the lowest value ($56.30).
Households in the North Central and Western
regions used food valued at $59.50 and $60.40,
respectively. Food away from home accounted
for a slightly smaller proportion of the money
value of food in the South (21 percent) than in
the other regions (24 to 26 percent). Southern
households spent more of their "eating-out"
money for snacks (26 percent) than other
regions (20 percent or less).
Suburban households were slightly larger
and used food with higher money value, on the
average, both at home and away from home
than households in the central city and non­metropolitan
areas (fig. 2). Snacks accounted
for a smaller proportion of the expense for
food away from home in suburban households
(18 percent) than in central city households
(26 percent).
As the income of households increased, the
money value of food at home and the expense
for food away from home increased (fig. 3).
Also, as income increased, the percentage of all
food dollars going for food away from home
increased-from 14 percent for households
with incomes below $5,000 to 29 percent for
households with incomes of $20,000 or more.
3The Consumer Price Index, April, May, and June
1977 and February 1979 (for Urban Wage Earners and
Clerical Workers), Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.
Department of Labor.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Compared with households having high
incomes, those with low incomes spent less for
snacks but used a larger proportion of dollars
for food away from home for snacks (fig. 4).
As household size increased, money value of
all food per household increased but money
value per household member decreased (fig. 5).
One-member households used fo.od valued at
$26.30, and households of six members or
more used food valued at $15.50 per house­hold
member in a week. Money value of food
at home was $20.80 and $12.40 per household
member for one-member and six-or-more mem­ber
households, respectively.
Meals at Home and Away From Home
About 85 percent of the meals eaten by
household members were from home food sup­plies.
Eleven percent of meals were bought and
eaten away from home, and 4 percent were eat­en
away from home without direct expense-as
guest meals, as free school meals, or as pay­ment
for services.
The average cost of a home "meal unit,"
which includes the cost of meals and snacks,
was $0.78. A meal unit bought and eaten away
from home, also including the cost of meals
and snacks, averaged $2.04-2.6 times as much
as a meal at home.
In making such comparisons of costs of
meals at home and those away from home, dif­ficulties
arise in defining "a meal" and isolating
its cost from the cost of other food used. Cost
of food at home in this survey could not be
subdivided into that eaten as meals and as
snacks and into that eaten by household mem­bers
and by guests, roomers, boarders, and
employees. Therefore, the cost per meal unit
was determined by dividing the money value of
all food at home by the number of home meal
units-meals eaten by household members
(adjusted for skipped meals and snacks that
might substitute for or supplement meals),
meals eaten by persons other than household
members, and the meal equivalent of refresh­ments
served to guests. The cost per meal unit
away from home was determined by dividing
the expense for meals and snacks away from
home for household members by the number
of bought meals they reported as eaten away
from home, adjusted to account for skipped
meals and snacks that might substitute for or
supplement meals.
Distribution of Households by
Money Value of Food at·Home
Money value of food used at home by a
household was expressed per "equivalent per­son,"
or per 21 meals at home (based on three
meals a day for a week), to attempt to adjust
for variation among households in the propor­tion
of total meals obtained from home food
supplies. The number of equivalent persons in a
household was determined by:
(1) Totaling the number of meals reported
as eaten at home (adjusted proportionately for
meals eaten away from home to account for
skipped meals and snacks that might substitute
REGION and FOOD at HOME and AWAY
Value per Household per Week, Spring 1977
UNITED STATES
NORTHEAST $69
N.CENTRAL
SOUTH
WEST
USDA Nationwide Food Conoumptlon Survey, 48 Stllt81, Spring 1977 (Preliminary I
SEA 6172·79(51
Figure 1
FALL 1979 15
16
c:;J
UNITED STATES
URBANIZATION and FOOD at HOME and AWAY
Value per Household per Week, Spring 1977
$11
~ $58
CENTRAL CITY .... ..URIIAN
$55
NOH-METROPOLITAN J •
At"- '-A..., fnam h-
$68
UIDA Nlltionwidt Food eor-mption Survey, 48 s..-. Spring 19n (Prwllmineryl SEA 6173-79151
INCOME:
Under $6,000
S 5,000 to 9,999
S10,000to M.999
116.000 to·19,999
120,000 or ..-.
Figure 2
INCOME and FOOD at HOME llld AWAY
v .. ue per Hou•hold per Week, Spring 1977
Figure 3
SEA 6174-79(5)
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
FALL 1979
INCOME and EXPENSE for FOOD AWAY FROM HOME, Spring 19n
INCOME:
Under $6,000
• 6,000 to 9,999
S10,000to 14.999
S1&.000 to 19.889
ao.ooo 01' more S2&.10
UIOA Ndonwlde Food C:O...mption Survey, 48 Sta- Spri111 11n (I'NIImlrwyl
SEA 6175·79(5)
Figure 4
HOUSEHOLD SIZE and VALUE of FOOD per WEEK, Spring 1977
Mem._n:
One
Two
ThrH
Four
Fiwe
Six+
UIOA Nnionwlde Food Consumption Survey, 48 su-., Spring 1177 (Prellmlneryl SEA 6176·79(5)
Figure 5
17
for or supplement meals); meals eaten from
household supplies by guests, boarders, room­ers,
and employees; and meal equivalents of
refreshments served to guests (one or two
foods= %meal; over two foods= lf2 meal).
(2) Dividing the total number of meals by
21 to obtain the household size in equivalent
persons.
Money value of food at home per equivalent
person varied from under $5 to over $40 per
week among households. Fewer small than
large households had low values (fig. 6). For
example, 18 percent of one-member house­holds
had food at home valued at less than $12
per equivalent person per week, 23 percent of
three-member households, and 36 percent of
households with six members or more.
Nutrients per Dollar's Worth of Food
Generally, the groups of households that
used food at home with the lowest money
value got the most nutrient return per dollar.
These were Southern households, households
in nonmetropolitan areas, large households,
and households with low incomes. For exam­ple,
the 480 households that reported 1976
income before taxes of under $5,000 used food
at home valued at $15.50 per equivalent person
per week compared with $18.40 for the 700
households with incomes of $20,000 and over;
but the higher income households averaged
lower returns per dollar's worth of food used
for each of the nutrients studied (see table).
Nutrients per dollar's worth of food used at
home by housekeeping households, spring 1977
Nutrient Unit
Protein g
Calcium mg
Iron mg
Vitamin A value I.U.
Thiamin mg
Riboflavin mg
Ascorbic acid mg
18
Household income
(1976)
before taxes
Under $20,000
$5,000 and over
45 41
470 440
9.1 7.7
3,720 2,930
.89 .72
1.2 1.0
61 56
A higher average return in nutrients per food
.dollar does not mean necessarily that house­holds
consciously chose more nutritious foods.
Diets that are low in cost usually include some
relatively inexpensive foods in large quantities.
Some of these foods, such as enriched and
whole-grain flour and bread, some cereals, dry
beans and potatoes, furnish substantial
amounts of a number of nutrients.
Comparison with Results from
USDA's 1965 Survey
Money value of food at home per equivalent
person in spring 1977 averaged $16.60-almost
90 percent higher than in spring 1965 when a
similar survey was conducted.4 During the
same period the CPI for food at home rose 100
percent.
Figure 7 shows the cumulative distribution
of households surveyed in spring 1977 by the
money value of food used at home per equiva­lent
person. A similar distribution is shown of
households surveyed in spring 1965, after
money value was adjusted to 1977 levels using
the change in the CPI for food at home. This
chart indicates that, in general, households in
1977 used food at home with a slightly lower
money value than households in 1965. For
example, 70 percent of the 1977 households
used food valued at less than $20 per equiva­lent
person per week, and 63 percent of the
1965 households used food valued at less than
$20 (1977 dollars).
Food at home accounted for 83 percent of
money value of all food in spring 1965 and 76
percent in spring 1977 (fig. 8). Meals bought
away from home accounted for 13 percent in
1965 and 19 percent in 1977; and snacks
bought away from home accounted for 4 and 5
percent, respectively.
• "Food Consumption of Households in the United
States, Spring 1965," USDA 1965·66 Household Food
Consumption Survey Report No. 1. Agricultural
Research Service, Consumer and Food Economics
Research Division. (1968): 212 pp. [Agricultural
Research Service is now Science and Education Admin·
istration-Agricultural Research.] .
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Future Information From the 1977-78 NFCS
Notification of future releases from the
1977-78 Nationwide Food Consumption Sur­vey
can be requested by writing to Consumer
100
90
80
70
160
~50
0 :z:
w
~40
0 :z:
30
20
10
Houoeholda of Diffwent Siz•
by Money Voluo of Food ot
Homo por Poi'IOn, Spring 1977
USDA Notionwide Food
Consumption Surwy. 48
Stow, Spring 1977
(Proliminory I
Money value of food at home per week per 21-meal­equivalent
penon (dollars)
SEA 6177·79(5)
Figure 6
and Food Economics Institute, Human Nutri­tion
Center, Science and Education Adminis­tration,
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Hyattsville, Md. 20782.
100
90
80
70
30
20
10
I
I
f.-_1965 (Adjusted
1 to 1977$•)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Houooholda by Money Volue
of Food ot Homo por Poroon,
Spring 1966° ond 1977••
"Using CPI for food ot homo
"USDA Notionwldo Food
Consumption Survey. 48 Stotoo,
Spring1977 (Proliminoryl
Money value of food at home per -k per 21-mell­equlvalent
p81:10o.(doll .. l
SEA6171-711(5)
Figure 7
THE HOUSEHOLD FOOD DOLLAR, Spring 1965 and 19n
FALL 1979
Food at home•
1965
* Volue of oil food u..t ot homo
Snacks away
from home
Food at home•
1977**
•• USDA Notionwlde FoodCon~~~mption Survey, 48 Stot•. Spring 1977 (proliminoryl
Figure 8
SEA 6179·79(5)
19
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT­RECENT
REPORTS
How Well Are We Housed? Three reports on
the adequacy of housing of particular groups of
Americans are available from the U.S. Depart­ment
of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). The reports represent summaries of
original research carried out under contract
with HUD. The first focuses on Hispanics
whose housing is nearly twice as often physical­ly
flawed as the housing of the Nation as. a
whole. The second report estimates that female
heads of households must pay inordinate frac­tions
of their incomes for housing and that the
households of black and Hispanic women have
considerably greater chances of being inade­quately
housed than the total population. The
third report indicates that more thari a fifth of
all the housing lived in by black households is
physically deficient. A single copy of each
report is available free from the U.S. Depart­ment
of HUD, Office of Policy Development
and Research, Room 8124, Washington, D.C.
20410.
Recent Developments in Mortgage and Hous­ing
Markets. This article in the March 1979
issue of the FEDERAL RESERVE BULLETIN
provides a comprehensive overview of single,
multifamily, and mobile home markets, and
mortgage markets. In addition to reviewing
trends in starts, sales, prices, and credit supply
and demand, topics covered include affordabili­ty
of homes, borrowing against housing equity,
sources of credit, and interest rate ceilings.
Copies are available at your local library or for
$2.00 from the Division of Support Services,
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, Washington, D.C. 20551.
Alternative Mortgage Instruments: Consum­er
Bane or Boon. Proceedings of a conference
held in May 1978, sponsored by Cooperative
Extension, Department of Consumer Econom­ics
and Housing, New York State College of
Human Ecology, Cornell University, and the
Office of Consumer Education of the U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Leading authorities representing many view­points
presented information on characteristics
20
of the most important instruments, ,experiences
to date, research findings, political issues, pros
and cons, and future implications of the instru­ments.
Workshops focused on lender, consum­er,
government, and research perspectives. An
extensive reference list, glossary, and informa­tion
on home financing slide sets are also
included. The proceedings are available for
$3.00 from the Department of Consumer Eco­nomics
and Housing, Martha Van Rensselaer
Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. 14853.
Housing Policy Session. This briefing book
by the Federal Trade Commission focuses on
housing quality, cost, and access issues, summa­rizes
current related Commission activities, and
outlines options for dealing with identified
problems. Specific quality concerns focus on
housing defects and warranties. Access ques­tions
relate to discrimination in the availability
of credit. Cost issues include trade practices in
standards and certification, building supplies,
condominium leases, mortgage loan interest
rate disclosures, home improvement sales, and
real estate brokerages. Single copies are availa­ble
from Public Reference Branch, Room 130,
Federal Trade Commission, 6th Street and
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C.
20580.
1977 Statistical Yearbook, U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
This issue provides data on program and finan­cial
operations of HUD and statistical informa­tion
related to housing and urban activities.
The first 10 sections present status and activity
data on HUD programs arranged according to
the organization of the Department as of year­end
1977. The 11th section provides data pub­lished
by other Government agencies and some
private organizations and covers topics includ­ing
population, households, and family; hous­ing
occupancy, production, and sales; construc­tion
costs; and mortgage financing. The year­book
is available for $6.00 from the Superin­tendent
of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Ask
for Stock No. 023-000-00487-9 (1979).
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Survey on the Quality of Community Life is
a data book of statistics on how Americans per­ceive
the quality of urban life. The book
includes sections on community problems, resi­dential
and housing preferences, perceptions of
government, how citizens use cities and
suburbs, and future expectations. Single copies
are available free from the Office of Policy
Development and Research, Division of Prod­uct
Dissemination and Transfer, Room 8124,
HUD Building, Washington, D.C. 20410.
Federal Housing Policy: Current Programs
and Recurring Issues. This background paper
by the Congressional Budget Office presents an
overview of current Federal housing programs
and housing-related activities. The objectives of
Federal housing policy are described, current
housing needs assessed, and progress evaluated.
Existing housing and community development
programs, including credit market activities,
tax expenditures, and regulatory actions affect­ing
the supply, price, and distribution of hous­ing
are examined. Finally, the budgetary frame­work
of housing policy is described, and
options and probable future proposals are
discussed in light of several recurring policy
issues. A single copy is available free from the
Congressional Budget Office, Publications,
Second and D Streets, SW., Washington, D.C.
20515.
Occasional Papers in Housing and Communi­ty
Mfairs. This new series by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is
designed to disseminate research and policy dis­cussions
related to the Department's communi­ty
development mission. Three volumes are
available:
Volume 1 presents papers and comments
originally prepared for the Conference on the
Independent Elderly held in December 1977.
The topics covered by recognized scholars
include a demographic overview, housing prob­lems,
and housing and social service program
issues for the independent elderly.
Volume 2 includes four papers focusing on
programs to encourage homeownership, dis­placement
of low-income households due to
neighborhood revitalization efforts, insured
multifamily housing projects, and the multi­family
housirig market.
Volume 3, on housing options for the elder­ly,
confronts the conflict between the needs of
the elderly and the needs of the disadvantaged.
This paper includes a profile of the elderly and
their housing, an evaluation of Federal efforts
in housing for the elderly, and options to bet­ter
serve the elderly.
A single copy of each volume is available
free from the Office of Policy Development
and Research, Division of Product Dissemina­tion
and Transfer, Room 8124, HUD Building,
Washington, D.C. 20410.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVES
RURAL DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVES,
a new publication from the Economics, Statis­tics,
and Cooperatives Service, USDA, presents
research findings helpful in making decisions
that affect the growth and development of
1:ural America. The information is written in a
semitechnical manner to help the reader keep
up to date on the broad scope of rural research
information. The first issue (November 1978)
features three short articles on rural living and
population: (1) "Making a living in rural and
smalltown America" covers changes in employ­ment
of nonmetropolitan workers and includes
types of job growth, off-farm work, and non­agricultural
industries. (2) "Rural America in
the seventies" gives information on population
FALL 1979
changes in rural areas and its effect on social
and economic conditions, and gives poverty
statistics in the United States. (3) " Residential
preferences and rural development" discusses
changing trends in population distribution,
reasons for residential preference between
metro and nonmetro areas, and changing eco­nomic
needs and the quality of life in rural.
areas.
Single free copies of this publication can be
obtained by writing to the Economic Develop­ment
Division; Economics, Statistics, and
Cooperatives Service, c/o Donald Steward,
Room 498, GHI Building, Washington, D.C.
20250.
21
1:..:1
1:..:1
'%j >a: .....
t"" ><
tr:l
(")
0 z
0 .a...:.
(")
en
::tl
tr:l <.....
tr:l
:El
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at 4 cost levels, June 1979, U.S. average 1
Sex-age groups
FAMILIES
Family of 2: 3
20-54 years ••••••...••.•
55 years and over •...•..
Family of 4:
Couple, 20-54 years and
children--
1-2 and 3-5 years
6-8 and 9-11 years
INDIVIDUALS 4
Child:
7 months to 1 year ••....
1-2 years .....•......•..
3-5 years ...........•...
6-8 years .........•....•
9-11 years ...•.•.••.••••
Male:
12-14 years ...•.•..••.•.
15-19 years ••••••••.•..•
20-54 years •.••..•.•..••
55 years and over ...... .
Female:
12-19 years ..•..••..•...
20-54 years .•.•••..•..•.
55 years and over •..••••
Pregnant ••.••••••.•.•••.
Nursing ....•.••..••...•.
Thrifty
plan2
28.40
25.40
39.90
48.00
5.60
6.40
7.70
9.80
12.40
13.20
14.60
14.20
12.60
11.80
11.60
10.50
14.50
1.?.40
Cost for 1 week
Low-cost
plan
Moderate­cost
plan
Dollars
37.10
32.90
51.60
62.30
6.90
8.20
9.70
12.70
15.90
16.90
18.80
18.60
16.40
15.10
15.10
13.50
18.60
19.70
46.60
41.00
64.60
78.40
8.40
10.10
12.10
16.00
20.00
21.20
23.60
23.60
20.50
18.80
18.80
16.80
22.90
24.60
Liberal
plan
55.90
48.90
77.50
93.90
10.00
12.10
14.60
19.10
24.00
25.40
28.40
28.40
24.60
22.50
22.40
19.90
27.30
29.30
Thrifty
plan2
122.70
109.80
172.70
207.80
24.50
27.70
33.50
42.70
53.60
57.20
63.10
61.40
54.50
51.30
50.10
45.30
62.80
66.80
Cost for 1 month
Low-cost
plan
Moderate­cost
plan
Dollars
160.50
142.60
223.50
269.60
29.80
35.40
42.20
55.00
68.70
73.20
81.30
80.70
71.00
65.60
65.20
58.60
80.40
85.50
202.00
177.30
279.90
339.30
36.60
43.80
52.50
69.10
86.60
91.90
102.10
102.20
88.60
81.50
81.40
72.60
99.20
106.40
Liberal
plan
242.40
212.30
335.80
407.30
43.20
52.20
63.20
83.00
103.90·
110.20
122.90
123.10
106.70
97.30
97.30
86.30
118.10
126.70
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 1976 (thrifty plan) and Winter 1975 (low-cost, moderate­cost,
and liberal plans) issues of Family 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.
USDA updates these survey prices to estimate the current costs for the food plans using information from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics: "Estimated Retail Food Prices by Cities" from 1965-66 to 1977 and "CPI Detailed Report," tables 3
and 9, after 1977 .
2coupon 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: !-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.
(")
0 en
~
0,,
0
0 c
)>
~
:I:
0
3:
m
CONSUMER PRICES
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers
Group
All items .....•........•.•.•.
Food .•...•.••••...•....•...
Food at home •..•....••...
Food away from home •.•...
Housing .•.••.......•.•.•..•
Shelter .•....•..•..•.....
Rent ....••••....•.•....
Homeownership •.•.•.....
Fuel and other utilities •
Fuel oil, coal, and
bottled gas .......... .
Gas (piped) and
electricity ...•.•.•.••
Household furnishings
and operation ..•..•.....
Apparel and upkeep ..•......
Men's and boys' apparel ..
Women's and girls' apparel
Footwear ..•....••.••.•...
Transportation •...•..••....
Private ......•..•..•.....
Public ..••......•..•....•
Medical care .•...••...•...•
Entertainment •..•.....••..•
Other goods and services ...
Personal care .••....•....
(1967 = 100)
June
1979
216.6
235.4
234.2
242.7
225.5
236.7
174.7
258.8
239.0
391.2
259.9
190.1
165.7
160.4
150.8
176.7
212.6
213.3
194.0
237.7
188.2
194.5
195.0
May
1979
214.1
234.3
233.4
241.1
222.4
233.5
173.8
254.9
232.2
364.3
251.6
189.2
166.1
160.1
153.2
175.0
207.7
208.1
193.3
236.3
187.8
193.9
193.9
April
1979
211.5
232.3
231.7
238.4
219.8
230.7
172.0
251.7
227.5
349.8
245.3
188.6
165.4
159.6
152.5
174.2
202.9
203.2
192.6
235.1
186.5
193.2
192.7
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
CREDIT PROTECTION LAWS
June
1978
195.3
213.8
213.9
217.8
202.0
208.9
163.6
225.3
217.5
295.1
236.5
177.6
159.9
157.8
150.0
163.8
185.5
185.0
187.2
217.9
176.2
181.0
181.1
The Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System has published a "Consumer
Handbook to Credit Protection Laws." The
handbook explains how the consu.mer credit
laws can help consumers shop and apply for
credit, and complain about an unfair deal.
Copies are available free from Publications
Services, Division of Administrative Services,
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, Washington, D.C. 20551.
FALL 1979 23
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
FALL 1979
CONTENTS
Page
CHILD CARE: ARRANGEMENTS AND COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Marsha Freeman Epstein and Cynthia L. Jennings
QUALITY CHILD CARE AND THE INFORMED PARENT........................ 6
Canary Girardeau Lamar
FAMILY DAY CARE PILOT PROGRAM OF COOPERATIVE EXTENSION,
NEW YORK STATE . -........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Barbara A. Pine
CHILD CARE IN RURAL AREAS: NEEDS, ATTITUDES, AND PREFERENCES . . . . . . 10
Sarah M. Shoffner
PERSPECTIVES ON AMERICAN HUSBANDS AND WIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
FOOD COSTS OF U.S. HOUSEHOLDS, SPRING 1977 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Robert L. Rizek and Betty B. Peterkin
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-RECENT REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
RURAL DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
CREDIT PROTECTION LAWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Regular Features
SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS.......................................... 12
COST OF FOOD AT HOME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
CONSUMER PRICES ............................................ : ........ . 23
Issued September 1979
24 F A~IL Y ECONOMICS REVIEW
GP 0 866 742